natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, such a decision could be replaced by a subsequent decision by the court of the Member State of habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal or retention.
Vendar pa tako odločbo lahko nadomesti kasnej�a odločba sodi�ča države članice otrokovega običajnega prebivali�ča pred njegovo neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem.
Should that judgment entail the return of the child, the return should take place without any special procedure being required for
Če je posledica odločbe vrnitev otroka, za njegovo vrnitev ni potreb[en] za priznanje in izvr�itev navedene sodne odločbe
RINAU recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the Member State to or in which the child has been removed or retained.’
RINAU v državi članici, v katero ali v kateri je bil otrok preme�čen ali zadržan, noben poseben postopek.“
Recital 21 in the preamble to the Regulation states:
Uvodna izjava 21 Uredbe se glasi:
‘The recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State should be based on the principle of mutual trust and the grounds for nonrecognition should be kept to the minimum required.’
„Priznavanje in izvr�evanje sodnih odločb, izrečenih v državi članici, mora temeljiti na načelu medsebojnega zaupanja, razloge za nepriznanje pa je treba omejiti na kar najmanj�i obseg.“
Article 2 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 2 Uredbe določa:
4. the term “judgment” shall mean a divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, as well as a judgment relating to parental responsibility, pronounced by a court of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order or decision;
4. ‚sodna odločba‘ pomeni odločbo o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, kakor tudi sodno odločbo, ki se nana�a na star�evsko odgovornost, in jo je izdalo sodi�če države članice, ne glede na to, kak�no je ime sodne odločbe, vključno s sklepom, odredbo ali odločbo;
5. the term “Member State of origin” shall mean the Member State where the judgment to be enforced was issued;
5. ‚država članica izvora‘ pomeni državo članico, kjer je bila izdana sodna odločba, ki jo je treba izvr�iti;
6. the term “Member State of enforcement” shall mean the Member State where enforcement of the judgment is sought;
6. ‚država članica izvr�itve‘ pomeni državo članico, v kateri se zahteva izvr�itev sodne odločbe;
7. the term “parental responsibility” shall mean all rights and duties relating to the person or the property of a child which are given to a natural or legal person by judgment, by operation of law or by an agreement having legal effect.
7. ‚star�evska odgovornost‘ pomeni vse pravice in dolžnosti v zvezi z osebnostjo ali s premoženjem otroka, ki so fizični ali pravni osebi podeljene s sodno odločbo, po samem zakonu ali s pravno veljavnim dogovorom.
The term shall include rights of custody and rights of access;
Izraz zajema pravice do varstva in vzgoje otroka in pravice do stikov z otrokom;
8. the term “holder of parental responsibility” shall mean any person having parental responsibility over a child;
8. ‚nosilec star�evske odgovornosti‘ pomeni osebo, ki ima star�evsko odgovornost do otroka;
(b) provided that, at the time of removal or retention, the rights of custody were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
11. ‚neupravičena premestitev ali zadržanje‘ pomeni premestitev ali zadržanje otroka, kadar: a) je to kr�itev pravic do varstva in vzgoje, pridobljenih s sodno odločbo ali po samem zakonu ali z dogovorom, ki ima pravno veljavo v skladu z zakonodajo države članice, v kateri je imel otrok običajno prebivali�če neposredno pred premestitvijo ali zadržanjem, in b) pod pogojem, da so se pravice do varstva in vzgoje otroka v času premestitve ali zadržanja dejansko izvajale, skupaj ali posamezno, ali bi se bile izvajale, če do premestitve ali zadržanja ne bi pri�lo.
Custody shall be considered to be exercised jointly when, pursuant to a judgment or by operation of law, one holder of parental responsibility cannot decide on the child’s place of residence without the consent of another holder of parental responsibility.’
Za varstvo in vzgojo otroka se �teje, da se izvr�uje skupno, kadar v skladu s sodno odločbo ali po samem zakonu eden od nosilcev star�evske odgovornosti ne more odločati o kraju otrokovega prebivali�ča brez soglasja drugega nosilca star�evske odgovornosti.“
Article 8 of the Regulation states:
Člen 8 Uredbe določa:
The courts of a Member State shall have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that Member State at the time the court is seised.
