natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After Grimshaw had initially refused to accept the application on the ground that there was no English translation, an English translation of the application and the annexes in German, which were not translated, were delivered to it in London on 23 May 2003.
Biro Grimshaw najprej ni sprejel tožbe, ker ni bila prevedena v angle�čino, nato pa mu je bila 23. maja 2003 v Londonu vročena angle�ka različica tožbe s prilogami v nem�čini, ki niso bile prevedene.
By written pleading of 13 June 2003, Grimshaw complained that service was defective because the annexes had not been translated into English.
Biro Grimshaw je v vlogi z dne 13. junija 2003 navedel, da vročitev ni bila opravljena pravilno, ker priloge niso bile prevedene v angle�čino.
For that reason, relying on Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000, it refused to accept the application and submits that the application was not properly served.
Zato je s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 zavrnil sprejem tožbe, pri čemer meni, da navedena tožba ni bila veljavno vročena. Podal je ugovor zastaranja.
The Landgericht Berlin held that the application was properly served on 23 May 2003.
Landesgericht Berlin je ugotovilo, da je bila tožba pravilno vročena 23. maja 2003.
Grimshaw’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Kammergericht Berlin.
Kammergericht Berlin je zavrnilo pritožbo biroja Grimshaw.
Weiss lodged an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof against the judgment on the appeal.
Biro Weiss je zoper sodbo iz pritožbenega postopka pri Bundesgerichtshof vložilo predlog za revizijo.
The Bundesgerichtshof states that, under the German Code of Procedure, an application which refers to annexes attached forms a whole with those annexes and that all the evidence relied on by the applicant which is necessary for the defendant’s defence must be made available to him.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da je v skladu z nem�kim procesnim zakonom tožba, ki se sklicuje na priloge, skupaj s slednjimi celota ter da mora imeti tožena stranka na voljo potrebne elemente za svojo obrambo, na katere se sklicuje tožeča stranka.
It is not therefore appropriate to determine whether an application has been properly served without having regard to the service of the annexes, on the assumption that the essential information is already clear from the application and the right to be heard remains protected by virtue of the fact that the defendant can still adequately prepare his defence in the proceedings in so far as concerns the content of the annexes.
Zato naj veljavnosti vročitve tožbe ne bi bilo dopustno presojati ločeno od vročitve prilog in se pri tem sklicevati na to, da bistvene informacije izhajajo že iz tožbe ter da pravica biti sli�an ni bila kr�ena, ker se lahko tožena stranka zadostno brani med postopkom.
An exception to that principle is permissible if the defendant’s need for information is not significantly prejudiced, for example, because an annex which was not attached to the application was sent at virtually the same time as the action was brought or because the defendant was already familiar with the documents before the proceedings were instituted.
Izjema od tega načela naj bi bila dopustna, kadar potreba po informacijah tožene stranke ne bi bila bistveno prizadeta, na primer ker bi bila priloga, ki ni bila priložena tožbi, poslana skoraj sočasno z vložitvijo tožbe ali ker bi bila tožena stranka že pred vložitvijo tožbe seznanjena z vsemi dokumenti.
The Bundesgerichtshof states that, in the present case, Grimshaw was not familiar with all the documents, in particular those establishing the defects and how to remedy them as well as those relating to costs.
Predložitveno sodi�če opozarja na to, da biro Grimshaw v tej zadevi ni poznal vseh pisanj, predvsem ne pisanj o ugotovitvi in odpravi napak ter s tem povezanih stro�kov.
Such documents cannot be regarded as insignificant since the decision on whether to submit a defence may be dependent on their content being assessed.
Takih pisanj ne bi bilo mogoče obravnavati, kot da niso pomembna, saj bi bila od njihove presoje lahko odvisna odločitev o vložitvi odgovora na tožbo.
The referring court is uncertain whether Grimshaw was correct to refuse the application.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali je biro Grimshaw upravičeno odklonil sprejem tožbe. Pojasnjuje, da nobeden od organov, poobla�čenih za zastopanje tega biroja, ne razume nem�kega jezika.
