natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Od anketirancev jih je 39 % menilo, da tuji jeziki predstavljajo oviro za dostop do ustreznih informacij o zakonodaji Skupnosti.
39% of respondents considered that foreign languages constituted a barrier to adequate information on Community law.
Glavna pripomba je bila povezana z dostopom do tujih sodb, vključno na primer s sodbami vrhovnega sodišča vsake države članice.
The main complaint concerned access to foreign judgments, including for example those of the supreme courts of each Member State.
Več sodnikov je omenilo, da je zlasti težko razumeti tehnične izraze v tujih jezikih.
Several judges mentioned the fact that technical terms were particularly difficult to understand in a foreign language.
Eden od nemških sodnikov, ki je specializiran za finančne zadeve, je menil, da je branje odločitev sodišč v drugih državah članicah pomembno, vendar je tako zamudno, da je glede na časovne omejitve v sodstvu skoraj nemogoče.
One German judge specialised in financial matters considered that reading the decisions of courts in other Member States was important but so time-consuming it was almost impossible, given judicial time-constraints.
Francoski sodnik se noče sklicevati na tujo sodno prakso ali razlago zaradi nevarnosti nenatančnosti ali napačnega razumevanja, ki bi lahko imelo resne posledice za posameznike.
A French judge would not refer to foreign jurisprudence or commentary because of the risk of imprecision or misunderstanding which could have very serious consequences for individuals.
Drugi sodnik je imel velike težave pri uporabi tujega prava, kadar je bilo določeno z ustreznimi kolizijskimi pravili.
Finally, another judge had real difficulties in applying foreign law when that law was designated by the relevant conflict rules.
Veliko sodnikov iz „novih“ držav članic, zlasti iz Poljske, Slovenije in Madžarske, se je pritožilo, da vsa sodna praksa SES, ki je nastala pred njihovim pristopom, ni bila prevedena v njihove jezike.
Many judges from "new" Member States, in particular Poland, Slovenia and Hungary, complained that not all ECJ case-law prior to accession had been translated into their language.
Več sodnikov iz „novih“ držav članic ni vedelo, da kakršen koli pravni red in zlasti sodna praksa SES obstajata v njihovih jezikih.
Several judges from "new" Member States were not aware that any of the acquis , and in particular that ECJ case-law existed in their own language.
Precej število sodnikov iz veliko različnih držav članic je govorilo o vprašanju prevajanja sodb.
A substantial number of judges from a wide variety of Member States commented on the question of translation of judgments.
Mnogi sodniki so izrazili skrb glede časa, ki je potreben, da so na voljo vse jezikovne različice sodbe SES ali mnenja generalnega pravobranilca.
Many judges expressed concern at the time it took for all linguistic versions of an ECJ judgment or Advocate General Opinion to be available.
Številni sodniki so kakovost ali zanesljivost prevodov aktov Skupnosti ali sodne prakse v njihove jezike ocenili kot neprimerno.
Numerous judges considered the quality or reliability of translations of Community acts or case-law into their language to be inadequate.
Nemški sodnik je omenil tudi nekatere neskladnosti med jezikovnimi različicami istega akta Skupnosti.
A German judge also noted certain discrepancies between linguistic versions of a same Community act.
Več sodnikov je imelo velike težave pri primerjanju različnih jezikovnih različic akta Skupnosti z namenom ugotoviti, ali je treba vložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
Several judges had substantial difficulties in comparing different language versions of a Community act for interpretation purposes, to see whether there existed a need to make a preliminary reference.
Obseg in kakovost te primerjave bosta odvisna od sodnikovega jezikovnega znanja.
The breadth and quality of this comparative exercise will depend on the judge's linguistic capacity.
Več sodnikov je omenilo to primerjavo, pri čemer so ugotovili, da je niso mogli smiselno izvesti (glej tudi poglavje 4(g)( ix ) o podobnem vprašanju).
Several judges referred to this exercise, concluding that they were unable to carry it out meaningfully (see also section 4(g)( ix ) on a related point).
Nekaj sodnikov je omenilo, da nerazpoložljivost akademskih razlag zakonodaje Skupnosti v njihovem jeziku predstavlja težavo.
A few judges mentioned the unavailability of academic commentaries on Community law in their language to be problematic.
Sklicevali so se na več posameznih informacij, kot je glasilo agencije EU (UUNT
Several specific items of information were finally referred to, such as the newsletter of an EU agency (the OHMI
Glasilo je na voljo na spletni strani
The newsletter is available at
http://oami.europa.eu/en/office/press/default.htm . ) ali nekatere razlage Komisije glede zakonodajnih predlogov.
http://oami.europa.eu/en/office/press/default.htm . ) or certain explanations provided by the Commission of legislative proposals.
