natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To that end, this Regulation should seek to concentrate the jurisdiction on matrimonial property regime in the Member State whose courts are called upon to handle the succession of a spouse in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, or the divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 [8].
Zato bi morala ta uredba težiti h koncentraciji pristojnosti za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema v državi članici, katere sodišča obravnavajo dedovanje po zakoncu v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 650/2012, ali razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 [8].
This Regulation should provide that, where proceedings on the succession of a spouse are pending before the court of a Member State seised under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, the courts of that State should have jurisdiction to rule on matters of matrimonial property regimes arising in connection with that succession case.
Če teče postopek v zvezi z dedovanjem po zakoncu pred sodiščem države članice, ki je začelo postopek v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 650/2012, bi morala ta uredba določati, da imajo sodišča te države pristojnost za odločanje o premoženjskih razmerjih med zakoncema, do katerih pride v povezavi s to dedno zadevo.
Similarly, matters of matrimonial property regimes arising in connection with proceedings pending before the court of a Member State seised for divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment under Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, should be dealt with by the courts of that Member State unless the jurisdiction to rule on the divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment may only be based on specific grounds of jurisdiction.
Podobno bi morala premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, povezana s postopkom, ki teče pred sodiščem države članice, ki obravnava vlogo za razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 2201/2003, obravnavati sodišča te države članice, razen če je lahko pristojnost za odločanje o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze utemeljena samo na natančno določenih razlogih za pristojnost.
In such cases, the concentration of jurisdiction should not be allowed without the spouses' agreement.
V takšnih primerih koncentracija pristojnosti ne bi smela biti dovoljena brez soglasja zakoncev.
Where matters of matrimonial property regime are not linked to proceedings pending before the court of a Member State on the succession of a spouse or on divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, this Regulation should provide for a scale of connecting factors for the purposes of determining jurisdiction, starting with the habitual residence of the spouses at the time the court is seised.
Če vprašanja premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema niso povezana s postopkom dedovanja po zakoncu ali postopkom za razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze, ki teče pred sodiščem države članice, bi morala ta uredba določati lestvico naveznih okoliščin, po kateri se določi pristojnost, začenši z običajnim prebivališčem zakoncev ob začetku postopka pred sodiščem.
These connecting factors are set in view of the increasing mobility of citizens and in order to ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the spouses and the Member State in which jurisdiction is exercised.
Razlog za določitev teh naveznih okoliščin je vse večja mobilnost državljanov in zagotovitev obstoja resnične navezne okoliščine med zakoncema in državo članico, v kateri se izvaja pristojnost.
In order to increase legal certainty, predictability and the autonomy of the parties, this Regulation should, under certain circumstances, enable the parties to conclude a choice of court agreement in favour of the courts of the Member State of the applicable law or of the courts of the Member State of the conclusion of the marriage.
Zaradi večje pravne varnosti, predvidljivosti in avtonomije strank bi morala ta uredba strankam v nekaterih okoliščinah omogočati, da sklenejo dogovor o izbiri prava v korist sodišč države članice, katere pravo se uporablja, ali sodišč države članice, v kateri je bila zakonska zveza sklenjena.
For the purposes of this Regulation and in order to cover all possible situations, the Member State of the conclusion of the marriage should be the Member State before whose authorities the marriage is concluded.
Za namene te uredbe in da bi vključili vse mogoče primere, bi morala biti država članica, v kateri je bila zakonska zveza sklenjena, država članica, pred organi katere je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza.
The courts of a Member State may hold that, under their private international law, the marriage in question cannot be recognised for the purposes of matrimonial property regime proceedings.
Sodišča države članice lahko presodijo, da po njihovem mednarodnem zasebnem pravu zadevne zakonske zveze ni mogoče priznati za namene postopka v zvezi s premoženjskimi razmerji med zakoncema.
In such a case, it may exceptionally be necessary to decline jurisdiction under this Regulation.
V takšnem primeru je lahko izjemoma nujno zavrniti pristojnost v skladu s to uredbo.
