natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A number of Member States and the Commission have also maintained that the transposition into national law of the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must be left to the discretion of each Member State.
Več držav članic in Komisija so prav tako trdile, da mora biti prenos razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa v notranje pravo prepu�čen diskreciji vsake države članice.
That provision must be understood, according to those parties, as leaving the Member States free to choose whether to provide that their judicial authorities may rely on that ground for nonexecution.
Po mnenju teh strank bi bilo treba to določbo razumeti tako, da državam članicam prepu�ča izbiro, da za svoje pravosodne organe predvidijo možnost sklicevanja na ta razlog za neizvr�itev ali ne.
In consequence, the transposition of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision into the national law of each Member State is necessary, in my opinion, in order to ensure that the European arrest warrant does not apply to the detriment of the reintegration of the convicted person — and, therefore, to the detriment of the legitimate interest of all Member States in crime prevention — which that ground for nonexecution aims to protect.
Zato je po mojem mnenju prenos člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa v pravo vsake države članice nujen, da se evropski nalog za prijetje ne uporabi v �kodo ponovne vključitve obsojene osebe v družbo in s tem upravičenega interesa vseh držav članic za preprečevanje kriminala, kar naj bi zagotavljal ta razlog za neizvr�itev.
I do not agree with that interpretation either.
Tudi s to razlago se ne strinjam.
As we have seen, the purpose of the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is to facilitate the reintegration of the convicted person.
Kot smo videli, je cilj razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa spodbuditi ponovno vključitev obsojene osebe v družbo.
Since that person, if a citizen of the Union, has the right to move and reside in all Member States, the success of his reintegration concerns not only the executing Member State but also all the other Member States and the persons living there.
Ker ima ta oseba, če je to državljan Unije, pravico gibati se in prebivati v vseh državah članicah, uspeh njene ponovne vključitve v družbo ne zadeva samo izvr�itvene države članice, ampak tudi vse druge države članice in osebe, ki živijo v njih.
With regard to the issue, in the present case, of the meaning of ‘staying in’ and being ‘a resident of’ the executing Member State, I share the opinion of the Austrian, Polish and Finnish Governments and of the Commission that those expressions must be interpreted as independent concepts, defined in the light of the underlying aim of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, and of the scheme and its objectives.
Kar zdaj zadeva pomen pojmov „nahajati se“ ali „prebivati“ v izvr�itveni državi članici, tako kot avstrijska, poljska in finska vlada ter Komisija menim, da morata biti predmet avtonomne razlage, določene glede na cilj člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa ter sistem in cilje tega sklepa.
The concept of residence has been defined in other Community measures on the basis of the specific scheme and aims of those acts, which do not correspond to those of the Framework Decision.
Pojem prebivali�če je bil namreč v drugih aktih Skupnosti opredeljen posebej na podlagi sistema in cilja teh aktov, ki ne ustrezajo sistemu in cilju Okvirnega sklepa.
Those definitions cannot therefore be applied as such for the purposes of interpreting the concept of residence in the Framework Decision. They
Zato teh opredelitev kot takih ni mogoče prenesti za razlago pojma prebivali�če v tem okvirnem sklepu.
Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision.
KOZŁOWSKI določene v členu 1(2) Okvirnega sklepa.
It is therefore an exception to a general rule.
Gre torej za izjemo od načela.
may, however, be taken into consideration for that purpose, 35as can Resolution (72)1 on the standardisation of the legal concepts of ‘domicile’ and ‘residence’, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 18 January 1972, to which the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart refers. 36
lahko upo�tevajo, 35tako kot tudi Resolucija (72)1 o poenotenju pravnih konceptov „stalnega prebivali�ča“ in „prebivali�ča“, ki jo je Odbor ministrov Sveta Evrope sprejel 18. januarja 1972 in na katero se sklicuje predložitveno sodi�če. 36
That analysis is also confirmed by the tight deadlines by which the executing judicial authority must adopt its decision on execution of the European arrest warrant.
