natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice may nevertheless take into account the common intention of the parties expressed in the declarations when it is called on to interpret the primary law constituted by the Treaties and other equivalent acts, i.e. the protocols and annexes.
Sodišče pa lahko kljub temu pri interpretaciji primarne zakonodaje, ki jo sestavljajo pogodbe in enakovredni akti, kot so protokoli in priloge, upošteva skupni namen, ki so ga različne strani izrazile v izjavah.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) has ruled that effective protection of the rights granted by the Treaty requires that individuals who have suffered a loss arising from an infringement of Articles 81 or 82 have the right to claim damages.2
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti (SES) je razsodilo, da uspešna zaščita pravic iz Pogodbe zahteva, da imajo posamezniki, ki so bili oškodovani zaradi kršitev členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe, pravico zahtevati odškodnino2.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has consistently recognised the legitimacy, in terms of the principle of equal treatment, of protecting a woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy.
Sodišče evropskih skupnosti glede načela enakega obravnavanja dosledno priznava zakonitost varstva ženske zaradi njenega biološkega stanja med nosečnostjo in po njej.
The Court of Justice of the European communities in its judgement of 2 May 2006 in Case C-217/04 (United Kingdom/European Parliament and Council)15 has acknowledged that Article 95 of the Treaty relating to the adoption of measures for the approximation of legislation for the establishment and functioning of the internal market provides an appropriate legal basis for setting up a "Community body responsible for contributing to the implementation of a process of harmonisation", when the tasks conferred on such a body are closely related to the subject-matter of the acts approximating the national legislations.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v sodbi z dne 2. maja 2006 v zadevi C-217/04 (Združeno kraljestvo proti Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu)15 potrdilo, da je člen 95 Pogodbe, ki se nanaša na sprejetje ukrepov za približevanje zakonodaje za vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga, primerna pravna podlaga za ustanovitev „organa Skupnosti, katerega naloga je prispevati k uresničitvi postopka usklajevanja“, kadar so naloge, dodeljene takemu organu, tesno povezane s področji, ki so predmet predpisov o približevanju nacionalne zakonodaje.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.
Za spore v zvezi z odpravljanjem takšne škode je pristojno Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction in any dispute relating to compensation for such damage.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno v sporih, povezanih z odškodninami za takšno škodo.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction in disputes over compensation for damages referred to in paragraph 3.
V odškodninskih sporih iz odstavka 3 je pristojno Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction over litigation among the members, between the members and the ERI and over any litigation where the Community is a party.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za pravdni spor med članicami, med članicami in ERI ter za kakršen koli pravdni spor, v katerem je udeležena Skupnost.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Office.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za odločanje na podlagi katere koli arbitražne klavzule v pogodbah, ki jih sklene urad.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities, in its judgment handed down on 6 December 2005 in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/049, declared invalid Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council10, which amended Council Directive 79/373/EEC11, in the light of the principle of proportionality.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi, ki jo je izreklo 6. decembra 2005 v združenih zadevah C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 in C-194/049, razglasilo člen 1(1)(b) Direktive 2002/2/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta10, ki je spremenila Direktivo Sveta 79/373/EGS11, za ničnega glede na načelo sorazmernosti.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) annulled Article 5(2) of the Directive in its 2011 Test Achats ruling2.
Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče EU) je v sodbi v zadevi Test-Achats iz leta 2011 razveljavilo člen 5(2) Direktive2.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also developed the interpretation of the Directives through its case-law.
Sodišče Evropske Unije je s sodno prakso tudi oblikovalo razlago obeh direktiv.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter “the Court”) has continued to specify the arrangements of Directive 85/374/EEC thus contributing to removing the differences in interpretation.
Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče) je nadaljevalo z natančno določitvijo ureditev Direktive 85/374/EGS, s čimer je prispevalo k odstranitvi razlik v razlagi.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has on several occasions been asked to explain how the VA Directives should apply in such circumstances.
Sodišče Evropske unije je bilo večkrat pozvano, naj pojasni, kako je treba uporabljati direktive o DDV v takšnih okoliščinah.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has been called, in the context of the application of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to examine the application of national order for payment procedures and their enforcement in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law.
