natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Komisija najpozneje pet let po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe in nato vsakih pet let Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru predloži poročilo o uporabi te uredbe.
By five years after the entry into force of this Regulation at the latest, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Regulation.
Temu poročilu se po potrebi priložijo predlogi za prilagoditev te direktive .
The report shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals to adapt this Regulation .
V ta namen udeležene države članice Komisiji predložijo ustrezne podatke o tem, kako njihova sodišča uporabljajo to direktivo.
To that end, the participating Member States shall communicate to the Commission relevant information on the application of this Regulation by their courts .
Za tiste države članice, ki v postopku sodelujejo v skladu z odločitvijo, sprejeto skladno z drugim ali tretjim pododstavkom člena 331 (1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, se ta uredba uporablja od datuma, navedenega v zadevni odločitvi.
For those Member States participating pursuant to a decision adopted in accordance with the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this Regulation shall apply as from the date indicated in the decision concerned.
Poročevalec se strinja, da je ta uredba potrebna, vendar se zaveda, da bo zaradi omejenega obsega veliko državljanov in strokovnjakov razočaranih.
The rapporteur appreciates the need for this regulation, even though he realises that there will be much disappointment among citizens and practitioners about its limited scope.
Eden od razlogov za to je omejitev, ki jo prinaša uporaba postopka okrepljenega sodelovanja.
One of the reasons for this is the constraints imposed by recourse to the enhanced cooperation procedure.
Poročevalec je prepričan, da se bodo po sprejetju uredbe pridružile druge države članice.
The rapporteur trusts that when the regulation has been adopted, other Member States will join in.
Poročevalec na splošno meni, da so predlogi sprememb, ki jih obravnava Svet v zvezi s predlogom Komisije, smiselne in je zato sprejel večino teh predlogov, čeprav z nekaj spremembami.
By and large, the rapporteur considers that the changes discussed by the Council to the Commission’s proposal are sensible and he has therefore taken most of them over, albeit with some changes.
Dodal je tudi nekaj povsem lastnih predlogov sprememb.
He has also put forward a certain number of amendments of his own.
Poročevalec tudi meni, da je neopredeljenost obsega uporabe nezaželena.
First, he considers that the idea of leaving the scope virtually undefined is undesirable.
Zato je v uvodno izjavo in en člen dodal določbo o tem, kaj ne spada v direktivo.
He has therefore set out what does not fall within the Regulation in both a recital and an article.
Poleg tega je mnenja, da mora pristojno sodišče strankam v sporu zagotoviti ustrezno pravno svetovanje, preden se stranki odločita o tem, katero pravo naj se uporablja v postopku.
Secondly, he considers that before parties decide to make a choice of law or to forgo making a choice of law, the court seised should satisfy itself that they have had the benefit of proper legal advice.
Poročevalec se tudi strinja, da od držav članice ni mogoče zahtevati, da kot zakonsko zvezo priznajo akt, ki ga njihova zakonodaja ne priznava kot takega, tudi ne zgolj zaradi razpada te zveze, in da bi bilo prav tako v nasprotju z načelom subsidiarnosti, da se sodniku v državi članici, katere zakonodaja ne predvideva takšnega akta, naloži izrekanje razveze.
Thirdly, the rapporteur agrees that a Member State cannot be required to recognise as a marriage, even for the sole purpose of its dissolution, an act that is not considered to be such by the law of that State and that, in the same way, it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity to impose on a judge in a Member State whose law does not provide for such an act a requirement to pronounce the divorce.
Zaradi tega pozdravlja dejstvo, da je Svet dodal člen 7a.
For this reason, he commends the addition of Article 7a by the Council.
Vendar pa je brez določbe o forum necessitatis (ki je ni mogoče vključiti v to uredbo, sprejeto v okviru postopka okrepljenega sodelovanja), določba iz člena 7a, po kateri ta uredba v ničemer ne obvezuje sodišč udeležene države članice, katere pravo ne predvideva razveze ali v postopku za razvezo zadevne zakonske zveze ne priznava, da z uporabo te uredbe razvežejo zakonsko zvezo, zelo problematična.
