natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the other hand, documents which have a purely evidential function, distinct from the purpose of service itself, and are not intrinsically linked to the application in so far as they are not necessary for understanding the subjectmatter of the claim and the cause of action, do not form an integral part of the document instituting the proceedings within the meaning of that provision.
Nasprotno pa dokazila, ki opravljajo zgolj dokazno funkcijo od predmeta vročitve ali same vročitve in ki niso neločljivo povezana s tožbo, tako da bi bila nujna za razumevanje predmeta in podlage tožnikovega zahtevka, niso njen sestavni del tožbe v smislu te določbe.
It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting the proceedings is sufficient to enable the defendant to assert his rights or whether it is necessary for the party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary annex has not been translated.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali tožena stranka glede na vsebino tožbe lahko uveljavlja svoje pravice ali pa mora po�iljatelj zagotoviti prevod priloge, ki jo je treba nujno priložiti.
(see paras 52, 56, 64, 65, 69, 75, 78, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 52, 56, 64, 65, 69, 75, 78 in točko 1 izreka.)
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as
Člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah je treba razlagati tako,
SUMMARY — CASE C-14/07 in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-14/07 poslovne dejavnosti sklene pogodbo in se v njej dogovori, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, ter se priloge nana�ajo na to dopisovanje in so napisane v dogovorjenem jeziku.
meaning that the fact that the addressee of a document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission in such a way as to enable him to assert such rights.
da dejstvo, da se je naslovnik vročenega pisanja pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku te države članice, ne ustvarja domneve o znanju jezika, je pa znak, na katerega se lahko sodi�če opre pri ugotavljanju, ali naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke tako, da lahko uveljavlja svoje pravice.
(see para. 88, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 88 in točko 2 izreka.)
It may be necessary to translate annexes if the content of that document which has been translated is insufficient to enable the subjectmatter of the claim and the cause of action to be identified so that the defendant can assert his rights.
Prevod prilog se lahko zahteva, če se na podlagi vsebine tega pisanja, ki je bilo prevedeno, ni mogoče seznaniti s predmetom in podlago zahtevka in tožena stranka ne more uveljavljati svojih pravic.
However, such a translation is not needed where it is apparent from the factual circumstances that the addressee of the document instituting the proceedings is familiar with the content of those annexes.
Tak prevod pa ni nujen, če iz dejanskih okoli�čin izhaja, da je bil naslovnik tožbe seznanjen z vsebino teh prilog.
That is the case where the addressee is the author of those documents or can be presumed to understand the content, for example because he signed a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.
Za tak primer gre, če je sam njihov avtor ali če je mogoče domnevati, da pozna njihovo vsebino, ker je na primer pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti sklenil pogodbo, v kateri je bilo dogovorjeno, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, pri čemer se priloge nana�ajo na navedeno dopisovanje in so napisane v dogovorjenem jeziku.
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, where the addressee concluded a contract in the course of his business
Člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah je treba razlagati tako, da naslovnik vročene tožbe ne sme s sklicevanjem na to določbo zavrniti sprejema prilog k pisanju, ki niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume, kadar pri opravljanju svoje
(see paras 90-92, operative part 3)
(Glej točke od 90 do 92 in točko 3 izreka.)
I — Introduction sion for correspondence between the parties on the one hand and the authorities and public institutions on the other.
I – Uvod na eni strani ter organi in javnimi ustanovami na drugi strani uporablja jezik države članice prosilke.
This reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) has been made in an action for damages brought by the Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (‘IHK Berlin’) against the architects Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd, a company governed by English law (‘Grimshaw Architects’), for defective design of a building. IHK Berlin brought an action against Grimshaw Architects for breach of warranty. The parties disagree, in interlocutory proceedings, on whether the application was effectively served on Grimshaw Architects. Ingenieurbüro Weiss und Partner GbR, which is established in Aachen (‘Büro Weiss’), was joined as a party to the dispute. I - 3371
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Bundesgerichtshof je bil vložen v okviru od�kodninske tožbe, ki jo je Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (v nadaljevanju: IHK Berlin) vložila zoper arhitekturni biro Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd, družbo angle�kega prava (v nadaljevanju: biro Grimshaw), zaradi napak pri načrtovanju stavbe. IHK Berlin je proti biroju Grimshaw vložil tožbo na podlagi jamčevalnega zahtevka. Med strankama je v vmesnem postopku sporno, ali je bila biroju Grimshaw tožba veljavno vročena. Inženirski biro Weiss und Partner, s sedežem v Aachnu (v nadaljevanju: biro Weiss), je bil obve�čen o pravdi. I - 3371
(a) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected;
(a) v uradnem jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali, če je v tej državi več uradnih jezikov, v uradnem jeziku ali v enem od uradnih jezikov kraja, kjer je treba opraviti vročitev; ali
Recitals 8 and 10 in the preamble to Regulation No 1348/2000 state: or
V uvodnih izjavah 8 in 10 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 je določeno:
(b) a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.’
„(8) Zaradi zagotovitve učinkovitosti te uredbe se možnost, da se vročitev pisanja zavrne, omeji na izjemne primere.
III — Main facts of the case, main proceedings, questions referred and proceedings before the Court of Justice
III – Dejansko stanje, spor o glavni stvari, vprašanja za predhodno odločanje in postopek pred Sodiščem
(10) For the protection of the addressee’s interests, service should be effected in the official language or one of the official languages of the place where it is to be effected or in another language of the originating Member State which the addressee understands.’
(10) Zaradi varovanja interesov naslovnika je treba vročitev opraviti v uradnem jeziku ali v enem od uradnih jezikov kraja vročitve ali v drugem jeziku države članice izvora [prosilke], ki ga naslovnik razume.“
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 provides:
Člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 določa:
‘Refusal to accept a document
„Zavrnitev sprejema pisanja
IHK Berlin is pursuing an action for damages against Grimshaw Architects, a company established in London and governed by English law, for defective design on the basis of an architect’s contract of 16 February 1994.
IHK Berlin toži biro Grimshaw, ki ima sedež v Londonu in je družba angle�kega prava, za od�kodnino na podlagi pogodbe o delu arhitekta z dne 16. februarja 1994 zaradi napak pri načrtovanju.
In the contract Grimshaw Architects had undertaken to draw up plans for a construction project in Berlin.
Biro Grimshaw naj bi se v zadevni pogodbi zavezal, da bo opravil storitve načrtovanja za gradbeni projekt v Berlinu.
Paragraph 3.2.6 of the architect’s contract stipulates:
V točki 3.2.6 pogodbe o delu arhitekta je dogovorjeno:
The receiving agency shall inform the addressee that he or she may refuse to accept the document to be served if it is in a language other than either of the following languages:
Organ za sprejem mora poučiti naslovnika, da lahko zavrne sprejem pisanja za vročitev, če ni napisano v enem od naslednjih jezikov:
[Grimshaw Architects] and the authorities and public institutions shall be in German.’
Vsebina prilog, na katere se IHK Berlin sklicuje, je deloma podana v tožbi.
Paragraph 10.2 of the architect’s contract stipulates: entrusted with ascertaining and repairing the defects complained of.
V točki 10.2 te pogodbe je dogovorjeno:
‘The place of jurisdiction in the event of disputes shall be Berlin.’
„V primeru spora je pristojno sodi�če v Berlinu“.
Paragraph 10.4 of the architect’s contract stipulates:
V točki 10.4 te pogodbe je dogovorjeno:
The application of 29 May 2002, by which IHK Berlin claimed damages against Grimshaw Architects under the architect’s contract, was served on Grimshaw Architects in German on 20 December 2002.
