natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such consent is formally recorded and, in principle, may not be revoked.
Soglasje se uradno zapi�e in ga načeloma ni mogoče preklicati.
7 if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law.’
7 če je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni ali ukrepa, vezanega na odvzem prostosti, v primeru, ko se zahtevana oseba nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici ali je državljan ali prebivalec te države in se ta država zaveže, da bo izvr�ila kazen ali ukrep v skladu s svojim notranjim pravom.“
7 — Articles 11 and 13 of the Framework Decision.
7 – Člena 11 in 13 Okvirnega sklepa.
The requested person is to be surrendered as soon as possible to the issuing judicial authority and no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant.
Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ v skladu s členom 15 Okvirnega sklepa odloči o predaji osebe v rokih in pod pogoji, opredeljenimi v tem okvirnem sklepu.
However, if the person concerned has already been sentenced for an act other than that referred to in the European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority may postpone the surrender so that the person may serve his sentence in the executing Member State. 8
V istem členu je določeno, da če po mnenju izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa informacije, ki mu jih je poslala odreditvena država članica, niso zadostne, lahko zahteva, naj mu ta nujno po�lje dodatne informacije.
Under Article 15 of the Framework Decision, the executing judicial authority is to decide, within the timelimits and in accordance with the conditions defined in the Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered.
Zahtevano osebo je nato treba odreditvenemu pravosodnemu organu predati v najkraj�em mogočem času in najpozneje v 10 dneh po končni odločitvi o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Under that provision, if the executing judicial authority finds the information communicated by the issuing Member State insufficient, it may ask it to provide supplementary information as a matter of urgency.
Če je bila ta oseba že obsojena za druga dejanja, kot so dejanja, na katera se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, pa lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ preloži njeno predajo, da bi lahko prestala svojo kazen v izvr�itveni državi članici. 8
Article 17 of the Framework Decision lays down the timelimits and procedures for the decision to execute the European arrest warrant.
V členu 17 so določeni roki in postopki pri odločitvi o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje.
A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.
Evropski nalog za prijetje je treba obravnavati in izvr�iti kot nujno zadevo.
Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision has been transposed into German law by means of provisions which vary according to whether the person concerned is a German national or a foreign national.
Člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa je bil v nem�ko pravo prenesen z različnimi določbami, odvisno od tega, ali je zadevna oseba nem�ki ali tuji državljan.
In cases where the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given.
V primeru, ko zahtevana oseba sogla�a s predajo, mora biti končna odločitev o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje sprejeta v 10 dneh po soglasju.
In other cases, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person.
V drugih primerih mora biti končna odločitev o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje sprejeta v 60 dneh po prijetju zahtevane osebe.
The situation of German nationals is governed by Paragraph 80(3) of the Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen) of 23 December 1982, as amended by the Law on the European arrest warrant (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) of 20 July 2006.
Položaj nem�kih državljanov je urejen s členom 80(3) zakona o mednarodni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen) z dne 23. decembra 1982, kakor je bil spremenjen z zakonom o evropskem nalogu za prijetje (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) z dne 20. julija 2006 9. Ta določba se glasi:
8 — Articles 23 and 24 of the Framework Decision.9 — BGBl. 2006 I, p.
8 – Člena 23 in 24 Okvirnega sklepa.9 – BGBl. 2006 I, str.
1721 (‘the IRG’).
1721, v nadaljevanju: IRG.
‘The extradition of a German national for the purposes of execution of sentence is permitted only if the requested person consents (such being minuted by the judge) after being informed of his rights …’ regard to foreign nationals between nationals of other Member States and those of third States, were adopted following a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) (Germany) of 18 July 2005, declaring the earlier law to be unconstitutional on the ground that it infringed, in a disproportionate manner, the fundamental right of every German not to be extradited. 10
„Izročitev nem�kega državljana zaradi izvr�itve kazni je mogoča samo, če preganjana oseba, potem ko je poučena o svojih pravicah, za zapisnik o zasli�anju izjavi, da sogla�a z izročitvijo. […]“ razlikujejo med državljani drugih držav članic in državljani tretjih držav, sprejete po odločbi Bundesverfassungsgericht (Nemčija), ki je bila izdana 18. julija 2005 in s katero je bil predhodni zakon razgla�en za protiustavnega, ker naj bi nesorazmerno �kodil temeljni pravici vsakega Nemca do neizročitve. 10
The situation of foreign nationals, whether nationals of another Member State or of a third State, is governed by Paragraph 83b(2) of the IRG.
Položaj tujcev, naj bodo to državljani druge države članice ali tretje države, je urejen s členom 83b(2) IRG.