Sodišče EU je bilo v zvezi z uporabo Direktive 93/13/EGS o nedovoljenih pogojih v potrošniških pogodbah pozvano, da prouči uporabo postopkov za nacionalni plačilni nalog in njihovo izvrševanje glede na načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti prava EU.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed that a GI constitutes an intellectual property right.7 The EU system for protecting them is exclusive and prevents Member States from running separate, parallel national or regional schemes (as in case with trade marks, for example).8 National systems exist to regulate the first step of the application process for EU GI registration and to ensure their administrative enforcement (i.e. making official checks on compliance with the product specifications set by producers, and monitoring use of a GI in the market).9
Sodišče Evropske unije je potrdilo, da je GO pravica intelektualne lastnine.7 Sistem EU za njihovo zaščito je ekskluziven in državam članicam preprečuje, da bi izvajale ločene in vzporedne nacionalne ali regionalne sheme (kot na primer velja za blagovne znamke).8 Nacionalni sistemi so vzpostavljeni za ureditev prvega koraka postopka vložitve zahtevka za registracijo GO v EU in zagotovitev njenega upravnega izvrševanja (tj. uradna preverjanja skladnosti s specifikacijami proizvoda, ki jih določijo proizvajalci, in spremljanje uporabe GO na trgu).9
The Court of Justice of the European Union is, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, competent to review the legality of legislative acts as regards compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Sodišče Evropske unije je v skladu s členom 263 PDEU pristojno za preverjanje zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, kar zadeva skladnost z načelom subsidiarnosti.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in disputes over compensation for damages referred to in paragraph 3.
V odškodninskih sporih iz odstavka 3 je pristojno Sodišče Evropske unije.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in disputes over compensation for damages referred to in paragraph 3.
Za reševanje odškodninskih sporov iz odstavka 3 je pristojno Sodišče Evropske unije.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.
Sodišče Evropske unije je pristojno za izrekanje sodb na podlagi arbitražne klavzule v pogodbah, ki jih sklene Agencija.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.
Sodišče Evropske unije je pristojno za izrekanje sodb na podlagi katere koli arbitražne klavzule v pogodbah, ki jih sklene Agencija.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.
Za odločanje na podlagi katere koli arbitražne klavzule iz pogodb, ki jih sklene Agencija, je pristojno Sodišče Evropske unije.
The Court of Justice of the European Union should have unlimited jurisdiction with regard to such fines and periodic penalties pursuant to Article 261 TFEU.
Sodišče Evropske unije bi moralo imeti neomejeno pristojnost glede teh glob ali periodičnih denarnih kazni v skladu s členom 261 PDEU.
The Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, is competent to review the legality of legislative acts, as regards compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Sodišče Evropske unije je v skladu s členom 263 PDEU pristojno za preverjanje zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, kar zadeva skladnost z načelom subsidiarnosti.
The Court of Justice offered some guidance on the concept of ‘damage’ in the case Veedfald (C-203/99); referred to some issues on the national measures of transposition in the cases against France (C-52/00), Greece (C-154/00) and Spain (C-183/00); idem in the case Skov Æg (C-402/03) and gave a definition of the concept ‘put into circulation’ in the case Declan O’Byrne (C-127/04).
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v zadevi Veedfald (C-203/99) dalo nekatere smernice za pojem „škode“; v primerih proti Franciji (C-52/00), Grčiji (C-154/00) in Španiji (C-183/00) je obravnavalo nekatera vprašanja nacionalnih ukrepov prenosa; enako v zadevi Skov Æg (C-402/03), v zadevi Declan O’Byrne (C-127/04) pa opredelilo pojem „dan v promet“.
The Court of Justice passed most of its judgments against France (8, of which 2 were in favour of the Member State), Poland (6/2), Spain (5/0), Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands (4/1, 4/1 and 4/2 respectively).
Sodišče je največ sodb izdalo v zvezi s Francijo (8, od tega je v 2 zadevah ugodilo državi članici), Poljsko (6/2), Španijo (5/0) ter Italijo, Irsko in Nizozemsko (4/1, 4/1 oziroma 4/2).
The Court of Justice recalled that the Directive does not prevent Member States from fighting against abuse of Community rights, including marriages of convenience, as stipulated in Article 35.
Sodišče je opozorilo, da Direktiva ne preprečuje državam članicam, da ukrepajo zoper zlorabo pravic Skupnosti, vključno zoper navidezne sklenitve zakonske zveze, kot je določeno v členu 35.
The Court of Justice recognises that respecting collective agreements could restrict the application of competition law.
Sodišče se strinja, da bi spoštovanje kolektivnih sporazumov lahko omejilo uporabo zakonodaje o konkurenci.
The Court of Justice recognized the importance of the freedom to conduct a business in its landmark rulings in the Scarlet61 and Sabam cases62.
Sodišče je pomen svobode gospodarske dejavnosti poudarilo v temeljnih sodbah v zadevah Scarlet61 in Sabam62.
The Court of Justice ruled that those Member States which had undertaken commitments with the United States were not entitled to do so and had breached the exclusive competence of the Community in a number of areas.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je odločilo, da tiste države članice, ki so prevzele zaveze z Združenimi državami Amerike, tega niso imele pravico storiti, in so na številnih področjih prekršile izključno pristojnost Skupnosti.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction concerning:
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za:
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction concerning:
Sodišče je pristojno za:
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in actions brought against the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, including decisions of its Board, under the conditions provided for in Articles 230 and 232 of the Treaty.
