natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– sistem skupinskih tožb je treba zavrniti, kadar oškodovanci niso identificirani pred razglasitvijo sodbe, na podlagi, da je to v nasprotju s pravnim redom številnih držav članic in krši pravico žrtev, ki bi v sodnem postopku sodelovale nevede, vendar bi bila sodba sodišča za njih vseeno zavezujoča;
– a collective redress system where the victims are not identified before the judgment is delivered must be rejected on the grounds that it is contrary to many Member States’ legal orders and violates the rights of any victims who might participate in the procedure unknowingly and yet be bound by the court’s decision;
– države članice morajo zagotoviti, da ima sodnik ali podoben organ pravico, da s predhodnim preverjanjem dopustnosti potencialne kolektivne tožbe odloči, da so pogoji izpolnjeni in da je tožba primerna za nadaljevanje postopka;
– Member States should ensure that a judge or similar body continue s to have discretionary powers taking the form of a preliminary admissibility check of any potential collective action in order to confirm that the qualifying criteria have been met and that the action is fit to proceed;
– države članice morajo imenovati organizacije, ki so usposobljene za vložitev zastopniške tožbe, pri čemer so potrebna evropska merila, ki bodo jasno določala, katere so za to usposobljene; ta merila lahko temeljijo na členu 3 Direktive št. 2009/22/ES o opustitvenih tožbah zaradi varstva interesov potrošnikov, vendar morajo biti natančneje določena, da bi se izognili zlorabam pravdnih postopkov in da bi zagotovili dostop do sodnega varstva; ta merila bi morala med drugim zadevati finančne in kadrovske vire organizacij;
– Member States should designate organisations qualified to bring representative actions, and European criteria would be useful in order to clearly define these qualified entities; these criteria could be based on Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests, but need to be further specified in order to ensure both that abusive litigation is avoided and that access to justice is granted; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations;
– žrtve morajo biti v vsakem primeru svobodne, da alternativno uveljavljajo individualen odškodninski zahtevek pred pristojnim sodiščem;
– victims must in any case be free to seek the alternative of individual compensatory redress before a competent court;
Polna odškodnina za dejansko škodo
Full compensation for actual damage
– horizontalni okvir bi moral obravnavati odškodnine le za dejansko povzročeno škodo. kaznovalne odškodnine pa morajo biti prepovedane; v skladu z načelom o odškodnini mora biti dodeljena odškodnina porazdeljena med posamezne žrtve v višini škode, ki so jo utrpele; odvetniške nagrade, vezane na uspeh, v Evropi niso praksa in ne bi smele biti del obveznega horizontalnega okvira;
– the horizontal framework should cover compensation only for the actual damage caused, and punitive damages must be prohibited; by virtue of the concept of compensation the damages awarded must be distributed to individual victims in proportion to the harm they sustained individually; by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and should not form part of the mandatory horizontal framework;
Dostop do dokazov
Access to evidence
– tožniki v kolektivni tožbi ne smejo biti v boljšem položaju kot individualni tožniki glede dostopa do dokazov obtoženca, vsak tožnik pa mora predložiti dokaze za svoj zahtevek; obveznost razkritja dokumentov tožnikom (razkritje) v Evropi v glavnem ni v praksi in ne sme biti del obveznega horizontalnega okvira;
– collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants with regard to access to evidence from the defendant, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) is mostly unknown in Europe and must not form part of the horizontal framework;
Načelo kdor izgubi, plača
Loser pays principle
– vsaka tožba vključuje finančno tveganje, države članice pa morajo določiti lastna pravila o razdelitvi stroškov, v skladu s katerimi mora stranka, ki izgubi, kriti stroške nasprotne stranke, da bi na ta način preprečili pretirano širjenje neutemeljenih tožbenih zahtevkov v vseevropskem mehanizmu kolektivnih pravnih sredstev;
– there can be no action without financial risk, and Member States are to determine their own rules on the allocation of costs, under which the unsuccessful party must bear the costs of the other party in order to avoid the proliferation of unmeritorious claims in an EU-wide collective redress mechanism;
Prepoved financiranja s strani tretjih oseb:
No third-party funding
– Komisija ne sme določiti pogojev ali smernic o financiranju odškodninskih zahtevkov, saj večina pravnih sistemov držav članic ne pozna financiranja s strani tretje stranke, ki se ji na primer ponudi delež dodeljene odškodnine; to državam članicam ne preprečuje, da bi določile pogoje ali smernice za financiranje odškodninskih zahtevkov;
– the Commission must not set out any conditions or guidelines on the funding of damages claims, as recourse to third-party funding is unknown in most Member States’ legal systems, for instance, by offering a share of the damages awarded; this does not preclude Member States setting out conditions or guidelines on the funding of damages claims;
22. poziva Komisijo, naj preuči načine za ozaveščanje potrošnikov o obstoju mehanizma kolektivih tožb in omogočanje sodelovanja med organizacijami, usposobljenimi za vložitev zastopniške tožbe; poudarja ključno vlogo, ki jo lahko imajo pri posredovanju informacij čim večjemu številu žrtev kršitev prava EU potrošniške organizacije in evropska mreža centrov za varstvo potrošnikov;
Calls on the Commission to explore ways of raising consumer awareness of the availability of collective redress mechanisms and facilitating cooperation between the entities qualified to bring collective actions; stresses the key role that consumer organisations and the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) can play in passing on the information to as many victims of infringements of EU law as possible;
Študija o težavah, s katerimi se srečujejo potrošniki, ki želijo odškodnino zaradi kršitve zakonov o zaščiti potrošnikov, in o ekonomskih posledicah teh težav, 1. del, glavno poročilo, 26 avgust 2008, str.