This provides:
V tem členu je določeno:
10 — Article 16(2) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) provides:‘No German may be extradited to a foreign country.
10 – V členu 16(2) Ustave Zvezne republike Nemčije (Grund -gesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) je določeno: „Noben Nemec ne sme biti izročen v tujino.
The law may provide otherwise for extraditions to a member state of the European Union or to an international court, provided that the rule of law is observed.’
Za izročitev državi članici Evropske unije ali mednarodnemu sodi�ču se lahko z zakonom sprejmejo predpisi o odstopanju, če so zagotovljena načela pravne države.“
11 — Office of public prosecutor based at the appellate court having jurisdiction.
11 – Službe državnega tožilstva pri pristojnem pritožbenem sodi�ču.
The national court points out that those provisions, in so far as they favour German nationals and make no distinction with
Predložitveno sodi�če pojasnjuje, da so bile te določbe, ki nem�kim državljanom dajejo posebno pravico, pri tujcih pa ne
Regional Court, Bydgoszcz (Poland), for the purposes of the execution of a five-month prison sentence imposed by a judgment which has become final.
KOZŁOWSKI v Bydgoszczu (Poljska) zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni petih mesecev, izrečene s sodbo, ki je postala pravnomočna.
The referring court states that, according to the judgments convicting Mr Kozłowski, he is unmarried and childless.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da je glede na obsodilni sodbi, izdani zoper S. Kozłowskega, ta samski in nima otrok.
He has little or even no knowledge of German and has been an alcoholic since 2002.
Nem�ko zna slabo ali celo sploh ne, od leta 2002 pa je alkoholik. Odrasel je na Poljskem.
Following his schooling, he trained as a chef and worked as such until the end of 2003.
Po končanem �olanju se je usposobil za kuharja in kot kuhar delal do leta 2003. S.
For approximately one year Mr Kozłowski drew unemployment benefit of roughly EUR 100 per month. His last place of residence in Poland was Sosno, in Województwo kujawsko pomorskie (KujawskoPomorskie Province).
Kozłowski je približno eno leto prejemal mesečna nadomestila za brezposelnost v vi�ini 100 EUR.
He was employed on an occasional basis on building sites and stayed in Germany until his arrest on 10 May 2006, with one interruption over the Christmas holiday period.
Občasno naj bi delal v gradbeni�tvu in v Nemčiji naj bi se zadrževal do prijetja 10. maja 2006 s prekinitvijo med božičnimi prazniki.
The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart, the executing judicial authority, informed him on 18 June 2007 that it did not intend to invoke any ground for nonexecution.
Nem�ki izvr�itveni pravosodni organ Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart ga je 18. junija 2007 obvestil, da ne namerava uveljavljati nobenega razloga za neizvr�itev.
According to that authority, Mr Kozłowski’s habitual residence was not in Germany and his regular visits to that Member State had the sole purpose of adding the amounts earned from the committing of crimes to the limited unemployment benefits received in Poland and to the material assistance provided by his parents.
Ta organ je namreč menil, da naj zadevna oseba v Nemčiji ne bi imela običajnega prebivali�ča in da naj bi bil edini cilj njenih večkratnih zadrževanj v tej državi članici s kaznivimi dejanji pridobiti denar, ki ga je dodala skromnim nadomestilom za brezposelnost, ki jih je prejemala na Poljskem, in materialni pomoči svojih star�ev.
The Generalstaatsanwaltschaft also considered that it was not for it to engage on its own initiative in the meticulous and time-consuming investigation of where, when, with whom and for what purpose the requested person had stayed.
Generalstaatsanwaltschaft tudi meni, da mu ni treba opraviti podrobnih in dolgotrajnih poizvedb, kdaj, pri kom in zakaj se je zahtevana oseba zadrževala v Nemčiji.
It had therefore applied to the Oberlandesgericht to allow execution of the European arrest warrant.
Zato je predlagal Oberlandesgericht, naj odobri izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje.
At his hearing, he stated that he had intended to go to Germany to find work there in order to pay the lawyers’ fees for the case in which the European arrest warrant had been issued.
Kozłowski je na zasli�anju izjavil, da je posku�al priti v Nemčijo in tam poiskati zaposlitev, da bi poravnal odvetni�ke stro�ke v zvezi z zadevo, v kateri je bil izdan evropski nalog za prijetje.
He also stated that he had fallen into bad company and wished to remain in Germany following his release.
Izjavil je tudi, da je za�el v slabo družbo in da bi po izpustitvi želel ostati v Nemčiji.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 ting crimes, meaning that the lawfulness of his stay in Germany was unclear, and
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 da je zakonitost njegovega prebivanja v Nemčiji negotova, in
III — The reference for a preliminary ruling
III – Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
First, it has to determine whether Mr Kozłowski’s habitual residence was in German territory and whether it is still situated there.
