natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 111(4) of the law on the Supreme Court the President of the Republic will entrust heading of the Supreme Court to a Supreme Court judge of his own choosing.
Poleg tega bi morale tudi odločitve o izbiri in poklicni poti sodnikov temeljiti na objektivnih merilih, ki jih predhodno določi zakonodaja ali pristojni organi, kadar pa odločitve o izbiri in poklicni poti sodnikov sprejme vlada ali zakonodajna oblast, bi bilo treba za pripravo priporočil ali izražanje mnenj, ki jih v praksi upošteva ustrezen organ za imenovanje, pooblastiti neodvisen in pristojen organ, ki ga v znatnem delu sestavljajo člani iz sodstva (odstavki 44–48).
Such an ‘acting First President’ will exercise their functions until the General Assembly of judges presents 5 candidates to the post of the First President of the Supreme Court (Article 12).
V skladu s členom 111(4) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču bo predsednik republike vodenje vrhovnega sodišča zaupal sodniku vrhovnega sodišča po lastni izbiri.
The General Assembly of Supreme Court judges will be able to at present these candidates no sooner than at least 110 judges of the Supreme Court have been appointed.
Tak „vršilec dolžnosti prvega predsednika vrhovnega sodišča“ bo svoje naloge opravljal, dokler generalna skupščina sodnikov ne predstavi pet kandidatov za mesto prvega predsednika vrhovnega sodišča (člen 12).
Article 183(3) of the Polish constitution stipulates that the First President of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic for a 6-year term of office from amongst candidates proposed by the General Assembly of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Generalna skupščina sodnikov vrhovnega sodišča bo te kandidate predstavila, ko bo imenovanih vsaj 110 sodnikov vrhovnega sodišča.
Page 2 of the explanatory memorandum.
Člen 183(3) poljske ustave določa, da „prvega predsednika vrhovnega sodišča imenuje predsednik republike za šestletni mandat med kandidati, ki jih predlaga generalna skupščina sodnikov vrhovnega sodišča“.
ECtHR Case Sõro v. Estonia, 3 September 2015, para 60-62.
Stran 2 obrazložitvenega memoranduma.
Para 44-47 and 50 of the 2010 CoE Recommendation.
Zadeva ESČP Sõro proti Estoniji, 3. september 2015, točke 60–62.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 130.
Odstavki 44–47 in 50 Priporočila Sveta Evrope iz leta 2010.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 48.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
The request is to be made via the First President of the Supreme Court who provides an opinion on a judge's request.
130.
For the prolongation of the First President's mandate, the First President needs to provide to the President of the Republic the opinion of the college of the Supreme Court.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
In the process of making the decision, the President of the Republic may seek a non-binding opinion of the NCJ (cf.
48.
Article 37(2) in conjunction with Article 111(1) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Prošnja se vloži pri prvem predsedniku vrhovnega sodišča, ki predloži mnenje o prošnji sodnika.
It is noted that according to the Supreme Court's opinion, under the constitution such a decision by the President of the Republic would require a countersignature of the Prime Minister, in accordance with Article 144(1) and (2) of the Polish constitution.
Za podaljšanje mandata prvega predsednika vrhovnega sodišča mora prvi predsednik vrhovnega sodišča predsedniku republike predložiti mnenje kolegija vrhovnega sodišča.
Para 46 and 47.
Pri odločanju lahko predsednik republike za nezavezujoče mnenje prosi nacionalni sodni svet (glej člen 37(2) v povezavi s členom 111(1) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču).
This regime would also raise concerns with the Council of Europe Plan of Action on Strengthening Judicial Independence and Impartiality CM(2016)36 final (at C. ii; ‘2016 CoE Action Plan’) and CCJE benchmarks (Opinion No 1 on Standards concerning the Independence of the Judiciary and the Irremovability of Judges (para 25)).
