natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne predpise, s katerimi zagotovijo pravna sredstva proti priznanju in izvršitvi EDN na podlagi člena 11, ki ščitijo zakonite interese vseh zainteresiranih strank, vključno z dobrovernimi tretjimi osebami.
Member States shall put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that any interested party, including bona fide third parties, have legal remedies against the recognition and execution of an EEW pursuant to Article 11, in order to preserve their legitimate interests.
Države članice lahko omejijo pravna sredstva, določena v tem odstavku, na primere, v katerih je za izvršitev EDN potrebna uporaba prisilnih ukrepov.
Member States may limit the legal remedies provided for in this paragraph to cases in which the EEW is executed using coercive measures.
Tožba se vloži pri sodišču v državi izvršiteljici v skladu z njeno notranjo zakonodajo .
The action shall be brought before a court in the executing State in accordance with the law of that State.
Enako kot v predlogu spremembe, ki do sprejetja široko zastavljenega instrumenta s področja postopkovnih jamstev ponovno uvaja člen 11a, je tu treba določiti vsaj minimalna postopkovna jamstva, ki zadevajo izvrševanje EDN, in posledično zagotoviti kar največ pravnih sredstev.
As in the case of the amendment aimed at reintroducing Article 11a, pending the adoption of a far‑reaching instrument in the area of procedural safeguards, it would be appropriate to establish, at the least, minimum procedural safeguards concerning execution of the European Evidence Warrant, and therefore to provide for the broadest possible means of remedy.
Člen 23 – odstavek 1
Article 23  paragraph 1
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za izpolnitev določb tega okvirnega sklepa do …
Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by ...
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za izpolnitev določb tega okvirnega sklepa do ..... * in si pred tem datumom prizadevajo za sprejem okvirnega sklepa o postopkovnih pravicah, odobrenih v okviru kazenskih postopkov v Evropski uniji, pri čemer naj se upošteva mnenje Evropskega parlamenta.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by ... and they shall do everything they can to agree before that date on a Framework Decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union , taking the European Parliament ’ s opinion into consideration .
Države članice v izjavi, deponirani pri generalnem sekretariatu Sveta, navedejo organe, ki so jih določile za nacionalne odreditvene in izvršitvene organe.
Member States shall indicate, in a declaration deposited with the Secretariat ‑General of the Council, the national bodies appointed to act as issuing authorities and executing authorities.
Okvirni sklep vsaki državi članici dopušča, da določi organe, ki jih je treba obravnavati kot pristojne odreditvene in izvršitvene organe.
The Framework Decision allows each Member State to precisely establish which bodies are to be considered competent issuing authorities and executing authorities.
Če želimo zagotoviti pregledno delovanje sistema, je treba vse pristojne organe posameznih držav prijaviti pri generalnem sekretariatu Sveta.
If the system is to function transparently, all the competent authorities of a Member States must be registered with the Council’s Secretariat‑General.
Določba ni novost, temveč povzema postopek, ki se že pojavlja v evropskih konvencijah, na primer v členu 24 Konvencije o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah (UL C 197, 12.7.2000, str.
There is nothing new in this provision, which takes its lead from a procedure that already appears in European conventions, such as in Article 24 of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters (OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p.
Člen 23 – odstavek 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Vsaka država članica, ki namerava v svojo nacionalno zakonodajo prenesti razlog za zavrnitev iz člena 13(1)(f), ob sprejetju tega okvirnega sklepa o tem z izjavo uradno obvesti generalnega sekretarja Sveta.
Any Member State that intends to transpose the ground for refusal set out in Article 13(1)(f) into its national law shall notify the Secretary General of the Council thereof upon adoption of this Framework Decision by making a declaration.
Ko bo izločena klavzula o teritorialnosti, ta določba ne bo več potrebna.
This provision becomes superfluous once the territoriality clause falls.
Nemčija si lahko z izjavo pridrži pravico, da izvrševanje EDN pogojuje z ugotavljanjem dvojne kaznivosti, in sicer v primerih iz člena 14(2), ki so povezani s terorizmom, računalniškim kriminalom, rasizmom in ksenofobijo, sabotažo, izsiljevanjem in oderuštvom ali prevaro, če je treba za izvršitev EDN izvesti preiskavo in zaseg, razen kadar je odreditveni organ izjavil, da kaznivo dejanje v skladu z zakonodajo države izdajateljice spada v področje kriterijev, ki so navedeni v izjavi.