That provision is in fact silent on the refusal to accept the service of annexes.
Ta določba naj se namreč ne bi nana�ala na zavrnitev sprejetja prilog.
Moreover, the standard form to be used pursuant to the first sentence of Article 4(3) of the regulation for requests for service in the Member States of the European Union requires information on the nature and language of the document only as regards the document to be served (Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.3) and not as regards the annexes attached to it, for which only the number is required to be stated (Paragraph 6.4).
Poleg tega so v standardnem obrazcu za zaprosila za vročitev v državah članicah Evropske unije, predvidenem v členu 4(3), prvi stavek, te uredbe, podatki o vrsti pisanja in o uporabljenem jeziku nujni samo za vročena pisanja (točki 6.1 in 6.3), ne pa tudi za priloge, za katere se zahteva le to, da se navede njihovo �tevilo (točka 6.4).
Should it be possible to refuse service on the sole ground that the annexes have not been translated, the referring court states that, in its view, the right of the defendant to refuse to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 cannot be denied simply because the contract between the applicant and the defendant provides that correspondence is to be in German.
Če bi bilo vročitev mogoče zavrniti zgolj z obrazložitvijo, da priloge niso prevedene, predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da po njegovem mnenju pogodba, v kateri sta se tožeča in tožena stranka dogovorili, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v nem�čini, ne zado�ča za to, da tožena stranka ne bi imela pravice do zavrnitve sprejema, ki jo ima na podlagi člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
That clause does not mean that the defendant understands that language within the meaning of that regulation.
Taka klavzula naj namreč ne bi pomenila, da tožena stranka ta jezik razume v smislu te uredbe.
However, as the referring court pointed out, academic opinion is divided, some writers considering that a clause specifying the use of a particular language in a contractual relationship may give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language for the purpose of that regulation.
Vendar pa naj bi bila, kot navaja predložitveno sodi�če, teorija razdeljena, pri čemer nekateri avtorji menijo, da je klavzulo o uporabi jezika v pogodbenih razmerjih mogoče razumeti kot domnevo o znanju tega jezika v smislu navedene uredbe.
Finally, where knowledge of the language in question cannot be inferred from a contractual provision, the Bundesgerichtshof is uncertain whether it is possible in all cases to refuse service of an application where the annexes are not translated or whether there are exceptions, for example, if the defendant already has a translation of the annexes or if the content of the annex is reproduced word-for-word in the translated application.
Predložitveno sodi�če se nazadnje spra�uje, ali pogodbene klavzule ni mogoče razumeti kot domneve o razumevanju jezika – ali se sprejem tožbe lahko zavrne vedno, kadar priloge niso bile prevedene, ali pa obstajajo izjeme, na primer če se toženi stranki že predloži prevod prilog ali če je priloga dobesedno povzeta v tožbi in je ta prevedena.
That could also apply if the annexed documents were in a language which was validly chosen by the parties pursuant to a contract.
Za to bi �lo lahko tudi takrat, kadar bi bila pisanja, poslana kot priloge, sestavljena v jeziku, ki je bil med strankama veljavno dogovorjen v okviru pogodbe.
The referring court also mentions the case of weaker parties who may need protection, such as crossborder consumers who have contractually agreed that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the undertaking.
Predložitveno sodi�če opozarja na primer �ibkej�e, po možnosti za�čite potrebne stranke, na primer na čezmejne potro�nike, ki so pogodbeno sogla�ali, da dopisovanje poteka v jeziku gospodarstvenika.
The Bundesgerichtshof states, however, that in the case in the main proceedings Grimshaw concluded the contract in the course of its business.
Vendar pa opozarja, da je v postopku v glavni stvari biro Grimshaw sklenil pogodbo v okviru opravljanja svoje poslovne dejavnosti.
It sees no special need to protect that firm or therefore any need to recognise that it has a right to refuse to accept service.
Predložitveno sodi�če ne opaža posebnega razloga za varstvo tega biroja in torej meni, da mu ni nujno priznati pravice do zavrnitve sprejema.
