natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, Member States are free to exclude the application of the European arrest warrant procedure in relation to requests for extradition for acts committed before a date to be specified (third to sixth sentences of Article 32 of the Framework Decision).
Zlasti lahko države članice izključijo uporabo postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje v zvezi z zahtevami za izročitev zaradi dejanj, storjenih pred datumom, ki se določi (člen 32, od tretje do �este povedi, Okvirnega sklepa).
Thus the French Republic stated that it would continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before 1 November 1993 in accordance with the system of extradition applicable before 1 January 2004.
Tako je Francoska republika izjavila, da bo zahteve, ki se nana�ajo na dejanja, storjena pred 1. novembrom 1993, �e naprej obravnavala v skladu z metodami izročitve, veljavnimi pred 1. januarjem 2004. Ker so bila dejanja, očitana I. P.
By its first question the referring court seeks essentially to know whether Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision prohibits a request for extradition from being dealt with in accordance with the rules laid down by an international convention, where the requesting Member State has not notified its intention to apply that international convention under the fourth subparagraph of Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision, although the executing Member State has for its part excluded the application of the European arrest warrant procedure by a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
S prvim vpra�anjem želi predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu izvedeti, ali člen 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa prepoveduje obravnavanje zahteve za izročitev v skladu s pravili iz mednarodne konvencije, če država članica, ki vloži zahtevo, ni sporočila namere o uporabi te mednarodne konvencije v skladu s členom 31(2), četrti pododstavek, Okvirnega sklepa, medtem ko je izvr�itvena država članica z izjavo v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa izključila uporabo postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje.
It remains to be examined, however, whether the application of that earlier system requires, in addition to the statement of the executing Member State (the French Republic) under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, a notification by the requesting Member State (the Kingdom of Spain) under the fourth subparagraph of Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision.
Vendar je treba preveriti, ali je za uporabo teh prej�njih metod poleg izjave izvr�itvene države članice (Francoske republike) v smislu člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa potrebno tudi obvestilo v skladu s členom 31(2), četrti pododstavek, Okvirnega sklepa od države članice, ki vloži zahtevo (Kraljevina Španija).
It should be emphasised, at the outset, that requests for extradition received as from 1 January 2004 are in principle governed by the European arrest warrant procedure.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da se za zahteve za izročitev, prejete od 1. januarja 2004 dalje, načeloma uporablja postopek z evropskim nalogom za prijetje.
12That is the general rule laid down by the second sentence of Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
12Tako je splo�no pravilo iz člena 32, druga poved, Okvirnega sklepa.
It follows that a request for extradition such as that made by the Kingdom of Spain on 2 June 2008 should in principle be dealt with under the European arrest warrant procedure. 13
Iz tega izhaja, da se mora zahteva za izročitev, kakr�no je Kraljevina Španija izdala 2. junija 2008, načeloma obravnavati v skladu s postopkom z evropskim nalogom za prijetje. 13
12 — The Framework Decision thus applies to requests for extradition relating to acts prior to its entry into force.
12 – Okvirni sklep se torej uporablja za zahteve za izročitev, ki se nana�ajo na dejanja, storjena pred začetkom njegove veljavnosti.
According to the information provided by the referring court, there is no notification by the Kingdom of Spain that it wishes to continue applying preexisting agreements such as the 1996 Convention, which
Glede na informacije, ki jih je posredovalo predložitveno sodi�če, ni nobenega obvestila Kraljevine Španije, da želi �e naprej uporabljati obstoječe sporazume, kot sta Konvencija iz leta 1996, ki jo je uporabila
16 it used as the basis for the present extradition request, or indeed the Convention of 13 December 1957. 14
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA kot podlago za to zahtevo za izročitev, ali Konvencija z dne 13. decembra 1957.
At first sight, it might be deduced from this absence of notification by the Kingdom of Spain that the 1996 Convention — as also the 1957 Convention — was replaced by the Framework Decision (see Article 31(1)) and cannot thus be applied in the present case.
Na prvi pogled bi lahko iz tega neobstoja obvestila Kraljevine Španije sklepali, da je Konvencijo iz leta 1996 – kot med drugim Konvencijo iz leta 1957 – nadomestil Okvirni sklep (glej njegov člen 31(1)) in da se v tem primeru ne more uporabiti.
