natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V primeru denarnih kazni sodniki ali sodišča vsake države članice določijo znesek kazni, upoštevajoč povzročeno škodo, vrednost blaga, ki povzroča kršitev, ali pridobljeno korist, v vseh primerih pa je kot glavni kriterij upoštevano finančno stanje kršitelja, ki ga lahko ugotovimo glede na njegovo premoženje, dohodke, družinske obveznosti in bremena ter druge osebne okoliščine.
In the case of financial penalties, the courts in each Member State shall determine the amount of the fine imposed, taking into account the damage caused and the value of the infringing goods or the profit derived therefrom and, as the main consideration in all cases, the economic situation of the infringer, as shown by his assets, income, family obligations, dependants and other personal circumstances.
Določitev fiksnih vsot za kazni v primeru kršenja pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki jo ta člen določa, je preveč toga in se verjetno težko sklada z načelom subsidiarnosti.
The establishment of fixed fines applicable to intellectual property rights infringements laid down in this article is too inflexible and probably difficult to reconcile with the principle of subsidiarity.
Predlog spremembe to načelo usklajuje s ciljem harmonizacije, ki je namen tega predloga.
The amendment seeks to bring the principle into line with the objective of harmonisation pursued by the proposal.
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, ki jim omogočijo celotno ali delno zaplembo premoženja fizične ali pravne osebe, ki je obsojena v skladu z določbami iz člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi dejanji, vsaj če so bila ta kazniva dejanja storjena v okviru kriminalne združbe v smislu Okvirnega sklepa … o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu , pa tudi če ta kazniva dejanja pomenijo tveganje za zdravje ali varnost ljudi.
The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
Države članice, ne da bi kršile temeljne pravice, sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, ki jim omogočijo celotno ali delno zaplembo premoženja fizične ali pravne osebe, ki je obsojena v skladu z določbami iz člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi dejanji, vsaj če so bila to huda kazniva dejanja, pa tudi če ta kazniva dejanja pomenijo tveganje za zdravje ali varnost ljudi.
The Member States shall , without infringing fundamental rights, take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 of February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are a serious crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
Skrb povzroča, da je člen 6 omejen na kazniva dejanja, storjena zgolj v okvirih „organiziranega kriminala“.
It is a concern that Article 6 is restricted to offences only committed in the context of 'organised crime'.
Ta člen bo koristen le, če se uporablja za vsa kazniva dejanja, ki imetnikom pravic povzročajo resno poslovno škodo, ne glede na to, ali se te kršitve zagrešijo v zvezi z organiziranim kriminalom.
This article will only be useful if it applies to all offences causing serious commercial harm to rights-holders, irrespective of whether these infringements were committed in the context of organised crime.
V členu 6 predloga okvirne direktive bi bilo zato treba črtati omembo „organiziranega kriminala“ in jo nadomestiti z izrazom „huda kazniva dejanja“.
Article 6 of the proposal for a framework decision should therefore delete the reference to 'organised crime' and replace it by the term 'serious crimes'.
Države članice zagotovijo, da lahko zadevni imetniki pravic intelektualne lastnine ali njihovi predstavniki ter strokovnjaki prispevajo k preiskavam, ki jih opravljajo skupne preiskovalne enote v zvezi s kaznivimi dejanji iz člena 3.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives , and experts, are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams into the offences referred to in Article 3.
Države članice zagotovijo, da zadevni imetniki pravic intelektualne lastnine ali njihovi ustrezno pooblaščeni predstavniki ter strokovnjaki nudijo informacije skupnim preiskovalnim enotam , ki preiskujejo kazniva dejanja iz člena 3.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of the intellectual property rights concerned, or their duly mandated representatives and experts, shall provide information to the joint investigation teams investigating the offences referred to in Article 3.
Besedilo tega člena je premalo jasno: da sodišče dovoli vsaki stranki, da ima svoje strokovnjake, je legitimno.
The wording of this article is too vague: it is legitimate that the Court allows each of the parties to have their experts.