Germany may by a declaration reserve its right to make the execution of an EEW subject to verification of double criminality in cases referred to in Article 14(2) relating to terrorism, computer-related crime, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion or swindling if it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the EEW, except where the issuing authority has declared that the offence concerned under the law of the issuing State falls within the scope of criteria indicated in the declaration.
Če želi Nemčija uporabiti ta odstavek, ob sprejetju tega okvirnega sklepa o tem z izjavo obvesti generalnega sekretarja Sveta.
Should Germany wish to make use of this paragraph, it shall notify a declaration to that effect to the Secretary-General of the Council upon the adoption of this Framework Decision.
Izjava se objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The declaration shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Vključitev klavzule „opt-out” v pravni instrument z evropsko razsežnostjo je sama po sebi v nasprotju z evropskim duhom, ki mora biti usmerjen h gradnji vse bolj trdnih temeljev sodelovanja med državami članicami.
The inclusion of an opt-out clause in a Europe-wide legal instrument is in itself contrary to the European spirit, where the trend should be towards increasing consolidation of shared bases of cooperation between Member States.
Določba sicer ne bi mogla biti vključena v besedilo, če ne bila medsebojna pomoč v kazenskih zadevah še vedno podvržena pravilom iz tretjega stebra, ki zahtevajo soglasje držav članic, ki imajo pravico veta.
Also, this provision could only be inserted in the text because mutual assistance in criminal matters is still subject to Third Pillar rules, which, by requiring unanimity among the Member States, authorise the right of veto.
Določba je še toliko bolj nesprejemljiva, saj so nekatera kazniva dejanja, ki so omenjena v klavzuli „opt-out”, vključena v evropsko usklajevalno zakonodajo (okvirni sklep o boju proti terorizmu) ali v zakonodajni predlog, ki še ni bil uradno sprejet, vendar se ga že obravnava (okvirni sklep o boju proti rasizmu in ksenofobiji).
This provision is all the more unacceptable in that, at least in certain cases, the offences listed in the opt-out are subject to European harmonisation legislation (Framework Decision on the fight against terrorism) or proposed legislation that has not yet been formally adopted but which is under consideration (Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia).
Člen 23 – odstavek 5 a (novo)
Article 23 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(5a) Komisija vsako leto predloži Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru poročilo o uporabi okvirnega sklepa, v katerem obravnava zlasti uporabo postopkovnih jamstev.
Each year, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Framework Decision, paying special attention to the application of procedural safeguards.
Nadzorovanje mora biti usklajeno na ravni Evropske unije in mora biti na očeh javnosti.
Oversight should be coordinated at an EU level and open to public scrutiny.
Treba je nadzorovati ne le pravno uporabo, temveč tudi izvajanje evropskega dokaznega naloga v praksi.
It is necessary not only to monitor the legal implementation of the EEW but also the practical application.
Besedilo predloga spremembe je vzeto iz uredbe Sveta (ES) o sodelovanju pri pridobivanju dokazov v civilnih zadevah (UL L 174, 27.6.2001, str.
The wording of the proposed amendment is taken from the Council Regulation (EC) on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil matters ( OJ L 174 , 27.6.2001, p.
1), medtem ko zamisel, da se Komisijo zadolži za predložitev letnega poročila, izvira iz sistema nadzora, uvedenega v okviru evropskega naloga za prijetje.
1), while the idea of requiring the Commission to present an annual report builds on the monitoring system under the European Arrest Warrant .
Komisija mora še zlasti poročati o procesu odločanja v državi članici izdajateljici in o izvajanju zaščitnih ukrepov v državi članici izvršiteljici, prav tako pa mora poročati o primerih, ko evropski dokazni nalog ni bil priznan, izvršen ali prenesen ali ko je bil odložen.
The review would also specifically comment on the operation of the decision-making process in the issuing Member State and the operation of safeguards in the executing Member State as well as non-recognition, non-execution, non-transfer and postponement of EEWs.
Nemčija na začetku vsakega koledarskega leta Svet in Komisijo obvesti o številu primerov, pri katerih je bil v preteklem letu uporabljen razlog za nepriznanje ali neizvršitev iz člena 23(4).
