natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vendar se je ta številka povišala na 41 % za finančna sodišča, 28 % za upravna sodišča in 25 % za sodišča za intelektualno lastnino.
However, this figure went up to 41% for financial courts, 28% for administrative courts, and 25% for intellectual property courts.
Poleg tega odgovori jasno kažejo, da se zakonodaja Skupnosti verjetneje navaja, če je stopnja sodišča višja.
Furthermore, responses also clearly indicate that the higher the court, the more likely Community law is likely to be pleaded before it.
Na podlagi 533 analiziranih odgovorov se kaže dejstvo, da prodira zakonodaja Skupnosti na številna in različna področja delovanja na nacionalni ravni.
The 533 responses analysed reflect the fact that Community law permeates numerous and diverse areas of activity at national level.
Zelo pogosto navedeni področji sta varstvo potrošnikov (9 %) ter civilno in procesno pravo (11 %).
Two very frequently cited areas are consumer protection (9%) and civil and procedural law (11%).
V odgovorih se precej izrazito pojavljajo politika konkurence (9 %), spolna diskriminacija (8 %), zaposlovanje (7 %), temeljne pravice (6 %), okolje (5 %), carina (4 %) in DDV (2 %).
Competition policy (9%), sex discrimination (8%), employment (7%), fundamental freedoms (6%), the environment (5%), customs (4%) and VAT (2%) featured quite prominently in the responses.
Ugotavlja se tudi, da se je veliko sodnikov sklicevalo na vprašanja o azilu (3 %).
It is also notable that many judges referred to questions of asylum (3%).
Anketiranci, ki so navajali kmetijstvo, so se večinoma sklicevali na skupno ureditev trgov, vključno z mlečnimi izdelki.
Respondents who cited agriculture mainly referred to the common organisation of markets, including milk products.
Sodniki, ki so se sklicevali na temeljne pravice, so pretežno navajali vprašanja v zvezi s prostim pretokom oseb (prosti pretok delavcev in direktiva o pravicah državljanov
Judges referring to the fundamental freedoms predominantly cited issues relating to the free movement of persons (free movement of workers and the Citizenship Directive
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, UL L 229, 29.6.2004, str.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p.
Postavila so se številna s tem povezana vprašanja, kot so napotitev delavcev, prenosljivost pokojnin in socialna varnost.
A number of related issues were raised, such as the posting of workers, the portability of pensions and social security.
Izpostavila sta se tudi prosti pretok blaga, zlasti farmacevtskih izdelkov, in prosti pretok storitev, zlasti zdravstvenih storitev in storitev, ki se lahko zagotovijo brez prečkanja meje (npr. spletne igre na srečo).
Reference was also made to free movement of goods, in particular pharmaceuticals, and free movement of services, especially health services and services which can be provided without crossing a border (eg. online gambling).
Svoboda ustanavljanja se je velikokrat navajala v okviru prenosa podjetij.
Freedom of establishment was overwhelmingly referred to in the context of transfers of undertakings.
Navedenih je bilo več vidikov politike konkurence: karteli, vertikalne omejitve, združitve in državna pomoč.
Several aspects of competition policy were mentioned: cartels, vertical restraints, mergers and state aids.
Enako velja za pravice intelektualne lastnine (modeli, avtorske pravice, blagovne znamke, patenti, direktiva o uveljavljenju pravic
The same can be said with regard to intellectual property rights (designs, copyright, trademarks, patents, Enforcement Directive
Omenila so se zelo različna področja v zvezi z varstvom potrošnikov, vključno s paketnim potovanjem, prodajo od vrat do vrat, zlorabljanjem sporočil o prejemu nagrade in popravo krivice.
A very wide variety of areas relating to consumer protection were touched upon, including package travel, doorstep selling, abusive "prize-winning" mailings and redress.
Na področju civilnega in procesnega prava so se sodniki sklicevali na priznavanje, pristojnost in izvrševanje sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah
In the area of civil and procedural law, judges referred to the recognition, jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, UL L 012, 16.1.2001, str.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJL 012, 16.01.2001, p.1. , the Rome Convention
Civilni vidik je bil prav tako očiten pri pogostem sklicevanju na uredbo Bruselj II „bis“
This civil aspect was also apparent in the frequent references to the Brussels II "bis" Regulation
Vzroke za navedbo zakonodaje Skupnosti pri strankah je predložilo 43 sodnikov.
43 judges gave reasons as to why certain areas of Community law were raised by the parties before them.
Daleč najpogostejši odgovor (42 %) je bil povezan z očitno ali mogočo nezdružljivostjo med direktivami in nacionalnimi ukrepi za izvajanje.
