natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should also extend to proceedings providing for a debt discharge or a debt adjustment in relation to consumers and self-employed persons, for example by reducing the amount to be paid by the debtor or by extending the payment period granted to the debtor.
Področje uporabe bi bilo prav tako treba razširiti na postopke, ki predvidevajo odpust dolga ali prilagoditev dolga v zvezi s potrošniki in samozaposlenimi, na primer z znižanjem zneska, ki ga mora plačati dolžnik, ali s podaljšanjem obdobja odplačevanja, ki se odobri dolžniku.
Since such proceedings do not necessarily entail the appointment of an insolvency practitioner, they should be covered by this Regulation if they take place under the control or supervision of a court.
Ker takšni postopki ne zahtevajo nujno imenovanja stečajnega upravitelja, bi morali biti zajeti v tej uredbi, če potekajo pod kontrolo ali nadzorom sodišča.
In this context, the term ‘control’ should include situations where the court only intervenes on appeal by a creditor or other interested parties.
V tem okviru bi moral izraz „kontrola“ vključevati primere, ko sodišče ukrepa le na pritožbo upnika ali drugih zainteresiranih strani.
This Regulation should also apply to procedures which grant a temporary stay on enforcement actions brought by individual creditors where such actions could adversely affect negotiations and hamper the prospects of a restructuring of the debtor's business.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati tudi za postopke, s katerimi se odobri začasna prekinitev izvršitve zahtevkov, ki so jih vložili posamezni upniki, kadar bi takšni zahtevki lahko negativno vplivali na pogajanja in ovirali možnosti za prestrukturiranje dolžnikovega poslovanja.
Such procedures should not be detrimental to the general body of creditors and, if no agreement on a restructuring plan can be reached, should be preliminary to other procedures covered by this Regulation.
Takšni postopki ne bi smeli škodovati upnikom in bi morali biti izvedeni predhodno, pred drugimi postopki, ki so zajeti s to uredbo, če ni mogoče doseči dogovora o načrtu prestrukturiranja.
This Regulation should apply to proceedings the opening of which is subject to publicity in order to allow creditors to become aware of the proceedings and to lodge their claims, thereby ensuring the collective nature of the proceedings, and in order to give creditors the opportunity to challenge the jurisdiction of the court which has opened the proceedings.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati za postopke, katerih uvedba je javna, da se upnikom omogoči seznanitev s postopki in prijavo njihovih terjatev, s čimer se zagotovi kolektivnost postopkov, ter se upnikom da priložnost, da izpodbijajo pristojnost sodišča, ki je uvedlo postopke.
Accordingly, insolvency proceedings which are confidential should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
Temu ustrezno bi morali biti zaupni postopki v primeru insolventnosti izključeni iz področja uporabe te uredbe.
While such proceedings may play an important role in some Member States, their confidential nature makes it impossible for a creditor or a court located in another Member State to know that such proceedings have been opened, thereby making it difficult to provide for the recognition of their effects throughout the Union.
Medtem ko lahko imajo takšni postopki pomembno vlogo v nekaterih državah članicah, pa njihova zaupna narava upniku ali sodišču, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici, preprečuje, da bi bil obveščen o uvedbi takšnih postopkov, zaradi česar je težko zagotoviti priznavanje njihovih učinkov po vsej Uniji.
The collective proceedings which are covered by this Regulation should include all or a significant part of the creditors to whom a debtor owes all or a substantial proportion of the debtor's outstanding debts provided that the claims of those creditors who are not involved in such proceedings remain unaffected.
Kolektivni postopki, zajeti s to uredbo, bi morali vključevati vse ali pomemben del upnikov, ki jim dolžnik dolguje vse svoje neporavnane dolgove ali precejšnji del neporavnanih dolgov, pod pogojem, da to ne vpliva na terjatve tistih upnikov, ki niso vključeni v takšne postopke.
Proceedings which involve only the financial creditors of a debtor should also be covered.
Zajeti bi morali biti tudi postopki, ki vključujejo samo finančne upnike dolžnika.
Proceedings which do not include all the creditors of a debtor should be proceedings aimed at rescuing the debtor.
Postopki, ki ne vključujejo vseh upnikov dolžnika, bi morali biti postopki, katerih cilj je sanacija dolžnika.
Proceedings that lead to a definitive cessation of the debtor's activities or the liquidation of the debtor's assets should include all the debtor's creditors.