Vseeno pa je treba omejiti neposredno vključevanje imetnikov PIL v preiskavo; sicer bi lahko imetniki pravic ogrozili kazenski postopek tako, da bi ogrozili nepristransko in pravično preiskavo.
However, direct involvement of the representatives of the holder of the IPRs into the investigation must be limited; otherwise right-holders could jeopardize the criminal procedures by endangering the impartial and fair investigation.
Besedilo, ki ga predlaga Komisija, ni sorazmerno; saj bi morala o tem odločati sodišča.
The text proposed by the Commission is disproportionate; as this should be left to the Courts to interpret.
Med preiskavo in sodnim postopkom se v celoti spoštuje člen 8 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, ki zadeva varovanje osebnih podatkov, in direktivo 95/46/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in prostem pretoku takšnih podatkov 1 .
Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the protection of personal data, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 1 shall be fully respected in the course of investigations and judicial proceedings.
Namen direktive je zaščititi pravice in svoboščine ljudi, kar zadeva obdelavo osebnih podatkov, tako, da postavi smernice, ki bodo določale, kdaj je taka obdelava zakonita.
The Directive aims to protect the rights and freedoms of persons with respect to the processing of personal data by laying down guidelines determining when this processing is lawful.
Države članice zagotovijo, da vsaj v primeru storitve dejanj na ozemlju države članice možnost uvedbe kazenskih preiskav ali postopkov v zvezi s kaznivimi dejanji iz člena 3 ne temelji na izjavi ali obtožbi osebe, ki je žrtev kaznivega dejanja.
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 are not dependent on a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
Države članice zagotovijo, da vsaj v primeru storitve dejanj na ozemlju države članice možnost uvedbe kazenskih preiskav ali postopkov v zvezi s kaznivimi dejanji iz člena 3 je možno le-te sprožiti tudi brez izjave ali obtožbe osebe, ki je žrtev kaznivega
Member States shall ensure that the possibility of initiating investigations into, or prosecution of, offences covered by Article 3 may be initiated even without a report or accusation made by a person subjected to the offence, at least if the acts were committed in the territory of the Member State.
Čeprav določa pogoje za sprožitev kazenskega postopka, ta predlog spremembe ohranja prilagodljivost predlaganega postopka.
This amendment, while clarifying the conditions for initiating criminal investigations or proceedings, retains the flexibility of the proposed provision.
Zelo je pomembno, zlasti v primerih, ko je ogroženo javno zdravje, kjer je imetnik pravice nedoločen, da se kazenski postopek lahko sproži, tudi ko žrtev prekrška ne poda izjave.
It is very important, especially when public health may be at risk, and where the right-holder cannot be determined, to be able to initiate such steps without a report made by the person subjected to the offence.
Predlog Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o kazenskih ukrepih za zagotavljanje uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine
Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
Po sodbi Evropskega sodišča z dne 13. septembra 2005 (zadeva C 176/03 Komisija proti Svetu) je Evropska komisija spremenila predlog direktive o kazenskih ukrepih za zagotavljanje uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine.
Following the European Court of Justice's judgement of 13 September 2005 (Case C 176/03 Commission v Council), the European Commission amended its proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Vprašanje varstva intelektualne lastnine je velikega pomena za evropska podjetja, saj morajo le-ta imeti zagotovila, da bodo njihove naložbe donosne.
The issue of the protection of intellectual property is of particular importance for European companies, which need to make sure that their investments are going to be profitable.
Brez varstva intelektualne lastnine pa se naložbe – in posledično inovacije – v Evropi lahko zaustavijo.
Without such a protection of intellectual property, investments and consequently innovation may slow down in Europe.
Na evropski ravni je treba opredeliti določena skupna merila, ki bodo omogočala učinkovitejši boj proti ponarejanju in piratstvu: s tem namenom predlog vzpostavlja skupne opredelitve in skupne višine kazni.
Some common grounds need to be defined at the European level so as to fight more effectively against counterfeiting and piracy: this proposal therefore establishes common definitions and common levels of penalties.
Namen predloga je tudi ta, da se olajšajo kazenske preiskave v zvezi s kršitvami pravic intelektualne lastnine.
