natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The court or tribunal shall not oblige the parties to make any legal assessment of the claim.
Sodišče od strank ne zahteva, da podajo pravno oceno zahtevka.
The court or tribunal shall register the claim form immediately on receipt and note the date and time of receipt of all other documents it receives in the European Small Claims Procedure.
Sodišče registrira obrazec zahtevka neposredno po prejemu in zabeleži datum in čas prejema vseh ostalih dokumentov, ki jih prejme v evropskem postopku v sporu majhne vrednosti.
The court or tribunal shall respect the right to a fair trial and the principle of an adversarial process, in particular when deciding on the necessity of an oral hearing and on the means of proof and the extent to which evidence is taken.
Sodišče spoštuje pravico do nepristranskega sojenja in načelo kontradiktornosti postopka, še posebno pri odločanju o nujnosti ustne obravnave ter dokaznih sredstvih in obsegu izvajanja dokazov.
The court or tribunal shall serve the judgment on the parties in accordance with Article 11, unless it is delivered orally at the conclusion of a hearing at which both parties are present.
Sodišče vroči sodbo strankam v skladu s členom 11, razen v primeru, ko razglasi sodbo ustno po zaključku obravnave, na kateri sta prisotni obe stranki.
The Court ordered the French Republic to comply with the Directive and pay a penalty of 31 650 euros for each day of delay in taking the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the judgment of 25 April 2002, as from the date of the delivery of the new judgment.
Sodišče je Francoski republiki naložilo, da se uskladi z Direktivo in plača denarno kazen 31 650 EUR za vsak dan zamude pri izvedbi ukrepov za zagotovitev popolne izvršitve sodbe z dne 25. aprila 2002, od razglasitve nove sodbe.
the court other than the court first seized shall of its own motion decline jurisdiction in favour of that court where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for identical goods or services.
sodišče, ki ni prvo začelo postopka, po uradni dolžnosti zavrne pristojnost v prid sodišča, kjer so zadevne blagovne blagovne znamke enake ter veljajo za enako blago in storitve.
The Court pointed to the fact that under EU law, the Member States have an obligation to ensure the collection of all the VAT due, to counter illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU, and to take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU as they take to counter fraud affecting their own interests.14
Sodišče je izpostavilo dejstvo, da pravo EU državam članicam nalaga obveznost pobiranja dolgovanega DDV, da bi preprečile nezakonita dejanja, ki škodijo finančnim interesom Unije, in obveznost sprejetja enakih ukrepov kot za preprečevanje goljufij, ki škodujejo njihovim interesom14.
The Court rarely made use of it to set a date subsequent to the date of its judgment12; in any case, it never did so in cases concerning failure to notify measures to transpose directives.
Sodišče jo je le redko uporabilo za določitev dneva po izreku sodbe12; v vsakem primeru pa tega nikoli ni storilo v zadevah, ki se nanašajo na nepriglasitev ukrepov za prenos direktiv.
The Court recalled in the ruling that Directive 2004/38/EC does not prevent Member States from fighting against abuse of EU rights, including marriages of convenience, as stipulated in Article 35 of the Directive.
Sodišče je v sodbi poudarilo, da Direktiva 2004/38/ES državam članicam ne preprečuje boja proti zlorabam pravic EU, kar velja tudi za navidezno sklenitev zakonske zveze, kot je določena v členu 35 Direktive.
The Court recalled that the right to reside in the territory of a Member State is conferred directly on every citizen of the Union by Article 18(1) EC and that citizenship of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to receive the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for.
Ugotovilo je, da člen 18(1) ES vsakemu državljanu Unije neposredno priznava pravico do prebivanja na ozemlju države članice in da je status državljana Unije zasnovan kot temeljni status državljanov držav članic, ki tistim, ki se znajdejo v enakem položaju, omogoča, da so deležni enakega pravnega obravnavanja, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo in ne da bi to vplivalo na izjeme, ki so s tem v zvezi izrecno določene.
The Court recalled that the right to reside in the territory of the Member States is not unconditional but conferred subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da pravica do prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ni nepogojna, ampak se prizna v skladu z omejitvami in pogoji, določenimi v Pogodbi in ukrepih, sprejetih za njeno uresničevanje.
The Court recognised that Directive 90/364 lays down no requirement whatsoever as to the origin of the necessary sufficient resources and dismissed all objections that the condition concerning the availability of sufficient resources means that the person concerned must possess those resources personally and may not use for that purpose those of an accompanying family member.