Če ne upoštevamo vprašanja prevodov, so mnogi sodniki menili, da je dostop do zakonodaje Skupnosti težek predvsem zaradi načina, na katerega je ta urejena.
Setting aside the issue of translation, many judges considered that what made access to Community law the most difficult was the way it was framed.
Eden od sodnikov je pripomnil, da je zakonodajo Skupnosti na nacionalnih sodiščih težko uporabljati zaradi njene splošne nejasnosti.
One judge commented that the obscurity of Community law in general made it difficult to apply in national courts.
Podobna pripomba je bila večkrat izražena v zvezi s slogom sodbe SES, zlasti glede obrazložitve ali utemeljitve, ki je državni sodniki ne razumejo vedno (glej spodnje poglavje 7).
A similar comment was made more insistently in respect of the style of the ECJ's judgments, and in particular the reasoning or justification which was not always clearly understood by national judges (see section 7 below).
V povprečju se je le 20 % anketirancev udeležilo vsaj enega jezikovnega tečaja, ki je zajemal pravna vprašanja.
On average, only 20% of respondents had participated in at least one language course covering legal issues.
Ta številka skriva nekatere razlike med državami članicami, kot prikazuje spodnji graf.
This figure would seem to hide certain discrepancies between Member States, as can be seen in the chart below.
Razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da stopnja udeležbe na takih pravnih jezikovnih tečajih v vseh državah članicah ostaja sorazmerno nizka (pod 40 %), da je nizka v večini, vendar ne v vseh državah članicah, ki so k EU pristopile leta 2004, ter da je zelo nizka v Romuniji in Bolgariji (manj kot 10 %).
It appears from the data available that participation rates at such legal linguistic courses remains relatively limited in all Member States (below 40%), that it is low for most but not all Member States having acceded in 2004, and that it is very low (less than 10%) for Romania and Bulgaria.
(ii) Izvajalci pravnega jezikovnega usposabljanja.
(ii) Legal linguistic training providers
Graf kaže, da se je velika večina anketirancev, ki so se učili tujo pravno terminologijo, to učila na univerzi, večinoma med študijem prava.
The above chart shows that a large majority of respondents who studied foreign legal terminology did so at university, generally during their law studies.
Precejšen delež teh ljudi je take tečaje obiskovalo na univerzi v neki drugi državi članici in ne svoji, na primer v okviru programa Erasmus ali magisterija prava (LLM).
A substantial proportion of these people studied such courses whilst at a university in a Member State other than their own, for example, as part of the Erasmus programme or on an LLM programme.
Nekaj anketirancev(6 %) je obiskovalo tečaje, ki jih ni izvajala univerza, nacionalno ministrstvo ali organ za sodno usposabljanje.
A small minority (6%) attended courses which were not provided by a University, their national ministry or a judicial training body.
Take „druge“ tečaje so izvajali British Council, Goëthe Institut, Evropska pravna akademija, evropska mreža za usposabljanje sodstva, PHARE in v enem primeru zasebni učitelj.
Such "other" courses were provided by the British Council, the Goethe Institute, the European Law Academy, the European Judicial Training Network, PHARE, and in one case, by a private teacher.
Najbolj iskan jezik je bila angleščina (53 %) in za njo francoščina (37 %).
English was the most sought-after language (53%), with French being the other major language (37%).
Nekaj sodnikov se je udeležilo tečajev v španščini in nemščini (4 % za vsak jezik), medtem ko so se drugi jeziki pojavili le zelo redko (glej spodaj).
Some judges took courses in Spanish and German (4% each), with other languages appearing only very rarely (see below).
Od anketirancev se jih 61 % ni nikoli udeležilo evropskega programa za usposabljanje ali katerega drugega nacionalnega programa usposabljanja v zvezi z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
61% of respondents had never attended a European training programme or any national training programme concerning Community law.
Od anketirancev se jih je 33 % udeležilo nacionalnega programa usposabljanja v zvezi z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
33% of respondents had attended a national training programme concerning Community law.
Od anketirancev se jih je 14 % udeležilo programa usposabljanja, ki ga je organiziral evropski organ.
14% of respondents had attended a programme organised by a European body.
Medtem ko se jih je 10 % udeležilo tečajev, ki so jih organizirali nacionalni organi, in tečajev, ki jih je organiziral evropski organ.
Finally, 10% of respondents had attended courses organised both by national authorities and courses organised by a European body.
Med udeležbo na nacionalnih in evropskih tečajih usposabljanja je bila jasna povezava.
