natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Agreement to use a certain language in correspondence between two undertakings does not in itself mean that both sides understand the language to such an extent that they can effectively defend their rights in proceedings in which the application and the annexes thereto are written in that particular language.
Privolitev dveh podjetnikov v uporabo določenega jezika pri dopisovanju sama po sebi �e ne pomeni, da bi obe strani ta jezik tako dobro razumeli, da bi lahko učinkovito branili svoje pravice v postopku, v katerem je tožba skupaj s prilogami napisana v nekem določenem jeziku.
The Czech Government therefore suggests that the second question be answered in the negative.
Če�ka vlada zato predlaga, naj se na drugo vpra�anje odgovori nikalno.
The word ‘understands’ points to a factual, objective situation and not to a mere assumption, even if that assumption might be based on certain circumstantial evidence, such as the contractual agreement regarding the language to be used in correspondence.
1348/2000 na splo�no niti posebej v členu 8(1) ne kaže na to, da bi se moralo vpra�anje, ali naslovnik „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke, presojati na podlagi domneve, in ne na podlagi dejanskega razumevanja.
Thus, the fact that in the present case the addressee agreed in a contract with
Beseda „razumeti“ kaže na dejansko, opredmeteno stanje, in ne na
Büro Weiss states that if the right to refuse to accept the untranslated annexes were to be made dependent on whether the annexes are written in an agreed contractual language and concern the subjectmatter of the contract, the defendant would have to make a decision regarding its right to refuse acceptance within a short time without being able to assess on the basis of a translation whether those requirements were satisfied, in particular whether there was a connection with the contractual relationship.
Biro Weiss poudarja, da če bi bila pravica do zavrnitve sprejema v zvezi z neprevedenimi prilogami odvisna od tega, ali so te napisane v jeziku, dogovorjenem v pogodbi, in ali se nana�ajo na predmet pogodbe, bi se morala tožena stranka v kratkem roku odločiti o svoji pravici do zavrnitve sprejema, ne da bi lahko na podlagi prevoda presojala, ali so te predpostavke podane, zlasti ali obstaja povezava s pogodbenim razmerjem.
It cannot be assumed solely because the defendant undertook to carry out the contract in a certain language that it intended to restrict its right to a fair hearing to such an extent that it waived its right to be notified of the subjectmatter of legal proceedings in a language which is (by definition) understood by it.
Toženi stranki ni mogoče samo zaradi tega, ker se je zavezala k izpolnjevanju pogodbe v določenem jeziku, pripisati voljo, da omeji svojo pravico biti sli�an, tako da se odpove seznanitvi s predmetom spora v (običajno) njej razumljivem jeziku.
WEISS UND PARTNER written in the agreed language.
WEISS UND PARTNER dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, in se poslane priloge nana�ajo na to dopisovanje ter so napisane v dogovorjenem jeziku.
In that case there would be misuse of the right to refuse acceptance.
V tem primeru bi izvajanje pravice do zavrnitve sprejema pomenilo zlorabo pravice.
The French Government takes the view, relying on the wording of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000, that the addressee has the right to refuse to accept a document and the annexes thereto if they are written in the language agreed by the parties for correspondence and that language is not a language of the Member State addressed or a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
Francoska vlada se sklicuje na člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 in meni, da ima naslovnik pravico zavrniti sprejem pisanja in njegovih prilog, če so ti napisani v jeziku, ki je bil med strankama dogovorjen za dopisovanje, in ta jezik ni jezik zapro�ene države članice ali jezik države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
No exception should therefore be made either directly or indirectly to the right to refuse to accept a document which is in a language other than the languages provided for in Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Zato ni mogoče niti neposredno niti posredno narediti izjeme od pravice do zavrnitve sprejema pisanja, ki je napisano v drugem jeziku kot v jezikih, predvidenih v členu 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
Any other interpretation would impair the full effectiveness of the regulation.
Drugačna razlaga bi prizadela polno učinkovitost Uredbe.