By far the most frequent answer given (42%) related to apparent or potential incompatibility between directives and national implementing measures.
Romunski sodnik je dodal, da je sodniška funkcija pomembna za dejansko izvajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti.
A Romanian judge commented that this judicial function was important for the application of Community law on the ground.
V zvezi s tem se je pogosto sklicevalo na direktive s področja varstva potrošnikov, vključno z direktivo o prodaji na daljavo
Directives in the area of consumer protection were often referred to in this respect, including the Distance Selling Directive
Več sodnikov je v tem smislu omenilo tudi delovno pravo in diskriminacijo.
Employment law and discrimination were also mentioned by several judges in this context.
Finski sodnik je izjavil, da se je v primeru spolne diskriminacije zakonodaja Skupnosti navajala zaradi tega, ker so stranke pogosto predvidevale, da bodo s tem dobile večje pravice kot na podlagi domače zakonodaje.
A Finnish judge stated that the reason Community law was raised in the case of sex discrimination was because the parties often assumed that it would grant them broader rights than domestic law.
Zakonodaja Skupnosti se je navajala tudi kot pripomoček za razlaganje nacionalne zakonodaje, ki je nepopolna ali pomanjkljiva.
Community law was also referred to as an aid to interpret national law which was either incomplete or lacking.
Nemški sodnik sodišča prve stopnje je menil, da ljudje kljub na splošno zadovoljivemu prenosu direktiv pogosto niso ugotovili, da nacionalni ukrepi izhajajo iz zakonodaje Skupnosti, in zato ne bi opazili nepravilnosti pri prenosu.
A first instance judge in Germany considered that, although Directives were generally transposed satisfactorily, people often did not realise that Community law was behind a national measure, and therefore would fail to notice cases of incorrect transposition.
Drugi nemški sodnik z višjega okrožnega sodišča je pripomnil, da nacionalna zakonodaja pogosto zaostaja za zakonodajo Skupnosti.
Another German judge, this time from a higher regional court, commented that national law often lagged behind Community law.
Anketiranci so pogosto izpostavili (14 %), da so stranke navajale zakonodajo Skupnosti na področjih, ki po naravi obsegajo čezmejno dejavnost ali medsebojno odvisnost držav članic (npr. carina, promet, gospodarsko pravo, nesolventnost, prosti pretok oseb).
A point often made by respondents (14%) was that Community law was raised by parties in areas which by nature implied a cross-border activity or interdependence between Member States (eg. customs, transport, commercial law, insolvency, free movement of persons).
Številni sodniki (14 %) so poudarili dejstvo, da so stranke bolje poznale zakonodajo in se nanjo sklicevale na tistih področjih, na katerih Skupnost zakonodajo intenzivneje ureja.
A number of judges (14%) highlighted the fact that where the Community had legislated intensively in a given area, parties were more likely to know about it and refer to it.
V zvezi s tem sta bili navedeni področji okoljske zakonodaje in telekomunikacij.
The areas of environment law and telecoms were cited in this respect.
Podoben poudarek je bil v zvezi z obstojem obsežne sodne prakse SES na danem področju, ki se lahko brez težav navaja, na primer v zvezi z zakonodajo o konkurenci ali civilnim in gospodarskim pravom.
A similar point was made in relation to the existence of abundant ECJ case-law in a given area which could readily be referred to, for instance, concerning competition law, or civil and commercial law.
Veliko anketirancev (12 %) je menilo, da so bili glavni vzroki za sklicevanje na zakonodajo Skupnosti nenavaden mednarodni pogled nekaterih strank in zadevni finančni interesi.
For several respondents (12%), the main reason why Community law was invoked was because of the unusually international outlook of certain litigants and the financial interests at stake.
Opozorilo se je na prosti pretok blaga, pravice intelektualne lastnine, konkurenco in pravo družb.
The point was made in relation to free movement of goods, intellectual property rights, competition and company law.
Zlasti v zvezi s civilnim procesnim pravom je 9 % anketirancev menilo, da je bil ukrep sprejet na ravni Skupnosti za pospeševanje dostopa do sodišč in poenostavitev dela sodnikov ter da so se stranke raje neposredno oprle na instrumente Skupnosti.
Concerning civil procedural law in particular, 9% of respondents considered that action had been taken at Community level to facilitate access to justice and simplify the work of judges, and therefore that parties preferred to rely directly on Community instruments.
Slovenska sodnika sta izjavila, da taki instrumenti izboljšujejo pravno varnost in preglednost.
