natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Commission pointed out and as is stated in the 11th recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 40 the fundamental and personal right of residence in another Member State is conferred directly on Union citizens by the Treaty and is not dependent upon their having fulfilled administrative provisions in the host Member State.
Kot navaja Komisija in kot je opozorjeno v uvodni izjavi 11 Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES 40, je temeljna in osebna pravica do prebivanja v drugi državi članici dodeljena državljanom Unije neposredno s Pogodbo in ni odvisna od upo�tevanja upravnih postopkov v državi članici gostiteljici.
Accordingly, the sole fact that Mr Kozłowski does not have stable resources and that he therefore finds himself in breach of the German legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country does not, as such, prove that he may not lawfully stay in the executing Member State once his prison sentence is over.
Zato samo dejstvo, da S. Kozłowski nima stalnih sredstev in naj bi bil tako v Nemčiji v nasprotju z nem�ko zakonodajo o bivanju in vstopu tujcev, kot tako ne dokazuje, da po izteku zaporne kazni ne more zakonito prebivati v izvr�itveni državi članici.
That fact does not constitute, in itself, a factor which rules out the possibility that the person concerned may be regarded as resident in that State, provided that he has not been the subject of an expulsion measure adopted in compliance with Community law. 41
To dejstvo samo po sebi ni element, na podlagi katerega zadevne osebe ni mogoče �teti za prebivalca te države, ker zanjo ni bil sprejet ukrep izgona v skladu s pravom Skupnosti. 41
Admittedly, that right is not unconditional.
Res je, da ta pravica ni brezpogojna.
It is subject, during the first five years, to the condition that the person concerned have sufficient resources and sickness insurance so as not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State.
V prvih petih letih je pogojena s tem, da ima zadevna oseba zadostna sredstva in zdravstveno zavarovanje, da ne postane breme za sistem socialne pomoči v državi članici gostiteljici.
However, the absence of stable resources cannot as such automatically justify an expulsion measure.
Vendar pa neobstoj stalnih sredstev ne more samodejno sprožiti ukrepa izgona.
Similarly, if, following the committing of crimes in a Member State, a citizen of the Union may be deprived of his right to remain in that State, this can be brought about only by an expulsion decision taken in compliance
Prav tako, če se lahko državljanu Unije zaradi izvr�evanja kaznivih dejanj v državi članici odvzame pravica do prebivanja v tej državi, je ta odvzem lahko samo posledica odločbe o izgonu, sprejete v skladu z zelo
Such a measure may only be taken, according to the 16th recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/38, if the person concerned becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member
V skladu z uvodno izjavo 16 Direktive 2004/38 se lahko tak ukrep sprejme samo, če zadevna oseba postane nesorazmerno breme za sistem socialne pomoči v državi članici gostiteljici. V ta namen mora
41 — That reply is capable, to my mind, of being applied also to Case C-123/08 Wolzenburg, currently pending before the Court.
41 – Zdi se mi, da je ta odgovor mogoče prenesti na zadevo Wolzenburg (C-123/08), ki teče pred Sodi�čem. D.
He has a flat there, in which he lives with his wife, who is pregnant.
V tej državi članici ima stanovanje, v katerem živi s svojo ženo, ki je noseča.
He worked there until 2007.
Na Nizozemskem je delal do leta 2007.
He is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Staatsanwaltschaft (Public Prosecutor) of Aachen (Germany).
Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen (Nemčija) je zanj izdalo evropski nalog za prijetje.
The referring court in the Netherlands points out that, according to the Netherlands legislation, Mr Wolzenburg cannot rely on the ground for nonexecution provided for under Article 4(6) of the Framework Decsion, because the Netherlands law transposing that provision reserves the use of that ground for persons holding a residence permit of unlimited duration.
Nizozemsko predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da v skladu z nizozemsko zakonodajo za D. Wolzenburga ni mogoče uporabiti razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, ker v nizozemski zakonodaji, s katero je bila ta določba prenesena, ta razlog velja samo za osebe, ki imajo dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje.
In my opinion, that restriction is contrary to the Framework Decision.
Menim, da ta omejitev ni v skladu z Okvirnim sklepom.
In that case, too, recognition of the status of ‘resident’, within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, cannot depend on the possession of a longterm residence permit, when the right of the person concerned, who is a citizen of the Union, to remain in the Netherlands stems directly from Community law.
