natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
6. meni, da je v javnem interesu izboljšati jezikovne sposobnosti sodstva v državah članicah; zato poziva države članice, naj zagotovijo, da bo takšno usposabljanje brezplačno in lahko dostopno, ter naj preučijo možnost, da bi se sodniki lahko učili tujega jezika v državi članici, v kateri se govori, na primer v povezavi s sodelovanjem pri izmenjavi sodnikov;
Considers that it is in the public interest to enhance the language skills of the judiciary in the Member States; calls on the Member States, therefore, to ensure that such training is free of charge and easily accessible, and to explore the possibility of judges being able to study a foreign language in a Member State where it is spoken, for example in conjunction with participation in a judicial exchange;
Dostop do zadevnih pravnih virov
Access to relevant sources of law
11. meni, da morajo imeti državni sodniki dostop do zbirk podatkov, ki vsebujejo tekoče predloge za sprejetje predhodnih odločb iz vseh držav članic; meni, da je prav tako koristno, da se sodbe predložitvenih sodišč, ki uporabljajo predhodno odločanje, nadalje objavljajo, kot že omenja obvestilo Sodišča o sklicih z nacionalnih sodišč za predhodno odločanje
Is of the opinion that all national judges should have access to databases containing pending references for preliminary rulings from all Member States; considers it equally useful for judgments of referring courts applying a preliminary ruling to be further publicised, as is already touched upon in the Court of Justice’s information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling
UL C 143, 11.06.2005, str.
OJ C 143, 11.06.2005, p.
1, odstavek 31. ;
1, at paragraph 31. ;
14. spodbuja razvoj spletnih orodij in pobud na področju e-učenja, ki jih je treba, medtem ko niso popoln odgovor na usposabljanje, obravnavati kot dopolnilne k medosebnemu stiku med sodniki in učitelji;
Encourages the development of online tools and initiatives in the field of e-learning, which, whilst not being a complete answer to training, should be seen as complementary to face-to-face contact between judges and trainers;
Proti bolj strukturiranemu okviru za usposabljanje sodstva v Evropski uniji
Towards a more structured framework for judicial training in the European Union
– sistematično vključen v usposabljanje za sodne poklice in v preskuse za opravljanje sodnega poklica,
– to be systematically incorporated into training for, and examinations to enter , the judicial professions,
– dodatno okrepljen čim bolj na začetku z večjo usmerjenostjo v praktične vidike,
– to be further strengthened from the earliest possible stage onwards, with an increased focus on practical aspects,
– zajema metode razlage in pravna načela, ki so lahko domačemu pravnemu redu neznana, vendar imajo pomembno vlogo v zakonodaji Skupnosti;
– to cover methods of interpretation and legal principles which may be unknown to the domestic legal order, but which play an important role in Community law;
19. poziva Komisijo, naj strogo oceni rezultate tega okvirnega programa glede na to resolucijo in oblikuje nove predloge za razvoj in raznolikost ukrepov za spodbujanje poklicnega usposabljanja sodnikov;
Calls on the Commission to evaluate rigorously the results of this framework programme, in the light of this resolution, and to formulate new proposals for the development and diversification of measures to promote professional training for judges;
Zadeve C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599, C-473/00 Cofidis [2002] ECR I-10875 in C-168/05 Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-10421. ;
Cases C-312/93 Peterbroeck [1995] ECR I-4599, C-473/00 Cofidis [2002] ECR I-10875 and C-168/05 Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-10421. ;
Okrepljen dialog med državnimi sodniki in Sodiščem
A reinforced dialogue between national judges and the Court of Justice
28. glede uvedbe obveznega postopka predhodnega odločanja se strinja s Svetom, da je pomembno, da Sodišče zagotovi navodila, na katera se lahko sklicujejo državni sodniki, ko se odločajo, ali naj zahtevajo nujni postopek;
In view of the introduction of an urgent preliminary ruling procedure, agrees with the Council that it is important for the Court of Justice to provide guidance to which national judges could refer when deciding whether to request the urgent procedure;
30. je seznanjen z oblikovanjem foruma za razprave o politikah in praksah EU na področju pravosodja ter poziva Komisijo, naj zagotovi, da bo forum svoja posvetovanja opravljal na pregleden način; je seznanjen z zavezo Komisije, da redno poroča Parlamentu in Svetu;
Takes note of the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice, and calls on the Commission to ensure that the Forum carries out its deliberations in a transparent manner; notes the Commission's commitment to report on a regular basis both to Parliament and to the Council;
Poročevalka je predvsem in najbolj želela slišati mnenja tistih, ki jih to poročilo neposredno zadeva, tj. državnih sodnikov.