However, such a result would appear to be inconsistent with the general scheme and objectives of the Framework Decision.
Vendar se taka ugotovitev ne zdi v skladu s splo�no sistematiko Okvirnega sklepa in njegovih ciljev.
Even if the 1996 Convention could be the subject of a notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision, the absence of such a notification cannot be regarded as an obstacle to the actual application of that convention in the present case.
Tudi ob predpostavki, da je Konvencija iz leta 1996 lahko predmet obvestila v smislu člena 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa, se neobstoj takega obvestila ne sme obravnavati kot ovira za dejansko uporabo te konvencije v obravnavani zadevi.
Unlike the statements provided for in Article 32 of the Framework Decision, the notifications provided for in the fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision are not published in the Official Journal of the European Union and are not communicated to the other Member States.
V nasprotju z izjavami, določenimi v členu 32 Okvirnega sklepa, se obvestila, določena v členu 31(2), četrti in peti pododstavek, Okvirnega sklepa ne objavijo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in se ne sporočijo drugim državam članicam.
It may be concluded that those notifications are to be understood as purely declaratory acts which are not a necessary condition precedent for the application of preexisting or new agreements.
Iz tega je mogoče sklepati, da se morajo ta obvestila razumeti kot izključno deklaratorni akti, ki niso predhodni pogoj, potreben za uporabo obstoječih ali novih sporazumov.
Moreover, Article 31 of the Framework Decision must be interpreted in the light of the principal objective of that decision, namely to contribute to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, which involves improving and accelerating extradition procedures.
Najprej, sistem obve�čanja iz člena 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa se ne uporablja pri pravnih aktih, kot je Konvencija iz leta 1996.
17The replacement of certain preexisting agreements provided for in Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision
Kakor je poudarila Komisija, so večstranski pravni akti, izrecno navedeni v omenjenem členu 31(1), med katerimi je Konvencija iz leta 1996, že del pravnega reda Evropske unije, 15njihov obstoj pa je v državah članicah dobro poznan.
To begin with, the system of notifications provided for in Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision is not intended to apply to instruments such as the 1996 Convention.
Poleg tega je treba člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa razlagati ob upo�tevanju glavnega cilja Okvirnega sklepa, ki je prispevati k vzpostavitvi območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, kar pomeni izbolj�ati in pospe�evati postopke izročitve.
As the Commission pointed out, the multilateral instruments expressly mentioned in Article 31(1), including the 1996 Convention, are already part of the European Union acquis, 15and their existence is well known in the Member States.
17Namen nadomestitve določenih obstoječih sporazumov iz člena 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa je torej tudi izbolj�ati in pospe�iti
16 — For that reason, according to the French Government, only the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden have made notifications under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision.
16 – Tako so po navedbah francoske vlade samo Kraljevina Danska, Republika Finska in Kraljevina Švedska uporabile obvestila v skladu s členom 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa.
14 — European Convention on Extradition, signed at Paris, concluded within the framework of the Council of Europe (‘the 1957 Convention’).
14 – Evropska konvencija o izročitvi, podpisana v Parizu, sklenjena v okviru Sveta Evrope (v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1957).
17 — See, to that effect, the first and fifth recitals in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
15 – Glej uvodno izjavo 4 Okvirnega sklepa.
15 — See the fourth recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
17 – Glej v tem smislu uvodni izjavi 1 in 5 Okvirnega sklepa.
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU vprašanje za predhodno
C — The second question is thus also intended to improve and accelerate extradition procedures, and certainly does not have the aim of slowing them down or making them more difficult.
C – Drugo odločanje postopke izročitve, in nikakor ne te postopke upočasniti ali otežiti.
18It seems inconceivable that Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision should have the effect of a deterioration of the extradition system applicable between two Member States at the time of the entry into force of the Framework Decision.
18 Ni si mogoče predsta- vljati, da bi bila posledica člena 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa poslab�anje metod izročitve, ki so se uporabljale med državami članicami ob začetku veljavnosti Okvirnega sklepa.
By its second question, the referring court seeks essentially to know whether a Member State which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision is allowed to deal with requests for extradition in accordance with a convention which was signed before 1 January 2004 but became applicable in that Member State after that date.