However, without a provision on forum necessitatis (which it would be impossible to include in this regulation adopted under the enhanced cooperation procedure), the provision set out in Article 7a, whereby nothing in the regulation is to oblige the courts of a participating Member State whose law does not provide for divorce or does not deem the marriage in question valid for the purposes of divorce proceedings to pronounce a divorce by virtue of the application of the regulation, is extremely problematic.
Problematična je zato, ker so pravila o pristojnosti v zvezi z razvezo in prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti v Uredbi 2201/2003 kogentna.
This is because the jurisdiction rules with regard to divorce and legal separation in Regulation No 2201/2003 are peremptory.
Ustrezni členi te uredbe se glasijo:
The relevant articles of that regulation read as follows:
ODDELEK 1
SECTION 1
Razveza zakonske zveze, ločitev ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze
Divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment
Splošna pristojnost
General jurisdiction
V zadevah glede razveze, prenehanja življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitve zakonske zveze so pristojna sodišča države članice:
In matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State
(a) na ozemlju katere:
(a) in whose territory:
- zakonca običajno prebivata ali
- the spouses are habitually resident, or
- sta zakonca nazadnje običajno prebivala, če eden od njiju še vedno tam prebiva, ali
- the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there, or
- nasprotna stranka običajno prebiva ali
- the respondent is habitually resident, or
- v primeru skupne vloge, običajno prebiva eden od zakoncev ali
- in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident, or
- vlagatelj običajno prebiva, če je prebival tam najmanj leto dni neposredno pred vložitvijo vloge, ali
- the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was made, or
- vlagatelj običajno prebiva, če je bival tam najmanj šest mesecev neposredno pred vložitvijo vloge in je bodisi državljan te države članice ali pa ima, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, tam svoj "domicile";
- the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and is either a national of the Member State in question or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" there;
(b) katere državljana sta oba zakonca ali, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, kjer imata oba zakonca svoj "domicile".
(b) of the nationality of both spouses or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, of the "domicile" of both spouses.
Za namen te uredbe ima "domicile" enak pomen kot v pravnih sistemih Združenega kraljestva in Irske.
For the purpose of this Regulation, "domicile" shall have the same meaning as it has under the legal systems of the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Izključni značaj pristojnosti po členih 3, 4 in 5
Exclusive nature of jurisdiction under Articles 3, 4 and 5
Proti zakoncu, ki:
A spouse who:
(a) običajno prebiva na ozemlju države članice; ali
(a) is habitually resident in the territory of a Member State; or
(b) je državljan države članice ali ima – v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske – na ozemlju ene od teh dveh držav članic "domicile",
(b) is a national of a 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,
se lahko začne postopek v drugi državi članici samo v skladu s členi 3, 4 in 5.
may be sued in another Member State only in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 5.
Subsidiarna pristojnost
Residual jurisdiction
Težavo je najlažje dokazati s primerom.
The difficulty is best illustrated by an example.
Veljati je začela nova uredba o pravu, ki se uporablja.
The new regulation on applicable law is in force.
Oseba A in oseba B sta državljana različnih držav članic, ki sta sklenila istospolno zakonsko zvezo v eni od držav članic, ki so uvedle zakonodajo, ki omogoča take poroke.
A and B are nationals of different Member States who entered into a same-sex marriage in one of the Member States which have introduced legislation to permit such marriages.
Tri leta običajno prebivata v državi članici, ki ne dovoljuje istospolnih porok, vendar je v okviru postopka okrepljenega sodelovanja sodelovala pri sprejetju uredbe o pravu, ki se uporablja.
They have been habitually resident for three years in a Member State which does not permit same-sex marriages but participated in the adoption of the regulation on applicable law under the enhanced cooperation procedure.
