natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- ni zahtevala ponovnega sojenja ali vložila pritožbe v ustreznem roku, ki je vsaj 10 dni in najdlje 15dni.
- did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe , which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.
2) v prilogi („potrdilo”) se točka … nadomesti z naslednjim:
2 ) in the Annex ("certificate"), point ... shall be replaced by the following:
(h) Navedite, ali je bila oseba navzoča na sojenju, ki se je zaključilo z odločbo:
(h) Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision:
1.  Da, oseba je bila navzoča na sojenju, ki se je zaključilo z odločbo.
1.  Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
2.  Ne, oseba ni bila navzoča na sojenju, ki se je zaključilo z odločbo.
2.  No, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
Če ste na to vprašanje odgovorili z "ne", prosimo navedite, ali:
If you answered “no” to th is question , please indicate if:
2.1 je bila oseba neposredno osebno povabljena ali kako drugače dejansko pravočasno uradno obveščena, v jeziku, ki ga je razumela, in v skladu z nacionalnim pravom države članice izdajateljice o načrtovanem datumu in kraju sojenja, ki se je zaključilo z odločbo, in sicer tako, da je mogoče nedvoumno sklepati, da je bila oseba seznanjena z načrtovanim datumom in krajem sojenja in je bila osebno obveščena, da se odločba lahko izreče tudi, če se sojenja ne udeleži;
2.1 the person was directly summoned in person or in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State by other means actually received official information, in due time and in a language which he/she understood, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he/she did not appear for the trial
Kdaj in kje (datum in kraj) je bila oseba povabljena ali kako drugače osebno uradno obveščena:
Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means :
2.2 je oseba po tem, ko je bila neposredno osebno povabljena ali kako drugače dejansko uradno obveščena o načrtovanem datumu in kraju sojenja na način, da je mogoče nedvoumno sklepati, da je bila seznanjena s sojenjem, izrecno pooblastila pravnega zastopnika, ki ga je izbrala, določila in plačala ali ga je določila in plačala država v skladu s svojim nacionalnim pravom, ki se uporablja pri uveljavljanju pravice do obrambe, in jo je zastopnik dejansko zastopal na sojenju;
2.2. having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he/she was aware of the trial , had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;
2.3 je bila oseba po tem, ko ji je bila osebno vročena odločba in je bila v jeziku, ki ga je razumela, izrecno obveščena o pravici do pritožbe ali ponovnega sojenja, na katerem bi imela pravico sodelovati in na katerem bi se vsebina primera, vključno z novimi dokazi, (ponovno) preučila, kar bi lahko vodilo do razveljavitve prvotne odločbe, izrecno izjavila, da ne izpodbija odločbe.
2.3 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he/she would have the right to participate, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed , expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.
Opišite, kdaj je bila osebi odločba vročena, na kakšen način je bila obveščena o svoji pravici do ponovnega sojenja ali pritožbe in kako je izrecno izjavila, da ne izpodbija odločbe:
Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he/she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:
2.4 je bila osebi ……… (dan/mesec/leto) osebno vročena odločba, izdana po sojenju, na katerem ni bila navzoča, in je bila upravičena do ponovnega sojenja ali pritožbe v državi članici izdajateljici pod naslednjimi pogoji:
2.4 the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person on ………… (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:
– je bila oseba izrecno obveščena v jeziku, ki ga je razumela, o pravici do pritožbe ali ponovnega sojenja, na katerem bi imela pravico sodelovati in na katerem bi se vsebina primera, vključno z novimi dokazi, (ponovno) preučila, kar bi lahko vodilo v razveljavitev prvotne odločbe; in
- the person was expressly informed, in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he/she would have the right to participate, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed , and
– je imela oseba po tem, ko je bila obveščena o tej pravici, na voljo … dni, da zahteva ponovno sojenje ali vloži pritožbo, česar v tem času ni storila.
- after being informed of that right, the person had ...... days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not make such a request during that period.
Pravica do sojenja je temeljna pravica, določena v paktu Združenih narodov o državljanskih in političnih pravicah.
The right to the trial is a fundamental right provided in the United Nation's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Ta pravica pa ni neomejena.
However, this right is not absolute.
Pod nekaterimi pogoji se lahko odbločbe izdajo po sojenju, na katerem zadevna oseba ni bila navzoča; te odločbe se imenujejo sodbe, izdane v nenavzočnosti.