Opozoriti je treba, da bi po mnenju vrhovnega sodišča v skladu z ustavo taka odločitev predsednika republike zahtevala podpis predsednika vlade v skladu s členom 144(1) in (2) poljske ustave.
Para 48 of the 2010 CoE Recommendation.
Odstavka 46 in 47.
Para 49 of the 2010 CoE Recommendation.
Ta ureditev bi vzbudila pomisleke tudi glede Akcijskega načrta Sveta Evrope za krepitev neodvisnosti in nepristranskosti sodstva, CM(2016)36 final (točka C. ii; Akcijski načrt Sveta Evrope iz leta 2016) in meril CCJE (Mnenje št. 1 o standardih glede neodvisnosti sodstva in nezamenljivosti sodnikov, odst.
Cf.
25).
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 51 and 130.
Odstavek 48 Priporočila Sveta Evrope iz leta 2010.
Article 89(1) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Odstavek 49 Priporočila Sveta Evrope iz leta 2010.
Article 115 of the law on the Supreme Court.
Glej mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
After the three-year period the appeal would need to be lodged within five years from a moment when the judgement concerned became final and lawful and within one year if the cassation appeal has been made, unless extraordinary appeal is brought to the detriment of the defendant, in such a case the appeal can be lodged no later than one year after the ruling becomes final (or, if the cassation has been lodged, no later than six months upon the examination of the cassation; cf.
51 in 130.
Article 89(4) of the Law on the Supreme Court).
Člen 89(1) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
If five years have elapsed since the contested ruling became final and the ruling has had irreversible legal effects or if warranted by the principles or the rights and freedoms of persons and citizens enshrined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court may confine itself to confirming that the contested ruling is in breach of the law and indicating the circumstances which led it to issue such a decision (Cf.
Člen 115 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 89(4) and Article 115(2) of the law on the Supreme Court).
Po triletnem obdobju bi bilo treba izredno pravno sredstvo vložiti v petih letih, odkar je zadevna sodba postala dokončna in zakonita, ter v enem letu v primeru kasacijske pritožbe, razen če je izredno pravno sredstvo vloženo v škodo toženca; v tem primeru se izredno pravno sredstvo lahko vloži najpozneje eno leto po tem, ko sodba postane dokončna (ali, če je bila vložena kasacijska pritožba, najpozneje šest mesecev po preučitvi kasacijske pritožbe); glej člen 89(4) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 91(1) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Člen 91(1) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Criminal cases cannot be extraordinarily appealed from to the detriment of the defendant more than one year after the ruling becomes final (or, if the cassation has been lodged, no later than six months upon the examination of the cassation); there is also no possibility of appeals against judgements establishing the nullity of a marriage, annulling a marriage or pronouncing a divorce (only in so far as one or both of the parties remarried after the ruling became final) or a decision on adoption.
Če je minilo pet let, odkar je izpodbijana sodba postala dokončna, in je sodba imela nepovratne pravne učinke, ali če je to potrebno zaradi načel ali pravic in svoboščin oseb in državljanov, določenih v ustavi, se vrhovno sodišče lahko omeji na potrditev, da izpodbijana sodba krši zakon, in navede okoliščine, ki so privedle do take odločbe (glej člen 89(4) in člen 115(2) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču).
The extraordinary appeal cannot concern petty offences or minor tax offences; cf.
Za kazenske zadeve se izredno pravno sredstvo ne more uporabiti v škodo obtoženca po izteku enega leta, ko sodba postane dokončna (ali, če je bila vložena kasacijska pritožba, najpozneje šest mesecev po preučitvi kasacijske pritožbe); prav tako ne obstaja možnost pritožb zoper sodbe o ničnosti zakonske zveze, razveljavitvi zakonske zveze ali razvezi (samo, če se je ena ali obe strani ponovno poročila, potem ko je sodba postala dokončna) ali zoper sklep o posvojitvi.
