natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
S predlogom spremembe se uredijo položaji, ko po merilih iz členov 3, 3a in 7 uredbe pristojna sodišča ne predvidevajo razveze oziroma ne priznavajo obstoja ali veljavnosti določene zakonske zveze.
This amendment serves to regulate situations in which – pursuant to the criteria laid down in Articles 3, 3a and 7 of the Regulation – the jurisdiction granted does not provide for divorce or does not recognise the existence or the validity of the marriage in question.
Člen 1, točka 6)Člen 12, odstavek 1 (Uredba (ES) št. 2201/2003)
ARTICLE 1, POINT 6Article 12, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003)
(6) V členu 12(1) se izraz „člen 3“ nadomesti z izrazi „ člen 3 in 3a“.
(6) In Article 12 (1), the terms “Article 3” are replaced by the terms “Articles 3 and 3a”.
(6) V členu 12(1) se izraz „člen 3“ nadomesti z izrazi „ členi 3, 3a in 7 “.
(3) In Article 12 (1), the terms “Article 3” are replaced by the terms “Articles 3 , 3a and 7 ”.
Izbira prava s strani strank
Choice of law by the parties
Izbira prava , ki se uporablja, s strani strank
Choice of applicable law by the parties
(–a) pravo države običajnega prebivališča zakoncev v trenutku sklenitve dogovora;
(-a) the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded;
Prav je, da se med merila za določitev prava, ki se uporablja, doda tudi tega.
It seems rational that this criterion should be included with the others for the purpose of choosing the applicable law.
(a) pravo države zadnjega skupnega običajnega prebivališča, če eden od zakoncev še prebiva tam;
(a) the law of the State of the last common habitual residence of the spouses insofar as one of them still resides there;
(a) pravo države običajnega prebivališča, če eden od zakoncev ob sklenitvi dogovora še prebiva tam;
(a) the law of the State of habitual residence of the spouses insofar as one of them still resides there at the time when the agreement is concluded ;
(b) pravo države državljanstva enega od zakoncev, ali v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, države stalnega prebivališča enega od zakoncev;
(b) the law of the State of the nationality of either spouse, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, the “domicile” of either spouse;
(b) pravo države državljanstva enega od zakoncev, ali v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, države stalnega prebivališča enega od zakoncev ob sklenitvi dogovora ;
(b) the law of the State of the nationality of either spouse, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, the “domicile” of either spouse at the time when the agreement is concluded ;
(c) pravo države, kjer sta zakonca prebivala najmanj 5 let ;
(c) the law of the State where the spouses have resided for at least five years;
(c) pravo države, kjer sta zakonca prej imela običajno prebivališče najmanj 3 leta ;
(c) the law of the State where the spouses have previously had their habitual residence for at least three years;
Malce arbitrarno je, če člen 20a, odstavek 1, točka (c), člen 3a, odstavek 1, točka (b) in člen 7, točka (a) navajajo merila z različnimi obdobji.
It seems somewhat arbitrary to have criteria of different lengths stated in Article 20a(1)(c), Article 3a(1)(b) and Article 7(a).
Poročevalka predlaga, da se merila poenotijo na tri leta.
The rapporteur is proposing that the periods should all be three years in length.
(ca) pravo države članice, v kateri je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza;
(ca) the law of the State in which the mar ria ge took place;
(da) pravo države članice, v kateri je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza;
(da) the law of the State in which the mar ria ge took place.
Iz izbire kraja, kjer sta se partnerja poročila, je možno smiselno sklepati, da sta partnerja privolila tudi v pristojnost sodišča te države.
The choice by the parties of a country to celebrate their mar ria ge should be reasonably presumed as implying possible acceptance of the law of that country as well.
Dogovor o pravu, ki se uporablja, se sklene v pisni obliki in ga oba zakonca podpišeta najpozneje ob začetku postopka.
An agreement designating the applicable law shall be expressed in writing and be signed by both spouses at the latest at the time the court is seised.
Če pravo države članice, v kateri je eden od zakoncev ob sklenitvi sporazuma imel običajno prebivališče, predvideva dodatne formalne zahteve za take sporazume, jih je treba izpolniti.
However, if the law of the Member State in which one of the spouses has his or her habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded stipulates additional formal requirements for such agreements, those requirements must be met .
