natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, v razumnem roku, ki ga navede organ, ki vzpostavi stik, odgovori na zaprosilo, vloženo v skladu s členom 5(1), v primeru, ko rok ni bil naveden, pa odgovori brez neupravičenega odlašanja in organ, ki vzpostavi stik, obvesti, ali v zadevni državi članici poteka vzporeden postopek.
The contacted authority shall reply to a request submitted in accordance with Article 5(1) within any reasonable deadline indicated by the contacting authority, or, if no deadline has been indicated, without undue delay , and inform the contacting authority whether parallel proceedings are taking place in its Member State.
Če organ, ki vzpostavi stik, obvesti organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, da je osumljencu ali obtožencu začasno odvzeta prostost ali je v priporu, organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, obravnava zaprosilo kot nujno.
In cases where the contacting authority has informed the contacted authority that the suspected or accused person is held in provisional detention or custody, the latter authority shall treat the request as a matter of urgency.
Organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, v razumnem roku, ki ga navede organ, ki vzpostavi stik, odgovori na zaprosilo, vloženo v skladu s členom 5(1), v primeru, ko rok ni bil naveden, pa odgovori v 30 dneh in organ, ki vzpostavi stik, obvesti, ali v zadevni državi članici poteka vzporeden postopek.
The contacted authority shall reply to a request submitted in accordance with Article 5(1) within any reasonable deadline indicated by the contacting authority, or, if no deadline has been indicated, within 30 days , and inform the contacting authority whether parallel proceedings are taking place in its Member State.
Člen 8 – odstavek 1 – točka c
Article 8 - paragraph 1 - point c
(c) vse pomembne podatke o identiteti osumljenca ali obtoženca ter žrtev, če je to ustrezno;
(c) all relevant details about the identity of the suspected or accused person and about the victims, if applicable;
(c) ime, državljanstvo, datum rojstva in naslov osumljenca ali obtoženca ter žrtev, če je to ustrezno , in druge podatke, ki so pomembni, kadar gre za sum, da je identiteta osumljenca ali obtoženca lažna ;
(c) name, nationality, date of birth and address of the suspected or accused person and of the victims, if applicable, and other details that are relevant where there is a suspicion that the identity of the suspected or accused person is false;
Če se potrdi obstoj vzporednih kazenskih postopkov, se pristojni organi zadevnih držav članic neposredno posvetujejo, da bi dosegli soglasje o kakršni koli učinkoviti rešitvi, s katero bi se izognili škodljivim posledicam vzporednih postopkov, ki lahko po potrebi pripeljejo do koncentracije kazenskih postopkov v eni državi članici.
When it is established that parallel proceedings exist, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall enter into direct consultations in order to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings, which may, where appropriate, lead to the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State.
Če se potrdi obstoj vzporednih kazenskih postopkov, se pristojni organi zadevnih držav članic brez neupravičenega odlašanja neposredno posvetujejo, da bi dosegli soglasje o kakršni koli učinkoviti rešitvi, s katero bi se izognili škodljivim posledicam vzporednih postopkov, ki lahko po potrebi pripeljejo do koncentracije kazenskih postopkov v eni državi članici.
When it is established that parallel proceedings exist, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall without undue delay enter into direct consultations in order to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings, which may, where appropriate, lead to the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State.
V primerih, ko se osumljeni ali obtoženi osebi začasno odvzame prostost, ali ko je ta v priporu, je cilj neposrednega posvetovanja hitro doseči soglasje.
In cases where the suspected or accused person is held in provisional detention or custody, direct consultations shall aim to reach consensus as a matter of urgency.
Za obveznost posvetovanja, določeno v členu 10, ni predviden časovni načrt.
No timescale is envisaged in the obligation to consult set out in Article 10.
Ta zamuda bi lahko povzročila škodo za strani, ki so vključene v postopek, zlasti za osumljene in še posebej, če je bila tem odvzeta prostost.
This delay could lead to a detrimental effect upon the parties involved in the proceedings, particularly the suspect, and particularly if they are in detention.
Ko pristojni organi držav članic začnejo neposredno posvetovanje o določeni zadevi, da bi dosegli soglasje v skladu s členom 10, preučijo dejstva in temelje v zvezi z zadevo ter vse dejavnike , za katere menijo, da so pomembni.
