natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such declarations shall take effect 90 days after the date of deposit thereof.’
Tak�ne izjave začnejo veljati 90 dni po njihovem deponiranju.“
Article 18(5) of the 1996 Convention states that it is to apply only to requests submitted after the date on which it enters into force or is applied as between the requested Member State and the requesting Member State.
Člen 18(5) Konvencije iz leta 1996 pojasnjuje, da se ta konvencija uporablja samo za zahteve, vložene po dnevu začetka njene veljavnosti ali uporabe med zapro�eno državo članico in državo članico prosilko.
Recitals 3 to 5 in the preamble to the Framework Decision read as follows:
V uvodnih izjavah od 3 do 5 Okvirnega sklepa je navedeno naslednje:
‘(3) All or some Member States are parties to a number of conventions in the field of extradition, including the European Convention on extradition of 13 December 1957 and the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism of 27 January 1977.
„(3) Vse ali nekatere države članice so podpisnice vrste konvencij na področju izročitve oseb, vključno z Evropsko konvencijo o izročitvi z 13. decembra 1957 in Evropsko konvencijo o zatiranju terorizma z 27. januarja 1977.
The Nordic States have extradition laws with identical wording.
Nordijske države imajo enako besedilo zakonov o izročitvi.
(4) In addition, the following three Conventions dealing in whole or in part with extradition have been agreed upon among Member States and form part of the Union acquis: the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders … (regarding relations between the Member States which are parties to that Convention), the [1995] Convention … and the [1996] Convention …
Poleg tega so se države članice sporazumele o naslednjih treh konvencijah, ki v celoti ali delno urejajo izročitev oseb in so del pravnega reda Unije: Konvenciji z 19. junija 1990 o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma z 14. junija 1985 o postopni odpravi nadzora na skupnih mejah (v odnosih med državami članicami, ki so podpisnice te konvencije), Konvenciji [iz leta 1995] in Konvenciji [iz leta 1996].
(5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities.
Zastavljeni cilj Unije, da postane območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, prina�a odpravo postopka izročitve med državami članicami in njegovo nadomestitev s sistemom predaje oseb med pravosodnimi organi.
Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.’
Tradicionalno sodelovanje, ki je doslej vladalo med državami članicami, bi moralo, v območju svobode, varnosti in pravice, v kazenskopravnih zadevah nadomestiti sistem prostega pretoka pravosodnih odločitev, ki obsegajo odločitve pred izrekom kazni in pravnomočne odločbe.“
Recital 11 in the preamble to the Framework Decision reads as follows:
V uvodni izjavi 11 Okvirnega sklepa je navedeno:
‘In relations between Member States, the European arrest warrant should replace all the previous instruments concerning extradition, including the provisions of Title III of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement which concern extradition.’
„V odnosih med državami članicami naj bi evropski nalog za prijetje zamenjal vse prej�nje dokumente o izročitvi, vključno z vsemi določbami naslova III Konvencije o izvajanju schengenskega sporazuma, v delih, v katerih ta ureja izročitev oseb.“
Article 31 of the Framework Decision, ‘Relation to other legal instruments’, is worded as follows:
Člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa z naslovom „Razmerje do drugih pravnih aktov“ določa:
Without prejudice to their application in relations between Member States and third States, this Framework Decision shall, from 1 January 2004, replace the corresponding provisions of the following conventions applicable in the field of extradition in relations between the Member States:
Brez poseganja v uporabo konvencij v odnosih med državami članicami in tretjimi državami ta okvirni sklep s 1. januarjem 2004 nadomesti ustrezne določbe naslednjih konvencij, ki se uporabljajo na področju izročitve oseb v odnosih med državami članicami: a) Evropske konvencije o izročitvi z 13. decembra 1957, njenega dodatnega protokola z 15. oktobra 1975, in drugega dodatnega protokola z 17. marca 1978 in Evropske konvencije o zatiranju terorizma z 27. januarja 1977, v delu, v katerem ta konvencija ureja izročitev oseb; b) Sporazuma med dvanajstimi državami članicami Evropskih skupnosti o poenostavitvi in posodobitvi metod po�iljanja zahtev po izročitvi z 26. maja 1989; c) Konvencije [iz leta 1995];
(e) Title III, Chapter 4 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders.