Z drugim vpra�anjem želi predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu izvedeti, ali je državi članici, ki je v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa dala izjavo, dovoljeno obravnavati zahteve za izročitev na podlagi konvencije, ki je bila podpisana pred 1. januarjem 2004, v tej državi članici pa je začela veljati po tem datumu.
It appears from the context of the reference and the observations of the parties that this question targets the 1996 Convention, on which the Kingdom of Spain based its extradition request of 2 June 2008.
Iz okoli�čin predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe in iz stali�č strank je razvidno, da se to vpra�anje nana�a na Konvencijo iz leta 1996, s katero je Kraljevina Španija v obravnavanem primeru utemeljila svojo zahtevo za izročitev z dne 2. junija 2008.
It follows that, in bilateral relations between two Member States, preexisting agreements such as the 1996 and 1957 Conventions can be regarded as replaced by the Framework Decision only to the extent that the Framework Decision is actually applied between those Member States.
Iz tega se lahko sklepa, da se v dvo -stranskih odnosih med dvema državama članicama obstoječi sporazumi, kot sta Konvencija iz leta 1996 in Konvencija iz leta 1957, lahko obravnavajo, kakor da jih je nadomestil Okvirni sklep, le če se med tema državama članicama Okvirni sklep dejansko uporablja.
For as long as one of those two Member States, in this case the French Republic, does not apply the Framework Decision to certain extradition requests, those requests can be made and dealt with in accordance with the preexisting agreements, subject to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
Dokler ena od dveh držav članic, v obravnavanem primeru Francoska republika, ne uporablja Okvirnega sklepa za nekatere zahteve za izročitev, se lahko te oblikujejo in obravnavajo na podlagi obstoječih sporazumov pod pogojem iz člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
The 1996 Convention was indeed signed before 1 January 2004, the date referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision, but it did not become applicable for the French Republic until 1 July 2005, 19and then only for requests for extradition received after that date.
Konvencija iz leta 1996 je bila vsekakor podpisana pred 1. januarjem 2004, datumom, ki je določen v členu 32 Okvirnega sklepa, vendar je za Francosko republiko začela veljati �ele 1. julija 2005 19, in sicer za zahteve za izročitev, prejete po tem datumu.
20The question therefore arises of whether the 1996 Convention may be regarded as forming part of ‘the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’ in relations between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic.
20 Zastavlja se torej vpra�anje, ali se lahko Konvencija iz leta 1996 �teje za eno od „metod izročitve, ki so se uporabljale do 1. januarja 2004“ v odnosih med Kraljevino Španijo in Francosko republiko.
For all the above reasons, the first question must be answered in the negative.
Iz vseh navedenih razlogov je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti nikalno.
19 — The 1996 Convention has not yet been ratified by all the Member States, and has thus not yet formally entered into force (see Article 18(2) of the convention).
19 – Konvencije iz leta 1996 �e niso ratificirale vse države članice in torej uradno �e ni začela veljati (glej njen člen 18(2)).
However, since 1 July 2005, the 1996 Convention has been applicable between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain, as those two States have ratified it and made declarations pursuant to Article 18(4) of the convention.
Vendar se od 1. julija 2005 Konvencija iz leta 1996 uporablja med Francosko republiko in Kral jevino Španijo, ker sta jo ti državi članici ratificirali in podali izjave v skladu s členom 18(4) te konvencije.
18 — From the same perspective, the continued application of preexisting agreements, like the conclusion of new agreements between Member States, is meant to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants (see the first and second subparagraphs of Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision).
18 – Z istega vidika se �teje, da neprekinjena uporaba obstoječih sporazumov in sklenitev novih sporazumov med drža -vami članicami �e bolj poenostavlja ali pospe�uje postopke predaje oseb, ki so predmet evropskih nalogov za prijetje (glej člen 31(2), prvi in drugi pododstavek, Okvirnega sklepa).
20 — Article 18(5) of the 1996 Convention.
20 – Člen 18(5) Konvencije iz leta 1996.
At first sight, a negative answer to the question seems to be required, since the 1996 Convention was not applicable in France on 1 January 2004, the date to which Article 32 of the Framework Decision refers.
