natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should rather supplement them to ensure that, where a measure is necessary in a cross-border investigation but is not available in national law for a purely domestic situation, it can be used in accordance with national law implementing the relevant instrument, when conducting the investigation or prosecution.
Enako bi moralo veljati za nacionalne organe, ki sodelujejo na podlagi upravnega prava.
The provisions of this Regulation on cross-border cooperation should be without prejudice to existing legal instruments that facilitate cross-border cooperation between national authorities, other than prosecution or judicial authorities.
Določbe te uredbe, ki se nanašajo na prijetje v predkazenskem postopku in čezmejno predajo, ne bi smele posegati v posebne postopke v državah članicah, kjer za prvo prijetje osumljenca ali obdolženca ni potrebna sodna odobritev.
The same should apply to national authorities cooperating on the basis of administrative law.
Evropski delegirani tožilec, ki obravnava zadevo, bi moral imeti možnost, da izda ali zahteva izdajo evropskega naloga za prijetje na področju, ki sodi v pristojnost EJT.
The provisions of this Regulation relating to pre-trial arrest and cross-border surrender should be without prejudice to the specific procedures in Member States where judicial authorisation is not required for the initial arrest of a suspect or accused person.
EJT bi moralo imeti možnost, da zadevo odstopi nacionalnim organom, če preiskava pokaže, da je kaznivo dejanje zunaj njegove pristojnosti.
The handling European Delegated Prosecutor should be entitled to issue or request European Arrest Warrants within the area of competence of the EPPO.
Pri taki predložitvi bi morali nacionalni organi ohraniti vse pravice, da v skladu z nacionalnim pravom začnejo, nadaljujejo ali opustijo preiskavo.
The EPPO should be entitled to refer a case to national authorities, where the investigation reveals that the offence is outside the competence of the EPPO.
Ta uredba določa, da EJT opravlja naloge tožilca, ki vključujejo odločanje o vložitvi obtožnice proti osumljencu ali obdolžencu in izbiro države članice, katere sodišča bodo pristojna za odločanje o pregonu.
In such a referral, national authorities should preserve their full prerogatives under national law to open, continue or dismiss the investigation.
Odločitev o tem, ali vložiti obtožnico proti osumljencu ali obdolžencu, bi načeloma moral sprejeti pristojni stalni senat na podlagi osnutka odločitve evropskega delegiranega tožilca, da bi se dosegla skupna politika sodnega pregona.
This Regulation requires the EPPO to exercise the functions of a prosecutor, which includes taking decisions on a suspect or accused person’s indictment and the choice of the Member State whose courts will be competent to hear the prosecution.
Stalni senat bi moral imeti pravico sprejeti kakršno koli odločitev v 21 dneh od prejema osnutka odločitve, vključno z zahtevo po dodatnih dokazih, preden se odloči o vložitvi obtožnice, razen odločitve o opustitvi zadeve, v kateri je evropski delegirani tožilec predlagal, da se vloži obtožnica.
The decision whether to indict the suspect or accused person should in principle be made by the competent Permanent Chamber on the basis of a draft decision by the European Delegated Prosecutor, so that there is a common prosecution policy.
Državo članico, katere sodišča bodo pristojna za odločanje o pregonu, bi moral izbrati pristojni stalni senat na podlagi sklopa meril iz te uredbe.
The Permanent Chamber should be entitled to take any decision within 21 days of receiving the draft decision, including requesting further evidence, before deciding to bring a case to judgment, except a decision to dismiss a case where the European Delegated Prosecutor has proposed to bring the case to judgment.
Stalni senat bi moral sprejeti svojo odločitev na podlagi poročila in osnutka odločitve, ki ga pripravi evropski delegirani tožilec, ki obravnava zadevo, in ki bi jo moral stalnemu senatu predložiti nadzorujoči evropski tožilec, po potrebi skupaj z lastno oceno.
The Member State whose courts will be competent to hear the prosecution should be chosen by the competent Permanent Chamber on the basis of a set of criteria laid down in this Regulation.
Nadzorujoči evropski tožilec bi moral obdržati vsa pooblastila za dajanje konkretnih navodil evropskemu delegiranemu tožilcu, določena s to uredbo.