Tožba z dne 29. maja 2002, s katero je IHK Berlin od biroja Grimshaw zahteval od�kodnino na podlagi pogodbe o delu arhitekta, je bila biroju Grimshaw v nem�kem jeziku vročena že 20. decembra 2002.
After Grimshaw Architects had initially refused to accept the application on the ground that there was no English translation, an English translation of the application, and the annexes written in German with no translation, were delivered to it in London on 23 May 2003.
Potem ko je biro Grimshaw zavrnil sprejem tožbe najprej zato, ker ni bila prevedena v angle�čino, so mu bile 23. maja 2003 v Londonu vročene tožba, prevedena v angle�čino, in neprevedene priloge v nem�kem jeziku.
‘This contract shall be subject to German law.’
„Za to pogodbo se uporablja nem�ko pravo“.
For the purposes of service on Grimshaw Architects, IHK Berlin lodged with German courts copies of the application and all the annexes to which it referred in that application.
IHK Berlin je za namen vročitve biroju Grimshaw pri nem�kih sodi�čih vložil prepise tožbe in vseh prilog, na katere se je skliceval v tej vlogi.
Those annexes include the architect’s contract concluded between the parties, addenda to the contract and the draft thereof, an extract from the contractual specifications and several letters, including some from Grimshaw Architects, which relate to the correspondence with the companies
Ti zajemajo pogodbo o delu arhitekta, ki sta jo sklenili stranki, naknadne dogovore k tej pogodbi ter njihov osnutek, izvleček iz seznama storitev in več dopisov, med drugim tudi dopise biroja Grimshaw, ki se nana�ajo na dopisovanje s firmami, ki so bile poobla�čene za ugotavljanje in
By written pleading of 13 June 2003, Grimshaw Architects complained that the service was defective because the annexes had not been translated into English and, for that reason, relying on Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000, refused to accept the application, the service of which it regarded as ineffective.
V vlogi z dne 13. junija 2003 je biro Grimshaw grajal nepravilno vročitev, ker priloge niso bile prevedene v angle�ki jezik, in iz tega razloga s sklicevanjem na člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 zavrnil sprejem tožbe, katere vročitev po njegovem mnenju ni veljavna.
Grimshaw Architects also raised the objection that the application was time-barred and served a notice on Büro Weiss, joining it as a party in the proceedings before the German courts.
Med drugim je biro Grimshaw ugovarjal tudi zastaranj in o sporu obvestil biro Weiss, ki se je kot intervenient udeležil postopka pred nem�kimi sodi�či.
According to the order for reference, the Landgericht (Regional Court) Berlin held, by interlocutory decision, that the application was duly served on 23 May 2003.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa je mogoče razbrati, da je Landgericht Berlin z vmesno sodbo ugotovilo, da je bila tožba 23. maja 2003 pravilno vročena.
The Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court) Berlin dismissed the appeal lodged by Grimshaw Architects by a judgment.
Kammergericht Berlin je s sodbo zavrnilo pritožbo biroja Grimshaw.
The joined party — Büro Weiss — appealed on a point of law against that judgment to the referring court, the Bundesgerichtshof.
Zoper to sodbo Kammergericht je intervenient – biro Weiss – vložil revizijo pri predložitvenem sodi�ču, to je Bundesgerichtshof.
is not significantly prejudiced, for example because one of the annexes not enclosed with the application was sent at virtually the same time that the action was brought or because the defendant had already been aware of all the documents before the action was brought.
skoraj sočasno z vložitvijo tožbe ali ker bi bila tožena stranka že pred vložitvijo tožbe seznanjena z vsemi dokumenti.
The referring court points out that in the present case Grimshaw Architects was not aware of all the documents, in particular the documents on the ascertainment and repair of the defects, and the costs thereof.
Predložitveno sodi�če opozarja na to, da biro Grimshaw v tej zadevi ni poznal vseh pisanj, predvsem ne pisanj o ugotovitvi in odpravi napak ter s tem povezanih stro�kov.