Two Slovenian judges stated that such instruments increased legal certainty and transparency.
Ostali sodniki so isto potrdili zlasti v zvezi s preverjanjem izvršljivosti in nesolventnostjo.
Other judges made the same point specifically in relation to exequatur and insolvency.
Nazadnje je več sodnikov razložilo, zakaj stranke niso navajale zakonodaje Skupnosti oziroma zakaj so bile precej zadržane do sklicevanja.
Finally, several judges explained why Community law was not raised by the parties, or why parties were in fact very reticent to refer to it.
Javni organi so to naredili le, če so bili strokovno usposobljeni na nekem področju.
Public authorities only did so when they were specialised in a particular area.
Enako velja za druge stranke, na primer s področja zakonodaje o konkurenci, na katerem so bili obravnavani pomembni gospodarski interesi.
The same was said of other parties, for example, in the area of competition law where important economic interests were at stake.
Odvetniki naj bi bili po mnenju nekega sodnika bolj odločni glede nacionalne sodne prakse, ki je bolj poznana in pravno varna.
Lawyers were said to be more secure with national case-law which, one judge commented, was more well-known and legally certain.
Neki drugi sodnik z višjega sodišča na mejnem območju v Nemčiji je dodal, da je raven znanja o zakonodaji Skupnosti med strankami zelo različna.
Another judge from a higher German court in a border area commented that the level of knowledge of Community law varied very widely among parties.
To je bil glavni dejavnik za določanje pogostosti, po katerem se je navajala zakonodaja Skupnosti.
This was the main factor determining the frequency with which Community law was raised.
Na to vprašanje je odgovorilo 853 sodnikov.
853 judges responded to this question.
Ker so bili odgovori po vsebini zelo različni, se bodo najprej analizirali na podlagi nekaterih kazalnikov in nato v obliki tematskega pregleda.
As the answers varied very widely in content, they will be analysed firstly according to certain indicators, and secondly in the form of a thematic overview.
Cilj prvega kazalnika je prikazati odnos sodnikov do dela, ki ga prispevajo k pravnemu redu Skupnosti.
The first indicator aims to give some impression of the judges’ attitude towards playing a part in the Community legal order.
Najpogostejši odgovor je izražal resno prizadevanje in močen občutek za odgovornost glede tega, da je zdaj zakonodaja Skupnosti sestavni del nacionalnega pravnega reda ter jo je treba uporabljati, če je primerno (48 %).
The most frequent answer expressed serious engagement and a strong sense of responsibility that Community law was now an integral part of the national legal order and had to be applied where relevant (48%).
Veliko sodnikov (17 %) je bilo glede te vloge ravnodušnih.
A large number of judges (17%) expressed indifference to this role.
Številni anketiranci (13 %) so bili zaradi zakonodaje Skupnosti zaskrbljeni, medtem ko jih je bilo nekaj (2 %) dejansko prestrašenih.
A number of respondents (13%) were apprehensive of Community law and a small number (2%) were actually fearful of it.
Po drugi strani je 8 % anketirancev radovednih in bi želelo izvedeti več o tem, prav tako je enak delež anketirancev navdušenih nad vlogo, ki jo imajo.
On the other hand, 8% of respondents expressed curiosity to learn more about it, and an identical proportion was enthusiastic about their role.
Nekaj sodnikov (4 %), vključno z danskim sodnikom, ki ima doktorat iz evropskega prava, je bilo v zvezi s tem zelo samozavestnih.
A small minority of judges (4%), including one Danish judge who had obtained a PhD in European law, was very self-confident in this respect.
Bolgarski sodnik z okrožnega sodišča je bil dejansko „ponosen“, da lahko uporablja zakonodajo Skupnosti, čeprav je to dodaten izziv.
Indeed, one Bulgarian judge from a regional court was actually “proud” to be able to apply Community law, even though this was an extra challenge.
Drugi kazalnik poskuša opredeliti ugotovljeno težavo pri vlogi državnih sodnikov.
The second indicator attempts to measure the perceived difficulty of this role for national judges.
Veliki večini državnih sodnikov je bila ta naloga videti težka (52 %) ali zelo težka (23 %).
The overwhelming majority of national judges found this task either difficult (52%) or very difficult (23%).
Po drugi strani je nekaj anketirancev svojo nalogo opredelilo kot sorazmerno enostavno (7 %) ali dejansko lahko (18 %).
On the other hand, a minority of respondents found the task either relatively straightforward (7%) or actually easy (18%).
Tretji in zadnji kazalnik poskuša potrditi pomembnost te vloge za anketirance.