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU d) Konvencije [iz leta 1996]; e) poglavja 4 naslova III Konvencije z 19. junija 1990 o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma z 14. junija 1985 o postopni odpravi kontrol na skupnih mejah.
Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements in force when this Framework Decision is adopted in so far as such agreements or arrangements allow the objectives of this Framework Decision to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants.
Države članice lahko tudi potem, ko bo ta okvirni sklep sprejet, uporabljajo veljavne dvostranske in večstranske sporazume in dogovore, če ti sporazumi in dogovori �irijo cilje tega okvirnega sklepa ter pomagajo poenostaviti in pospe�ijo postopke predaje oseb, ki so predmet evropskih nalogov za prijetje.
Member States may conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements after this Framework Decision has come into force in so far as such agreements or arrangements allow the prescriptions of this Framework Decision to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants, in particular by fixing timelimits shorter than those fixed in Article 17, by extending the list of offences laid down in Article 2(2), by further limiting the grounds for refusal set out in Articles 3 and 4, or by lowering the threshold provided for in Article 2(1) or (2).
Države članice lahko sklenejo dvostranske in večstranske sporazume in dogovore tudi po začetku veljavnosti tega okvirnega sklepa, če ti sporazumi in dogovori omogočajo raz�iritev predpisov tega okvirnega sklepa in pomagajo �e bolj poenostaviti in pospe�iti postopke predaje oseb, ki so predmet evropskih nalogov za prijetje, zlasti z določitvijo kraj�ih časovnih rokov, kot so tisti iz člena 17, z raz�iritvijo seznama kaznivih dejanj iz člena 2(2), z dodatnim krčenjem razlogov za zavrnitev iz členov 3 in 4 in z nižanjem praga, predvidenega v členu 2(1) in (2).
The agreements and arrangements referred to in the second subparagraph may in no case affect relations with Member States which are not parties to them.
Sporazumi in dogovori iz drugega pododstavka nikakor ne smejo vplivati na odnose z državami članicami, ki niso njihove podpisnice.
Member States shall, within three months from the entry into force of this Framework Decision, notify the Council and the Commission of the existing agreements and arrangements referred to in the first subparagraph which they wish to continue applying.
Države članice v treh mesecih po začetku veljavnosti tega okvirnega sklepa uradno obvestijo Svet in Komisijo o obstoječih sporazumih in dogovorih iz prvega pododstavka, ki jih želijo �e naprej uporabljati.
Member States shall also notify the Council and the Commission of any new agreement or arrangement as referred to in the second subparagraph, within three months of signing it.
Države članice uradno obvestijo Svet in Komisijo tudi o vseh novih sporazumih in dogovorih, kakor so navedeni v drugem pododstavku, v treh mesecih po njihovem podpisu.
Where the conventions or agreements referred to in paragraph 1 apply to the territories of Member States or to territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible to which this Framework Decision does not apply, these instruments shall continue to govern the relations existing between those territories and the other Member States.’
Kadar se konvencije in sporazumi iz odstavka 1 uporabljajo na tistih ozemljih držav članic ali na ozemljih, kjer je država članica odgovorna za njihove zunanje odnose, na katerih se ta okvirni sklep ne uporablja, te listine �e naprej urejajo odnose med temi ozemlji in drugimi državami članicami.“
Article 32 of the Framework Decision, ‘Transitional provision’, provides:
Člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa z naslovom „Prehodna določba“ določa:
‘Extradition requests received before 1 January 2004 will continue to be governed by existing instruments relating to extradition.
„Zahteve za izročitev, ki jih države članice prejmejo pred 1. januarjem 2004, bodo �e naprej urejali obstoječ[i] pravni akti o izročitvi.
Requests received after that date will be governed by the rules adopted by Member States pursuant to this Framework Decision.
Zahteve, ki jih bodo države članice prejele po tem datumu, bodo urejala pravila, ki jih bodo sprejele države članice na podlagi tega okvirnega sklepa.
However, any Member State may, at the time of the adoption of this Framework Decision by the Council, make a statement indicating that as executing Member State it will continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before a date which it specifies in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.