Your Rapporteur sought first and foremost to hear from those directly concerned by this report, i.e. national judges.
V Odboru za pravne zadeve je 11. junija 2007 vodila obravnavo, na kateri so lahko sodniki iz Romunije, Madžarske, Združenega kraljestva in Nemčije povezali svoje izkušnje z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
On 11 June 2007, she held a hearing in the Legal Affairs Committee in which judges from Romania, Hungary, the United Kingdom and Germany were able to relate their experiences with Community law.
V drugi polovici leta 2007 je bila podrobna anketa poslana vsem državam članicam, da bi se pridobila mnenja čim več državnih sodnikov.
A detailed survey was sent to all Member States during the second half of 2007 in order to hear from as many national judges as possible.
Izpolnilo jo je več kot 2 300 sodnikov in njeni prvi rezultati so objavljeni kot priloga k temu osnutku poročila.
More than 2300 judges responded to it, and its first results are published as an annex to this draft report.
Poročevalka je prav tako sodelovala pri obravnavi o uporabi zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki jo je 3. maja 2007 organizirala poslanka EP Monica Frassoni, obravnava je zajemala predstavitev francoskega sodnika, s čimer se je poudarila tesna povezava med vlogo državnih sodnikov na eni strani in uporabo zakonodaje Skupnosti na drugi.
Your Rapporteur also participated in a hearing on the application of Community law organised on 3 May 2007 by Monica Frassoni MEP which included a presentation from a French judge, thus highlighting the close connection between the role of national judges on the one hand, and the application of Community law on the other.
Drugič, osnutek poročila se osredotoča na evropske akterje, katerih delo je povezano z državnimi sodniki.
Secondly, the draft report focuses on the European actors whose work relates to national judges.
Generalni sekretar evropske mreže za usposabljanje sodstva je 10. septembra pripravil predstavitev pred Odborom za pravne zadeve ter odgovarjal na vprašanja poslancev.
On 10 September, the Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network made a presentation to the Legal Affairs Committee and responded to Members’ questions.
Poročevalka je 18. oktobra 2007 obiskala Sodišče, da bi ugotovila dejstva, pri tem se je sestala z več sodniki in generalnimi pravobranilci, osredotočila se je predvsem na vlogo državnih sodnikov v okviru postopka predhodnega odločanja.
On 18 October 2007, your Rapporteur made a fact-finding visit to the Court of Justice to meet several judges and Advocates General, focusing primarily on the role of national judges in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure.
Končno, predstavljena je bila na srečanju strokovnjakov o usposabljanju sodstva, ki ga je pripravila Komisija 4. februarja 2008 in ki je vključevalo predstavitve evropske mreže za usposabljanje sodstva, akademije za evropsko pravo, evropskega inštituta za javno upravo in drugih.
Finally, she was represented at an experts meeting on judicial training organised by the Commission on 4 February 2008 which included presentations by the European Judicial Training Network, the Academy of European Law, the European Institute of Public Administration and others.
Ta osnutek poročila prihaja v času, ko Parlament namenja vse večjo pozornost učinkoviti uporabi zakonodaje, ki jo sprejme s Svetom, med drugim pri državnih sodnikih.
This draft report also comes at a time when Parliament is giving increased attention to the effective application, inter alia by national judges, of the laws which it adopts with the Council.
Osnutek poročila si prizadeva za nadgradnjo obstoječih pobud, da predlaga bolj strukturiran okvir za usposabljanje sodstva v Evropski uniji, ki lahko izpolni prihodnje ambicije.