The third and final indicator tries to ascertain how relevant this role is to respondents.
Tudi v tem primeru so bili odgovori posebno jasni, pri čemer je velika večina sodnikov menila, da je njihova vloga prvega sodnika zakonodaje Skupnosti popolnoma nepomembna pri njihovem vsakdanjem delu (27 %), skoraj nepomembna (26 %) ali manj pomembna (25 %).
In this case, the answers were also particularly clear, with a vast majority of judges considering their role as first judge of Community law to be either totally irrelevant in their daily work (27%), nearly irrelevant (26%) or minor (25%).
Zakonodaja Skupnosti ne skrbi dodatne 4 % anketirancev, vendar se upa, da se bo stanje sčasoma spremenilo ob upoštevanju nedavnega pristopa držav članic.
A further 4% currently felt unconcerned by Community law, but hoped that this would change with time, given the recent accession of their Member State.
Nazadnje, manjša skupina (14 %) je to vlogo opredelila kot pomembno, medtem ko so jo nekateri (4 %) opredelili kot ključno pri svojih dnevnih dejavnostih.
Finally, a minority (14%) considered this role to be important and some (4%) considered it crucial to their daily activities.
Če bi morali tako na podlagi odgovorov na to vprašanje predstaviti profil tipičnega sodnika na sodišču prve stopnje, bi ga lahko povzeli z naslednjimi besedami:
Thus, if we were to present a profile of a typical first instance judge, based on the answers to this question, it could be summarised in this way:
„Najprej se vidim kot državni sodnik.
"I see myself primarily as a national judge.
Zakonodajo Skupnosti jemljem resno, čeprav je obravnavanje tako zahtevne zakonodaje velika odgovornost.
I take Community law seriously, although it is a big responsibility to deal with such a complex body of law.
Pri vsakdanjem delu se z njo tudi redko srečam, ker jo stranke le redko navajajo.“
Also, I rarely come across it in my daily work because the parties hardly ever raise it."
Zelo veliko sodnikov je odgovorilo, da se ne štejejo za prve sodnike zakonodaje Skupnosti niti na ta način ne razmišljajo o svojem vsakdanjem delu, ker nacionalna zakonodaja že vključuje zakonodajo Skupnosti.
A very large number of judges responded that they did not perceive themselves as first judges of Community law, nor did they think of their daily work in that way, because national law already incorporated Community law.
Veliko anketirancev, zlasti iz Poljske, je navedlo, da je nacionalna zakonodaja, ki pravilno izvaja zakonodajo Skupnosti, popolnoma odpravila potrebo po uporabi načela neposrednega učinka direktiv.
Indeed, many respondents, particularly from Poland, stated that national law correctly implementing Community law entirely removed the need to make use of the principle of direct effect of Directives.
Zato je večina sodnikov izjavila, da bi zakonodajo Skupnosti neposredno in neodvisno od vsakega izvedbenega ukrepa uporabljala le, če bi se stranke izrecno sklicevale nanjo.
Therefore, most judges stated that they would only apply Community law directly and independently of any implementing measure if the parties specifically raised it.
Neki nemški upravni sodnik se je štel za „odpiralca vrat“ na Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti za tiste stranke, ki so si to želele.
One German administrative judge saw himself as a "door opener" to the ECJ for those parties who wanted to go that far.
Poljski sodnik je v zvezi s tem ta odnos opisal kot „precej pasiven“.
One Polish judge described this attitude as being "rather passive" in this respect.
Pogosta skupna ugotovitev je bila, da se niso niti stranke niti odvetniki nikoli v pomembnem obsegu oprli na zakonodajo Skupnosti.
A common observation which often followed was that neither the parties, nor the lawyers ever relied on Community law to any meaningful extent.
Posledično je poljski sodnik ugotovil, da pristop k Evropski uniji ni prinesel nobene oprijemljive spremembe pri njegovem vsakodnevnem delu.
As a result, one Polish judge observed that accession to the European Union had not resulted in any tangible change in his daily work.
Francoski sodnik na pritožbenem sodišču je pripomnil, da se veliko sodnikov še vedno ne zaveda uporabnosti zakonodaje Skupnosti zunaj čezmejnih primerov.
A French appeal court judge commented that many judges still did not realise that Community law applied beyond cross-border cases.
Francoski sodnik je pripomnil, da je zakonodajo Skupnosti dojemal „s strahom“, ker je bila to nepoznana zakonodaja, do katere je bilo težko dostopati, ter da so imeli odvetniki pri dostopanju do nje še večje težave kot sodniki.