Prvič, ugotoviti mora, ali je S. Kozłowski imel običajno prebivali�če na nem�kem ozemlju oziroma ali ga �e ima tam.
If that question were to be answered in the negative, it would allow execution of the European arrest warrant, since all the other conditions required under German law in that regard are satisfied.
Če bi bil odgovor na to vpra�anje nikalen, bi dovolil izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, ker so vsi drugi pogoji, določeni z nem�kim pravom v ta namen, izpolnjeni.
If, on the other hand, the question were to be answered affirmatively, the Oberlandesgericht would have to set aside the decision of the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft not to invoke the grounds for nonexecution, since it is the lack of habitual residence in Germany which underlies that decision.
Če bi bil, nasprotno, odgovor na to vpra�anje pritrdilen, bi moralo Oberlandesgericht razveljaviti odločbo Generalstaatsanwaltschaft, da ne bo uveljavljal razlogov za neizvr�itev, ker ta odločba temelji na neobstoju običajnega prebivali�ča na nacionalnem ozemlju.
Secondly, the referring court asks whether the German law transposing Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is compatible with the principle of nondiscrimination.
Drugič, Oberlandesgericht se spra�uje o skladnosti nem�kega prava, s katerim je zagotovljen prenos člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije.
In particular, it would like the Court to rule on the question whether — and, if so, to what extent — it is possible to make a distinction between German nationals and foreign nationals who are citizens of the European Union.
Zlasti želi, da Sodi�če odloči o vpra�anju, ali in koliko je mogoče razlikovati med svojimi državljani in tujimi državljani, ki so državljani Unije.
More precisely, the Oberlandesgericht asks what implications are to be inferred for the purposes of that assessment from the following circumstances:
Natančneje, spra�uje se o posledicah, ki jih je za to presojo treba izpeljati iz naslednjih okoli�čin:
— the interruptions of Mr Kozłowski’s stay in Germany during the 2005 Christmas holidays, possibly even in June 2005, and in February and March 2006;
– prekinitev zadrževanja S. Kozłowskega v Nemčiji med božičnimi prazniki leta 2005, morda pa tudi junija 2005 ter februarja in marca 2006;
— the fact that Mr Kozłowski, more than three months after his entry to Germany, did not carry out any paid work there and earned his living essentially by commit- his stay in the Member State [of execution] has not been uninterrupted;
Kozłowski več kot tri mesece po prihodu v Nemčijo tam ni opravljal nobene dejavnosti in se je večinoma preživljal s kaznivimi dejanji, tako se ta oseba ne nahaja neprekinjeno v [izvr�itveni] državi članici;
IV — Analysis his stay there does not comply with the national legislation on residence of foreign nationals;
IV – Analiza se ta oseba tam ne nahaja v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo v zvezi z vstopom in bivanjem tujcev;
(c) he commits crimes there systematically for financial gain; and/or
(c) ta oseba tam sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja in/ali
I propose that the Court consider, first, the second question referred by the national court.
Sodi�ču predlagam, naj najprej preuči drugo vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če.
Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in this order is justified, in my opinion, by the fact that, were the Court to hold in response to the second question that the principle of nondiscrimination precludes the surrender against his will of a national of a Member State other than the Federal Republic of Germany, given that the lack of consent by a German national rules out such surrender, the first question would not call for a reply.
Tak vrstni red preučitve vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje je po mojem mnenju upravičen zaradi dejstva, da bi prvo vpra�anje postalo brezpredmetno, če bi Sodi�če na drugo vpra�anje odgovorilo, da načelo prepovedi diskriminacije nasprotuje predaji državljana druge države članice, kot je Zvezna republika Nemčija, proti njegovi volji, ker neobstoj soglasja nem�kega državljana izključuje tako predajo.
(d) he is in detention there serving a custodial sentence?
(d) je ta oseba tam v zaporu?