The courts shall act swiftly and the party concerned should have the possibility to submit the case in any other Member State that has a connecting factor granting jurisdiction, irrespective of the order of the jurisdiction grounds, while at the same time respecting the parties' autonomy.
Sodišča ukrepajo hitro in zadevna stranka bi morala imeti možnost zadevo predložiti v kateri koli drugi državi članici z navezno okoliščino, ki omogoča pristojnost, in sicer ne glede na vrstni red razlogov za pristojnost, pri čemer se spoštuje avtonomija strank.
Any court seised after a declining of jurisdiction other than the courts of the Member State of the conclusion of the marriage, may also exceptionally need to decline jurisdiction under the same conditions.
Katero koli sodišče, pred katerim se začne postopek po zavrnitvi pristojnosti, ki ni sodišče države članice, v kateri je bila zakonska zveza sklenjena, mora pod enakimi pogoji prav tako izjemoma imeti možnost zavrniti pristojnost.
The combination of the various jurisdiction rules should, however, ensure that parties have all possibilities to seise the courts of a Member State which will accept jurisdiction for the purposes of giving effect to their matrimonial property regime.
Vendar bi bilo treba s kombinacijo različnih pravil o pristojnosti zagotoviti, da imajo stranke vse možnosti začeti postopek pred sodišči države članice, ki bodo sprejela pristojnost, da bi uveljavile svoja premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema.
This Regulation should not prevent the parties from settling the matrimonial property regime case amicably out of court, for instance before a notary, in a Member State of their choice where this is possible under the law of that Member State.
Ta uredba ne bi smela preprečevati strankama, da premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema sporazumno uredita zunaj sodišča – na primer pri notarju – v državi članici, ki sta jo izbrali, če je to mogoče po pravu te države članice.
This should be the case even if the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime is not the law of that Member State.
To bi moralo veljati, tudi če pravo, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, ni pravo te države članice.
In order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the matrimonial property regimes of spouses, this Regulation should set out in an exhaustive way the grounds on which such subsidiary jurisdiction may be exercised.
Da se zagotovi, da lahko sodišča vseh držav članic na podlagi istih razlogov izvajajo pristojnost za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, bi morala ta uredba taksativno opredeliti razloge, na podlagi katerih je mogoče izvajati takšno subsidiarno pristojnost.
In order to remedy, in particular, situations of denial of justice, this Regulation should provide for a forum necessitatis allowing a court of a Member State, on an exceptional basis, to rule on a matrimonial property regime which is closely connected with a third state.
Da bi odpravili zlasti primere odrekanja sodnega varstva, bi bilo treba v tej uredbi določiti tudi forum necessitatis, tako da bi lahko sodišče države članice izjemoma odločalo o premoženjskih razmerjih med zakoncema, ki so tesno povezana s tretjo državo.
Such an exceptional basis may be deemed to exist when proceedings prove impossible in the third state in question, for example because of civil war, or when a spouse cannot reasonably be expected to initiate or conduct proceedings in that State.
Do takšnega izjemnega primera bi lahko prišlo, če postopek v tretji državi ne bi bil mogoč, na primer zaradi državljanske vojne, ali če ni mogoče upravičeno pričakovati, da bo eden od zakoncev lahko začel ali izvedel postopek v tej državi.
Jurisdiction based on forum necessitatis should, however, be exercised only if the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.
Pristojnost na podlagi forum necessitatis pa bi se lahko izvajala le, če bi bila zadeva v zadostni meri povezana z državo članico, v kateri je sodišče, ki je začelo postopek.
One such procedural rule is a lis pendens rule, which will come into play if the same matrimonial property regime case is brought before different courts in different Member States.
Eno od takšnih postopkovnih pravil je pravilo o litispendenci, ki se bo uporabilo, če bo ista zadeva v zvezi s premoženjskimi razmerji med zakoncema predložena različnim sodiščem v različnih državah članicah.
That rule will then determine which court should proceed to deal with the matrimonial property regime case.