Study regarding the problems faced by consumers in obtaining redress for infringements of consumer protection legislation, and the economic consequences of such problems, 26 August 2008, Part I: Main Report, p.
21 ff. , ob priznavanju, da sodna prepoved ni zadostna, če so žrtve utrpele škodo in so upravičene do odškodnine; poziva Komisijo, naj identificira zakonodajo EU, na področju katere je težko dobiti odškodninske zahtevke;
21 ff. , while acknowledging that injunctive relief is not sufficient when victims have suffered damage and have the right to compensation; asks the Commission to identify the EU legislation in respect of which it is difficult to obtain compensatory redress;
Alternativno reševanje sporov (ARS)
Alternative d ispute r esolution (ADR)
Sodba z dne 18. marca 2010 v združenih zadevah C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 in C-320/08, Alassini, ki še ni objavljena v Zbirki odločb. ; vendar poudarja, da bi morali ti mehanizmi ostati alternativa sodnemu varstvu (kot pove samo ime) in ne predpogoj zanj;
Judgment of 18 March 2010 in Joined Cases C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini , not yet reported in the ECR. should be the starting point for the establishment of this power; stresses, however, that these mechanisms should remain, as the name indicates, merely an alternative to judicial redress, not a precondition therefor;
Pristojnost in pravo, ki se uporablja
Jurisdiction and applicable law
28. poudarja, da mora Komisija po sodbi v zadevi C-360/09, Pfleiderer, zagotoviti, da kolektivna tožba ne ogroža učinkovitosti sistema prizanesljivosti in postopka poravnavanja po konkurenčnem pravu;
Emphasises that following the judgment of the Court in Case C-360/09, Pfleiderer , the Commission must ensure that collective redress does not compromise the effectiveness of the competition law leniency system and the settlement procedure;
Poročevalec pozdravlja posvetovanja Komisije na horizontalni ravni, njeno odprtost za evropski pristop h kolektivnim tožbam in zavezanost k trdnim zaščitnim ukrepov proti zlorabi pravdnih postopkov.
The rapporteur welcomes the horizontal consultation of the Commission, its openness to a European approach to collective redress and its commitment to strong safeguards against abusive litigation.
Nedavna sodba vrhovnega sodišča Združenih držav Amerike v primeru skupinske tožbe zaradi pristranskosti
The recent decision of the US Supreme Court in a class-action bias case
S. xxx (2011). znova dokazuje, da se ameriški pravni sistem sooča z zlorabami in neutemeljeni skupinskimi tožbami, ki so posledica ekscesov v ameriškem sistemu, kar zagotovo ni bilo predvideno ob uvedbi skupinskih tožb pred nekaj desetletij.
564 U. S. xxx (2011). shows once more that the US legal system itself is fighting against abusive and unmeritorious class actions resulting from excesses of the US system that were certainly not envisaged when such actions were introduced decades ago.
Evropa se mora odločno upreti poskusom spreminjanja pravnih tradicij Evropske unije z uvedbo tujih postopkovnih elementov, ki bi dopuščali zlorabe kolektivnih tožb.
Europe must stand firm against any intention to changing EU legal traditions by incorporating alien procedural elements allowing for abusive collective action.