IHK Berlin considers that the addressee may not rely on Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to a document if he has agreed by contract with the sender in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes transmitted concern that correspondence and are
IHK Berlin meni, da naslovnik sprejema prilog k tožbi ne sme zavrniti s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, če se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti z odpo�iljateljem pogodbeno dogovoril, da bo
The Italian Government claims that refusal to accept a document may be regarded as a misuse of rights only if the annexes are reproduced in full in the court document translated into the language of the addressee or if the addressee already has cognisance of those annexes in their entirety irrespective of service because they are contained in full in the correspondence between the parties conducted in the language of the State of transmission as intended by the parties.
Italijanska vlada navaja, da se lahko zavrnitev sprejema obravnava kot zloraba samo takrat, kadar so priloge v celoti navedene v sodnem pisanju, ki je prevedeno v jezik naslovnika, ali če so te priloge naslovniku že znane v celoti, neodvisno od vročitve, ker je njihova celotna vsebina zajeta v dopisovanju, ki je med strankama po njuni volji potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke.
However, those two conditions have not been
Oba ta pogoja pa naj v tej zadevi ne bi bila preizku�ena.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-14/07 examined in the present case.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-14/07 pisanja je treba obravnavati kot zakonito.
The addressee’s refusal to accept the document must be regarded as legitimate. From this point of view, the second part of the third question referred, which presupposes factual circumstances ruled out by the referring court, must be regarded as inadmissible because it is irrelevant to the decision.
V skladu s tem stali�čem je treba drugi del tretjega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki predpostavlja dejanske okoli�čine, ki jih je predložitveno sodi�če izključilo, obravnavati kot nedopusten, ker ni pomemben za odločanje.
are sufficiently protected if the addressee has or is able to have cognisance of the content of the untranslated annexes.
zadosti varovani, če pozna ali bi lahko poznal vsebino neprevedenih prilog.
In the case in the main proceedings the contractual clause on the use of a language concerns not only correspondence between the parties, but also correspondence with the authorities and public institutions.
V postopku v glavni stvari se pogodbena klavzula o uporabi jezika ne nana�a le na dopisovanje med strankama, ampak tudi na dopisovanje z organi in javnimi ustanovami.
This covers correspondence in the event of a difference of opinion over contractual obligations and correspondence in connection with court proceedings.
To zajema dopisovanje v primeru različnih mnenj o pogodbenih obveznostih in dopisovanje v zvezi s sodnim postopkom.
However, the Commission makes clear that it may be appropriate to give a different interpretation to a clause in a contract between a weak party and a strong party, such as a consumer contract.
Komisija pa pojasnjuje, da bi bilo primerno, da se klavzulo v pogodbi med �ibkej�o in močnej�o stranko, kot na primer v potro�ni�ki pogodbi, razlaga drugače.
The Slovak Government takes the view that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the addressee has the right to refuse to accept a document to be served or the annexes to that document which are not in the official language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands; the contractual language chosen by the parties for their correspondence is not significant, even where the annexes to the document were served on the addressee in that contractually agreed language.
Slovaška vlada meni, da je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da ima naslovnik pravico zavrniti sprejem pisanja za vročitev, ki ni napisano v uradnem jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume; pri tem izbrani pogodbeni jezik v okviru njunega dopisovanja ni pomemben, in sicer niti takrat, če so bile priloge k tožbi naslovniku vročene v tem pogodbeno dogovorjenem jeziku.
A — Introductory remarks
A – Uvodne ugotovitve
With regard to the third question, the Czech Government refers to the arguments on the second question and considers that the answer to the third question is already contained in the answer to the second question.
Češka vlada v zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje opozarja na navedbe k drugemu vpra�anju in uveljavlja, da je odgovor na tretje vpra�anje vsebovan že v odgovoru na drugo vpra�anje.
The Commission relies on the wording of recital 10 in the preamble to Regulation No 1348/2000 and also takes the position that the interests of the addressee of a document
Komisija se opira na uvodno izjavo 10 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 in prav tako zastopa stali�če, da so interesi naslovnika pisanja
The primary objective of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to improve and expedite the transmission between the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters for service in another Member State.
Namen Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 je predvsem izbolj�anje in pospe�itev po�iljanja sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah med državami članicami, ki naj bi bila vročena v drugi državi članici.