Na podlagi tega pravila se bo nato določilo, katero sodišče bo nadaljevalo obravnavo zadeve.
In order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered by the internal market, this Regulation should enable spouses to know in advance which law will apply to their matrimonial property regime.
Da bi lahko državljani ob popolni pravni varnosti uživali ugodnosti, ki jih ponuja notranji trg, bi moralo biti zakoncema na podlagi te uredbe vnaprej jasno, katero pravo se bo uporabljalo za premoženjska razmerja med njima.
Harmonised conflict-of-law rules should therefore be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results.
Uvesti bi bilo treba harmonizirana kolizijska pravila, da bi se preprečili nasprotujoči si izidi.
The main rule should ensure that the matrimonial property regime is governed by a predictable law with which it is closely connected.
Glavno pravilo bi moralo zagotoviti, da so premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema urejena s predvidljivim pravom, s katerim so tesno povezana.
For reasons of legal certainty and in order to avoid the fragmentation of the matrimonial property regime, the law applicable to a matrimonial property regime should govern that regime as a whole, that is to say, all the property covered by that regime, irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third state.
Zaradi pravne varnosti in preprečevanja razdrobljenosti premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema bi moralo pravo, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, urejati vsa premoženjska razmerja, torej vse premoženje, ki je urejeno s temi razmerji, ne glede na to, za kakšno premoženje gre, in ne glede na to, ali je premoženje v drugi državi članici ali v tretji državi.
The law determined by this Regulation should apply even if it is not the law of a Member State.
Pravo, določeno s to uredbo, bi se moralo uporabljati tudi, če ni pravo države članice.
To facilitate to spouses the management of their property, this Regulation should authorise them to choose the law applicable to their matrimonial property regime, regardless of the nature or location of the property, among the laws with which they have close links because of habitual residence or their nationality.
Da bi zakonca lažje upravljala svoje premoženje, bi jima morala ta uredba omogočati, da med pravi, s katerimi sta tesno povezana zaradi običajnega prebivališča ali njunega državljanstva, izbereta pravo, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med njima, ne glede na to, za kakšno premoženje gre ali kje je.
This choice may be made at any moment, before the marriage, at the time of conclusion of the marriage or during the course of the marriage.
Pravo se lahko izbere kadar koli, pred sklenitvijo zakonske zveze, ob sklenitvi zakonske zveze ali med trajanjem zakonske zveze.
To ensure the legal certainty of transactions and to prevent any change of the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime being made without the spouses being notified, no change of law applicable to the matrimonial property regime should be made except at the express request of the parties.
Da se zagotovi pravna varnost pri pravnih poslih in prepreči sprememba prava, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, ne da bi bila zakonca o tem obveščena, do takšne spremembe prava, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, ne bi smelo priti, razen na izrecno zahtevo strank.
Such a change by the spouses should not have retrospective effect unless they expressly so stipulate.
Če se zakonca odločita za takšno spremembo, ta ne bi smela imeti učinka za nazaj, razen če zakonca to izrecno zahtevata.
Whatever the case, it may not infringe the rights of third parties.
V nobenem primeru pa s spremembo ne smejo biti kršene pravice tretjih oseb.
Rules on the material and formal validity of an agreement on the choice of applicable law should be set up so that the informed choice of the spouses is facilitated and their consent is respected with a view to ensuring legal certainty as well as better access to justice.
Da bi se zakoncema omogočila ozaveščena izbira in zagotovilo spoštovanje njunega dogovora, bi bilo treba določiti pravila o materialni in formalni veljavnosti dogovora o izbiri prava, ki se uporablja, s čimer bi bila zagotovljena pravna varnost in boljši dostop do pravnega varstva.
As far as formal validity is concerned, certain safeguards should be introduced to ensure that spouses are aware of the implications of their choice.
Glede formalne veljavnosti bi bilo treba določiti nekatera jamstva, s katerimi bi se zagotovilo, da se zakonca zavedata posledic svoje izbire.
The agreement on the choice of applicable law should at least be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both parties.