The Permanent Chamber should take its decision on the basis of a report and a draft decision by the handling European Delegated Prosecutor, which should be transmitted to the Permanent Chamber by the supervising European Prosecutor with, if necessary, his/her own assessment.
Dokazi, ki jih EJT predloži sodišču, se ne bi smeli zavrniti kot nedopustni samo zato, ker so bili zbrani v drugi državi članici ali v skladu s pravom druge države članice, če sodišče prve stopnje meni, da njihova dopustitev izpolnjuje zahteve glede poštenosti postopka in pravice osumljenca ali obdolženca do obrambe v skladu z Listino.
The supervising European Prosecutor should retain all the powers to give specific instructions to the European Delegated Prosecutor provided for in this Regulation.
V tej uredbi so spoštovane temeljne pravice in upoštevana načela, ki jih priznavajo člen 6 PEU in Listina, zlasti v njenem naslovu VI, mednarodno pravo in mednarodni sporazumi, katerih pogodbenice so Unija ali vse države članice, vključno z Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, ter ustave držav članic na njihovih zadevnih področjih uporabe.
The evidence presented by the EPPO in court should not be denied admission on the mere ground that the evidence was gathered in another Member State or in accordance with the law of another Member State, provided that the trial court considers its admission to respect the fairness of the procedure and the suspect or accused person’s rights of defence under the Charter.
V skladu s temi načeli ter ob spoštovanju različnih pravnih sistemov in izročil držav članic, kot je določeno v členu 67(1) PDEU, ni mogoče ničesar v tej uredbi razlagati kot prepoved sodiščem, da uporabljajo temeljna načela nacionalnega prava o pravičnosti postopka, ki se uporabljajo v njihovih nacionalnih sistemih, vključno z anglosaškimi pravnimi sistemi (common law).
This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 TEU and in the Charter, in particular Title VI thereof, by international law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by Member States’ constitutions in their respective fields of application.
Ob upoštevanju načela zakonitosti bi morale preiskave, ki jih izvaja EJT, praviloma voditi do pregona pred pristojnimi nacionalnimi sodišči v primerih, ko obstajajo zadostni dokazi in ko ni pravne podlage, ki prepoveduje pregon, ali se ni uporabil poenostavljeni postopek pregona.
In line with those principles, and in respecting the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States as provided for in Article 67(1) TFEU, nothing in this Regulation may be interpreted as prohibiting the courts from applying the fundamental principles of national law on fairness of the procedure that they apply in their national systems, including in common law systems.
Razlogi za opustitev zadeve so izčrpno določeni v tej uredbi.
Taking into account the legality principle, the investigations of the EPPO should as a rule lead to prosecution in the competent national courts in cases where there is sufficient evidence and no legal ground bars prosecution, or where no simplified prosecution procedure has been applied.
Nacionalni pravni sistemi določajo različne vrste poenostavljenih postopkov pregona, pri katerih lahko sodeluje sodišče ali pa ne, na primer v obliki transakcij z osumljencem ali obdolžencem.
The grounds for dismissal of a case are exhaustively laid down in this Regulation.
Če takšni postopki obstajajo, bi evropski delegirani tožilec moral imeti pooblastilo, da jih uporabi pod pogoji, določenimi v nacionalnem pravu, in v primerih, določenih v tej uredbi.
National legal systems provide for various types of simplified prosecution procedures, which may or may not include involvement of a court, for example in the form of transactions with the suspect or accused person.
To bi moralo vključevati primere, v katerih končna škoda zaradi kaznivega dejanja po morebitni izterjavi zneska, ki ustreza taki škodi, ni velika.
If such procedures exist, the European Delegated Prosecutor should have the power to apply them under the conditions provided for in national law and in the situations provided for by this Regulation.
Ob upoštevanju interesa za skladno in učinkovito politiko EJT glede pregona bi bilo treba pristojni stalni senat vedno pozvati, naj soglaša z uporabo teh postopkov.
Those situations should include cases where the final damage of the offence, after possible recovery of an amount corresponding to such damage, is not significant.
Kadar je bil poenostavljeni postopek uspešno uporabljen, bi morala biti zadeva dokončno zaključena.
Considering the interest of a coherent and effective prosecution policy of the EPPO, the competent Permanent Chamber should always be called upon to give its consent to the use of such procedures.