When the competent authorities of Member States enter into direct consultations on a case in order to reach consensus in accordance with Article 10, they shall consider the facts and merits of the case and all the factors which they consider to be relevant.
Ko pristojni organi držav članic začnejo neposredno posvetovanje o določeni zadevi, da bi dosegli soglasje v skladu s členom 10, preučijo dejstva in dokaze v zvezi z zadevo ter dejavnike , kot so:
When the competent authorities of Member States enter into direct consultations on a case in order to reach consensus in accordance with Article 10, they shall consider the facts and merits of the case and factors such as:
– kraj, kjer se je zgodil večji del kaznivega dejanja,
- the place where the major part of the crime was committed ,
– kraj, kjer je nastalo največ škode,
- the place where the major part of the loss was sustained,
– kraj, kjer se nahaja osumljena ali obtožena oseba, in možnosti, da se zagotovi njena predaja ali izročitev drugim sodnim oblastem,
- the location of the suspected or accused person and the possibilities for securing his or her surrender or extradition to an other jurisdiction,
– državljanstvo ali kraj prebivališča osumljene ali obtožene osebe,
- the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person,
– vsi pomembni interesi osumljene ali obtožene osebe,
- any significant interests of the suspected or accused person,
– vsi pomembni interesi žrtev in prič,
- any significant interests of victims and witnesses,
– dopustnost dokazov ali
- the admissibility of evidence or
– kakršna koli morebitna zamuda.
- any delays that may occur.
Postopkovna jamstva
Procedural guarantees
Oseba, proti kateri je vložena obtožnica, je zlasti v fazi sojenja:
The person formally charged shall notably at the trial stage:
– obveščena o izmenjavi informacij in posvetovanjih med organi držav članic ter med organi države članice in Eurojustom, pa tudi o izbranih rešitvah oziroma o nezmožnosti, da se doseže dogovor v skladu s tem okvirnim sklepom, vključno s sodelujočimi subjekti, vsebino in razlogi;
- be notified of exchanges of information and consultations between authorities of Member States and between authorities of a Member State and Eurojust, as well as of solutions chosen or failure to reach agreement under this Framework Decision, including of actors involved, contents and reasons;
– ima pravico, da pred izbiro rešitve predstavi svoje stališče o tem, katera sodna oblast je najpri mernejš a;
- have a right to make representations as to the best placed jurisdiction before a solution is chosen;
– ima pravico do pritožbe proti vsem odločitvam, sprejetim v skladu s členom 10(1) ali, v primeru, da dogovor ni dosežen, do njene ponovne preučitve.
- have a right to appeal against any decision taken in accordance with Article 10(1) or, in case of failure to reach agreement, to have it re-examined.
Države članice zagotovijo ustrezne prevode, tolmačenje in pravno pomoč.
Member States shall ensure that appropriate translation, interpretation and legal aid are guaranteed.
Vsako soglasje, doseženo na podlagi člena 10(1), mora izražati pravičnost, neodvisnost in objektivnost ter mora biti doseženo z uporabo načel iz člena 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, zapisa nih v Listini o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije ter v Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, da se zagotovi varstvo človekovih pravic osumljene ali obtožene osebe.
Any c onsensus reached on the basis of Article 10 ( 1 ) must constitute an expression of fairness, independence and objectiv ity and must be reached by applying the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and F undamental Freedoms, so as to ensure that the human rights of the suspect ed or accused person are protected.
Spoštovanje temeljnih pravic v nobenem primeru ne sme biti omejeno.
The respect of fundamental rights cannot in any case be compressed.
Kateri koli nacionalni organ lahko v vsaki fazi nacionalnega postopka zaprosi Eurojust za nasvet ali mu preda določene zadeve, pri katerih se pojavlja vprašanje, katera sodna oblast je najprimernejš a.
Any national authority shall be free, at any stage of a national procedure, to ask for Eurojust's advice and to refer to Eurojust specific cases which raise the question of the best placed jurisdiction.
Zaradi svoje usklajevalne vloge lahko Eurojust nacionalnim organom še posebej dobro pomaga pri reševanju tovrstnih vprašanj, in zdi se, da je primerno to poudariti.