To analizo potrjujejo tudi kratki roki, v katerih mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ sprejeti odločitev o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Consideration of the aims of the Framework Decision leads me to infer that the ground for nonexecution stated in Article 4(6) must be interpreted restrictively.
Iz preučitve cilja Okvirnega sklepa izhaja, da je treba razlog za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa opredeliti omejevalno.
That ground permits derogation from the mandatory surrender provided for in
Na podlagi tega razloga je namreč mogoče odstopati od obvezne narave predaje,
We have also seen that the objective underlying Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is to facilitate the reintegration of the requested person.
Videli smo tudi, da je razlog, ki je podlaga za člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, spodbuditi ponovno vključitev osebe, za katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, v družbo.
It is in the light of that objective that the concepts of ‘staying in’ and being ‘a resident of’, as referred to in the Framework Decision, should be defined; and the scope of those definitions should be narrow, in keeping with the aims of the Framework Decision.
Pojma „nahajati se“ ali „prebivati“, navedena v tej določbi, je torej treba opredeliti ob upo�tevanju tega cilja in v omejevalnem smislu, ki se zahteva s ciljem Okvirnega sklepa.
35 — In the field of social security, the place of residence of a worker — which serves to determine the applicable legislation on unemployment benefits — is determined by the place where the habitual centre of interests is situated.
35 – Na socialnem področju se kraj prebivali�ča delavca, ki se uporabi za določitev zakonodaje, ki velja za dajatve za brezposelnost, določi glede na kraj, v katerem je običajno sredi�če njegovih interesov.
In that regard, it is important to consider the family situation of the worker as well as the reasons that have led him to move, and the nature of the work (Case C-372/02 Adanez-Vega [2004] ECR I-10761, paragraph 37).
Pri tem je treba upo�tevati družinske razmere delavca in razloge, zaradi katerih je od�el drugam, ter vrsto dela (sodba z dne 11. novembra 2004 v zadevi Adanez-Vega (C-372/02, ZOdl., str. I-10761, točka 37)).
With regard to tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another, normal residence must be regarded as the place where a person has established his permanent centre of interests and that place must be determined on the basis of all the criteria laid down in the applicable provision of Community law and all the relevant facts (see Case C-392/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, paragraphs 54 and 55).
Na področju davčnih oprostitev v Skupnosti za začasni uvoz nekaterih prevoznih sredstev se običajno prebivali�če ujema s stalnim sredi�čem interesov te osebe, ta kraj pa je treba določiti na podlagi vseh meril, ki jih vsebuje veljavna določba prava Skupnosti, in vseh ustreznih dejstev (sodba z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Alevizos (C-392/05, ZOdl., str. I-3505, točki 54 in 55)).
In the Staff Regulations for Officials and Other Servants of the European Communities, an official’s place of habitual residence before his entry into service, which constitutes the decisive criterion for the purposes of the expatriation allowance, is that in which the official concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests (Case C-452/93 P Magdalena Fernández v Commission [1994] ECR I-4295, paragraph 22).
V statutu javnih uslužbencev Skupnosti je običajno prebivali�če uradnika pred njegovim nastopom funkcije, ki je odločilno merilo za dodelitev izselitvenega dodatka, opredeljeno kot kraj, v katerem je zadevna oseba določila trajno ali običajno sredi�če svojih interesov z željo, da bi ta kraj postal stalne narave (sodba z dne 15. septembra 1994 v zadevi Magdalena Fernández proti Komisiji (C-452/93 P, Recueil, str. I-4295, točka 22)).
36 — According to that resolution, domicile is a legal concept.
36 – V skladu s to resolucijo je pojem stalno prebivali�če pravni pojem.
It implies a legal relationship between a person and a country, resulting from that person’s intention to establish there the centre of his personal, social and economic interests.
Pomeni pravno vez med osebo in državo, ki izhaja iz želje te osebe, da tam vzpostavi sredi�če svojih osebnih, socialnih in ekonomskih interesov.
The concept of residence, on the other hand, is determined solely by reference to factual criteria.
Pojem prebivali�če pa je določen izključno glede na dejanska merila. Ni odvisen od dovoljenja za prebivanje.
