natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– člen 5(1)(c): "zakonit odvzem prostosti, ki je potreben zato, da bi osebo privedli pred pristojno sodno oblast ob utemeljenem sumu, da je storila kaznivo dejanje, ali kadar je to utemeljeno zato, da bi preprečili storitev kaznivega dejanja ali beg po storjenem kaznivem dejanju". .
- Art. 5(1)c "the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so" .
Nikoli ne sme biti obvezen ali uporabljen v kaznovalne namene
It shall never be compulsory nor be used for punitive reasons
Priporočilo Sveta Evrope, Rec(2006)13. .
Recommendation of the Council of Europe, Rec(2006)13. .
V fazi pred sojenjem bi morali zato v največji možni meri uporabljati nadzorne ukrepe brez odvzema prostosti.
Consequently, in the pre-trial stage the widest possible use should be made of non-custodial supervision measures.
Nadzorni ukrepi v zvezi z alternativami priporu pred sojenjem skušajo načeloma odpraviti tri klasične nevarnosti, ki utemeljujejo odvzem prostosti (nevarnost bega, nevarnost uničenja dokazov in nevarnost ponovitve kaznivega dejanja).
The supervisory measures regarding the alternatives to pre-trial detention in principle only aim to eliminate the three classical dangers that allow deprivation of liberty (danger of flight, danger of suppression of evidence and danger of repetition of offences).
V skupnem evropskem območju pravice brez notranjih meja je treba zagotoviti, da osumljena oseba, ki nima stalnega bivališča v državi, kjer poteka sojenje, ni obravnavana drugače kot osumljena oseba, ki ima stalno bivališče v tej državi.
In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that a suspect who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a suspect who is so resident.
Vendar se trenutno ne more prestaviti ali prenesti prek državnih meja različnih alternativ priporu pred sojenjem, ker ni vzajemnega priznavanja teh ukrepov in ne mednarodnih instrumentov, ki bi to posebej dovoljevali.
However, currently the different alternatives to pre-trial detention cannot be transposed or transferred across borders as there is no mutual recognition of those measures and there are not international instruments that specifically allow it.
Ta odsotnost vzajemnega priznavanja ovira sodno varstvo posameznikovih pravic.
This absence of mutual recognition obstructs the judicial protection of individual rights.
Obstaja jasna nevarnost neenake obravnave dveh kategorij oseb – državljanov EU, ki nimajo stalnega bivališča na ozemlju države članice, kjer so osumljeni storitve kaznivega dejanja, in državljanov EU, ki imajo stalno bivališče.
There is a clear risk of unequal treatment between the two categories - EU citizens who are not residents in the territory of the Member State where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence and EU citizens who are residents.
To bi lahko razumeli tudi kot oviro prostemu gibanju oseb.
Furthermore, that could also been seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega poročevalec odločno podpira nujnost tega predloga, ki bo omogočil vzajemno priznavanje predsodnih nalogov za nadzor.
Taking into account the above-mentioned, the rapporteur strongly supports the necessity of this proposal which will allow a mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision orders.
Ta instrument bi spodbudil pristojne nacionalne organe, da ne pridržijo oseb, ki nimajo stalnega bivališča v EU, v predsodnem postopku zaradi nevarnosti pobega, ampak jim omogočijo vrnitev v državo članico trenutnega zakonitega in običajnega bivališča.
This instrument would encourage competent national authorities not to detain EU non-residents in pre-trial process due to the danger of absconding but let them return to the Member State of their current lawful and ordinary residence.
Po mnenju poročevalca je pomembno pojasniti opredelitev stalnega bivališča.
In the opinion of the rapporteur it is important to clarify the definition of the residence.
Ob upoštevanju cilja predloga je bistveno, da pomen bivališča ni omejen na „stalno“ bivališče, ki je že uveljavljen termin Skupnosti.
In the light of the aim of the proposal, it is vital not to restrict the meaning of the residence to the `permanent` residence which is already well-accepted Community terminology.
Vendar je treba pojasniti, da mora biti bivanje osebe v posamezni državi članici zakonito in običajno.
However, it should be clarified that the stay of the person in a respective Member State should be lawful and ordinary.
Dejstvo, ali je bivanje zakonito in običajno, določajo dejanske okoliščine.
The fact if the residence is lawful and ordinary should be determined by de facto circumstances.