Sodi�ča države članice so pristojna v zadevah star�evske odgovornosti v zvezi z otrokom, ki običajno prebiva v tisti državi članici v trenutku, ko je sodi�če začelo postopek.
Paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provisions of Articles 9, 10 and 12.’
Odstavek 1 se uporablja ob upo�tevanju členov 9, 10 in 12.“
Article 10 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 10 Uredbe določa:
‘In case of wrongful removal or retention of the child, the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention shall retain their jurisdiction until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another Member State …’
„Pri neupravičeni premestitvi ali zadržanju otroka sodi�ča države članice, v kateri je otrok običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem, obdržijo svojo pristojnost, dokler otrok ne pridobi običajnega prebivali�ča v drugi državi članici […]“
Under Article 11 of the Regulation:
Člen 11 Uredbe določa:
Where a person, institution or other body having rights of custody applies to the competent authorities in a Member State to deliver a judgment on the basis of the [1980 Hague Convention], in order to obtain the return of a child that has been wrongfully removed or retained in a Member State other than the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, paragraphs 2 to 8 shall apply.
Kadar oseba, institucija ali drug organ, ki ima pravico do varstva in vzgoje otroka, zahteva od pristojnih organov v državi članici, da izdajo sodno odločbo na podlagi [Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980], da bi dosegla vrnitev otroka, ki je bil neupravičeno preme�čen ali zadržan v drugi državi članici, ki ni država članica, kjer je običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem, se uporabljata odstavka 2 do 8.
When applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, it shall be ensured that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceed-
Pri uporabi členov 12 in 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 se zagotovi otroku možnost biti med postopkom zasli�an, razen če to ni primerno zaradi otrokove starosti ali zrelosti.
2008 — CASE C-195/08 PPU ings unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his or her age or degree of maturity.
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU
A court to which an application for return of a child is made as mentioned in paragraph 1 shall act expeditiously in proceedings on the application, using the most expeditious procedures available in national law.
Sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen zahtevek za vrnitev otroka iz odstavka 1, ukrepa v postopku na podlagi zahtevka kar se da hitro in uporabi najhitrej�i postopek, ki ga predvideva nacionalno pravo.
Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, the court shall, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, issue its judgment no later than six weeks after the application is lodged.
Brez poseganja v prvi pododstavek izda sodi�če sodno odločbo v roku �estih tednov po vložitvi zahtevka, razen takrat, kadar izjemne okoli�čine to onemogočajo.
A court cannot refuse to return a child on the basis of Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his or her return.
Sodi�če ne more zavrniti vrnitve otroka na podlagi člena 13(b) Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980, če se ugotovi, da so sprejeti vsi potrebni ukrepi za zagotovitev za�čite otroka po njegovi vrnitvi.
A court cannot refuse to return a child unless the person who requested the return of the child has been given an opportunity to be heard.
Sodi�če ne more zavrniti vrnitve otroka, ne da bi bila osebi, ki zahteva vrnitev otroka, dana možnost biti zasli�ana.
If a court has issued an order on nonreturn pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court must immediately either directly or through its central authority, transmit a copy of the court order on nonreturn and of the relevant documents, in particular a transcript of the hearings before the court, to the court with jurisdiction or central authority in the Member State where the child was habit -ually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, as determined by national law.
Če je sodi�če v skladu s členom 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 izdalo sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, mora v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo takoj neposredno ali preko svojega osrednjega organa poslati kopijo odločbe, da se otrok ne vrne, in kopije ustreznih dokumentov, zlasti prepisa zasli�anja pred sodi�čem, pristojnemu sodi�ču ali osrednjemu organu v državi članici, kjer je otrok običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem.
The court shall receive all the mentioned documents within one month of the date of the nonreturn order.
Sodi�če mora prejeti vse omenjene dokumente v enem mesecu od dne izdaje odločbe o tem, da se otrok ne vrne.
Unless the courts in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention have already been seised
Razen v primeru, da je ena od strank začela postopek pred sodi�či v državi članici, kjer je otrok običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičeno premestitvijo ali
RINAU by one of the parties, the court or central authority that receives the information mentioned in paragraph 6 must notify it to the parties and invite them to make submissions to the court, in accordance with national law, within three months of the date of notification so that the court can examine the question of custody of the child.