Tudi tu priznanje statusa „prebivalca“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa ne more biti odvisno od dovoljenja za stalno prebivanje, ob tem, da pravica zadevne osebe, ki ima status državljana Unije, do prebivanja na Nizozemskem izhaja neposredno iz prava Skupnosti.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 with the very restrictive conditions laid down in Articles 27 to 33 of Directive 2004/38.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 sklepa samo, če je bil za to osebo sprejet ukrep izgona v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
It should be noted that such a decision may be taken only in exceptional circumstances, where the person’s behaviour constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
Spomniti je treba, da se lahko taka odločba sprejme samo v izjemnih okoli�činah, kadar obna�anje zadevne osebe pomeni resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo za osnovne interese družbe.
In addition, before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host Member State must take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has remained in its territory, his age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his links with the country of origin.
Poleg tega mora država članica gostiteljica pred sprejetjem odločbe o izgonu z ozemlja zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti upo�tevati zlasti trajanje prebivanja zadevne osebe na svojem ozemlju, njeno starost, zdravstveno stanje, družinske in ekonomske razmere, socialno in kulturno vključenost v državo članico gostiteljico ter intenzivnost njenih vezi z matično državo.
It is in the light of the above considerations that I propose that the Court rule, in answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, that a person is staying in, or a resident of, the executing Member State, within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, if that person has his centre of main interests there, so that the execution of the sentence in that State is necessary in order to facilitate his reintegration.
Glede na te ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovori, da se oseba nahaja ali prebiva v izvr�itveni državi članici v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, kadar ima ta oseba tam sredi�če svojih glavnih interesov, tako da se zdi izvr�itev kazni v tej državi nujna za spodbujanje ponovne vključitve te osebe v družbo.
In order to establish whether that condition is satisfied, the executing judicial authority must examine all the facts relevant to the individual situation of the person concerned.
Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ mora pri presoji, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen, preučiti vsa upo�tevna dejstva individualnega položaja zadevne osebe.
It follows that the fact that a citizen of the Union has systematically committed crimes on the territory of the executing Member State does not, in itself, preclude him from having the status of ‘resident’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Iz tega sledi, da okoli�čina, da je državljan Unije sistematično izvr�eval kazniva dejanja na ozemlju izvr�itvene države članice, sama po sebi ne izključuje, da ima lahko status „prebivalca“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
Such a fact does not prove that his centre of main interests lies outside that State.
Taka okoli�čina namreč ne dokazuje, da ima zadevna oseba sredi�če svojih glavnih interesov drugje kot v tej državi.
It also follows that the fact that such a national is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the legislation of that State governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and that he systematically commits crimes there do not
Iz tega sledi tudi, da dejstvo, da se tak državljan v izvr�itveni državi članici nahaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države o vstopu in bivanju tujcev in da tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, nasprotuje priznanju statusa „prebivalca“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega
Secondly, the fact that the requested person has interrupted his stay in the executing Member State and the fact that he is being held in custody there do not constitute decisive or relevant criteria for the purposes of assessing whether he is staying in, or a resident of, that State within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Dalje, okoli�čini, da se oseba, za katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, ni neprekinjeno nahajala v izvr�itveni državi članici in da je tam v zaporu, nista odločilni ali upo�tevni merili za presojo, ali se nahaja ali prebiva v tej državi v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
Finally, the fact that the person concerned is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the legislation of that State governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he systematically commits crimes there do not preclude him from having the status of a person who is staying in or is a resident of that State, if he is a citizen of the Union, unless he has been the subject of an expulsion decision adopted in compliance with Community law.
Nazadnje, okoli�čini, da se zadevna oseba v izvr�itveni državi članici nahaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države o vstopu in bivanju tujcev in da tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, nasprotujeta temu, da bi ta oseba imela status osebe, ki se nahaja ali prebiva v tej državi, kadar je ta oseba državljan Unije, samo če je bila zanjo izdana odločba o izgonu v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In the light of the abovementioned observations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart as follows:
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je postavilo Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, odgovori:
In the case before it, the referring court must apply to Mr Kozłowski the provisions of its national law applicable to nationals of the other Member States, in accordance with the objective of Framework Decision 2002/584.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora v zadevi v glavni stvari za S. Kozłowskega uporabiti določbe svojega notranjega prava, ki se uporabljajo za državljane drugih držav članic, v skladu s ciljem Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584.
In order to establish whether that condition is satisfied, the executing judicial authority must examine all the facts relevant to the individual situation of the person concerned.