Ta uredba določa, da mora EJT spoštovati zlasti pravico do poštenega sojenja, pravico do obrambe in domnevo nedolžnosti, kot so vsebovane v členih 47 in 48 Listine.
When the simplified procedure has been successfully applied, the case should be finally disposed of.
Člen 50 Listine, ki ščiti pravico, da se oseba za isto kaznivo dejanje kazensko ne preganja ali kaznuje dvakrat (ne bis in idem), zagotavlja, da se osebi zaradi uvedbe pregona s strani EJT ne bo dvakrat sodilo zaradi istega kaznivega dejanja.
This Regulation requires the EPPO to respect, in particular, the right to a fair trial, the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence, as enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter.
Dejavnosti EJT se bi morale tako izvajati ob polnem spoštovanju navedenih pravic, ta uredba pa bi se morala uporabljati in razlagati v skladu s tem.
Article 50 of the Charter, which protects the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same offence (ne bis in idem), ensures that there will be no double jeopardy as a result of the prosecutions brought by the EPPO.
Člen 82(2) PDEU dopušča, da Unija določi minimalna pravila o pravicah posameznikov v kazenskem postopku, da se zagotovi spoštovanje pravic do obrambe in poštenosti postopka.
The activities of the EPPO should thus be exercised in full compliance with those rights and this Regulation should be applied and interpreted accordingly.
Ta minimalna pravila je zakonodajalec Unije postopoma določil v direktivah o posebnih pravicah.
Article 82(2) TFEU allows the Union to establish minimum rules on rights of individuals in criminal proceedings, in order to ensure that the rights of defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected.
Pravica do obrambe, ki je opredeljena v ustreznem pravu Unije, kot so direktive 2010/64/EU [4], 2012/13/EU [5], 2013/48/EU [6], (EU) 2016/343 [7] in (EU) 2016/1919 [8] Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, kakor se izvajajo v nacionalnem pravu, bi morala veljati tudi za dejavnosti EJT.
Those minimum rules have been gradually set out by the Union legislator in Directives on specific rights.
Te pravice bi morale veljati za vsakega osumljenca ali obdolženca, v zvezi s katerim EJT začne preiskavo, pa tudi pravice, zagotovljene z nacionalnim pravom, zahtevati postavitev izvedencev ali zaslišanje prič, ali da EJT kako drugače predloži dokaze v imenu obrambe.
The rights of defence provided for in the relevant Union law, such as Directives 2010/64/EU [4], 2012/13/EU [5], 2013/48/EU [6], (EU) 2016/343 [7], (EU) 2016/1919 [8], of the European Parliament and of the Council as implemented by national law, should apply to the activities of the EPPO.
Člen 86(3) PDEU omogoča, da zakonodajalec Unije določi pravila, ki se uporabljajo za sodni nadzor postopkovnih ukrepov, ki jih EJT izvaja pri opravljanju nalog.
Any suspect or accused person in respect of whom the EPPO initiates an investigation should benefit from those rights, as well as from the rights provided for in national law to request that experts are appointed or that witnesses are heard, or that evidence on behalf of the defence is otherwise produced by the EPPO.
Ta pristojnost, dodeljena zakonodajalcu Unije, odraža posebno naravo nalog in strukture EJT, ki se razlikuje od pristojnosti vseh drugih organov in agencij Unije ter zahteva posebna pravila glede sodnega nadzora.
Article 86(3) TFEU allows the Union legislator to determine the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by the EPPO in the performance of its functions.
V skladu s členom 86(2) PDEU EJT opravlja dolžnosti tožilca na pristojnih sodiščih držav članic.
That competence granted to the Union legislator reflects the specific nature of the tasks and structure of the EPPO, which is different from that of all other bodies and agencies of the Union and requires special rules regarding judicial review.
Ukrepi, ki jih EJT sprejme med izvajanjem preiskav, so tesno povezani s pregonom, ki lahko sledi, in imajo tako učinek na pravne rede držav članic.
According to Article 86(2) TFEU, the EPPO exercises its functions of prosecutor before the competent courts of the Member States.
V številnih primerih bodo ukrepe izvajali nacionalni organi kazenskega pregona v skladu z navodili EJT, v nekaterih primerih tudi po pridobitvi odobritve nacionalnega sodišča.
