natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
55 et seq.; Jastrow, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p.
55 in naslednje; Jastrow, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str. 1284, in Heiderhoff, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str. 1185.
12 — Leffler (cited in footnote 10 above), paragraph 71.
12 – Sodba Leffler (navedena zgoraj v opombi 10, točka 71).
See also the comments regarding the ineffectiveness of service and the remedying of service in Eckelmans, ‘Signification et notification’, Revue de droit commercial belge, RDC, 2006, p. 362 (367).
Glej tudi komentar v zvezi z neveljavnostjo vročitve in odpravo pomanjkljivosti vročitve v Eckelmans, „Signification et notification“, Revue de droit commercial belge – RDC 2006, str. 362 (367).
In the latter paper it is pointed out that in the national law of civil procedure of many Member States (Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands) there are differences in civil procedure before general and labour courts as regards the content and size of documents and annexes by which proceedings are brought.
V zadnji razpravi je bilo opozorjeno na to, da že v nacionalnem civilnem procesnem pravu nekaterih držav članic (Španija, Velika Britanija, Belgija, Nizozemska) obstajajo razlike v civilnem postopku pred rednimi in delovnimi sodi�či glede na vsebino in obseg vlog in prilog, s katerimi se začne postopek.
VII ZR 164/05, paragraph 13 et seq., available at www.bundesgerichtshof.de.
VII ZR 164/05, točka 13 in naslednje, dostopen na spletni strani www.bundesgerichtshof.de. V tem sklepu se sklicuje na paragrafa 131 in 253 ZPO.
The Community legal order does not, in principle, define concepts of primary and secondary law on the basis of one or more national legal systems unless there is express provision to that effect.
Evropski pravni red se pri opredeljevanju pojmov primarnega in sekundarnega prava ne opira na enega ali več nacionalnih pravnih redov, razen če je to izrecno predvideno v zadevnem predpisu.
17 Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000 does not, however, contain any reference to the national procedural law of the Member States.
17 Člen 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 pa ne vsebuje nobenega napotila na nacionalno procesno pravo držav članic.
The Court has consistently held that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. 18
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča je treba pojme nekega predpisa prava Skupnosti, ki za razlago njegovega namena in obsega ne napotuje izrecno na pravo držav članic, praviloma v celotni Skupnosti avtonomno in enotno razlagati ob upo�tevanju normativnega konteksta predpisa in cilja, ki se ga zasleduje z zadevno ureditvijo. 18
In view of the fact that the regulation employs the generic term ‘document’ in a general sense without any restrictive connotation, it must be inferred — and on this point I find myself in agreement with the observations of Büro Weiss, Grimshaw Architects, and the Czech, French, Italian and Slovak Governments — that the term should be interpreted widely in civil proceedings, that is to say in favour of the argument that, at least in principle, the scope of the regulation was intended to cover all the annexes to the application in civil proceedings, not only pleadings.
Že zato, ker se generični pojem „pisanje“ v Uredbi navadno uporablja na splo�no in brez kakr�nega koli napotila na omejitev, bi se moral ta pojem – in na tej točki se strinjam s pojasnili biroja Weiss, biroja Grimshaw, če�ke, francoske, italijanske in slova�ke vlade – v civilnem postopku razlaga �iroko, kar vsaj načelno govori v prid pojmovanju, da naj bi vse priloge k tožbi v civilnem postopku, ne pa samo pisne vloge spadale na področje uporabe Uredbe.
19 Furthermore, the term ‘pleading’ is not mentioned in the regulation.
19Sicer pa pojem „vloga“ v tej uredbi ni obravnavan.
Arguments relating to the wording and scheme of the regulation would suggest a broad interpretation of the term ‘document’ in national civil procedure and indicate that the addressee also has a right to refuse acceptance under Article 8(1) of Regula-
Argumenti, ki se opirajo na besedilo in sistematiko, govorijo v prid �iroki razlagi spornega pojma „pisanja“ v nacionalnem civilnem postopku in v prid temu, da pravica naslovnika do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu
17 — Case 64/81 Corman [1982] ECR 13, paragraph 8, and Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 30.
13, točka 8) in z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi EMU Tabac (C-296/95, Recueil, str. I-1605, točka 30).
