natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
J. ker bi morala predlagana orodja dopolnjevati veljavno pravo in pobude Unije, predvsem direktivo 2011/7/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. februarja 2011o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih
J. whereas the instruments proposed should complement existing Union law and initiatives, in particular Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions
UL L 48, 23.2.2011, str.
OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p.
1. , uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah
1. , Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
UL L 21, 16.1.2001, str.
OJ L 21, 16.1.2001, p.
1. , uredbo (ES) št. 1896/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne12. decembra 2006 o uvedbi postopka za evropski plačilni nalog
1. , Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure
1. , uredbo (ES) št. 861/2007 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uvedbi evropskega postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti
1. , Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure
1. zahteva, naj Komisija na podlagi člena 81(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije Parlamentu hitro predloži zakonodajne predloge ukrepov za zamrznitev in razkritje sredstev dolžnikov in domnevnih dolžnikov v čezmejnih primerih, v skladu s priloženimi podrobnimi priporočili;
Requests the Commission swiftly to submit to Parliament, on the basis of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, legislative proposals on measures for the freezing and disclosure of debtors' and alleged debtors' assets in cross-border cases, following the detailed recommendations below;
Del 1: Zahtevani instrumenti
Part 1: Instruments requested
Priporočilo 1 (o obliki in naravi predvidenih instrumentov)
Recommendation 1 (on the form and nature of the instruments to be adopted)
Evropski parlament zahteva naslednja instrumenta: evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja in evropski nalog za razkritje premoženja.
The European Parliament requests the following instruments: a European order for the preservation of assets (EOPA) and a European order for the disclosure of assets (EODA).
Unija naj ukrepa s sprejetjem uredbe.
The form of Union action should be that of a regulation.
Oba instrumenta naj bosta samostojni sredstvi, ki bosta dopolnjevali sredstva, ki jih daje na voljo nacionalna zakonodaja.
Both instruments should be free-standing remedies additional to those available under national law.
Uporablja naj se ju le v čezmejnih primerih.
They should apply only in cross-border cases.
Del 2: Priporočila, ki so skupna za oba instrumenta
Part 2: Recommendations common to both instruments
Priporočilo 2 (o pristojnosti za izdajo takega naloga)
Recommendation 2 (on jurisdiction to issue such an order)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi morali zahtevani instrumenti vsebovati enotna pravila o pristojnosti, ki bodo opredeljevala, katero sodišče je pristojno za njihovo izdajo.
The European Parliament considers that the requested instruments should contain uniform jurisdictional rules specifying which national courts are competent to issue them.
Ta pravila naj upoštevajo dejstvo, da je na splošno najboljše, če naloge obravnava sodišče s stvarno pristojnostjo po Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001
These uniform rules should take into account the fact that the court having substantive jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
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 12, 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 (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p.
Upoštevajo naj tudi, na kateri stopnji je glavni postopek, v katerem je zahtevana izdaja naloga.
They should also take into account the stage reached in the main proceedings in the course of which the order is requested.
Priporočilo 3 (o pristojnosti za obravnavo ugovorov zoper izdajo naloga)
Recommendation 3 (on jurisdiction to hear oppositions to the orders)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi morala biti obravnava ugovorov, kadar so ti podani zoper veljavnost naloga po vsej EU, v izključni pristojnosti sodišča, ki je začelo postopek za izdajo evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja ali evropskega naloga za razkritje premoženja.
The European Parliament considers that the court which has initiated the EOPA or EODA should have exclusive jurisdiction to hear oppositions to it where such oppositions are to the EU-wide effect of an order.
Če je ugovor podan zoper učinek, ki ga ima evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja v posamezni državi članici, ki ni država, v kateri se nahaja sodišče, bi se lahko takšno pravilo spremenilo s podelitvijo pristojnosti tudi sodiščem tiste države članice, v kateri je premoženje, da bi tako zaščitili dolžnike in tretje stranke.
Where the opposition is to the effect of an order in a specific Member State other than the one of the initiating court, this rule could be tempered, in order to protect debtors, alleged debtors and third parties, by also conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State in which the assets are located.
V zahtevanih instrumentih je treba izčrpno navesti podlago za ugovor zoper izdajo naloga.
The grounds for opposition to the orders should be listed exhaustively in the instruments requested.