Osebi A in B bi radi razveljavili svojo zakonsko zvezo.
A and B wish to dissolve their marriage.
V skladu z določbami Uredbe 2201/2003 so v teh okoliščinah edina pristojna sodišča le sodišča države članice, v kateri imata stalno prebivališče.
Under the rules of Regulation No 2201/2003, the only courts having jurisdiction in those circumstances are the courts of the Member State in which they are habitually resident.
Če pri okrajnem sodišču vložita zahtevek za razvezo, mora to sodišče sprejeti pristojnost, vendar se uporablja člen 7a in ločitev ne bo odobrena.
If they apply to the local court for a divorce, that court has to accept jurisdiction but Article 7a will apply and no divorce will be granted.
Treba je opozoriti, da v primeru razveze zakonske zveze Uredba 2201/2003 ne predvideva dogovora o pristojnosti ali o prenosu zadeve na sodišče, ki je bolj primerno za odločanje o zadevi.
It is noted that, in the case of divorce, Regulation No 2201/2003 does not provide for prorogation of jurisdiction or for the transfer of the case to a court better placed to hear the proceedings.
To očitno ni pošteno na zadevni par, ki bo trpel veliko neprijetnosti in izgubil veliko časa, da bi svoj postopek razveze zakonske zveze predložil drugemu pristojnemu sodišču v smislu člena 3.
This is patently not fair on the couple concerned, who would be put to a considerable amount of inconvenience and loss of time in order to bring their divorce proceedings within the jurisdiction of another court within the meaning of Article 3.
Najboljši način za reševanje tega vprašanja bi bil zagotoviti forum necessitatis , kar je mogoče le s spremembo Uredbe št. 2201/2003, glede na stroge določbe o postopku okrepljenega sodelovanja in dejstvo, da se obravnavani predlog uredbe obravnava nanaša le na določitev prava, ki se uporablja.
The best way of dealing with this would be to provide for a forum necessitatis , which can be done only by amending Regulation No 2201/2003 , given the strictures of the enhanced cooperation procedure and the fact that the proposal for a regulation under consideration relates only to the determination of the applicable law.
Zakonodajna resolucija Parlamenta z dne 21. oktobra 2008 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 (KOM (2006) 0399 - C6-0305/2006 - 2006 / 0135 (CNS))
Parliament’s legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 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 ( COM(2006)0399 – C6-0305/2006 – 2006/0135(CNS) )
A6 - 0361/2008. vsebuje predlog člena o forum necessitatis , ki se glasi:
A6 - 0361/2008. contains a proposal for an article on forum necessitatis , which reads as follows:
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 marriage 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 marriage took place.
Glede na to, da Komisija ni dolžna pregledati Uredbo 2201/2003 do leta 2012 in v resnici tega ne bo storila tudi mnogo kasneje, poročevalec predlaga, da bi bilo treba brez vpliva na pravico Komisije do pobude pritisniti institucije, naj nujno oblikujejo predlog za spremembo te uredbe samo tako, da se uvede klavzula o forum necessitatis.
Given that the Commission is not under a duty to review Regulation No 2201/2003 until 2012 and will in fact not do so until much later, the rapporteur proposes that, without impinging upon the Commission’s right of initiative, that institution should be pressed to come forward as a matter of great urgency with a proposal for amending that regulation solely in order to introduce a clause on forum necessitatis .
o predlogu Uredbe Sveta o vzpostavitvi okrepljenega sodelovanja na področju prava, ki se uporablja za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti
on the proposal for a Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation
Cilj tega predloga uredbe je oblikovati jasen in celovit pravni okvir, ki bi zajemal pravila o zadevnem pravu, ob tem pa udeležencem omogočil določeno samostojnost.
The purpose of this proposal for a Regulation is to establish a clear, comprehensive legal framework covering rules relating applicable law, by allowing the parties a certain degree of autonomy.
