natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The point of those provisions is to transfer final responsibility to decide on the child’s return to the court having jurisdiction to make a provisional or final award of custody (which necessarily implies the power to ensure the child’s presence with the person to whom custody is awarded), and to do so with all despatch, so that the final decision on return can be taken as swiftly as possible.
Cilj teh odstavkov je prenesti dokončno odgovornost za odločanje o vrnitvi otroka na pristojno sodi�če, da začasno ali dokončno odloči o dodelitvi varstva in vzgoje (kar nujno vključuje pristojnost za zagotavljanje dejanske navzočnosti otroka pri osebi, ki ji je bil dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo), in to v čim kraj�em času, da se lahko čim prej izda dokončna odločba o vrnitvi otroka.
Consequently, in the present case, the fact that the Klaipėda court’s decision of 22 December 2006 was quashed by the Lithuanian Court of Appeal on 15 March 2007 was no obstacle to the Oranienburg court’s decision of 20 June 2007 ordering the child’s return in accordance with Article 11(8) of the Regulation.
Zato dejstvo, da je pozneje Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas 15. marca 2007 razveljavilo odločbo Klaipėdos apygardos teismas z dne 22. decembra 2006, nikakor ni onemogočilo Amtsgericht Oranienburg, da 20. junija 2007 odredi vrnitev otroka, kot je določeno v členu 11(8) Uredbe.
Nor does that interpretation encroach upon the parties’ procedural rights or interests.
Ta razlaga ne kr�i postopkovnih pravic in interesov strank.
The abducting parent will have no interest in challenging a nonreturn order in the Member State where the child is actually present, and the parent left behind will normally be best placed to present his or her arguments before the courts of the Member State of habitual residence.
Tisti od star�ev, ki ugrabi otroka, ne bo imel nobenega interesa izpodbijati odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, v državi članici, v kateri je otrok, in tisti od star�ev, ki ga je otrok moral zapustiti, bo imel navadno bolj�i položaj za predstavitev trditev pred sodi�čem države članice običajnega prebivali�ča otroka.
In response to a concern expressed by the mother and echoed by the referring court, concerning the relationship between the decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal of 15 March 2007 and that of the Oranienburg court of 20 June 2007, both entailing the child’s return, I would say first of all that two decisions with the same effect should not normally interfere with each other.
V odgovor na zaskrbljenost matere, ki jo je ponovilo predložitveno sodi�če, glede razmerja med odločbo Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z dne 15. marca 2007 in odločbo Amtsgericht Oranienburg z dne 20. junija 2007, saj je bila v obeh odrejena vrnitev otroka, bi najprej povedala, da ti odločbi z enakim obsegom navadno ne bi smeli ovirati druga druge.
If, however, such a situation were to pose a problem under the procedural law of the Member State where the child is actually present, it would be necessary to amend
Če pa bi ta položaj povzročil težavo za postopkovno pravo države članice, v kateri je otrok, bi bilo treba prilagoditi upo�tevne določbe ali jih razlagati in uporabiti v skladu s ciljem Uredbe. In
The opposite interpretation, by contrast, would necessarily introduce further delay in the process of ensuring the child’s prompt return, which is one of the primary requirements of both the Convention and the Regulation.
Nasprotna razlaga bi nujno povzročila dodatne roke v postopku vrnitve otroka, katere hitrost je ena ključnih zahtev Konvencije in Uredbe.
In extreme cases, as we see here, it could allow procedural procrastination with no clear end in sight, irremediably undermining the proper application of the two instruments.
Kot smo videli v tej zadevi, bi lahko izjemoma omogočila očitno neskončno zavlačevanje, ki bi nepopravljivo vplivalo na pravilno izvajanje teh pravnih aktov.
VIEW OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-195/08 PPU where the child is actually present, was not met, may the latter court verify that competence and, if appropriate, refuse to recognise the validity of the certificate?
STALIŠČE E. SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU izpolnjen, ali lahko zadnjenavedeno sodi�če preveri to pristojnost in po potrebi ne prizna veljavnosti potrdila?
And if the two decisions lay down different conditions for the return, that of the court of the Member State of habitual residence will prevail, as it is that court which has jurisdiction to settle all questions relating to parental responsibility.
čeprav so v obeh odločbah določeni različni načini vrnitve, bi imela prednost odločba sodi�ča države članice običajnega prebivali�ča, saj je to pristojno za odločanje o vseh vpra�anjih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovor -nostjo.
