natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ravno zato, ker brez ustreznih podatkov o naravi kaznivega dejanja, na katerega se izpisek nanaša, ni mogoče oceniti, kako relevantni so izpiski iz kazenske evidence druge države članice, predloga sprememb 2 in 8 navajata, da dokument, v katerem države članice navedejo seznam iz člena 5(1)(a), obvezno vsebuje opis sestavnih elementov kaznivega dejanja.
Precisely because an accurate assessment of the relevance of extracts from the record of another Member State is not possible without adequate information on the nature of the criminal offence to which the extract relates, it is proposed in Amendments 2 and 8 that the document in which the Member States give notification of the list referred to in Article 5(1)(a) must as a matter of course include a description of the constitutive elements of the offence.
Glede tega poročevalec upa, da bodo elektronska orodja, s katerimi bodo dodatni zahtevki potovali hitreje in bodo pravosodni organi lahko hitro dobili potrebne informacije, uvedena v najkrajšem možnem času.
In this respect, your rapporteur hopes that electronic tools aimed at speeding up those supplementary requests and allowing the judicial authorities swiftly to obtain the necessary information are introduced as soon as possible.
Naj ob tem opozorimo, da je predlog za sitem ECRIS del širšega sistema e-sodstva za lažje, obsežnejše in hitrejše komuniciranje med pravosodnimi organi držav članic.
It should be pointed out, in that regard, that the ECRIS proposal forms part of the broader framework of the E-justice system which is also designed to facilitate increased and swifter communication between the judicial authorities of the Member States.
Predlogi sprememb 4, 9 in 10 izhajajo iz načela, ki ga je s sodbo v zadevi C-133/06, točke 54 in naslednje, nedavno potrdilo Sodišče, ki je navedlo, da pravila o načinu sprejemanja odločitev v institucijah Skupnosti določa Pogodba in da jih ne morejo po svoje tolmačiti ne države članice ne institucije same.
Lastly, A mendment s 4, 9 and 10 are based on a principle recently confirmed by the Court of Justice in its ruling in C ase C-133/06 , p oints 54 et seq , which reiterate s that the rules regarding the manner in which the Community institutions arrive at their decisions are laid down in the Treaty and are not at the disposal of the Member States or of the institutions themselves .
Po mnenju Sodišča je dopustiti, da lahko institucija določi sekundarne pravne podlage, četudi gre za okrepitev ali poenostavitev natančnih pravil za sprejemanje nekega akta, isto kot soglašati, da ima ta institucija zakonodajno moč, ki presega tisto iz Pogodbe.
I n the Court’s opinion , to acknowledge that an institution can establish secondary legal bases, whether for the purpose of strengthening or easing the detailed rules for the adoption of an act, is tantamount to according that institution a legislative power which exceeds that provided for by the Treaty .
S tem pa bi ta institucija lahko spodkopala načelo institucionalnega ravnovesja, po katerem mora vsaka od institucij svoja pooblastila izvajati ob upoštevanju pooblastil drugih institucij.
This would also enable the institution concerned to undermine the principle of institutional balance which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions .
Prav tako pa, je še navedlo Sodišče, sprejetja sekundarnih pravnih podlag ni možno opravičiti s pomisleki o politični občutljivosti zadeve ali skrbi za učinkovitost delovanja Skupnosti.
Nor, as the Court also stated, can the adoption of secondary legal bases be justified on the basis of considerations relating to the politically sensitive nature of the issue concerned or to a concern to ensure the effectiveness of a Community action .
Predlagani postopek Evropske komisije preko odbora, ki bi mu predsedovala kar Komisija, je v čistem neskladju z naslovom VI Pogodbe o Evropski uniji in bi pomenil vzpostavitev sekundarnih pravnih podlag, ki jih pogodba sama ne določa.
The procedur e proposed by the European Commission, which would oper ate via a committee chaired by the Commission itself, is wholly outside the scope of Titl e VI of the Treaty on European Union , and would give rise to the creation of secondary legal bases not provided for in the Treaty itself .
