natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Court held that Article 4(5) of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria set out in Article 4(2) to (4) of the Convention, it is for the court to disregard those criteria and apply the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected.
Poleg tega je Sodišče presodilo, da je treba člen 4(5) te konvencije razlagati tako, da kadar je iz vseh okoliščin primera jasno razvidno, da je pogodba tesneje povezana z drugo državo od tiste, ki se določi na podlagi ene od naveznih okoliščin iz člena 4, od (2) do (4), iste konvencije, je naloga sodišča, da odstopi od teh naveznih okoliščin in določi pravo države, s katero je pogodba najtesneje povezana.
Finally, the Court held that a part of a contract may exceptionally be governed by a law other than that which applies to the rest of the contract where the object of that part is independent.
Nazadnje je Sodišče odločilo, da del pogodbe lahko izjemoma ureja pravo, ki je drugačno od tistega, ki se uporabi za preostalo pogodbo, če je predmet tega dela pogodbe samostojen.
The interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation) (42) and of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention) has also given rise to several judgments which are worthy of mention.
Razlaga Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (Uredba Bruselj I)42in Konvencije z dne 27.¥septembra¥1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (Bruseljska konvencija) je bila prav tako predmet več sodb, ki jih je treba navesti.
Case C-420/07 Apostolides (judgment of 28 April 2009) originated in the partition of Cyprus following the intervention of Turkish troops in 1974.
Tako izvira zadeva Apostolides (sodba z dne 28. aprila 2009, C-420/07) iz delitve Cipra po posredovanju turške vojske leta 1974.
The Republic of Cyprus, which joined the European Union in 2004, has control of only the southern part of the island, whereas the northern part became the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey.
Republika Ciper, ki je pristopila k Evropski uniji leta 2004, dejansko nadzoruje le južni del otoka, na severnem delu pa je bila ustanovljena Turška republika Severni Ciper, ki jo priznava le Turčija.
In those circumstances, a protocol annexed to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Cyprus suspends the application of Community law in the areas over which the government of that Member State does not exercise e¥ective control.
V okviru spora, ki ga je sprožil ciprski državljan o priznanju in izvršitvi dveh sodb, ki ju je izdalo sodišče s sedežem na južnem delu otoka in s katerima je bilo dvema britanskima državljanoma naloženo, da zapustita nepremičnino na severnem delu, je predložitveno sodišče, ki je sodišče v Združenem kraljestvu, Sodišču postavilo več vprašanj o razlagi in uporabi Uredbe št. 44/2001.
A Cypriot national applied for the recognition and enforcement of two judgments delivered by a court established in the southern part of the island, ordering two British citizens to vacate a property situated in the northern part.
Sodišče je najprej presodilo, da odstopanje iz navedenega protokola ne nasprotuje uporabi Uredbe št. 44/2001 za sodno odločbo, ki jo je izdalo ciprsko sodišče s sedežem na območju pod vladnim nadzorom, ki pa se nanaša na nepremičnino, ki je na severnem območju.
The referring court, a court in the United Kingdom, referred several questions to the Court of Justice concerning the interpretation and application of Regulation No 44/2001.
Nato je Sodišče ugotovilo, da dejstvo, da je nepremičnina na območju, ki ni pod dejanskim nadzorom vlade, in da torej zadevnih sodnih odločb dejansko ni mogoče izvršiti v kraju, v katerem je nepremičnina, ne nasprotuje priznanju in izvršitvi sodnih odločb v drugi državi članici.
The Court held, ¤rst of all, that the derogation laid down in the protocol does not preclude the application of Regulation No 44/2001 to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the government-controlled area, but concerns land situated in the northern area.
Člen 22, točka 1, Uredbe št. 44/2001 se namreč nanaša na mednarodno sodno pristojnost držav članic, in ne na njihovo notranjo sodno pristojnost.