Pravosodni organ izvr�itvene države članice mora pri presoji, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen, preučiti vsa upo�tevna dejstva individualnega položaja zadevne osebe.
The fact that the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant has interrupted his stay in the executing Member State and the fact that he is being held in custody there do not constitute decisive or relevant criteria for the purposes of assessing whether he is staying in or is a resident of that State within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584.
Okoli�čini, da se oseba, za katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, ni neprekinjeno nahajala v izvr�itveni državi članici in da je tam v zaporu, nista odločilni ali upo�tevni merili za presojo, ali se nahaja ali prebiva v tej državi v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584.
The fact that the person concerned is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he systematically commits crimes there do not preclude him from having the status of a person who is staying in or is a resident of that State, if he is a citizen of the Union, unless he has been the subject of an expulsion decision adopted in compliance with Community law.
Okoli�čini, da se zadevna oseba v izvr�itveni državi članici nahaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države o vstopu in bivanju tujcev in da tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, nasprotujeta temu, da bi ta oseba imela status osebe, ki se nahaja ali prebiva v navedeni državi, kadar je ta oseba državljan Unije, samo če je bila zanjo izdana odločba o izgonu v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In Case C-66/08,
Szymona Kozłowskega,
2008 — CASE C-66/08 having regard to the order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2008 applying an accelerated procedure to the reference for a preliminary ruling under the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 22 April 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-66/08 na podlagi sklepa predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 22. februarja 2008, s katerim je odločil, da se za izdajo predhodne odločbe uporabi hitri postopek na podlagi člena 104a, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 22. aprila 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, acting as Agent,
– za če�ko vlado M. Smolek, zastopnik,
— the French Government, by J.-C. Niollet, acting as Agent,
– za francosko vlado J.-C. Niollet, zastopnik,
2008 — CASE C-66/08 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-66/08 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, str.
The reference was made in proceedings concerning the execution by the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart (‘the German executing judicial authority’) of a European arrest warrant issued on 18 April 2007 by the Sąd Okręgowy w Bydgoszczy (Regional Court, Bydgoszcz; ‘the Polish issuing judicial authority’) against Mr Kozłowski, a Polish national.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru postopka, v katerem Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart (v nadaljevanju: nem�ki izvr�itveni pravosodni organ) odloča o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki ga je Sąd Okręgowy w Bydgoszczy (regionalno sodi�če v Bydgoszczu, v nadaljevanju: poljski odreditveni pravosodni organ) 18. aprila 2007 izdalo zoper poljskega državljana S. Kozłowskega.
European Union law
Pravo Evropske unije
Recital 5 in the preamble to the Framework Decision states:
V peti uvodni izjavi Okvirnega sklepa je navedeno:
‘The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities.
„Zastavljeni cilj Unije, da postane območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, prina�a odpravo postopka izročitve med državami članicami in njegovo nadomestitev s sistemom predaje oseb med pravosodnimi organi.
Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures.
Nadalje uvedba novega poenostavljenega sistema predaje osumljenih ali obsojenih oseb zaradi kazenskega pregona ali izvr�itve kazni omogoča, da se odpravijo sedaj zapleteni in zamudni postopki izročitve.
Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.’
Tradicionalno sodelovanje, ki je doslej vladalo med državami članicami, bi moralo v območju svobode, varnosti in pravice v kazenskopravnih zadevah nadomestiti sistem prostega pretoka pravosodnih odločitev, ki obsegajo odločitve pred izrekom kazni in pravnomočne odločbe.“
Recital 7 of the Framework Decision provides:
V sedmi uvodni izjavi Okvirnega sklepa je navedeno:
‘Since the aim of replacing the system of multilateral extradition built upon the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community …’
„Ker cilja o nadomestitvi sistema večstranske izročitve oseb, ki se je oblikoval na podlagi Evropske konvencije o izročitvi z 13. decembra 1957, ni mogoče zadostno uresničiti z enostranskim delovanjem držav članic in ga je torej zaradi njegovega obsega in učinkov laže uresničiti na ravni Unije, lahko Svet sprejme ukrepe v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti iz člena 2 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji in člena 5 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti. […]“
2008 — CASE C-66/08
2008 – ZADEVA C-66/08
Recital 8 to the Framework Decision provides:
V osmi uvodni izjavi Okvirnega sklepa je navedeno:
‘Decisions on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be subject to sufficient controls, which means that a judicial authority of the Member State where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender.’
