natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Oblikovati je treba evropska merila, v skladu s katerimi lahko države članice usposobljene organizacije pooblastijo za vložitev tožbe.
European criteria need to be developed according to which Member States can authorise qualified entities to file a claim.
Kot izhodišče za oblikovanje teh meril, ki morajo biti prvi ukrep za preprečevanje zlorab horizontalnega instrumenta, lahko služi člen 3 Direktive 2009/22/ES o opustitvenih tožbah zaradi varstva interesa potrošnikov.
Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests could serve as a starting point for developing these criteria, which must be the first barrier to exclude misuse of a horizontal instrument.
V skladu z merili, bi se dovoljenje lahko izdalo organizaciji potrošnikov, varuhu človekovih pravic itd.
According to these criteria, authorisation could be granted to consumer organisations, ombudsmen, etc.
Zaradi pravne zapletenosti kolektivnih tožb, pa je potrebno zastopstvo odvetnika.
Owing to the legal complexity of collective actions, it is however necessary to be represented by a lawyer.
Posledično ne bi bile potrebne skupinske tožbe, v katerih bi žrtve svoje zahtevke združile v en sam zahtevek.
Consequently, there is no need for group actions under which victims can combine their claims in a single claim.
Odobritev usposobljenih organizacij bi državam članicam nudila priročni mehanizem, ki bi dopuščal določeno mero nadzora nad organizacijami zastopanja, horizontalni instrument pa bi varoval pred zlorabami, medtem ko takšen nadzor ne bi obstajal v primeru skupinske tožbe.
The authorisation of qualified entities would provide Member States with a mechanism at hand which would allow for some control of the representative organisation and consequently of the horizontal instrument against misuse while this control would not exist in the case of a group action.
Poročevalec poudarja, da sme biti pri tožbi zastopancev udeležen le natančno identificiran krog posameznikov, njihova identifikacija pa mora biti opravljena do trenutka vložitve tožbe.
The rapporteur calls for only a clearly identified group of people to be able to take part in a representative action and identification must be complete when the claim is brought.
Ustave več držav članic prepovedujejo načelo zavrnitve sodelovanja v tožbi, ko je zahtevek vložen v imenu neznanih žrtev, saj žrtve tako nimajo svobode pri odločitvi, ali gredo v tožbo.
The Constitutions of several Member States prohibit opt-out actions where a claim is brought on behalf of unknown victims as victims would not be free not to bring an action.
Načelo zavrnitve sodelovanja v tožbi je vprašljivo tudi v luči člena 6 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah.
An opt-out action would also be problematic in light of Article 6 ECHR.
Odškodnino se lahko prejme le za škodo, ki je bila dejansko povzročena, do nje pa so upravičene le žrtve kršitve prava EU.
Only damage actually suffered may be compensated and only the victims of an EU law infringement may be compensated.
To tudi pomeni, da organizacija zastopanja ne sme prejeti nobenega deleža od odškodnine, saj to ne bi bilo le v nasprotju z načelom o odškodnini, temveč bi tudi zelo okrepilo finančne vzgibe za vložitev neupravičenih zahtevkov.
This also implies that no part of the compensation must remain in the hands of the representative organisation since this would not only conflict with the principle of compensation but would also significantly increase the financial incentive for filing unmeritorious claims.
Poročevalec poziva k prepovedi kaznovalnih odškodnin, zlasti za to, da bi se izognili praksi izbiranja najugodnejšega sodišča.
The rapporteur calls for the prohibition of punitive damages so as in particular to avoid forum shopping.
Res je, da je sodišče v zadevi Manfredi priznalo dopustnost nacionalnih določb o kaznovalnih odškodninah, vendar ta sodba velja le, če to področje ni urejeno na ravni Skupnosti
It is true that in Manfredi the Court recognised the permissibility of national provisions on punitive damages, but this judgment applies only in the absence of Community rules governing the matter
Zakonodajalec Unije lahko tako prepove plačilo kaznovalnih odškodnin.
The Union legislator may thus exclude the payment of punitive damages.
Poročevalec želi ohraniti načelo, da mora stranka, ki trdi, da je šlo kršitev, to tudi dokazati, zato se od obtoženca ne more zahtevati, naj predloži dokaze za tožnika.
The rapporteur wishes to maintain the principle that the party alleging an infringement must prove it; thus, a defendant cannot be required to provide evidence for the claimant.
Bistvenega pomena je, da tožniki v kolektivni tožbi niso v boljšem položaju kot individualni tožniki, kar zadeva dokaze.