The Court then noted that the fact that the property is situated in an area over which the government does not exercise e¥ective control and, therefore,
Sodišče je v zvezi z izjemo javnega reda države članice, v kateri se zahteva priznanje, prav tako spomnilo, da sodišče ne more zavrniti priznanja sodne odločbe, ki jo je izdalo sodišče druge države članice, le zato, ker meni, da je bilo nacionalno pravo ali pravo Skupnosti napačno uporabljeno, saj bi bil sicer spodkopan cilj Uredbe št. 44/2001. V takem primeru
) Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980
Konvencija o uporabi prava v pogodbenih obligacijskih razmerjih, na voljo za podpis 19. junija 1980 v Rimu (UL 1980, L 266, str. 1).
) Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32).
Konvencija z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 1972, L 299, str. 32).
In such a situation, the exception applies only where the error of law means that the recognition or enforcement of the judgment constitutes a manifest breach of an essential rule of law in the national legal order of the Member State concerned.
Sodišče se lahko izjema uporabi le, če napačna uporaba prava pomeni, da bi se s priznanjem ali izvršitvijo sodne odločbe očitno kršilo bistveno pravno pravilo v notranjem pravnem redu zadevne države članice.
Finally, the Court held that the recognition or enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sucient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence.
Nazadnje je Sodišče presodilo, da priznanja ali izvršitve zamudne sodbe ni mogoče zavrniti, če je tožena stranka lahko začela postopek za izpodbijanje zamudne sodbe in če ji je to omogočilo uveljavljati, da ji pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje ni bilo vročeno pravočasno in tako, da bi lahko pripravila obrambo.
In Case C-185/07 Allianz (formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta) (judgment of 10 February 2009), the Court held that it is incompatible with Regulation No 44/2001 for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State (anti-suit injunction) (43) on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.
V zadevi Allianz (nekdanja Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta) (sodba z dne 10. februarja 2009, C-185/07) je Sodišče presodilo, da ni združljivo z Uredbo št. 44/2001, da sodišče države članice izda odredbo, s¥katero osebi prepove, da začne ali nadaljuje postopek pred sodišči v drugi državi članici („anti-suit injunction“43), ker naj bi se s takim postopkom kršil arbitražni sporazum.
The Court noted that proceedings which lead to the making of an anti-suit injunction cannot come within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 but may have consequences which undermine its e¥ectiveness.
Sodišče je spomnilo, da se za postopek, ki vodi do izdaje„anti-suit injunction“, Uredba št. 44/2001 ne uporablja, vendar pa ima lahko ta postopek posledice, ki škodijo njenemu polnemu učinku.
This is so, inter alia, where such proceedings prevent a court of another Member State from exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by Regulation No 44/2001.
Tako je med drugim, kadar tak postopek ovira sodišče druge države članice pri izvajanju pristojnosti, ki so mu dodeljene na podlagi Uredbe št. 44/2001.
The Court thus held that, if, because of the subject matter of the dispute, that is, the nature of the rights to be protected in proceedings, those proceedings come within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, a preliminary issue concerning the applicability of an arbitration agreement also comes within its scope of application.
Sodišče je torej presodilo, da če se zaradi predmeta spora, torej narave pravic, ki se varujejo s postopkom, za ta postopek uporablja Uredba št. 44/2001, se ta uredba uporabi tudi za vprašanje, ki se zastavi pred tem, in sicer v zvezi z uporabo arbitražnega sporazuma.
It follows that the objection of lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the existence of an arbitration agreement comes within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 and that it is therefore exclusively for that court to rule on the objection and on its own jurisdiction, pursuant to the regulation.
Iz tega izhaja, da se za ugovor nepristojnosti na podlagi obstoja arbitražnega sporazuma uporablja Uredba št. 44/2001 in da je sodišče izključno pristojno, da na podlagi navedene uredbe odloča o¥tem ugovoru in svoji pristojnosti.
The use of an anti-suit injunction to prevent a court of a Member State, which normally has jurisdiction to resolve a dispute under Regulation No 44/2001, from ruling on the very applicability of the regulation to the dispute brought before it necessarily amounts to stripping that court of the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.