Postopki, ki vodijo do dokončnega prenehanja dejavnosti dolžnika ali do likvidacije njegovega premoženja, bi morali vključevati vse upnike dolžnika.
Moreover, the fact that some insolvency proceedings for natural persons exclude specific categories of claims, such as maintenance claims, from the possibility of a debt-discharge should not mean that such proceedings are not collective.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da nekateri postopki v primeru insolventnosti za fizične osebe izključujejo specifične vrste terjatev, kot so preživninske terjatve, iz možnosti odpusta dolga, ne bi smelo pomeniti, da takšni postopki niso kolektivni.
This Regulation should also apply to proceedings that, under the law of some Member States, are opened and conducted for a certain period of time on an interim or provisional basis before a court issues an order confirming the continuation of the proceedings on a non-interim basis.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati tudi za postopke, ki se v skladu s pravom nekaterih držav članic uvedejo in vodijo za določeno obdobje na začasni ali prehodni osnovi, preden sodišče izda odredbo, ki potrjuje nadaljevanje postopkov na nezačasni osnovi.
Although labelled as ‘interim’, such proceedings should meet all other requirements of this Regulation.
Kljub temu, da so označeni kot „začasni“, bi morali takšni postopki ustrezati vsem ostalim zahtevam iz te uredbe.
This Regulation should apply to proceedings which are based on laws relating to insolvency.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati za postopke, ki temeljijo na zakonih v zvezi z insolventnostjo.
However, proceedings that are based on general company law not designed exclusively for insolvency situations should not be considered to be based on laws relating to insolvency.
Vendar se postopki, ki temeljijo na splošnem pravu družb, ki ne obravnava izključno primerov v zvezi z insolventnostjo, ne bi smeli šteti, kot da temeljijo na zakonih v zvezi z insolventnostjo.
Similarly, the purpose of adjustment of debt should not include specific proceedings in which debts of a natural person of very low income and very low asset value are written off, provided that this type of proceedings never makes provision for payment to creditors.
Podobno se za namen prilagoditve dolga ne bi smeli vključevati posebni postopki, v katerih se odpišejo dolgovi fizične osebe z zelo nizkim dohodkom in zelo nizko vrednostjo premoženja, pod pogojem, da tovrstni postopki nikoli ne predvidevajo plačila upnikom.
This Regulation's scope should extend to proceedings which are triggered by situations in which the debtor faces non-financial difficulties, provided that such difficulties give rise to a real and serious threat to the debtor's actual or future ability to pay its debts as they fall due.
Področje uporabe te uredbe bi bilo treba razširiti na postopke, ki se sprožijo v primerih, ko ima dolžnik nefinančne težave, pod pogojem, da takšne težave dejansko in resno ogrožajo dolžnikovo dejansko ali bodočo sposobnost, da plača svoje dolgove, ko zapadejo v plačilo.
The time frame relevant for the determination of such threat may extend to a period of several months or even longer in order to account for cases in which the debtor is faced with non-financial difficulties threatening the status of its business as a going concern and, in the medium term, its liquidity.
Časovni okvir, pomemben za ugotavljanje takšne ogroženosti, se lahko razširi na obdobje nekaj mesecev ali celo več, da bi se lahko upoštevali primeri, v katerih se dolžnik sooča z nefinančnimi težavami, ki ogrožajo nadaljevanje njegovega delovanja in, srednjeročno, njegovo likvidnost.
This may be the case, for example, where the debtor has lost a contract which is of key importance to it.
To se na primer lahko zgodi, kadar dolžnik izgubi pogodbo, ki je zanj ključnega pomena.
This Regulation should be without prejudice to the rules on the recovery of State aid from insolvent companies as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Ta uredba ne bi smela posegati v pravila o izterjavi državne pomoči od insolventnih podjetij, kot jih razlaga sodna praksa Sodišča Evropske unije.
Insolvency proceedings concerning insurance undertakings, credit institutions, investment firms and other firms, institutions or undertakings covered by Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [5] and collective investment undertakings should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation, as they are all subject to special arrangements and the national supervisory authorities have wide-ranging powers of intervention.