A clear link existed between the attendance of national and European training courses.
Večja verjetnost je bila, da se bodo sodniki, ki so se udeležili tečaja, ki ga je organiziral nacionalni organ, udeležili tudi tečajev, ki so jih organizirali evropski organi.
Judges that had attended a course organised by a national authority were more likely to also have attended courses organised by European bodies.
Največkrat so bili navedeni seminarji in tečaji usposabljanja, ki jih je organizirala Evropska pravna akademija v Trierju.
Seminars and training courses organised by the European Law Academy in Trier were most cited.
Pogosto je bila omenjena evropska mreža za usposabljanje sodstva in njen program izmenjave za sodnike, medtem ko se je več sodnikov iz „novih“ držav članic udeležilo programov TAIEX in PHARE (glej spodaj).
The European Judicial Training Network and its exchange programme for judges came up often, whilst several judges from "new" Member States attended TAIEX and PHARE programmes (see below).
Več sodnikov je opozorilo na vprašanje stroškov in velika večina je menila, da taki tečaji ne bi smeli predstavljati osebnega finančnega bremena za zadevne sodnike.
Several judges raised the question of cost, and a large majority considered that such courses must not entail any personal financial burden for the judges concerned.
Eden od nemških sodnikov je menil, da samo kritje potnih stroškov in stroškov za nastanitev ni bilo dovolj, ker je bil sam tečaj usposabljanja drag.
One German judge considered that covering travel and accommodation costs alone was insufficient as the training course itself was expensive.
Opomba: ta razvrstitev je le okvirna glede na to, da je ERA na primer organizirala veliko seminarjev v imenu programov TAIEX in PHARE za „nove“ države članice.
Note: this classification is purely indicative, given that ERA has organised a large number of seminars on behalf of TAIEX and PHARE for the “new” Member States, for example.
Večina anketiranih sodnikov (54 %) je ocenila, da so seznanjeni s postopkom, s katerim se lahko obrnejo na Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
A clear majority of responding judges (54%) considered themselves familiar with the procedure to refer to the European Court of Justice.
Vendar se je tudi pokazalo, da je dvakrat bolj verjetno, da se imajo anketiranci za neseznanjene s postopkom (32 %) kot za zelo seznanjene z njim (14 %).
However, it also appears that respondents were twice as likely to consider themselves unfamiliar with the procedure (32%), as they were to consider themselves very familiar with it (14%).
Med različnimi državami članicami so se pokazale velike razlike.
There would appear to exist wide discrepancies between the different Member States.
V Bolgariji, Belgiji in Franciji se je na primer velika večina anketirancev (84 %, 87 % in 94 %) ocenila kot neseznanjena s postopkom predhodnega odločanja.
In Bulgaria, Belgium and France for instance, the vast majority of respondents (84%, 87% and 94% respectively) considered themselves unfamiliar with the preliminary ruling procedure.
Za neseznanjene s postopkom so se najmanjkrat ocenili avstrijski, češki in nemški sodniki (12 %, 13 % in 18 % odgovorov „neseznanjeni“).
Austrian, Czech and German respondents considered themselves the least unfamiliar with the procedure (12%, 13% and 18% of "unfamiliar" responses respectively).
Od anketiranih sodnikov jih je 123 odgovorilo, da so v svoji poklicni karieri vsaj enkrat predložili predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
123 responding judges claimed to have made at least one reference for a preliminary ruling in the course of their professional career.
To ustreza nekoliko več kot 5 % skupnega števila odgovorov.
This equates to slightly more than 5% of the total number of responses.
Države članice so pri tem številu neenakomerno zajete, pri čemer je bila Madžarska edina „nova“ država članica s šestimi predlogi.
This figure was divided unequally amongst the Member States, with Hungary being the only "new" Member State represented, with six references.
Več sodnikov je pomislilo na to, da bi vložili predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, medtem ko si je eden od sodnikov na socialnem sodišču premislil, ker je stranki skrbelo, da bi se zaradi tega postopek preveč zavlekel.
Several judges had considered making a reference, and one judge in a social court had refrained from doing so because the parties were concerned that this would unduly lengthen the proceedings.
Dva druga sodnika na sodišču prve stopnje sta želela SES predložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, vendar tega nista mogla storiti zaradi omejitev pristojnosti SES iz naslova IV Pogodbe ES, zlasti v zvezi z vprašanji priseljevanja.
Two other judges in a first instance court were keen to make a reference to the ECJ, but could not do so because of the limitations on the ECJ's jurisdiction under Title IV EC, in particular concerning questions of immigration.