Če sta zakonca imela običajno prebivališče v različnih državah članicah, katerih pravo predvideva dodatne formalne zahteve, sporazum velja v primeru, da izpolnjuje zahteve prava ene od teh držav.
If the spouses have their habitual residence in different Member States whose respective laws stipulate additional formal requirements, the agreement shall be valid if it meets the requirements of one of those laws.
Če je sporazum del pogodbe o zakonski zvezi, morajo biti izpolnjene formalne zahteve te pogodbe.
If the agreement forms part of a mar ria ge contract, the formal requirements of that contract must be met.
Razjasnitev položajev, v katerih nacionalno pravo ali pogodba o zakonski zvezi predvideva strožje zahteve kot uredba.
This provides clarification in situations in which the law of a Member State or the mar ria ge contract stipulates stricter requirements than those laid down in the Regulation .
Če pravo, navedeno v skladu s prvim odstavkom tega člena, razveze ali prenehanja življenjske skupnosti ne priznava ali ju priznava v obliki, ki je diskriminatorna do enega od zakoncev, se uporabi pravo sodišča.
Should the law indicated pursuant to the first paragraph of this article not recognise separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply.
S predlogom spremembe želimo opozoriti na težave žensk iz nekaterih tretjih držav, ki želijo v določeni državi članici pridobiti razvezo ali prenehanje življenjske skupnosti.
This amendment is intended to deal with the problems encountered by certain women from third countries who wish to obtain a separation or divorce in a Member State.
Interes posameznika za pridobitev razveze ali prenehanja življenjske skupnosti kot izraz osebne avtonomije bi moral imeti prednost pred uporabo nacionalnega prava.
The interest of the individual in obtaining a separation or divorce as an expression of personal autonomy should have priority over the application of national law.
V takih primerih je uporaba določenega nacionalnega prava lahko težava, na katero naletijo osebe, ki prebivajo v neki državi članici in se želijo razvezati ali prenehati skupno življenjsko skupnosti.
In such cases, the application of that national law tends to be an obstacle to certain persons resident in a Member State who seek a separation or divorce.
Člen 1, točka 7)Člen 20 b, uvodni del (Uredba (ES) št. 2201/2003)
Article 20b, introductory part (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 )
Če ni možnosti izbire v skladu s členom 20a, se za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti uporabi pravo države:
In the absence of choice pursuant to Article 20a, divorce and legal separation shall be subject to the law of the State:
Če ni možnosti izbire v skladu s členom 20a, se za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti v naslednjem vrstnem redu uporabi pravo države članice :
In the absence of choice pursuant to Article 20a, divorce and legal separation shall be subject , in descending order, to the law of the Member State:
(a) v kateri imata zakonca svoje skupno običajno prebivališče ali, če tega ni,
(a) where the spouses have their common habitual residence, or failing that,
(a) v kateri imata zakonca svoje običajno prebivališče ob začetku postopka ali, če tega ni,
(a) where the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the jurisdiction is seised, or failing that,
(b) v kateri sta imela zakonca svoje zadnje skupno običajno prebivališče, če eden od njiju še prebiva tam, ali, če tega ni,
(b) where the spouse had their last common habitual residence insofar as one of them still resides there, or failing that,
(b) v kateri sta imela zakonca svoje običajno prebivališče, če eden od njiju ob začetku postopka še prebiva tam, ali, če tega ni,
(b) where the spouse s had their habitual residence insofar as one of them still resides there at the time when the jurisdiction is seised , or failing that,
(c) katere državljana sta oba zakonca, ali v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, kjer imata oba svoje stalno prebivališče, ali, če tega ni,
(c) of which both spouses are nationals, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, both have their “domicile”, or failing that,
(c) katere državljana sta oba zakonca, ali v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, kjer imata ob začetku postopka oba stalno prebivališče, ali, če tega ni,
(c) of which both spouses are nationals, or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, in which both spouses have their “domicile” at the time at which the jurisdiction is seised , or failing that,
Če pravo, navedeno v skladu s prvim odstavkom tega člena, razveze ali prenehanja življenjske skupnosti ne priznava ali ju priznava v obliki, ki je diskriminatorna do enega od zakoncev, se uporabi pravo sodišča.
Should the law indicated pursuant to the first paragraph of this article not recognise separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply .
Člen 20e a:
Article 20e a
Podatki držav članic
Information from the Member States
Najkasneje … 1 države članice Komisiji sporočijo svoje nacionalne predpise o uradnih zahtevah, ki veljajo za dogovore o določitvi pristojnega sodišča in prava, ki se uporablja za ženitne pogodbe.
By ... at the latest 1 , the Member States shall notify the Commission of their national rules concerning the formal requirements applying to agreements relating to the choice of competent jurisdiction and of the law applicable to mar ria ge contracts.
Države članice Komisiji sporočijo vse naknadne spremembe teh predpisov.
The Member States shall notify the Commission of any subsequent change to those rules.
1 Tri mesece po pričetku veljavnosti te uredbe.
Three months after the date upon which this Regulation comes into force.
Cilj tega predloga uredbe je oblikovati jasen in celovit pravni okvir, ki bi hkrati zajemal predpise o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih ter predpise o pravu, ki se uporablja, poleg tega pa bi za stranke uvedel določeno mero avtonomije.
The purpose of this proposal for a Regulation is to establish a clear, comprehensive legal framework covering both rules relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the rules relating to the applicable law, by allowing the parties a certain degree of autonomy.
Tako so do sedaj za „mešane” zakone veljale določbe uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2001/2005
An ‘international’ couple wishing to get divorced has hitherto being subject to the competence rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1347/2000, UL L 338, 23.12.2003, str.
Council Regulation (EC) n° 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility and repealing Regulation (EC) n° 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, page 1 (known as ‘Brussels IIa’), pursuant to which spouses are able to choose amongst a number of different competence criteria.
1. (imenovane „uredba Bruselj IIa”), ki so zakoncema, ki sta želela razvezo, omogočale izbiro med več merili za določitev pristojnosti.
Once a divorce procedure comes before the courts of a Member State, the applicable law is determined in accordance with that State’s rules on conflicts of law.
Kakor hitro se je postopek za razvezo začel v eni izmed držav članic, je bilo pravo, ki se je uporabilo, določeno na osnovi kolizijskih pravil te države, nacionalna kolizijska pravila pa so zelo neskladna.
Those rules vary greatly from one Member State to another.
Neenotna nacionalna kolizijska pravila ter dejstvo, da niso usklajena z zdaj veljavnimi določbami Skupnosti glede določanja pristojnosti lahko pri razvezi mešanih zakonov povzročijo veliko težav.
The disparate nature of those rules combined with the current Community provisions on the awarding of competence may give rise to a number of problems where ‘international’ divorces are concerned.
Poleg manjše pravne varnosti, saj zakonca ne vesta natančno, katero pravo velja za njun primer
In addition to the lack of legal certainty stemming from the difficulty which spouses have in determining which law will apply to their case
V zvezi s tem glej dokument SEC(2006)949 z dne 17.7.2006, str.
In this connection, see document SEC (2006) 949 of 17.7.2006, p.
Razen tega lahko državljani EU, ki prebivajo v tretji državi, naletijo na težave pri izbiri pristojnega sodišča za razvezo, pa tudi pri uveljavitvi, v svoji matični državi, sodne odločbe o razvezi, ki je bila izdana v tretji državi.
Furthermore, Community citizens resident in a non-EU country may have difficulty in finding a jurisdiction which is competent to deal with divorce and in securing recognition in their respective countries of origin of a divorce settlement granted in a non-EU country.
Komisija želi s predlogom omenjena tveganja in pomanjkljivosti omejiti, zlasti tako, da se zakoncema omogoči, da sporazumno izbereta pristojno sodišče in pravo, ki se uporablja.
The purpose of a Commission proposal is to limit the above risks and to compensate for the above shortcomings, in particular by making it possible for the parties to choose by common agreement the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law.
Izbira pristojnega sodišča
Choice of Jurisdiction
Člen 3a za zakonca uvaja možnost, da za postopek razveze sporazumno izbereta pristojno sodišče.
Article 3a makes it possible for spouses to designate by common agreement the competent jurisdiction in their divorce procedure.
Prednost tega je nesporno višja stopnja avtonomije strank, saj lahko v skladu z naveznimi okoliščinami svobodno izbereta sodni sistem, s katerim imata največ vezi.
It has the undoubted advantage of increasing the parties’ degree of autonomy and enabling them to seise freely (in accordance with certain competence criteria) the jurisdiction with which they have the most links.