Under certain conditions decisions could be rendered following a trial at which a person concerned did not appeared personally, so-called, judgments in absentia .
Z uporabo načela vzajemnega priznavanja mora pravosodni organ v eni državi članici izvršiti odločbo, ki jo je izdal pravosodni organ druge države članice.
In application of the principle of mutual recognition, a judicial authority in one Member State shall enforce a decision issued by a judicial authority in another Member State.
Vendar obstajajo nekatere izjeme, kot je sodba, izdana brez navzočnosti zadevne osebe.
However, some exceptions exist and one of them is a situation when a judgment is rendered in absentia .
Trenutno obstaja več instrumentov EU (ki jih je Svet že sprejel ali jih mora še sprejeti), ki se nanašajo na sodbe, izdane v nenavzočnosti.
Currently there are several EU instruments (adopted or waiting adoption at the Council) which deal with the issue of judgments in absentia.
Vsak instrument pa to vprašanje obravnava na drugačen način, kar je ovira za vzajemno priznavanje teh sodb.
However, they deal with this question differently and that is an obstacle for a mutual recognition of those judgments.
To vodi k neskladnemu sistemu na ravni EU, ki ga zaznamuje (nezaželena) sodna negotovost.
This leads to a non-coherent system at EU level which is characterized by (unwanted) judicial uncertainty.
Za izboljšanje tega stanja je sedem držav članic pripravilo predlog za uskladitev meril za uporabo razlogov za nepriznavanje odločb, ki so izdane v nenavzočnosti, v naslednjih štirih instrumentih:
To redress this situation, 7 Member States have come with a proposal to align the criteria for applying the grounds for non-recognition related to decisions rendered in absentia in the following four instruments:
1) Okvirni sklep Sveta (2002/584/PNZ) o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami,
1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States,
2) Okvirni sklep Sveta 2005/214/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja finančnih kazni,
2) Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties,
3) Okvirni sklep Sveta 2006/783/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi,
3) Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders;
4) Osnutek okvirnega sklepa 2008/…/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodb v kazenskih zadevah, s katerimi so izrečene zaporne kazni ali ukrepi, ki vključujejo odvzem prostosti, za namen njihovega izvrševanja v Evropski uniji.
4) Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union.
Poročevalec meni, da je treba v predlog vključiti tudi peti instrument, in sicer Okvirni sklep 2008 /…/PNZ o priznavanju pogojnih kazni, alternativnih sankcij in pogojnih odložitev izreka kazni ter zagotavljanju nadzorstva nad njimi.
The rapporteur considers that there is a need to include also the fifth instrument in the scope of the proposal, namely, Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences.
Usklajevanje bi pripeljalo do razumljivih pravil za večjo pravno jasnost in prav tako omogočilo pravosodno sodelovanje.
This alignment would result in more clear rules in respect to legal clarity and would facilitate judicial cooperation.
Poleg tega je namen predloga povečati zaščito temeljnih postopkovnih pravic, kot sta pravica do obrambe in sojenja.
Moreover, the proposal increases the protection of fundamental procedural rights, such as, the right to the defence and the right to the trial.
Čeprav je predlog namenjen uskladitvi razlogov za nepriznavanje sodb, izdanih v nenavzočnosti, njegov cilj ni usklajevanje pojmov, temveč obravnava vprašanja različnih ureditev na horizontalni ravni.
Despite the fact that the proposal aims at the alignment of grounds for non-recognition of judgments rendered in absentia , the objective of the proposal is not to harmonize the concepts, but rather to deal with the question of the different regimes horizontally.
o pobudi Republike Slovenije, Francoske republike, Češke republike, Kraljevine Švedske, Slovaške republike, Združenega kraljestva Velike Britanije in Severne Irske in Zveze republike Nemčije z namenom sprejetja Okvirnega sklepa Sveta o izvrševanju odločb, izdanih v nenavzočnosti, in spremembi Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584/PNZ o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami, Okvirnega sklepa 2005/214/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja denarnih kazni, Okvirnega sklepa 2006/783/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi in Okvirnega sklepa 2008/.../PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodb v kazenskih zadevah, s katerimi so izrečene zaporne kazni ali ukrepi, ki vključujejo odvzem prostosti, za namen njihovega izvrševanja v Evropski uniji
on the initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
Pravila iz več okvirnih sklepov (Okvirni sklep 2002/584/PNZ o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami, Okvirni sklep 2005/214/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja denarnih kazni in Okvirni sklep 2006/783/PNZ o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja odredb o zaplembi) se razlikujejo glede neizvrševanja sodnih odločb, izdanih v odsotnosti, in precejšnjega manevrskega prostora, prepuščenega izvršilnim organom.