Tako so do sedaj za „mešane” zakone veljale določbe uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003
An ‘international’ couple wishing to get divorced has hitherto being subject to the competence rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
Neenotnost teh pravil lahko povzroči številne težave pri „mednarodnih“ ločitvah.
The disparate nature of those rules may give rise to a number of problems where ‘international’ divorces are concerned.
Namen Komisije je, da ta tveganja in pomanjkljivosti omeji zlasti tako, da zakoncema omogoči, da sporazumno izbereta pristojno sodišče in pravo, ki se bo uporabljalo, ter da upošteva zakonodajno resolucijo Parlamenta z dne 21. oktobra 2008 o predlogu za Uredbo Sveta o spremembi uredbe (ES) št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo
The purpose of the Commission proposal is to limit the above risks and to compensate for the above shortcomings, in particular by making it possible for the parties to choose by common agreement the applicable law, and taking into account the Parliament's legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 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
Sprejeto besedilo, P6_TA(2008)0502 . .
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0502 . .
Člen 3 je novost, saj prvič uvaja možnost, da zakonca sporazumno določita pravo, ki se uporablja za njun postopek razveze.
Article 3 constitutes an innovation in that for the first time, it allows the spouses to designate by common agreement the law applicable in their divorce procedure.
Pripravljavka mnenja meni, da bi bilo pametno predvideti tudi možnost izbire prava države običajnega skupnega prebivališča zakoncev, kjer prebivata ob sklenitvi dogovora, in tudi prava države, v kateri je bila sklenjena zakonska zveza.
According to the Draftsperson it makes sense to allow the possibility of choosing the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded, and also the law of the State in which the marriage took place.
Pravilo o izvajanju uporabe prava sodišča, pred katerim se začne postopek ( lex fori ), ko pravo, ki se uporablja, ne omogoča razveze ali zakonskega prenehanja življenjske skupnosti, je treba dopolniti s pravilom forum necessitatis , ki pod določenimi pogoji zagotavlja sodno pristojnost v čezmejnih primerih sodišču v drugi državi članici.
The rule on the application of lex fori , when the law applicable does not grant divorce or legal separation, should be complemented by a forum necessitatis rule granting jurisdiction, in transborder cases under certain conditions, to a court in another Member State.
Treba je zagotoviti, da je izbira strank informirana, torej da sta zakonca ustrezno obveščena o konkretnih posledicah njune izbire.
It then has to be ensured that the choice made by the parties is an informed one, i.e. that both spouses have been duly informed of the practical implications of their choice.
Omeniti velja še, kako pomembno je, da zakonca razpolagata z natančnimi in popolnimi informacijami o posledicah izbire prava, ki se uporablja v primeru njune razveze, še zlasti zato, ker se zakoni držav članic v številnih točkah bistveno razlikujejo (na primer glede vzrokov za razvezo in oblike razveze, pogojev za njeno pridobitev, zahtevanega trajanja ločitve in drugih vidikov, ki so v postopku odločilni).
It must be ensured that both spouses receive comprehensive accurate information concerning the implications of their choice of the law applicable to divorce, especially since the Member States’ laws differ considerably in a number of respects (such as the grounds for divorce, the forms which divorce takes, the terms and conditions for obtaining a divorce, the requisite separation period and other key aspects for the procedure).
Zato pripravljavka mnenja pozdravlja predlog Komisije v zvezi s tem.
Therefore, the Draftsperson welcomes the Commission proposal in that regard.
Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve poziva Odbor za zunanje zadeve, kot pristojni odbor, naj v svoje poročilo vključi naslednje predloge sprememb:
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(9) S to uredbo bi bilo treba oblikovati jasen in celovit pravni okvir na področju prava, ki se uporablja za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti v udeleženih državah članicah, ter zagotoviti ustrezne rešitve za državljane glede pravne varnosti, predvidljivosti in prilagodljivosti, pa tudi preprečiti situacije, v katerih eden od zakoncev vloži tožbo za razvezo pred drugim, s čimer zagotovi, da postopek poteka v skladu s tistim pravom, ki je po njegovem mnenju ugodnejši zanj.
