natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
KOZŁOWSKI warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons’.
KOZŁOWSKI pregona in kaznovanja osebe na podlagi njenega spola, rase, vere, etničnega izvora, državljanstva, jezika, političnega prepričanja ali spolne usmerjenosti, ali da bo oseba zaradi katerega od teh razlogov v slab�em položaju“.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that the renunciation of the principle of nonextradition of a State’s nationals, enshrined in the Framework Decision, does not deprive the executing judicial authority of any means of protection of the person concerned if, exceptionally, it becomes apparent that a surrender request is liable to infringe that person’s fundamental rights.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da opustitev načela neizročitve svojih državljanov, potrjena z Okvirnim sklepom, izvr�itvenim pravosodnim organom ne odvzame vseh sredstev za za�čito zadevne osebe, če bi se, izjemoma, izkazalo, da lahko zahteva za predajo �kodi temeljnim pravicam te osebe.
There is therefore no question of the executing Member State trusting blindly or without any safeguards.
Tu torej ne gre za slepo zaupanje ali zaupanje brez vsakega jamstva za izvr�itveno državo članico.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that, if a Member State were to adopt provisions of criminal law, whether substantive or procedural, which infringed the principles laid down in Article 6 EU, the Council could suspend the implementation of the Framework Decision under Article 7 EU, as indicated in the 10th recital in the preamble.
Poleg tega je treba tudi opozoriti, da če bi država članica sprejela kazenske materialne ali procesne določbe, ki bi kr�ile načela iz člena 6 EU, bi lahko Svet na podlagi člena 7 EU ustavil izvajanje Okvirnega sklepa, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 10 tega sklepa.
Thus, although the Framework Decision, like all secondary legislation, depends for its validity on compliance with fundamental rights 27and although the Member States, in implementing the Framework Decision — like any other Community law measure — are also obliged to observe those rights, 28the Council has been careful to specify, in Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision, that the surrender obligation imposed must in no way infringe the fundamental rights and principles enshrined in Article 6 EU.
Tako je, čeprav mora biti veljavnost Okvirnega sklepa enako kot veljavnost vsakega akta sekundarnega prava odvisna od njegove skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami 27in čeprav so države članice pri izvajanju tega sklepa kot pri izvajanju vsakega drugega akta prava Skupnosti dolžne upo�tevati te pravice, 28 Svet v členu 1(3) Okvirnega sklepa skrbno pojasnil, da obveznost predaje, določena s tem okvirnim sklepom, nikakor ne sme �koditi temeljnim pravicam in načelom, ki izhajajo iz člena 6 EU.
The laying down of those various safeguards in the Framework Decision, which does not itself create new law, since those safeguards are already an integral part of the Community legal order, shows to what extent the European Union legislature wanted to ensure that the innovations contained in that Framework Decision as compared with the traditional system of extradition, such as the renunciation of the principle of the nonextradition of nationals, do not lead to a diminution in the protection of fundamental rights.
Navedba teh različnih jamstev v Okvirnem sklepu, ki sama po sebi nima konstitutivnega učinka, ker so ta jamstva že sestavni del pravnega reda Skupnosti, kaže, kako je zakonodajalec Evropske unije želel, da se zaradi novosti, ki jih vsebuje ta okvirni sklep v primerjavi s tradicionalnim sistemom izročitve, kot je opustitev načela neizročitve svojih državljanov, varstvo temeljnih pravic ne bi zmanj�alo.
Accordingly, the executing judicial authority may, in an individual case and exceptionally, refuse to execute a European arrest warrant if, as stated in the 12th recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision, there are ‘reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest
Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ bi torej lahko v posebnem primeru in izjemoma zavrnil izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, kadar, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 12 Okvirnega sklepa, „obstaja razlog za prepričanje, da je na podlagi objektivnih elementov bil nalog izdan z namenom kazenskega
27 — The conformity of the Framework Decision with the principles laid down in Article 6 EU, with regard to the abolition of the dual criminality condition in the case of the 32 offences listed in Article 2 of the Framework Decision has, moreover, been confirmed by the Court in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling on a question concerning validity, in Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECR I-3633.