S predlogi sprememb 4, 9 in 10 želimo predlog Komisije uskladiti s smernicami Sodišča in zagotoviti, da bodo izvedbeni ukrepi v zvezi s sklepom sprejeti v skladu s členoma 34 in 39 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
A mendment s 4, 9 and 10 a re aimed at aligning the Commission proposal with the Court of Justice guidelines and a t ensur ing that the implementing measures bearing on the content of the decision are adopted in accordance with A rticl es 34 and 39 of the Treaty on European Union .
Glede varovanja podatkov kot vprašanja, ki je za odbor LIBE zelo pomembno, je poročevalec zadovoljen, saj predlogu Komisije ni kaj očitati.
As concerns data protection, which is a very sensitive issue in the LIBE Committee, your rapporteur is pleased to note that there are no criticisms to be levelled at the Commission proposal.
Po načelih, vzpostavljenih z okvirnim sklepom, sklep določa, da morajo države članice vsaka zase zbirati podatke o svojih državljanih.
In building on the principles already established in the framework decision, the decision in fact lays down that each Member State must centralise the information relating to its own citizens.
S temi podatki upravlja osrednji organ, ki edini lahko dostopa do povezave z drugimi evropskimi evidencami.
That information is managed by the central administration, which is the only body to have access to the interconnection with the other European records.
To pomeni, da tudi pravosodni organi nimajo dostopa do evropske evidence in da morajo prav tako poslati zahtevek na centralni register njihove države, ki potem poskrbi, da so zahtevki poslani ustrezni državi ali državam.
This means that the judicial authorities do not have access to the European record either, and that they themselves must send requests for information to the central record of their own country, which will see that these are sent to the country or countries concerned.
Zahtevani podatki bodo vedno prispeli k osrednjemu organu, ki jih bo potem poslal pravosodnemu organu, ki jih je zaprosil.
It will always be the central administration that takes receipt of the information requested and, lastly, sends it to the requesting judicial authority.
Poročevalec resnično upa, da bo upravljanje centralnih nacionalnih evidenc tudi v prihodnosti ostalo v pristojnosti nacionalnih organov.
Your rapporteur firmly hopes that management of the central national records will also remain the preserve of national authorities in the future.
Uvodna izjava 14 predloga navaja sklic na Okvirni sklep Sveta o varstvu osebnih podatkov, ki so obdelani v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah, s čimer je zagotovljeno, da bodo standardi iz okvirnega sklepa zajamčeni tudi v tem primeru.
The reference, in recital 14 of the proposal, to the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters ensures that the standards set out therein are also guaranteed in the present case.
Ob tem pa bi veljajo uskladiti uvodno izjavo 10 Okvirnega sklepa 2008/XX/PNZ o organizaciji in vsebini izmenjave informacij iz kazenskih evidenc med državami članicami, ki se sklicuje na Konvencijo Sveta Evrope o varstvu posameznikov glede avtomatske obdelave osebnih podatkov, sprejete v Strasbourgu 28. januarja 1981, in uvodno izjavo 14 tega sklepa, ki se na drugi strani povsem upravičeno sklicuje na Okvirni sklep o varstvu osebnih podatkov, ki se obdelujejo v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah.
It would also be appropriate, in that respect, to align recital 10 of Framework Decision 2008/XX/GAI on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States, which makes reference to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data , adopted in Strasbourg on 28 January 1981, with recital 14 of the present decision which, on the other hand, quite rightly makes reference to the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Po mnenju poročevalca bi veljalo opozoriti tudi na to, da morajo države članice nemudoma sprejeti omenjeni okvirni sklep o varstvu podatkov.
Your rapporteur has also thought fit to point out that the Member States need to adopt the above-mentioned framework decision on data protection without delay.
Še v zvezi z varstvom podatkov se poročevalec strinja z odločitvijo o uporabi sistema S-TESTA, saj ta sistem jamči za potrebno varnost omrežja pri obravnavi tako občutljivih podatkov.
Still on the subject of data protection, your rapporteur agrees with the decision to use the S‑TESTA system, which guarantees the network security needed when handling such sensitive information.