Due to its coordination role, Eurojust is extremely well placed to help national authority to solve this kind of issues and it seems appropriate that to be emphasized.
Člen 12 – odstavek 2 a (novo)
Article 12 - Paragraph 2 a (new)
Če države članice sklenejo, da ne bodo ravnale v skladu z mnenjem Eurojusta, slednjega o tem pisno obvestijo v skladu s členom 7 sklepa o Eurojustu.
If Member States decide not to comply with the opinion of Eurojust, they shall inform Eurojust in writ ing of their decision in accordance with Article 7 of the Eurojust Decision.
Ta predlog spremembe dopolnjuje prejšnji predlog spremembe.
This amendment completes the previous amendment.
Pobuda Češke republike, Republike Poljske, Republike Slovenije, Slovaške republike in Kraljevine Švedske
Initiative by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of the Kingdom of Sweden
Člen 15 – odstavek 1 – uvodni del
Article 15 - paragraph 1 - introductory part
Kolikor ostali pravni instrumenti in dogovori omogočajo, da se cilji tega okvirnega sklepa poglobijo in pripomorejo ali olajšujejo izmenjavo informacij med nacionalnimi organi o kazenskih postopkih v teku, neposredno posvetovanje in prizadevanje za dosego soglasja o kateri koli učinkoviti rešitvi s ciljem izogibanja škodljivih posledic vzporednih postopkov, lahko države članice:
Insofar as other legal instruments or arrangements allow the objectives of this Framework Decision to be extended or help to simplify or facilitate the procedure under which national authorities exchange information about their criminal proceedings, enter into direct consultations and try to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding adverse consequences arising from the parallel proceedings, the Member States may:
Kolikor ostali pravni instrumenti in dogovori omogočajo, da se cilji tega okvirnega sklepa poglobijo in pripomorejo ali olajšujejo izmenjavo informacij med nacionalnimi organi o kazenskih postopkih v teku, neposredno posvetovanje in prizadevanje za dosego soglasja o kateri koli učinkoviti rešitvi s ciljem izogibanja škodljivim posledicam vzporednih postopkov in pod pogojem, da ne zmanjšujejo zaščite , ki se nudi osumljen i ali obtožen i oseb i , lahko države članice:
Insofar as other legal instruments or arrangements allow the objectives of this Framework Decision to be extended or help to simplify or facilitate the procedure under which national authorities exchange information about their criminal proceedings, enter into direct consultations and try to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding adverse consequences arising from the parallel proceedings and provided that the protection afforded to the suspect ed or accused person is not reduced , the Member States may:
Vključitev v letno poročilo
Inclusion in annual report
Zadeve, predane Eurojustu, o katerih ni bilo doseženo soglasje med državami članicami, se vključijo v letno poročilo Eurojusta.
The cases referred to Eurojust on which consensus has not been reached among Member States shall be included in the annual report of Eurojust.
Haaški program za krepitev svobode, varnosti in pravičnosti v EU obravnava vprašanje spora o pristojnosti ter poudarja, da je treba v čezmejnih večstranskih zadevah posebno pozornost nameniti možnosti, da se kazenski pregon osredotoči v eni državi, ter da je treba dodatno pozornost nameniti predlogom o sporih o pristojnosti in načelu ne bis in idem, da bi se dopolnil celosten program ukrepov za izvajanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodnih odločb v kazenskih zadevah.
The Hague Programme for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the EU addresses conflicts of jurisdiction stressing that, in cross-border multilateral cases, particular attention should be paid to possibilities of concentrating the prosecution in one Member State and that further attention should be given to proposals on conflicts of jurisdiction and the ne bis in idem principle , so as to complete the comprehensive programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.
To vprašanje je tesno povezano z načelom, opredeljenim v členih od 54 do 58 Konvencije o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma (CISA).
This issue is strictly linked to the principles laid down in Articles 54-58 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA).
Predlog za okvirni sklep o preprečevanju in reševanju sporov o pristojnosti v kazenskih postopkih je bil vložen na pobudo Češke republike, Republike Poljske, Republike Slovenije, Slovaške republike in Kraljevine Švedske, njegov namen pa je preprečevanje in reševanje sporov o pristojnosti v kazenskih postopkih.
The proposal for a Council framework decision on prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings was tabled on the initiative of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of the Kingdom of Sweden and aims to prevent and settle conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.