Article 89(3) and 90(3) and (4) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Izredno pravno sredstvo se ne more uporabiti za prekrške ali manjše davčne kršitve; glej člen 89(3) in člen 90(3) in (4) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 89(2) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Člen 89(2) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 89(1) items 1-3 of the law on the Supreme Court.
Točke 1–3 člena 89(1) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
ECtHR Case Brumărescu v. Romania, 28 October 1999, para 61; Case Ryabykh v. Russia, 3 March 2003, para 54 and 57; Case Miragall Escolano and others v Spain, 25 January 2000, para 33; also Phinikaridou v Cyprus, 20 December 2007 para 52.
Zadeva ESČP Brumărescu proti Romuniji, 28. oktober 1999, točka 61; zadeva Ryabykh proti Rusiji, 3. marec 2003, točki 54 in 57; zadeva Miragall Escolano in drugi proti Španiji, 25. januar 2000, točka 33; tudi zadeva Phinikaridou proti Cipru, 20. december 2007, točka 52.
Judgement of 30 September 2003 in Case C-224/01 Köbler, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513, para 38.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. septembra 2003, Köbler, C-224/01, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513, točka 38.
Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (No 2), 11 July 2017 (final), para 62.
Zadeva Moreira Ferreira proti Portugalski (št. 2), 11. julij 2017 (final), točka 62.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 58, 63 and 130.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
Both principles have been considered to be part of the rule of law by the Constitutional Tribunal; cf. judgements of the Constitutional Tribunal SK 7/06 of 24 October 2007 and SK 77/06 of 1 April 2008.
58, 63 in 130.
Judgement SK 19/05 of 28 November 2006; SK 16/05 of 14 November 2007.
Ustavno sodišče je menilo, da sta bili obe načeli del pravne države; glej sodbi ustavnega sodišča SK 7/06 z dne 24. oktobra 2007 in SK 77/06 z dne 1. aprila 2008.
In particular opinions of the Supreme Court of 6 and 23 October, and 30 November 2017, the opinion of the Ombudsman of 11 November 2017 and the OSCE-ODIHR opinion of 13 November 2017.
Sodba SK 19/05 z dne 28. novembra 2006; SK 16/05 z dne 14. novembra 2007.
Article 74 of the law on the Supreme Court.
Zlasti mnenja vrhovnega sodišča z dne 6. in 23. oktobra 2017 in 30. novembra 2017, mnenje varuha človekovih pravic z dne 11. novembra 2017 ter mnenje ODIHR OVSE z dne 13. novembra 2017.
Article 76(8) of the law on the Supreme Court; the President of the Republic can appoint the extraordinary disciplinary officer from among prosecutors proposed by the State Prosecutor if a disciplinary case concerns disciplinary misconduct that satisfies the criteria of an intentional crime prosecuted by public indictment or of intentional tax crimes.
Člen 74 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 76(8) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Člen 76(8) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču; predsednik republike lahko imenuje izrednega vodjo disciplinskega postopka izmed tožilcev na predlog državnega tožilca, če se disciplinska zadeva nanaša na disciplinsko kršitev, ki izpolnjuje merila za naklepno kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja z javno obtožnico, ali za naklepna davčna kazniva dejanja.
According to article 76(9) of the law on the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice can notify the President of the Republic about the need to appoint an extraordinary disciplinary officer if there is a case of disciplinary misconduct that satisfies the criteria of an intentional crime prosecuted by public indictment or intentional tax crime.
Člen 76(8) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
It appears that whether a case satisfies these criteria will be determined autonomously by the Minister of Justice and the President of the Republic as their decisions on appointing the extraordinary disciplinary officer cannot be appealed from.
V skladu s členom 76(9) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču lahko minister za pravosodje uradno obvesti predsednika republike o tem, da je treba imenovati izrednega vodjo disciplinskega postopka, če gre za disciplinsko kršitev, ki izpolnjuje merila za naklepno kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja z javno obtožnico, ali za naklepno davčno kaznivo dejanje.