Poročevalec meni, da bi bilo sistem S-TESTA smotrno uporabljati tudi vnaprej in da bi se izpiski ne smeli pošiljati preko interneta ali drugih kanalov, ki ne jamčijo najvišjih varnostnih standardov.
Your rapporteur recommends continued use of the S-TESTA system, and that the information extracted from the record should not be sent over the Internet or through other channels that do not guarantee the highest security standards.
Predlagane spremembe naj bi zato v vsebino sklepa v prvi vrsti vnesle več jasnosti in poenostavile uporabo pridobljenih podatkov.
The amendments proposed are therefore aimed primarily at clarifying the content of the decision and further facilitating the use of the information obtained.
Poročevalec se tudi zaveda, da se bo med delovanjem sistema v praksi zelo verjetno pokazala potreba po stalnem posodabljanju, pa tudi tehničnih dopolnitvah in usklajevanju.
Your rapporteur is also aware that the practical implementation of the interconnection system will, in all likelihood, require constant updating as well as technical expertise and adaptations.
Vseeno pa bi želel opozoriti, da rešitev, ki jo predlaga Komisija, ni v skladu z veljavnimi Pogodbami oziroma da ni usklajena z nedavno potrjenimi smernicami Sodišča o sekundarnih pravnih podlagah, zato Svet poziva k upoštevanju pravil iz Pogodb, zlasti člena 34 in 39 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
He would nevertheless point out that the solution proposed by the Commission does not appear to be in line with the Treaties in force, or to conform to the guidelines recently confirmed by the Court of Justice on secondary legal bases, and therefore calls on the Council to respect the rules laid down in the Treaties, and in particular Articles 34 and 39 of the Treaty on European Union.
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
Pripravljavec mnenja (*):
Rapporteur for the opinion (*):
Carlo Casini , Odbor za pravne zadeve
Carlo Casini , Committee on Legal Affairs
(*) Pridruženi odbor – člen 47 Poslovnika
(*) Associated committees – Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
MNENJE Odbora za pravne zadeve (*) .....................................................................19
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs (*) ................................................20
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2006)0399 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2006)0399 ),
– ob upoštevanju členov 61(c) in 67(1) Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerima se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6‑0305/2006 ),
– having regard to Article 61, point (c) and Article 67(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0305/2006 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve in mnenja Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0361/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0361/2008 ),
Uvodna izjava 6 a (novo)
RECITAL 6 a (new)
(6a) Možnost izbire prava, ki se uporablja pri razvezi in prenehanju življenjske skupnosti, ne bi smela škodovati interesom otroka.
(6a) The possibility of choosing the law applicable to divorce and to legal separation should not harm the interests of the child.
Člena 12 in 13 uredbe št. 2201/2003 veljata tudi za izbiro pristojnih sodišč.
Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003 also apply to the choice of jurisdiction.
Bistveno je torej, da se upošteva interes otroka.
Hence it is essential that the interests of the child be taken into consideration.
Uvodna izjava 6 b (novo)
RECITAL 6 b (new)
(6b) Pomembno je, da imata zakonca pred izbiro pristojnega sodišča in prava, ki se uporablja, dostop do posodobljenih podatkov o bistvenih vidikih nacionalnega prava in prava Skupnosti ter o postopkih na področju razveze in prenehanja življenjske skupnosti.
(6b) Before the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law are designated, it is important for the spouses to have access to up-to-date information concerning the essential aspects of national and Community law and of the procedures relating to divorce and legal separation.
1 UL L 174, 27.6.2001, str.
OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p.
Zagotoviti je treba, da je izbira strank informirana, torej da sta zakonca ustrezno obveščena o konkretnih posledicah njune izbire.
It must be ensured that the choice made by the parties is an enlightened one, i.e. that both spouses are 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.
With this in mind, consideration should be given to the best way of ensuring that comprehensive, reliable information is made available to the signatories of the agreement on the assignment of competence before the act is signed.