Namen te zakonodajne pobude je določitev:
The aim of this legislative initiative was setting:
· postopkovnega okvira, znotraj katerega morajo nacionalni organi izmenjati podatke o kazenskih postopkih, ki so v teku za posamična dejanja, da tako odkrijejo, ali tečejo vzporedni postopki za isto dejanje v drugih državah članicah
· the procedural framework under which national authorities must exchange information about ongoing criminal proceedings for specific facts in order to find out whether there are parallel ongoing proceedings for the same facts in other Member State(s)
· postopka, v skladu s katerim se nacionalni organi sporazumejo o pristojnosti za vodenje kazenskih postopkov za posamična dejanja, ki spadajo v prisojnost dveh ali več držav članic
· the proceeding under which their national authorities would agree on the jurisdiction for conducting criminal proceedings for specific facts which fall within the jurisdiction of two or more Member States;
· pravila in skupna merila, ki bi jih morali upoštevati nacionalni organi pri odločanju o tem, pristojnost katere države je najprimernejša za vodenje kazenskega postopka za posamična dejanja.
· rules and common criteria which should be taken into account by the national authorities whenever they seek agreement on the jurisdiction for conducting criminal proceedings for specific facts.
Evropski parlament je bil v skladu s členom 39 Pogodbe o EU zaprošen za mnenje o omenjeni zakonodajni pobudi.
According to Article 39 TEU, the European Parliament was asked to deliver its opinion on the above mentioned legislative initiative.
Poročevalka Renate Weber je na seji Odbora LIBE 19. marca 2009 predstavila osnutek svojega poročila.
At the LIBE meeting held on 19 March 2009, the draftsperson Renate Weber presented her draft report.
Obenem je poudarila, da je – po neuradnih podatkih – Svet bistveno spremenil zakonodajni predlog.
At the same time she stressed that, according to informal information, the Council had substantially modified the legislative proposal.
Menila je, da priprava poročila o besedilu, ki ni več aktualno, ni primerna, in pozvala, naj se Evropski parlament ponovno zaprosi za mnenje o spremenjenem besedilu.
She considered it not appropriate to work on an outdated text and called the European Parliament to be re-consulted on the up-dated text.
Odbor je podprl poročevalko, predstavnik češkega predsedstva Sveta, ki je soglašal s stališčem Parlamenta, pa je napovedal, da bo Parlament ponovno zaprošen za mnenje o končnem besedilu okvirnega sklepa.
The draftsperson received the support of the Committee and the representative of the Czech Presidency of the Council, sharing the Parliament's point of view, announced a re-consultation on the final text of the Framework decision.
Predsednik Odbora LIBE je odložil postopek, dokler Svet ponovno ne zaprosi za mnenje.
Waiting for the re-consultation by the Council the LIBE Committee chairman postponed the procedure.
Države članice so 6. aprila 2009 dosegle splošno soglasje o besedilu, ki se znatno razlikuje od začetne pobude.
On 6 April 2009 Member States reached a general consensus on a text which significantly differs from the original initiative.
To mnenje zadeva besedilo, o katerem je Svet dosegel soglasje.
This opinion refers to the text agreed by Council.
Rok, ki ga je določil Svet in do katerega je treba podati mnenje v skladu s členom 39 PEU, je 23. oktober 2009.
Deadline fixed by Council to deliver the opinion according to Article 39 TEU is 23 October 2009.
Osnutek okvirnega sklepa zadeva okoliščine, ko zoper isto osebo ali več oseb potekajo vzporedni kazenski postopki v različnih državah članicah na podlagi istih dejstev, kar bi lahko pripeljalo do kršenja načela ne bis in idem.
The draft Framework decision refers to situations where the same person(s) is (are) subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different member states in respect of the same facts, which might lead to an infringement of the " ne bis in idem " principle.
Osnutek okvirnega sklepa vsebuje naslednje ukrepe:
The draft Framework decision contains the following measures:
· postopek za vzpostavitev stika med pristojnimi organi držav članic, zaradi potrditve obstoja vzporednih kazenskih postopkov na podlagi istih dejstev zoper iste osebe;
· a procedure for establishing contacts between the competent authorities of Member States, with a view to confirming the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person(s);
· pravila za izmenjavo informacij prek neposrednega posvetovanja med pristojnimi organi dveh ali več držav članic, ki vodijo takšne vzporedne kazenske postopke, da se doseže soglasje o kakršni koli učinkoviti rešitvi, s katero bi se izognili škodljivim posledicam, ki izhajajo iz takih vzporednih postopkov.