The draft report seeks to build on existing initiatives to propose a more structured framework for judicial training in the European Union which is capable of fulfilling future ambitions.
Prvi pogoj za to je precej večji poudarek na jezikovnih sposobnostih sodnikov.
The first precondition to this is a much greater focus on judges' language skills.
Osnutek poročila prav tako navaja sklop priporočil, namenjenih zagotavljanju, da dobijo državni sodniki večjo vlogo v sodnem sistemu Evropske unije.
The draft report also makes a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that national judges play a greater role in the European Union judicial system.
Poleg vprašanj jezika zajema tudi boljši dostop do informacij, usposabljanje na področju zakonodaje, vlogo državnih sodnikov v postopku predhodnega odločanja in končno, kako lahko zakonodajalec Skupnosti olajša nalogo državnih sodnikov z izboljšanjem načina priprave zakonov, zlasti z zagotovijo večje preglednosti postopka.
Apart from the issue of language, it also covers better access to information, legal training, the role of the national judge in the preliminary ruling procedure, and finally how the Community legislator could facilitate the national judge's task by improving the way in which it makes law, in particular, by making the process more transparent.
PRILOGA: VPRAŠALNIK, POSLAN DRŽAVNIM SODNIKOM
ANNEX: QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO NATIONAL JUDGES
Povzetek in analiza prejetih odgovorov
Summary and analysis of responses received
Ta dokument je analiza, ki jo je opravila poročevalka, posameznih odgovorov sodnikov, ki so predložili svoja osebna mnenja in izkušnje v zvezi z zakonodajo Skupnosti kot odgovor na anketo, ki je bila opravljena v drugi polovici leta 2007.
This document is an analysis by the Rapporteur of individual responses from judges who presented their personal views and experiences in relation to Community law in response to a survey made during the second half of 2007.
Ta študija zato nikakor ni mogla biti izčrpna, prav tako ne poskuša predstaviti objektivnih dejstev ali „kazalnikov“ v smislu tistih, ki jih je razvila Evropska komisija.
This exercise could therefore not in any way be exhaustive, nor does it attempt to present objective facts or a "scoreboard" in the sense of those developed by the European Commission.
V tem poročilu je treba sklicevanja na pravo Skupnosti razumeti tudi kot sklicevanja na pravo Unije.
For the purposes of this report, references to Community law should be understood as also including Union law.
Splošne informacije
General information
(a) Ravnovesje odgovorov med „starimi“ in „novimi“ državami članicami
(a) Balance of responses between "old" and "new" Member States
b) Vrste vključenih sodišč
(b) Type of courts covered
Dostop do zakonodaje Skupnosti
Access to Community law
(a) Poznavanje dostopa do zakonodaje
(a) Knowledge of Access to Community law
(b) Jezikovne ovire
(b) Linguistic barriers
(i) Sodna praksa iz drugih držav članic
(i) Case-law from other Member States
(ii) Vprašanja prevodov
(ii) Translation issues
(iii) Primerjava različnih jezikovnih različic aktov Skupnosti
(iii) Comparing different linguistic versions of Community acts
(iv) Razpoložljivost informacij, ki niso povezane z zakonodajo ali sodno prakso
(iv) Availability of information other than legislation or case-law
(v) Nejasnost same zakonodaje Skupnosti
(v) Obscurity of Community law itself
(c) Pravno jezikovno usposabljanje
(c) Legal linguistic training
(i) Sodelovanje pri pravnem jezikovnem usposabljanju na državo članico
(i) Participation in legal linguistic training per Member State
(ii) Izvajalci pravnega jezikovnega usposabljanja
(ii) Legal linguistic training providers
Usposabljanje na področju zakonodaje Skupnosti
Training in Community law
(b) Tečaji usposabljanja, ki jih je organiziral evropski organ
(b) Training courses organised by European bodies
Postopek predhodnega odločanja