It results from the fact that a person lives in a country for a certain period of time, which need not necessarily be continuous.
Izhaja iz dejstva, da oseba določen čas, ne nujno neprekinjeno, živi v državi.
In order to determine whether residence is habitual, account is to be taken of the duration and the continuity of the residence as well as of other facts of a personal or professional nature which point to durable ties between a person and his residence.
Za določitev, ali je prebivali�če običajno, je treba upo�tevati trajanje in kontinuiteto prebivanja in tudi druga dejstva osebne ali poklicne narave, ki izhajajo iz trajnih vezi med osebo in njenim prebivali�čem.
The place where a person due to serve a prison sentence, or subject to a detention order, stays or resides is relevant to his reintegration, because that reintegration aims to allow the person to rediscover his place in society, that is to say, the family, social and professional environment in which he lived before serving his sentence and to which it is probable that he will return thereafter.
Kraj, v katerem se oseba, ki mora prestati zaporno kazen ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti, nahaja ali prebiva, je pomemben za njeno ponovno vključitev v družbo, ker naj bi ta tej osebi omogočila, da znova najde svoje mesto v družbi, to je v družinskem, družbenem in poklicnem okolju, v katerem je živela pred izvr�itvijo kazni in v katero se bo po prestani kazni verjetno vrnila.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 requested person has links with the executing Member State of such a kind as to enable the judicial authority of that State to infer that, in order to fulfil its function of reintegration, the sentence must be served in that State.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, take vezi z izvr�itveno državo članico, da lahko pravosodni organ te države sklepa, da mora biti kazen izvr�ena v navedeni državi, da bi lahko izpolnjevala funkcijo ponovne vključitve osebe v družbo.
The concept of ‘resident’ for the purposes of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must therefore be understood as the place where the person has his centre of main interests.
Pojem „prebivali�če“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa je torej treba razlagati kot kraj, v katerem ima oseba sredi�če svojih glavnih interesov.
Thus, in their recommendations on prison rules, the Member States of the Council of Europe expressed their wish that imprisonment should be organised, as far as possible, in conditions enabling the person held in custody to sustain and strengthen links with his family.
Države članice Sveta Evrope so tako v priporočilih o zaporskih pravilih izrazile željo, da bi bil zapor organiziran kolikor je mogoče tako, da bi zaporniku omogočal ohranjanje in krepitev vezi z njegovo družino.
Imprisonment must also give the person held in custody the impression that he is not excluded from the community at large.
Zapor mora zaporniku tudi dajati vtis, da ni izključen iz družbe.
Lastly, the conditions of custody must be such as to facilitate the acquisition or resumption of employment on expiry of the sentence, under a pre-release regime organised in the penal institution or by conditional release under supervision. 37
Zaporna kazen mora nazadnje olaj�ati pridobitev ali obnovitev zaposlitve po prestani kazni s programom priprave na odpust, ki se izvaja v zavodu za prestajanje kazni, ali na pogojni odpust pod nadzorstvom. 37
The following lessons can be drawn from the above observations for the definition of the concepts of ‘staying in’ or being ‘a resident of’, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Iz teh ugotovitev lahko izpeljem naslednje sklepe za opredelitev vsebine pojmov „nahajati se“ ali „prebivati“ iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
That list must not be exhaustive, since the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision must always, in my opinion, be applied by the executing judicial authority on the basis of an assessment of the person’s individual situation.
Ta seznam ne bi smel biti izčrpen, ker naj bi moral izvr�itveni pravosodni organ po mojem mnenju razlog za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa vedno uporabiti na podlagi presoje posebnega položaja zadevne osebe.
First, the content of those two concepts is not, in my view, different, as confirmed by the fact that Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision refers only to a ‘resident’.
Po eni strani ta pojma po mojem mnenju nimata različne vsebine, kar potrjuje dejstvo, da se člen 5(3) Okvirnega sklepa nana�a samo na prebivalca.