Acts undertaken by the EPPO in the course of its investigations are closely related to the prosecution which may result therefrom, and thus have effects in the legal order of the Member States.
Postopkovni akti, ki so povezani z izbiro države članice, katere sodišča bodo pristojna za odločanje o pregonu, ki se določi na podlagi meril iz te uredbe, naj bi imeli pravne učinke v razmerju do tretjih, zato bi morali biti predmet sodnega nadzora s strani nacionalnih sodišč najpozneje v fazi sojenja.
It is therefore appropriate to consider that procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties should be subject to review by the competent national courts in accordance with the requirements and procedures laid down by national law.
Kadar nacionalno pravo določa sodni nadzor v zvezi s postopkovnimi akti, ki naj ne bi imeli pravnih učinkov v razmerju do tretjih, ali pravne postopke zaradi drugih opustitev ukrepanja, te uredbe ne bi smeli razlagati, kot da vpliva na takšne pravne določbe.
This should ensure that the procedural acts of the EPPO that are adopted before the indictment and intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (a category which includes the suspect, the victim, and other interested persons whose rights may be adversely affected by such acts) are subject to judicial review by national courts.
Poleg tega se od držav članic ne bi smelo zahtevati, da zagotovijo sodni nadzor s strani pristojnih nacionalnih sodišč za postopkovne akte, ki naj ne bi imeli pravnih učinkov v razmerju do tretjih, kot je imenovanje izvedencev ali povračilo stroškov za priče.
Procedural acts that relate to the choice of the Member State whose courts will be competent to hear the prosecution, which is to be determined on the basis of the criteria laid down in this Regulation, are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties and should therefore be subject to judicial review by national courts, at the latest at the trial stage.
Ta uredba ne vpliva na pristojnosti nacionalnih sodišč prve stopnje.
Actions before competent national courts for failures of the EPPO to act are those regarding procedural acts which the EPPO is under a legal obligation to adopt and which are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.
Zakonitost postopkovnih aktov EJT, ki naj bi imeli pravne učinke v razmerju do tretjih, bi morala biti predmet sodnega nadzora s strani nacionalnih sodišč.
Where national law provides for judicial review concerning procedural acts which are not intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties or for legal actions concerning other failures to act, this Regulation should not be interpreted as affecting such legal provisions.
V tej zvezi bi bilo treba zagotoviti učinkovita pravna sredstva v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 19(1) PEU.
In addition, Member States should not be required to provide for judicial review by the competent national courts of procedural acts which are not intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, such as the appointment of experts or the reimbursement of witness costs.
Poleg tega, kakor poudarja sodna praksa Sodišča, nacionalna postopkovna pravila, ki veljajo za tožbe za zaščito posameznih pravic, ki jih zagotavlja pravo Unije, ne smejo biti manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobne tožbe na nacionalni ravni (načelo enakovrednosti), in ne smejo praktično onemogočiti ali čezmerno otežiti uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih daje pravo Unije (načelo učinkovitosti).
Finally, this Regulation does not affect the powers of national trial courts.
Kadar nacionalna sodišča presojajo zakonitost teh aktov, se pri tem lahko opirajo na pravo Unije, vključno s to uredbo, in tudi na nacionalno pravo, ki se uporablja za vprašanja, ki jih ta uredba ne obravnava.
The legality of procedural acts of the EPPO that are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties should be subject to judicial review before national courts.
Kakor poudarja sodna praksa Sodišča, bi mu morala nacionalna sodišča vedno predložiti predhodna vprašanja, če dvomijo v veljavnost navedenih aktov glede na pravo Unije.
In that regard, effective remedies should be ensured in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.
Vendar pa nacionalna sodišča Sodišču ne smejo predložiti predhodnih vprašanj o veljavnosti postopkovnih aktov EJT glede na nacionalno procesno pravo ali nacionalne ukrepe za prenos direktiv, tudi če se ta uredba nanje sklicuje.
Furthermore, as underlined by the case-law of the Court of Justice, the national procedural rules governing actions for the protection of individual rights granted by Union law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Union law (principle of effectiveness).