This improved and expedited transmission of documents is intended to serve directly the ‘proper functioning of the
To izbolj�ano in hitrej�e po�iljanje pisanj naj bi bilo posredno namenjeno
3 This statement applies to all disputes in civil and commercial matters, for example disputes stemming from contracts between traders, from consumer contracts and from tortuous acts.
„pravilnemu delovanju notranjega trga“. 3Ta ugotovitev velja za vse spore v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, na primer spore iz pogodb med gospodarstveniki, iz potro�ni�kih pogodb in tudi v od�kodninskih sporih.
It must be stressed that the notion of civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Regulation No 1348/2000 does not correspond with that under national law. 4
Poudariti je treba, da pojem civilnih in gospodarskih zadev v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ne ustreza pojmu nacionalnega prava. 4
According to academic legal opinion, in an effort to strike a balance between the interests of the applicant in quick and low-cost service and the interests of the defendant in being able to take cognisance of the content of an action brought against him, Regulation No 1348/2000 dispenses with time-consuming and expensive translations where the addressee understands the language of the State of transmission. 5
V prizadevanju, da bi se na�el kompromis med interesi tožeče stranke glede hitrej�e in cenej�e vročitve ter interesi tožene stranke, da se lahko seznani z vsebino tožbe, ki je bila vložena zoper njo, se Uredba �t. 1348/2000 glede na pravno teorijo odpoveduje zamudnim in dragim prevodom, če naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke. 5
Three questions have been asked in this case.
V tej zadevi so bila postavljena tri vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
The first question is of general importance for service effected in all civil and commercial matters.
Prvo vpra�anje ima splo�ni pomen za vročitve v vseh civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
The second and third questions, on the other hand, are confined to the specific area of service concerning contracts concluded between traders.
Drugo in tretje vpra�anje pa je treba, nasprotno, omejiti na posebno področje vročitev, ki se nana�ajo na pogodbe, ki so sklenjene med gospodarstveniki.
3 — Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Case C-443/03 Leffler [2005] ECR I-9611, point 19.
3 – Sklepni predlogi generalne pravobranilke Stix-Hackl, predstavljeni 28. junija 2005 v zadevi Leffler (C-443/03, ZOdl., str. I-9611, točka 19).
It must be borne in mind that the transmission and service of documents lie within a triangle of conflicting priorities concerning access to the administration of justice, the protection of defendants and procedural economy.
Opozoriti je treba, da je po�iljanje in vročitev pisanj v navzkrižju interesov zagotavljanja sodnega varstva, varstva tožene stranke in procesne ekonomije.
Realisation of the abovementioned objectives therefore appears problematic in that prejudicial effects on the protection of defendants may be inherent in the expedition of the transmission of documents, for example if it is no longer guaranteed that the defendant will be able to prepare his defence effectively, whether for linguistic, temporal or other reasons.
Doseganje zgoraj navedenih ciljev se zdi tako problematično zato, ker je lahko pospe�itev po�iljanja pisanj povezana s posegi v varstvo tožene stranke, kadar toženi stranki ni več zagotovljeno, da učinkovito pripravi svojo obrambo, pa naj bo to iz jezikovnih, časovnih ali drugih razlogov.
Protection of the defendant cannot, in turn, cause the claimant to be deprived of his right to a lawful judge, for example because the defendant is able to
Varstvo tožene stranke pa hkrati ne sme privesti do tega, da se tožeči stranki odvzame pravica do naravnega in zakonitega sodnika, ker bi tožena stranka morda prepre-
The meaning of civil and commercial matters is defined by the Court of Justice autonomously for the purposes of the regulation.
Sodi�če določa, kaj je treba razumeti pod pojmom civilna in gospodarska zadeva, avtonomno glede na to uredbo.
The concept of civil and commercial matters must therefore be regarded as an independent concept to be interpreted by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments and, secondly, to the general principles which stem from the national legal systems as a whole (Case C-271/00 Gemeente Steenbergen [2002] ECR I-1489, paragraph 28), which means that the law of one of the Member States is irrelevant to its interpretation.
Pojem civilne in gospodarske zadeve je treba zato obravnavati kot avtonomen pojem, pri katerega razlagi je treba upo�tevati cilj in sistematiko sporazuma o sodni pristojnosti in izvr�evanju sodnih odločb ter splo�na pravna načela, ki izhajajo iz skupka nacionalnih pravnih redov (sodba z dne 14. novembra 2002 v zadevi Gemeente Steenbergen, C-271/00, Recueil, str. I-1489, točka 28), kar pomeni, da za njegovo razlago ni merodajno pravo ene od držav članic.