Sodišče je pristojno za razsojanje o tožbah proti Skupnemu podjetju Čisto nebo, vključno z odločitvami njegovega odbora, pod pogoji iz členov 230 in 232 Pogodbe ES.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Members which relates to the subject matter of this Regulation and the Statutes referred to in Article 5.
Sodišče je pristojno za vse spore med člani, ki se nanašajo na predmet te uredbe in na statut iz člena 5.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.
Za reševanje odškodninskih sporov je pristojno Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute over the remedying of such damage.
Za vse spore v zvezi z odpravljanjem take škode je pristojno Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute relating to compensation for such damage.
Sodišče je pristojno za odločanje v vseh sporih o odškodninah.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensating for any such damage.
Sodišče je pristojno v sporih glede povračila kakršne koli tako povzročene škode.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for any such damage.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za spore v zvezi z odškodnino za vsako takšno škodo.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for any such damage.
V sporih glede vsakega takšnega nadomestila škode je pristojno Sodišče.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for any such damage.
Za spore v zvezi z odškodninami za takšno škodo je pristojno Sodišče.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for damage caused by the staff of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking in the performance of their duties
Sodišče je pristojno za spore, povezane z nadomestilom škode, ki jo povzroči osebje Skupnega podjetja Čisto nebo pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for the damage referred to in paragraph 3.
Za reševanje sporov v zvezi z nadomestilom škode iz odstavka 3 je pristojno Sodišče.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Agency.
Sodišče je pristojno za odločanje v skladu z arbitražno klavzulo v pogodbah, ki jih sklene Agencija.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Centre.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za odločanje na podlagi arbitražne klavzule iz pogodbe, ki jo sklene cCenter.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by the Institute.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno na podlagi arbitražne klavzule, vsebovane v pogodbi, ki jo sklene Inštitut.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in agreement and contract concluded by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.
Sodišče je pristojno za izrekanje sodb na podlagi arbitražne klavzule v sporazumu in pogodbi, ki ju sklene Skupno podjetje Čisto nebo.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction under the conditions laid down in the Treaty as well as in the following cases:
Sodišče je pristojno v skladu s pogoji iz Pogodbe in v naslednjih primerih:
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions whereby the Commission has fixed a fine or imposed a periodic penalty payment.
S pritožbo zoper sklepe, s katerimi je Komisija določila globo ali naložila periodično denarno kazen, ima Sodišče neomejeno pristojnost do pregleda odločitve.
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions whereby the Commission has imposed a fine or a periodic penalty payment.
Sodišče ima neomejeno pristojnost za pregled sklepov, s katerimi je Komisija naložila plačilo denarne kazni ali periodične denarne kazni.
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction to review decisions whereby the Commission has imposed financial penalties.
Sodišče ima neomejeno pristojnost za pregled sklepov, s katerimi je Komisija naložila denarne kazni.
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 229 of the Treaty over the review of final decisions whereby a penalty is imposed under this Article.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti ima neomejeno pristojnost v smislu člena 229 Pogodbe, da pregleda končne določbe, s katerimi je določena kazen iz tega člena.
The Court of Justice should also have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for any damage arising from the non-contractual liability of the Agency.
Sodišče mora biti pristojno tudi za spore v zvezi z nadomestilom škode, ki izhaja iz nepogodbene odgovornosti agencije.
The Court of Justice should, in accordance with Article 261 of the TFEU, be given unlimited jurisdiction in respect of decisions by which the Commission imposes fines or periodic penalty payments.
Sodišču bi bilo treba v skladu s členom 261 PDEU podeliti neomejeno pristojnost v zvezi z odločitvami Komisije o naložitvi glob ali periodičnih denarnih kazni.
The Court of Justice suspended the annulment of the reform until a new proposal was put forward by the Commission.
Evropsko sodišče je zadržalo učinke razveljavitve reforme v času, dokler Evropska komisija ne predstavi novega predloga.
The Court of Justice suspended the annulment of the reform until a new proposal was put forward by the Commission.
Evropsko sodišče je zadržalo učinke razveljavitve reforme, dokler Evropska komisija ne predstavi novega predloga.
The Court of Justice suspended the annulment of the reform until a new proposal was put forward by the Commission."
Evropsko sodišče je zadržalo učinke razveljavitve reforme v času, dokler Evropska komisija ne predstavi novega predloga.
The Court of Justice upheld this reasoning in its judgement of 11 November 19999.
Sodišče je pri svoji sodbi z dne 11. novembra 19999 upoštevalo to obrazložitev.
The Court of Justice's ruling on the case currently before it will have a crucial influence on the future of administrative cooperation in the VAT field.
Odločitev, ki jo bo Sodišče EU sprejelo o pritožbi, ki je zdaj v obravnavi, bo odločilno vplivala na prihodnost upravnega sodelovanja na področju DDV.