Poleg tega poročevalec predlaga razširitev področja uporabe okvirnega sklepa in vključitev možnosti, da osumljenec zahteva od pristojnega organa izdaje vrnitev v drugo državo članico in ne v svojo običajno in zakonito državo članico.
Moreover, the rapporteur proposes to widen the scope of the Framework Decision and to include a possibility of a suspect to request the issuing competent authority to return to other Member State than his or her ordinary and lawful Member State.
Kadar oseba dela v drugi državi članici, je lahko večinoma to država njenega državljanstva.
Mostly, it could be the Member State of his/her nationality in situations when a person works in another Member State.
Po mnenju poročevalca bi lahko predlog Komisije o vzpostavitvi posebnega ločenega mehanizma za privedbo oseb, ki kršijo evropski nalog za nadzor, ogrozil in otežil sedanji sistem predaje/privedbe.
In opinion of the rapporteur the Commission's proposal to create a specific separate transfer mechanism of persons who breach the European supervision order (ESO) could endanger and complicate current system of surrender/transfer.
Učinkovitost vzporednega sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje je vprašljiva.
The efficacy of the parallel system to EAW is questionable.
Zdaj postopke predaje določa Okvirni sklep Sveta o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami
At the moment there are surrender procedures provided for in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Prenos evropskega naloga za prijetje je končan in ga že uporabljajo strokovnjaki.
The implementation of the EAW is completed and it is already being used by practitioners.
Ti nalogu vse bolj zaupajo.
EAW gains more and more trust among practitioners.
Pri uporabi instrumentov za vzajemno priznavanje se ne sme podcenjevati zaupanja.
One should not underestimate the element of trust in applying instruments of mutual recognition.
V zvezi s tem poročevalec v primerih kršenja evropskega naloga za nadzor predlaga prilagoditev postopkov evropskega naloga za prijetje evropskemu nalogu za nadzor.
In this regard the rapporteur proposes to adjust the procedures of the EAW to the ESO in situations when there is a breach of the ESO.
Zdaj evropski nalog za prijetje zajema takšna dejanja, ki se po zakonu države članice izdaje kaznujejo z zaporno kaznijo ali pripornim nalogom za obdobje najmanj 12 mesecev.
At the moment the EAW covers such acts which are punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months.
Vendar je treba ob upoštevanju cilja predloga o evropskem nalogu za nadzor zajeti vsa kazniva dejanja (brez določanja praga).
However, taking into account the aim of the proposal on the ESO, all offences should be covered (without setting a threshold).
Zato je treba evropski nalog za prijetje pri uporabi evropskega naloga za nadzor razširiti, da se zajamejo vsa kazniva dejanja.
Therefore, when applying the ESO, the EAW should be extended to cover all offences.
Pred uvedbo podrobnih predlogov sprememb evropskega naloga za nadzor je treba v zvezi z razširitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje na vsa kazniva dejanja opraviti podrobno analizo in posvetovanje.
Before introducing detailed amendments to the ESO with regard to extension of the EAW to all offences, in-depth analyses and consultation should be done.
Zato poročevalec poziva Evropsko komisijo, ki ima vse potrebne vire, da pregleda predlog o evropskem nalogu za nadzor in uvede potrebne spremembe za zagotovitev možnosti uporabe postopkov predaje evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Therefore, the rapporteur calls on the European Commission, which has all necessary resources, to revise the proposal on ESO and to introduce necessary changes in order to provide for an opportunity to apply the surrender procedures of the EAW.
Če Evropska komisija meni, da je to nujno, jo poročevalec poziva, naj predloži potrebne spremembe evropskega naloga za prijetje.
If the European Commission considers it necessary, the rapporteur calls on it to submit needed changes to EAW.
Instrumenti za vzajemno priznavanje vedno vključujejo visoko raven izmenjave občutljivih in zasebnih informacij.
Instruments of mutual recognition always involve a high level of exchange of sensitive and private information.
Zato je pomembno zagotoviti varstvo podatkov.
Therefore, it is important to provide for data protection.
Poročevalec poziva Svet, naj sprejme Okvirni sklep o varstvu osebnih podatkov, ki se obdelujejo v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah
The rapporteur calls on the Council to adopt the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters
KOM(2005)0475 l – CNS 2005/0202. .
COM(2005)0475 l - CNS 2005/0202 .
Vendar trenutno pomanjkanje navedenega okvirnega sklepa ne sme znižati in ogroziti ustrezne ravni varstva podatkov.
However, current absence of the above-mentioned Framework Decision should not reduce and endanger appropriate level of the protection of data.