Večina anketirancev je glede te točke odgovarjala sorazmerno podrobno, kot prikazuje spodnji graf.
Most respondents were relatively detailed in their answers on this point, as can be seen in the chart below.
Povprečna dolžina postopka predhodnega odločanja je bila 18,5 meseca.
The average length of the preliminary ruling procedure was 18,5 months.
To številko je nemogoče primerjati s statistikami SES, ki jih vsebujejo njegova letna poročila, saj so sodniki pri svojih odgovorih v tej raziskavi upoštevali nekatere predloge za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki so iz leta 1980 in še starejša.
This figure is impossible to compare to the ECJ's own statistics, as contained in its annual reports, because some of the references taken into account by judges in their responses to the present survey date back to the 1980s and beyond.
Povprečje iz te raziskave je približno mesec in pol manj kot zadnje razpoložljivo povprečje za zaključene zadeve na SES (19,8 meseca leta 2006).
The average obtained here is about one and a half months less than the latest available average for completed cases from the ECJ (19,8 months in 2006).
Letno poročilo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti za leto 2006, tabela 8 na strani 87.
Court of Justice, Annual report 2006, table 8 at p.87.
Ena napotitev je trajala več kot 35 mesecev, medtem ko je bilo osem zadev zaključenih v enem letu.
One referral lasted more than 35 months, whereas in eight cases was completed within a year.
Večina sodnikov (43 %) je na vprašanje, ali se jim zdi kakšen del postopka predhodnega odločanja izjemno dolg, odgovorila negativno.
When asked whether they considered any specific part of the preliminary reference procedure to be excessively long, most judges (43%) responded negatively.
Precejšnje število sodnikov (36 %) je menilo, da je celoten postopek predlog, eden od sodnikov iz Združenega kraljestva je dejal, da je za to morda kriva preobremenjenost SES.
A substantial number of judges (36%) considered that the procedure as a whole was too lengthy, one judge from the United Kingdom stating that this could be explained by the fact that the ECJ was overworked.
Švedski in nemški sodnik sta pričakovala, da bo postopek dolg, saj so tudi postavljena vprašanja dolga in zapletena.
Both a Swedish and a German judge expected the reference to be lengthy because the questions asked were themselves very long and complex.
Dva sodnika sta postopek v svojem primeru ocenila kot hiter, pri čemer je SES eno odločitev predložilo brez ustne obravnave ali mnenja generalnega pravobranilstva.
Finally, two judges considered the procedure in their case to be fast, one of the judgments having been handed down by the ECJ without oral proceedings or an Advocate General Opinion.
Pri odgovorih glede posameznih delov postopka jih je največ kritiziralo ustno obravnavo, kar sta poudarila finski in nemški sodnik.
Turning to the answers relating to specific parts of the procedure, the most criticised part was the oral procedure, highlighted both by a Finnish and by a German judge.
Eden od nemških upravnih sodnikov je kritiziral dolžino obdobja, v katerem lahko države članice predložijo svoja pisna stališča.
One German administrative judge criticised the length of the period within which Member States can present their written observations.
Pri predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe enega od anketirancev je zamuda nastala zaradi dveh zaporednih sprememb glede dodelitve njegove zadeve znotraj oddelkov Sodišča.
Finally, one respondent's reference was delayed by two successive changes in the allocation of his case within the Court of Justice's chamber structure.
Le nekaj sodnikov (11 %), ki so imeli izkušnje s postopkom predhodnega odločanja, je navedel, da je Sodišče delno preoblikovalo njihova vprašanja.
Only a small minority of judges (11%) who had experienced a preliminary ruling procedure stated that their questions were reformulated to some extent by the Court of Justice.
Vprašanji dveh sodnikov sta bili popolnoma preoblikovani, medtem ko je eden od sodnikov iz Združenega kraljestva menil, da je bilo to preoblikovanje pretirano.
Two judges' questions were completely reformulated, and one judge from the United Kingdom considered this reformulation excessive.
Štirje drugi predlogi za sprejetje predhodnih odločb so bili le rahlo preoblikovani.
Four further references were only slightly reformulated.
V enem primeru je sodnik menil, da je SES vprašanje preoblikovalo tako, da je bil njegov namen še bolj poudarjen.
In one case, the judge considered that the meaning of the question was further highlighted by the ECJ's reformulation.
V drugem primeru je SES dve vprašanji združilo v eno.
In another case, the ECJ combined two questions into one.
(e) Napotki za naslavljanje vprašanj na SES
(e) Guidance in referring questions to the ECJ
Od predložitvenih sodnikov jih je 60 % menilo, da so dobili napotke pri oblikovanju predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, medtem ko jih 40 % tega ni menilo.