Dejstvo, da se z uporabo„anti-suit injunction“ sodišču države članice, ki je običajno pristojno v skladu z Uredbo št. 44/2001, onemogoči, da bi se izreklo, ali se ta uporabi v sporu, o katerem odloča, nujno pomeni, da mu je odvzeto pooblastilo odločati o lastni pristojnosti.
An anti-suit injunction is therefore contrary to the general principle that every court seised itself determines, under the rules which it must apply, whether it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it.
Z„anti-suit injunction“ se torej ne spoštuje splošno načelo, po katerem vsako sodišče na podlagi pravil, ki jih mora uporabiti, samo odloči, ali je pristojno za reševanje spora, ki mu je predložen.
In addition, it runs counter to the trust which the Member States accord to one another’s legal systems and judicial institutions.
Področje uporabe Uredbe št. 44/2001 je bilo prav tako predmet zadeve SCT Industri (sodba z dne 2. julija 2009, C-111/08).
It is therefore not compatible with Regulation No 44/2001.
Sodišče je v tej zadevi presodilo, da se navedena uredba ne uporablja za lastninsko tožbo za vrnitev stvari, vloženo v okviru postopka zaradi insolventnosti.
The scope of Regulation No 44/2001 was also at the centre of Case C-111/08 SCT Industri (judgment of 2 July 2009).
Potem ko je Sodišče v zadevi Color Drack (sodba z dne 3. maja 2007, C-386/05, Recueil, str.
The Court held that that regulation was not applicable to an action to recover ownership brought in the context of insolvency proceedings.
I-3699) obravnavalo pogodbe o prodaji blaga, v katerih je bilo določenih več krajev dobave, je v zadevi Rehder (sodba z dne 9. julija 2009, C-204/08) obravnavalo pogodbe o opravljanju storitev, v katerih je bilo določeno opravljanje storitev v več krajih, in sicer pogodbo o letalskem prevozu.
More speci¤cally, taking into account the close link which it has with bankruptcy proceedings, an action seeking the annulment of a transfer of shares e¥ected by a liquidator in the context of insolvency proceedings falls under the exception to the application of Regulation No 44/2001 concerning bankruptcy.
V tej zadevi je presodilo, da uporaba pravila o posebni pristojnosti v zadevah v zvezi s pogodbenimi razmerji iz člena 5, točka 1, Uredbe št. 44/2001 ustreza cilju bližine in je utemeljena z obstojem tesne navezne okoliščine med pogodbo in sodiščem, ki naj o njej odloča.
After having considered, in Case C-386/05 Color Drack [2007] ECR I-3699, contracts for the sale of goods providing for several places of delivery, in Case C-204/08 Rehder (judgment of 9 July 2009)
Ob upoštevanju ciljev bližine in predvidljivosti je torej treba v primeru opravljanja storitev v več krajih v različnih državah članicah poiskati kraj, ki zagotavlja najtesnejšo povezavo med zadevno pogodbo in pristojnim sodiščem, zlasti tistega, v katerem mora biti v skladu s pogodbo opravljen glavni del storitev.
) See also Case C-159/02 Turner [2004] ECR I-3565.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 27. aprila 2004 v zadevi Turner (C-159/02, Recueil, str. I-3565).
It held, in this case, that the application of the rule of special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, reªects an objective of proximity and the reason for that rule is the existence of a close link between the contract and the court called upon to hear and determine the case.
44 po izbiri tožeče in Uredbe (ES) št. 261/2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine potnikomstranke pristojno sodišče, v okraju katerega je kraj odhoda ali kraj prihoda letala.
In Case C-394/07 Gambazzi (judgment of 2 April 2009), the Court ruled on the notion of‘judgment’ for the purposes of the provisions on recognition and execution in the Brussels Convention and on the scope of the ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement based on an infringement of the public policy of the State in which enforcement is sought.
V sodbi z dne 2. aprila 2009 v zadevi Gambazzi (C-394/07) je Sodišče presojalo pojem „sodna odločba“ v smislu določb o priznanju in izvršitvi iz Bruseljske konvencije ter o obsegu razloga za zavrnitev priznanja in izvršitve zaradi kršitve javnega reda države, v kateri se zahteva priznanje.
