natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Is such an application permissible and, if so, must the court seised examine the grounds of nonrecognition on the basis of Article 23 of the Regulation?
Ali je tak predlog dovoljen, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, ali mora sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen ta predlog, preveriti razloge za nepriznanje na podlagi člena 23 Uredbe?
What is the meaning of the condition in Article 21(3), that the availability of an application for a decision that the judgment should or should not be recognised is without prejudice to Section 4, which regulates the enforcement of certain judgments which require the return of the child?
Kaj pomeni pogoj iz člena 21(3), po katerem obstaja možnost zahtevati izdajo odločbe o priznanju oziroma nepriznanju brez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja, ki ureja izvr�itev nekaterih sodnih odločb, s katerimi se zahteva vrnitev otroka?
While the Regulation does not directly determine which court has jurisdiction to examine the question of the child’s return, Article 11(6) provides that if a court has
Čeprav v Uredbi ni neposredno določeno sodi�če, pristojno za preučitev vpra�anja vrnitve otroka, je v členu 11(6) te uredbe določeno, da mora sodi�če, če je v skladu
Finally, according to Article 24 of the Regulation, a Lithuanian court cannot review the jurisdiction of a German court or examine whether such jurisdiction complies with public policy.
Nazadnje, na podlagi člena 24 Uredbe litovsko sodi�če ne more preveriti, niti ali je nem�ko sodi�če pristojno niti ali je ta pristojnost v skladu z javnim redom.
However, a court seised of an application for nonrecognition of a judgment must, having examined the grounds for nonrecognition set out in Article 23 of the Regulation, take a decision.
Vendar pa mora sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen predlog za nepriznanje, potem ko preveri razloge za nepriznanje, opredeljene v členu 23 Uredbe, sprejeti odločitev.
If it does not find grounds for non-recognition, it must then recognise the judgment.
Če ne bo ugotovilo razlogov za nepriznanje, bo moralo priznati nem�ko sodno odločbo.
In that event, two decisions ordering the child’s return will be enforceable in Lithuania: that of the German court and that of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal.
V tem primeru bosta v Litvi izvr�ljivi dve odločbi o vrnitvi otroka, in sicer odločba nem�kega sodi�ča in odločba Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas.
In those circumstances, must the court seised of the application for nonrecognition recognise the judgment ordering the
Ali mora sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen predlog za nepriznanje, v teh okoli�činah priznati sodno odločbo o vrnitvi
RINAU child’s return even if the court of the Member State of origin failed to observe a procedure laid down in the Regulation?
RINAU otroka, čeprav sodi�če države članice izvora ni upo�tevalo postopka, opredeljenega v Uredbi?
The Supreme Court of Lithuania therefore asks the following questions: the Member State of origin requiring the child staying with that person to be returned to the State of origin, and in respect of which the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003 has been issued, required to examine that application on the basis of the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter III of Regulation No 2201/2003, as provided for in Article 40(2) of that regulation?
Kaj pomeni pogoj iz člena 21(3) Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 (‚[b]rez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja‘)?
‘(1) Can an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of Regulation No 2201/2003 apply for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application has been submitted for recognition of that decision?
2201/2003, ki ju izda sodi�če države članice izvora, potem ko je sodi�če države članice, v kateri se nezakonito zadržuje otroka, izdalo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka v njegovo državo izvora, v skladu s cilji in postopki Uredbe �t. 2201/2003?
(5) Do the adoption of the decision to return the child and the issue of the certificate under Article 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003 in the court of the Member State of origin, after a court of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained has taken a decision that the child be returned to his or her State of origin, comply with the object -ives of and procedures under Regulation No 2201/2003?
V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje: kako naj nacionalno sodi�če pri obravnavanju predloga za nepriznanje odločbe, ki ga vloži oseba, proti kateri se mora odločba izvr�iti, uporabi člen 31(1) Uredbe �t.
(2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: how is a national court, when examining an application for nonrecognition of a decision, brought by a person against whom that decision is to be enforced, to apply Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, which states: Neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child shall, at this stage of the proceedings, be entitled to make any submissions on the application?
2201/2003, ki določa, da ‚[…] [o]seba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, [in otrok] v tej fazi postopka nima[ta] možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve‘?