OSCE-ODIHR opinion of 13 November 2017; para 119-121; Supreme Court opinion of 6 October, page 34.
Zdi se, da bosta izpolnjevanje teh meril ugotavljala minister za pravosodje in predsednik republike samostojno, saj zoper njune odločitve o imenovanju izrednega vodje disciplinskega postopka ni mogoče vložiti pritožbe.
According to Article 108(17)-(19) of the law on the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice is given the power to set the number of and appoint disciplinary judges for ordinary court judges without consulting the judiciary.
Mnenje ODIHR OVSE z dne 13. novembra 2017; odst.
Additionally, the Minister of Justice would be able to personally control disciplinary cases conducted against ordinary court judges through disciplinary officers and an extraordinary disciplinary officer of the Minister of Justice appointed by himself (including under certain circumstances also from the prosecutors).
119–121; mnenje vrhovnega sodišča z dne 6. oktobra, stran 34.
Disciplinary officers appointed by the Minister of Justice would be able to reopen closed investigations at request of the Minister of Justice.
V skladu s členom 108(17) do (19) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču je minister za pravosodje pooblaščen, da določi število disciplinskih sodnikov in jih imenuje za sodnike splošnih sodišč brez posvetovanja s sodstvom.
According to the law, provisions enshrined in the Law on Ordinary Court Organisation including those concerning procedural aspects of disciplinary proceedings apply mutatis mutandis to Supreme Court judges; cf.
Poleg tega bi minister za pravosodje lahko osebno nadziral disciplinske zadeve proti sodnikom splošnih sodišč prek vodij disciplinskega postopka in izrednega vodje disciplinskega postopka ministra za pravosodje, ki ga imenuje sam (vključno v nekaterih okoliščinah s strani tožilcev).
Article 72(1) and Article 108 in conjunction with Article 10(1) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Vodje disciplinskega postopka, ki jih imenuje minister za pravosodje, bi lahko na zahtevo ministra za pravosodje ponovno odprli zaključene preiskave.
The law on the Supreme Court amends in its Article 108 the law on Ordinary Courts Organisation.
V skladu z zakonodajo se določbe zakona o organizaciji splošnih sodišč, vključno s tistimi o postopkovnih vidikih disciplinskega postopka, smiselno uporabljajo za sodnike vrhovnega sodišča; glej člen 72(1) in člen 108 v povezavi s členom 10(1) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 108(23) of the law on the Supreme Court in terms of Article 115c added to the law on Ordinary Courts Organisation.
Člen 108 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču spreminja zakon o organizaciji splošnih sodišč.
If the evidence was presented after time prescribed, cf.
Člen 108(23) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču v smislu člena 115c, dodanega k zakonu o organizaciji splošnih sodišč.
Article 108(22) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Če se dokaz predloži po predpisanem roku, glej člen 108(22) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 108(13) item b of the law on the Supreme Court.
Točka b člena 108(13) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 108(23) of the law on the Supreme Court.
Člen 108(23) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
ECtHR Case Vilho Eskelinen and others v Finland, 19 April 2007 para 62;Case Olujić v Croatia, 5 February 2009, para 34-43; Case Harabin v Slovakia, 20 November 2012 para 118-124; and Case Baka v Hungary, 23 June 2016, para 100-119.
Zadeva ESČP Vilho Eskelinen in drugi proti Finski, 19. april 2007, točka 62; zadeva Olujić proti Hrvaški, 5. februar 2009, točke 34–43; zadeva Harabin proti Slovaški, 20. november 2012, točke 118–124, ter zadeva Baka proti Madžarski, 23. junij 2016, točke 100–119.
Article 26 and Article 94 of the law on the Supreme Court.
Člena 26 in 94 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 134 of the law on the Supreme Court; the former chamber of labour, social security and public affairs is split into two chambers, the chamber of labour and social security and the new chamber of extraordinary control and public affairs; this new chamber will be composed by new judges as all current judges are transferred to the chamber of labour and social security; current Supreme Court judges can request a transfer to this new chamber.