Poročevalec razume, da je pravna tradicija EU usmerjena k reševanju sporov med posamezniki in ne prek skupin.
The rapporteur understands that the EU legal tradition is directed towards solving disputes between individuals rather than through a collective entity.
Vendar pa je lahko v nekaterih primerih v interesu žrtev nezakonitega ravnanja, da svoje zahtevke, ki jih sicer vsak posebej ne bi vlagali, združijo, po drugi strani pa je lahko tudi v interesu podjetij, da so predmet ene same poravnave ali sodbe sodišča, kar zagotavlja sodno varnost v zvezi z zadevo.
However, in some instances it might, on the one hand, be in the interest of victims of unlawful behaviour to bundle their claims which they would not otherwise pursue individually and, on the other, it might be in the interest of companies to obtain one single settlement or court action bringing legal certainty to the matter.
Zaradi tega so številne države članice v zadnjih letih uvedle instrumente skupnega delovanja, ki omogočajo neke vrste kolektivni dostop do sodnega varstva.
To this extent, many Member States have in recent years introduced collective instruments allowing for some kind of collective access to justice.
Ti instrumenti se zelo razlikujejo, saj so lahko med drugimi v obliki zastopniške tožbe, skupinske tožbe ali vzorčnega postopka.
These instruments vary widely, taking, for instance, the form of a representative action, group action or test case.
Izčrpne informacije o zadevni nacionalni zakonodaji, zlasti glede njenega izvajanja in funkcionalnosti, je bilo nemogoče najti, saj so nekatere države članice te mehanizme uvedle šele nedavno in ni vedno na voljo zanesljivih informacij.
It was impossible to find exhaustive information about the relevant national law and in particular its application and functionality, as several Member States have only recently introduced these mechanisms and reliable information is not always available.
Poročevalec zato ni presenečen, da Komisija doslej ni izrazila potrebe po ukrepanju na ravni EU.
The rapporteur is therefore not surprised that the Commission has so far failed to show the need for EU action.
Še vedno je potrebno natančno preučiti, kateri člen Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije naj predstavlja pravno podlago za horizontalni instrument.
Which article of the TFEU can be taken as the legal basis for a horizontal instrument still needs to be examined in detail.
Zagotovo je treba zavračanje ukrepov EU s strani nacionalnih vlad jemati resno
Certainly, the rejection of EU action by national governments has to be taken seriously
Poročevalec meni, da mora biti državljanom in podjetjem v evropskem območju pravice omogočeno uspešno in nemoteno uveljavljanje njihovih pravic v skladu z zakonodajo EU.
The rapporteur believes, nevertheless, that in the European area of justice citizens and companies must be able to enforce their rights under EU legislation effectively and efficiently.
V primeru množične ali razpršene škode se žrtve nezakonitega ravnanja ne odločijo za vložitev odškodninskega zahtevka, saj bi lahko bili stroški odškodninskega postopka nesorazmerni s povzročeno škodo.
In case of mass or dispersed damages victims of unlawful behaviour might indeed abstain from claiming compensation as the costs of seeking individual redress might be disproportionate to the damage sustained.
Veljavna zakonodaja EU in sodna prepoved
Existing EU Legislation and Injunctive Relief
Evropska unija si je v zadnjih letih dejavno prizadevala za olajšanje dostopa do sodnega varstva.
In recent years, the EU has sought actively to improve access to justice.
Uspešen in nemoten dostop do sodnega varstva na primer zagotavlja Uredba št. 861/2007 o uvedbi evropskega postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti, saj poenostavlja čezmejne pravdne postopke za zahtevke, nižje od 2000 evrov.
For instance, Regulation No 861/2007 on European Small Claims allows for efficient and effective access to justice by simplifying cross-border litigation of claims for less than EUR 2000.
Vendar je potrebna nadaljnja ocena uredbe, da bi ugotovili, ali so bile namere zakonodajalca EU uresničene.
Further evaluation of the regulation is needed in order to establish whether or not the intentions of the EU legislator have been realised.
Poročevalec priznava pomen sodne prepovedi.
The rapporteur acknowledges the importance of injunctive relief.
V številnih primerih, kot so zavajajoče oglaševanje, nepregledne pogodbe itd., škoda morda ni bila storjena in je treba prednost nameniti ustavitvi nezakonitega ravnanja.
In many cases, such as misleading advertising, lack of transparency of contracts, etc. damages might not occur and priority should be given to stopping any further unlawful behaviour.