Moreover, neither the Convention nor the Regulation provides that the court of the Member State where the child is actually present should subject its order to conditions.
Poleg tega ni niti v Konvenciji niti v Uredbi določeno, da sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, v odločbi določi pogoje.
Its role is confined to ensuring (in so far as the grounds for refusal in Articles 13 and 20 of the Convention have been ruled out) the child’s return to the Member State of habitual residence, the competent authorities and courts of which will take the necessary measures to ensure that the child’s well-being and interests are guaranteed.
Njegova naloga je samo zagotoviti (če niso podani razlogi za zavrnitev iz členov 13 in 20 Konvencije) vrnitev otroka v državo članico običajnega prebivali�ča, katere pristojni organi in sodi�ča bodo sprejeli potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev dobrega počutja otroka in upo�tevanje njegovih koristi.
First of all, it is clear that the Regulation does not provide for any verification of that kind.
Najprej, jasno je, da v Uredbi ni predvideno nobeno tako preverjanje.
On the contrary, the fact that, when a certificate in compliance with the requirements of Article 42(2) has been issued, the decision is to be ‘recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition’ explicitly excludes such an examination.
Nasprotno, dejstvo, da se odločba, če je bilo izdano potrdilo v skladu z določbami člena 42(2), „prizna in je izvr�ljiva v drugi državi članici, ne da bi bila potrebna razglasitev izvr�ljivosti in brez možnosti nasprotovanja njenemu priznanju“, izrecno izključuje tako preverjanje.
Possibility for the court of the Member State where the child is actually present to examine the validity of a certificate issued under Article 42
Možnost, da sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, preuči veljavnost potrdila, izdanega na podlagi člena 42
That exclusion meets the aim of ensuring that the decision taken in the circumstances of Article 11(8) will be final (it should be borne in mind that, when that decision is issued, the sixweek timelimit laid down for the normal case by Article 11(3) will necessarily have expired some time previously) and accords with the principle of mutual confidence and recognition as between the courts of different Member States.
Taka izključitev je v skladu s ciljem zagotavljanja, da bo odločba, sprejeta v okoli�činah iz člena 11(8), dokončna (opozarjam, da bo ob izdaji te odločbe �esttedenski rok, ki je navadno določen v členu 11(3), nujno že zdavnaj prekoračen), ter tudi z načelom medsebojnega zaupanja in priznavanja med sodi�či držav članic.
There remains one final aspect of this question, which has been discussed in the written observations and at the hearing but which, if the Court agrees with my analysis, will have no repercussions in the present case: if the court of the Member State of habitual residence orders the child’s return and certifies its decision in accordance with Article 42(2) of the Regulation even though it lacked the competence to do so because the criterion of a pre-existing nonreturn order, issued by the court of the Member State
Ostane �e zadnji vidik tega vpra�anja, ki se je obravnaval v pisnih stali�čih in na obravnavi, ki pa – če bo Sodi�če upo�tevalo mojo analizo – ne bo imel posledic v tej zadevi: če sodi�če države članice običajnega prebivali�ča odredi vrnitev otroka in izda potrdilo v skladu s členom 42(2) Uredbe, čeprav ni pristojno za to, saj pogoj obstoja prej�nje odločbe, da se otrok ne vrne, ki jo izda sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, ni
Nor does the result encroach upon the rights of the abducting parent.
Ta izid poleg tega ne kr�i pravic tistega od star�ev, ki ugrabi otroka.
In the first place, Article 42 establishes a number of procedural preconditions before the court of the Member State of origin can issue such a certificate.
Prvič, s členom 42 so določena �tevilna postopkovna jamstva, preden sodi�če države članice izvora lahko izda tako potrdilo.
Second, although Article 43 excludes any appeal against the issuing of the certificate as such, the abducting parent can always (in accordance with the procedural rules of the Member State of origin) appeal against the certified decision itself.
Drugič, čeprav so s členom 43 izključena vsa pravna sredstva zoper izdajo potrdila kot tako, tisti od star�ev, ki ugrabi otroka, �e vedno lahko vloži (v skladu s postopkovnimi pravili države članice izvora) pritožbo zoper sámo odločbo, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo.
If the appeal court upholds the claim — which might be on the ground, for example, that the elements referred to in Article 11(6) and (7) had not been taken into account — it will quash the decision and, concomitantly, the effects of the certificate.