Člen 134 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču; nekdanji senat za delo, socialno varnost in javne zadeve je razdeljen na dva senata: senat za delo in socialno varnost ter nov senat za izredni nadzor in javne zadeve; ta nov senat bodo sestavljali novi sodniki, saj bodo vsi sedanji sodniki premeščeni v senat za delo in socialno varnost; sedanji sodniki vrhovnega sodišča lahko zaprosijo za premestitev v ta nov senat.
A full list of tasks dealt with by this chamber is found in Article 26.
Popoln seznam nalog, ki jih obravnava ta senat, je naveden v členu 26.
The president of the disciplinary chamber is autonomous vis-à-vis the First President of the Supreme Court and budget of that chamber can be substantially increased in comparison to the overall budget of the Supreme Court (cf.
Predsednik disciplinskega senata je avtonomen v razmerju do prvega predsednika vrhovnega sodišča in proračun navedenega senata se lahko znatno poveča v primerjavi s celotnim proračunom vrhovnega sodišča (glej člen 7(2) in (4) ter člen 20 zakona o vrhovnem sodišču).
A full list of tasks dealt with by the disciplinary chamber is found in Article 27 of the law on the Supreme Court.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 92.
92.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 43.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
Article 61(2) of the law on the Supreme Court.
43.
Opinion CDL(2017)035 para 67.
Člen 61(2) zakona o vrhovnem sodišču.
Article 186(1) of the Polish Constitution: ‘The National Council of the Judiciary shall safeguard the independence of the courts and judges’.
Mnenje CDL(2017)035, odst.
For example, in the context of disciplinary proceedings against judges conducted by a Council, the European Court of Human Rights has questioned the level of influence of the legislative or executive authorities given that the Council was composed by a majority of members appointed directly by these authorities; ECtHR Case Ramos Nunes de Carvalho E Sá v Portugal, 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13, 21 June 2016, para 77.
67.
Mandates of current judges-members would expire on the day preceding the beginning of a joint term of office of the new judges-members of the Council, but no later than 90 days from the entry into force of the law.
Člen 186(1) poljske ustave: „Nacionalni sodni svet varuje neodvisnost sodišč in sodnikov.“
Article 1(3) of the law on the National Council for the Judiciary adding an Article 11a(2) and (3): it is noted that each group (of judges and of citizens) may lodge more than one nomination for a judge-member of the Council.
Zadevi ESČP Morice proti Franciji, 29369/10, 23. april 2015, točka 78, ter Ciper proti Turčiji, 25781/94, 10. maj 2001, točka 233.
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/177
Priporočilo Komisije (EU) 2018/177
on the elements to be included in the technical, legal and financial arrangements between Member States for the application of the solidarity mechanism under Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply
o elementih, ki jih je treba vključiti v tehnične, pravne in finančne dogovore med državami članicami za uporabo solidarnostnega mehanizma v skladu s členom 13 Uredbe (EU) 2017/1938 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o ukrepih za zagotavljanje zanesljivosti oskrbe s plinom
Having regard to Article 13(12) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2017 concerning measures to safeguard the security of gas supply and repealing Regulation (EU) No 994/2010,
ob upoštevanju člena 13(12) Uredbe (EU) 2017/1938 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. oktobra 2017 o ukrepih za zagotavljanje zanesljivosti oskrbe s plinom in o razveljavitvi Uredbe (EU) št. 994/2010,
Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that EU energy policy should aim for security of energy supply in the Union, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States.
V členu 194(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) je določeno, da bi moral biti cilj energetske politike EU v duhu solidarnosti med državami članicami zagotoviti zanesljivost oskrbe z energijo v Uniji.
The Regulation on security of gas supply is intended to enhance solidarity and trust between the Member States and to allow the internal gas market to function for as long as possible, even when there is a shortage of supply.