The caselaw of the Court of Justice on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments and on Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p.
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča glede sporazuma o sodni pristojnosti in izvr�evanju sodnih odločb in glede Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL L 12, str.
1) may be relied on with regard to the question whether a case concerns a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Regulation No 1348/2000 (Jastrow, ‘Europäische Zustellungsverordnung’, in Gebauer and Wiedmann, Zivilrecht unter europäischem Einfluss, 2005. p. 1284, and Heiderhoff, ‘Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1348/2000 des Rates vom 29. Mai 2000 über die Zustellung gerichtlicher und außergerichtlicher Schriftstücke in Zivil- oder Handelssachen in den Mitgliedstaaten’, in Rauscher (ed.), Europäisches Zivilprozessrechts, Kommentar, Vol.
1) se lahko uporabi za vpra�anje, ali gre za civilno ali gospodarsko zadevo v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 (Jastrow, „Europäische Zustellungs verordnung“, v: Gebauer/Wiedmann Zivilrecht unter europäischem Einfluss, 2005, str. 1284, in Heiderhoff, „Verord nung (EG) Nr. 1348/2000 des Rates vom 29. Mai 2000 über die Zustellung gerichtlicher und außergerichtlicher Schriftstücke in Zivil- oder Handelssachen in den Mitgliedstaaten“, v: Rauscher (ur.): Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, Kommentar, zvezek 2, 2. izdaja, 2006, str. 1185).
9 The lack of a translation can be remedied.
6Izrecno je treba poudariti, da ima varstvo tožene stranke oziroma njena pravica biti sli�an prednost pred procesno ekonomijo.
10 The Court has ruled that, on a frustrate service.
Izbira lažjega načina mednarodne vročitve v Uredbi �t.
6 It must be made clear that the protection of defendants and their right to a fair hearing take precedence over procedural economy.
1348/2000 ne sme spremeniti ničesar v zvezi s pravnimi jamstvi, podeljenimi toženi stranki, ki je v tej zadevi naslovnik.
The choice of a simplified international form of service in Regulation No 1348/2000 must not affect the legal guarantees to be afforded to the defendant, in this case the addressee.
7 kajoči prevod se lahko popravi. 10Sodi�če je odločilo, da je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t.
7 proper construction of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000, ‘when the addressee of a document has refused it on the ground that it is not in an official language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, it is possible for the sender to remedy that by sending the translation requested’. 11
1348/2000 razlagati tako, „da kadar je naslovnik pisanja to zavrnil zato, ker to pisanje ni sestavljeno v uradnem jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku izvorne države članice [prosilke], ki ga ta naslovnik razume, ima po�iljatelj možnost, da zagotovi nadomestno re�itev tako, da po�lje zahtevani prevod“ 11.
The present case also relates to the problem of the knowledge of the language of the Member State of transmission on the part of the addressee in the Member State addressed.
V tej zadevi gre tudi za težavo, ali naslovnik v zapro�eni državi članici zna jezik države članice prosilke.
The Commission has already drawn attention to the problem of ascertaining linguistic knowledge in a study, stating that reliance on lack of knowledge of the language of the Member State of transmission is the basic problem in relation to the refusal of service. 8
Komisija je v neki �tudiji že opozorila na težavo ugotavljanja znanja jezikov in je ugotovila, da je sklicevanje na manjkajoče znanje jezika države članice prosilke temeljna težava pri zavrnitvi vročitve. 8
353 (359), with reference to the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Leffler (cited in footnote 3 above), point 36. See also Rösler and Siepmann, ‘Zum Sprachenproblem im Europäischen Zustellungsrecht’, NJW, 2006, p. 475 (476), and de Leval and Lebois, ‘Signifier en Europe sur la base du Règlement 1348/2000; bilan après un an et demi d’application’, in Imperat lex: liber amicorum Pierre Marchal, 2003, p. 261 (274).
7 – Glej Bajons, n.n.m. (opomba 5), str. 49 (67).