RINAU zadržanjem, mora sodi�če ali osrednji organ, ki prejme dokumente iz odstavka 6, o tem obvestiti stranke in jih povabiti, naj v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo predložijo sodi�ču v roku treh mesecev od dne obvestila svoje predloge, da bi lahko sodi�če preučilo vpra�anje dodelitve varstva in vzgoje otroka.
Without prejudice to the rules on jurisdiction contained in this Regulation, the court shall close the case if no submissions have been received by the court within the time-limit.
Brez poseganja v pravila o pristojnosti iz te uredbe sodi�če zaključi primer, če v roku ne prejme nobenih predlogov.
Notwithstanding a judgment of nonreturn pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction under this Regulation shall be enforceable in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III below in order to secure the return of the child.’
Ne glede na sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, na podlagi člena 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980, je kakr�na koli kasnej�a sodna odločba, ki zahteva vrnitev otroka in jo izda na podlagi te uredbe pristojno sodi�če, izvr�ljiva v skladu z Oddelkom 4 Poglavja III spodaj, da bi se zagotovila vrnitev otroka.“
Chapter III of the Regulation, entitled ‘Recognition and enforcement’, contains Art -icles 21 to 52 thereof.
Poglavje III Uredbe z naslovom „Priznavanje in izvr�itev“ vključuje člene od 21 do 52.
Section 4 of Chapter III, entitled ‘Enforceability of certain judgments concerning rights of access and of certain judgments which require the return of the child’, contains Articles 40 to 45 of the Regulation.
Oddelek 4 tega poglavja III z naslovom „Izvr�ljivost nekaterih sodnih odločb o pravici do stikov in nekaterih sodnih odločb o vrnitvi otroka“ vključuje člene od 40 do 45.
Article 21(1) and (3) of the Regulation provides:
Člen 21(1) in (3) Uredbe določa:
A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.
Sodna odločba, izdana v državi članici, se v drugih državah članicah prizna, ne da bi bilo potrebno za priznanje začeti kakr�enkoli poseben postopek.
Without prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter, any interested party may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 of this Chapter, apply for a decision that the judgment be or not be recognised.
Brez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2 tega poglavja zahteva izdajo odločbe o priznanju oz. nepriznanju sodne odločbe.“
Article 23 of the Regulation states:
Člen 23 Uredbe določa:
‘A judgment relating to parental responsibility shall not be recognised:
„Sodna odločba v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo se ne prizna: a) če bi bilo njeno priznanje v očitnem nasprotju z javnim redom v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje, z upo�tevanjem otrokovih koristi;
Under Article 24 of the Regulation:
Člen 24 Uredbe določa:
The test of public policy referred to in Articles 22(a) and 23(a) may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction set out in Articles 3 to 14.’
Preizkusa javnega reda iz členov 22(a) in 23(a) ni dovoljeno uporabiti glede pravil o pristojnosti, določenih v členih od 3 do 14.“
Article 28(1) of the Regulation is worded as follows:
Člen 28(1) Uredbe določa:
‘A judgment on the exercise of parental responsibility in respect of a child given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State and has been served shall be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.’
„Sodna odločba o izvr�evanju star�evske odgovornosti glede otroka, izdana v državi članici in ki je izvr�ljiva v tej državi članici ter je bila vročena, se izvr�i v drugi državi članici, ko je na zahtevo katere koli od zainteresiranih strank razgla�ena za izvr�ljivo v tej državi.“
Article 31 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 31 Uredbe določa:
The court applied to [for a declaration of enforceability] shall give its decision without delay.
Sodi�če, pri katerem se vloži zahteva [za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti], odloči takoj.
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.
Oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, [in otrok] v tej fazi postopka nima[ta] možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve.
The application may be refused only for one of the reasons specified in Articles 22, 23 and 24.
Zahteva se lahko zavrne samo zaradi enega od razlogov iz členov 22, 23 in 24.
Under no circumstances may a judgment be reviewed as to its substance.’
Pod nobenimi pogoji tuje sodne odločbe ni dovoljeno preverjati glede vsebine.“
Article 40 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 40 Uredbe določa:
(b) the return of a child entailed by a judgment given pursuant to Article 11(8).