This proposal also intends to facilitate criminal investigations related to infringements of intellectual property rights.
Pripravljavec mnenja podpira predlagano direktivo, a vseeno želi izpostaviti potrebo po natančni opredelitvi pomembnih izrazov, zlasti kadar so osrednja komponenta opredelitve kaznivega dejanja.
The draftsman supports the proposed directive but draws attention to the need to precisely define important terms in the directive, especially when they are a central component of the definition of the offence.
Države članice morajo predvideti, da lahko zadevni imetniki pravic intelektualne lastnine ali njihovi predstavniki ter strokovnjaki prispevajo k preiskavam, ki jih opravljajo skupne preiskovalne enote.
The Member States must ensure that the holders of intellectual property rights concerned, or their representatives, and experts are allowed to assist the investigations carried out by joint investigation teams .
Zaradi splošne pravne politike je treba zavrniti vse, kar bi se lahko zdelo kot privatizacija kazenskega pregona v korist zainteresiranih posameznikov.
What may appear as the privatisation of criminal prosecution in favour of individual stakeholders’ interests implied therein should be rejected for reasons of general legal policy.
V demokratičnih družbah, ki jih zavezuje pravna država, ima država pravni monopol nad uporabo sile.
In democratic societies bound by the rule of law, the state is endowed with a legal monopoly over the use of force.
Zasebniki niso upravičeni do uporabe ukrepov kazenskega pregona, da bi se borili proti kršitvam zakonov, ki jih zagrešijo njihovi sodržavljani.
Private parties are not entitled to avail themselves of criminal prosecution measures in order to combat violations of the law committed by fellow citizens.
Člen 4, odstavek 2, točka (b)
Article 1, paragraph 2
Ti ukrepi se uporabljajo za pravice intelektualne lastnine , predvidene v pravu Skupnosti in/ali nacionalnem pravu držav članic.
These measures shall apply to intellectual property rights provided for in Community legislation and/or national legislation in the Member States.
V področje uporabe direktive so zajete vsaj naslednje pravice intelektualne lastnine :
At least the following intellectual property rights are covered by the scope of the Directive:
b) avtorski sorodne pravice;
b) rights related to copyright;
c) pravica sui generis ustvarjalca podatkovne baze;
c) sui generis right of a database maker;
d) pravice ustvarjalca topografije polprevodniškega proizvoda;
d) rights of the creator of the topographies of a semiconductor product;
e) pravice blagovne znamke;
e) trademark rights;
f) pravice modela;
f) design rights;
g) pravice uporabnih modelov;
g) utility model rights;
Za boljšo, preglednejšo in lažje razumljivo zakonodajo, je treba natančneje opredeliti materialno področje uporabe direktive.
The material scope of the directive must be defined more precisely, in order to achieve the objective of better, more transparent and more readily comprehensible legislation.
Ni naloga Komisije, da bi pri opredeljevanju, kako naj se tolmačijo direktive – namreč z objavljanjem mnenj –, obšla zakonodajo, saj imajo daljnosežne posledice.
It cannot be the task of the Commission to bypass - through the publication of opinions - the legislature in defining the way in which directives are to be interpreted, with such far ‑reaching implications.
Poleg tega bo seznam, ki temelji na členu 2 Direktive 2004/48/ES, pristojnemu odboru olajšal izključitev posebnih področij zakonodaje iz področja uporabe določb, z ločenim glasovanjem, če bo menil, da je to potrebno.
The list based on Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC will, moreover, make it easier for the committee responsible to exclude specific areas of law from the scope of the provisions, if it considers this to be necessary, through separate votes.
Člen 5, odstavek 2 (a) (novo)
Article 1, paragraph 2 a (new)
- z vzporednim uvozom izvirnega blaga, ki se trži s privolitvijo imetnika pravice v tretji državi.
- parallel importation of original goods which have been marketed with the agreement of the right-holder in a third country.
Področje uporabe te direktive je treba omejiti.
The scope of this Directive needs to be limited.