Uvodna izjava 6 c (novo)
RECITAL 6 c (new)
(6c) Možnost soglasnega dogovora o izbiri pristojnega sodišča in prava, ki se uporablja, ne bi smela pomeniti možnosti posega v pravico enake obravnave partnerjev.
(6c) The possibility of choosing by common agreement the jurisdiction and the applicable law should be without prejudice to the rights of, and equal opportunities for, the two spouses.
Nacionalni sodniki se morajo zaradi tega zavedati pomena informirane izbire zakoncev z vidika pravnih posledic sklenjenega dogovora.
Hence judges in the Member States should be aware of the importance of an enlightened choice on the part of the two spouses concerning the legal implications of the agreement concluded.
Vsi organi morajo poskrbeti, da se zakonca zavedata posledic njunega dogovora.
All the authorities must ensure that both spouses are aware of the implications of their agreement.
Uvodna izjava 7 a (novo)
RECITAL 7 a (new)
(7a) Izraz "običajno prebivališče" bi bilo treba opredeliti v skladu s cilji te uredbe.
(7a) The term “ habit ual residence ” should be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of this Regulation.
Pomen bi moral glede na dejstva določiti sodnik za vsak primer posebej.
It s meaning should be determined by the judge in each individual case and on the basis of facts.
Izraz ne navaja na pojmovanje v nacionalnem pravu, ampak je samostojen pojem v pravu Skupnosti.
The term does not refer to a concept of national law but, rather, to a separate concept established in Community law.
Uvodna izjava 9 a (novo)
RECITAL 9 a (new)
(9a) Informirani dogovor zakoncev je bistveno načelo te uredbe.
(9a) The enlightened agreement of the two spouses is a basic principle of this Regulation.
Vsak od partnerjev bi moral natančno vedeti, kakšne so pravne in socialne posledice izbire pristojnega sodišča in prava, ki se uporablja.
Each partner in the couple should know exactly what legal and social implications follow from the choice of jurisdiction and of applicable law.
Možno je, da kolizijsko pravilo napoti na pravo druge države članice.
It is possible that, under the rule governing the conflict of laws, the law of another Member State may be designated.
V tem primeru mora sodnik uporabiti pravo tuje države, kar je lahko problematično za sodišča, pri katerih je primer vložen.
In such a case the judge must apply the foreign law, which may cause problems for the jurisdictions concerned.
Pomembno je zagotoviti, da se sodnik lahko posvetuje z ustreznimi službami.
Provision must also be made for the judge to be able to consult an appropriate source.
Člen 1, točka 1)Naslov (Uredba (ES) št. 2201/2003)
ARTICLE 1, POINT 1
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o pravu, ki se uporablja v zakonskih sporih
Title (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003)
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o pravu, ki se uporablja v zvezi z razvezo in prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti
“Council Regulation (EC) N° 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility as well as applicable law in matrimonial matters ”.
(1a) V člen 2 se vstavi naslednja točka:
(1a) In Article 2, the following point shall be inserted:
„11a. "običajno prebivališče" pomeni kraj, kjer oseba običajno prebiva.“
“ 11a. the term ‘ habitual residence ’ shall mean a person ’ s place of ordinary abode. ”
Treba je opredeliti pojem „običajno prebivališče“, da se v čim večji meri izogne morebitnim samovoljnim razlagam.
A definition of the term habitual residence should be provided so as to avoid as much as possible arbitrary interpretations.
Seveda pa mora sodišče pred uporabo te definicije preučiti vsa primerna dejstva.
The court, of course, has to examine all relevant facts before it applies the definition.
(a) da se uporablja kateri koli temelj pristojnosti iz člena 3, ali
(a) any of the grounds of jurisdiction listed in Article 3 applies , or
(a) da je ob sklenitvi dogovora sodišče te države članice pristojno glede na določila iz člena 3, ali:
(a) at the time when the agreement is concluded, the jurisdiction of that Member State is competent pursuant to Article 3, or
Natančno je treba opredeliti, kdaj veljajo merila.
The precise moment at which the criteria apply must be specified.