Community law terms may not be defined by reference to the national laws of the Member States (Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 10 et seq., and Schütz, Bruha and König, Casebook Europarecht, 2004, p. 451 et seq.).
Pojmov prava Skupnosti se ne sme opredeliti z napotitvijo na pravne predpise držav članic (sodba z dne 23. marca 1982 v zadevi Levin, 53/81, Recueil, str. 1035, točka 10 in naslednje, Schütz/Bruha/König, Casebook Europarecht, 2004, str.
19 — See also the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-168/00 Leitner [2002] ECR I-2631, point 29, which reached a similar conclusion with regard to the interpretation of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
19 – Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Tizzana, predstavljene 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Leitner (C-168/00, Recueil, str. I-2631, točka 29), ki je enako zaključil pri razlagi člena 5(2) Direktive Sveta 90/314/EGS z dne 13. junija 1990 o paketnem potovanju, organiziranih počitnicah in izletih. V tej zadevi je bilo treba razložiti pojem �kode.
In point 29 of his Opinion the Advocate General stated: ‘In view of the fact that the Directive employs the term “damage” in a general sense without any restrictive connotation, it must be inferred — and on this point I find myself in agreement with the observations of the Commission and the Belgian Government — that the concept should be interpreted widely, that is to say in favour of the argument that, at least in principle, the scope of the directive was intended to cover all types of damage which have any causal link with the non-performance or improper performance of the contract.’
Generalni pravobranilec je v točki 29 sklepnih predlogov ugotovil: „Že okoli�čina, da se generični pojem ‚�koda‘ običajno v Direktivi uporablja na splo�no in s tem brez kakr�nega koli napotila na omejitev, bi morala privesti do tega – in v tej točki se strinjam s pojasnili Komisije in belgijske vlade –, da se ta pojem razlaga �iroko, kar zato vsaj načelno govori v prid pojmovanja, da naj bi na področje uporabe Direktive spadale vse vrste �kode, ki so v vzročni zvezi z neizpolnitvijo ali delno izpolnitvijo pogodbe.“
18 — See my Opinion in Case C-62/06 Zefeser, pending before the Court, point 32.
18 – Glej moje sklepne predloge, predstavljene 3. maja 2007 v zadevi Zefeser (C-62/06, ZOdl., �e nere�ena zadeva pred Sodi�čem, točka 32).
WEISS UND PARTNER points out that in practice the annexes are not reproduced in full in the application in civil proceedings, but their essential content is simply outlined and merely referred to.
Biro Weiss pravilno opozarja, da se v praksi priloge v celoti ne ponovijo v tožbi v civilnem postopku, ampak se njihovo bistveno vsebino samo skicira ter sklicuje nanjo.
For that reason, the principle of the right to a fair hearing also requires the annexes to be translated, otherwise the full arguments made by a party in civil proceedings would not be comprehensible.
Zato načelo biti sli�an zahteva tudi prevod prilog, saj sicer celotno navajanje strank v civilnem postopku ne bi bilo razumljivo.
The purpose of service in civil proceedings is to ensure that the addressee for service is aware of the content of a document in the interests of a fair hearing.
Smisel vročitve v civilnem postopku je zagotoviti, da je naslovnik vročitve seznanjen z vsebino nekega pisanja v interesu zagotavljanja pravice biti sli�an.
This means that he must be able to understand the document.
Za to se predpostavlja, da mora biti pisanje tako, da ga naslovnik lahko razume.
20However, since there is no modern lingua franca in international commercial and legal relations, despite the dominance of English, formal service of an application and its annexes must be accompanied by a translation which gives the addressee for service the necessary information on the content of the document to be served.
20Ker pa kljub prevladujočemu položaju angle�kega jezika v mednarodnem gospodarskem in pravnem prometu ne obstaja nobena moderna lingua franca, mora biti pri formalni vročitvi tožbe skupaj s prilogami dodan prevod, s katerim je naslovniku zagotovljeno nujno poznavanje vsebine pisanja za vročitev.
21 With this in mind, annexes to an application are accessories to that application and follow the general legal principle of accessio cedit principali. 22
21 V tem smislu so priloge k tožbi pritiklina te tožbe in sledijo splo�nemu pravnemu načelu accessio cedit principali. 22
The Court of First Instance of the European Communities has already taken the view that in a direct action ‘all documents annexed to the pleadings of the other parties, including the interveners, must, in principle, be translated into the language of the case.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je že zavzelo stali�če, da je treba v postopku z direktno tožbo „priloge k vlogam druge stranke, vključno intervenienta, načelno prevesti v jezik postopka.