Vendar lahko vsaka država članica, potem ko bo Svet sprejel ta okvirni sklep, v izjavi navede, da bo kot izvr�itvena država članica obravnavala zahteve v zvezi z dejanji, storjenimi pred datumom, ki ga bo določila, v skladu z metodami izročitve, ki se uporablja[jo] do 1. januarja 2004.
The date in question may not be later than 7 August 2002.
Za ta datum lahko določi najpozneje 7. avgust 2002.
The said statement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Omenjena izjava bo objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti.
It may be withdrawn at any time.’
Ta se lahko kadarkoli umakne.“
Pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, the French Republic made the following statement (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 19):
V skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa je Francoska republika podala naslednjo izjavo (UL 2002, L 190, str. 19):
‘Pursuant to Article 32 of the framework decision … France states that as executing Member State it will continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before 1 November 1993, the date of entry into force of the Treaty on European Union
„Francija v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa […] izjavlja, da bo kot izvr�itvena država obravnavala zahteve v zvezi z dejanji, storjenimi pred 1. novembrom 1993 (dnevom začetka veljavnosti pogodbe o Evropski uniji, podpisane v Maastrichtu
2008 — CASE C-296/08 PPU signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.’
7. februarja 1992), v skladu z metodami izročitve, ki se uporablja[jo] do 1. janu -arja 2004.“
Loi no 2004-204 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité (Law No 2004-204 adapting the legal system to developments in criminality) of 9 March
Z zakonom �t. 2004-204 z dne 9. marca 2004 o prilagoditvi sodstva razvoju kriminalitete (JORF z dne 10. marca 2004, str.
2004 (JORF, 10 March 2004, p. 4567) implemented the Framework Decision by inserting into the Code de procedure pénale (Code of Criminal Procedure) Articles 695-11 to 695-51.
4567) je bil uveljavljen Okvirni sklep, ki v ta namen uvaja člene od 695-11 do 695-51 zakonika o kazenskem postopku.
That law also included provisions implementing the 1995 and 1996 Conventions.
S tem zakonom so bile poleg tega predvidene določbe za izvedbo konvencij iz let 1995 in 1996.
Law No 2004-1345 of 9 December 2004 authorised ratification of the 1996 Convention (JORF, 10 December 2004, p. 20876).
Z zakonom �t. 2004-1345 z dne 9. decembra 2004 je bila dovoljena ratifikacija Konvencije iz leta 1996 (JORF z dne 10. decembra 2004, str. 20876).
Decree No 2005-770 of 8 July 2005 published the 1996 Convention (JORF, 10 July 2005, p. 11358).
Ta konvencija je bila objavljena v odloku �t. 2005-770 z dne 8. julija 2005 (JORF z dne 10. julija 2005, str. 11358). Pojasnjeno je, da velja od 1. julija 2005.
The main proceedings and the reference for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
That request was the subject of an unfavourable opinion of the Chambre de l’instruction (Indictment Division) of the Cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles), by judgment of 19 June 2001, on the ground that the offences for which extradition was sought were statute-barred under French law.
Chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel de Versailles (v nadaljevanju: senat za preiskovalne zadeve vi�jega sodi�ča v Versaillesu) je 19. junija 2001 izdal sodbo z negativnim mnenjem, ker so dejanja, zaradi katerih je bila zapro�ena izročitev, po francoskem pravu zastarala.
In its written observations, the French Government stated that it had not enforced the warrant.
V pisnih stali�čih je francoska vlada navedla, da ta nalog ni bil izvr�en.
In view of the date of the acts and the statement made pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, the warrant could be regarded only as a mere request for a provisional arrest, to be dealt with under the system of extradition applicable before 1 January 2004, that is, the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957.
Ob upo�tevanju datuma dejanj in izjave, podane v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa, je bilo ta nalog mogoče �teti le za zahtevo po začasnem odvzemu prostosti, ki se jo obravnava v skladu z metodami izročitve, ki se uporabljajo do 1. januarja 2004, to je v skladu z Evropsko konvencijo o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957.
However, the offences were statute-barred under French law.
Dejstva pa naj bi zastarala po francoskem pravu. Vsekakor je I. P.