Priporočilo 4 (o standardnem obrazcu za zahtevo za izdajo naloga in o poročanju)
Recommendation 4 (on the standard form for requesting the orders and on reporting)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi moralo biti možno zaprositi za izdajo obeh nalogov z uporabo standardnega večjezičnega obrazca, tudi prek portala evropskega e-pravosodja.
The European Parliament considers that both orders should be requestable via a standard multilingual form, including through the European e-Justice portal.
Obrazec naj bo čim bolj enostaven.
The form should be as simple as possible.
Standardizirati bi bilo treba tudi sporočila o izvršbi nalogov (v primeru evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja: na primer odgovor banke izvršilnemu organu o uspešnosti zaplembe, obveščanju dolžnika itd.)..
Communication should also be standardised in connection with the execution of the orders (e.g. in the case of the EOPA: the response of the bank to the enforcement authority as to the success of the attachment, the notification of the debtor, etc.).
Priporočilo 5 (o poročanju)
Recommendation 5 (on reporting)
Komisija bi morala biti dolžna poročati o izvajanju zahtevanih instrumentov, zlasti o njihovem sprejemanju.
The Commission should be under an obligation to report on the implementation of the requested instruments and, in particular, on their uptake.
Del 3: Priporočila, ki se nanašajo na evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja
Part 3: Recommendations specific to the European Order for the Preservation of Assets
Priporočilo 6 (o stopnji, na kateri je možno v glavnem postopku zahtevati izdajo naloga)
Recommendation 6 (on the stage of the main proceedings at which such an order may be sought)
Evropski parlament meni, da je bistveno, da se lahko evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja pridobi enostransko, ne da bi bilo treba stranko, na premoženje katere se nanaša, o tem na začetku obvestiti.
The European Parliament is of the opinion that it is essential to be able to obtain an EOPA ex parte , that is, without initial notice being served on the party whose assets are concerned.
Nalog naj bo na voljo pred, med in po glavni obravnavi.
The order should be available before, during, and after the main proceedings.
Priporočilo 7 (o začetku postopka s strani upnika)
Recommendation 7 (on the case to be made out by the creditor)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi moralo nacionalno sodišče o izdaji evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja odločiti po lastnem preudarku.
The European Parliament considers that the granting of an EOPA by a national court should be discretionary.
Poleg tega, naj dokazno breme nosi tožnik, ki mora predstaviti zadostne dokaze (fumus boni juris) in dokazati nujnost (periculum in mora).
Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on the claimant to make a good prima facie case ( fumus boni juris ) and to establish urgency ( periculum in mora ).
Nacionalna sodišča morajo ta merila presojati na podlagi obstoječe sodne prakse Sodišča.
These criteria should be assessed by national courts on the basis of the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.
Priporočilo 8 (o minimalnem obsegu podatkov, potrebnih za izdajo evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja)
Recommendation 8 (on the minimum amount of information necessary to issue an EOPA)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi morali zadostovati natančni podatki o dolžniku ali domnevnemu dolžniku upniku in da dejanske številke bančnih računov niso potrebne.
The European Parliament is of the opinion that precise information concerning the debtor or alleged debtor, as opposed to actual bank account numbers, should be sufficient.
Ti podatki bi morali zadostovati, da bi se izognili zmedi v primeru homonimov.
Such information should be sufficient to prevent confusion in the case of homonymy.
Priporočilo 9 (o izvršljivosti takega naloga)
Recommendation 9 (on the enforceability of such an order)
Če je nalog pridobljen pred sodno odločbo, s katero je ugotovljen dolg, kar je najbolj pogosto, bi moral biti izvršljiv po vsej Evropski uniji ob upoštevanju minimalnih nujnih vmesnih ukrepov.
If the order has been obtained prior to a judgment establishing a debt, as is most often the case, it should be enforceable throughout the EU subject to minimal necessary intermediate measures.
Če pa je nalog pridobljen po sodni odločbi, s katero je ugotovljen dolg, potem bi moral biti izvršljiv po vsej Evropski uniji brez vsakršnih vmesnih ukrepov.
By contrast, if the order has been obtained after a judgment establishing a debt, then it should be enforceable throughout the EU without any intermediate measures being required.