It is of decisive importance that collective claimants should not be in a better position than individual claimants when it comes to evidence.
Namesto tega, da se na evropski ravni uvedejo tuji predpisi o razkritju dokazov, bi morale države članice dostop do dokazov še naprej urejati v skladu s svojim procesnim pravom.
Instead of introducing alien disclosure requirements at European level, the Member States should continue to regulate access to evidence in accordance with their procedural law.
Zahteve po razkritju bi nepotrebno zvišale stroške pravdnih postopkov in spodbujale vlaganje neupravičenih zahtevkov, zato jih je treba na evropski ravni zavrniti.
Disclosure requirements unnecessarily raise the cost of litigation and encourage unmeritorious claims and must therefore be rejected at European level.
Poročevalec želi ohraniti nacionalne predpise o razdelitvi stroškov, saj je v državah članicah trdno uveljavljeno načelo, po katerem plača tisti, ki izgubi, varovalo pred neupravičenimi zahtevki.
The rapporteur wishes to maintain the national rules on allocation of costs, since the well established principle in the Member States that the loser pays is a safeguard against unwarranted claims.
Prav tako Komisija ne bi smela uporabljati instrumentov, ki niso pravno zavezujoči, za spodbujanje držav članic k prilagoditvi svojih predpisov o razdelitvi stroškov.
Neither should the Commission use soft law instruments to encourage the Member States to adjust their cost allocation rules.
Poročevalec zavrača financiranje kolektivnih tožb.
The rapporteur rejects the funding of collective claims.
Poleg tega da večina držav članic tega mehanizma financiranja ne pozna, je to tudi orodje, ki zahtevek spremeni v tržno blago.
Not only are funding mechanisms unknown in most Member States, but they also convert a claim into a tradable good.
Unija ne bi smela dopustiti, da bi tržni mehanizmi odločali o tem, katere zahtevke bo mogoče vložiti.
The Union should refrain from allowing market mechanisms to decide whether a claim can be brought or not.
Zavedati se je treba tudi tega, da številne organizacije potrošnikov prejemajo javna sredstva, in dodatno premisliti o tem, do katere mere je mogoče javno financiranje za okrepitev tožb zastopancev.
In this respect it should be borne in mind that many consumer associations, etc. enjoy public funding and that further thought should be given as to whether and to what extent public funding has to be increased in order to strengthen representative actions.
Poročevalec zaradi omejitev pri oblikovanju poročila ni mogel obravnavati številnih drugih pomembnih vprašanj v zvezi z zaščitnimi ukrepi, na primer kako naj javni organi obravnavajo dokumente.
The rapporteur could not touch upon many other important questions relating to safeguards owing to drafting constraints, for instance how to deal with documents in the hands of public authorities.
Glede na to, da so na nekaterih področjih, kot je konkurenčno pravo, zasebne odškodninske tožbe najverjetneje vložene zatem, ko je pristojni organ ugotovil kršitev prava EU, je treba dodatno pozornost nameniti vprašanju vpogleda v dokumente.
Bearing in mind that in areas such as competition law private actions for compensation will most likely be pursued after the breach of EU law has been established by a competition authority, further thought should be given to the question of access to documents.
Poročevalec meni, da je treba omogočiti vpogled v dokumente, ki so bili pridobljeni v javni preiskavi, vendar pa je treba oblikovati posebne kriterije, ki bi predpisovali, kdaj se vpogled v dokumente lahko zavrne, da bi tako zaščitili zakonite interese obtoženca ali tretje stranke in morebitne druge splošne interese.
The rapporteur believes that access to documents retrieved in public investigations should be granted, but that specific criteria need to be developed in order to identify when access to documents can be denied so as to protect legitimate interests of the defendant or a third party and any other overriding interests.
Treba je upoštevati, da je sodišče v zvezi z zasebnimi odškodninami na področju konkurenčnosti in vzajemnim delovanjem s programom prizanesljivosti nedavno razsodilo, da „morajo sodišča držav članic na podlagi svoje nacionalne zakonodaje in s tehtanjem interesov, ki jih varuje pravo Unije, določiti pogoje, pod katerimi mora biti tak vpogled odobren ali zavrnjen”
It should be borne in mind that with regard to private damages in the competition field and the interaction with the leniency programme, the Court recently ruled that it is ‘ for the courts and tribunals of the Member States, on the basis of their national law, to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by European Union law ’
Sodba z dne 14. junija 2011 v zadevi C-360/09 Pleiderer, ki še ni objavljena v Zbirki odločb. .
Judgment of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 Pleiderer, not yet reported in the ECR. .