Člen 2, odstavek 1 (a) (novo)
Article 2, paragraph 1 a (new)
„Kršitev v trgovinsko pomembnem obsegu“ pomeni dejanja, storjena z namenom ustvarjanja neposrednega gospodarskega ali trgovskega dobička, ali dejanja, storjena v tako velikem obsegu, da lahko imetniku te pravice povzročijo znatno neposredno izgubo.
“On a commercial scale” means acts carried out with the intention to earn a direct economic or commercial profit, or acts carried out on such a large scale that may cause a significant direct loss for the holder of that right.
Izraz „trgovinsko pomemben obseg“ je bistven za opredelitev kaznivega dejanja in mora biti natančno opredeljen.
The term 'commercial scale' is central to the definition of the offence, and needs to be precisely defined.
Ne sme vključevati le dejanj, ki imajo gospodarsko ali tržno namero, temveč tudi resno piratstvo v velikem obsegu, torej takšno, ki presega posamezno ali osebno uporabo, in četudi storilcu ne prinaša gospodarske koristi, lahko povzroči zelo veliko škodo imetniku pravic.
It must include not only acts that have an economic or commercial intention, but also serious acts of piracy on a large scale, that is, for more than individual or personal use, which may have no economic advantage for the offender but which may cause very substantial harm to the right-holder .
Člen 3, odstavek 1 (a) (novo)
Article 3, paragraph 1 a (new)
Države članice zagotovijo, da se kot kaznivo dejanje obravnavajo vse namerne kršitve blagovnih znamk, če se te zagrešijo v trgovinsko pomembnem obsegu in z uporabo oznake, ki je enaka oznaki blagovne znamke, v povezavi z blagom ali storitvami, ki so enake kot tiste, za katere je registrirana blagovna znamka.
Member States shall ensure the treatment as criminal offences, when committed on a commercial scale, of all intentional trade mark infringements consisting of the use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical to those for which the trade mark is registered.
Področje uporabe te direktive je treba omejiti.
It is convenient to define separately copyright and trademark infringements
Za kazniva dejanja iz člena 3 države članice določijo, da se v ustreznih primerih uporabijo tudi naslednje kazni :
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall provide that the following penalties are also available in appropriate cases:
Za kazniva dejanja iz člena 3 države članice v ustreznih primerih določijo tudi ukrepe, s katerimi poskrbijo, da je odgovorne fizične ali pravne osebe mogoče kaznovati z učinkovitimi, sorazmernimi in odvračilnimi kaznimi, kot na primer:
For the offences referred to in Article 3, the Member States shall also provide , in appropriate cases , for the necessary measures to ensure that a natural or legal person held liable is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, such as:
(a) uničenje premoženja, ki je povzročilo kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine;
(a) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right;
(a) izvzetje iz upravičenosti do javnih subvencij ali pomoči ;
(a) exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
(b) celotno ali delno, trajno ali začasno zaprtje obrata, s katerim je bila pretežno storjena zadevna kršitev ;
(b) total or partial closure, on a permanent or temporary basis, of the establishment used primarily to commit the offence;
(b) začasna ali trajna prepoved trgovinske dejavnosti ;
(b) temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities;
(c) trajna ali začasna prepoved opravljanja gospodarskih dejavnosti ;
(c) a permanent or temporary ban on engaging in commercial activities;
(c) uvedba sodnega nadzora ;
(c) placing under judicial supervision;
(d) uvedba sodnega nadzora ;
(d) placing under judicial supervision;
(d) sodna odredba o likvidaciji ;
(d) a judicial winding-up order;
(e) sodna likvidacija;
(e) judicial winding-up;
(e) začasno ali trajno zaprtje obratov, ki so bili uporabljeni pri kršitvi ;
(e) temporary or permanent closure of establishments which have been used for committing the offence;
(f) izvzetje iz upravičenosti do pomoči in javnih subvencij;
(f) a ban on access to public assistance or subsidies;
(f) objava sodnih odločb ;
(f) publication of judicial decisions;
(g) objava sodnih odločb.
(g) publication of judicial decisions.
(g) uničenje premoženja, ki je povzročilo kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine .
(g) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right.
Glej obrazložitev k prvemu predlogu spremembe.
See justification relating to first amendment.
Poleg tega ne bi smeli „znova izumljati“ vsebine in oblike zadevnega seznama kazni za vsako zakonodajno besedilo posebej.
Furthermore, the substance and wording of the relevant list of penalties should not be 'reinvented' in the case of every legislative text.
Kazni, predlagane v točkah od (a) do (e), so zato povzete po besedilu predloga Sveta za Okvirni sklep Sveta o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu, 8496/1/06 (2005/003(CNS)), in dopolnjene s posebnimi predlogi iz izvirnega besedila, ki se nanašajo na tekoče zadeve.
The penalties proposed under (a) to (e) have therefore been taken from the Council's proposed text for a Council framework decision on the fight against organised crime, 8496/1/06 (2005/003(CNS)), and supplemented by specific proposals in the original text relating to the current matter.
Člen 4, odstavek 2, točka(a)
Article 4, paragraph 2, point (a)
(a) uničenje blaga , ki je povzročilo kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine in, v ustreznih primerih, zaplemba ali uničenje gradiva ali elementov, ki so bili pretežno uporabljeni za oblikovanje ali izdelavo tega blaga;
(a) destruction of the goods infringing an intellectual property right and, in appropriate cases, seizure or destruction of the materials or elements principally used for the creation or manufacture of those goods ;
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, ki jim omogočijo celotno ali delno zaplembo premoženja fizične ali pravne osebe, ki je obsojena v skladu z določbami iz člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi dejanji, vsaj če so bila ta kazniva dejanja storjena v okviru kriminalne združbe v smislu Okvirnega sklepa … o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu, pa tudi če ta kazniva dejanja pomenijo tveganje za zdravje ali varnost ljudi .
The Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, at least where the offences are committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation, within the meaning of Framework Decision …. on the fight against organised crime, or where they carry a health or safety risk.
V primerih, ki so predvideni v členu 5 te direktive, države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, ki jim omogočijo celotno ali delno zaplembo premoženja fizične ali pravne osebe, ki je obsojena v skladu z določbami iz člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa 2005/212/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o zaplembi premoženjske koristi, pripomočkov in premoženja, ki so povezani s kaznivimi dejanji.
In the cases provided for in Article 5 of this Directive , the Member States shall take the necessary measures to allow the total or partial confiscation of goods belonging to convicted natural or legal persons in accordance with Article 3 of Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property.
Te razširjene pristojnosti za zaplembo bi se morale nanašati na kršitve in kazniva dejanja, za katera velja direktiva.
These extended confiscation powers should refer to the same infringements and offences to which the directive applies .
Zloraba pooblastil
Misuse of powers
Države članice zagotovijo, da se zloraba groženj s kazenskimi sankcijami lahko prepove in kaznuje s kazenskimi, civilnimi in postopkovnimi ukrepi.
Member States shall ensure that through criminal, civil and procedural measures, the misuse of threats of criminal sanctions can be prohibited and subject to penalties.
Države članice prepovejo postopkovne zlorabe, še posebej, ker se kazenski ukrepi uporabljajo za zagotavljanje izvrševanja zahtev civilnega prava.
Member States shall prohibit procedural misuse, especially as criminal measures are employed for the enforcement of the requirements of civil law.
Možnosti imetnika pravice, da odvrača morebitne kršitelje (tj. konkurente), se znatno povečajo, če jim lahko grozi s kazenskimi sankcijami.
The potential for a right-holder to deter potential infringers (i.e., competitors) increases considerably if he can threaten them with criminal penalties.
Mednarodno in evropsko pravo zahtevata preprečevanje zlorab pravic intelektualne lastnine.
Both international and European law require the prevention of misuse of IP rights.
Zlorabe izkrivljajo prosto konkurenco, kar je v nasprotju s členi 28 in nasl. ter členi 57 in nasl.
Misuse disrupts free competition, in contravention of Art. 28 et seq. and 81 et seq.
Člen 5, odstavek 2 (a) (novo)
Article 6 b (new)