Zahtevati bi bilo treba vsaj to, da mora biti dogovor o izbiri prava, ki se uporablja, sklenjen v pisni obliki, datiran in podpisan od obeh strani.
However, if the law of the Member State in which the two spouses have their habitual residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal rules, those rules should be complied with.
Če pa pravo države članice, v kateri imata zakonca običajno prebivališče ob sklenitvi dogovora, določa dodatne formalne pogoje, bi bilo treba izpolniti te pogoje.
If, at the time the agreement is concluded, the spouses are habitually resident in different Member States which lay down different formal rules, compliance with the formal rules of one of these States should suffice.
Če imata zakonca ob sklenitvi dogovora običajno prebivališče v različnih državah članicah, ki določata različne formalne pogoje, bi moralo zadoščati, da so izpolnjeni formalni pogoji ene od teh držav.
If, at the time the agreement is concluded, only one of the spouses is habitually resident in a Member State which lays down additional formal rules, those rules should be complied with.
Če ima le eden od zakoncev ob sklenitvi dogovora običajno prebivališče v državi članici, ki določa dodatne formalne pogoje, bi bilo treba izpolniti te pogoje.
A matrimonial property agreement is a type of disposition on matrimonial property the admissibility and acceptance of which vary among the Member States.
Dogovor o ureditvi premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema je vrsta razpolaganja s premoženjem zakoncev, ki ima v državah članicah različno dopustnost in sprejemljivost.
In order to make it easier for matrimonial property rights acquired as a result of a matrimonial property agreement to be accepted in the Member States, rules on the formal validity of a matrimonial property agreement should be defined.
Da bi se lastninske pravice, pridobljene z dogovorom o ureditvi premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema, lažje priznale v državah članicah, bi bilo treba določiti pravila o formalni veljavnosti dogovora o ureditvi premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema.
At least the agreement should be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both parties.
Zahtevati bi bilo treba vsaj to, da mora biti dogovor sklenjen v pisni obliki, datiran in podpisan od obeh strani.
However, the agreement should also fulfil additional formal validity requirements set out in the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime as determined by this Regulation and in the law of the Member State in which the spouses have their habitual residence.
Vendar bi moral dogovor izpolnjevati tudi dodatne obličnostne zahteve, določene v pravu, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, kot je določeno v tej uredbi in v pravu države članice, v kateri imata zakonca običajno prebivališče.
This Regulation should also determine which law is to govern the material validity of such an agreement.
Ta uredba bi morala določati tudi, katero pravo ureja materialno veljavnost takšnega dogovora.
Where no applicable law is chosen, and with a view to reconciling predictability and legal certainty with consideration of the life actually lived by the couple, this Regulation should introduce harmonised conflict-of-law rules to determine the law applicable to all the spouses' property on the basis of a scale of connecting factors.
Če pravo, ki se uporablja, ni bilo izbrano, bi morala ta uredba zaradi uskladitve potrebe po predvidljivosti in pravni varnosti z dejanskimi življenjskimi okoliščinami para določati harmonizirana kolizijska pravila, s katerimi bi se na podlagi lestvice naveznih okoliščin določilo pravo, ki se uporablja za celotno premoženje zakoncev.
The first common habitual residence of the spouses shortly after marriage should constitute the first criterion, ahead of the law of the spouses' common nationality at the time of their marriage.
Prvo običajno skupno prebivališče zakoncev kmalu po sklenitvi zakonske zveze bi moralo predstavljati prvo merilo, pred pravom države, katere skupno državljanstvo imata zakonca ob sklenitvi zakonske zveze.
If neither of these criteria apply, or failing a first common habitual residence in cases where the spouses have dual common nationalities at the time of the conclusion of the marriage, the third criterion should be the law of the State with which the spouses have the closest links.
Če ne pride v poštev nobeno od teh meril ali če zakonca nimata prvega običajnega skupnega prebivališča, ker imata ob sklenitvi zakonske zveze skupno dvojno državljanstvo, bi se moralo kot tretje merilo uporabiti pravo države, s katero sta oba zakonca najtesneje povezana.