27 – Sodi�če je skladnost Okvirnega sklepa z načeli iz člena 6 EU, kar zadeva odpravo pogoja dvojne kaznivosti za 32 kaznivih dejanj iz člena 2 tega okvirnega sklepa, poleg tega preverilo v okviru predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi s presojo veljavnosti v sodbi z dne 3. maja 2007 v zadevi Advocaten voor de Wereld (C-303/05, ZOdl., str. I-3633).
28 — See, for an example of that settled caselaw, Advocaten voor de Wereld, paragraph 45.
28 – Kot primer te ustaljene sodne prakse glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Advocaten voor de Wereld (točka 45).
The Member States cannot, therefore, without compromising the effectiveness of the Framework Decision, adopt provisions of national law which, in one way or another, would have the effect of reintroducing a
Države članice torej ne morejo brez ogrozitve polnega učinka Okvirnega sklepa sprejeti določb v notranjem pravu, s katerimi
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 systematic exception in favour of their own nationals.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 bi tako ali drugače znova uvedle sistematično izjemo v korist svojih državljanov.
context of cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs, framework decisions themselves have a real binding effect, since, under Article 34(2)(b) EU, they are to be ‘binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods’.
učinek, kajti v skladu s členom 34(2)(b) EU so „za vsako državo članico zavezujoči glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, nacionalnim organom pa prepu�čajo izbiro oblike in metod“.
In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court rule that Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence is ruled out where that arrest warrant concerns one of its own nationals and he does not consent to his surrender.
Glede na ta dejstva Sodi�ču predlagam, naj odloči, da je treba člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, ki izključuje izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zaradi izvr�itve kazni, kadar se ta nalog nana�a na enega od njenih državljanov in ta ne sogla�a s svojo predajo.
By thus giving the Council the power to adopt such binding instruments, the definition of which is almost identical to that of the directives which can be adopted under the European Community framework, the Member States necessarily accepted the transfer of a part of their powers in criminal matters to the European Union, to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Title VI of the EU Treaty and in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Države članice so s pooblastitvijo Sveta za sprejemanje takih zavezujočih aktov, katerih opredelitev je skoraj enaka opredelitvi direktiv, ki jih lahko sprejemajo v Evropski skupnosti, nujno privolile, da se na Evropsko unijo prenese del njihovih pristojnosti v kazenskih zadevah v obsegu, potrebnem za uresničevanje ciljev iz dela VI Pogodbe EU, in ob upo�tevanju načela subsidiarnosti.
The implications of the principles of primacy and of conforming interpretation
Zdaj bom preučil posledice, ki bi jih predložitveno sodi�če moralo izpeljati iz te razlage, če jo bo Sodi�če sprejelo.
The grounds on which, in Costa, 29the Court held that the Member States, having freely consented to a transfer of their powers to the Community, may not set a measure of their domestic law, however framed, against a binding Community measure, can be applied to a framework decision.
Razloge, zaradi katerih je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 15. julija 1964 29v zadevi Costa odločilo, da države članice potem, ko so prostovoljno privolile v prenos svojih pristojnosti na Skupnost, z nobenim besedilom iz svojega notranjega pravnega reda ne morejo nasprotovati obvezujočemu aktu Skupnosti, je torej mogoče prenesti na okvirni sklep.
A framework decision, like all binding measures of Community law, is of such a nature as to take precedence over any provision of national law what-
Cilj okvirnega sklepa je tako kot cilj vsakega obvezujočega akta prava Skupnosti imeti prednost pred kakr�no koli določbo notranjega prava,
Framework decisions are instruments of secondary legislation introduced into the European legal system by the Treaty of Amsterdam, by which the Member States gave the European Union, established under the Maastricht Treaty, the objective of creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice.
Okvirni sklepi so akti sekundarnega prava, ki so bili v evropski pravni red uvedeni z Amsterdamsko pogodbo, v kateri so države članice Evropski uniji, ustanovljeni z Maastrichtsko pogodbo, postavile cilj, da oblikuje pravo območje svobode, varnosti in pravice.