Poleg tega bi lahko razmislili tudi o tem, da bi vložitev tožbe zastopancev dovolili le zatem, ko bi pristojni nacionalni ali evropski organi ali sodišča dokončno ugotovili, da je šlo za kršitev prava EU in se po nacionalnem pravu proti takšni sodbi ne bi bilo več mogoče pritožiti.
In addition, it could also be considered to allow for a representative action to be brought only after the breach of EU law has finally been established by the competent national or European authority or court against whose decisions there is no remedy under national law.
V tem kontekstu, vendar ne v okviru horizontalnega instrumenta, je treba oblikovati posebna merila, ki bodo omogočala odbitek glob ali drugih javnih sankcij od določenega odškodninskega zneska, zato da obtoženec ne bi bil nesorazmerno finančno obremenjen.
In this context but not within the horizontal instrument, specific criteria need to be developed which allow for fines or other public sanctions to be deducted after damages have been awarded in order not to put disproportionate financial burdens on the defendant.
Na področju konkurenčnega prava bi bilo treba ustrezno spremeniti Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o izvajanju pravil konkurence iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe
In the field of antitrust law, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
Prav tako ne bi bilo zadostno, če bi imenovali posamezne sektorje, kot so finančne storitve ali telekomunikacije
It would also not be sufficient to identify particular sectors, such as financial services and telecommunications
Zelena knjiga o kolektivnih odškodninah za potrošnike (COM(2008) 794), str.
Commission Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress, COM (2008) 794, p.
4. , saj ne bi bilo jasno, katere pravice, ki izhajajo iz prava EU, so ogrožene.
4 , insofar as it would not be clear which rights granted under EU law are at stake.
Namesto tega bi pravno varnost povečali s tem, da bi natančno določili dele zakonodaje EU, kjer obstajajo težave pri uveljavljanju pravic žrtev.
Instead, legal certainty will be increased by identifying the exact pieces of EU legislation where problems regarding the enforcement of rights of victims exist.
Ko bi to določili, bi se moral horizontalni instrument nanašati na odškodninske tožbe v primeru kršitve te zakonodaje in predpisov EU o konkurenčnosti.
Once this identification has taken place, the horizontal instrument should apply to damages actions in case of breach of the relevant legislation indicated as well as of EU antitrust rules.
Kot je to primer v direktivi o opustitvenih tožbah, bi bilo treba primerno zakonodajo EU našteti v prilogi k horizontalnemu instrumentu, da bi ustrezno določili kršitve, proti katerim je mogoča kolektivna tožba v okviru horizontalnega instrumenta.
As in the Injunctions Directive the relevant EU legislation should be listed in an Annex to the horizontal instrument so as to allow for the correct determination of the infringements against which collective redress is available under the horizontal instrument.
Alternativno reševanje sporov (ARS)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Alternativno reševanje sporov ponavadi omogoča hitro in pošteno poravnavo, zato bi moralo biti bolj primerno za reševanje sporov kot pa sodni postopki.
ADR generally provides for a quick and fair settlement and should be more attractive for resolving the dispute than court proceedings.
Postati bi moralo obvezno, da se pred vložitvijo kolektivne tožbe poskuša doseči izvensodno poravnavo.
It therefore should be made obligatory to seek out-of-court settlements before bringing collective action.
Pri uvedbi zakonske obveznosti postopka poravnave je treba upoštevati nekatera merila Sodišča, da bo skladna s pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva
The introduction of a legal obligation for a mandatory settlement procedure must observe certain criteria developed by the Court in order to be compatible with the right to effective judicial protection
Predlog Komisije v zvezi z alternativnim reševanjem sporov naj bi bil predstavljen jeseni 2011 in naj bi bil izhodišče za razvoj omenjenega mehanizma.
A Commission proposal on ADR is expected in autumn 2011 and this proposal should be the starting point for developing such a mechanism.
Sodna pristojnost in pravo, ki se uporablja
Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
Poročevalec meni, da sta vprašanji sodne pristojnosti in prava, ki se uporablja, izrednega pomena za preprečevanje prakse izbiranja najugodnejšega sodišča.
The rapporteur believes that questions of jurisdiction and the applicable law are of the utmost importance in order to prevent forum shopping.
Zato so potrebni jasni in strogi predpisi.
Clear, strict rules are therefore needed to avoid a rush to the courts.
Predpisi o sodni pristojnosti in pravu, ki se uporablja, v čezmejnih primerih ščitijo šibkejšo stranko, torej potrošnika.