The Court of Justice, in its Altmark judgment7, has identified a number of conditions which must be fulfilled in order for compensation for the provision of a service of general economic interest not to constitute State aid.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Altmark7 določilo številne pogoje, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da nadomestilo za opravljanje storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Court of Justice, in its Altmark judgment7, provided further clarification as regards the conditions under which public service compensation might not constitute State aid owing to the absence of any advantage.
Sodišče je v sodbi v zadevi Altmark7 nadalje pojasnilo pogoje, pod katerimi nadomestilo za javne storitve morda ne pomeni državne pomoči, če ni bilo dodeljenih nobenih ugodnosti.
The Court of Justice, moreover, has repeatedly held that the Directive’s requirements on maximum working time, paid annual leave and minimum rest periods ‘constitute rules of Community social law of particular importance, from which every worker must benefit’21.
Sodišče je poleg tega večkrat ponovilo, da zahteve Direktive o najdaljšem delovnem času, plačanem letnem dopustu in minimalnem času počitka „sestavljajo pravila prava socialne varnosti Unije, ki so posebnega pomena in do katerih mora biti upravičen vsak delavec“21.
The Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank are subject to this provision only when exercising their administrative tasks.
Za Sodišče Evropske unije, Evropsko centralno banko in Evropsko investicijsko banko se ta določba uporablja le pri izvajanju njihovih upravnih nalog.
The court of origin shall also issue such a certificate at the request of any interested party.
Sodišče izvora izda takšno potrdilo tudi na zahtevo ene od zainteresiranih strank.
The court of origin shall verify the date of service.
Sodišče izvora preveri datum vročitve.
The court of origin will only issue the certificate accompanying the return order if certain procedural safeguards have been applied during the procedure before it, in particular if the parties and the child were given an opportunity to be heard64.
Sodišče izvora bo izdalo potrdilo, priloženo odločbi o vrnitvi, le, če so bila v postopku pred tem uporabljena določena postopkovna jamstva, zlasti če je bila strankam in otroku dana možnost biti zaslišan64.
The court of the State in which the bank accounts are held should also have jurisdiction, however, if the order is requested before the action/enforcement is initiated.
Če je zahtevek za nalog vložen pred začetkom postopka/izvršbe, bi moralo biti pristojno tudi sodišče države, v kateri so bančni računi.
the Court of the State of departure or that of the destination according to the contract of carriage; or
sodišče države odhoda ali prihoda v skladu s prevozno pogodbo ali
the Court of the State of permanent residence or principal place of business of the defendant; or
sodišče države stalnega prebivališča ali sedeža poslovanja toženca ali
the Court of the State of the domicile or permanent residence of the claimant, if the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that State; or
sodišče začasnega ali stalnega bivališča tožnika, če ima toženec sedež poslovanja podjetja v tej državi in je podvržen jurisdikciji te države, ali
the Court of the State where the contract of carriage was made, if the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that State.
sodišče države sklenitve prevozne pogodbe, če ima toženec sedež podjetja v tej državi in je podvržen jurisdikciji te države.
the court of the third State was seised first in time;
je sodišče tretje države prvo začelo postopek;
The court or authority shall justify the exceptional circumstances upon request by a party.
Sodišče ali organ izjemne okoliščine upraviči na zahtevo stranke.
The court or competent authority of a Member State where a judgment was given shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex V to this Regulation.
Sodišče ali pristojni organ države članice, v kateri je bila izdana sodna odločba, izda na zahtevo ene od zainteresiranih strank potrdilo na standardnem obrazcu iz Priloge V k tej uredbi.
The court or issuing authority shall issue the EAPO pursuant to Article 21 and transmit it to the competent authority in accordance with Article 24.
Sodišče ali organ, pristojen za izdajo, izda ENZBR v skladu s členom 21 in ga pošlje pristojnemu organu v skladu s členom 24.
The court or tribunal may determine the means of proof and the extent to which evidence is taken according to its discretion.
Sodišče lahko določi dokazna sredstva in obseg izvajanja dokazov po prostem preudarku.
The court or tribunal may hold a hearing through an audio, video or email conference, if the technical means are available and if both parties agree.
Sodišče lahko obravnavo izvede z avdio ali video konferenco ali konferenco preko elektronske pošte, če so tehnična sredstva na voljo in se obe stranki strinjata.
The court or tribunal may prolong the time limits provided for in Article 4 (3) and (5), in exceptional circumstances, if necessary in order to guarantee an effective defence of the parties.
Sodišče lahko podaljša roke, predvidene v členu 4(3) in (5), če je to v izjemnih primerih potrebno za zagotovitev učinkovite obrambe strank.
The court or tribunal shall inform the claimant to that effect.
V tem primeru sodišče o tem obvesti tožečo stranko.