Against that background, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Bundesgerichtshof prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
WEISS UND PARTNER where only the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands?
WEISS UND PARTNER ne obstaja, če zgolj priloge pisanja za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume?
Must Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 be interpreted as meaning that the addressee is deemed to “understand” the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that regulation where, in the course of his business, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission?
Ali je treba člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da naslovnik ‚razume‘ jezik države članice prosilke v smislu te uredbe že zato, ker se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku te države članice prosilke?
Must Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 be interpreted as meaning that the addressee may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to a document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands if the addressee concludes a contract in the course of his business in which he agrees that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language?’
1348/2000] razlagati tako, da naslovnik nikakor ne sme s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 zavrniti sprejema takih prilog k pisanju, ki niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume, kadar pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti sklene pogodbo in se v njej dogovori, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, ter se posredovane priloge nana�ajo na to dopisovanje in so napisane v dogovorjenem jeziku?“
By its first question, the Bundesgerichtshof asks whether Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document to be served does not have the right to refuse to accept service where only the annexes to the document are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje, ali je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da naslovnik pisanja za vročitev nima pravice zavrniti sprejema, če zgolj priloge pisanja za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
Since the role and importance of annexes to a document to be served may vary according to the nature of the document, the reasoning and answers in this judgment must be confined to documents instituting proceedings.
Vloga in pomembnost prilog k pisanju za vročitev sta lahko zelo različni glede na naravo tega pisanja, zato je treba presojo in odgovore v tej sodbi omejiti le na tožbo.
Under some systems, such a document need only contain the subjectmatter and a summary of the pleas
V nekaterih mora tako pisanje vsebovati le predmet ter povzetek dejanske in pravne podlage zahtevka,
WEISS UND PARTNER of fact and law of the application, the documentary evidence being communicated separately, whereas under other legal systems, such as German law, the annexes must be produced at the same time as the application and form an integral part of it.
WEISS UND PARTNER dokazila pa se predložijo ločeno, medtem ko je treba v drugih pravnih redih, na primer v nem�kem, priloge predložiti skupaj s tožbo in so njen sestavni del.
However, the reference in paragraph 2 of that article to ‘documents of which a translation is requested’ indicates that a ‘document to be served’ may consist of a number of documents.
Vendar pa navedba „pisanj[a], za katera se zahteva prevod“ iz odstavka 2 tega člena dopu�ča razlago, da je pisanje lahko sestavljeno iz več listin.
As is apparent from recital 2 of the preamble, the objectives of Regulation No 1348/2000 are to improve and expedite the transmission of documents.
Kot izhaja iz druge uvodne izjave, je cilj Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 izbolj�ano in hitrej�e po�iljanje pisanj.
Those objectives are reiterated in recitals 6 to 8.
Ta cilj povzemata �esta in osma uvodna izjava.
Recital 8 thus states that ‘[t]o secure the effectiveness of this Regulation, the possibility of refusing service of documents is confined to exceptional situations’.
Slednja tako določa, da se „[z]aradi zagotovitve učinkovitosti te uredbe […] možnost, da se vročitev pisanja zavrne, omeji na izjemne primere“.
In addition, Article 4(1) of that regulation provides that judicial documents are to be transmitted as soon as possible.
Člen 4(1) te uredbe poleg tega določa, da poteka po�iljanje sodnih pisanj čim hitreje.
However, those objectives cannot be attained by undermining in any way the rights of the defence (see, by analogy, with regard to Regulation No 44/2001, Case C-283/05 ASML [2006] ECR I-12041, paragraph 24).
Vendar pa se teh ciljev ne sme dosegati tako, da se kakor koli omejujejo pravice obrambe (glede Uredbe �t. 44/2001 glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi ASML, C-283/05, ZOdl., str.
Those rights, which derive from the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), constitute a fundamental right forming part of the general principles of law whose observance the Court ensures (see, inter alia, ASML, paragraph 26).
I-12041, točka 24). Te pravice, ki izhajajo iz pravice do po�tenega sojenja, opredeljene v členu 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (v nadaljevanju: EKČP), namreč predstavljajo temeljno pravico, ki je del splo�nih načel, katerih spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo ASML, točka 26).
