natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as precluding an excise duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as the amount of the duty imposed on the sale, before their first registration, of secondhand vehicles imported from another Member State exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated into the market value of similar vehicles previously registered in the Member State which introduced that duty.
Člen 90, prvi odstavek, ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje trošarini, kot je zadevna trošarina v postopku v glavni stvari, če znesek davka na prodajo rabljenih vozil, uvoženih iz druge države članice, ki se opravi pred prvo registracijo, presega preostali znesek istega davka, ki je vračunan v prodajno vrednost enakovrstnih vozil, ki so bila prej registrirana v državi članici, ki je uvedla ta davek. Predložitveno sodišče mora preučiti, ali ima ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari, zlasti uporaba člena 7 odloka ministra za finance o zmanjšanju stopnje trošarin (rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów w sprawie obniżenia stawek podatku akcyzowego) z dne 22. aprila 2004, tak učinek.
Case C-66/08
Zadeva C-66/08
Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski
Postopek izvršitve evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zoper Szymona Kozłowskega
(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional nonexecution of a European arrest warrant — Interpretation of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ in the executing Member State)
„Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah – Okvirni sklep 2002/584/PNZ – Evropski nalog za prijetje in postopki predaje med državami članicami – Člen 4, točka 6 – Razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje – Razlaga pojmov ‚nahajati se‘ in ‚prebivati‘ v izvr�itveni državi članici“
View of Advocate General Bot delivered on 28 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . .
Stali�če generalnega pravobranilca Y. Bota predstavljeno 28. aprila 2008 . . . .
European Union — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Evropska unija – Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah – Okvirni sklep o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 4(6))
(Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584, člen 4(6))
SUMMARY — CASE C-66/08
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-66/08
entitled to give those terms a broader meaning than that which derives from such a uniform interpretation.
tema pojmoma ne smejo pripisati �ir�ega pomena, kot izhaja iz enotne razlage.
(see paras 43, 46, 54, operative part)
(Glej točke 43, 46 in 54 ter izrek.)
Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person ‘is staying in, or is a national or a resident of, the executing Member State’, and where that State undertakes to execute that sentence in accordance with its domestic law, must be interpreted as meaning that a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence.
Člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami, na podlagi katerega lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvr�itev naloga, ki se izda zaradi izvr�itve kazni, če se zahtevana oseba „nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici ali je državljan ali prebivalec te države“ in se ta država zaveže, da bo kazen izvr�ila v skladu s svojim notranjim pravom, je treba razlagati tako, da zahtevana oseba „prebiva“ v izvr�itveni državi članici, če ima v njej dejansko prebivali�če, „nahaja“ pa se v njej, če se v tej državi članici že nekaj časa neprekinjeno zadržuje in je zato z njo vzpostavila podobne vezi, kot izhajajo iz prebivali�ča.
In order to ascertain, when interpreting Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of that provision, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person is staying in the executing Member State, it is for that authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.
Za ugotovitev, ali – v okviru razlage člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami – med zahtevano osebo in izvr�itveno državo članico obstajajo vezi, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, da je ta oseba zajeta s pojmom „nahajati se“ v smislu navedene določbe, na podlagi katere lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvr�itev naloga, ki se izda zaradi izvr�itve kazni, če se zahtevana oseba nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici, mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ opraviti celostno presojo več objektivnih dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo položaj te osebe, med drugim zlasti trajanja, narave in razmer, v katerih se zahtevana oseba zadržuje v izvr�itveni državi članici, ter družinskih in ekonomskih vezi, ki jih ima z njo.
Since the objective of the Framework Decision is to put in place a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of criminal proceedings, based on the principle of mutual recognition — a surrender which the executing judicial authority can oppose only on one of the grounds for refusal provided for by the Framework Decision — the terms ‘staying’ and ‘resident’, which determine the scope of Article 4(6), must be defined uniformly, since they concern autonomous concepts of Union law.
Ker je namen Okvirnega sklepa, da se na načelu medsebojnega priznavanja vzpostavi sistem predaje obsojenih ali osumljenih oseb med pravosodnimi organi zaradi izvr�itve kazni ali kazenskega pregona, pri čemer lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ predaji nasprotuje le na podlagi enega od zavrnitvenih razlogov iz Okvirnega sklepa, je treba namreč pojma „nahajati se“ in „prebivati“, ki določata področje uporabe člena 4, točka 6, tega sklepa, razlagati enotno, saj gre za samostojna pojma prava Unije.