Rules on jurisdiction and the applicable law in cross-border situations favour the weaker party, e.g. the consumer.
Vendar pa v primeru kolektivne tožbe, žrtve ne vložijo ene same tožbe, temveč kolektivno tožbo.
However, when it comes to collective redress, the victims do not bring a single claim but a collective claim.
Potreba po zaščiti šibkejše stranke torej ni več absolutna, kar omogoča uvedbo posebnih pravil o sodni pristojnosti in pravu, ki se uporablja, v samem horizontalnem instrumentu, namesto da bi spreminjali zadevne predpise EU.
The need for protection of the weaker party is therefore no longer absolute, which allows for the introduction of specific rules on jurisdiction and the applicable law in the horizontal instrument itself instead of changing the relevant EU rules.
Kar zadeva sodno pristojnost, bi morala posebna klavzula v horizontalnem instrumentu določati, da je pristojno tisto sodišče, kjer ima obtoženec prebivališče ali sedež.
With regard to jurisdiction, a special clause in the horizontal instrument should provide that the courts for the place where the defendant is domiciled should have jurisdiction.
Po mnenju poročevalca bi bila vsaka druga rešitev nepraktična.
The rapporteur considers that any other solution would be impractical.
Pravilo, da bi bila pristojna tista sodišča, kjer je bilo povzročeno največ škode, je problematično, saj je v številnih primerih težko oziroma nemogoče določiti, kje je bilo povzročeno največ škode.
Providing that the courts for the place where the major part of damage was caused should have jurisdiction could be problematic since in many cases it is difficult if not impossible to determine where the major part of the damage was caused.
Da bi bilo za primer pristojno sodišče države, kjer ima prebivališče ali sedež največ žrtev, se na prvi pogled zdi enostavna rešitev v postopkih po načelu privolitve v sodelovanje, saj je treba žrtve natančno identificirati.
In addition, providing for the courts to have jurisdiction where the majority of victims are domiciled might at first sight seem easy in an opt-in procedure as the victims have to be clearly identified.
Vendar pa bi takšna klavzula dopuščala izbiro najugodnejšega sodišča, saj se ne bi bilo mogoče izogniti primerom, ko bi se k vložitvi tožbe spodbudilo kritično maso žrtev, ki bi sodile pod sodno pristojnost, katere procesno pravo je bolj prijazno tožniku.
However, this clause would leave room for forum shopping, as there would be no way of avoiding situations in which a critical mass of victims from jurisdictions where the procedural law was perceived as being more claimant-friendly were encouraged to join the action
Poročevalec je prepričan, da so potrebna jasna in stroga pravila o pravu, ki se uporablja, vendar razume, da je to težko doseči.
The rapporteur also believes that clear, strict rules on the applicable law are needed but understands that this would be difficult to achieve.
Potrebne so nadaljnje študije, da bi ocenili, ali ne bi bilo mogoče uporabljati prava države, kjer ima prebivališče oziroma sedež večina žrtev.
Further examination is therefore needed to evaluate whether it might not be possible to provide for the applicability of the law of the place where the majority of the victims are domiciled.
Prednost tega bi bila, da bi sodišče razsodilo na podlagi enega zakona, katerega pozna.
This would have the advantage that the court would give its ruling on the basis of a single law with which it is familiar.
Zaradi pomanjkanja popolne skladnosti na večini področij nacionalnega prava takšno pravilo ne bi izključevalo primerov, v katerih pravo, ki se uporablja, predpisuje manj pravic, kot pa materialno pravo drugih držav članic, v katerih bi imele prebivališče ali sedež nekatere druge žrtve, ki sodelujejo v tožbi.
In the absence of full harmonisation of most areas of national law, such a rule could not exclude situations in which the applicable law grants fewer rights than the material laws of other Member States in which some of the victims that opted in are domiciled.
Žrtev pa bi se lahko odločila, da v kolektivni tožbi ne sodeluje in da odškodninski zahtevek vloži sama v svoji državi članici.
However, the victim would remain free not to pursue the opt-in collective action and seek individual redress in his Member State.
Če vprašanje prava, ki se uporablja, ne bi bilo obravnavano, bi moralo sodišče podati sodbo na osnovi različnih nacionalnih zakonodaj.
In case the question of the applicable law is not dealt with, the court would have to deliver its judgment on the basis of different national laws.
Ena od rešitev bi lahko bila oblikovanje podskupin, ki bi zajemale skupine žrtev, oblikovane v skladu s posameznim stvarnim pravom, ki ga je treba uporabiti.
One way out could be to form subgroups consisting of groups of victims formed in accordance with the different substantive laws having to be applied.