60% of referring judges considered that they had guidance to formulate their reference whereas 40% did not.
Med tistimi sodniki, ki niso dobili napotkov, so štirje menili, da ti niso bili potrebni niti primerni.
Among those who had no guidance, four judges considered that guidance was neither necessary nor appropriate.
Tisti anketiranci, ki so poiskali napotke, so to naredili na več načinov.
Those respondents who did seek guidance did so in a number of ways.
Sodniki so napotke največkrat iskali pri drugih kolegih na svojih sodiščih (29 %).
The most popular source of guidance was other colleagues within the judge's court (29%).
Tudi spletna stran Sodišča in njegova obvestila o zadevi (15 %), usposabljanje (13 %) ter učbeniki in strokovna dela (13 %) so bili sorazmerno pogosto uporabljeni.
The Court of Justice's website and the Court's notice on the matter (15%), training (13%), textbooks and academic writings (13%) were all relatively popular.
Drugi navedeni viri so sodna praksa SES (10 %), stališča strank (6 %), sodna praksa nacionalnih vrhovnih sodišč (4 %), pretekle osebne izkušnje (4 %), specializiran sodnik ali svetovalec na sodišču (4 %) in ministrstvo za pravosodje (2 %).
Further sources cited were the ECJ's own case-law (10%), the parties' submissions (6%), case-law from national supreme courts (4%), past personal experience (4%), a specialised judge or advisor in the court (4%), and finally the justice ministry (2%).
Velika večina anketirancev (89 %) je menila, da je sodbo SES mogoče enostavno uporabiti pri dejstvih v obravnavani zadevi in da torej omogoča sorazmerno neproblematičen zaključek postopka predhodnega odločanja.
A large majority of respondents (89%) found the ECJ's ruling readily applicable to the facts of the case, thus enabling a reasonably unproblematic conclusion to the preliminary reference procedure.
Eden od sodnikov je menil, da je bila sodba tako jasna, da je bilo treba na nacionalni ravni določiti le stroške.
One judge considered that the judgment was so clear that only the costs were left to be decided at national level.
Po mnenju nekaj anketirancev (11 %) sodba ni omogočila jasne odločitve na nacionalni ravni.
A minority (11%) did not feel that the judgment enabled a clear decision at national level.
Enemu od sodnikov se je odgovor zdel popolnoma neuporaben, medtem ko je drugi navedel, da SES pomembnega in ključnega vprašanja sploh ni obravnavalo.
One judge considered the answer completely unusable, and another stated that a crucial and explicit question had specifically been left aside by the ECJ.
Drugi sodnik je menil, da je SES najbolje predložiti jasna vprašanja (vprašanja, na katera se odgovori z da/ne), da se izognemo dvoumnim odgovorom, ki bi jih bilo težko uporabiti pri primeru.
Another judge considered that it was best to ask straightforward questions to the ECJ ("yes/no" questions) in order to avoid ambiguous answers which would be difficult to apply to the facts of the case.
V treh primerih je odločitev povzročila spremembo ali odpravo nacionalne zakonodaje, medtem ko sta v dveh drugih primerih državna sodnika menila, da je bila njuna pravilna uporaba predhodne odločbe pozneje razveljavljena pri pritožbi.
In three cases, the ruling led to a change in, or abolition of, national legislation, whereas in two other cases, the national judges considered that their correct application of the preliminary ruling was later overturned on appeal.
Eden od sodnikov je menil, da je to „generacijska težava“, saj pritožbena ali vrhovna sodišča primarnosti zakonodaje Skupnosti ne priznavajo dovolj.
One judge considered this to be a "generational problem", with appeal or supreme courts not giving sufficient recognition to the primacy of Community law.
V drugi zadevi ni bilo treba uporabiti predhodnega odločanja zaradi izvensodne poravnave.
One further case saw an out-of-court settlement which removed any need to apply the preliminary ruling.
V dveh primerih so stranke po odločitvi SES predložile dodatna dejstva, zaradi katerih odločitev ni bila uporabna.
Finally, the parties in two further cases submitted further facts after the ECJ's ruling, making it inapplicable on the facts.
To poglavje je treba razlikovati od navedenih poglavij (4(b)–(f)).
This section must be distinguished from the sections above (4(b)-(f)).
To vprašanje se je dejansko zastavilo vsem sodnikom ne glede na to, ali so že kdaj vložili predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ali ne.
Indeed here, suggestions for improvement to the procedure were sought from all responding judges, irrespective of whether they had made a reference or not.