Such documents cannot be regarded as insignificant details as the decision on the submission of a reply may depend on their assessment.
Takih pisanj ne bi bilo mogoče obravnavati, kot da niso pomembna, saj bi bila od njihove presoje lahko odvisna odločitev o vložitvi odgovora na tožbo.
The Bundesgerichtshof states that under the German Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) an application which refers to enclosed annexes forms a whole with those annexes and that a defendant must receive all information cited by the applicant which he needs for his defence.
Bundesgerichtshof navaja, da v skladu z nem�kim zakonom o pravdnem postopku tožba, ki se sklicuje na dodane priloge, skupaj z njimi sestavlja celoto in da mora tožena stranka prejeti vse informacije, ki jih navaja tožeča stranka in bi jih tožena stranka lahko potrebovala za svojo obrambo.
It is not therefore appropriate to assess the effectiveness of the service of an application independently of the service of the annexes on the ground that the essential information is presumably already clear from the application and the right to a fair hearing remains protected by the fact that the defendant can still defend himself adequately in the course of the proceedings.
Zato ni dopustno, da bi se veljavnost vročitve tožbe presojala ločeno od vročitve prilog zaradi tega, ker so bistvene informacije domnevno razvidne že iz tožbe in naj bi bila pravica biti sli�an ohranjena, tako da bi se lahko tožena stranka med postopkom zadostno branila.
An exception to that principle is permissible if the defendant’s need for information
Izjema od tega načela bi bila dopustna, kadar potreba po informacijah tožene stranke ne bi bila bistveno prizadeta, na primer ker bi bila priloga, ki ni bila priložena tožbi, poslana
Furthermore, the standard form provided for in the first sentence of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1348/2000 for requests for service in the Member States of the European Union requires information in relation to the nature and language of the document only as regards the document to be served (Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.3 of the form) but not as regards the annexes, in respect of which it is only required that their
Poleg tega naj bi bili v skladu s standardnim obrazcem za zaprosila za vročitev v državah članicah Evropske unije, predvidenim v členu 4(3), prvi stavek, Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, podatki o vrsti pisanja in o uporabljenem jeziku nujni samo glede vročenih pisanj (točki 6.1 in 6.3 standardnega obrazca), vendar ne glede prilog, za katere se zahteva le to, da se navede
WEISS UND PARTNER number be specified (Paragraph 6.4 of the form).
WEISS UND PARTNER njihovo �tevilo (točka 6.4 standardnega obrazca).
In the view of the Bundesgerichtshof, however, the only decisive factor is whether the document in question is a document to be served within the meaning of Regulation No 1348/2000; the design of the standard form can have no bearing on this question.
Po mnenju Bundesgerichtshof pa je bistveno, ali zadevno pisanje pomeni pisanje za vročitev v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000; oblika standardnega obrazca ne more vplivati na to vpra�anje.
parties in the contract.
v jeziku, ki je bil med strankama veljavno dogovorjen v okviru pogodbe.
The Bundesgerichtshof mentions the case of weak parties who may require protection, such as consumers in crossborder contracts who have agreed by contract that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the trader.
Bundesgerichtshof opozarja na primer �ibkej�e, po možnosti za�čite potrebne stranke, kot so potro�niki pri mednarodnih pogodbah, ki so pogodbeno sogla�ali, da dopisovanje poteka v jeziku gospodarstvenika.
In the present case, however, Grimshaw Architects concluded the contract in the course of its business.
Biro Grimshaw pa je sklenil pogodbo v tej zadevi pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti.
There is no special need to protect Grimshaw Architects and therefore no discernible need to recognise its right to refuse to accept service.
Razvidna naj ne bi bila nobena posebna potreba po varstvu tega biroja in po tem, da se mu prizna pravica do zavrnitve sprejema.