Če pritožbeno sodi�če ugodi njegovi pritožbi – na primer, ker se niso upo�tevali dejavniki iz odstavkov 6 in 7 člena 11 – bo razveljavilo odločbo in tako učinke potrdila.
I would add that even though, in the type of situation with which we are concerned, the Regulation asks the court of the Member State of enforcement to evince the mutual confidence on which the area of freedom, security and justice depends, it is not asked to show blind trust.
Dodajam, da čeprav Uredba v zadevi, ki jo obravnavamo, od sodi�ča države članice izvr�itve zahteva, da dokaže to medsebojno zaupanje, od katerega je odvisno območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, se vseeno ne zahteva slepo zaupanje.
On the contrary, the system set up requires it merely to recognise and respect the integrity, objectivity and independence of a court in another Member State, whose decision may be appealed against by the party against whom enforcement is sought, in the same way as it would for the courts of its own Member State.
Nasprotno, postavljeni sistem od tega sodi�ča zahteva samo, da prizna in upo�teva integriteto, nepristranskost in neodvisnost sodi�ča druge države članice, zoper odločbo katerega stranka, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, lahko vloži pritožbo, kot bi to storilo za sodi�ča svoje države.
That, in the final analysis, is not a lot to ask.
Nenazadnje se ne zahteva veliko.
Moreover, the Regulation itself provides: ‘The certificate shall take effect only within the limits of the enforceability of the judgment’ (Article 44).
Poleg tega je v sami uredbi določeno, da „[p]otrdilo učinkuje v okvirih izvr�ljivosti sodne odločbe“ (člen 44).
And Article 47 spe -cifies that ‘a judgment which has been cer -tified according to … Article 42(1) cannot be enforced if it is irreconcilable with a subsequent enforceable judgment’.
Še več, v členu 47 je določeno, da „sodna odločba, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo v skladu s […] členom 42(1), ne more biti izvr�ena, če je nezdružljiva s kasnej�o izvr�ljivo sodno odločbo“.
A decision on appeal overturning the first decision would meet that condition and thus preclude enforcement of the certified decision.
Odločitev o pritožbi, s katero se razveljavlja prva odločba, naj bi izpolnjevala ta pogoj in tako onemogočila izvr�itev odločbe, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo.
The party seeking to challenge the certificate is therefore not denied a right to appeal; the appropriate procedure is to seek annulment of the decision certified.
Stranki, ki bi želela izpodbijati potrdilo, torej ni odvzeta možnost pritožbe; ustrezen ukrep je predlagati razveljavitev odločbe, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo.
Since my assessment of the fifth question has reached the conclusion that the decision of 20 June 2007 was taken in compliance with the procedure provided for in the Regulation, the sixth question referred, which is based on the assumption that the procedure was not complied with, loses its relevance for the present case.
Ker sem analizo petega vpra�anja končala z ugotovitvijo, da je bila odločba z dne 20. junija 2007 sprejeta ob upo�tevanju postopka, določenega v Uredbi, postane �esto vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki temelji na predpostavki neupo�tevanja tega postopka, v tej zadevi odveč.
The first subparagraph of Article 21(3) provides: ‘Without prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter, any interested party may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be or not be recognised’.
V členu 21(3), prvi pododstavek, je določeno:
None the less, it may be noted that it is clear from Articles 21 and 31(2) of the Regulation, read together, that a judgment concerning parental responsibility must as a general rule be recognised and enforced in another Member State unless one of the grounds of nonrecognition set out in Article 23 is present, and that Article 24 expressly prohibits review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin.
Vendar lahko opozorim, da je iz določb člena 21 v povezavi z določbami člena 31(2) Uredbe jasno razvidno, da je treba praviloma sodno odločbo o star�evski odgovornosti priznati in izvr�iti v drugi državi članici, razen če obstaja razlog za nepriznanje, naveden v členu 23, in da je preverjanje pristojnosti sodi�ča države članice izvora izrecno izključeno s členom 24.
It is clear from my analysis at points 86 to 96 above that verification that the pro cedure provided for in Article 11 of the Regulation has been respected is also precluded.
Iz moje analize v točkah od 86 do 91 zgoraj je tudi razvidno, da je preverjanje upo�tevanja postopka iz člena 11 Uredbe prav tako izključeno.
It thus lays down a general rule (since Article 21 concerns all decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility), allowing any interested party to request recognition or nonrecognition of a judgment falling within the scope of the Regulation subject, where applicable, to the provisions of Chapter III, Section 4.