The rules laid down in the various Framework Decisions (Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders) differ with regard the non-enforcement of judicial decisions given in absentia and the considerable discretion vested in the executing authorities,
Zakonodajni predlog o izvrševanju odločb, izdanih v nenavzočnosti, je pomemben, prvič, ker bodo z njim poenotena pravila o tem, kako se v eni državi članici izvršujejo sodne odločitve, sprejete v drugi državi članici po postopku, pri katerem oseba ni bila navzoča, in, drugič, ker prinaša jasne in skupne rešitve, ki bodo opredelile razloge za zavrnitev.
This legislative proposal on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia is a significant legislative proposal, on one hand, for securing uniformity of the rules for the execution in a Member State of judicial decisions issued by another Member State following proceedings where the person was not present and, on the other hand, for providing clear and common solutions defining the grounds for refusal.
Temeljni namen predloga je omejiti razloge za zavrnitev, kar pripravljavka mnenja pozdravlja.
The main goal of the proposal is to limit grounds for refusal, which the draftsman welcomes.
Kljub temu pa je pripravila nekaj predlogov za to, da bi se upoštevalo ravnotežje interesov med temeljnimi pravicami in svoboščinami državljanov ter učinkovitim pravosodnim sodelovanjem in vzajemnim priznavanjem.
Nevertheless, she has made a number of suggestions designed to take into account the balance of interests between the fundamental rights and freedom of citizen against the need for effective judicial cooperation and mutual recognition.
Predlog sklepa – akt o spremembi
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Člen 4 a – točka a
Article 4 a – point a
(a) bila osebno povabljena ali prek pristojnega zastopnika pravočasno in v skladu z nacionalnim pravom države članice izdajateljice odločbe obveščena o načrtovanem datumu in kraju obravnave, ki se je zaključila z odločbo, izdano v nenavzočnosti, ter bila obveščena o dejstvu, da se lahko takšna odločba izda v primeru, če se oseba ne udeleži sojenja ;
(a) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial ;
(a) bila povabljena osebno ali z vročitvijo poziva prek pristojnega zastopnika , ki ga je imenoval toženec in s katerim je v stiku;
(a) was summoned in person or by service upon a competent representative appointed by the defendant and in contact with him ;
S predlogom spremembe naj bi se izognili nevarnosti, da bi sodišče poziv vročilo zagovorniku, ki ga je samo imenovalo in ki ne bi mogel obvestiti toženca.
The purpose is to avoid the danger of the service requirement being fulfilled by service on a court-appointed lawyer who may have no means of contacting the defendant.
Člen 4 a – točka c – točka i
Article 4 a – point c – point i
(i) ji bo vročena vsaj peti dan po predaji in bo izrecno obveščena o pravici do ponovnega sojenja in pravici, da je prisotna na tem sojenju;
(i) will be served with it at the latest on the fifth day after the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial;
(i) ji bo vročena med predajo in bo izrecno obveščena o pravici do ponovnega sojenja in pravici, da je prisotna na tem sojenju;
(i) will be served with it during the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial;
Izredno pomembno je, da se v skladu s členom 6 Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin zagotovi največja možna zaščita tožencev.
It is fundamental to ensure the maximum protection of the person in accordance with the Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Člen 4 a – točka c – točka ii
Article 4 a – point c – point ii
(ii) bo imela vsaj …* dni , da zahteva ponovno sojenje;
(ii) will have at least […] days to request a retrial;
(ii) bo imela vsaj toliko časa , da zahteva ponovno sojenje , kot ga predpisuje nacionalno pravo, če pa ga nacionalno pravo ne predpisuje, pa najmanj 10 in največ 15 dni ;
(ii) will have at least the period prescribed by national law or, if not prescribed by national law, a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days to request a retrial;
Izredno pomembno je, da se v skladu s členom 6 Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin zagotovi največja možna zaščita tožencev.