Zato poročevalec predlaga vstavitev posebnih členov o varstvu podatkov v predlog.
Thus the rapporteur proposes to insert in the proposal specific articles on data protection.
o predlogu okvirnega sklepa Sveta o evropskem nalogu za nadzor v predsodnih postopkih med državami članicami Evropske unije
on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union
Okvirni sklep o nalogu za nadzor v predsodnih postopkih je zelo pomemben zakonodajni predlog, katerega namen ni le zagotavljanje učinkovitejšega pravnega sodelovanja na zakonodajnem področju Evropske unije, temveč tudi ustvarjanje zakonske podlage za zmanjšanje področja uporabe pripora v korist nadzornih ukrepov brez odvzema prostosti (zlasti, ko gre za manjše kršitve).
The Framework Decision on the supervision order in pre-trial procedures is a very significant legislative proposal, aimed not only at ensuring more efficient legal cooperation within the legislative area of the European Union but also at creating the legislative background for reducing the scope of the application of arrest – a non-custodial supervision measure (especially in cases of minor offences).
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da ta zakonodajni predlog ni le pomemben, temveč nujen.
In your Draftsman's opinion, it can be unambiguously stated that this legislative proposal is not only important but absolutely necessary.
Vseeno pa se je treba vnaprej sporazumeti o nekaterih načelnih vprašanjih, da se določbe tega zakonodajnega predloga oceni s pravnega stališča.
There are, however, several matters of principle that have to be agreed upon in advance in order to assess the provisions of this legislative proposal from a legal point of view:
- Predlagana vrsta sodelovanja je zelo podobna unitarni državi in bi bilo treba o njej razpravljati, saj trenutno to pomeni "odpreti vrata v neznano" (seveda s pravnega vidika).
- The suggested type of cooperation is very similar to a unitary State and should be discussed, because at present it means ‘opening the door to nowhere’ (from a legal aspect, of course).
Nedvomno gre za politično vprašanje, vendar bo imela rešitev tega vprašanja velik zakonodajni učinek, zato mora biti pravna ubeseditev zakonodajnega predloga jasna in nedvoumna.
It is undoubtedly a political issue, yet as its resolution will have a serious legislative impact, the legal wording of the legislative proposal must therefore be clear and unambiguous.
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da besedilo žal sproža več vprašanj, kot jih reši, zato bi se bilo bolje odločiti za klasično metodo sodelovanja in pravne ureditve (kot denimo v primeru evropskega naloga za prijetje).
In your Draftsman's opinion, the text unfortunately raises more questions than it answers and it would therefore be preferable to opt for a classical method of cooperation and legal regulation (as in the case of the European arrest warrant, for example);
- Predlagani zakonodajni predlog mora jasno opredeliti, ali želi poenotiti ali uskladiti nacionalne zakone (tako, da določi, do kakšne meje lahko države v okviru svojih nacionalnih zakonov širijo zakonsko ureditev teh vprašanj).
- The proposed legislative proposal needs to define clearly whether it unifies or coordinates State laws (prescribing to what extent States can expand on the legal regulation of issues within their national laws).
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da ima zakonodajni predlog številne pravne vrzeli, ki imajo lahko hude pravne posledice za zaščito človekovih pravic in svoboščin; tako denimo ni jasno, katera država je odgovorna za škodo, ki nastane zaradi nezakonitega nadzora; nejasni so tudi nekateri postopkovni vidiki, denimo pravica osumljenca, da se pritoži zoper evropski nalog za nadzor, in drugi.
In your Draftsman's opinion, the legislative proposal has a considerable number of legal gaps, which could have grave legal consequences for guaranteeing the protection of human rights and freedoms, e.g. it is not clear which State is responsible for damage caused through illegal supervision; also certain procedural aspects, e.g. the suspect’s right to appeal against the European supervision order etc., are not completely clear.
Pripombe pripravljavca mnenja na delovni dokument Ioannisa Varvitsiotisa so podane po tem zaporedju: vidiki, ki so: a) omenjeni tako v zakonodajnem predlogu kot tudi v delovnem dokumentu Ioannisa Varvitsiotisa; b) omenjeni le v delovnem dokumentu; in c) niso omenjeni, vendar pripravljavec mnenja meni, da so pravno obvezni.