A French judge commented that he perceived Community law "with fear" because it was an unknown body of law which was difficult to access and that lawyers had even more trouble accessing it than judges.
To pojmovanje je ponovil sodnik na nemškem sodišču druge stopnje, ki je opredelil terminologijo, uporabljeno v zakonodaji Skupnosti, kot „tujo“ ali „nenavadno“.
This apprehension was echoed by a German second instance court judge who considered the terminology used in Community law to be “foreign” or “alien”.
Dodatna ponavljajoča se skrb je bil sam obseg sekundarne zakonodaje Skupnosti in vtis, da je je vedno več in da postaja vedno bolj zapletena.
A further recurring worry was the sheer extent of Community secondary legislation, and the impression that it is continually evolving and increasing in quantity and complexity.
Več sodnikov, vključno z nekaterimi, ki so pokazali navdušenje in zanimanje za zakonodajo Skupnosti, je menilo, da je bil na posebnih področjih izziv zlasti sprotno dopolnjevanje znanja.
Several judges, including some who showed considerable enthusiasm and interest in Community law, considered that keeping up to date in specific areas was particularly challenging.
Anketiranci so bili zares zaskrbljeni zaradi dejstva, da je bila ob njihovi delovni obremenitvi vsaka temeljita preučitev vprašanja zakonodaje Skupnosti zelo težka, če ne celo nemogoča.
Respondents regularly expressed concern at the fact that their workload made any in-depth examination of Community law issue very difficult indeed, if not impossible.
To točko je podprlo dojemanje, da je treba za zadovoljivo razumevanje zakonodaje Skupnosti porabiti bistveno več časa kot za podobno preučitev domače zakonodaje.
This point was reinforced by the perception that one needed to invest significantly more time to gain a satisfactory understanding of a point of Community law than the time needed for a similar examination of domestic law.
Več sodnikov je nasprotovalo vplivu zakonodaje Skupnosti na nacionalno zakonodajo.
Several judges were hostile to the influence of Community law over national law.
Nemški sodnik s finančnega sodišča je menil, da se je z vplivom zakonodaje Skupnosti povečalo tveganje za „slabe“ sodbe in ogrozila pravna varnost.
One German judge from a financial court was of the opinion that the influence of Community law increased the risk of "bad" judgments and undermined legal certainty.
Nazadnje se je neki sodnik na delovnem sodišču počutil precej „izzvanega“ zaradi tega, ker je sodeloval v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
Finally one labour court judge felt rather “provoked” at being brought into playing a role in the Community legal order.
Nemški sodnik je kritiziral dejstvo, da imajo sodniki na sodišču prve stopnje redko tehnična sredstva za spopadanje z zakonodajo Skupnosti, medtem ko pobudo najpogosteje dajo visoko usposobljeni odvetniki.
One German judge criticised the fact that first instance judges rarely had the technical means to get to grips with Community law, and the initiative rests most often with highly qualified lawyers.
Za več sodnikov, ki se zaradi starosti med svojim študijem niso nikoli učili o zakonodaji EU, vključno s francoskim sodnikom na pritožbenem sodišču in nemškim sodnikom sredi šestdesetih let, je pravni red Skupnosti še poseben izziv.
Several judges who were never taught EU law during their studies due to their age, including one French judge sitting in an appeal court and one German judge in his mid sixties found the Community legal order particularly challenging.
Številni sodniki iz „novih“ držav članic veliko pričakujejo od prihodnosti.
A number of judges from "new" Member States looked very much to the future.
Slovenski sodnik je na primer izjavil, da se bo ta posebni vidik sodnikovega dela seveda razvijal sčasoma.
For instance, a Slovenian judge stated that this particular aspect of the judge’s work would grow naturally in time.
Več sodnikov je bilo pri uporabi zakonodaje Skupnosti negotovih.
Several judges felt insecure when applying Community law.
Pravna tradicija ni tako poznana in metode razlage so drugačne od običajno uporabljenih.
The legal tradition was not as familiar and the methods of interpretation were different than those normally used.
Upravna sodnica je menila, da je za zakonodajo Skupnosti značilna razsežnost, ki je sama pri svojem vsakodnevnem delu ne more obvladati.
One administrative judge felt that Community law had a dimension which she could not grasp in her daily work.
Po drugi strani je bila nezanemarljiva manjšina sodnikov bolj zadovoljna z neposrednim stikom z zakonodajo Skupnosti in jo je obravnavala kot „očitno resničnost“.
On the other hand, a sizeable minority of judges clearly felt more comfortable having direct contact with Community law, considering it to be an "obvious reality".