Those provisions are intended inter alia to protect the position of a party wishing to contest the legality of an administrative act adopted by the Community institutions, whatever the language used in that connection by the institution concerned, in particular during the pre-litigation procedure’. 23
Te določbe so namenjene predvsem varstvu pravnega položaja stranke, ki želi izpodbijati zakonitost upravnega ukrepa, ki so ga sprejela sodi�ča Skupnosti, ne glede na to, kateri jezik je pri tem uporabil zadevni organ, predvsem v predhodnem postopku.“ 23
Nor can this be precluded by the reference to the standard form in the annex to Regulation No 1348/2000.
Temu ne zmore nasprotovati niti napotilo na standardni obrazec v prilogi k Uredbi �t. 1348/2000.
As the Commission rightly notes, this can serve to indicate a broad interpretation of the term ‘document’ because the enclosures here are closely connected with the way in which the ‘document to be served’ is dealt with in practice.
1348/2000 pod točko 6 „Pisanje za vročitev“ napoti v točki 6.4 na „Število prilog“.
Büro Weiss rightly
Kot je Komisija pravilno pripomnila, se to lahko uporabi kot indic
Through the translation of documents, which in civil proceedings are the application and its annexes, protection is given
S prevodom pisanj, ki so v civilnem postopku tožba skupaj s prilogami, je zago-
617 (629), even refers to mandatory translation of documents and accompanying information in the language of the place of service.
617 (629), govori celo o obveznem prevodu pisanj in informacij, ki ga spremljajo, v jezik kraja vročitve.
22 — In many legal orders the maxim accessorium sequitur principale is used rather than the maxim accessio cedit principali.
22 – V določenih pravnih redih se uporablja načelo accessorium sequitur principale namesto načela accessio cedit principali.
Both maxims mean that an addition to the principal thing becomes part of it (Benke and Meissel, Juristenlatein, 2nd edition, 2002, Vienna, p. 4).
Obe načeli pomenita, da stranska stvar nujno deli usodo glavne stvari (Benke/Meissel, Juristenlatein, 2. izdaja, 2002, Dunaj, str. 4).
It is easy to imagine the everyday case of a consumer who concludes a consumer contract in another European country with an agreement on jurisdiction that is not improper 25and on whom the language of the trader is imposed.
Priloge pa so lahko zelo dolge in ne bi bilo primerno zahtevati prevoda zelo obsežnih prilog k tožbi.
An average consumer cannot be expected to master the language of the foreign Member State.
V členu 29(3), tretji pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča je za primer, če so bile tožbi priložene obsežne listine, predvideno: „Kadar so priložene listine obsežne, se lahko predloži prevod izvlečkov besedila.
to defendants. However, annexes can be extremely long and it might not be appropriate to require the translation of lengthy annexes to an application.
Vendar Sodi�če lahko po uradni dolžnosti ali na predlog stranke vedno zahteva popolnej�i prevod oziroma prevod celotnega besedila.“ skupnih mejah.
The third subparagraph of Article 29(3) of the Rules of Proced- ure of the Court of Justice makes provision for cases in which lengthy annexes or documents are enclosed with the application: ‘In the case of lengthy documents, translations may be confined to extracts.
Lahko si je predstavljati vsakdanji primer potro�nika, ki sklene potro�ni�ko pogodbo v drugi evropski državi z določbo o sodni pristojnosti, ki ne pomeni prepovedane pogodbene klavzule, 25in s katero mu je bil vsiljen jezik gospodarstvenika.
However, the Court or Chamber may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, at any time call for a complete or fuller translation’.
Ni mogoče pričakovati, da povprečni potro�nik obvlada jezik tuje države članice.
However, the addressee’s right to a translation of the documents may under no circumstances be interpreted in such a way that it is contrary to the purpose of Regulation No 1348/2000, which is primarily to improve and expedite the transmission between the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters. 26
Pravica naslovnika do prevoda pisanja pa se v nobenem primeru ne sme razlagati tako, da bi nasprotovala namenu Uredbe �t.