(b) da sta imela zakonca v tej državi zadnje skupno običajno prebivališče najmanj 3 leta, ali
(b) it is the place of the spouses ’ last common habitual residence for a minimum period of three years, or
(b) da sta imela zakonca ob sklenitvi dogovora v tej državi članici običajno prebivališče najmanj 3 leta pod pogojem, da se ta status ni končal več kot tri leta pred začetkom postopka , ali
(b) at the time when the agreement is concluded, it is the Member State in which the spouses have had their habitual residence for a minimum period of three years, provided that this situation did not come to an end more than three years before the jurisdiction was seised , or
(c) da je eden od zakoncev državljan te države članice ali, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, da ima svoje stalno prebivališče na ozemlju ene od slednjih držav članic.
(c) one of the spouses is a national of that Member State or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her “domicile” in the territory of one of the latter Member States.
(c) da je ob sklenitvi dogovora eden od zakoncev državljan te države članice ali, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, da ima svoje stalno prebivališče na ozemlju ene od slednjih držav članic.
(c) at the time when the agreement is concluded, one of the spouses is a national of that Member State or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her “domicile” in the territory of one of the latter Member States.
(ca) da je bila v tej državi članici sklenjena njuna zakonska zveza.
“ (ca) their mar ria ge took place in that Member State . ”
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 marriage should be reasonably presumed as implying possible acceptance of the jurisdiction of that country as well.
Dogovor o sodni pristojnosti se sklene v pisni obliki in ga oba zakonca podpišeta najpozneje ob začetku postopka.
An agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be expressed in writing and signed by both spouses at the latest at the time the court is seised.
Dogovor o sodni pristojnosti se lahko sklene in spremeni kadar koli, vendar najpozneje ob začetku postopka.
An agreement conferring jurisdiction may be concluded or altered at any time, but at the latest at the time the court is seised.
Dogovor velja do zadnje stopnje odločanja na sodišču.
It shall apply to every level of judicial proceeding.
Ta dogovor se sklene v pisni obliki, oba zakonca ga datirata in podpišeta.
The agreement shall be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both spouses.
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.
If the law of the Member State in which one of the spouses has their habitual residence at the time the agreement is made provides for any additional formal requirements for such agreements, those requirements must be fulfilled.
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 provide for additional formal requirements, the agreement shall be valid if it complies with 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 mar ria ge contract must be fulfilled.
(3) V členih 4 in 5 se izraz „člen 3“ nadomesti z izrazi „ členi 3 , 3a in 7 “.
(3) In Articles 4 and 5, the terms “Article 3” are replaced by the terms “Articles 3 , 3a and 7 ”.
(a) sta imela zakonca svoje skupno prejšnje običajno prebivališče na ozemlju te države članice vsaj tri leta; ali
(a) the spouses had their common previous habitual residence in the territory of that Member State for at least three years; or
(a) sta prej imela zakonca svoje običajno prebivališče na ozemlju te države članice vsaj tri leta, pod pogojem, da se to obdobje ni končalo več kot tri leta pred začetkom postopka, ali
(a) the spouses previously had their habitual residence in the territory of that Member State for at least three years , provided that that period does not precede the seisure of the jurisdiction by more than three years ; or
Izogibati se je treba izbiranju najugodnejšega pravnega reda.
‘Forum shopping’ must be avoided.
(5a) Vstavi se naslednji člen:
(5a) The following article is inserted:
„Člen 7a
“ Article 7a
Če se pristojno sodišče po tej uredbi nahaja v državi članici, katere pravo ne predvideva razveze ali ne priznava obstoja ali veljavnosti določene zakonske zveze, je sodno pristojna:
Where the jurisdiction which is competent pursuant to this Regulation is located in a Member State under whose law there is no provision for divorce or the existence or the validity of the mar ria ge in question is not recognised, jurisdiction shall be granted to:
a) država članica državljanstva enega od zakoncev ali
(a) the Member State of which one of the spouses is a national; or
b) država članica, v kateri je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza.“
(b) the Member State in which the mar ria ge took place.”