As stated at the hearing by the Spanish Government, since the impossibility of making use of a European arrest warrant in view of the date of the acts and the statement made pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision had been pointed out by the French judicial authorities, a request for provisional arrest was made on 27 May 2008 by the Juzgado Central de Instrucción (Central Court of Investigation) of the Audiencia Nacional (National High Court, Spain) in respect of the same acts, with a view to a request for extradition based on the 1996 Convention.
Kot je �panska vlada na obravnavi pojasnila, je zaradi tega, ker ni bilo mogoče uporabiti evropskega naloga za prijetje, glede na datum dejanj in izjavo, podano v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ki so jo francoski organi umaknili, Juzgado Central de Instrucción de la Audiencia Nacional (Španija) 27. maja 2008 izdalo zahtevo po začasnem odvzemu prostosti za ista dejanja, z namenom zahteve za izročitev, ki temelji na Konvenciji iz leta 1996. Državni tožilec je zaradi izvr�itve začasno pridržal I. P. Santestebana Goicoechea.
The Procureur Général (Principal Public Prosecutor) asks the Chambre de l’instruction of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier to issue a favourable opinion on the Spanish authorities’ request.
Državni tožilec predlaga senatu za preiskovalne zadeve vi�jega sodi�ča v Montpellieru naj izda pozitivno mnenje glede zahteve �panskih organov.
The referring court notes that the Framework Decision provides in Article 31 that from 1 January 2004 it is to replace the corresponding provisions of the conventions — which it then mentions — applicable in the field of extradition in relations between the Member States.
Predložitveno sodi�če poudarja, da Okvirni sklep v členu 31 določa, da ta okvirni sklep od 1. januarja 2004 nadome�ča ustrezne določbe konvencij, navedene v nadaljevanju, ki se uporabljajo na področju izročitve med državami članicami.
The 1996 Convention is mentioned in Article 31(1)(d) of the Framework Decision.
Konvencija iz leta 1996 je navedena v členu 31(1)(d) Okvirnega sklepa.
That court states that Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision provides for the possibility of some Member States continuing to apply certain bilateral or multilateral agreements in force at the time of adoption of the Framework Decision.
Člen 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa naj bi nekaterim državam članicam omogočal, da �e naprej uporabljajo nekatere dvostranske in večstranske sporazume, ki veljajo ob sprejetju Okvirnega sklepa.
They must, however, notify those agreements within three months from the entry into force of the Framework Decision.
Vendar pa morajo te sporazume sporočiti v treh mesecih od začetka veljavnosti Okvirnega sklepa.
The Kingdom of Spain has not made any notification to that effect.
Kraljevina Španija pa v zvezi s tem ni podala nobenega obvestila.
The referring court is also uncertain as to the interpretation of Article 32 of the Framework Decision, since the application is sought in the main proceedings of a convention that has been applicable in France since 1 July 2005.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje tudi o razlagi člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ker se v postopku v glavni stvari predlaga uporaba konvencije, ki v Franciji velja od 1. julija 2005.
In those circumstances, the Chambre de l’instruction of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je senat za preiskovalne zadeve vi�jega sodi�ča v Montpellieru prekinil odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložil ti vpra�anji:
If the answer to the above question is in the negative, an answer to the following question is requested:
Če je odgovor na predhodno vpra�anje nikalen:
By letter of 3 July 2008, lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the Chambre de l’instruction of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier asked for the reference for a preliminary ruling to be dealt with under an urgent procedure pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure.
Senat za preiskovalne zadeve vi�jega sodi�ča v Montpellieru je z dopisom z dne 3. julija 2008, vloženim istega dne v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča, predlagal, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnava po nujnem postopku iz člena 104b Poslovnika.
The Third Chamber of the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, decided on 7 July 2008 to grant the referring court’s request for the reference for a preliminary ruling to be dealt with under an urgent procedure.
Tretji senat Sodi�ča je po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke 7. julija 2008 ugodil predlogu predložitvenega sodi�ča, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnava po nujnem postopku.
According to the order for reference, the reference for a preliminary ruling is based on Article 234 EC, although the interpretation sought concerns the Framework Decision, an act adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe temelji na členu 234 ES, predlagana razlaga pa zadeva Okvirni sklep, in sicer pravni akt, izdan na podlagi naslova VI Pogodbe EU.