(6) Does the prohibition in Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 of review of the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin mean that, if it is unable to review the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin and cannot identify any other grounds for nonrecognition of decisions as set out in Article 23 of Regulation No 2201/2003,
Ali prepoved preverjanja pristojnosti sodi�ča države članice izvora iz člena 24 Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 pomeni, da je nacionalno sodi�če, ki je prejelo predlog za priznanje ali nepriznanje odločbe tujega sodi�ča in ki ne sme preverjati pristoj-
(3) Is the national court which has received an application by the holder of parental responsibility for nonrecognition of that part of the decision of the court of
Ali mora nacionalno sodi�če, ki je od nosilca star�evske odgovornosti prejelo predlog za nepriznanje odločbe sodi�ča države članice izvora, s katero
The Convention, in order to bring this about, places at the head of its objectives the restoration of the status quo, by means of “the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State”.’ 6
Zato je med cilji Konvencije najprej določena ponovna vzpostavitev statusa quo, in sicer s ‚čimprej�njo vrnit[vijo] otrok, ki so bili nezakonito odpeljani ali zadržani v kak�ni pogodbenici‘.“ 6
The Court having decided to deal with the reference under the urgent proced- ure governed by Article 104b of its Rules of Procedure, written observations were submitted by the mother, the father, the Lithuanian Government and the Commission, the only parties authorised to make submissions at that stage.
Ker je Sodi�če odločilo, da bo zadevo obravnavalo po nujnem postopku, urejenem s členom 104b Poslovnika, so pisna stali�ča vložili mati, oče, litovska vlada in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki so edine stranke, ki jim je v tej fazi dovoljena intervencija.
The same parties, together with the German, French, Latvian, Netherlands and United Kingdom Governments, took part in the hearing on 26 and 27 June 2008.
Te stranke ter nem�ka, francoska, latvijska in nizozemska vlada ter vlada Združenega kraljestva so se udeležile obravnave 26. in 27. junija 2008.
It is clear from its preamble, in particu- lar recitals 17, 21, 23 and 24, and from the provisions of Article 11, that the Regulation shares the same aim of ensuring, in principle and other than in special circumstances, the child’s swift and automatic return to the Member State from which he or she has been removed and where he or she was habitually resident before the removal. 7
Iz preambule in zlasti uvodnih izjav 17, 21, 23 in 24 ter določb člena 11 Uredbe je jasno razvidno, da je njen cilj enak, saj je njen namen načeloma, in če ne obstajajo posebne okoli�čine, zagotavljati čimprej�njo in samodejno vrnitev otroka v državo članico, iz katere je bil preme�čen ali v kateri je imel običajno prebivali�če pred premestitvijo. 7
6 — Report available on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, point 16.
6 – Poročilo je na voljo na spletnem mestu Haa�ke konference o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu, točka 16.
One may add the further justification that ‘the parent who removes the child has one absolute ally: time. As time passes, links with the old home environment become increasingly extenuated, and it becomes increasingly difficult to aspire to restore the former status quo’ (Hugues Fulchiron, ‘La lutte contre les enlèvements d’enfants’, in Le nouveau droit communautaire du divorce et de la responsabilité parentale, Dalloz, 2005).
V utemeljitev lahko navedem �e dejstvo, da ima „tisti od star�ev, ki premesti otroka, […] na voljo brezpogojnega zaveznika: čas. Namreč, več časa ko mine, bolj se vezi s starim življenjskim okoljem zrahljajo, težje je verjeti, da se je mogoče vrniti v status quo ante“ (Hugues Fulchiron, „La lutte contre les enlèvements d’enfants“, Le nouveau droit communautaire du divorce et de la responsabilité parentale, Dalloz, 2005).
The prompt and effective return of the child is therefore an imperative requirement.
Takoj�nja in učinkovita vrnitev otroka je torej nujna zahteva.
7 — See also the ‘Practice Guide for the application of the new Brussels II Regulation’ (drawn up by the Commission in consultation with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, hereinafter ‘the Practice Guide’), Section VII, p.
7 – Glej tudi „Praktični vodnik za izvajanje nove uredbe Bruselj II“ (dokument, ki so ga pripravile službe Komisije na podlagi posvetovanja v okviru Evropske pravosodne mreže, v nadaljevanju: Praktični vodnik), oddelek VII, str. 37.
37: ‘The Regulation aims at deterring parental child abduction between Member States and, if such nevertheless takes place, ensuring the prompt return of the child to his or her Member State of origin’.
„Uredba si prizadeva k odvračanju star�evskih ugrabitev med državami članicami in, če do ugrabitve kljub temu pride, k zagota -vljanju takoj�nje vrnitve otroka v njegovo državo članico izvora.“
The Pérez-Vera Report on the Convention summarises its objectives, which appear
V poročilu Pérez-Vera o Konvenciji so cilji te konvencije, predstavljeni v členu 1,
RINAU with the aim of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice to which all the Member States have committed themselves in the Treaties.