Every effort must therefore be made to reconcile the objectives of effectiveness and speed in the transmission of procedural documents, which are necessary for the sound administration of justice, with that of the protection of the rights of the defence, in particular in interpreting Article 8 of the Regulation No 1348/2000 and, specifically, the term ‘document to be served’, where that is a document instituting proceedings, in order to be able to determine whether such a document must include annexes consisting of documentary evidence.
Zato si je treba prizadevati za uravnoteženje cilja učinkovitega in hitrega po�iljanja procesnih pisanj, ki je nujen za dobro delovanje sodnega organa, s ciljem varstva pravic obrambe, in sicer zlasti pri razlagi člena 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, ter natančneje – v primeru tožbe – pri pojmu pisanja za vročitev, da bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali mora tako pisanje vključevati priloge z dokazili.
Nor do those objectives make it possible to establish whether the translation of a document instituting the proceedings is a vital component of the defendant’s rights of defence, which might clarify the scope of the translation obligation referred to in Article 8 of that regulation.
Poleg tega na podlagi teh ciljev ni mogoče ugotoviti niti, ali je prevod tožbe bistveni del pravic obrambe tožene stranke, kar bi lahko razjasnilo obseg obveznosti prevoda iz člena 8 te uredbe.
However, The Hague Convention and the majority of those agreements do not lay down a general obligation to translate all the documents to be served, so that the national courts have considered that the rights of the defence are adequately protected if the addressee of a document served has had sufficient time to enable him to have it translated and prepare his defence.
V Haa�ki konvenciji in večini teh sporazumov pa ni splo�ne obveznosti prevajanja vseh pisanj, ki jih je treba vročiti, zato so nacionalna sodi�ča menila, da so pravice obrambe dovolj varovane, če ima naslovnik, ki se mu pisanje vroči, na voljo rok, v katerem lahko zagotovi prevod pisanja in pripravi svojo obrambo.
Moreover, Regulation No 1348/2000 itself does not specify whether the right to refuse a document if it has not been translated also exists in the case of service by post effected in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.
Poleg tega niti Uredba �t. 1348/2000 ne določa natančno, ali pravica do zavrnitve neprevedenega pisanja obstaja tudi v primeru vročanja po po�ti v skladu s členom 14 navedene uredbe.
In order to interpret that provision, it is necessary to examine the Explanatory Report on the Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, drawn up by an act of the Council of the European Union dated 26 May 1997 (OJ 1997 C 261, p.
Za razlago te določbe je treba preučiti pojasnjevalno poročilo h Konvenciji o vročanju sodnih in izvensodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah Evropske unije, sprejeti z Aktom Sveta Evropske unije z dne 26. maja 1997 (UL C 261, str.
1, ‘the 1997 Convention’; explanatory report, p.
1, v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1997; pojasnjevalno poročilo, str.
The commentary on Article 14(2) of the 1997 Convention concerning service by post states as follows:
Komentar k členu 14(2) Konvencije iz leta 1997 o vročanju po po�ti navaja:
‘This Article establishes the principle that service may be effected by post.
„Ta člen vzpostavlja načelo dopustnosti vročanja po po�ti.
However, Member States may, in order to provide guarantees for persons residing in their territory, specify the conditions under which service may be effected in their regard by post.
Države članice pa lahko za zagotovitev jamstev naslovnikom, ki bivajo na njihovih območjih, določijo pogoje, pod katerimi poteka vročanje po po�ti tem naslovnikom.
Such conditions might for instance include the use of registered post or the application of the Convention’s rules on the translation of documents.’
Zahteva se lahko na primer po�iljanje s priporočeno po�to ali uporaba konvencijskih pravil o prevodu pisanj.“
4) and the first update of the information communicated by Member States (OJ 2001 C 202, p. 10)).
4) in prvo posodobitev sporočil držav članic (UL 2001, C 202, str. 10)).
Such a choice on the part of the Community legislature and the Member States does not undermine the protection of fundamental rights, which is guaranteed by the ECHR.