The Preliminary ruling procedure
(a) Seznanjenost s postopkom
(a) Familiarity with the procedure
(b) Praktične izkušnje s predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
(b) Practical Experience with References
(c) Trajanje postopka pred SES
(c) Length of procedure before the ECJ
(d) Preoblikovanje postavljenih vprašanj
(d) Reformulation of questions referred
(e) Navodila za naslavljanje vprašanj na SES
(e) Guidance in referring questions to the ECJ
(f) Vpliv sodbe SES na nacionalne postopke
(f) Impact of ECJ ruling on national proceedings
(g) Priporočila za izboljšanje postopka
(g) Recommendations for improving the procedure
(i) Boljša usposobljenost in boljši dostop do informacij
(i) More training and better access to information
(ii) Pospeševanje postopka
(ii) Speeding up the procedure
(iii) Slog in vsebina sodb SES
(iii) Style and content of ECJ judgments
(iv) Tesnejše sodelovanje s predložitvenim sodiščem
(iv) Engaging more intensively with the referring court
(v) Reformiranje delovnih struktur SES
(v) Reforming the working structures of the ECJ
(vi) Omejitev pravice do predložitve
(vi) Limiting the right to refer
(vii) Povečevanje stvarne pristojnosti SES
(vii) Increasing the ECJ's material jurisdiction
(viii) Strokovna pomoč
(viii) Specialised assistance
(ix) Omilitev meril doktrine acte clair
(ix) Relaxing the acte clair criteria
(x) Izboljšave nacionalnega procesnega prava
(x) Improving national procedural law
Navajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti pri strankah
Raising of Community law by the parties
(b) Zadevna področja
(b) Areas concerned
(c) Zakaj se taka področja omenjajo pred državnimi sodniki?
(c) Why such areas come before national judges
Državni sodnik kot prvi sodnik zakonodaje Skupnosti
The national judge as a "first judge" of Community law
(a) Splošen opis odnosa sodnikov
(a) A general indication of judges’ attitudes
(b) Pregled posameznih odgovorov
(b) Overview of individual responses
(i) Zakonodaja skupnosti kot sestavni del nacionalne zakonodaje in državni sodnik kot pasivni razsodnik
(i) Community law as an integral part of national law and the national judge as a passive arbiter
(ii) Dojemanje, da zakonodaja Skupnosti zadeva le čezmejne primere
(ii) Perception that Community law only affects cross-border situations
(iii) Obseg in zapletenost pravnih predpisov Skupnosti
(iii) Quantity and complexity of Community legal acts
(iv) Dodatno breme
(iv) An additional burden
(v) Nasprotovanje zakonodaji Skupnosti kot taki
(v) Hostility to Community law per se
(vi) Področje, ki je žal rezervirano za strokovnjake
(vi) An area unfortunately reserved for specialists
(vii) Generacijski izzivi
(vii) Generational challenges
(viii) Vloga, ki jo je treba razviti v prihodnosti
(viii) A role to develop in the future
(x) Očitna resničnost
(x) An obvious reality
(xi) Proaktiven odnos sodnikov
(xi) Proactive attitude of judges
(xii) Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah
(xii) Judicial cooperation in civil matters
(xiii) Potrošniške zadeve
(xiii) Consumer matters
(xiv) Težave pri uporabi doktrine acte clair
(xiv) Difficulty in applying the acte clair doctrine
Ukrepi za zagotovitev boljšega razumevanja in uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti pri državnih sodnikih
Measures to ensure a better understanding and use of Community law by national judges
(a) Povzetek predlogov
(a) Summary of suggestions
(b) Izboljšave pri vseh vidikih usposabljanja sodnikov glede zakonodaje Skupnosti
(b) Improvements in all aspects of Community law training for judges
(i) Boljše usposabljanje na področju zakonodaje
(i) More legal training
(ii) Poseben poudarek na praktičnih vidikih usposabljanja
(ii) Specific emphasis on practical aspects of training
(iii) Izmenjave in stiki med sodniki iz različnih držav članic
(iii) Exchanges and contacts between judges from different Member States
(iv) Oblikovanje skupne pravosodne kulture