Vendar to ne vpliva na predhodno odločanje o razlagi katere koli določbe primarnega prava, vključno s Pogodbama in Listino, ali na razlago in veljavnost določb sekundarnega prava Unije, vključno s to uredbo in veljavnimi direktivami.
When national courts review the legality of such acts, they may do so on the basis of Union law, including this Regulation, and also on the basis of national law, which applies to the extent that a matter is not dealt with by this Regulation.
Poleg tega ta uredba ne izključuje možnosti, da nacionalna sodišča presodijo veljavnost postopkovnih aktov EJT, ki naj bi imeli pravne učinke v razmerju do tretjih strani glede na načelo sorazmernosti, kot je vsebovano v nacionalnem pravu.
As underlined in the case-law of the Court of Justice, national courts should always refer preliminary questions to the Court of Justice when they entertain doubts about the validity of those acts vis-à-vis Union law.
Določba te uredbe o sodnem nadzoru ne vpliva na pristojnost Sodišča za pregled upravnih odločb EJT, ki naj bi imele pravne učinke do tretjih oseb, torej odločb, ki niso sprejete pri opravljanju njegovih nalog preiskovanja, pregona ali obtožbe.
However, national courts may not refer to the Court of Justice preliminary questions on the validity of the procedural acts of the EPPO with regard to national procedural law or to national measures transposing Directives, even if this Regulation refers to them.
Ta uredba tudi ne posega v možnost, da lahko država članica Evropske unije, Evropski parlament, Svet ali Komisija vložijo ničnostno tožbo v skladu z drugim odstavkom člena 263 PDEU in prvim odstavkom člena 265 PDEU ter začnejo postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev na podlagi členov 258 in 259 PDEU.
This is however without prejudice to preliminary references concerning the interpretation of any provision of primary law, including the Treaties and the Charter, or the interpretation and validity of any provision of Union secondary law, including this Regulation and applicable Directives.
Uredba (ES) št. 45/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [9] se uporablja za obdelavo upravnih osebnih podatkov, ki jo izvaja EJT.
In addition, this Regulation does not exclude the possibility for national courts to review the validity of the procedural acts of the EPPO which are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties with regard to the principle of proportionality as enshrined in national law.
Po vsej Uniji bi bilo treba zagotoviti dosledno in enotno uporabo pravil za varstvo temeljnih pravic in svoboščin posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov.
The provision of this Regulation on judicial review does not alter the powers of the Court of Justice to review the EPPO administrative decisions, which are intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, namely decisions that are not taken in the performance of its functions of investigating, prosecuting or bringing to judgement.
V izjavi št. 21 o varstvu osebnih podatkov na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah in policijskega sodelovanja, priloženi PEU in PDEU, je navedeno, da bi lahko bili zaradi posebne narave pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah in policijskega sodelovanja na teh področjih potrebni posebni predpisi o varstvu osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov na podlagi člena 16 PDEU.
This Regulation is also without prejudice to the possibility for a Member State of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission to bring actions for annulment in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and to the first paragraph of Article 265 TFEU, and to infringement proceedings under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU.
Pravila iz te uredbe o varstvu osebnih podatkov bi bilo treba razlagati in uporabljati v skladu z razlago in uporabo Direktive (EU) 2016/680 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [10], ki se bo uporabljala za obdelavo osebnih podatkov, ki jo izvajajo pristojni organi držav članic Evropske unije za namene preprečevanja, preiskovanja, odkrivanja ali pregona kaznivih dejanj ali izvrševanja kazenskih sankcij.
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council [9] applies to the processing of administrative personal data performed by the EPPO.
Načelo poštene obdelave v okviru varstva podatkov je pojem, ki je jasno ločen od pravice do poštenega sojenja, kot je opredeljena v členu 47 Listine in členu 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.
Consistent and homogeneous application of the rules for the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data should be ensured throughout the Union.
Določbe o varstvu podatkov iz te uredbe ne posegajo v veljavna pravila o dopustnosti osebnih podatkov kot dokaza v postopkih pred kazenskimi sodišči.
Declaration No 21 on the protection of personal data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, provides that specific rules on the protection of personal data and the free movement of such data in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation based on Article 16 TFEU may prove to be necessary because of the specific nature of these fields.
Vse države članice Evropske unije so članice Mednarodne organizacije kriminalistične policije (Interpol).