Priporočilo 10 (o učinku takega naloga)
Recommendation 10 (on the effect of such an order)
Evropski parlament meni, da mora biti učinek evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja omejen na zaplembo bančnih računov in začasno zamrznitev bančnih depozitov ter da ne bi smel upniku podeliti nobene oblike lastništva premoženja.
The European Parliament is of the opinion that the effect of the EOPA must be confined to the attachment of bank accounts and the temporary freezing of bank deposits, and should not grant the creditor any form of ownership of the assets.
Še naprej bi bilo treba obravnavati vprašanje, ali naj nalog zajema tudi druge vrste premoženja, kot so nepremičnine ali bodoče premoženje (zahtevek, ki bo postal plačljiv ali dediščina).
Further consideration should be given to the issue of whether the order could cover other types of assets, such as immovable property or future assets (a claim about to become payable or an inheritance).
Evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja bi moral imeti pravni učinek zgolj na toliko računov, kot je potrebno, omejen pa bi moral biti na znesek dolga, vključno z vsemi pravnimi stroški in obrestmi.
The EOPA should affect no more bank accounts than necessary, and should be limited to the amount of the debt, plus any legal fees and interest.
Sodišče, ki začne postopek, bi moralo imeti možnost, da nalog pravočasno omeji na osnovi posamičnega primera in ob upoštevanju dejstev vsakega primera posebej.
It should be possible for the initiating court to limit the order in time on a case-by-case basis, taking the merits of each case into account.
Priporočilo 11 (o obdelavi evropskih nalogov za ohranitev premoženja)
Recommendation 11 (on the processing of EOPAs)
Evropski parlament je najbolj naklonjen elektronskemu sistemu prenosa podatkov, ki bi povezoval sodišče, ki izda nalog, z banko, pri kateri so računi, dostopen pa bi bil preko portala evropskega e-pravosodja, vendar je pripravljen sprejeti tudi druge možnosti.
The European Parliament would prefer the use of an electronic transmission system linking the issuing court with the bank holding the accounts, accessible via the European e-Justice portal, but remains open to all alternatives.
Evropski parlament meni, da bi moral evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja banke zavezovati, da ga nemudoma uveljavijo (tj. v natančno opredeljenih časovnih rokih) ter obvestijo izvršilne organe o uspehu ali neuspehu vsake zaplembe.
The European Parliament is of the opinion that the EOPA should impose on banks an obligation to give effect to the order immediately (i.e. within certain strictly defined time-limits) and a further obligation to inform the enforcement authority of the success or failure of any attachment.
Taka obdelava naj bo skladna z veljavnimi pravili o varstvu podatkov.
This processing should comply with applicable data protection rules.
Evropski parlament Komisijo spodbuja, naj zahtevane instrumente načrtuje tako, da bodo stroški njihove uporabe čim nižji.
The European Parliament urges the Commission to design the requested instrument in such a way as to minimise the cost of its use.
Glede na znatne razlike med stroški bančnih zaplemb med državam članicami, bi bilo treba obravnavati vprašanje, ali naj bo namen zahtevanih instrumentov uskladitev teh stroškov oziroma naj bo odločitev o njihovi ravni prepuščena državam članicam.
Given the substantial differences in the cost of bank attachments between Member States, consideration should be given to the issue of whether the requested instrument should aim to harmonise such costs, or whether it should leave a decision on their level to Member States.
V vsakem primeru taki stroški ne bi smeli presegati zneska, določenega z uredbo, morali pa bi biti pregledni, nediskriminatorni, odražati dejanske nastale stroške, upoštevati vzpostavitev enotnega območja plačila v evrih in dejstvo, da bi morali biti taki postopki čim bolj standardizirani.
In any event, such costs should not exceed a maximum set in the regulation, should be transparent and non-discriminatory, should reflect the actual costs incurred and should take into account the establishment of the Single Euro Payments Area and the fact that such procedures should be standardised as much as possible.
Evropski parlament poziva, da se podrobno preuči, kdo naj nosi stroške obdelave evropskega naloga za ohranitev premoženja, tudi s proučitvijo najboljših praks na nacionalni in regionalni ravni.
The European Parliament calls for detailed consideration to be given to the issue of who should bear the cost of processing an EOPA, including an examination of best practices at national and regional level.