In applying the latter criterion all the circumstances should be taken into account and it should be made clear that these links are to be considered as they were at the time the marriage was entered into.
Pri uporabi zadnjega merila bi bilo treba upoštevati vse okoliščine, pri čemer bi moralo biti jasno, da se upošteva povezanost zakoncev z državo v času sklenitve zakonske zveze.
Where this Regulation refers to nationality as a connecting factor, the question of how to consider a person having multiple nationalities is a preliminary question which falls outside the scope of this Regulation and should be left to national law, including, where applicable, international Conventions, in full observance of the general principles of the Union.
Če se v tej uredbi kot navezna okoliščina navaja državljanstvo, je vprašanje, kako obravnavamo osebo, ki ima več državljanstev, predhodno vprašanje, ki ne spada na področje uporabe te uredbe in bi ga bilo treba reševati v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, vključno z mednarodnimi konvencijami, kjer je to ustrezno, ob doslednem spoštovanju splošnih načel Unije.
This consideration should have no effect on the validity of a choice of law made in accordance with this Regulation.
Ta obravnava ne bi smela vplivati na veljavnost izbire prava, opravljene v skladu s to uredbo.
With regard to the determination of the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime in the absence of a choice of law and a matrimonial property agreement, the judicial authority of a Member State, at the request of either of the spouses, should, in exceptional cases — where the spouses have moved to the State of their habitual residence for a long duration — be able to arrive at the conclusion that the law of that State may apply if the spouses have relied on it.
Če pravo ni bilo izbrano in ni bil sklenjen dogovor o ureditvi premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema, bi moral imeti sodni organ države članice pri določitvi prava, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, izjemoma – če sta se zakonca za dalj časa preselila v državo njunega običajnega prebivališča – možnost, da na zahtevo enega od zakoncev zaključi, da se uporabi pravo te države, če sta se zakonca nanj sklicevala.
The law determined as the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime should govern the matrimonial property regime from the classification of property of one or both spouses into different categories during the marriage and after its dissolution, to the liquidation of the property.
Pravo, ki je bilo določeno kot pravo, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, bi moralo urejati celoten proces, od razvrstitve premoženja enega ali obeh zakoncev v različne kategorije med trajanjem zakonske zveze in po njenem prenehanju do likvidacije premoženjskih razmerij.
It should include the effects of the matrimonial property regime on a legal relationship between a spouse and third parties.
Vključevati bi moralo učinke premoženjskih razmerij med zakoncema na pravno razmerje med zakoncem in tretjimi osebami.
However, the law applicable to matrimonial property regime may be invoked by a spouse against a third party to govern such effects only when the legal relations between the spouse and the third party arose at a time where the third party knew or should have known of that law.
Vendar bi lahko zakonec pravo, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, za takšne učinke uporabil proti tretji osebi samo, če je tretja oseba v času nastanka pravnega razmerja med zakoncem in njo vedela ali bi morala vedeti za to pravo.
Considerations of public interest, such as the protection of a Member State's political, social or economic organisation, should justify giving the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States the possibility, in exceptional cases, of applying exceptions based on overriding mandatory provisions.
Zaradi javnega interesa, kot je zaščita politične, socialne ali gospodarske ureditve države članice, bi moralo biti sodiščem in drugim pristojnim organom držav članic izjemoma dovoljeno uporabiti izjeme na podlagi prisilnih določb.
Accordingly, the concept of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ should cover rules of an imperative nature such as rules for the protection of the family home.
Pojem „prisilne določbe“ bi moral tako zajemati obvezna pravila, kot so pravila za zaščito družinskega prebivališča.
However, this exception to the application of the law applicable to the matrimonial property regime requires a strict interpretation in order to remain compatible with the general objective of this Regulation.
Vendar bi bilo treba to izjemo od uporabe prava, ki se uporablja za premoženjska razmerja med zakoncema, razlagati strogo, da bi ostala združljiva s splošnim ciljem te uredbe.