Na prvi pogled se zdi nikalni odgovor na to vpra�anje nujen, saj Konvencija iz leta 1996 v Franciji 1. januarja 2004, to je dne, na katerega se nana�a člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ni veljala.
It would thus be the 1957 Convention, not the 1996 Convention, which should be applied in the present case.
V tem primeru bi se torej morala uporabljati Konvencija iz leta 1957, in ne tista iz leta 1996.
extradition requests from the European arrest warrant procedure does not oblige that State to ‘freeze’ its domestic law at the state in which it applied to such requests before 1 January 2004.
obvezuje, da nacionalno pravo „zamrzne“ v stanju, kakr�no je veljalo za te zahteve pred 1. januarjem 2004.
It cannot be maintained that the Member State concerned is limited to choosing between the status quo as at 1 January 2004, on the one hand, and the European arrest warrant procedure, on the other.
Ne moremo trditi, da je zadevna država članica omejena samo na izbiro med ponovno vzpostavitvijo statusa quo na dan 1. januarja 2004 na eni strani in postopkom z evropskim nalogom za prijetje na drugi.
In view of the purpose of the Framework Decision, nothing prevents a Member State from adapting, little by little, the extradition procedure it applies to old cases covered by its statement under Article 32.
Glede na namen Okvirnega sklepa nič ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica postopno prilagodi postopek izročitve, ki velja za stare zadeve, določene v njeni izjavi v skladu z navedenim členom 32.
However, such an answer would not take sufficient account of the general scheme and objectives of the Framework Decision.
Vendar pa tak odgovor ne bi dovolj upo�teval splo�ne sistematike in ciljev Okvirnega sklepa.
As explained above, 21the principal aim of the Framework Decision is to contribute to creating an area of freedom, security and justice, which involves improving and accelerating extradition procedures. 22
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, 21je glavni cilj Okvirnega sklepa prispevati k vzpostavitvi območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, kar pomeni izbolj�ati in pospe�evati postopke izročitve. 22
On the contrary, a Member State remains entitled to improve gradually its procedural law applicable to extradition requests which it did not wish to subject at the outset to the European arrest warrant system.
Nasprotno, država članica lahko postopno izbolj�a procesno pravo, ki se uporablja pri zahtevah za izročitev, ki jih ni želela takoj obravnavati po postopku z evropskim nalogom za prijetje.
To that end, it may in particular bring into force an international convention — such as the 1996 Convention — which it had concluded before 1 January 2004 but which had not yet been ratified and made applicable.
V ta namen lahko predvsem uveljavi mednarodno konvencijo, kot je Konvencija iz leta 1996, ki jo je sklenila že pred 1. januarjem 2004, ki pa mora biti �e ratificirana in začeti veljati. 23Tako izbolj-
23 Such an improvement of the applicable procedures is entirely consistent with the general scheme and objective of the Framework Decision. 24
�anje veljavnih postopkov je popolnoma v skladu s splo�no sistematiko in ciljem Okvirnega sklepa. 24
23 — See Article 18 of the 1996 Convention.
23 – Glej člen 18 Konvencije iz leta 1996.
In providing for the possibility of derogating from the European arrest warrant procedure, Article 32 of the Framework Decision does not prevent the Member States from developing the extradition procedures applicable between them by gradually improving and accelerating them.
Ker je v členu 32 Okvirnega sklepa predvidena možnost odstopanja od postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje, ta člen ne izključuje možnosti, da države članice spremenijo postopke izročitve, ki veljajo med njimi, tako da jih postopno izbolj�ajo in pospe�ijo.
The mere fact that a Member State, by means of a statement pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, removes certain
Zgolj dejstvo, da država članica z izjavo v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa iz postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje izključi določene zahteve za izročitev, je ne
21 — See the section on the first question, especially point 24 above.
21 – Glej del, ki se nana�a na prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, predvsem točko 24 tega stali�ča.
24 — Even with respect to extradition requests falling within the scope of the European arrest warrant procedure, Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision allows the Member States to go further and apply bilateral or multilateral agreements — preexisting or new ones — which help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants.
24 – Tudi glede zahtev za izročitev, ki spadajo na področje uporabe postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje, člen 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa državam članicam omogoča, da to presežejo in uporabljajo dvo- ali večstranske spora -zume – obstoječe ali nove – ki �e bolj poenostavijo ali pospe�ijo postopke predaje oseb, ki so predmet evropskih nalogov za prijetje.