Therefore, in their national law transposing Article 4(6), the Member States are not
Zato države članice v notranjem pravu, s katerim prenesejo ta člen 4, točka 6,
(see paras 48, 54, operative part)
(Glej točki 48 in 54 ter izrek.)
VIEW OF ADVOCATE GENERALBOT delivered on 28 April 2008 1
STALIŠČE GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeno 28. aprila 2008 1
In the present case, the Court is asked to rule for the first time on the scope of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, 2 which provides for an optional ground for refusing to execute a European arrest warrant.
Sodi�če je v tej zadevi pozvano, naj prvič odloči o področju uporabe člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ 2, ki določa razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Framework Decision. The Oberlandesgericht wishes to know to what extent the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision can apply to a Polish national — Mr Kozłowski — who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the Republic of Poland for the purposes of the execution of a sentence of imprisonment and who is currently in custody in Germany where he is serving a prison sentence of three years and six months.
do katere mere se lahko razlog za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa uporabi za poljskega državljana S. Kozłowskega, za katerega je Republika Poljska izdala nalog za prijetje zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni in ki je trenutno zaprt v Nemčiji, kjer prestaja zaporno kazen treh let in �estih mesecev.
Under that provision, the judicial authority of the executing Member State (‘the executing judicial authority’) has the option not to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence, where the requested person is a national of the executing Member State, or is staying in or is a resident of that State, on condition that the executing Member State undertakes to execute the sentence itself.
Pravosodni organ izvr�itvene države članice (v nadaljevanju: izvr�itveni pravosodni organ) lahko v skladu s to določbo zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni, če je zahtevana oseba državljan izvr�itvene države članice, če se nahaja ali prebiva v tej državi in če se ta država zaveže, da bo sama zagotovila izvr�itev te kazni.
Pursuant to the declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with Article 35(2) EU, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court, Stuttgart) (Germany) may seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on a question concerning the interpretation of an act adopted in the context of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, 3 such as the
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Nemčija) ima na podlagi izjave Zvezne republike Nemčije v skladu s členom 35 EU pravico, da Sodi�ču predloži predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi z razlago akta, sprejetega na področju policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah 3, kot je Okvirni sklep. To sodi�če želi izvedeti,
2 — Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p.
2 – Okvirni sklep z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, str.
1; ‘the Framework Decision’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Okvirni sklep).
3 — Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam (OJ 1999 L 114, p. 56).
3 – Obvestilo o datumu začetka veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe (UL 1999, L 114, str. 56).
The referring court also raises a question as to the implications of the fact that the person concerned has not consented to the execution of the European arrest warrant and that, under German law, a German national who objects to the execution of such an arrest warrant cannot be surrendered against his will to the judicial authorities of another Member State.
Spra�uje se tudi o posledicah, ki jih je treba izpeljati iz dejstva, da zadevna oseba ni sogla�ala z izvr�itvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje in da v skladu z notranjim pravom nem�kega državljana, ki nasprotuje izvr�itvi takega naloga za prijetje, ni mogoče proti njegovi volji predati pravosodnim organom druge države članice.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08
The Oberlandesgericht asked the Court to deal with this case under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, provided for under Article 23a of the Statute of the Court and Article 104b of its Rules of Procedure, on the ground that Mr Kozłowski, whose prison sentence in Germany is due to end on 10 November 2009, is entitled to be released as from 10 September 2008.
Oberlandesgericht je Sodi�ču predlagalo, naj to zadevo obravnava po nujnem postopku predhodnega odločanja, določenem v členu 23a Statuta Sodi�ča in členu 104b Poslovnika Sodi�ča, ker bi bil lahko S. Kozłowski, čigar zaporna kazen v Nemčiji se izteče 10. novembra 2009, izpu�čen od 10. septembra 2008.
of that State may not be surrendered against his will to the judicial authorities of another Member State, in execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence, is contrary to the Framework Decision.
ne more biti proti svoji volji predan pravosodnim organom druge države članice na podlagi evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zaradi izvr�itve kazni, v nasprotju z Okvirnim sklepom.
I shall go on to infer from this that such legislation cannot preclude the execution, by the competent German judicial authority, of the European arrest warrant issued by the Republic of Poland against Mr Kozłowski.
Iz tega bom sklepal, da taka zakonodaja pristojnega nem�kega pravosodnega organa ne more ovirati pri izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki ga je za S. Kozłowskega izdala Republika Poljska.