Določeno je torej splo�no pravilo (člen 21 pokriva vse odločbe v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo), ki vsaki zainteresirani stranki omogoča, da zahteva izdajo odločbe o priznanju ali nepriznanju sodne odločbe, ki spada na področje Uredbe, po potrebi ob upo�tevanju določb poglavja III, oddelek 4.
The fourth question
Primerno se mi zdi začeti s četrtim vpra�anjem.
That section concerns certain judgments concerning rights of access and certain judgments which require the return of the child.
Navedeni oddelek se nana�a na nekatere sodne odločbe o pravici do stikov in vrnitvi otroka.
In the latter regard, it applies to the return of a child entailed by a judgment given pursuant to Article 11(8) (Article 40(1)(b)). The present case involves just such a judgment.
Glede zadnjega vidika navedeni oddelek velja za vrnitev otroka po izdaji sodne odločbe, s katero se odreja vrnitev otroka, iz člena 11(8) (člen 40(1)(b)).
I find it best to start with the fourth of those questions.
V tej zadevi gre za tako sodno odločbo.
Consequently, any interested party may apply for nonrecognition of a decision taken in the circumstances set out in Article 11(8) and ordering a child’s return, unless that is
Zato lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka predlaga nepriznanje odločbe, s katero se odreja vrnitev otroka, izdane v okoli�činah iz
The referring court asks the meaning of the term ‘without prejudice to Section 4’ in Article 21(3) of the Regulation.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, kaj pomeni pogoj „brez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja“ v členu 21(3) Uredbe.
The third question incompatible with a provision of Chapter III, Section 4, which, as a lex specialis, will in that case prevail over the general rule.
Tretje vprašanje člena 11(8), razen če se to izkaže za nezdružljivo z določbo iz poglavja III, oddelek 4, ki v tem primeru kot lex specialis prevlada nad splo�nim pravilom.
In that section, Article 42(1) provides, in particular:
V tem oddelku je v členu 42(1) določeno:
My conclusion on the fourth question, which means that no application can be made for nonrecognition of an order for a child’s return issued in the circumstances set out in Article 11(8) of the Regulation and certified in accordance with Article 42(2), deprives the third question of its relevance, since it is based on the assumption that such an application is possible.
Zaradi mojega sklepa v zvezi s četrtim vpra�anjem, da ni mogoče vložiti nobenega predloga za nepriznanje sodne določbe o vrnitvi otroka, ki je bila izdana v okoli�činah iz člena 11(8) Uredbe in o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo v skladu z določbami člena 42(2), tretje vpra�anje, ki temelji na predpostavki, da je tak predlog mogoč, ni več pomembno.
In such a case, any review of the decision or of the certificate by the court of the Member State where the child is actually present, whether on that court’s own motion or on application by the person against whom enforcement is sought, is ruled out.
V takem primeru namreč ni dovoljeno, da sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, preverja odločbo ali potrdilo, bodisi po uradni dolžnosti bodisi na zahtevo osebe, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev.
‘The return of a child referred to in Article 40(1)(b) entailed by an enforceable judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised and enforceable in another Member State … without any possibility of opposing its recognition if the judgment has been certified in the Member State of origin in accordance with paragraph 2.’
„Vrnitev otroka iz člena 40(1)(b), priznana v izvr�ljivi sodni odločbi[,] izrečeni v državi članici, se prizna in je izvr�ljiva v drugi državi članici, […] brez možnosti nasprotovanja njenemu priznanju, če je bilo o sodni odločbi v državi članici izvora izdano potrdilo v skladu z odstavkom 2.“
Thus, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which such a certificate has been issued, the practical meaning of the term ‘without prejudice to Section 4’ in Article 21(3) of the Regulation is that it is not possible to oppose recognition of the certified decision or, a fortiori, to make a separate application for a declaration that it should not be recognised.
Tako je v primeru, kakr�en se obravnava v tej zadevi, v kateri je bilo potrdilo izdano, konkretni pomen pogoja „brez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja“ iz člena 21(3) Uredbe, da ni mogoče niti nasprotovati priznanju odločbe, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo, niti a fortiori vložiti neodvisnega predloga za izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju.
VIEW OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-195/08 PPU the procedures provided for in Section 2 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be or not be recognised’.
STALIŠČE E. SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2 tega poglavja zahteva izdajo odločbe o priznanju oz. nepriznanju sodne odločbe“.