RINAU popolnoma nezdružljivo s ciljem oblikovati območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki so ga vse države članice potrdile v pogodbah.
In addition, it is clear from recitals 12 and 17 in particular, and from the provisions of Articles 8, 10 and 11, that the Regulation also aims to give the courts of the same Member State substantive jurisdiction to decide questions of custody and access, and to maintain that jurisdiction, while confirming the role of the courts of the Member State to which the child has been removed with regard to his or her return.
Poleg tega je iz uvodnih izjav 12 in 17 ter določb členov 8, 10 in 11 Uredbe jasno razvidno, da je namen te uredbe tudi dati sodi�čem te države članice stvarno pristojnost za re�evanje vpra�anj varstva, vzgoje in stikov ter ohraniti to pristojnost glede vrnitve otroka ob hkratni potrditvi vloge sodi�č države članice, v katero je bil otrok preme�čen.
Finally, the most important principle governing both the Convention and the Regulation is beyond any doubt that of protecting the superior interests of the child (see in particular the preamble to the Convention and recitals 12 and 13 in the preamble to the Regulation, together with Articles 12, 15 and 23 thereof; see also Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 9and Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 10).
Nazadnje, nedvomno je najpomembnej�e načelo, ki vodi hkrati Konvencijo in Uredbo, načelo upo�tevanja otrokovih koristi (glej zlasti preambulo Konvencije ter uvodni izjavi 12 in 13 in člene 12, 15 in 23 Uredbe; glej tudi člen 3 Konvencije Združenih narodov o otrokovih pravicah 9in člen 24(2) Listine Unije o temeljnih pravicah 10).
A principle which underpins the Regulation as a whole is that of cooperation and mutual confidence between the courts and authorities of the Member States, which implies that decisions of the courts of the Member State of the child’s habitual residence 8should in principle be recognised and enforced automatically (see in particular recitals 18, 21, 23 and 25, and Articles 21, 24, 26 and 42).
Celotna uredba temelji na načelih sodelovanja in medsebojnega zaupanja med sodi�či in organi držav članic, kar načeloma pomeni samodejno priznavanje in izvr�evanje sodnih odločb sodi�č države članice običajnega prebivali�ča otroka 8(glej predvsem uvodne izjave 18, 21, 23 in 25 ter člene 21, 24, 26 in 42).
That principle too was invoked, emphatically, at the hearing, and I can only agree that the superior interests of the child must indeed be paramount in all circumstances.
To načelo je bilo odločno navedeno tudi na obravnavi in lahko se samo strinjam s trditvijo, da morajo otrokove koristi dejansko prevladati v vseh okoli�činah.
The fundamental significance of this principle was brought into focus at the hearing when counsel for the mother suggested that the Lithuanian courts might consider that the objectivity of the German courts was not guaranteed in a dispute between a German father and a Lithuanian mother.
Temeljni pomen tega načela je bil poudarjen na obravnavi, ko je odvetnik matere navedel, da bi litovska sodi�ča lahko menila, da nepristranskost nem�kih sodi�č v sporu med nem�kim očetom in litovsko materjo ni zagotovljena.
It is clear that to allow recognition to be refused on the basis of such doubts (whether they are or are not in fact felt by the Lithuanian courts) would negate the whole system which the Regulation seeks to establish.
Očitno je, da bi sprejetje zavrnitve priznanja na podlagi takih dvomov (ki so jih litovska sodi�ča v resnici imela ali ne) izničilo celoten sistem, ki se posku�a uvesti z Uredbo.
It would also be wholly incompatible
To bi bilo tudi
However, I should like to qualify that statement in the context of the child’s return to the Member State of habitual residence.
Vendar pa bi rada omilila to trditev v zvezi z vrnitvijo otroka v državo članico običajnega prebivali�ča.
It is clear that the Convention and the Regulation are based on the principle that, in the event of a child’s wrongful removal or retention, his or her superior interests do indeed always require that return, except only in
Očitno je, da Konvencija in Uredba temeljita na načelu, da je ob neupravičeni premestitvi ali zadržanju otroka vedno v njegovo korist, da se vrne, razen v točno določenih posebnih okoli�činah, navedenih v členih 13 in 20 Konvencije (v povezavi s
8 — I shall use henceforth the short form ‘Member State of habitual residence’ to refer to the State from which the child has been removed and where he or she was habitually resident before the removal.