The Court did not agree to that request on the ground that it arrived at the Court before 1 March 2008, the date of entry into force of the provisions concerning the urgent preliminary rulings procedure.
Sodi�če temu predlogu ni ugodilo, ker ga je prejelo pred 1. marcem 2008, ko so začele veljati določbe o nujnem postopku predhodnega odločanja.
On the other hand, it decided to deal with the case under the accelerated procedure, provided for in Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure.
Nasprotno se je odločilo, da bo za navedeni predlog uporabilo hitri postopek, določen v členu 104a Poslovnika.
Secondly, I shall examine the meaning of the expressions ‘staying in’ and ‘a resident of’ as used in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Nato bom preučil pojma „nahajati se“ in „prebivati“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
I shall propose to the Court that it should rule that a person is staying or residing in the executing Member State, within the meaning of that provision, if that is where the centre of his main interests lies, so that execution of the sentence in that Member State appears necessary in order to facilitate his reintegration.
Sodi�ču bom predlagal, naj odloči, da se oseba nahaja ali prebiva v izvr�itveni državi članici v smislu te določbe, kadar ima ta oseba tam sredi�če svojih glavnih interesov, tako da se zdi izvr�itev kazni v tej državi nujna za spodbujanje ponovne vključitve te osebe v družbo.
I shall state that, for the purposes of assessing whether that condition is satisfied, the executing judicial authority must examine all the facts relevant to the individual situation of the person concerned.
Navedel bom, da mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ pri presoji, ali je ta pogoj izpolnjen, preučiti vsa upo�tevna dejstva individualnega položaja zadevne osebe.
Pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure, under the accelerated procedure the Court is to rule ‘after hearing the Advocate General’.
Sodi�če v skladu s členom 104a, peti odstavek, Poslovnika po hitrem postopku odloča „po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca“.
However, because the questions asked by the national court are new and because of their importance for the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany, it appears to me necessary to present in writing the reasoning underlying the answers that I plan to propose to the Court.
Vendar pa se mi zdi zaradi novosti vpra�anj, ki jih je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, in njihove pomembnosti za pravni red Zvezne republike Nemčije nujno pisno predstaviti razloge, na katerih temeljijo odgovori, ki jih bom predlagal Sodi�ču.
In this View, I am going to propose that the Court should rule, first, that legislation of a Member State under which a national
V tem stali�ču bom Sodi�ču predlagal, naj odloči, najprej, da je zakonodaja države članice, ki določa, da državljan te države
I shall then set out the reasons for which, in my opinion, the fact that the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant (‘the requested person’) has interrupted his stay in the executing Member State and that he is in custody there do not constitute decisive or relevant criteria for the purposes of assessing whether he is staying in that State, or is a resident of that State, within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Nato bom predstavil razloge, zaradi katerih menim, da okoli�čini, da se oseba, za katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, ni neprekinjeno nahajala v izvr�itveni državi članici in da je tam v zaporu, nista odločilni ali upo�tevni merili za presojo, ali se oseba nahaja ali prebiva v tej državi v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
Article 1 of the Framework Decision is entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’.
Člen 1 Okvirnega sklepa ima naslov „Opredelitev evropskega naloga za prijetje in obveznost njegove izvr�itve“.
I shall suggest, finally, that the fact that the person concerned is living in the executing Member State in breach of the legislation of that State governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he systematically commits crimes there do not preclude him from having the status of a person who is staying in that State or who is a resident of that State, if that person is a citizen of the European Union, unless he has been the subject of an expulsion decision adopted in conformity with Community law.
Nazadnje bom navedel, da okoli�čini, da se zadevna oseba v izvr�itveni državi članici nahaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države o vstopu in bivanju tujcev in da tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, nasprotujeta temu, da bi ta oseba imela status osebe, ki se nahaja ali prebiva v navedeni državi – če je ta oseba državljan Unije –, samo če je bila zanjo izdana odločba o izgonu v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
Evropski nalog za prijetje je sodna odločba, ki jo izda država članica z namenom prijetja in predaje zahtevane osebe s strani druge države članice z namenom uvesti kazenski postopek ali izvr�iti kazen zapora ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti.
I — The legal context
I – Pravni okvir
Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
Države članice izvr�ijo vsak evropski nalog za prijetje na osnovi načela medsebojnega priznavanja in v skladu z določbami tega okvirnega sklepa.
This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.’