(9) This Regulation should create a clear, comprehensive legal framework in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation in the participating Member States, provide citizens with appropriate outcomes in terms of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility, and prevent a situation from arising where one of the spouses applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she considers more favourable to his or her own interests.
(9) S to uredbo bi bilo treba oblikovati jasen in celovit pravni okvir na področju prava, ki se uporablja za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti v udeleženih državah članicah, ter zagotoviti ustrezne rešitve za državljane glede pravne varnosti, predvidljivosti in prilagodljivosti, pa tudi preprečiti situacije, v katerih eden od zakoncev ali registriranih partnerjev vloži tožbo za razvezo pred drugim, s čimer zagotovi, da postopek poteka v skladu s tistim pravom, ki je po njegovem mnenju ugodnejši zanj.
(9) This Regulation should create a clear, comprehensive legal framework in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation in the participating Member States, provide citizens with appropriate outcomes in terms of legal certainty, predictability and flexibility, and prevent a situation from arising where one of the spouses or registered partners applies for divorce before the other one does in order to ensure that the proceeding is governed by a given law which he or she considers more favourable to his or her own interests.
(12) Da se zakoncem omogoči, da svobodno izbirajo pravo, ki se uporablja in s katerim so tesno povezani, ali, če nimata možnosti izbire, da se to pravo uporablja za njuno razvezo ali prenehanje življenjske skupnosti , je treba to pravo uporabljati tudi, če ni pravo udeležene države članice.
(12) In order to allow the spouses to choose an applicable law with which they have a close connection or, in the absence of such choice, in order that that law might apply to their divorce or legal separation, the law in question should apply even if it is not that of a participating Member State.
Kadar se določi pravo druge države članice, lahko daje mreža, ustanovljena z Odločbo Sveta 2001/470/ES z dne 28. maja 2001 o ustanovitvi Evropske pravosodne mreže v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, sodiščem informacije glede vsebine tujega prava.
Where the law of another Member State is designated, the network created by Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters can play a part in assisting the courts with regard to the content of foreign law.
(12) Da se zakoncem ali registriranim partnerjem omogoči, da svobodno izbirajo pravo, ki se uporablja in s katerim so tesno povezani, ali, če nimata možnosti izbire, da se to pravo uporablja za njuno razvezo ali prenehanje registriranega partnerstva , je treba to pravo uporabljati tudi, če ni pravo udeležene države članice.
(12) In order to allow the spouses or registered partners to choose an applicable law with which they have a close connection or, in the absence of such choice, in order that that law might apply to their divorce or legal separation or to the dissolution of their registered partnership , the law in question should apply even if it is not that of a participating Member State.
Takšna možnost se ne bi smela uporabljati za razveljavitev zakonske zveze , ki je tesno povezana s pogoji veljavnosti zakonske zveze ter pri katerih bi bila neodvisnost strank neustrezna .
Such possibility should not extend to marriage annulment, which is closely linked to the conditions for the validity of marriage, and for which autonomy on the part of the parties is inappropriate .
Takšna možnost bi se morala tudi uporabljati za razveljavitev zakonske zveze in registriranega partnerstva, da bi se izognili diskriminiranju različnih oblik, v katerih se izvaja pravica do zasebnega in družinskega življenja .
Such possibility should also extend to marriage annulment and registered partnership , so as to avoid discriminating against the various forms in which the right to respect for private and family life is exercised .
(14) Zakonca ali registrirana partnerja bi morala imeti možnost, da kot pravo, ki se uporablja za razvezo in prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali prenehanje registriranega partnerstva , izbereta pravo države, s katero imata posebno povezavo, ali pravo sodišča, pred katerim se začne postopek.
(14) Spouses or registered partners should be able to choose the law of a country with which they have a special connection or the lex fori as the law applicable to divorce and legal separation or to the dissolution of a registered partnership .