Secondly, they refer to the situation in which the
Po drugi strani se nana�ata na položaj, v katerem ima oseba, za
37 — Recommendation No R (87) 3 (rules 65(c), 70.1 and 88) and Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (rules 24, 103 and 107).
37 – Priporočili �t. R (87) 3 (točke 65(c), 70.1 in 88) in Rec(2006)2 (točke 24, 103 in 107).
The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis as regards the circumstances listed by the referring court.
Iz te analize lahko izpeljem naslednje posledice v zvezi z okoli�činami, ki jih je na�telo predložitveno sodi�če.
KOZŁOWSKI criteria enabling that place to be identified serve to indicate the strength of the connection of that person to life in the executing Member State.
KOZŁOWSKI bljajo za presojo pomembnosti vezi te osebe z družbo izvr�itvene države članice.
With regard, first, to the fact that the person concerned has not stayed without interruption in the executing Member State, that cannot call into question the connection of that person to that State.
Prvič, kar zadeva dejstvo, da se zadevna oseba ni neprekinjeno nahajala v izvr�itveni državi članici, to ne more zbuditi dvoma o vezeh te osebe s to državo.
A person can go abroad on holidays or to carry out his chosen profession without that changing his centre of main interests.
Oseba namreč lahko odpotuje v tujino na počitnice ali zaradi opravljanja svoje poklicne dejavnosti, ne da bi to pomenilo premestitev sredi�ča njenih glavnih interesov.
The concept of ‘resident’ for the purposes of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is therefore based on the intention of the person concerned and necessarily describes a place where he enjoys or can enjoy his rights.
Pojem „prebivali�če“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa torej izhaja iz želje zadevne osebe in nujno označuje kraj, v katerem uživa ali lahko uživa svoje pravice.
The place where a requested person serves a prison sentence is therefore of no relevance in that regard, since that place is not chosen by him but by the judicial authorities and he is deprived there of the exercise of a significant number of his rights.
Kraj, v katerem oseba, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, prestaja zaporno kazen, je torej popolnoma neupo�teven v zvezi s tem, kajti ta kraj ni posledica odločitve te osebe, ampak odločitve pravosodnih organov, v njem pa je prikraj�ana za uresničevanje velikega dela svojih pravic.
With regard, secondly, to the fact that the requested person is being held in custody in the executing Member State following a criminal conviction, this cannot constitute a relevant criterion either, whether for proving the status of resident or for ruling it out.
Drugič, kar zadeva okoli�čino, da je oseba, za katero je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, v zaporu v izvr�itveni državi članici na podlagi obsodilne odločbe, tudi ta ni upo�tevno merilo niti za dokaz statusa prebivalca niti za zavrnitev tega statusa.
As we have seen, the concept of ‘resident’, for the purposes of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, must be understood as the place where the requested person has his centre of main interests and where he is likely to return after serving his sentence. The
Kot smo videli, je treba pojem „prebivali�če“ v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa razumeti kot kraj, v katerem ima oseba, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, sredi�če svojih glavnih interesov in kamor se namerava po izvr�itvi kazni vrniti. Merila, ki omogočajo določitev tega kraja, se upora-
The referring court also asks the Court whether the fact that the requested person is staying in the executing Member State in breach of the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he commits crimes there systematically mean that he cannot be regarded as a resident.
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če tudi, ali zaradi dejstva, da se oseba, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, v izvr�itveni državi članici nahaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države o vstopu in bivanju tujcev, in okoli�čine, da tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, tej osebi ni mogoče priznati statusa prebivalca.
It also asks whether the fact that the person systematically commits crimes suffices, in itself, to rule out habitual residence.
Spra�uje se tudi, ali dejstvo, da navedena oseba sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, samo po sebi izključuje priznanje običajnega prebivali�ča.
The situation is therefore different depending on whether the person concerned is a citizen of the European Union or a national of a third State.
Položaj se torej razlikuje glede na to, ali je zadevna oseba državljan Unije ali državljan tretje države.
The referring court asks these questions because the lawfulness of Mr Kozłowski’s stay in Germany beyond a period of three months appears doubtful under the national legislation, in so far as he is not working and earns his living essentially by committing crimes.