Contrary to the acts which can be adopted under the Maastricht Treaty in the
V nasprotju z akti, ki jih lahko sprejmejo na podlagi Maastrichtske pogodbe v okviru sodelovanja v pravosodju in notranjih zadevah, imajo okvirni sklepi pravi zavezujoči
Admittedly, the mechanisms provided for by the EU Treaty in order to ensure that primacy where a framework decision conflicts with a provision of national law are less extensive than those which exist under the EC Treaty.
Res je, da so re�itve, določene s Pogodbo EU za zagotovitev te primarnosti, kadar je okvirni sklep v nasprotju z določbo notranjega prava, manj obsežne kot re�itve iz Pogodbe ES.
Nonetheless, the national courts do not completely lack the means by which to rely on the content of framework decisions or to ensure their primacy.
Kljub temu nacionalno sodi�če ni brez vseh sredstev za ukrepanje pri uveljavljanju njihove vsebine in posledičnem zagotavljanju njihove primarnosti.
In Pupino, 31the Court ruled that the national courts, when confronted with a conflict between a framework decision and a provision of national law, are bound by the principle of conforming interpretation.
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 16. junija 2005 v zadevi Pupino 31razsodilo, da mora nacionalno sodi�če, ki obravnava navzkrižje med okvirnim sklepom in določbo notranjega prava, upo�tevati načelo skladne razlage.
In the present case, that principle means that, in applying its national law, the referring court called upon to interpret it must do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision in order to attain the result pursued by that measure and thus to comply with Article 34(2)(b) EU. 32
To načelo pomeni, da mora pri uporabi nacionalnega prava predložitveno sodi�če, ki bo podalo njegovo razlago, to storiti, kolikor je le mogoče, glede na besedilo in namen okvirnega sklepa, zato da bi doseglo v njem določen rezultat in da bi ravnalo tudi v skladu s členom 34(2)(b) EU. 32
First, unlike the EC Treaty, the EU Treaty does not allow the Commission to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations against a Member State which is in breach of those obligations.
Po eni strani Pogodba EU v nasprotju s Pogodbo ES Komisiji ne omogoča vložitve tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti zoper državo, ki ne izpolnjuje obveznosti.
Under Article 35(7) EU, failure by a Member State to apply, or to apply correctly, a framework decision can do no more than give rise to a dispute between Member States which must be referred to the Council and which can be brought before the Court if not settled within six months.
V skladu s členom 35(7) EU lahko neizvajanje ali slabo izvajanje okvirnega sklepa s strani države privede samo do spora med državami članicami, ki ga je treba predložiti Svetu in se lahko predloži Sodi�ču, če ni re�en v �estih mesecih.
The only limit to that principle is where the national law cannot be applied in that way because it would be contra legem to do so. 33
Omejitev navedenega načela je samo položaj, v katerem notranjega prava ni mogoče uporabiti tako, ker bi bila ta uporaba contra legem. 33
Secondly, the provisions of a framework decision which have not been transposed, or which have been incorrectly transposed, cannot be applied directly by the national
Po drugi strani nacionalno sodi�če ne more neposredno uporabiti določb okvirnega sklepa, ki niso bile prenesene ali so bile prenesene nepravilno. V skladu s členom 34(2)
In the present case, the situation under German law of nationals of other Member States such as Mr Kozłowski is specifically governed by Paragraph 83b(2)(b) of the IRG, the compatibility of which with the Framework Decision does not seem open to dispute.
V tej zadevi je položaj državljanov drugih držav članic, kot je S. Kozłowski, v nem�kem pravu urejen posebej s členom 83b(2)(b) IRG, katerega združljivost z Okvirnim sklepom se ne zdi sporna.
30 — See, to that effect, Case C-285/98 Kreil [2000] ECR I-69, paragraph 32, with regard to the incompatibility of Article 12a of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, concerning the conditions for the access of women to the armed forces, with Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).
30 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2000 v zadevi Kreil (C-285/98, Recueil, str. I-69, točka 32) v zvezi z nezdružljivostjo člena 12a Ustave Zvezne republike Nemčije, ker je določal pogoje za vstop žensk v oborožene sile, z Direktivo Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (UL L 39, str. 40).