At the beginning of every calendar year, Germany shall inform the Council and the Commission of the number of cases in which the ground for non-recognition or non ‑execution referred to in Article 23(4) was applied in the previous year.
Določbo je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost s predhodnim predlogom spremembe člena 23(4).
This provision should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the previous amendment concerning Article 24(4).
Priloga – oddelek B – točka ii a (novo)
Annex – Section B – point ii a (new)
(iia) predmeti, dokumenti ali podatki, ki se zahtevajo z nalogom, naj bi bili v postopku, v okviru katerega se zahtevajo, dopustni.
ii (a) the objects, documents and data sought by this warrant are likely to be admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought.
Priloga – oddelek C – točka d
Annex – Section C – point d
d) kateri koli drug pravosodni organ, kakor je opredeljen v državi izdajateljici, ki ima v posebnih primerih pristojnosti preiskovalnega organa v kazenskih postopkih in je v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo pristojen odrediti pridobitev dokazov v čezmejnih primerih;
(d) any other judicial authority as defined by the issuing State and, in the specific case, acting in their capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the obtaining of evidence in cross-border cases in accordance with national law.
ta EDN je potrdil sodnik ali sodišče, preiskovalni sodnik ali javni tožilec (glej dela D in O).
This EEW has been validated by a judge or court, investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor (see sections D and O).
Te določbe je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnosti s predlogi sprememb glede odreditvenega organa.
These provisions should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the amendments concerning the issuing authority .
Priloga – oddelek D
Annex – Section D
D) PRAVOSODNI ORGAN, KI EDN POTRDI (PO POTREBI)
(D) THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY VALIDATING THE EEW (WHERE APPLICABLE)
□ a) sodnik ali sodišče
□ (a) judge or court
□ b) preiskovalni sodnik
□ (b) investigating magistrate
□ c) javni tožilec
□ (c) public prosecutor
Uradni naziv organa, ki je EDN potrdil:
Official name of the validating authority:
Ime in priimek predstavnika:
Name of its representative
Številka zadeve:
File reference
Št. faksa (klicna številka države) (številka omrežne skupine): .................................................
Fax No : (country code) )(area/city code):………………………………
Ta del priloge je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost s predlogi sprememb glede odreditvenega organa.
This section of the Annex should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the amendments concerning the issuing authority.
Priloga – oddelek E
Annex – Section E
E) V PRIMERU, DA JE CENTRALNI ORGAN ODGOVOREN ZA ADMINISTRATIVNO POŠILJANJE IN PREJEMANJE EDN TER PO POTREBI ZA DRUGO S TEM POVEZANO URADNO KORESPONDENCO
(E) WHERE A CENTRAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION OF EEWS AND, IF APPLICABLE, FOR OTHER OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING THERETO
Št. faksa (klicna številka države) (številka omrežne skupine):
Fax No: (country code) (area/city code) …..…….………
Predlog spremembe izhaja iz predhodnih dveh predlogov sprememb.
Amendment arising from the two previous amendments.
Priloga – oddelek F
Annex – Section F
□ Na organ, naveden v delu C, se je mogoče obrniti glede vprašanj o:............................................................................
□ Authority under section C Can be contacted for questions concerning………………………
□ Na organ, naveden v delu D, se je mogoče obrniti glede vprašanj o:............................................................................
□ Authority under section D Can be contacted for questions concerning………………………
Priloga – oddelek I - opomba
Annex – Section I – Footnote
Če je EDN naslovljen na Nemčijo, lahko organ izdajatelj v skladu z izjavo, ki jo Nemčija poda v skladu s členom 23(4) Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2007/…/PNZ z dne…+o evropskem dokaznem nalogu za namene pridobitve predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih, izpolni tudi rubriko N.1, s čimer potrdi, da kaznivo dejanje spada(-jo) v področje meril, ki ga je Nemčija za to vrsto kaznivega dejanja navedla v izjavi.
Where the EEW is addressed to Germany, and according to the declaration made by Germany in accordance with Article 23(4) of the Council Framework Decision 2007/…/JHA of … + on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, the issuing authority may additionally complete box N.1 to confirm that the offence(s) fall(s) within the scope of criteria indicated by Germany for this type of offence.