To bi lahko olajšalo zapletenost tožb, vendar bi bilo vseeno potrebno pristojno sodišče, ki bi moralo upoštevati tudi do 28 različnih zakonov.
This might reduce the complexity of the claim but nevertheless would require the competent court to apply up to 28 different laws.
Redni zakonodajni postopek
Ordinary Legislative Procedure
Poročevalec vztraja, da mora biti Parlament v okviru rednega zakonodajnega postopka udeležen pri vseh zakonodajnih pobudah.
The rapporteur strongly insists that Parliament has to be involved, under the ordinary legislative procedure, in any legislative initiative.
Izkušnje kažejo, da Parlament ne bo sprejel predlogov, pri katerih ta pravica ni bila upoštevana.
Past experience shows that Parliament will not accept any proposal where this right is not respected.
Usklajenemu evropskemu pristopu h kolektivnim tožbam naproti
on Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress
3. vendar ugotavlja, da na vedno bolj povezanem enotnem trgu, na katerem spletno trgovanje hitro raste, obstaja potreba po vseevropskem pristopu do kolektivnih tožb;
Recognises, however, that in an increasingly integrated single market in which online trade is growing rapidly, there is a need for an EU-wide approach in the area of collective redress;
5. ugotavlja, da v mnogih državah članicah že obstajajo oblike izvrševanje na zasebni ravni, vendar se nacionalni sistemi zelo razlikujejo in številne države članice še nimajo jasnih posebnih pravil o kolektivnih tožbah, tudi ne o sodnem varstvu;
Notes that forms of private enforcement already exist in many Member States, but that the national systems are widely divergent and that many Member States do not have clear and explicitly established specific rules on collective redress, including judicial redress;
12. meni, da bi bilo treba ustrezno upoštevati specifična vprašanja s področja konkurence in da mora vsak instrument, ki bi veljal za kolektivne tožbe, v celoti in ustrezno upoštevati posebnosti protimonopolnega sektorja;
Believes that the specific issues arising in the competition field should be taken into account appropriately and that any instrument applicable to collective redress must take full and proper account of the specificities of the antitrust sector;
15. poudarja, da za oceno posebnih in pomembnih vprašanj, ki ne obstajajo na drugih področjih, obstajajo primerjalne izkušnje ter veliko dokumentacije za njihovo obravnavanje;
Stresses that there is comparative experience on the basis of which to evaluate, and abundant literature on the basis of which to address, the many specific and important issues that do not exist in other fields;
– skupina tožnikov mora biti natančno opredeljena pred vložitvijo tožbe (postopek opt-in);
– the group of claimants must be clearly identified before the claim is brought (opt-in procedure);
– javni organi, kot so varuh človekovih pravic ali tožilci, pa tudi predstavniški organi, lahko vložijo tožbo v imenu jasno opredeljene skupine,
– public authorities such as ombudsmen or prosecutors, as well as representative bodies, may bring an action on behalf of a clearly identified group of claimants;
– sistem skupinskih tožb je treba zavrniti, saj bi pretirano spodbujal k pravdanju, je lahko v nasprotju z ustavo nekaterih držav članic in lahko vpliva na pravice žrtev, ki bi v sodnem postopku sodelovale nevede, vendar bi bila sodba sodišča za njih vseeno zavezujoča;
– a class-action system must be rejected on the grounds that it would promote excessive litigation, may be contrary to some Member States’ constitutions and may affect the rights of any victim who might participate in the procedure unknowingly but would still be bound by the court’s decision;
– tožniki morajo v vsakem primeru imeti možnost, da izkoristijo možnost alternativnega individualnega odškodninskega zahtevka pred pristojnim sodiščem;
– claimants must under all circumstances be free to make use of the alternative of individual compensatory redress before a competent court;
– tožniki v zadevah manjših in razpršenih škod lahko ustrezno dostopajo do sodnega varstva prek kolektivnih tožb in si tako zagotovijo pošteno odškodnino;
– claimants of minor and diffuse damages should have appropriate means of access to justice through collective redress and should secure fair compensation;
– vsak tožnik mora z dokazi podpreti svoj zahtevek;
– each claimant must provide evidence for his claim;
– dodeljena odškodnina mora biti porazdeljena med posamezne žrtve sorazmerno s škodo, ki so jo utrpele;
– the damages awarded must be distributed to individual claimants in proportion to the harm they sustained individually;
– odvetniške nagrade, vezane na uspeh, v Evropi niso praksa in jih je treba zavrniti;
– by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and must be rejected;