„Odločitve o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje morajo biti pod zadostnim nadzorom, kar pomeni, da bo pravosodni organ države članice, kjer bodo zahtevano osebo prijeli, moral odločiti o njeni predaji.“
Article 1(1) and (2) of the Framework Decision define the European arrest warrant and refer to the obligation to execute it as follows:
Člen 1(1) in (2) Okvirnega sklepa opredeljuje evropski nalog za prijetje in obveznost njegove izvr�itve tako:
Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision provides:
Člen 2(1) Okvirnega sklepa določa:
‘A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts … where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.’
„Evropski nalog za prijetje se lahko izda za dejanja […] ali, kadar sta kazen ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti, izrečena, za kazni […] najmanj �tirih mesecev.“
Article 3 of the Framework Decision lists three ‘[g]rounds for mandatory nonexecution of the European arrest warrant’.
V členu 3 Okvirnega sklepa so na�teti trije „Razlogi za obvezno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje“.
Article 4 of the Framework Decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional nonexecution of the European arrest warrant’ sets out those grounds in seven numbered paragraphs.
V členu 4 Okvirnega sklepa z naslovom „Razlogi za fakultativno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje“ so v sedmih točkah na�teti navedeni razlogi.
Paragraph 6 provides in that regard:
Točka 6 v zvezi s tem določa:
‘The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:
„Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ lahko zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje:
(6) if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law’.
6. če je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni ali ukrepa, vezanega na odvzem prostosti, in se v primeru, ko se zahtevana oseba nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici ali je državljan ali prebivalec te države, […] ta država zaveže, da bo izvr�ila kazen ali ukrep v skladu s svojim notranjim pravom“.
Article 5 of the Framework Decision, entitled ‘Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State in particular cases’, is worded as follows:
Člen 5 Okvirnega sklepa z naslovom „Jamstva, ki jih mora dati odreditvena država članica v nekaterih primerih“ določa:
‘The execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may, by the law of the executing Member State, be subject to the following conditions:
„Za izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki jo izvede izvr�itveni pravosodni organ, lahko po zakonu izvr�itvene države članice veljajo naslednji pogoji:
(3) where a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution is a national or resident of the executing Member State, surrender may be subject to the condition that the person, after being heard, is returned
3. kadar je oseba, ki je predmet evropskega naloga za prijetje z namenom uvedbe kazenskega postopka, državljan ali prebivalec izvr�itvene države članice, se jo lahko preda pod pogojem, da se oseba po obravnavi vrne izvr�itveni državi
2008 — CASE C-66/08 to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-66/08 članici, da bi v njej prestajala zaporno kazen ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti, na katerega jo je obsodila odreditvena država članica.“
Article 6 of the Framework Decision, entitled ‘Determination of the competent judicial authorities’, provides:
Člen 6 Okvirnega sklepa z naslovom „Opredelitev pristojnih pravosodnih organov“ določa:
It is apparent from the information concerning the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 1 May 1999 (OJ 1999 L 114, p.
Iz podatkov, ki se nana�ajo na dan začetka veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe in ki so bili objavljeni v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti z dne 1. maja 1999 (UL L 114, str.
56), that the Federal Republic of Germany made a declaration on the basis of Article 35(2) EU by which it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court to give preliminary rulings in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(3)(b) EU.
56), izhaja, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija podala izjavo na podlagi člena 35(2) EU, s katero je priznala pristojnost Sodi�ča za predhodno odločanje v skladu z določbo člena 35(3)(b) EU.
The Framework Decision was transposed into the German legal system by Paragraphs 78 to 83k of the Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen) of 23 December 1982, as amended by the Law on the European arrest warrant (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) of 20 July 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I, p.
Okvirni sklep je bil v nem�ki pravni red prenesen s členi od 78 do 83 zakona o mednarodni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah (Gesetz über die internationale Rechts -hilfe in Strafsachen) z dne 23. decembra 1982, kot je bil spremenjen z zakonom o evropskem nalogu za prijetje (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) z dne 20. julija 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I, str.
1721; ‘the IRG’), while retaining the usual German legal terminology — a ‘surrender’ within the meaning of the Framework Decision being described as an ‘extradition’.
1721, v nadaljevanju: IRG), pri čemer je bila ohranjena običajna nem�ka pravna terminologija, ki „predajo“ v smislu Okvirnega sklepa opredeljuje kot „izročitev“.