As has already been mentioned, the lack of a translation of the document, which
Kot je bilo že omenjeno, se lahko neobstoječ prevod pisanja, ki in concreto
Article 52(2) of that convention provides: ‘Where there is reason to believe that the addressee does not understand the language in which the document is written, the document — or at least the important passages thereof — must be translated into (one of) the language(s) of the Contracting Party in whose territory the addressee is staying.
Tako re�itev bi bilo mogoče zastopati tudi pri mednarodni vročitvi v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah. Pri obsežnih prilogah, ki niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume, bi se lahko prevod omejil na izvlečke, na katere se tožba sklicuje.
If the authority forwarding the document knows that the addressee understands only some other language, the document — or at least the important passages thereof — must be translated into that other language.’
Podobne re�itve so vsebovane v členu 52(2) Konvencije o izvajanju schenge -nskega sporazuma z dne 14. junija 1985 med vladami držav Gospodarske unije Beneluks, Zvezne republike Nemčije in Francoske republike o postopni odpravi kontrol na
26 — See point 44 of this Opinion.
26 – Glej točko 44 teh sklepnih predlogov.
WEISS UND PARTNER actually covers both the application and its annexes in German civil procedure, may be remedied by subsequent service of the translation of the annexes or, in the case of more lengthy annexes, by subsequent service of a translation of the extracts to which the application expressly refers in order to substantiate the arguments therein.
Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, če je bila uporaba tega jezika dogovorjena v pogodbi, ki je bila sklenjena pri opravljanju poslovne dejavnosti, za medsebojno dopisovanje ter za dopisovanje z organi in javnimi ustanovami.
27 addressee ‘understands’ the language of the Member State of transmission within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 where it was agreed in a contract which was concluded in the course of business that that language was to be used for mutual correspondence and for correspondence with the authorities and public institutions.
v nem�kem pravdnem postopku zajema tako tožbo kot tudi njene priloge, popravi z naknadno vročitvijo prevoda prilog oziroma pri obsežnih prilogah z naknadno vročitvijo prevoda izvlečkov, na katere se tožba izrecno sklicuje pri substanciranju. 27
According to German legal literature, the wording of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000, under which the addressee may refuse to accept the document to be served if it is not in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, does not greatly assist in its interpretation. 28
Dikcija člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, v skladu s katero naslovnik lahko zavrne sprejem pisanja za vročitev, če to ni napisano v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume, po mnenju nem�ke teorije ponuja razlagalcem le malo trdne opore. 28
On these grounds I propose that the first question be answered as follows: Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that in the case of service of a document and the annexes thereto an addressee also has the right to refuse acceptance pursuant to Article 8(1) if only the annexes to the document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
Zaradi tega predlagam, naj se na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori tako: člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 je treba razlagati tako, da v primeru vročitve pisanja skupaj s prilogami naslovnikova pravica do zavrnitve sprejema na podlagi člena 8(1) obstaja tudi takrat, kadar samo priloge pisanja za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
C — The second question
C – Drugo odločanje
Service of documents lies within a triangle of conflicting priorities concerning access to the administration of justice, the protection of defendants and procedural economy.
Vročitve so v navzkrižju interesov zagotavljanja sodnega varstva, varstva tožene stranke in procesne ekonomije – v pravdnem postopku tožeči stranki zagotovijo sodno varstvo.
In many legal orders service of the application can mean that proceedings are now pending and ensures that timelimits are observed.
Vročitev tožbe lahko namreč v določenih pravnih redih povzroči visečnost pravde in je namenjena varovanju rokov.
For his part, the defendant learns
Tožena stranka pa po drugi strani
With its second question, the referring court is essentially seeking to ascertain whether it may be presumed that the
Predložitveno sodi�če želi z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali je mogoče domnevati, da naslovnik „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke v smislu člena 8(1)(b)
The author suggests that the interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 should not be based on individual linguistic knowledge, in order to make the criterion manageable and predictable.
Avtor predlaga, da naj zaradi uporabnosti in predvidljivosti razlaga člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ne temelji na posameznikovem znanju jezikov.
Instead, fixed general criteria should be developed.
Namesto tega bi bilo treba oblikovati nespremenljiva splo�na merila.
According to this view, a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands should be taken to exist at least if the addressee himself is a national of the Member State of transmission.