Ta okvirni sklep ne spreminja obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz spo�tovanja temeljnih pravic in temeljnih pravnih načel iz člena 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.“
The aim of the Framework Decision is to abolish, as between the Member States, the formal extradition procedure provided for under the various Conventions to which those States are parties and to replace it with a system of surrender as between judicial authorities.
Cilj Okvirnega sklepa je med državami članicami odpraviti uradni postopek izročitve, določen z različnimi konvencijami, katerih podpisnice so te države, in ga nadomestiti s sistemom predaje oseb med pravosodnimi organi.
4The Framework Decision is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, which constitutes the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation.
4Temelji na načelu medsebojnega priznavanja sodnih odločb v kazenskih zadevah, ki je „temeljni kamen“ pravosodnega sodelovanja.
5The European arrest warrant mechanism established by the Framework Decision is based on a ‘high degree of confidence’ between the Member States. 6
5Sistem evrop- skega naloga za prijetje, uveden z Okvirnim sklepom, temelji na „visoki stopnji zaupanja“ med državami članicami. 6
5 — Sixth recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision.6 — Tenth recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
4 – Uvodni izjavi 1 in 5 Okvirnega sklepa.5 – Uvodna izjava 6 Okvirnega sklepa.6 – Uvodna izjava 10 Okvirnega sklepa.
Where a European arrest warrant is issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or detention order, the sentence involved must, under Article 2 of the Framework Decision, be of at least four months’ duration.
Kadar je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni ali ukrepa, vezanega na odvzem prostosti, mora biti to v skladu s členom 2 Okvirnega sklepa kazen najmanj �tirih mesecev.
Article 2 of the Framework Decision also lists 32 offences, in respect of which, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years, the European arrest warrant must be executed even if the facts in question are not punishable in the executing Member State.
V istem členu 2 je na�tetih 32 kaznivih dejanj, pri katerih je treba, če so v odreditveni državi članici kazniva z zaporno kaznijo ali ukrepom, vezanim na odvzem prostosti, do najmanj treh let, izvr�iti evropski nalog za prijetje, tudi če za zadevna dejanja v izvr�itveni državi članici ni zagrožena kazen.
In the case of other offences, the executing Member State can make the surrender of the person requested conditional upon dual criminality.
Pri drugih kaznivih dejanjih lahko izvr�itvena država članica za predajo osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, določi pogoj dvojne kaznivosti.
That ground for optional nonexecution is supplemented by Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision, which applies where the European arrest warrant is issued for the purposes of prosecution.
Ta razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev je dopolnjen s členom 5(3) Okvirnega sklepa, ki se uporablja, kadar je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan z namenom uvedbe kazenskega postopka.
Under that provision, surrender of the requested person may be made subject to the condition that, where the person is a national or resident of the executing Member State, he must, after being heard, be returned to that State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State.
V skladu s to določbo se lahko za predajo osebe, na katero se nana�a tak evropski nalog za prijetje, določi pogoj, da se ta oseba, če je državljan ali prebivalec izvr�itvene države članice, po obravnavi vrne v to državo, da bi v njej prestajala zaporno kazen ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti, na katerega jo je obsodila odreditvena država članica.
Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision lay down, respectively, the grounds for mandatory nonexecution of the European arrest warrant and the grounds for optional nonexecution.
Člena 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa se nana�ata na razloge za obvezno neizvr�itev oziroma razloge za fakultativno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision states:
V členu 4(6) tega okvirnega sklepa je določeno:
The Framework Decision also sets out the rights of the requested person.
V Okvirnem sklepu so določene tudi pravice osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje.
Under Article 11 of the Framework Decision, that person must be informed by the executing judicial authority, for example, that he has the possibility of consenting to his surrender to the judicial authority of the issuing Member State (‘the issuing judicial authority’).
Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ mora v skladu s členom 11 tega okvirnega sklepa to osebo obvestiti o možnosti sogla�anja s predajo pravosodnemu organu odreditvene države članice (v nadaljevanju: odreditveni pravosodni organ).
That consent must be given before the executing judicial authority, in such a way as to show that it has been given voluntarily, and the person concerned has the right to be assisted by legal counsel and, where appropriate, by an interpreter.
To soglasje mora biti dano pred izvr�itvenim pravosodnim organom na način, iz katerega je razvidno, da je bilo dano prostovoljno, pri čemer ima zadevna oseba pravico do pravnega zastopnika in po potrebi do tolmača.