Priporočilo 12 (o postopkovnih ukrepih za zaščito dolžnikov in domnevnih dolžnikov)
Recommendation 12 (on procedural safeguards for debtors and alleged debtors)
Kadar se za izdajo evropskega naloga za ohranitve premoženja zaprosi pred sodno odločbo, s katero se ugotovi obstoj dolga, je izdaja odvisna od varščine in drugih jamstev, ki jih sodišče, na katerem se je postopek začel, po lastni presoji zahteva od tožnika, da se toženi stranki ali kakršni koli tretji stranki nadomesti vso nastalo škodo.
A. When requested prior to a judgment establishing a debt, the granting of an EOPA should be conditional on the claimant providing security or other guarantees at the discretion of the initiating court, in order to compensate the defendant and any third parties for any damage suffered.
Tožena stranka mora imeti možnost, da se evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja po predložitvi varščine razveljavi.
The defendant should be able to terminate the EOPA by providing security.
Če je evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja izdan brez obvestila (ex parte), potem je treba toženo stranko uradno obvestiti in ji nemudoma po izvršbi zagotoviti vse podatke, potrebne za pripravo ugovora zoper nalog.
B. If an EOPA is granted without notice ( ex parte ), the defendant should be notified formally and given all information required to prepare an opposition to the Order without delay after execution.
Za evropski nalog za ohranitev premoženja bi bilo treba določiti jasen časovni okvir.
D. A clear time frame should be set for the EOPA.
Instrument bi moral tudi ustrezno upoštevati raznolikost nacionalnih praks glede ekonomskih težav dolžnikov, vključno z obstoječimi omejitvami, pod katerimi ni mogoče zapleniti premoženja na bančnem računu fizične osebe.
E. The instrument should take due account of the diversity of practices at domestic level concerning debtor hardship, including existing thresholds below which the bank account of a natural person cannot be attached.
Ta vprašanja bi bilo zato treba obravnavati po pravu države članice, v kateri ima dolžnik oz. domnevni dolžnik stalno prebivališče.
Such matters should therefore be left to the law of the debtor's or alleged debtor's Member State of habitual residence.
V evropskem nalogu za ohranitev premoženja mora biti določeno, da ga upnik izvršuje na lastno odgovornost in da je lahko odgovoren za nadomestilo vse škode, ki bi zaradi izvršilnih ukrepov nastala dolžniku.
F. The EOPA should stipulate that the creditor enforces an EOPA at his own risk and may be liable to compensate the debtor for any damage suffered as a result of the enforcement measures.
Del 4: Priporočila, ki se nanašajo na evropski nalog za razkritje premoženja
Part 4: Recommendations specific to the European Order for the Disclosure of Assets
Priporočilo 13 (o izvršljivosti takega naloga)
Recommendation 13 (on the nature of such an order)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi moralo biti možno nalog zahtevati vsaj po sodni odločbi, s katero je ugotovljen dolg.
The European Parliament considers that it should be possible to seek the order at least following a judgment establishing a debt.
Komisija bi morala proučiti, ali naj bo nalog na voljo v zgodnejši fazi postopka, na primer ko sodišče s stvarno pristojnostjo presoja dejansko tveganje, da sodba odločba ne bo izpolnjena, in katere ustrezne zaščitne ukrepe naj vzpostavi.
The Commission should consider whether the order should be available at an earlier stage in the proceedings, for instance when the court having jurisdiction on the substance considers that there is a real risk that its judgment would not be satisfied, and what corresponding safeguards should be put in place.
Evropski parlament prav tako meni, da bi morala vsaka država članica odločiti, kateri organ ali organi so pristojni, da začnejo s postopkom za evropski nalog za razkritje podatkov.
The European Parliament further considers that each Member State should be required to decide which authority or authorities are competent to initiate an EODA.
Ti delegirani organi bi lahko ob upoštevanju okoliščin posameznega primera izdali evropski nalog za razkritje podatkov za posamezni primer.
Such designated authorities would be able to issue EODAs on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of each case.
Priporočilo 14 (o področju uporabe takega naloga)
Recommendation 14 (on the material scope of such an order)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi morali dolžniki praviloma razkriti vse premoženje, ki se nahaja na območju svobode, varnosti in pravice, da bi upnikom omogočili kar najširšo izbiro ukrepov.
The European Parliament considers that debtors should as a general rule be required to disclose all assets located within the area of freedom, security and justice, in order to give the creditor the widest possible choice of action.