In the event that it is not possible to refuse acceptance on the sole ground that the annexes have not been translated, the Bundesgerichtshof states that in its view the contract in which the applicant and the defendant stipulated that correspondence was to be conducted in German is not sufficient to deny the defendant’s right to refuse acceptance pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Bundesgerichtshof meni, da če ne bi bilo mogoče zavrniti sprejema samo z obrazložitvijo, da priloge niso bile prevedene, pogodba, v kateri sta se tožeča in tožena stranka dogovorili, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v nem�kem jeziku, ne zado�ča, da tožena stranka ne bi imela pravice do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000. Ta klavzula naj ne bi pomenila, da tožena stranka razume jezik v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
In the event that a contractual clause cannot be regarded as a presumption that a language is understood, the Bundesgerichtshof asks, lastly, whether acceptance of an application can always be refused where the annexes have not been translated or whether there are exceptions, for example if the defendant already has a translation of the annexes or if the annex is reproduced word for word in the application and the application is translated.
Bundesgerichtshof se končno spra�uje – če pogodbene klavzule ni mogoče razumeti kot domneve o razumevanju jezika – ali se sprejem tožbe lahko zavrne vedno, kadar priloge niso bile prevedene, ali pa obstajajo izjeme, na primer če se toženi stranki že predloži prevod prilog ali če je priloga dobesedno povzeta v tožbi in je ta prevedena.
However, that can also be the case if documents transmitted as annexes are in the language effectively agreed by the
Za to bi �lo lahko tudi takrat, kadar bi bila pisanja, poslana kot priloge, sestavljena
‘(1) Must Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 be interpreted as meaning that an addressee does not have the right to refuse to accept service where only the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands?
1348/2000 […] razlagati tako, da naslovnikova pravica zavrniti sprejem v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe [�t. 1348/2000] ne obstaja, če zgolj priloge pisanja za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume?
Grimshaw Architects, Büro Weiss, IHK Berlin, the Czech, French, Italian and Slovak Governments and the Commission took part in the proceedings.
Postopka so se udeležili biro Grimshaw, biro Weiss, IHK Berlin, francoska, italijanska, slova�ka in če�ka vlada ter Komisija.
At the hearing on 24 October 2007, Büro Weiss, Grimshaw Architects, the French Government and the Commission presented oral submissions and answered questions asked by the Court of Justice.
Biro Weiss, biro Grimshaw, francoska vlada in Komisija so na obravnavi 24. oktobra 2007 podali ustne navedbe in odgovorili na vpra�anja Sodi�ča.
Must Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 be interpreted as meaning that the addressee is deemed to “understand” the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that regulation where, in the course of his business, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission?
Ali je treba člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe [�t. 1348/2000] razlagati tako, da naslovnik „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke v smislu te uredbe že zato, ker se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke?
A — The first question
IV – Trditve strank
Büro Weiss takes the view that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an addressee also has the right to refuse to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1) of that regulation if the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language
Biro Weiss meni, da je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da naslovnikova pravica do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu s členom 8(1) te uredbe obstaja tudi takrat, kadar priloge k pisanju za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države
WEISS UND PARTNER of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
WEISS UND PARTNER članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
annexes since cognisance of them will allow a decision to be taken not only on any defence, but also on the way it is conducted.
odločitev glede ugovorov, ampak tudi glede načina izvajanja teh ugovorov.
Some grounds of defence will possibly be apparent only from the annexes and are not necessarily considerations cited by the applicant.
Obramba in ugovori izhajajo morda �ele iz prilog in ne odražajo nujno stali�č, ki jih je navedla tožeča stranka.
Lastly, Grimshaw Architects takes the view that failure to translate all the annexes to an application breaches the principle of equal treatment since all annexes are available in German in purely national proceedings in Germany.
Biro Grimshaw meni, da je s tem, da niso bile prevedene vse priloge k tožbi, kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja, saj naj bi bile v nacionalnem nem�kem postopku vse priloge na voljo v nem�čini.