Seven grounds of nonrecognition for judgments relating to parental responsibility are listed in Article 23.
Sedem razlogov za nepriznanje sodnih odločb o star�evski odgovornosti je navedenih v členu 23.
However, unlike the other questions, the scope of these first two questions is not expressly limited to the decision ordering the child’s return.
Toda v nasprotju z drugimi vpra�anji obseg prvega in drugega vpra�anja ni izrecno omejen na odločbo, s katero je bila odrejena vrnitev otroka.
In so far as the mother also seeks a declaration of nonrecognition of the part of the judgment awarding custody to the father, these questions may remain relevant.
Če mati zahteva izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju tudi za del sodbe, v katerem sta varstvo in vzgoja otroka dodeljena očetu, ti vpra�anji lahko ostaneta pomembni.
Unlike the return order, this aspect is not governed by Chapter III, Section 4, of the Regulation, which precludes any opposition to recognition of a return order duly certified in accordance with Article 42(2).
V nasprotju z odločbo, s katero je bila odrejena vrnitev, tega vidika namreč ne ureja poglavje III, oddelek 4, Uredbe, ki izključuje vsakr�no nasprotovanje priznanju odločbe o vrnitvi otroka, o kateri je bilo pravilno izdano potrdilo v skladu s členom 42(2).
The referring court asks whether an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of the Regulation may request nonrecognition of a judgment if no application has been submitted for it to be recognised and, if so, how a national court, examining an application for nonrecognition brought by the person against whom enforcement is sought, is to apply Article 31(1), according to which that person may not make any submissions on the application at this stage of the proceedings.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali zainteresirana stranka v smislu člena 21 Uredbe lahko zahteva izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju sodne odločbe, ne da bi bil vložen predlog za priznanje, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, kako mora sodi�če, ki preučuje tako zahtevo, ki jo vloži oseba, proti kateri je sodna odločba izvr�ljiva, uporabiti člen 31(1), po katerem ta oseba ne more predložiti predlogov v tej fazi postopka.
Section 2 of Chapter III is entitled ‘Application for a declaration of enforceability’.
Oddelek 2 poglavja III je naslovljen „Zahteva za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti“.
Article 28(1) provides that a ‘judgment on the exercise of parental responsibility in respect of a child given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State and has been served shall be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there’.
V členu 28(1) je določeno, da se „[s]odna odločba o izvr�evanju star�evske odgovornosti glede otroka, izdana v državi članici in ki je izvr�ljiva v tej državi članici ter je bila vročena, […] izvr�i v drugi državi članici, ko je na zahtevo katere koli od zainteresiranih strank razgla�ena za izvr�ljivo v tej državi“.
Article 31(1) provides that the court applied to is to give its decision without delay and adds: ‘… the person against whom enforcement is sought [… shall not,] at this stage of the proceedings, be entitled to make any submissions on the application’.
V členu 31(1) je določeno, da sodi�če, pri katerem se vloži zahteva, odloči takoj, vendar „[o]seba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, v tej fazi postopka nima možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve“.
Article 31(2) specifies: ‘The application may be refused only for one of the reasons specified in Articles 22, 23 and 24’ — which are all grounds for nonrecognition.
V odstavku 2 je natančneje določeno, da se „[z]ahteva lahko zavrne samo zaradi enega od razlogov iz členov 22, 23 in 24“ – ki so vsi razlogi za nepriznanje.
Article 33 provides that either party may, within one month (paragraph 5), appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability (paragraph 1) and that the appeal is to ‘be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing procedure in contradictory matters’ (meaning, it is clear from other language versions, adversarial proceedings, according to the audi alteram partem rule).
V členu 33 je določeno, da lahko obe stranki v enem mesecu (odstavek 5) zoper odločbo v zvezi z razglasitvijo izvr�ljivosti vložita pravno sredstvo (odstavek 1) in da se tako pravno sredstvo obravnava v kontradiktornem postopku (odstavek 3).
Article 21 of the Regulation forms part of Chapter III, Section 1, entitled ‘Recognition’.
Člen 21 Uredbe je del poglavja III, oddelek 1 z naslovom „Priznanje“.
Article 21(1) provides that judgments given in a Member State are to be ‘recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required’.
V odstavku 1 tega člena je določeno, da se sodna odločba, izdana v državi članici, „v drugih državah članicah prizna, ne da bi bilo potrebno za priznanje začeti kakr�enkoli poseben postopek“.