[…] b) vrnitev otroka, ki je določena v sodni odločbi, izrečeni v skladu s členom 11(8).
The provisions of this Section shall not prevent a holder of parental responsibility from seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment in accordance with the provisions in Sections 1 and 2 of this Chapter.’
Določbe tega oddelka ne preprečujejo nosilcu star�evske odgovornosti, da zahteva priznanje in izvr�itev sodne odločbe v skladu z določbami oddelkov 1 in 2 tega poglavja.“
Under Article 42 of the Regulation, entitled ‘Return of the child’:
Člen 42 Uredbe, naslovljen „Vrnitev otroka“, določa:
The return of a child referred to in Article 40(1)(b) entailed by an enforceable judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition if the judgment has been certified in the Member State of origin in accordance with paragraph 2.
Pravica do stikov z otrokom iz člena 40(1)(b), priznana v izvr�ljivi sodni odločbi, izrečeni v državi članici, se prizna in je izvr�ljiva v drugi državi članici, ne da bi bila potrebna razglasitev izvr�ljivosti in brez možnosti nasprotovanja njenemu priznanju, če je bilo o sodni odločbi v državi članici izvora izdano potrdilo v skladu z odstavkom 2.
Even if national law does not provide for enforceability by operation of law, notwithstanding any appeal, of a judgment requiring the return of the child mentioned in Article [11(8)], the court of origin may declare the judgment enforceable.
Celo kadar nacionalno pravo za odločbo o pravici do stikov ne predvideva izvr�ljivosti po samem zakonu, lahko sodi�če izvora odloči, da je sodna odločba izvr�ljiva ne glede na možnost pravnega sredstva.
The judge of origin who delivered the judgment referred to in Article 40(1)(b) shall issue the certificate referred to in paragraph 1 only if:
Sodnik izvora, ki je izdal sodno odločbo iz člena 40(1)(b), izda potrdilo iz odstavka 1 le, če: a) je bila otroku dana možnost biti zasli�an, razen če se je smatralo, da zasli�anje ni primerno zaradi otrokove starosti ali zrelosti, b) so stranke imele možnost biti zasli�ane in c) je sodi�če upo�tevalo pri izdaji sodne odločbe razloge in dokaze, na podlagi katerih se izda odredba v skladu s členom 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980.
In the event that the court or any other authority takes measures to ensure the protection of the child after its return to the State of habitual residence, the certificate shall contain details of such measures.
Če sodi�če ali drug organ sprejme ukrepe za zagotovitev za�čite otroka po njegovi vrnitvi v državo običajnega prebivali�ča, vsebuje potrdilo podrobne podatke o tak�nih ukrepih.
The judge of origin shall of his or her own motion issue that certificate using the standard form in Annex IV (certificate concerning return of the child(ren)).
Sodnik izvora po lastni presoji izda navedeno potrdilo na standardnem obrazcu iz Priloge IV (potrdilo o vrnitvi otroka (otrok)).
The certificate shall be completed in the language of the judgment.’
Potrdilo se izpolni v jeziku, v katerem je sestavljena sodna odločba.“
Article 43 of the Regulation reads as follows:
Člen 43 Uredbe določa:
The law of the Member State of origin shall be applicable to any rectification of the certificate.
Za vsak popravek potrdila se uporablja pravo države članice izvora.
No appeal shall lie against the issuing of a certificate pursuant to Articles 41(1) or 42(1).’
Zoper izdajo potrdila v skladu s členoma 41(1) ali 42(1) ni pravnega sredstva.“
Under Article 44 of the Regulation, ‘[t]he certificate shall take effect only within the limits of the enforceability of the judgment’.
V skladu s členom 44 Uredbe „potrdilo učinkuje v okvirih izvr�ljivosti sodne odločbe“.
Article 60 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 60 Uredbe določa:
‘In relations between Member States, this Regulation shall take precedence over the following Conventions in so far as they concern matters governed by this Regulation:
„S to uredbo so med državami članicami nadome�čene naslednje konvencije, v kolikor se nana�ajo na zadeve, urejene s to uredbo:
(e) the [1980 Hague Convention]’.
[…] e) [Haa�ka konvencija iż leta 1980].“
Article 68 of the Regulation provides:
Člen 68 Uredbe določa:
‘The Member States shall notify to the Commission the lists of courts and redress procedures referred to in Articles 21, 29, 33 and 34 and any amendments thereto.