6 — Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Leffler (cited in footnote 3 above), point 20.
10 – Tako v sodbi z dne 8. novembra 2005 v zadevi Leffler (C-443/03, ZOdl., str.
10 — Case C-443/03 Leffler [2005] ECR I-9611, paragraphs 38, 39 and 53.
I-9611, točke 38, 39 in 53).
With regard to service under the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, see also Gaudemet-Tallon, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe: règlement no. 44/2001: Conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano, 3rd edition, 2003, p. 338.
Glej v zvezi z vročitvijo v skladu s Konvencijo z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah tudi Gaudemet-Tallon, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe: règlement no. 44/2001: Conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano, 3. izdaja, 2003, str. 338.
11 — Leffler (cited in footnote 10 above), paragraph 53.
11 – Sodba Leffler (navedena zgoraj v opombi 10, točka 53).
That case is one of the few that concerns Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Ta zadeva je ena izmed redkih, ki obravnava člen 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
In legal literature it has rightly been stated that the exercise of the right to refuse acceptance does not make service ineffective (Rösler and Siepmann, loc. cit. (footnote 9), p. 475 (476)).
V teoriji je bilo pravilno ugotovljeno, da iz izvajanja pravice do zavrnitve sprejema ne sledi neveljavnost izvr�ene vročitve (Rösler, Siepmann, n.n.m. (opomba 9), str. 475 (476)).
‘document’ pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 relates solely to the application or also extends to the annexes thereto.
Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, ki obstaja glede „pisanja“, nana�a zgolj na tožbo ali se raz�irja tudi na njene priloge.
connected with the way in which the lack of translation should be remedied that are not envisaged by the Regulation as interpreted by the Court, it is incumbent on the national court to apply national procedural law while taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of the Regulation, in compliance with its objective’. 12
z Uredbo, kot jo razlaga Sodi�če, je nacionalni sodnik tisti, ki uporabi svoje nacionalno procesno pravo ob skrbi, da se zagotovi polni učinek navedene uredbe, ob spo�tovanju njenega namena.“ 12
The first question is worded in general terms and concerns all disputes in civil and commercial matters.
Prvo vpra�anje je formulirano splo�no in zadeva vse spore v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
As stated in point 44 above, the notion of civil and commercial matters within the meaning of Regulation No 1348/2000 does not correspond with that under national law. 15
Kot je ugotovljeno zgoraj v točki 44, pojem civilnih in gospodarskih zadev v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ne ustreza temu pojmu v nacionalnem pravu. 15
The Bundesgerichtshof states that under German law the application itself and the attached annexes to which it refers form a whole with the result that the annexes are also part of the application.
Bundesgerichtshof pojasnjuje, da v skladu z nem�kim pravom sama tožba in priloge, na katere se tožba sklicuje in so k tej tožbi priložene, sestavljajo celoto, tako da so tudi priloge del tožbe.
13In order to ensure that the defendant’s right to a hearing is protected, he must receive with the service of the application the information which he needs for his decision whether and how to defend himself against the application. 14
13Tožena stranka mora za varstvo svoje pravice biti sli�an z vročitvijo tožbe dobiti tiste informacije, ki jih potrebuje za svojo odločitev, če in kako se bo branila zoper tožbo. 14
All the parties with the exception of IHK Berlin consider that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 should be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘document’ also covers the annexes where an action is served in civil proceedings.
Vse stranke razen IHK Berlin menijo, da bi bilo treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da pojem „pisanje“ v primeru vročitve tožbe v civilnem postopku zajema tudi priloge.
The generic term (genus) ‘document’ is not defined in the regulation.
Generični pojem (genus) „pisanje“ v tej uredbi ni opredeljen.
In the light of the order for reference, commentary in legal literature, 16and the submissions made by
Glede na predložitveni sklep, komentarje v teoriji 16 ter trditve Komisije in slova�ke vlade, iz katerih je mogoče
With its first question, the referring court is essentially seeking to ascertain whether the right to refuse to accept a
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali se pravica do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu s členom 8(1)
15 — See Rijavec, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p.
15 – Glej Rijavec, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str.
1151 et seq.; Mayr and Czernich, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p.
1151 in naslednje; Mayr/Czernich, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str.