Taka odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti in držav članic ne nasprotuje varstvu temeljnih pravic, kot to izhaja iz EKČP.
In fact, Article 6(3)(a) of that convention, which provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the minimum right to be informed promptly, in
Člen 6(3)(a) te konvencije, v skladu s katerim ima vsak obdolženec pravico, da se ga v jeziku, ki ga razume, takoj in podrobno
WEISS UND PARTNER a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, is applicable only in criminal matters.
WEISS UND PARTNER seznani o bistvu in vzrokih obtožbe, ki ga bremeni, se namreč uporablja le v kazenskih zadevah.
There is no provision in the ECHR requiring a document instituting proceedings in civil or commercial matters to be translated.
Nobena določba EKČP pa ne zahteva prevoda tožbe v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
Consequently, if the Community legislature chose, by Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000, to permit the addressee of a document to refuse it if it is not translated into an official language of the Member State addressed or a language of the Member State of transmission which he understands, that is principally to establish in a consistent manner who is responsible for the translation of such a document and liable for the cost thereof at the stage when it is served.
Če je torej zakonodajalec Skupnosti v členu 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 odločil, da lahko naslovnik pisanja tega zavrne, če ni prevedeno v uradni jezik zapro�ene države članice ali v jezik države članice prosilke, ki ga razume, je to predvsem zato, da je enotno uredil vpra�anje, kdo zagotovi prevod in nosi stro�ke zanj v fazi vročitve pisanja.
Since the examination of international and Community law concerning the scope of the principle of the protection of the rights of the defence, and in particular the need for a translation of a document instituting proceedings, has enabled the purpose of Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000 to be clarified, it is in the light of that purpose that it is necessary to determine what is covered by the term ‘document to be served’ within the meaning of that article where the document is a document instituting proceedings and whether such a document can or must include annexes consisting of documentary evidence.
Ker je pregled mednarodnega prava in prava Skupnosti v zvezi z obsegom načela varstva pravic obrambe in zlasti nujnosti zagotovitve prevoda tožbe razkril namen člena 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, je treba glede na to ugotoviti, kaj pomeni pojem pisanja za vročitev v smislu tega člena 8, če gre za tožbo in če ta tožba lahko vključuje ali mora vključevati priloge z dokazili.
Regulation No 1348/2000 must be given an autonomous interpretation so that it may be applied in a uniform manner (Leffler, paragraphs 45 and 46).
Uredbo �t. 1348/2000 je treba razlagati samostojno, s čimer se zagotovi njena enotna uporaba (zgoraj navedena sodba Leffler, točki 45 in 46).
The same applies to Regulation No 44/2001 and, in particular, the term ‘document instituting the proceedings’ within the meaning of Articles 26 and 34(2) of that regulation, as well as the corresponding provisions of the Brussels Convention.
Enako velja za Uredbo �t. 44/2001, zlasti za pojem „tožba“ v smislu členov 26 in 34, točka 2, te uredbe ter primerljivih določb Bruseljske konvencije.
Ruling on the interpretation of Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention concerning recognition of judgments, the Court defined the term ‘document which instituted
Ko je presojalo razlago člena 27, točka 2, Bruseljske konvencije, ki se nana�a na priznavanje odločb, je Sodi�če pojem tožbe ali enakovrednega pisanja v smislu te določbe
2008 — CASE C-14/07 the proceedings or … equivalent document’ within the meaning of that provision as meaning the document or documents which must be duly served on the defendant in due time in order to enable him to assert his rights before an enforceable judgment is given in the State of origin (see, to that effect, Case C-474/93 Hengst Import [1995] ECR I-2113, paragraph 19).
2008 – ZADEVA C-14/07 opredelilo kot pisanje oziroma pisanja, katerih pravilna in pravočasna vročitev toženi stranki omogoča uveljavljanje njenih pravic, preden se v državi prosilki izreče izvr�ljiva sodba (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 13. julija 1995 v zadevi Hengst Import, C-474/93, Recueil, str. I-2113, točka 19).