Komisija je sama predlagala, kako bi bilo mogoče izpopolniti Uredbo (ES) št. 2006/2004 o sodelovanju na področju varstva potrošnikov
The Commission itself has indicated how Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Consumer Protection Cooperation
Navedena zgoraj. in Direktivo št. 2009/22/ES o opustitvenih tožbah zaradi varstva interesov potrošnikov (direktiva o opustitvenih tožbah)
Cited above. as well as Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (Injunctions Directive)
Navedena zgoraj. , da bi okrepili sodelovanje in sodno prepoved
Cited above. can be improved in order to strengthen cooperation and injunctive relief
Glej dveletno poročilo 2009, COM (2009)336, in poročilo Komisije o uporabi Direktive 98/27/ES, COM (2008)756. .
See Biennial Report 2009, COM (2009) 336, and Report from the Commission concerning the application of Directive 98/27/EC, COM (2008) 756. .
Vendar je poročevalec zaskrbljen nad široko razlago nacionalnih predpisov iz procesnega prava, ki v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča „ne smejo biti manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva (načelo pravičnosti), in ne smejo praktično onemogočiti ali čezmerno otežiti uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih daje pravni red Unije (načelo učinkovitosti)”.
However, the rapporteur is concerned about a wide interpretation of national procedural rules which, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, must ‘not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness).’
Glej sodbo z dne 12. maja 2011 v zadevi C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen, ki še ni bila objavljena v zbirki odločb.
See for instance the judgment of 12 May 2011 in Case C-115/09, Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Lünen, not yet reported in the ECR.
Poročevalec meni, da organizacije ob spoštovanju teh načel ne smejo imeti privilegiranega dostopa do sodnega varstva in da bi se morala zakonodaja EU osredotočiti na zaščito in uveljavljanje interesov posameznika pred interesi splošne javnosti.
The rapporteur believes that, while respecting those principles, organisations must not enjoy privileged access to justice and EU legislation should focus on the protection and enforcement of the interests of the individual rather than the interests of the general public.
Horizontalni instrument in zaščitni ukrepi
Horizontal Instrument and Safeguards
Upoštevajoč razlike v nacionalnem procesnem pravu poročevalec meni, da bi pobude EU glede kolektivnih tožb privedle do razdrobljenosti predpisov držav članic o odškodnini in postopkih.
Bearing in mind the diversity of national procedural laws, the rapporteur believes that any initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of Member States’ damages and procedural laws.
Evropski pristop se ne sme omejiti na usklajevanje različnih pobud Komisije, saj to ne more preprečiti različnih rezultatov zakonodajnih postopkov.
A European approach cannot confine itself to coordinating the different Commission initiatives as coordination does not prevent different outcomes in the legislative procedures.
Vse pobude za kolektivne tožbe bi se soočile z enakimi vprašanji glede postopkov in zasebnega mednarodnega prava.
Indeed, any initiative in the field of collective redress would address the same procedural and private international law questions.
Ne glede na vrsto sektorja so potrebni enako strogi zaščitni ukrepi za vprašanja, kot so položaj organa zastopanja in merila za njegovo odobritev, dostop do dokazov in izvajanje načela „plača tisti, ki izgubi”.
For instance, identical strong safeguards, relating to aspects such as the standing of a representative entity and the criteria for authorisation, access to evidence or the application of the loser pays principle, are needed irrespective of the sector concerned.
Ta vprašanja niso obravnavana le v sedanjih horizontalnih posvetovanjih, temveč tudi v predhodni beli in zeleni knjigi.
Those questions are raised not only in the current horizontal consultation but also in the preceding White and Green Papers.
Poročevalec predvideva, da Komisija že preučuje horizontalni pristop.
The rapporteur presumes that the Commission already envisages a horizontal approach.
Obravnava različnih sektorjev v zeleni knjigi Komisije o kolektivnih odškodninah za potrošnike kaže na to, da naj bi se ta instrument uporabljal za različne sektorje, na primer finančni sektor, telekomunikacije itd
The different sectors identified by the Commission’s Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress indicate that this instrument is to apply to different sectors, e.g. financial services, telecommunication, etc
Zelena knjiga z dne 27. novembra 2008 o kolektivnih odškodninah za potrošnike (COM(2008) 794 konč.), str.
Green Paper of 27 November 2008 on ‘Consumer Collective Redress’ (COM(2008) 794 final), p.
Skupni imenovalec torej ni več sektor, temveč tožnik, in sicer potrošnik.