First, it held that judgments and orders given in default of appearance are ‘judgments’ where they are given in civil proceedings which, as a rule, adhere to the adversarial principle.
Najprej je odločilo, da sta zamudna sodba in sklep „sodni odločbi“, če sta bili izdani v civilnem postopku, ki je načeloma oblikovan kontradiktorno.
Article 25 of the Brussels Convention refers, without distinction, to all judgments given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State.
Člen 25 Bruseljske konvencije se namreč nanaša na vse sodne odločbe, ki jih izdajo sodišča v državah pogodbenicah, ne da bi razlikoval med njimi.
For such decisions to fall within the scope of the Convention, it is sucient that, before their recognition and enforcement are sought, they have been, or have been capable of being, the subject in the State of origin of an inquiry in adversarial proceedings.
Za uporabo navedene konvencije za te sodne odločbe zadostuje, da so bile ali bi lahko bile – preden se je zahtevalo njihovo priznanje ali njihova izvršitev – v državi izvora predmet kontradiktorne obravnave.
The Court stated that the fact that the court has entered judgment as if the defendant, who entered appearance, was in default, is not sucient to call into question categorisation as a‘judgment’.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da dejstvo, da je sodišče odločilo, kot da se tožena stranka, ki je pred njim zakonito nastopila, ne bi spustila v postopek, ne zadostuje za izpodbijanje opredelitve za „sodno odločbo“.
Second, the Court held that the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may take into account, with regard to the exception of public policy, the fact that the court of the State of origin ruled on the applicant’s claims without hearing the defendant, who entered appearance but who was excluded from the proceedings by order on the ground that he had not complied with the obligations imposed by other orders made earlier in the same proceedings.
Nato je Sodišče odločilo, da sodišče države, v kateri se zahteva priznanje, glede na izjemo javnega reda lahko upošteva, da je sodišče države izvora odločilo o¥zahtevkih tožeče stranke, ne da bi zaslišalo toženo stranko, ki je zakonito nastopila pred njim, vendar je bila iz postopka izključena s sklepom, ker ni izpolnila obveznosti, ki so ji bile naložene z¥drugimi sklepi, izdanimi pred tem v okviru istega postopka.
The exception of public policy may be used if it appears to it that the exclusion measure constituted a manifest and disproportionate infringement of the defendant’s right to be heard.
Izjema javnega reda se lahko uporabi, če se ugotovi, da je bil ukrep izključitve očitna in nesorazmerna kršitev pravice tožene stranke do izjave.
Review by the national court must relate not only to the circumstances in which the decisions were taken, but also to the circumstances in which the injunctive orders were adopted, and in particular to verifying the legal remedies made available to the defendant and the possibility for him to be heard.
Nadzor predložitvenega sodišča se mora nanašati ne le na okoliščine, v katerih sta bili izdani sodni odločbi, katerih priznanje se zahteva, ampak tudi na okoliščine, v katerih sta bila izdana sklepa o odredbi, in zlasti na preverjanje pravnih sredstev, ki so bila na voljo toženi stranki, in njene možnosti dati izjavo.
The Court was also required to interpret certain provisions of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000 (45).
Sodišče je razlagalo tudi nekatere določbe Uredbe št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o¥razveljavitvi Uredbe št. 1347/200045.
First of all, reference shall be made to Case C-168/08 Hadadi (judgment of 16 July 2009), in which the Court gave judgment on the nationality criterion of couples in choosing the court which has jurisdiction in divorce matters.
Najprej je treba navesti zadevo Hadadi (sodba z dne 16.¥julija 2009, C-168/08), v kateri je Sodišče presojalo merilo državljanstva zakoncev pri izbiri sodišča, pristojnega na področju razveze zakonske zveze.
In that case, two spouses, both of Franco-Hungarian nationality, had both applied for a divorce in one of those countries.