(iv) Creating a common judicial culture
(vi) Posebne pripombe v zvezi z akademijo za evropsko pravo (ERA)
(vi) Specific comments regarding ERA
(vii) Evropska šola za sodstvo
(vii) A European school for the judiciary
(viii) Usklajevanje načina priprave osnutkov sodb
(viii) Harmonising the way in which judgments are drafted
(c) Boljši dostop do informacij
(c) Better access to information
(i) Več informacij na splošno
(i) More information generally
(ii) Strokovna ali specializirana literatura
(ii) Academic or specialised literature
(iii) Redna tematska glasila
(iii) Regular thematic newsletters
(iv) Zbirke podatkov o sodbah
(iv) Judgment databases
(v) Vključevanje zakonodaje Skupnosti v nacionalne zakonike in učbenike
(v) Integrating Community law in national codes and textbooks
(vi) Izboljšanje funkcije iskanja po zbirkah Curia in Eur-lex
(vi) Improving the search function on Curia and Eur-lex
(vii) Večja seznanjenost z zakonodajo Skupnosti in njena večja preglednost
(vii) More awareness and better visibility of Community law
(viii) Povezljivost nacionalnih zbirk podatkov in pravnih zbirk podatkov Skupnosti
(viii) Interoperability of national and Community legal databases
(d) Izboljšave v načinu priprave zakonodaje Skupnosti
(d) Improvements in the way Community legislation is made
(i) Sprejemanje boljše zakonodaje
(i) Better law-making
(ii) Kodifikacija in uradna zbirka zakonodaje Skupnosti
(ii) Codification and official compendia of Community law
(iii) Boljši prevod pravnih aktov in sodb SES
(iii) Better translation of legal acts and ECJ judgments
(e) Izboljšanje jezikovnih sposobnosti sodnikov
(e) Improve the linguistic capacity of judges
(f) Izboljšave nacionalnih organov in sodstva
(f) Improvements by national authorities and judiciary
(i) Boljši prenos in izvajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti
(i) Better transposition and implementation of Community law
(ii) Več časa na voljo za usposabljanje
(ii) More time available for training
(iii) Organ znotraj ministrstva za pomoč sodnikom pri vprašanjih zakonodaje Skupnosti
(iii) A body within the ministry to assist judges with Community law matters
(iv) Specializirani sodniki znotraj nacionalnih sodišč in sodniki za zveze
(iv) Specialised judges within national courts and "liaison" judges
(vi) Vloga nacionalnih vrhovnih sodišč
(vi) Role of national supreme courts
(g) EU mora „delati manj, toda bolje“
(g) The EU must "do less better"
(vii) Manj zakonodaje, več sklicevanja na subsidiarnost
(vii) Less legislation, more reference to subsidiarity
(viii) Odprava neposrednega učinka
(viii) Abolishing direct effect
(h) Izboljšave na ravni SES
(h) Improvements at ECJ level
(i) Oblika in slog sodb
(i) Form and style of judgments
(ii) Tesnejši stik z državnimi sodniki
(ii) Closer contact with national judges
(i) Usposabljanje odvetnikov
(i) Training lawyers
(j) Spreminjanje temeljnih značilnosti Unije
(j) Changing fundamental characteristics of the Union
Kopija vprašalnika, poslana državnim sodnikom 1.
Copy of the questionnaire sent to national judges 1.
Poročevalka je 18. julija 2007 vprašalnik poslala vsem stalnim predstavništvom, da ga razpošljejo državnim sodnikom.
On 18 July 2007, a questionnaire was sent by your Rapporteur to all Permanent Representations, for circulation to national judges.
Skupno število odgovorov v osmih jezikih Skupnosti je preseglo število 2 300.
The total number of responses exceeded 2300, in eight Community languages.
Zaradi praktičnih razlogov je bil prvi izbor narejen na podlagi popolnosti prejetih odgovorov ter da bi najbolj izražal ravnovesje med državami članicami.
For practical reasons, a first selection was made on the basis of the completeness of the answers received, and to reflect the best possible balance between Member States.
Skupno število odgovorov, obdelanih v prvem koraku, je bilo 1 160, pri čemer so se preostali odgovori in več vprašanj ohranili za poznejšo analizo.