Postopke v primeru insolventnosti v zvezi z zavarovalnicami, kreditnimi institucijami, investicijskimi družbami ali drugimi družbami, institucijami in podjetji, zajete v Direktivi 2001/24/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [5], in v zvezi s kolektivnimi naložbenimi podjemi, bi bilo treba izključiti iz področja uporabe te uredbe, saj za vse veljajo posebne ureditve in ker imajo nacionalni nadzorni organi široka pooblastila za posredovanje.
Insolvency proceedings do not necessarily involve the intervention of a judicial authority.
Postopki v primeru insolventnosti ne vključujejo nujno posega sodnega organa.
Therefore, the term ‘court’ in this Regulation should, in certain provisions, be given a broad meaning and include a person or body empowered by national law to open insolvency proceedings.
Zato bi moral imeti izraz „sodišče“ v tej uredbi v nekaterih določbah širši pomen in bi moral vključevati osebo ali organ, ki je po nacionalnem pravu pooblaščen(a) za uvedbo postopkov v primeru insolventnosti.
In order for this Regulation to apply, proceedings (comprising acts and formalities set down in law) should not only have to comply with the provisions of this Regulation, but they should also be officially recognised and legally effective in the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings are opened.
Zaradi uporabe te uredbe bi morali biti postopki (vključno s pravnimi dejanji in predpisanimi formalnostmi) ne le skladni z določbami te uredbe, temveč tudi uradno priznani in pravno učinkoviti v državi članici, v kateri se uvedejo postopki v primeru insolventnosti.
Insolvency practitioners are defined in this Regulation and listed in Annex B. Insolvency practitioners who are appointed without the involvement of a judicial body should, under national law, be appropriately regulated and authorised to act in insolvency proceedings.
Stečajni upravitelji so opredeljeni v tej uredbi in navedeni v Prilogi B. Za stečajne upravitelje, ki so imenovani brez posredovanja sodnega organa, bi morali v skladu z nacionalnim pravom veljati ustrezni predpisi in bi morali biti pooblaščeni za delovanje v postopkih v primeru insolventnosti.
The national regulatory framework should provide for proper arrangements to deal with potential conflicts of interest.
V nacionalnem regulativnem okviru bi morale biti zagotovljene primerne ureditve za obvladovanje morebitnih nasprotij interesov.
This Regulation acknowledges the fact that as a result of widely differing substantive laws it is not practical to introduce insolvency proceedings with universal scope throughout the Union.
Ta uredba priznava dejstvo, da na podlagi zelo različnega materialnega prava uvedba postopkov v primeru insolventnosti z univerzalnim področjem uporabe znotraj Unije ni praktična.
The application without exception of the law of the State of the opening of proceedings would, against this background, frequently lead to difficulties.
Uporaba prava države v kateri so bili postopki uvedeni, brez kakršne koli izjeme, bi zaradi tega ozadja pogosto povzročala težave.
This applies, for example, to the widely differing national laws on security interests to be found in the Member States.
To velja, na primer, za velike razlike v nacionalnih zakonih na področju pravic zavarovanja terjatev, ki obstajajo v državah članicah.
Furthermore, the preferential rights enjoyed by some creditors in insolvency proceedings are, in some cases, completely different.
Nadalje so v nekaterih primerih prednostne pravice posameznih upnikov v postopkih v primeru insolventnosti popolnoma različne.
At the next review of this Regulation, it will be necessary to identify further measures in order to improve the preferential rights of employees at European level.
Ob naslednjem pregledu te uredbe bo treba identificirati nadaljnje ukrepe, s katerimi bi na evropski ravni izboljšali prednostne pravice zaposlenih.
This Regulation should take account of such differing national laws in two different ways.
Ta uredba bi to morala upoštevati takšne različne nacionalne zakone na dva različna načina.
On the one hand, provision should be made for special rules on the applicable law in the case of particularly significant rights and legal relationships (e.g. rights in rem and contracts of employment).
Po eni strani bi bilo treba predvideti posebna pravila o pravu, ki se uporablja v primeru posebno pomembnih pravic in pravnih razmerij (npr. stvarnih pravic in pogodb o zaposlitvi).
On the other hand, national proceedings covering only assets situated in the State of the opening of proceedings should also be allowed alongside main insolvency proceedings with universal scope.
Po drugi strani pa bi bilo treba poleg glavnih postopkov v primeru insolventnosti z univerzalnim področjem uporabe dovoliti tudi nacionalne postopke, ki zajemajo samo premoženje, ki se nahaja v državi, v kateri so bili uvedeni postopki v primeru insolventnosti.