Your Draftsman's comments on Mr Varvitsiotis's working document are made according to the following logic: aspects that are: a) mentioned in both the legislative porposal and the Varvitsiotis working document; b) mentioned in the Varvitsiotis working document only; and c) not mentioned, but are legally necessary in your Draftsman's opinion:
Običajno je glavno vprašanje v zvezi z zakonodajnimi predlogi, katerih cilj je pravno sodelovanje, pravilo dvojne kaznivosti (v skladu s tem pravilom države članice sodelujejo le, ko je dejanje kaznivo v obeh državah).
Traditionally the main issue concerning legislative proposals aimed at legal cooperation is the rule of double crime (according to which Member States cooperate only when an act is deemed criminal in both States).
Evropska komisija skuša zavrniti to pravilo ali vsaj omejiti področje njegovega učinkovanja.
The European Commission keeps trying to reject this rule or at least limit its scope.
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da namerava ta zakonodajni predlog v celoti zavrniti to pravilo (člen 10), medtem ko ga delovni dokument Ioannisa Varvitsiotisa (stran 5) do neke mere dopušča, vendar le v primeru aretacije.
In your Draftsman's opinion, this legislative proposal envisages to fully reject the rule (Article 10), whereas the Varvitsiotis working document (page 5) makes allowance for it (to a certain extent), but only in the event of an arrest.
Obe stališči je treba obravnavati kot "nevarni" s številnih vidikov, saj bi to lahko (vsaj) v Litvi povzročilo ustavne težave, če se omejijo človekove pravice in svoboščine za dejanja, ki po kazenskem zakoniku Litve niso kazniva.
Both attitudes are to be considered as ‘dangerous’ in several respects, because constitutional problems could arise in Lithuania (at least) if limitations on human rights and freedoms are imposed for acts that are not deemed criminal according to the Criminal Code of Lithuania.
Po drugi strani pa, če so vključena le hujša kazniva dejanja, namen omejevanja uporabe ukrepa pripora ne bo izpolnjen.
On the other hand, if only more serious crimes are covered, the task of reducing the application of arrest will not be fulfilled.
V luči omenjenega bi bilo bolje med razlogi za zavrnitev evropskega naloga za nadzor predvideti tudi naslednjega: dejanje v državi, ki je zaprošena za nadzor, ni kaznivo (ta model je lahko podoben evropskemu nalogu za prijetje).
In view of the above, it would be preferable to provide, among other grounds for refusing the European supervision order, the following: an act in a State that is asked to carry out supervision shall not be deemed criminal (this model might be like the European arrest warrant).
Kar zadeva Litvo, gre za ključno vprašanje, povezano z ustavnimi obveznostmi.
As far as Lithuania is concerned, it is a key point related to constitutional obligations.
Pripravljavec mnenja se v celoti strinja s točkama 2 in 3 delovnega dokumenta Ioannisa Varvitsiotisa.
Your Draftsman fully agrees with points 2 and 3 of the Varvitsiotis working document.
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da bi bilo treba točko 1 delovnega dokumenta Ioannisa Varvitsiotisa dopolniti z naslednjim: a) v skladu s členom 6 zakonodajnega predloga je mogoče naložiti nadzor le med sodnimi postopki, vendar bi bilo treba to možnost zagotoviti tudi v času predsodnega preiskovalnega postopka (zlasti bi bilo treba državi, ki vodi preiskavo, dati možnost odločanja po prosti presoji); b) določbe člena 6(4) zakonodajnega predloga so pravilne in nujne, vendar niso jasne, ker ni jasen pomen besedne zveze "spremeni obveznosti": ali pomeni spremembo vrste ukrepa brez odvzema prostosti (denimo zaseg delovnih listin kot del varščine v denarju) ali se nanaša le na področje uporabe samega ukrepa brez odvzema prostosti?
In your Draftsman's opinion, point 1 in the Varvitsiotis working document should be supplemented by the following: a) according to Article 6 of the legislative proposal, supervision may be imposed during court proceedings only, but this possibility should also be ensured during the pre-trial investigation process (especially leaving the State conducting the investigation the right to decide at its own discretion); b) the provisions of Article 6(4) of the legislative proposal are correct and are indeed necessary, but they are unclear, because the meaning of ‘... modify the obligations’ is not clear: does it imply a type of non-custodial measure (e.g. working document seizure as part of cash bail) or does it relate only to the scope of the non-custodial measure itself?
Ta vidik je pomemben, saj so za kršitev naloga za nadzor predvidene hude sankcije (poglavje 5 zakonodajnega predloga).