Sodišče je priznalo, da Direktiva 90/364 ne določa nikakršnih zahtev glede izvora potrebnih zadostnih sredstev in je zavrnilo vse ugovore, da pogoj dostopnosti zadostnih sredstev pomeni, da mora zadevna oseba s temi sredstvi osebno razpolagati in v ta namen ne sme uporabiti sredstev družinskega člana, ki jo spremlja.
The Court recognised that Sapard has contributed positively to the preparation for EU-membership.
Sodišče je potrdilo, da je Sapard pozitivno prispeval k pripravi za članstvo v EU.
The Court recognised that students who go to another Member State to pursue higher education there and enjoy a right of residence there for that purpose under Directive 93/96 cannot base any right to payment of maintenance assistance on that Directive.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da študenti, ki gredo v drugo državo članico, da bi tam nadaljevali visokošolski študij, in ki v ta namen na podlagi Direktive 93/96 uživajo pravico do prebivanja, vsekakor po tej direktivi ne morejo upravičiti pravice do plačila pomoči za svoje vzdrževanje.
The Court recognised that the specificity of sport has to be taken into consideration in the sense that restrictive effects on competition that are inherent in the organisation and proper conduct of competitive sport are not in breach of EU competition rules, provided that these effects are proportionate to the legitimate genuine sporting interest pursued.
Sodišče je priznalo, da je treba posebnost športa upoštevati toliko, kolikor so omejevalni učinki na tekmovanje neobhodno potrebni za organizacijo in ustrezno izvedbo tekmovalnega športa in niso v nasprotju s predpisi EU o konkurenci, če so ti vplivi sorazmerni z zastavljenim zakonitim resničnim športnim interesom.
The Court rejected Estonia’s plea based on a breach of the principle of proportionality, considering that Estonia had not established that the various choices made by the EU legislature manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion (paragraphs 32 to 38).
Sodišče je zavrnilo tožbeni razlog Estonije, ki je temeljil na kršitvi načela sorazmernosti, in menilo, da Estonija ni dokazala, da je zakonodajalec Unije s tem, ko je sprejel različne odločitve, očitno prekoračil meje svoje diskrecijske pravice (točke 32–38).
The Court repeated that the conditions which may be required for the issue of a residence permit are laid down in the respective Directives and are exhaustive in nature.
Sodišče je ponovilo, da so pogoji, ki se jih lahko zahteva za izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje, določeni v navedenih direktivah in so omejevalne narave.
The Court reserved its main criticism to the lack of rapidity of the instrument.
Sodišče je najbolj kritiziralo počasnost instrumenta.
The Court reserved its main criticism to the lack of rapidity of the instrument.
Sodišče je najslabše ocenilo počasnost instrumenta.
The Court reversed the position it had held previously in the Lair (39/86) and Brown (197/86) judgments and concluded that assistance to students to cover their maintenance costs falls within the scope of application of the Treaty for the purposes of Article 12 EC.
Sodišče je spremenilo mnenje, ki ga je imelo prej v sodbah Lair (39/86) in Brown (197/86), in sklenilo, da pomoč študentom za kritje njihovih stroškov za vzdrževanje spada v področje uporabe Pogodbe za namene člena 12 ES.
The Court reviewed the compatibility of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant40 (EAW) with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter.
Sodišče je pregledalo skladnost Okvirnega sklepa o evropskem nalogu za prijetje40 s členoma 47 in 48 Listine.
The Court ruled in the Arens-Sikken case that it is contrary to EU law if an heir is allowed to deduct debts relating to the property inherited only where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, in the Member State in which the property is situated
Sodišče je v zadevi Arens-Sikken odločilo, da je v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU, če se dediču dovoli, da odbije dolgove, povezane s podedovanim premoženjem, samo če je oseba, katere premoženje se obravnava, v času smrti prebivala v državi članici, kjer se nahaja premoženje.
The Court ruled in this case that a Member State cannot apply inheritance tax rules which would allow a certain deduction for tax purposes from the value of an estate if the deceased lived in that Member State at the time of death but would deny it if the deceased resided in another Member State prior to death.