Vsekakor bi morala obstajati veljavna domneva, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke, če je sam državljan države članice prosilke.
The same should apply if he is national of a State with the same official language.
Tako bi moralo biti tudi, če je državljan države z istim uradnim jezikom.
through the transmission of the application that proceedings have been initiated and his right to a fair hearing is thereby protected. 29
29 pogodbena klavzula predvideva, da dopisovanje poteka v tem jeziku, bi bila s tem uvedena zakonska domneva, ki bi močno presegala to, kar predvideva Uredba.
In the context of the rules on service, these basic procedural rights must be in a balanced relationship.
V okviru predpisov o vročitvi bi morale biti te temeljne procesne pravice v uravnoteženem medsebojnem razmerju.
30It is therefore necessary on the one hand that the rules on service do not give rise to disproportionate prejudicial effects on the protection of defendants and, at the same time, allow the proceedings to be conducted quickly.
30 Nato je nujno, da predpisi o vročitvi na eni strani ne privedejo do nesorazmernih posegov v varstvo tožene stranke in hkrati omogočajo hitro izvedbo postopka.
On the other hand, the protection of defendants may not extend so far that it becomes impossible for the applicant to conduct the court proceedings so that his access to judicial process is ultimately barred. 31
Po drugi strani varstvo tožene stranke ne sme doseči takega obsega, da bi bila tožeči stranki onemogočena izvedba sodnega postopka, tako da ji je s tem nazadnje preprečen dostop do sodi�ča. 31
The view is taken in legal literature that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 combines objective and subjective criteria in ascertaining linguistic knowledge in the event of service abroad.
V teoriji je zastopano mnenje, da člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 pri ugotavljanju znanja jezikov v primeru vročitve v tujini združuje objektivna in subjektivna merila. 32Objektivno merilo je v skladu s to teorijo uradni jezik zapro�ene države članice, subjektivno merilo pa naslovnikovo znanje jezika države članice prosilke. 33
The Bundesgerichtshof stated in its order for reference that none of the bodies authorised to represent Grimshaw Architects
Bundesgerichtshof je v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ugotovilo, da noben organ, ki ga je biro Grimshaw pooblastil
In the present case, two contrasting arguments are put forward.
V tej zadevi se zastopa nasprotujoči si tezi.
IHK Berlin takes the view that the contractual agreement on the German language, that is the language of the State of transmission, also establishes the factual presumption that the addressee understands such a document if it concerns the specific legal relationship and is written in the agreed language.
IHK Berlin meni, da pogodbeni dogovor o nem�kem jeziku, to pomeni jeziku države članice prosilke, utemeljuje tudi dejansko domnevo, da naslovnik tako pisanje razume, kadar zadeva konkretno pravno razmerje in je napisano v dogovorjenem jeziku.
On the other hand, according to the French Government, that fact alone is not sufficient to consider the language of the Member State of transmission to be understood by the addressee for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Po drugi strani francoska vlada meni, da ta okoli�čina sama ne zado�ča, da bi se �telo, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke v smislu člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
If the language of the Member State of transmission were considered to be understood by the addressee solely because a clause of the contract provided that correspondence was to be conducted in that language, a legal presumption would be im
Če bi se namreč �telo, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke samo zato, ker
33 — The nationality of a natural person is ruled out as an objective criterion.
33 – Državljanstvo fizične osebe ne pride v po�tev kot objektivno merilo.
If the addressee for service is a national of the State of transmission, but does not have a command of its language, he may refuse to accept the document to be served.
Če ima naslovnik vročitve sicer državljanstvo države članice prosilke, ne obvlada pa njenega jezika, lahko zavrne sprejem pisanja za vročitev.
It is possible, for example, to imagine cases where nationality is acquired through marriage or through naturalisation in the case of sportspeople (Schütze, ‘§ 1068’, in Wieczorek and Schütze, Zivilprozessordnung und Nebengesetze, Großkommentar, p.
To se lahko zgodi na primer pri pridobitvi državljanstva s sklenitvijo zakonske zveze oziroma podelitvi državljanstva �portnikom (Schütze, „§1068“: v Wieczorek/Schütze, Zivilprozessordnung und Nebenge­setze, Großkommentar, str.
9, paragraph 12).
9, točka 12).
However, other opinions are also put forward.
Vendar obstajajo tudi druga mnenja.