This Regulation enables the main insolvency proceedings to be opened in the Member State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests.
Ta uredba omogoča uvedbo glavnih postopkov v primeru insolventnosti v državi članici, v kateri je središče dolžnikovih glavnih interesov.
Those proceedings have universal scope and are aimed at encompassing all the debtor's assets.
Ti postopki imajo univerzalno področje uporabe in so usmerjeni v vključevanje celotnega dolžnikovega premoženja.
To protect the diversity of interests, this Regulation permits secondary insolvency proceedings to be opened to run in parallel with the main insolvency proceedings.
Zaradi zaščite raznolikosti interesov ta uredba omogoča uvedbo sekundarnih postopkov v primeru insolventnosti, ki tečejo vzporedno z glavnimi postopki v primeru insolventnosti.
Secondary insolvency proceedings may be opened in the Member State where the debtor has an establishment.
Sekundarni postopki v primeru insolventnosti se lahko uvedejo v državi članici, v kateri ima dolžnik poslovalnico.
The effects of secondary insolvency proceedings are limited to the assets located in that State.
Učinki sekundarnih postopkov v primeru insolventnosti so omejeni na premoženje, ki se nahaja v tej državi.
Mandatory rules of coordination with the main insolvency proceedings satisfy the need for unity in the Union.
Obvezna pravila o koordinaciji z glavnimi postopki v primeru insolventnosti izpolnjujejo zahtevo po zagotavljanju enotnosti v Uniji.
Where main insolvency proceedings concerning a legal person or company have been opened in a Member State other than that of its registered office, it should be possible to open secondary insolvency proceedings in the Member State of the registered office, provided that the debtor is carrying out an economic activity with human means and assets in that State, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
V primeru, da se glavni postopki v primeru insolventnosti v zvezi s pravno osebo ali družbo uvedejo v državi članici, ki ni država članica, v kateri ima ta pravna oseba ali družba registriran sedež, bi moralo biti mogoče, da se sekundarni postopki v primeru insolventnosti uvedejo v državi članici, v kateri je registrirani sedež, pod pogojem, da dolžnik opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki predpostavlja udeležbo ljudi in premoženja v tej državi, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije.
This Regulation applies only to proceedings in respect of a debtor whose centre of main interests is located in the Union.
Ta uredba se uporablja samo za postopke v zvezi z dolžnikom, katerega središče glavnih interesov se nahaja v Uniji.
The rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation establish only international jurisdiction, that is to say, they designate the Member State the courts of which may open insolvency proceedings.
Pravila o pristojnosti, določena v tej uredbi, vzpostavljajo samo mednarodno pristojnost, kar pomeni, da določajo državo članico, katere sodišča lahko uvedejo postopke v primeru insolventnosti.
Territorial jurisdiction within that Member State should be established by the national law of the Member State concerned.
Krajevna pristojnost znotraj te države članice bi morala biti vzpostavljena z nacionalnim pravom zadevne države članice.
Before opening insolvency proceedings, the competent court should examine of its own motion whether the centre of the debtor's main interests or the debtor's establishment is actually located within its jurisdiction.
Pred uvedbo postopkov v primeru insolventnosti bi moralo pristojno sodišče po uradni dolžnosti preučiti, ali se središče dolžnikovih glavnih interesov ali poslovalnica dolžnika dejansko nahaja na območju njegove pristojnosti.
When determining whether the centre of the debtor's main interests is ascertainable by third parties, special consideration should be given to the creditors and to their perception as to where a debtor conducts the administration of its interests.
Pri določanju, ali tretje osebe lahko preverijo, kje je središče dolžnikovih glavnih interesov, bi bilo treba nameniti posebno pozornost upnikom in njihovemu dojemanju kraja, kjer dolžnik posluje.
This may require, in the event of a shift of centre of main interests, informing creditors of the new location from which the debtor is carrying out its activities in due course, for example by drawing attention to the change of address in commercial correspondence, or by making the new location public through other appropriate means.
To v primeru prenosa središča dolžnikovih glavnih interesov lahko zahteva, da se upnike pravočasno obvesti o novi lokaciji, s katere dolžnik izvaja svoje dejavnosti, na primer z opozorilom na spremembo naslova v poslovni korespondenci ali z javno objavo nove lokacije prek drugih ustreznih sredstev.