Predložitveno sodi�če postavlja ta vpra�anja, ker se zakonitost prebivanja S. Kozłowskega v Nemčiji v obdobju, dalj�em od treh mesecev, zdi negotova glede na nacionalno zakonodajo, saj ni opravljal nobene dejavnosti in se je večinoma preživljal s kaznivimi dejanji.
As the Netherlands Government maintains, the serving of his sentence in the executing Member State presupposes that the person concerned can in fact remain in that State when his sentence is over.
Kot trdi nizozemska vlada, se pri izvr�itvi kazni v izvr�itveni državi članici predpostavlja, da bo zadevna oseba dejansko lahko prebivala v tej državi po izteku kazni.
That is the condition for ensuring that the objective of reintegration pursued by Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision can be achieved.
Pod tem pogojem se lahko doseže cilj ponovne vključitve v družbo, zastavljen s členom 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
The conditions governing the right of nationals of third States to enter and remain in Member States of the European Union are, in the current state of Community law, still largely a matter within the competence of the Member States.
Pogoji za vstop in bivanje državljanov tretjih držav v državah članicah Unije so v sedanjem stanju prava Skupnosti �e vedno večinoma v pristojnosti teh držav članic.
The situation of those nationals is only covered by Community law, in essence, if they are members of the family of a Union citizen or nationals of a State with which the Community has drawn up a Convention, or if they fall within the scope of the directive on the right to family reunification 38 or of the directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are longterm residents. 39
V pravu Skupnosti so ti državljani v glavnem obravnavani samo, če so člani družine državljana Unije ali državljani države, s katero je Skupnost sklenila konvencijo, ali če spadajo na področje uporabe direktive o pravici do združitve družine 38ali direktive o statusu državljanov tretjih držav, ki so rezidenti za dalj�i čas 39.
It follows that, if the executing judicial authority concludes that the person concerned no longer has the right to remain in the executing Member State following completion of his sentence, there is no reason to apply the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Iz tega sledi, da če izvr�itveni pravosodni organ ugotovi, da zadevna oseba po izteku kazni nima več pravice prebivati v izvr�itveni državi članici, se zdi uporaba razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa brezpredmetna.
Consequently, if, under the legislation of the Member State of execution, the fact that a national of a third State stays there illegally and commits crimes there systematically means that he is not allowed to remain in that State when his sentence comes to an end, subject to compliance with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, he cannot be regarded as a resident within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Zato na podlagi zakonodaje izvr�itvene države članice dejstvo, da se državljan tretje države tam nahaja nezakonito in sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, temu ne omogoča, da bi po izteku svoje kazni prebival v tej državi, ob upo�tevanju pravic, zagotovljenih z Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin ter Listino temeljnih pravic Evropske unije, se zanj ne more �teti, da prebiva v tej državi v smislu člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa.
However, the assessment of the ability of the person concerned to remain in the executing Member State after his sentence has been served, in light of the fact that he does not reside there in conformity with the national legislation governing the right of foreign nationals to enter and remain in the country and the fact that he has systematically committed crimes there, must be carried out by the executing judicial authority in accordance with the requirements of Community law and fundamental rights.
Vseeno mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ v skladu z zahtevami prava Skupnosti in ob upo�tevanju temeljnih pravic presoditi možnosti zadevne osebe, da bo po izteku svoje kazni prebivala v izvr�itveni državi članici, glede na dejstvo, da tam ne prebiva v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo o vstopu in bivanju tujcev in da je tam sistematično izvr�evala kazniva dejanja.
By contrast, the situation is different where the requested person has, like Mr Kozłowski, the status of a Union citizen.
Vendar pa je položaj drugačen, kadar ima oseba, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, tako kot S. Kozłowski status državljana Unije.
State. In that regard, the Member State must determine whether it is a case of temporary difficulties and must take into account the duration of residence, the personal circumstances and the amount of aid granted.
ta država preučiti, ali gre v tem primeru za začasne težave, in upo�tevati trajanje prebivanja, osebne okoli�čine ter znesek dodeljene pomoči.