Priporočilo 15 (o izvršljivosti takega naloga)
Recommendation 15 (on the enforceability of such an order)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi moralo biti za spremembo ali razveljavitev naloga pristojno samo sodišče ali organ, ki je začel postopek za izdajo evropskega naloga za razkritje premoženja.
The European Parliament considers that only the court or authority which has initiated the EODA should be able to modify it or set it aside.
Takšen nalog mora biti izvršljiv po vsej Evropski uniji, ne da bi bili za to potrebni kakršni koli vmesni ukrepi.
Such an order should be enforceable throughout the EU without any intermediate measures being required.
Priporočilo 16 (o postopkovnih ukrepih za zaščito dolžnikov in domnevnih dolžnikov)
Recommendation 16 (on procedural safeguards for debtors and alleged debtors)
Instrument mora vzpostaviti ustrezno ravnovesje med pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, ki jo zagotavlja Direktiva 95/46/ES in kot je zapisana v Listini Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, in učinkovitim izvrševanjem sodnih odločb.
A. The instrument should strike an appropriate balance between the right to the protection of personal data, as guaranteed by Directive 95/46/EC and as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the effective enforcement of judgments.
Zlasti je treba vzpostaviti ukrepe za zaščito podatkov, razkritih zaradi evropskega naloga za razkritje, in preprečiti njihovo zlorabo.
In particular, safeguards should be put in place to protect the information disclosed as a result of an EODA and prevent its misuse.
Priporočilo 17 (o sankcijah za nepravilne podatke v izjavi)
Recommendation 17 (on penalties for incorrect statements in the declaration)
Evropski parlament meni, da bi morala zahtevana instrumenta določiti okvir za sankcioniranje neskladnosti ali napačnih izjav, da bi se doseglo učinkovito in enotno izpolnjevanje naloga na vsem območju svobode, varnosti in pravice.
The European Parliament considers that the requested instrument should set out a framework of penalties for non-compliance or false statements, in order to achieve effective and uniform compliance with the order throughout the area of freedom, security and justice.
Zato morajo imeti državljani na notranjem trgu na voljo učinkovita pravna sredstva, kadar imajo zahtevek zoper druge državljane ali podjetja.
It is essential that in the internal market citizens have effective remedies in the event they have a claim against another citizen or business.
Evropska unija je že sprejela zakonodajo, ki omogoča vlaganje čezmejnih zahtevkov in vzajemno priznavanje sodnih odločb nacionalnih sodišč, vključno z uredbo Bruselj I, evropskim nalogom za izvršbo, postopkom v sporih majhne vrednosti in postopkom za plačilni nalog.
The EU has legislation in place to enable cross-border claims and the mutual recognition of judgments of national courts, including the Brussels I Regulation, the European Enforcement Order, the Small Claims Procedure and the Order for Payment Procedure.
Vendar pa pridobitev sodne odločbe predstavlja le del postopka; državljani in podjetja morajo imeti tudi pravico do učinkovitega izvrševanja tovrstnih sodnih odločb.
But getting the judgment is only one part of the process; citizens and businesses must have the right to have their judgments effectively enforced.
Ena od pomembnih sestavin učinkovitega izvrševanja sodnih odločb je začasni ukrep, ki sodiščem omogoča hitro ukrepanje pri izdaji naloga za razkritje dolžnikovega premoženja in njegovo zamrznitev.
One necessary component of effective enforcement is that courts must be able, as an interim measure, to act swiftly to order a disclosure of the debtor's assets and freeze them.
Brez takšnega začasnega ukrepa se prevaranti in drugi dolžniki lahko enostavno izognejo svojim obveznostim s prenosom premoženja pod drugo jurisdikcijo ter tako upnikom onemogočijo učinkovito izvrševanje sodne odločbe na enotnem trgu.
Without such a measure, rogue traders and others debtors may evade their responsibilities by simply moving their assets to another jurisdiction, thus denying the creditor effective enforcement of the judgment in the single market.
Državljani ali majhna podjetja morajo vložiti finančna sredstva in čas za pridobitev sodne odločbe, potem pa so se prisiljeni obračati na sodišča drugih držav članic, pri čemer nimajo nikakršnih zagotovil za uspešno ali pravično razrešitev postopka.
The citizen or small business will have spent both money and time in securing a court judgment, only to have to go to another Member State's courts with no guarantee of success or justice.