This Regulation should contain a number of safeguards aimed at preventing fraudulent or abusive forum shopping.
Ta uredba bi morala vsebovati več zaščitnih ukrepov za preprečevanje goljufanja ali zlorabe v smislu izbiranja najugodnejšega sodišča.
Accordingly, the presumptions that the registered office, the principal place of business and the habitual residence are the centre of main interests should be rebuttable, and the relevant court of a Member State should carefully assess whether the centre of the debtor's main interests is genuinely located in that Member State.
Zato bi morale biti domneve, da so registrirani sedež, glavni kraj poslovanja in običajno prebivališče središče glavnih interesov, izpodbojne, pristojno sodišče države članice pa bi moralo skrbno oceniti, ali se središče dolžnikovih glavnih interesov dejansko nahaja v tej državi članici.
In the case of a company, it should be possible to rebut this presumption where the company's central administration is located in a Member State other than that of its registered office, and where a comprehensive assessment of all the relevant factors establishes, in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties, that the company's actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests is located in that other Member State.
V primeru družb bi moralo biti mogoče izpodbiti to domnevo, kadar se glavna uprava družbe nahaja v državi članici, ki ni država članica, v kateri ima družba registriran sedež, in kadar celovita ocena vseh relevantnih dejavnikov, na način, ugotovljiv s strani tretjih oseb, pokaže, da se dejansko središče upravljanja in nadzora družbe ter upravljanja njenih interesov nahaja v tej drugi državi članici.
In the case of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity, it should be possible to rebut this presumption, for example where the major part of the debtor's assets is located outside the Member State of the debtor's habitual residence, or where it can be established that the principal reason for moving was to file for insolvency proceedings in the new jurisdiction and where such filing would materially impair the interests of creditors whose dealings with the debtor took place prior to the relocation.
V primeru posameznikov, ki ne opravljajo samostojne poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti, bi moralo biti mogoče izpodbiti to domnevo na primer, kadar se večji del dolžnikovega premoženja nahaja zunaj države članice dolžnikovega običajnega prebivališča ali kadar je mogoče ugotoviti, da je bil glavni razlog za selitev dolžnikovega premoženja vložitev zahteve za uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti pod novo pristojnostjo in kadar bi takšna vložitev zahteve bistveno škodovala interesom upnikov, katerih posli z dolžnikom so potekali pred premestitvijo.
With the same objective of preventing fraudulent or abusive forum shopping, the presumption that the centre of main interests is at the place of the registered office, at the individual's principal place of business or at the individual's habitual residence should not apply where, respectively, in the case of a company, legal person or individual exercising an independent business or professional activity, the debtor has relocated its registered office or principal place of business to another Member State within the 3-month period prior to the request for opening insolvency proceedings, or, in the case of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity, the debtor has relocated his habitual residence to another Member State within the 6-month period prior to the request for opening insolvency proceedings.
Z istim ciljem preprečevanja goljufanja ali zlorabe v smislu izbiranja najugodnejšega sodišča, se ne bi smelo domnevati, da je središče glavnih interesov v kraju registriranega sedeža, v posameznikovem glavnem kraju poslovanja ali kraju njegovega običajnega prebivališča, kadar je dolžnik, ki je družba, pravna oseba ali posameznik, ki opravlja samostojno poslovno ali poklicno dejavnost, svoj registrirani sedež ali glavni kraj poslovanja premestil v drugo državo članico v obdobju treh mesecev pred vložitvijo zahteve za uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti, oziroma je dolžnik, ki je posameznik, ki ne opravlja samostojne poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti, svoje običajno prebivališče premestil v drugo državo članico v obdobju šestih mesecev pred vložitvijo zahteve za uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti.
In all cases, where the circumstances of the matter give rise to doubts about the court's jurisdiction, the court should require the debtor to submit additional evidence to support its assertions and, where the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings so allows, give the debtor's creditors the opportunity to present their views on the question of jurisdiction.
V vseh primerih, kadar okoliščine zadeve zbujajo dvome glede pristojnosti sodišča, bi moralo sodišče zahtevati, da dolžnik predloži dodatna dokazila s katerimi podpre svoje trditve in, kadar pravo, ki se uporablja za postopke v primeru insolventnosti, to omogoča, dati dolžnikovim upnikom priložnost, da predstavijo svoja stališča glede pristojnosti.