The situation before the referring court differs, in that regard, from the situation with which the Court was confronted in the case which led to the judgment in Pfeiffer and Others.
BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 zvezi s tem razlikuje od položaja, s katerim se je Sodi�če srečalo v primeru, v katerem je bila izrečena sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v združenih zadevah Pfeiffer in drugi 34.
34In Pfeiffer and Others, the provision of national law which specifically governed the applicants’ situation in the main proceedings infringed Community law and the question arose whether the principle of conforming interpretation could oblige the national court to set aside that provision in favour of a rule of national law of wider scope.
V navedenem primeru je bila določba notranjega prava, s katero se je posebej urejal položaj tožečih strank v sporu o glavni stvari, v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti in postavljalo se je vpra�anje, ali je lahko nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi načela skladne razlage dolžno izločiti to določbo v korist splo�nej�ega pravila notranjega prava.
That provision states, it may be recalled, that extradition of a foreign national whose habitual residence is situated in the national territory can be refused where, in the case of extradition for the purposes of execution of a sentence, the person does not consent to it and where he has an interest — which deserves protection and predominates — in the sentence being executed in the national territory.
Naj spomnim, da je v tem členu namreč določeno, da se izročitev tujega državljana, čigar običajno prebivali�če je na nacionalnem ozemlju, lahko zavrne, kadar v primeru izročitve zaradi izvr�itve kazni ta ne sogla�a s svojo izročitvijo in kadar je treba dati prednost njegovemu interesu, upravičenemu do varstva, da se kazen izvr�i na nacionalnem ozemlju.
That concept of ‘an interest that deserves protection and predominates’ appears well suited to application in accordance with the underlying objective of the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Zdi se, da je ta pojem „interesa, upravičenega do varstva, ki mora imeti prednost“, dejansko mogoče uporabiti v skladu s ciljem, ki je podlaga za razlog za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
Since, by contrast, Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG is not to my mind compatible with the Framework Decision and since that provision concerns only German nationals, it seems to me that, in accordance with the principle of conforming interpretation, the referring court must not take it into account and must apply Paragraph 83b(2)(b) of the IRG.
Ker nasprotno člen 80(3) IRG po mojem mnenju ni v skladu z Okvirnim sklepom in ker se ta določba nana�a samo na nem�ke državljane, menim, da predložitveno sodi�če tega člena na podlagi načela skladne razlage ne sme upo�tevati in da mora uporabiti člen 83b(2)(b) IRG.
In other words, the principle of nondiscrimination, which ought to lead to the provisions laid down in Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG in favour of German nationals being extended to nationals of other Member States — particularly in view of the fact that Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision treats nationals and residents in exactly the same way — must not be applied, because Paragraph 80(3) runs counter to the Framework Decision, which takes precedence over any conflicting provision of national law.
Z drugimi besedami, načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, ki bi moralo privesti do raz�iritve določb, določenih v členu 80(3) IRG v korist nem�kih državljanov, na državljane drugih držav članic, zlasti glede na dejstvo, da so v členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa državljani in prebivalci obravnavani popolnoma enako, se ne sme uporabiti, ker je ta člen 80(3) v nasprotju z Okvirnim sklepom in ker ima ta sklep prednost pred kakr�no koli nasprotno določbo nacionalnega prava.
I therefore propose that the Court supplement its answer to the second question referred for a preliminary ruling by stating that, in the dispute before it, the referring court must apply to Mr Kozłowski the provisions of its national law applicable to nationals of the other Member States, in accordance with the objective of the Framework Decision.
Sodi�ču torej predlagam, naj odgovor na drugo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje dopolni z navedbo, da mora predložitveno sodi�če v sporu o glavni stvari za S. Kozłowskega uporabiti določbe svojega notranjega prava, ki se uporabljajo za državljane drugih držav članic, v skladu s ciljem Okvirnega sklepa.
The principle of conforming interpretation precludes the extension to nationals of other Member States, pursuant to the principle of nondiscrimination, of the ground for nonexecution laid down in national law in favour of German nationals who oppose their surrender.
Načelo skladne razlage nasprotuje temu, da bi se razlog za neizvr�itev, določen v notranjem pravu v korist nem�kih državljanov, ki nasprotujejo svoji predaji, raz�iril na državljane drugih držav članic na podlagi načela prepovedi diskriminacije.