It should be noted, however, that, in accordance with Article 46(b) EU, the provisions of the EC and EAEC Treaties concerning the powers of the Court of Justice and the exercise of those powers, including the provisions of Article 234 EC, apply to the provisions of Title VI of the EU Treaty under the conditions laid down by Article 35 EU.
Vendar je najprej treba poudariti, da se na podlagi člena 46(b) EU določbe Pogodb ES, ESPJ in ESAE, ki se nana�ajo na pristojnost Sodi�ča in na izvajanje te pristojnosti, med katerimi je tudi člen 234 ES, uporabljajo za določbe naslova VI Pogodbe o Evropski uniji pod pogoji iz člena 35 EU.
The French Republic stated, by a declaration of 14 March 2000 taking effect from 11 July 2000, that it accepted the jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the validity
Francoska republika je v izjavi z dne 14. marca 2000, ki je začela veljati 11. julija 2000, navedla, da priznava pristojnost Sodi�ča za odločanje o veljavnosti in razlagi aktov,
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA and interpretation of the acts referred to in Article 35 EU in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(3)(b) EU (OJ 2005 L 327, p. 19).
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA navedenih v členu 35 EU, v skladu z določbo odstavka 3(b) tega člena (UL 2005, L 327, str. 19).
In those circumstances, the fact that the order for reference does not mention Article 35 EU but refers to Article 234 EC cannot of itself make the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.
V teh okoli�činah dejstvo, da v predložitveni odločbi ni omenjen člen 35 EU, temveč se sklicuje na člen 234 ES, samo po sebi ne more privesti do nedopustnosti predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the EU Treaty neither expressly nor by implication lays down the form in which the national court must present its reference for a preliminary ruling (see Dell’Orto, paragraph 36).
To velja �e toliko bolj, ker Pogodba EU niti izrecno niti implicitno ne določa oblike, v kateri mora nacionalno sodi�če podati predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Dell’Orto, točka 36).
Moreover, as the French Government states in its observations, while it follows from the caselaw of the French Conseil d’État (Council of State) that when indictment divisions give opinions on requests for extradition they exercise administrative powers, that does not lead to the conclusion that those bodies are not courts or tribunals within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Poleg tega, kot navaja francoska vlada v svojih stali�čih, čeprav iz sodne prakse francoskega Conseil d’État izhaja, da preiskovalni senati pritožbenih sodi�č, kadar dajejo mnenje o zahtevi za izročitev, izvajajo upravno nalogo, pa iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da ti organi niso sodi�ča v smislu člena 234 ES.
According to settled caselaw, in order to determine whether a body making a reference is such a court or tribunal, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see inter alia Case C-53/03 Syfait and Others [2005] ECR I-4609, paragraph 29 and the caselaw cited).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso namreč Sodi�če pri presoji, ali je predložitveni organ tako sodi�če, kar je izključno vpra�anje prava Skupnosti, upo�teva celoto elementov, kot so zakoniti izvor organa, njegovo trajnost, obvezno naravo njegove sodne oblasti, kontradiktorno naravo postopka, njegovo uporabljanje pravnih pravil in njegovo neodvisnost (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 31. maja 2005 v zadevi Syfait in drugi, C-53/03, ZOdl., str. I-4609, točka 29, in navedena sodna praksa).
Moreover, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called on to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see inter alia Syfait and Others, paragraph 29, and Case C-96/04 Standesamt Stadt Niebüll [2006] ECR I-3561, paragraph 13).
Poleg tega se nacionalna sodi�ča lahko obrnejo na Sodi�če le, če pred njimi teče postopek in če so bila pozvana k odločanju v okviru postopka, katerega rezultat je sodna odločba (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Syfait in drugi, točka 29, ter sodbo z dne 27. aprila 2006 v zadevi Standesamt Stadt Niebüll, C-96/04, ZOdl., str. I-3561, točka 13).
It is not disputed that the indictment divisions of courts of appeal satisfy the above conditions of establishment by law, permanence and independence.
Ni sporno, da preiskovalni senati pritožbenih sodi�č izpolnjujejo zgoraj navedene pogoje zakonitega izvora, trajnosti in neodvisnosti.