Sodišče je v tej zadevi odločilo, da država članica ne more uveljaviti pravil o obdavčitvi dediščine, ki bi dopuščala določene odbitke za davčne namene od vrednosti premoženja, če je umrli v času smrti živel v tej državi članici, vendar bi te odbitke zavrnila, če bi umrli pred smrtjo prebival v drugi državi članici.
The Court ruled in this case that foreign located estates should not be evaluated in a less favourable way than domestic located estates.
Sodišče je v tej zadevi odločilo, da premoženja v tujini ni mogoče vrednotiti na manj ugoden način kot domače premoženje.
The Court ruled specifically in Case C-618/10 referring to Case C-473/0027 that the principle of effectiveness precludes national legislation which does not allow the responsible court in the case where a consumer has not lodged an objection, to assess of its own motion, even though it already has the legal and factual elements necessary for that task available to it, whether a term relating to interest on late payments contained in a contract concluded between a seller and a consumer is unfair.
Sodišče je v zadevi C-618/10, v kateri se sklicuje na zadevo C-473/0027, izrecno razsodilo, da načelo učinkovitosti nasprotuje nacionalnemu pravu, ki pristojnemu sodišču v zadevi, v kateri potrošnik ni vložil ugovora, ne dovoljuje, da bi po uradni dolžnosti, čeprav ima na voljo vse potrebne pravne in dejanske elemente v ta namen, presodilo nepoštenost pogoja o zamudnih obrestih v pogodbi, ki jo je prodajalec ali ponudnik sklenil s potrošnikom.
The Court ruled that a threat to strike to force an employer to conclude a collective agreement could in this case restrict the freedom of establishment.
Sodišče je odločilo, da bi grožnja s stavko z namenom prisiliti delodajalca k sklenitvi kolektivne pogodbe v tem primeru omejevala svobodo ustanavljanja.
The Court ruled that Article 63 precludes such legislation where a non-profit organisation recognised as such in its Member State of establishment fulfils also the conditions governing analogous organisations  imposed by  the taxing Member State.
Sodišče je odločilo, da člen 63 izključuje takšno zakonodajo, kadar neprofitna organizacija, ki je kot taka priznana v državi članice sedeža, izpolnjuje tudi pogoje, ki veljajo za podobne organizacije v državi članici, ki obdavčuje.
The Court ruled that consideration of the question referred disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of these Directives, arguing, inter alia, that the Member States retain a sufficiently wide margin of discretion to ensure that the relationship of the taxes on wine and beer excludes any protection for domestic production within the meaning of Article 90 of the Treaty.
Sodišče je odločilo, da obravnavanje predloženega vprašanja ni razkrilo nobenega dejavnika, ki bi lahko vplival na veljavnost teh direktiv, in med drugim trdilo, da države članice zadržijo dovolj široke meje za presojo, da zagotovijo, da razmerje davkov na vino in pivo izključuje zaščito domače proizvodnje v smislu člena 90 Pogodbe.
The Court ruled that legislation giving public authorities general access to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life.
Razsodilo je, da zakonodaja, ki javnim organom omogoča splošen dostop do vsebine elektronskih komunikacij, ogroža bistvo temeljne pravice do spoštovanja zasebnega življenja.
The Court ruled that Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the procedures laid down in Articles 16 to 20 of the Regulation are not applicable where it appears that a European order for payment has not been served in a manner consistent with the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 of the Regulation.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da je treba Uredbo (ES) št. 1896/2006 razlagati tako, da se postopki iz členov 16 do 20 Uredbe ne uporabljajo, kadar se izkaže, da evropski plačilni nalog ni bil vročen na način, skladen z minimalnimi standardi iz členov 13 do 15 Uredbe.
The Court ruled that such a difference in treatment is incompatible with the free movement of capital.
Sodišče je odločilo, da je takšna razlika v obravnavi nezdružljiva s prostim pretokom kapitala.
The Court ruled that such measures must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance so as to support the exercise of the national authorities’ powers of appraisal.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da morajo takšni ukrepi temeljiti na objektivnih merilih, ki niso diskrimatorna in so znana vnaprej ter so za nacionalne organe okvir za izvajanje njihovih pooblastil ocenjevanja.
The Court ruled that the free movement of capital provisions prohibited Member States' legislation whereby a specially favourable valuation system and partial exemption is applicable to assets located in that Member State, as opposed to assets situated in other Member States, which are evaluated according to normal fair market value rules.