· rules on the exchange of information, through direct consultations, between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting such parallel criminal proceedings(s), with a view to reaching a consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising there from.
Rok, v katerem mora organ, ki je zaprošen za informacije, odgovoriti, ni določen.
No deadline for the reply of the authority requested for information is fixed.
Merila za določitev, kateri naj bi bil najprimernejši sodni organ, niso navedena.
No criterion is indicated in order to establish which the most appropriate judicial authority should be.
Osnutku okvirnega sklepa ni priložen obrazec, ki bi usmerjal pristojne organe (originalnemu besedilu je bil priložen).
No form to guide competent authorities is annexed to the draft framework decision (it was in the original text).
Kljub obveznosti vzpostavitve stika s pristojnimi organi drugih držav članic ni podobne obveznosti, da se obvesti Eurojust.
Despite the obligation to contact competent authority of another Member States, no similar obligation to inform Eurojust is imposed.
Vloga Eurojusta pri reševanju morebitnih sporov je šibka in še zdaleč ni zadovoljiva.
The role of Eurojust in solving potential conflicts is weak and far from being satisfactory.
o predlogu Sklepa Sveta o sklenitvi Sporazuma med Evropsko skupnostjo in Republiko Sejšeli o odpravi vizumov za kratkoročno bivanje
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles on the short-stay visa waiver
– ob upoštevanju predloga Sklepa Sveta ( KOM(2009)0052 ),
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision ( COM(2009)0052 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 62(2)(b)(i) in prve povedi prvega pododstavka člena 300(2) Pogodbe ES,
– having regard to Article 62(2)(b)(i) and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,
– ob upoštevanju prvega pododstavka člena 300(3) Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C7‑0012/2009 ),
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C7-0012/2009 ),
– ob upoštevanju členov 55 in 90(8) svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 55 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A7‑0012/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A7-0012/2009 ),
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1932/2006 je spremenila uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 539/2001, ki določa seznam tretjih držav, katerih državljani morajo pri prehodu zunanjih meja Evropske unije imeti vizume (negativni seznam), in držav, katerih državljani so oproščeni te zahteve (pozitivni seznam), s tem da med drugim prenaša šest tretjih držav z negativnega na pozitivni seznam.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1932/2006 amended Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the European Union (negative list), and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (positive list) by - inter alia - transferring six third countries from the negative to the positive list.
Te države so Antigva in Barbuda, Bahami, Barbados, Mauritius, Saint Kitts in Nevis ter Sejšeli.
These are Antigua and Barbuda , the Bahamas , Barbados , Mauritius , Saint Kitts and Nevis and the Seychelles .
Uredba navaja tudi, da izvzetje iz vizumske obveznosti za državljane teh držav ne sme priti v veljavo, dokler se ne sklenejo in začnejo veljati dvostranski sporazumi o odpravi vizumov med Evropsko skupnostjo in zadevnimi državami.
The Regulation also points out that the exemptions from the visa requirement for nationals of these countries should not come into force before a bilateral visa waiver agreement between the European Community and the countries in question has been concluded and entered into force.
Ta uredba je bila sprejeta 21. decembra 2006 in je začela veljati januarja 2007.
This Regulation was adopted on 21 December 2006 and entered into force in January 2007.
V tem času pa so države Caricom s 15. januarjem 2007 uvedle posebno vizumsko ureditev za državljane več držav članic EU (državljani EU so bili s tem neenako obravnavani, saj so bili državljani nekaterih držav članic še naprej oproščeni vizumske obveznosti) zaradi svetovnega prvenstva v kriketu leta 2007, ki je potekalo v Karibski skupnosti.
In the meantime, as from 15 January 2007, the CARICOM countries introduced a special visa regime for the nationals of several EU Member States (EU nationals were treated unequally as the citizens of the other Member States remained exempted from the visa obligation) due to the Cricket World Cup 2007 taking place in the Caribbean Community.