* UL: prosimo vstavite številko tega okvirnega sklepa.
OJ: please insert the number and date of this Framework Decision.
Predlog spremembe izhaja iz črtanja klavzule „opt out“ za Nemčijo.
Amendment stemming from the removal of Germany’s opt out.
Priloga – oddelek N – točka 1
Annex – Section (N) - point 1
Predlog okvirnega sklepa ( KOM(2003)0688 končno)
Proposal for a Framework Decision ( COM(2003)0688 final)
Cilj predloga Komisije je olajšati čezmejno zbiranje dokazov.
The aim of the Commission proposal is to facilitate the collection of cross‑border evidence.
Evropski dokazni nalog (EDN), podobno kot evropski nalog za prijetje, temelji na načelu vzajemnega priznavanja sodnih odločb, ki naj bi bilo v skladu s sklepi zasedanja Sveta v Tampereju leta 1999 temelj pravosodnega sodelovanja.
Like the European Arrest Warrant (EWA), the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) is based on the principle of the mutual recognition of judicial decisions, which the Tampere Council of 1999 made a cornerstone of cooperation in judicial matters.
Osnovna zamisel tega predloga je, da se odločba, ki jo izda pravosodni organ ene države članice, neposredno prizna in izvrši v drugi državi članici, s čimer naj bi postala medsebojna pravna pomoč učinkovitejša in veliko hitrejša.
The basic idea behind the proposal is that a decision issued by a judicial authority in one Member State should be directly recognised and executed in another Member State, thereby making mutual judicial assistance swifter and more effective.
Evropska komisija je pri zbiranju dokazov v kazenskih postopkih vsak primer obravnavala posebej, torej je predlog za EDN zgolj začetek procesa, v katerem naj bi se uveljavljena medsebojna pomoč nadomestila z instrumenti, ki temeljijo na načelu vzajemnega priznavanja.
In the area of the collection of criminal evidence, the European Commission has adopted a case by case approach, which means that the EEW proposal is only a first step in a process designed to replace traditional mutual assistance with instruments based on the principle of mutual recognition.
Zaenkrat je področje uporabe EDN omejeno na že obstoječe in razpoložljive dokaze: predmete, dokumente in podatke.
For the time being, the scope of the EEW is limited to existing and already available evidence: objects, documents and data.
Predlog torej ne velja za zbiranje izjav prič ali žrtev in ne za zaslišanje osumljencev ali obtoženih oseb.
The proposal does not apply, therefore, to the collection of statements from witnesses or victims, or to interviews with suspects or defendants.
Prav tako ne zajema:
Nor does it include:
· pridobivanja vzorcev s telesa osebe ali odvzemanja vzorcev DNK;
· the taking of evidence from a person’s body or of DNA samples;
· pridobivanja dokazov v realnem času, na primer prestrezanja komunikacij ali nadzora bančnih računov;
· real-time evidence gathering, such as through the interception of communications or monitoring of bank accounts;
· pridobivanja dokazov, za katere so potrebne dodatne preiskave, kot sta naročanje strokovnih mnenj ali računalniško izvedena primerjava podatkov (tako imenovana avtomatizirana primerjava) za identifikacijo oseb.
· the gathering of evidence requiring further enquiries, such as the commissioning of an expert’s report or undertaking of a computerised comparison of information (computer matching) in order to identify a person.
Dokler ne bodo na voljo drugi pravni instrumenti, se bodo dokazi, ki niso zajeti v predlogu za EDN, zbirali z uveljavljenimi instrumenti za medsebojno pomoč.
Pending completion of the system with other judicial instruments, evidence not covered by the EEW will be collected using traditional mutual assistance tools.
V predlogu Komisije je predvideno, da so za odreditev EDN pristojni le sodniki, preiskovalni sodniki ali javni tožilci.
The Commission proposal provides that the European Evidence Warrant can only be issued by a judge, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor .
S tem bo lahko EDN neposredno izvršljiv.
This enables the European Evidence Warrant to be executed immediately.