Sodišče je odločilo, da določbe o prostem pretoku kapitala prepovedujejo zakonodajo držav članic, na podlagi katere se izvaja posebej ugoden sistem vrednotenja in delno izvzetje za premoženje, ki se nahaja v tej državi članici, medtem ko se premoženje v drugi državi članici vrednoti po običajnih pravilih, ki veljajo za trg.
The Court ruled that the use of different connecting criteria for levying inheritance tax on capital claims is not contrary to EU law because at the current stage of EU law, there are no general criteria at EU level for the attribution of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Union.
Sodišče je odločilo, da uporaba različnih povezovalnih meril za obračun davka na kapitalske terjatve ni v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU, ker zaradi trenutnega stanja zakonodaje EU ni splošnih meril na ravni EU za podelitev pristojnosti med državami članicami v zvezi z odpravo dvojnega obdavčevanja znotraj Evropske unije.
The Court ruled the Data Retention Directive7 invalid for infringements of the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data guaranteed by Article 7 and 8 of the Charter.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da je direktiva o hrambi podatkov7 neveljavna zaradi kršitve temeljne pravice do zasebnosti in pravice do varstva osebnih podatkov, ki ju zagotavljata člena 7 oz. 8 Listine.
The Court said that the right to accommodation is justified all the more in situations which persist over a long time and where passengers are particularly vulnerable.
Sodišče je navedlo, da je pravica do oskrbe še zlasti pomembna ob nastanku dlje trajajočih izrednih razmer in ko so potniki še posebej ranljivi.
The court seised of an application for an EAPO shall examine whether the requirements set out in Articles 2, 6, 7 and 8 are met.
Sodišče, pri katerem je vložena vloga za izdajo ENZBR, preveri, ali so zahteve iz členov 2, 6, 7 in 8 izpolnjene.
The court seised of an application shall examine if the requirements as set out in Articles 1, 2 and 3 are met.
Sodišče, ki prejme vlogo, prouči, ali so izpolnjene zahteve, določene v členih 1, 2 in 3.
The court seised pursuant to Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 before which proceedings are pending shall also have jurisdiction to rule on a counterclaim if it falls within the scope of this Regulation.
Sodišče, pred katerim poteka postopek na podlagi členov 3, 4, 5, 6 ali 7, je pristojno tudi za odločanje o nasprotni tožbi, če ta sodi na področje uporabe te uredbe.
The court seised with the application for an EAPO may seek information from the other court referred to in paragraph 1 on all relevant circumstances of the case or require the claimant to obtain such information, such as the risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant or any refusal of a similar measure by the court seised as to the substance.
Sodišče, pri katerem je vložena vloga za izdajo ENZBR, lahko zahteva informacije od drugega sodišča iz odstavka 1 o vseh pomembnih okoliščinah zadeve ali od tožnika zahteva, da pridobi takšne informacije, kot je tveganje, da toženec preusmeri vse premoženje, ali zavrnitev podobnega ukrepa s strani sodišča, ki je začelo postopek v glavni stvari.
The court seized of an application for a European order for payment shall examine, as soon as possible and on the basis of the application form, whether the requirements set out in Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are met and whether the claim appears to be founded and admissible.
Sodišče, ki prejme vlogo za evropski plačilni nalog, čim prej in na podlagi obrazca vloge prouči, ali so izpolnjene zahteve, določene v členih 2, 3, 4, 6 in 7, in ali je zahtevek utemeljen in sprejemljiv.
The court shall admit oral testimony only where the court deems it necessary.
Sodišče dopusti zaslišanje samo, če meni, da je to potrebno.
The court shall decide whether, as an interim measure, the voting and other non-pecuniary rights of such shareholder should be suspended until a final decision is taken.
Sodišče odloči ali se kot vmesni ukrep glasovalne pravice in druge nefinančne pravice takšnega družbenika prekinejo, dokler ni sprejeta končna odločitev.
The court shall deliver the order for temporary freezing where it considers that the request of the creditor is not manifestly unfounded and where there is a serious risk of non execution from the debtor.
Sodišče izda nalog za začasno zamrznitev, kadar meni, da zahtevek upravičenca ni očitno brez temelja, in kadar obstaja resno tveganje, da zavezanec ne bo izvršil obveznosti.
The court shall ensure that the order is served on the defendant in accordance with national law by a method that shall meet the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 below.