The total number of answers processed as a first step was 1160, with the remaining answers and several questions kept for a subsequent analysis.
Odgovori so prispeli iz vseh 27 držav članic, pri čemer je največ analiziranih odgovorov prišlo iz Nemčije (44 %), Poljske (19 %), Francije (6 %), Bolgarije (6 %), Slovenije (5 %) in Avstrije (4 %).
Answers were received from all 27 Member States, with most answers analysed coming from Germany (44%), Poland (19%), France (6%), Bulgaria (6%), Slovenia (5%) and Austria (4%).
Precejšnje število anketirancev prihaja iz držav članic, ki so k EU pristopile v letih 2004 in 2007 (37 %), zato je ravnovesje med temi odgovori in odgovori iz drugih držav članic (63 %) ustrezno.
A substantial number of respondents came from Member States having acceded in 2004 and 2007 (37%) and thus there is a fair balance between these answers and those from other Member States (63%).
(b) Vrste vključenih sodišč
(b) Type of courts covered
Raziskava je zajela številna sodišča, pri čemer je bil največji delež sodišč s področja uprave, zaposlovanja, financ, sociale in dela.
The survey covered a wide variety of courts, with the largest contingents being administrative, employment, financial, social and labour courts.
Nekaj anketirancev (8 %) je trdilo, da sploh ne znajo poiskati virov zakonodaje Skupnosti.
A small minority of respondents (8%) claimed they did not know how to access Community law sources at all.
Med tistimi, ki ne znajo poiskati virov zakonodaje Skupnosti, jih 18 % redno dostopa do sodne prakse Sodišča (v nadaljnjem besedilu SES
Of those who did know how to access Community law, 18% accessed case-law of the Court of Justice (hereinafter, ECJ
Ta izraz se uporablja v najširšem smislu ter vključuje Sodišče prve stopnje in Sodišče za uslužbence. ), medtem ko velika večina to počne redko (65 %), 17 % pa tega ni nikoli storilo.
This expression is understood in the widest sense, comprising the Court of First Instance and Civil Service Tribunal. ) regularly whilst a large majority (65%) only did so rarely, and 17% never did so.
V EU so bile očitne razlike glede poznavanja dostopa do zakonodaje Skupnosti v EU.
Certain discrepancies in knowledge were apparent throughout the EU.
Pokazalo se je, da obstaja večja verjetnost, da do zakonodaje Skupnosti ne znajo dostopati „stare“ države članice (10 %) kot „nove“ (5 %).
Knowledge of access to Community law was more likely to be unknown in "old" Member States (10%) than in "new" ones (5%).
Kljub temu so med sodniki, ki ne znajo dostopati do zakonodaje Skupnosti, sodno prakso SES redneje uporabljali sodniki iz „starih“ držav članic (glej spodnji graf).
However, amongst those judges who did know how to access Community law, judges from the "old" Member States consulted ECJ case-law more regularly (see chart below).
Odgovori so se močno razlikovali tudi glede na področje nacionalnega sodišča.
The answers varied also widely in relation to the subject area of the national court.
Veliko večja verjetnost je bila, da bodo sodno prakso SES pogosteje uporabljali na primer sodniki s področja intelektualne lastnine, sodniki, ki se ukvarjajo zlasti s finančnimi in davčnimi zadevami, ter upravni sodniki (75 %, 60 % in 46 %) kot njihovi kolegi na sodiščih, ki obravnavajo zadeve s področja dela/zaposlovanja in socialnega prava (20 % in 25 %).
For example, intellectual property judges, judges dealing mainly with financial or taxation matters, and administrative judges (75%, 60% and 46% respectively) were much more likely to consult ECJ case-law regularly than their colleagues in courts dealing with labour/employment issues or social law (20% and 25% respectively).
Tudi noben sodnik s področja družinskega ali kazenskega prava ni odgovoril, da redno uporablja sodno prakso SES.
Finally, not a single responding judge dealing with family or criminal law claimed to consult ECJ case-law regularly.