Poročevalka predlaga, da se doda člen 7a ter se s tem uredijo položaji, v katerih po merilih iz členov 3, 3a in 7 uredbe pristojna sodišča ne predvidevajo razveze oziroma ne priznavajo obstoja ali veljavnosti določene zakonske zveze.
However, your rapporteur is proposing to add Article 7a, which governs situations in which (pursuant to the Article 3, 3a and 7 criteria) the jurisdiction assigned has no provision for divorce or does not recognise the existence or validity of the marriage in question.
Izbira prava, ki se uporablja
Choice of applicable law
Člen 20a je novost, saj prvič uvaja možnost, da zakonca sporazumno določita pravo, ki se uporablja za njun postopek razveze.
Article 20a constitutes an innovation in that for the first time, it allows the spouses to designate by common agreement the law applicable in their divorce procedure.
Poročevalka meni, da bi bilo pametno predvideti tudi možnost izbire prava države običajnega skupnega prebivališča zakoncev, kjer prebivata ob sklenitvi dogovora, in tudi prava države, v kateri je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza.
According to the rapporteur it makes sense to allow the possibility of choosing the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded, and also the law of the State in which the marriage took place.
Poleg tega se lahko vprašamo, zakaj člen 20a s členi 3, 3a in 7 ni usklajen glede meril z različnimi obdobji.
Furthermore, the lack of correspondence between Article 20a and Articles 3, 3a and 7 in terms of duration criteria may be questioned.
Informirana izbira
Enlightened choice
Treba je zagotoviti, da je izbira strank informirana, torej da sta zakonca ustrezno obveščena o konkretnih posledicah njune izbire.
It then has to be ensured that the choice made by the parties is an enlightened one, i.e. that both spouses have been duly informed of the practical implications of their choice.
Pri tem se je treba vprašati, kako v največji meri zagotoviti, da bodo podpisnikom dogovora o sodni pristojnosti pred podpisom posredovane popolne in zanesljive informacije.
In this regard, consideration needs to be given to the best way of ensuring that comprehensive reliable information is made available to the secretaries of the agreement on the assignment of competence before the act is signed.
Pomembno je tudi, da je dostop do informacij zagotovljen neodvisno od finančnih zmožnosti vsakega od zakoncev.
Access to information must also be provided, irrespective of each spouse’s financial situation.
Omeniti velja še, kako pomembno je, da zakonca razpolagata z natančnimi in popolnimi informacijami o posledicah izbire pristojnega sodišča in prava, ki se uporablja v primeru njune razveze, še zlasti zato, ker se zakoni držav članic v številnih točkah bistveno razlikujejo, (na primer glede vzrokov za razvezo in oblike razveze, pogojev za njeno pridobitev, zahtevanega trajanja ločitve in drugih vidikov, ki so v postopku odločilni).
It must be ensured that both spouses receive comprehensive accurate information concerning the implications of their choice of jurisdiction and the law applicable to divorce, especially since the Member States’ laws differ considerably in a number of respects (such as the grounds for divorce, the forms which divorce takes, the terms and conditions for obtaining a divorce, the requisite separation period and other key aspects for the procedure).
Ker pravo ni nekaj nespremenljivega, se lahko prav tako zgodi, da dogovor o uporabi prava, podpisan v določenem trenutku, upravičenim pričakovanjem strank ne ustreza več v trenutku, ko začne veljati, saj se je zakonodaja zadevne države v vmesnem času spremenila.
Furthermore, since laws do change, it may be that an agreement designating the applicable law which was signed at a given moment no longer meets the legitimate expectations of the parties at the time at which it should deploy its effects, since the legislation of the Member State in question has in the meantime been amended.
Poročevalka predlaga, da se predvidi mehanizem, da bo Komisija odgovorna za poseben sistem obveščanja javnosti, ki bo temeljil na internetu (in bo deloval v okviru evropske pravosodne mreže v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah), v njem pa bo lahko vsakdo našel najnovejše podatke o bistvenih vidikih nacionalnega prava in prava Skupnosti.
The rapporteur is proposing a mechanism under which the Commission would be responsible for a public Internet-based information system (operating in connection with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters), where anyone may find up-to-date information concerning the basic aspects of national and Community law.