That approach does not breach the limits of the obligation of conforming interpretation, because it does not lead the referring court to interpret its national law contra
Ta re�itev ne presega omejitev obveznosti skladne razlage, ker nacionalnega sodi�ča ne vodi do razlage nacionalnega prava contra legem. Položaj v tej zadevi se v
B — The concept of ‘a resident’ as referred to in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision of the Framework Decision, and whether one or more of the circumstances listed in its question is decisive or relevant for recognition of the status of a person who is ‘staying in’ or who is ‘a resident’.
B – Pojem „prebivalec“ iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa so okoli�čine oziroma ena od okoli�čin, na�tetih v njegovem vpra�anju, odločilne ali upo�tevne za priznanje, da se oseba „nahaja“ ali „prebiva“ v izvr�itveni državi članici.
By its first question, the referring court asks the Court whether Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as meaning that a person can be regarded as staying or residing in the executing Member State where:
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem Sodi�če spra�uje, ali je treba člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da se za osebo lahko �teje, da se nahaja ali prebiva v izvr�itveni državi članici, čeprav:
— his stay there has not been uninterrupted;
– se tam ne nahaja neprekinjeno,
The referring court submits those questions to the Court because the two concepts are not defined in the Framework Decision.
Predložitveno sodi�če predlaga ta vpra�anja Sodi�ču, ker zadevna pojma v Okvirnem sklepu nista opredeljena.
Nor does the Framework Decision refer to other Community law measures referring to the concept of domicile or residence, or to the right of the Member States to determine the content of that concept.
Okvirni sklep se tudi ne sklicuje na druge akte prava Skupnosti, v katerih se navaja pojem stalno prebivali�če ali prebivali�če, niti na pravo držav članic za določitev vsebine teh pojmov.
— his stay there is not in conformity with the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country;
– se tam ne nahaja v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo v zvezi z vstopom in bivanjem tujcev,
The Czech and Netherlands Governments maintain that the definition of those concepts must be left to the assessment of each Member State.
Če�ka in nizozemska vlada trdita, da je treba opredelitev teh pojmov prepustiti presoji vsake države članice. S to analizo se ne strinjam.
— he commits crimes there systematically; and
– izvr�uje kazniva tam sistematično dejanja in
By this question, the referring court is asking the Court of Justice, essentially, to define the scope of the concepts of ‘staying in’, or being ‘a resident of’, the executing Member State, as referred to in Article 4(6)
Predložitveno sodi�če s tem vpra�anjem v bistvu predlaga Sodi�ču, naj pojasni, kaj zajemata pojma „nahajati se“ oziroma „prebivati“ v izvr�itveni državi članici, navedena v členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, in ali
The purpose of the Framework Decision is to put in place a system of compulsory surrender as between the judicial authorities of the Member States, which can be refused only on the basis of one of the grounds for nonexecution expressly provided for in that Framework Decision.
Namen Okvirnega sklepa je namreč vzpostaviti sistem obvezne predaje med pravosodnimi organi držav članic, ki ji izvr�itveni pravosodni organ lahko nasprotuje samo na podlagi razloga za neizvr�itev, izrecno določenega s tem okvirnim sklepom.
The effective application of the Framework Decsion requires, in my opinion, that the ground for nonexecution laid down in Article 4(6) be the subject of a standard definition applied in all the Member States.
Učinkovita uporaba navedenega okvirnega sklepa po mojem mnenju zahteva, da je razlog za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) tega sklepa enotno opredeljen v vseh državah članicah.
It follows that the opening of the borders has made Member States collectively responsible for the fight against crime.
Iz tega sledi, da so države članice zaradi odprtja meja postale solidarno odgovorne za boj proti kriminalu.
That is why the creation of the European criminal justice area has emerged as essential in order to ensure that the exercise of freedom of movement does not undermine public safety.
To pa je razlog, zaradi katerega se je za nujno izkazala vzpostavitev evropskega kazenskopravnega območja, da se prosti pretok ne bi izvajal v �kodo javne varnosti.