Sodišče zagotovi, da se nalog vroči toženi stranki v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo na način, ki izpolnjuje minimalne standarde, določene v členih 13 in 15 spodaj.
The court shall examine the claim, including the issue of jurisdiction and the description of evidence, on the basis of the information provided in the form.
Sodišče prouči zahtevek, vključno z vprašanjem pristojnosti in opisom dokazov, na podlagi podatkov iz obrazca.
The court shall give a decision within 8 days on the creditor’s application, without notice of the application to the debtor and without providing him an opportunity to be heard.
Sodišče odloči o zahtevku upravičenca v 8 dneh brez posvetovanja z zavezancem o vložitvi te vloge in ne da bi zavezancu omogočilo biti zaslišan.
The court shall reject the application if
Sodišče vlogo v celoti zavrne, če:
The court shall reject the application in whole if the requirements laid down in Article 4 are not fulfilled for the claim at issue or parts thereof.
Sodišče vlogo v celoti zavrne, če za zadevni zahtevek ali njegove dele niso izpolnjene zahteve iz člena 4.
The court shall send the enforceable European order for payment to the claimant.
Sodišče izvršljivi evropski plačilni nalog pošlje tožeči stranki.
The court shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the decision is enforced including the following:
Sodišče sprejme vse ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev izvrševanja odločbe, vključno z:
The court shall use the standard form in the Annex.
Sodišče uporabi standardni obrazec iz Priloge.
The court should deliver a European payment notification after an examination of compliance with the formal requirements set out in this Regulation.
Sodišče bi moralo izdati evropsko obvestilo o plačilu po preverjanju skladnosti s formalnimi zahtevami, določenimi v tej uredbi.
The court should ensure full compliance with the minimum procedural standards and issue a standardised European order for payment.
Sodišče mora zagotoviti popolno skladnost z minimalnimi procesnimi standardi in izdajo standardiziranega evropskega plačilnega naloga.
the court should in principle give its judgment within 30 days of hearing the views of the parties at a hearing or of having received all the information it needs to take a decision.
sodišče mora sodbo načeloma izdati v 30 dneh po tem, ko je zaslišalo stranke na glavni obravnavi ali prejelo vse podatke, potrebne za izdajo sodbe.
The court should therefore reject a plan where it is likely that the attempted restructuring reduces the rights of dissenting creditors below what they could reasonably expect to receive in the absence of a restructuring of the debtor's business.
Sodišče bi zato moralo zavrniti načrt, pri katerem je verjetno, da bo načrtovano prestrukturiranje pravice upnikov, ki nanj ne pristajajo, skrčilo pod raven, ki bi jo upravičeno lahko pričakovali, če dolžnikovo podjetje ne bi bilo prestrukturirano.
The Court stated that since the assessment of inheritance and transfer taxes was, under the legislation at issue, directly linked to the value of the immovable property, there was no difference in situation such as to justify unequal tax treatment with regard to immovable property situated in the Member State at issue, depending on the place where the deceased resided at the time of his death.
Sodišče je navedlo, da zaradi dejstva, da je bila ocena davkov na dediščino in prenos v skladu z zadevno zakonodajo, neposredno povezana z vrednostjo nepremičnine, ni bilo nobene razlike v položaju, ki bi upravičevala neenako davčno obravnavo nepremičnine, ki se nahaja v zadevni državi članici, glede na mesto prebivališča umrlega v času smrti.
The Court stated that such legislation is contrary to the provisions on free movement of capital, because the application of a longer limitation period to heirs holding shares in a company which has centre of effective management abroad may have the effect of deterring residents of the taxing Member State from investing or maintaining investments in assets situated outside that Member State.
Sodišče je odločilo, da je takšna zakonodaja v nasprotju z določbami o prostem pretoku kapitala, ker uporaba daljšega zastaralnega roka za dediče z delnicami v podjetju, ki ima sedež dejanskega upravljanja v tujini, lahko rezidente države članice, ki obdavčuje, odvrača od naložb ali ohranjanja naložb v premoženje, ki se nahaja zunaj te države članice.
The Court stated that the retention of traffic data (and implicitly the directive) constitutes serious interference with the fundamental right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Sodišče je navedlo, da hramba podatkov o klicanih številkah in prejetih klicih (in s tem implicitno direktiva) hudo posega v temeljno pravico zasebnosti, ki je zapisana v členu 7 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.