„Države članice Komisijo uradno obvestijo [o] seznami[h] sodi�č in pravni[h] sredst[ev] iz členov 21, 29, 33 in 34 ter njihovih spremembah.
The Commission shall update this information and make it publicly available through the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and any other appropriate means.’
Komisija te podatke sproti dopolnjuje in z objavo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in na druge načine poskrbi, da so javno dostopni.“
According to the information relating to courts and redress procedures pursuant to Article 68 of Regulation No 2201/2003 (OJ 2005 C 40, p.
Iz podatkov o sodi�čih in pravnih sredstvih, sporočenih v skladu s členom 68 Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 (UL 2005, C 40, str.
2), pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Regulation, the Republic of Lithuania informed the Commission that the applications provided for by Articles 21 and 29 of that regulation and the appeals provided for by Article 33 thereof are to be brought before the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Court of Appeal of Lithuania), and that the appeals provided for by Article 34 of the Regulation may be brought only by an appeal in cassation before the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania).
2), izhaja, da je v skladu z njenim členom 68, prvi odstavek, Republika Litva Komisijo obvestila, da so zahteve iz členov 21 in 29 te uredbe in pravno sredstvo iz njenega člena 33 predloženi pri Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (pritožbeno sodi�če) in da se odločitev, izdana v zvezi s pravnim sredstvom iz člena 34 te uredbe, lahko izpodbija samo z zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti pred Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis Teismas (vrhovno sodi�če).
It is apparent from that information that an application for a declaration of enforceability of a judgment issued by a court of a Member State other than the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Regulation, must be lodged before the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas.
Iz omenjenih podatkov izhaja, da mora biti zahteva za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti odločbe, ki jo je izdalo sodi�če države članice, ki ni Republika Litva, na podlagi člena 28(1) vložena pri Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas.
Pursuant to Article 72, the Regulation is to apply essentially from 1 March 2005.
V skladu s členom 72 Uredbe se ta pretežno začne uporabljati 1. marca 2005.
The Regulation does not apply in respect of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Uredba se ne uporablja za Kraljevino Dansko.
In the course of March 2005 the spouses began to live sep -arately, Luisa remaining with her mother.
Marca leta 2005 sta zakonca Rinau začela prebivati ločeno, pri čemer je Luisa ostala pri materi.
It was then that, according to the order for reference, divorce proceedings were initiated before the Amtsgericht Oranienburg (Oranienburg Local Court) (Germany).
Takrat je bil – kot je sporočilo predložitveno sodi�če – pri Amtsgericht Oranienburg (Nemčija) vložen predlog za razvezo zakonske zveze.
That court dismissed the application by a decision of 22 December 2006.
Z odločbo z dne 22. decembra 2006 je to sodi�če njegov predlog zavrnilo.
According to information provided to the Court of Justice at the hearing, the decision of 22 December 2006 was transmitted to the German central authority by Mr Rinau’s lawyer, and that authority itself forwarded that decision to the Amtsgericht Oranienburg.
V skladu s podatki, ki jih je Sodi�če dobilo na obravnavi, je odvetnik M. Rinau to odločbo z dne 22. decembra 2006 posredoval osrednjemu nem�kemu organu, ta organ pa je sam o njem obvestil Amtsgericht Oranienburg.
Subsequent to that transmission, the Lithuanian central authority sent a translation of that decision into German.
Po tem posredovanju je osrednji litovski organ poslal prevod te odločbe v nem�čini.
In the course of April 2007, the Klaipėdos apygardos teismas made an order suspending the enforcement of the decision of the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas of 15 March 2007.
Aprila 2007 je Klaipėdos apygardos teismas sprejelo sklep o odložitvi izvr�itve odločbe Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z dne 15. marca 2007.
The latter court set aside that order by a decision of 4 June 2007.
Slednje sodi�če je ta sklep razveljavilo z odločbo z dne 4. junija 2007.
As was made clear at the hearing, the enforcement of the decision of 15 March 2007 has been suspended several times.
Kot je pojasnilo na obravnavi, je bila izvr�itev odločbe z dne 15. marca 2007 večkrat odložena.