Namen uredbe o zanesljivosti oskrbe s plinom je okrepiti solidarnost in zaupanje med državami članicami ter omogočiti čim daljše delovanje notranjega trga plina, tudi v primeru nezadostne oskrbe.
The Regulation introduces, for the first time, a solidarity mechanism between Member States to mitigate the effects of a severe emergency within the Union and ensure that gas can flow to solidarity-protected customers.
Uredba prvič uvaja solidarnostni mehanizem med državami članicami za ublažitev učinkov hudih izrednih razmer znotraj Unije in zagotovitev pretoka plina do solidarnostno zaščitenih odjemalcev.
When adopting the measures needed to implement the solidarity mechanism, Member States have to agree on a number of technical, legal and financial issues in their bilateral arrangements and describe them in their emergency plans.
Pri sprejemanju ukrepov, ki so potrebni za izvajanje solidarnostnega mehanizma, se morajo države članice v okviru dvostranskih dogovorov sporazumeti o številnih tehničnih, pravnih in finančnih vprašanjih ter jih opisati v svojih načrtih za izredne razmere.
To assist Member States with implementation, and having consulted the Gas Coordination Group, the Commission has prepared this non-binding guidance on the key elements that should be included in such arrangements,
Da bi državam članicam pomagala pri izvajanju, je Komisija po posvetovanju s koordinacijsko skupino za plin pripravila te nezavezujoče smernice o ključnih elementih, ki bi jih bilo treba vključiti v te dogovore –
Member States should follow the legally non-binding guidelines in the Annex to this Recommendation.
Države članice bi morale upoštevati pravno nezavezujoče smernice iz Priloge k temu priporočilu.
These guidelines should help Member States put in place technical, legal and financial arrangements to apply the solidarity obligations in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 and describe them in the emergency plans they are required to draw up under the Regulation.
Te smernice bi morale državam članicam pomagati pri sprejemanju tehničnih, pravnih in finančnih dogovorov za izpolnjevanje solidarnostnih obveznosti iz člena 13 Uredbe (EU) 2017/1938 ter opisu teh dogovorov v načrtih za izredne razmere, ki jih morajo pripraviti v skladu z uredbo.
OJ L 280, 28.10.2017, p.
UL L 280, 28.10.2017, str.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1938 (‘the Regulation’) translates the concept of solidarity into practice and establishes a solidarity mechanism between the Member States that comes into play when the conditions set out in the relevant provisions are fulfilled.
Z Uredbo (EU) 2017/1938 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: „uredba“) se pojem solidarnosti uveljavlja v praksi in med državami članicami vzpostavlja solidarnostni mehanizem, ki se začne uporabljati, ko so izpolnjeni pogoji iz zadevnih določb.
Solidarity is a mechanism of last resort: it allows gas to flow uninterrupted, in a spirit of solidarity, to the most vulnerable.
Solidarnostna pomoč je zadnje sredstvo: v duhu solidarnosti omogoča neprekinjen pretok plina do najbolj ranljivih odjemalcev.
These are household customers and certain essential services defined as ‘solidarity-protected customers’ in Article 2(6) of the Regulation.
Ti vključujejo gospodinjske odjemalce in nekatere osnovne storitve, ki so v členu 2(6) uredbe opredeljene kot „solidarnostno zaščiteni odjemalci“.
The solidarity mechanism
Solidarnostni mehanizem
If a Member State requests solidarity, the solidarity mechanism includes an obligation for the other directly connected Member States to prioritise supply to solidarity-protected customers in the requesting Member State over domestic customers with no solidarity protection.
Če država članica zaprosi za solidarnostno pomoč, so druge neposredno povezane države članice v skladu s solidarnostnim mehanizmom zavezane, da dajo prednost oskrbi solidarnostno zaščitenih odjemalcev v državi članici, ki je zaprosila za solidarnostno pomoč, pred oskrbo domačih odjemalcev brez solidarnostne zaščite.