8 – V nadaljevanju bom uporabljala skraj�an izraz „država članica običajnega prebivali�ča“ za označevanje države, iz katere je bil otrok preme�čen in v kateri je imel običajno prebivali�če pred premestitvijo.
9 — Of 20 November 1989, ratified by all the Member States.10 — OJ 2000 C 364, p.
9 – Z dne 20. novembra 1989, ratificirale so jo vse države članice.10 – UL 2000, C 364, str. 1 (nedavno UL 2007, C 303, str. 1).
VIEW OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-195/08 PPU which have contributed to that situation, it would seem in any event that the cooperation between courts and authorities which the Convention and the Regulation seek to ensure did not function in an ideal manner.
STALIŠČE E. SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU položaju, bi se vsekakor zdelo, da sodelovanje med sodi�či in osrednjimi organi, zaželeno v Konvenciji in Uredbi, ni delovalo idealno.
With hindsight, moreover, it seems clear that the result sought by the Convention and the Regulation would not have been obstructed in the same way if the father had applied directly to the Oranienburg court as soon as the Klaipėda court had issued its nonreturn order.
Poleg tega, če pogledamo nazaj, je jasno, da želeni rezultat Konvencije in Uredbe ne bi bil enako oviran, če bi se oče obrnil neposredno na Amtsgericht Oranienburg, ko je Klaipėdos apygardos teismas izdalo odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne 11.
11 certain clearly-defined situations set out in Articles 13 and 20 of the Convention (read, in so far as Article 13(b) is concerned, in conjunction with Article 11(4) of the Regulation).
členom 11(4) Uredbe glede člena 13(b)).
That, it seems to me, is perfectly coherent, and even necessary.
To se mi zdi povsem dosledno in celo potrebno.
A child can have no interest in being dragged from one Member State to another by a parent in quest of the court which he or she supposes will be the most sympathetic to his or her cause.
Nikakor ni koristno za otroka, da ga eden od star�ev vodi iz države članice v državo članico v iskanju sodi�ča, ki bi bilo po njegovem mnenju najbolj pripravljeno odločiti v skladu z njegovimi željami.
I would add that a return to the Member State of habitual residence does not necessarily imply the child’s return to the home of the parent left behind, or separation from the abducting parent.
Dodala bi �e, da vrnitev otroka v državo članico običajnega prebivali�ča ne pomeni nujno vrnitve k tistemu od star�ev, od katerega je bil otrok ločen, in ločitev od tistega od star�ev, ki ga je ugrabil.
Those are separate questions, to be decided by the competent court, which must take account of all the emotional, psychological and material aspects of the situation and which must, in deciding, accord paramount importance to the child’s superior interests.
Gre za ločena vpra�anja, o katerih mora pristojno sodi�če odločiti ob upo�tevanju vseh čustvenih, psiholo�kih in premoženjskih vidikov položaja, v odločbi pa dati prednost otrokovim koristim.
It is above all in the light of those aims and principles that the provisions of the Regulation must, in my view, be interpreted.
Zato je treba po mojem mnenju določbe Uredbe razlagati predvsem z vidika teh ciljev in načel.
The course taken by the procedure, examined in the light of the relevant provisions
Potek postopka, preučen z vidika upoštevnih določb
However, one cannot but observe that, in the present case, the fundamental aim of depriving the actions of the abducting parent of any practical or juridical consequences by ensuring the child’s prompt return is far from having been achieved.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da temeljni cilj, da se dejanju tistega od star�ev, ki ugrabi otroka, odvzamejo vse praktične in pravne posledice, tako da se zagotovi takoj�nja in dejanska vrnitev otroka, v obravnavani zadevi �e zdaleč ni dosežen.
First of all, it is neither denied nor deniable that the German courts had jurisdiction to hear the divorce proceedings under Article 3(1)(a) of the Regulation, as all the residence requirements listed there were fulfilled at the time when the proceedings were initiated.
Najprej, ne izpodbija se in ni sporno dejstvo, da so bila nem�ka sodi�ča pristojna za odločanje o predlogu za razvezo na podlagi člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe, ker so bili ob vložitvi tega predloga izpolnjeni vsi v tem členu navedeni pogoji o prebivali�ču.
Although, from the information available to the Court, it is not possible to identify precisely and with certainty all the factors
Ne da bi bilo mogoče iz informacij, ki jih ima Sodi�če, natančno in zanesljivo ugotoviti vse dejavnike, ki so pripomogli k temu
11 — See point 34 et seq. below.
11 – Glej točko 34 in naslednje spodaj.