Kadar imata zakonca hkrati državljanstvo države članice, v kateri je sodišče, ki mu je bila predložena zadeva, in državljanstvo druge države članice, mora sodišče, ki mu je bila predložena zadeva, upoštevati, da imata zakonca tudi državljanstvo druge države članice in da bi lahko bila v skladu z navedeno uredbo pristojna sodišča te države.
The Court noted, ¤rst of all, that Regulation No 2201/2003 does not make
Dalje je pojasnilo, da so sodišča držav članic, katerih državljana sta zakonca, pristojna na podlagi
) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of ªights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 261/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o¥razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 295/91 (UL L 46, str. 1).
) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št.¥1347/2000 (UL L 338, str. 1).
Court of Justice a distinction according to whether a person holds one or several nationalities.
Sodišče te uredbe, pri čemer lahko zakonca izbereta sodišče države članice, pri katerem se bo obravnaval spor.
Second, in Case C-523/07 A (judgment of 2 April 2009), the Court interpreted, for the ¤rst time, the concept of ‘habitual residence’ of the child as a criterion for the jurisdiction of the courts in matters of parental responsibility.
Nato je treba navesti zadevo A (sodba z dne 2. aprila 2009, C-523/07), v kateri je Sodišče prvič razlagalo pojem „običajno prebivališče“ otroka kot merilo za pristojnost sodišč glede roditeljske pravice.
Since Regulation No 2201/2003 makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the meaning and scope of the notion of ‘habitual residence’, the Court held that it is an autonomous concept.
Ker se Uredba št. 2201/2003 ne sklicuje izrecno na pravo držav članic za opredelitev smisla in obsega pojma „običajno prebivališče“, je Sodišče presodilo, da gre za samostojen pojem.
Having regard to the context and the objective of that regulation, the habitual residence corresponds to the place which reªects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment.
Ob upoštevanju okvira in cilja te uredbe običajno prebivališče ustreza kraju, ki pomeni neko integracijo otroka v družbeno in družinsko okolje.
In particular the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay on the territory of a Member State and the family’s move to that State, the child’s nationality, the place and conditions of attendance at school, linguistic knowledge and the family and social relationships of the child in that State must be taken into consideration.
Med drugim je treba upoštevati dolžino, rednost, razmere bivanja in razloge za bivanje na ozemlju države članice ter razloge za preselitev družine v to državo članico, državljanstvo otroka, kraj in razmere šolanja, znanje jezikov ter družinske in socialne vezi otroka v tej državi.
The Court then noted that it is for the national court to determine the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances speci¤c to each individual case.
Sodišče je nato poudarilo, da je nacionalno sodišče pristojno za določitev običajnega prebivališča otroka ob upoštevanju vseh dejanskih okoliščin posameznega primera.
In addition, the Court explained the system of urgent or protective measures within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003.
Poleg tega je pojasnilo sistem nujnih ukrepov in ukrepov zavarovanja v smislu člena 20 Uredbe št. 2201/2003.
Such measures may be decided by a national court if they are urgent. They must be taken in respect of persons in the Member State concerned and must be provisional.
O teh ukrepih lahko odloči nacionalno sodišče, če so nujni, sprejeti morajo biti glede oseb, ki so v zadevni državi članici, in biti morajo začasni.
The taking of those measures, adopted in the best interests of the child, and their binding nature are determined in accordance with national law.
Izvajanje teh ukrepov, sprejetih za zavarovanje interesov otroka, in njihova zavezujočnost sta določena v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
Once the protective measure has been taken, the national court is not required to transfer the case to the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.
Po izvedbi ukrepa zavarovanja nacionalno sodišče ni dolžno predati zadeve pristojnemu sodišču druge države članice.
However, if the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which declared that it did not have jurisdiction must inform the court of another Member State having jurisdiction that such a measure has been taken.
Če pa zaščita interesov otroka to zahteva, mora nacionalno sodišče, ki se je izreklo za nepristojno, o tem obvestiti pristojno sodišče druge države članice.