A fortiori, such an improvement of the procedure must be possible with respect to requests for extradition which are outside the scope of the European arrest warrant procedure.
Tako obstaja �e tehtnej�i razlog za to, da mora biti tako izbolj�anje postopka mogoče v zvezi z zahtevami za izročitev, izključenimi s področja uporabe postopka z evropskim nalogom za prijetje.
22 — See to that effect the first and fifth recitals in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
22 – Glej v tem smislu uvodni izjavi 1 in 5 Okvirnega sklepa.
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU moreover supported by the Framework Decision itself, which lists that convention as one of the international instruments forming part of the acquis of the European Union. 26
STALIŠČE J. KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU sklepom, v katerem je ta konvencija navedena med mednarodnimi pravnimi akti, ki so del pravnega reda Evropske unije. 26
At the very least, Article 32 of the Framework Decision should be interpreted as not preventing the subsequent improvement of an extradition system applicable in the executing Member State before 1 January 2004.
Člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa bi se moral razlagati vsaj tako, da ne nasprotuje poznej�emu izbolj�anju metod izročitve, veljavnih v izvr�itveni državi članici pred 1. januarjem 2004.
For all the above reasons, the second question should be answered in the affirmative.
Iz vseh zgoraj navedenih razlogov je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti pritrdilno.
D — General principles
D – Splošna načela
It was such a preexisting extradition system that was improved on 1 July 2005 by the implementation with respect to the French Republic of the 1996 Convention.
Take predhodne metode izročitve so se 1. julija 2005 izbolj�ale z uporabo Konvencije iz leta 1996 v Francoski republiki.
The objective of the 1996 Convention is to supplement the provisions of the 1957 Convention and facilitate its application (see the first indent of Article 1(1) of the 1996 Convention and the penultimate recital in the preamble to that convention).
Namen Konvencije iz leta 1996 je dopolniti določbe in olaj�ati uporabo Konvencije iz leta 1957 (glej člen 1(1), prva alinea, Konvencije iz leta 1996 in njeno predzadnjo uvodno izjavo).
25Simi-larly, the 1957 Convention already provided, in Article 28, for the contracting parties to be able to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements between themselves to supplement its provisions or facilitate the application of its principles.
25Poleg tega je v členu 28 Konvencije iz leta 1957 že predvidena možnost, da pogodbenice med seboj sklepajo dvo- ali večstranske sporazume za dopolnitev njenih določb ali lažjo uporabo njenih načel.
The conclusion that the 1996 Convention supplements and improves a preexisting extradition system within the meaning of Article 32 of the Framework Decision is
Ugotovitev, da Konvencija iz leta 1996 dopolnjuje in izbolj�uje predhodne metode izročitve v smislu člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa, je potrjena med drugim s samim Okvirnim
Under Article 6 EU, the European Union is founded on the rule of law and respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights 27and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States,
V skladu s členom 6 EU temelji Evropska unija na načelu pravne države in spo�tuje temeljne pravice, ki jih zagotavlja EKČP 27 in ki kot splo�na načela prava Skupnosti izhajajo iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic. Torej so države članice podvržene
26 — Fourth recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
26 – Uvodna izjava 4 Okvirnega sklepa.
25 — Among the improvements made to the 1957 system by the 1996 Convention, the following may be mentioned in particular: first, extradition may not be refused on the ground that the prosecution or punishment is statute-barred under the law of the requested Member State (Article 8(1) of the 1996 Convention) and, second, no offence may be regarded by the requested Member State as a political offence (Article 5 of the 1996 Convention, ‘depoliticisation’ of offences).
25 – Med izbolj�avami, ki so bile v sistem iz leta 1957 vnesene s Konvencijo iz leta 1996, je treba poudariti predvsem te: prvič, izročitve ni mogoče zavrniti z utemeljitvijo, da je pregon ali kaznovanje osebe po pravu zapro�ene države članice zastaralo (člen 8(1) Konvencije iz leta 1996), in, drugič, zapro�ena država članica ne more �teti nobenega kaznivega dejanja za politično kaznivo dejanje (člen 5 Konvencije iz leta 1996, „depolitizacija“ kr�itev).