Bistveno namreč je, da bo izbrano sodišče, ki bo sodilo v zadevi, pozorno na izjemen pomen informirane izbire obeh zakoncev.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction seised must realise how important an enlightened choice on the part of both spouses is.
o predlogu uredbe Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2201/2003 glede pristojnosti in o uvedbi pravil v zvezi s pravom, ki se uporablja v zakonskih sporih
on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters
(*) Pridruženi odbor – člen 47 Poslovnika
(*) Procedure with associated committees – Rule 47
Predlog Komisije zadeva le določitev pristojnosti in prava, ki se uporablja v primeru zahteve za razvezo ali prenehanje življenjske skupnosti.
The Commission proposal deals solely with the question of determining the applicable law and jurisdiction in the case of applications for divorce or separation.
Ne zadeva razveljavitve zakonske zveze ali pravice do preživnine.
It does not, therefore, cover marriage annulment or entitlement to maintenance.
Predlog delno spreminja veljavno uredbo 2201/2003, katere vsebina je širša, saj zadeva tudi spore o razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, starševski odgovornosti in priznavanje sodnih odločb v zvezi s temi vprašanji v meddržavnih odnosih.
The proposal is presented as a partial amendment of existing Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, whose scope is much broader, as it also covers grounds for marriage annulment, parental responsibility and the recognition of judgments in matrimonial matters in an interstate setting.
Predlog zadeva predvsem t.i. mednarodne pare, torej tiste, pri katerih imata zakonca različno državljanstvo ali prebivališče v različnih državah.
The proposal mainly relates to ‘international couples’, in other words spouses of different nationalities or who live in different Member States or in states of which they are not nationals.
V skladu s predlogom je ta zveza predvsem prebivališče.
Under the proposal, the main ‘connecting factor’ is residence.
Iz tega izhaja, da če imata zakonca enako državljanstvo in sta vedno prebivala državi, katere državljana sta, ne moreta izbirati, saj se lahko obrneta le na sodnika države, v kateri se nahajata, ki bo uporabil lex loci (ki je enaka lex fori).
It follows that, if both spouses have the same nationality and have both always lived in the state of which they are nationals, they have no other option than to apply to the courts of the state in which they live, which will apply the lex loci , in other words the lex fori .
Poročevalec pa vseeno meni, da bi bilo treba predlog nekoliko popraviti, da bi postal še bolj učinkovit:
However, your rapporteur considers that some changes should be made to the proposal in order to make it even more effective.
Najprej je treba pojasniti, da strani lahko izbirata le med pristojnostmi in pravom države članice, obenem pa v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti ta predlog ne more zavezati države, ki ne predvideva razveze ali ne priznava te vrste zakonske zveze, da to zvezo razveže.
First of all, it should be stipulated that the parties’ freedom of choice should be restricted to the courts and laws of other Member States, and that, more generally, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the proposal cannot oblige the authorities of a state which makes no provision for divorce, or which does not recognise the type of marriage in question, to dissolve a marriage.
Predlog Komisije tudi predvideva, da zakonca lahko izbirata med sodišči, navedenimi v tretjem členu Uredbe 2201/2003.
Furthermore, under the Commission proposal spouses may choose any of the forums listed in Article 3 of Regulation 2201/2003.
V tem primeru postane odveč bolj restriktivno merilo iz člena 3a(b).
In this event, the more restrictive criterion set out in Article 3a(b) would be superfluous.
Tehnično najpreprostejša rešitev bi bilo črtanje te točke iz besedila.
The simplest solution in technical terms would be to delete the whole of point (b).
Iz predloga pa je razumeti, da je namen Komisije ob tem, ko stranema omogoči avtonomno izbiro sodnika, na katerega se bosta obrnili, narediti povezavo s pravom sodišča.
However, it seems from the proposal that the Commission’s intention is to establish a connection with the lex fori once the parties are given the possibility of deciding for themselves to which court they will apply.
To je razvidno iz točke (b).
This intention is indicated by point (b).
Če bi radi ohranili to črko in vsebino uskladili s tretjim členom (ter tako povečali avtonomijo strani) poročevalec svetuje preoblikovanje celega tretjega člena.
To maintain point (b) while bringing it into line with the substance of Article 3 (by enhancing the parties’ autonomy), the rapporteur suggests that the whole of Article 3(a) should be reworded.