Predlog Komisije ne omogoča ugotavljanja dvojne kaznivosti, če za izvršitev EDN ni potrebna preiskava na domu ali če kaznivo dejanje spada v eno od 32 vrst kaznivih dejanj s seznama iz člena 14 (gre za seznam, ki je enak tistemu v okvirnem sklepu o oblikovanju evropskega naloga za prijetje).
The Commission proposal does not authorise any verification of double criminality in cases where execution of the EEW does not require a search of private premises, or if the offence is on the list of the 32 categories of offences set out in Article 16 (which is the same as the list in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant).
Poleg tega je v predlogu okvirnega sklepa ponovno uporabljeno načelo iz člena 4 konvencije z dne 29. maja 2000, v skladu s katerim zaprošena država zagotavlja medsebojno pomoč in, kolikor je mogoče, spoštuje formalnosti in postopke, ki jih država prosilka izrecno navede.
The proposal for a framework decision also takes up the principle established in Article 4 of the Convention of 29 May 2000, under which the requested State must, to the maximum extent possible, provide assistance in accordance with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the requesting State.
Zaprošena država mora spoštovati te zahteve, zavrne jih lahko zgolj, če so v nasprotju s temeljnimi načeli njene zakonodaje.
The requested State can only refuse to comply with these requirements where this would be contrary to the fundamental principles of its national law.
Besedilo po pogajanjih v Svetu
The text as resulting from the discussions in the Council
Obseg tega pravnega instrumenta, ki je bil že v predlogu Evropske komisije dokaj omejen, se je med pogajanji v Svetu dodatno postopno omejeval.
The scope of this legal instrument, which was already somewhat limited in the proposal from the European Commission, was gradually scaled down during the course of the discussions in the Council.
Istočasno so bila črtana nekatera jamstva.
At the same time, certain safeguards have been removed:
· Svet se je strinjal s seznamom 32 vrst kaznivih dejanj, za katera se v primeru preiskave ali zasega ne bo ugotavljala dvojna kaznivost, temu pa je dodal pomemben pogoj: kazniva dejanja se morajo v državi izdajateljici kaznovati z zaporno kaznijo ali ukrepom, vezanim na odvzem prostosti, za obdobje najmanj treh let (člen 14(2) besedila, posredovanega Parlamentu za ponovno posvetovanje).
· the Council signalled its agreement on the list of 32 infractions for which, if it is necessary to carry out a search or a seizure, double criminality cannot be invoked, but added one important condition: the offences must be punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or a detention order of a maximum of at least 3 years (Article 14.2 of the text sent to Parliament for re‑consultation).
Tega v predlogu Komisije ni bilo.
This was not provided for in the Commission proposal;
· Prav tako se je Svet odločil, da se v okvirni sklep vstavi načelo „klavzule o teritorialnosti“, ki državi članici omogoča, da EDN zavrne, kadar je bilo kaznivo dejanje delno ali v celoti storjeno na njenem ozemlju (člen 13(1)(f) besedila, posredovanega Parlamentu za ponovno posvetovanje).
· it was also decided to insert into the framework decision the principle of a ‘ territoriality clause ’, allowing a Member State to refuse a European Evidence Warrant for offences committed wholly or for a major part within its territory (Article 13.1 f) of the text sent to Parliament for re-consultation);
· Poleg tega ima Nemčija na razpolago mehanizem „opt out“: z izjavo si lahko pridrži pravico, da izvrševanje EDN pogojuje z ugotavljanjem dvojne kaznivosti, in sicer v primerih, ki so povezani s terorizmom, računalniškim kriminalom, rasizmom in ksenofobijo, sabotažo, izsiljevanjem in oderuštvom ali prevaro, če je treba za izvršitev EDN izvesti preiskavo in zaseg, razen kadar je odreditveni organ izjavil, da kaznivo dejanje v skladu z zakonodajo države izdajateljice spada v področje kriterijev, ki so navedeni v izjavi (člen 23(4) besedila, posredovanega Parlamentu za ponovno posvetovanje).
· moreover, Germany reserved its right, under an opt out mechanism, to issue a declaration making the execution of a European Evidence Warrant subject to verification of double criminality in cases relating to terrorism, computer-related crime, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion or swindling, if it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the warrant, except where the issuing authority has declared that the offence concerned under the law of the issuing State falls within the scope of criteria indicated in the declaration (Article 23(4) of the text sent to Parliament for re‑consultation);