Next, it appears to be common ground that the child was indeed wrongfully retained for the purposes of the Convention (Article 3) and the Regulation (Article 2(11)).
Nato je ugotovljeno, da se je zgodilo „neupravičeno zadržanje“ otroka v smislu Konvencije (člen 3) in Uredbe (člen 2, točka 11).
At the time when the mother announced her intention not to return to Germany with the child, custody rights were actually exercised by both parents jointly, by virtue of German law, and the father had consented only to a two-week trip to Lithuania.
Ko je mati izrazila namero, da se z otrokom ne vrne v Nemčijo, sta star�a na podlagi nem�kega prava dejansko in skupaj izvr�evala varstvo in vzgojo, oče pa se je strinjal samo z dvotedensko premestitvijo v Litvo.
It may be noted here that, by virtue of Article 21(1) of the Regulation, that provisional award of custody was to be recognised in Lithuania ‘without any special procedure being required’ — but that, under Article 21(3), it would have been open to the father to apply for a decision that it should be recognised, or to the mother to apply for a decision that it should not be recognised, both ‘in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2’.
V tej fazi je mogoče ugotoviti, da bi se na podlagi člena 21(1) Uredbe ta začasna dodelitev varstva in vzgoje morala priznati v Litvi, „ne da bi bilo potrebno za priznanje začeti kakr�enkoli poseben postopek“, vendar bi lahko oče na podlagi odstavka 3 istega člena zahteval priznanje te odločbe, mati pa bi lahko zahtevala izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju „v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2“.
Neither, however, took that course.
Vendar pa ni bil uporabljen nobeden od teh ukrepov.
Then, on 30 October 2006, on the basis, essentially, of Article 12 of the Convention, the father requested the competent Lithuanian court (namely the Klaipėda court) to order the child’s return.
Nato je oče 30. oktobra 2006 predvsem na podlagi člena 12 Konvencije pristojnemu litovskemu sodi�ču (v tej zadevi Klaipėdos apygardos teismas) predlagal, naj odredi vrnitev otroka.
I would point out here that, even though he did not do so until sole custody had been awarded to him and confirmed on appeal, there was nothing to prevent him from making that application as soon as the child had failed to be returned.
Tu bi pripomnila, da čeprav je oče to storil �ele po tem, ko sta mu bila dodeljena izključno varstvo in vzgoja ter je bilo to potrjeno, mu ni nič preprečevalo, da ne bi tega zahteval, ko se otrok dejansko ni vrnil.
Thus, as the conditions for a displacement of jurisdiction set out in Article 10 of the Regulation were not satisfied, the jurisdiction conferred by Article 8 in all matters of parental responsibility remained with the courts of the Member State of the child’s habitual residence immediately before the wrongful retention, namely Germany.
Ker pogoji iz člena 10 Uredbe za prenos pristojnosti niso bili izpolnjeni, so v členu 8 določeno pristojnost za odločanje o vseh vpra�anjih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo obdržala sodi�ča države članice, v kateri je otrok običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičenim zadržanjem, in sicer Nemčije.
With inescapable logic — confirmed, if need be, by Article 12(1) of the Regulation — the specific court concerned was that before which the divorce proceedings were pending, namely the Oranienburg court.
Po neizogibni logiki – če je to potrebno, potrjeni s členom 12(1) Uredbe – je bilo to, natančneje, sodi�če, pri katerem je �e potekal postopek za razvezo zakonske zveze, in sicer Amtsgericht Oranienburg.
The child should have been brought back to Germany on 6 August 2006.
Otrok bi se moral vrniti v Nemčijo 6. avgusta 2006.
When the mother announced her intention of remaining in Lithuania with the child, the father first applied to the court which had jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility (the Oranienburg court) which, on 14 August 2006, provisionally granted him sole custody.
Ker je mati izrazila namero, da ostane z otrokom v Litvi, je oče najprej predložil zadevo sodi�ču, pristojnemu za vpra�anja star�evske odgovornosti (Amtsgericht Oranienburg), ki mu je 14. avgusta 2006 začasno dodelilo izključno varstvo in vzgojo otroka. To dodelitev je Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg po pritožbi matere potrdilo 11. oktobra 2006.
Once seised, the Lithuanian court was in principle required to order the child’s return, as the one-year period provided for in Article 12 of the Convention had not yet expired.
Potem ko je bila zadeva predložena litovskemu sodi�ču, bi moralo to načeloma odrediti vrnitev otroka, ker se obdobje enega leta iz člena 12 Konvencije �e ni izteklo.