This aspect is important because severe sanctions are envisaged for a breach of the supervision order (Chapter 5 of the legislative proposal).
Poleg tega določbe člena 6(4) zakonodajnega predloga niso v skladu s členom 13 istega akta, ki določa ponovno presojo evropskega naloga za nadzor (dvomljivo je, ali lahko država izdaje na ta način spremeni obveznosti, ki jih je predhodno spremenila država izvršitve).
Moreover, the provisions of Article 6(4) of the legislative proposal do not correspond with Article 13 of the same act, which provides for review of the European supervision order (it is doubtful whether the issuing State can thus modify obligations that have been changed by the executing State).
Pripravljavec mnenja meni, da obveznost iz člena 6(1)(c) zakonodajnega predloga dopušča kršitev obveznosti iz člena 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.
In your Draftsman's opinion, the obligation provided for in Article 6(1)(c) of the legislative proposal permits breaching of the obligations in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
V členu 6(2)(e) zakonodajnega predloga bi moral besedi "dela" slediti besedna zveza "službe idr.", medtem ko besedilo točke h) (vsaj, kar zadeva litovsko različico) zbuja sum, da gre za prisilno zdravljenje; zato je bolj primerno naslednje besedilo: "da opravi določeno zdravljenje, v katero je prostovoljno privolil".
In Article 6(2)(e) of the legislative proposal the word ‘work’ should be followed by ‘service etc.’, and the wording of (h) (at least with reference to the Lithuanian version) raises suspicions that compulsory treatment is implied; the following wording would therefore be preferable : ‘to undergo specified medical treatment with the voluntary compliance of the suspect’.
V členu 10(2)(a) zakonodajnega predloga bi morala besedi "dejanja" slediti besedna zveza "ali opustitve".
In Article 10(2)(a) of the legislative proposal the word ‘acts’ should be followed by the words ‘or omission of acts’.
Možnost iz člena 17 zakonodajnega predloga, da se blažje ukrepe z odvzemom prostosti v primeru kršitve obveznosti zamenja za aretacijo, ni izvedljiva, vsaj v Litvi ne, kjer je mogoče osebo pridržati le, če obstajajo vsi razlogi in jamstva, določeni v Zakonu o kazenskem postopku, in če se aretacija opravi po predpisanem postopku.
The possibility provided for in Article 17 of the legislative proposal to exchange milder custodial measures for arrest in the case of a breach of the obligations is not possible, at least not in Lithuania, because arrest can be imposed only if all grounds and warrants provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure are present and the set procedures are followed.
V zvezi s tem je nacionalno pravo "strožje" od zakonodajnega predloga, zato je dvomljivo, ali so določbe zakonodajnega predloga glede aretacije zaradi kršitve obveznosti ukrepov z odvzemom prostosti sprejemljive za Litvo.
In this respect, national law is more ‘severe’ than the legislative proposal, and it is therefore doubtful that the provisions of the legislative proposal regarding arrest for breaching the obligations of custodial measures are acceptable for Lithuania.
Zakonodajni predlog mora urejati naslednje:
The following issues must be regulated by the legislative proposal:
- pravico osumljenca, da se pritoži zoper evropski nalog za nadzor in zoper organe, pristojne za spremembe in ponovno presojo;
- The suspect’s right to appeal against the European supervision order and instances of amendment and revision;
- določitev, katera država je odgovorna za povračilo škode zaradi nezakonitega evropskega naloga za nadzor.
- Establishing which State is to be held responsible for compensating for damage resulting from an illegal European supervision order.
Evropski nalog za nadzor je sodna odločba, ki jo izda pristojni organ države članice v zvezi z osumljencem brez stalnega bivališča v tej državi članici, katere cilj je zagotoviti nemoteno delo sodišča, zlasti pa da bo osumljenec na voljo za sodno obravnavo pred sodiščem v državi članici izdaje.
A European supervision order is a judicial decision issued by a competent authority of a Member State in respect of a non-resident suspect in order to ensure the due course of justice and, in particular, to ensure that the person will be available to stand trial in the issuing Member State.
(b) da brez dovoljenja ne sme obiskovati določenih prostorov v državi izdaje ali državi izvršitve oziroma delov ozemelj teh držav.
(b) not to frequent specified places in , or parts of the territory of, the issuing State or the executing State without authorisation .
(h) da opravi določeno zdravljenje , v katero prostovoljno privoli .
(h) to undergo specified medical treatment with the voluntary compliance of the suspect .