It is fundamental to ensure the maximum protection to the person in accordance with the Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Uporaba načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodb
Application of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments
o ribištvu in ribogojstvu v okviru celostnega upravljanja obalnih območij v Evropi
on Fisheries and Aquaculture in the context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2002 o izvajanju celostnega upravljanja obalnih območij v Evropi
– having regard to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom "Poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu: ocena celostnega upravljanja obalnih območij v Evropi (KOM(2007) 308)",
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled 'Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe’ ( COM(2007)0308 ),
– ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1198/2006 z dne 27. julija 2006 o Evropskem skladu za ribištvo
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund
– ob upoštevanju Direktive 2008/56/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. junija 2008 o določitvi okvira za ukrepe Skupnosti na področju politike morskega okolja (Okvirna direktiva o morski strategiji)
– having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
UL L 164, 25.6.2008, str.
OJ L 164, 25.06.2008, p.
19. in sporočila Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu z naslovom "Tematska strategija za varstvo in ohranjanje morskega okolja" ( KOM(2005)0504 ),
19. and the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment’ ( COM(2005)0504 ),
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu, Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru in Odboru regij z naslovom "Celostna pomorska politika za Evropsko unijo" ( KOM(2007)0575 ),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ ( COM(2007)0575 ),
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 15. junija 2006 o obalnem ribištvu in težavah obalnih ribiških skupnosti
– having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2006 on inshore fishing and the problems encountered by inshore fishing communities
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu z dne 9. marca 2006 o izboljšanju gospodarskih razmer v ribiški industriji ( KOM(2006)0103 ) in svoje resolucije z dne 28. septembra 2006 na to temo
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 9 March 2006 on improving the economic situation in the fishing industry ( COM(2006)0103 ) and its resolution of 28 September 2006 on that subject
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije Svetu in Parlamentu z naslovom "Strategija za trajnostni razvoj evropskega ribogojstva" KOM(2002)0511 ,
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture’ ( COM(2002)0511 ),
– ob upoštevanju študije Evropskega parlamenta o regionalni odvisnosti od ribištva
– having regard to the study for Parliament on "Regional dependency on fisheries"
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ribištvo ( A6-0286/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries ( A6-0286/2008 ),
A. ker pri celostnem upravljanju obalnih območij (Integrated Coastal Zone Management – ICZM) ne gre zgolj za okoljsko politiko, ampak tudi za proces, katerega cilj je izboljšanje ekonomskih in socialnih razmer obalnih območij ter zagotovljanje trajnostnega razvoja vseh dejavnosti v teh regijah, kot sta na primer ribolov in ribogojstvo,
A. whereas Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is not only an environmental policy but also an ongoing process aimed at improving the economic and social conditions of coastal zones and securing the sustainable development of all the activities pursued in those regions, such as fishing and aquaculture,
B. ker je izvajanje ICZM dolgoročen proces in ker se je večina nacionalnih strategij, sprejetih v okviru zgoraj omenjenega priporočila, začela izvajati šele leta 2006,
B. whereas the implementation of ICZM is a long-term process and most national strategies adopted within the framework of the above-mentioned Recommendation began to be implemented only in 2006,
C. ker je upravljanje obalnih območij doslej potekalo na srednji rok, pri čemer se ni upoštevalo dejstva, da gre za kompleksne naravne ekosisteme, ki se s časom spreminjajo,
C. whereas the management of coastal zones has so far been conducted in the medium term, ignoring the fact that these are complex natural ecosystems which change with the passing of time,
D. ker so odločitve in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti, obravnavali posamezne ločene dejavnosti in jim ni uspelo rešiti problema degradacije obalnih območij kot celote,
D. whereas the decisions and measures that have been taken concerned an isolated activity and failed to tackle the problem of the degradation of coastal zones as a whole,
E. ker je obstoječe načrtovanje zaenkrat osredotočeno na kopno in ne upošteva vpliva nekaterih obalnih dejavnosti na druge dejavnosti, ki se izvajajo v isti regiji,
E. whereas existing planning has so far focused on land and has failed to take into account the impact of some coastal activities on other activities pursued in the same region;
F. ker stroški za izvajanje nacionalnih strategij ICZM po pričakovanjih ne bodo veliki, bodo pa prinesli pomembne finančne koristi,
F. whereas it is expected that national ICZM strategies will cost little to implement, while producing significant financial benefits,