Hence, the connecting factor is not the sector anymore but only the claimant, i.e. the consumer.
To jasno dokazuje, da je horizontalni instrument najboljši način, da se izognemo uvedbi različnih zakonov za posamezne sektorje, kar bi vodilo v razdrobljeno nacionalno procesno pravo.
This clearly demonstrates that a horizontal instrument is the best way forward in order not to introduce different sectoral legislation resulting in fragmented national procedural laws.
Razdrobljenost nacionalne zakonodaje ne bi le ovirala delovanja pravosodnega sistema, temveč bi povečala tudi pravno negotovost, kar je v nasprotju s ciljem boljšega dostopa do sodnega varstva.
Fragmentation of national laws would not only disrupt the functioning of judicial systems but also increase legal uncertainty, which would be at odds with the aim of improving access to justice.
Procesno pravo predpisuje pravila, ki veljajo za postopke pred sodiščem, in si prizadeva za omogočanje dostopa do sodnega varstva.
Procedural law determines the rules applicable to the proceedings within the court itself and seeks to promote access to justice.
Predpisi na splošno ne ločujejo med različnimi industrijskimi sektorji in področji zakonodaje.
In general, these rules do not distinguish between different industrial sectors and different areas of law.
Zaradi tega tudi evropski pristop h kolektivnim tožbam ne sme uvesti ločevanja, temveč mora biti horizontalnega značaja.
Consequently, a European approach to collective redress must not introduce such a distinction but allow for a horizontal approach.
Kar zadeva potrebo po predpisih, omejenih na posamezne sektorje, je te mogoče vključiti v horizontalni instrument, na primer v ločeno poglavje.
As far as limited sector-specific rules are needed, these can be laid down in the horizontal instrument itself, for instance in a separate chapter.
Poročevalec meni, da bi morale biti kolektivne tožbe dovoljene, kadar se posameznik, ki je žrtev, ne odloči za vložitev odškodninskega zahtevka, ker meni, da povzročena škoda ni v sorazmerju s stroški sodnega postopka.
The rapporteur believes that collective redress should be possible where an individual victim abstains from seeking compensation because he considers that the damage is not in proportion to the costs of court proceedings.
Študije kažejo na to, da ta finančni prag znaša med 100 in 2500 evri
Studies indicate that the financial threshold lies between EUR 101 and 2 500
Glej posebno raziskavo Eurobarometer 342, april 2011, str.
See Special Eurobarometer 342, April 2011, p.
Z omejitvijo kolektivnih tožb na primere, ko je posamezniku povzročena škoda do 2000 evrov, bi horizontalni instrument uskladili z Uredbo št. 861/2007 o uvedbi evropskega postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti in zagotovili skladnost z zakonodajo EU.
Limiting collective redress to individual losses of up to EUR 2000 would align the horizontal instrument with Regulation No 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure and ensure consistency of EU legislation.
Poročevalec bi rad začel razpravo o vprašanju, ali bi bil primernejši nižji prag.
The rapporteur would like to initiate a discussion on the question whether a lower threshold would be more appropriate.
Poročevalec meni, da bi moral biti horizontalni instrument na voljo v vseh čezmejnih zadevah, kjer je prišlo do kršitve zakonodaje EU.
The rapporteur considers that a horizontal instrument should be available in cross-border cases where EU law is infringed.
Za čezmejni primer gre, kadar žrtev in obtoženec nimata prebivališča oziroma sedeža v isti državi članici.
The cross-border element would be fulfilled where the victim and the defendant are not domiciled in the same Member State.
Prav tako se lahko horizontalni instrument uporabi, kadar žrtve nimajo prebivališča oziroma sedeža v isti državi članici.
The horizontal instrument might also apply where victims are not domiciled in the same Member State.
Vsak horizontalni instrument mora temeljiti na načelu, da ima vsakdo, ki je bil oškodovan, pravico do odškodnine, vendar pa tisti, ki so vložili kolektivno tožbo, ne smejo biti v boljšem položaju kot posamezni tožniki.
Any horizontal instrument must be based on the principle that anyone who has suffered damage must have the right to receive compensation but that those bringing collective actions must not be in a better position than individual claimants.
To bi pomenilo, da je treba v vsak horizontalni instrument vključiti številne zaščitne ukrepe.
This principle would entail incorporating a number of safeguards in any horizontal instrument.
Poročevalec zahteva, da se za zastopanje pooblastijo usposobljene organizacije.
The rapporteur asks for qualified entities to be entrusted with representative actions.