A — The second question referred for a preliminary ruling
A – Drugo odločanje
By its second question, the national court is asking the Court to rule on the conformity with Community law of the difference in treatment provided for by German legislation between German nationals and nationals of other Member States, regarding the effect of the lack of consent of the requested person.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem predlaga Sodi�ču, naj odloči, ali je različno obravnavanje nem�kih državljanov in državljanov drugih držav članic, določeno z nem�ko zakonodajo, kar zadeva učinke neobstoja soglasja osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
It asks this question because, under Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG, a European arrest warrant concerning a German national may not be executed if that person does not
To vpra�anje predlaga, ker je na podlagi člena 80(3) IRG izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki se nana�a na nem�kega državljana, izključena, kadar ta oseba ne sogla�a s
(2) Is transposition of Article 4(6) of the [Framework Decision] in such a way that the extradition of a national of the [executing] Member State against his will for the purpose of execution of sentence is always impermissible, whereas extradition of nationals of other Member States against their will can be authorised at the discretion of the authorities, compatible with Union law, in particular with the principle of nondiscrimination and with Union citizenship under Article 6(1) EU, read in conjunction with Articles 12 EC and 17 EC et seq., and, if so, are those principles at least to be taken into account in the exercise of that discretion?’
Ali je tak prenos člena 4[(6)] [Okvirnega sklepa], na podlagi katerega je izročitev državljanov [izvr�itvene] države članice zaradi izvr�itve kazni proti njihovi volji vedno nedopustna, medtem ko imajo organi zadevne države glede tega, ali dovolijo izročitev državljanov drugih držav članic proti njihovi volji, diskrecijsko pravico, združljiv s pravom Unije, zlasti z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije in načelom državljanstva Unije iz člena 6(1) EU v zvezi s členoma 12 ES in 17 ES ter naslednjimi. Če je odgovor pritrdilen, ali je treba navedeni načeli upo�tevati vsaj pri izvajanju navedene diskrecijske pravice?“
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 person concerned is a national or resident of the executing Member State.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 izvr�itve kazni, kadar je zadevna oseba državljan ali prebivalec izvr�itvene države članice.
consent to his surrender whereas, under Paragraph 83b of the IRG, the lack of consent of a national of another Member State can justify a refusal only if execution of the custodial sentence in the territory of the Federal Republic is justified by an interest that deserves protection.
svojo predajo, medtem ko je lahko v skladu s členom 83b IRG neobstoj soglasja državljana druge države članice podlaga za zavrnitev samo, če je izvr�itev kazni na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije utemeljena zaradi interesa, upravičenega do varstva.
According to that government, that provision of the Framework Decision allows Member States to provide for a specific ground of nonexecution based on nationality.
Po mnenju te vlade imajo države članice na podlagi te določbe Okvirnega sklepa možnost določiti poseben razlog za neizvr�itev, ki temelji na državljanstvu.
The German Government also refers to Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision, which applies where the European arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of prosecution and which provides that, where the person concerned is a national or resident of the executing Member State, the judicial authority of that State may make surrender subject to the condition that the person be returned to that State in order to serve there the sentence passed against him in the issuing Member State.
Nem�ka vlada se sklicuje tudi na člen 5(3) Okvirnega sklepa, ki se uporablja, kadar je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan z namenom uvedbe kazenskega postopka, in v skladu s katerim lahko pravosodni organ izvr�itvene države članice, kadar je zadevna oseba državljan ali prebivalec te države, njeno predajo pogojuje s tem, da se ta oseba vrne v navedeno državo, da bi v njej prestajala kazen, ki bi ji jo izrekla odreditvena država članica.
The German Government maintains that that exception in favour of the nationals of a Member State is based on the special and reciprocal relations which bind a citizen to his State, as a result of which that citizen may never be excluded from the national community.
Nem�ka vlada trdi, da ta izjema v korist njenih državljanov temelji na posebnih in vzajemnih odnosih, ki državljana povezujejo z njegovo državo in na podlagi katerih naj tega državljana ne bi bilo nikoli mogoče izključiti iz nacionalne skupnosti.
Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Germany has a particular interest in the rehabilitation of its nationals, which is served by execution of the sentence in Germany.
Poleg tega naj bi imela Zvezna republika Nemčija poseben interes za resocializacijo svojih državljanov, ki naj bi jo izvr�itev kazni v Nemčiji spodbujala.
That is why Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG abolishes any discretion where a German national does not consent to his surrender.
Zato naj bi bila s členom 80(3) IRG ukinjena vsaka diskrecijska pravica, kadar nem�ki državljan ne sogla�a s svojo predajo.
According to the German government, Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG is compatible with Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision under which, it will be recalled, the executing judicial authority may refuse execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence if the
Po mnenju nem�ke vlade je člen 80(3) IRG združljiv s členom 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, v skladu s katerim, naj opozorim, lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zaradi
It is true that the terms in which Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is framed could lead it
Res je, da je mogoče člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, kakor je napisan, razumeti tako, kot trdi nem�ka
KOZŁOWSKI reintegration of that person. Finally, the German Government’s argument impairs the effectiveness of the Framework Decision because it amounts to reintroducing, to a certain extent, the principle of nonextradition of nationals which the European Union legislature wished by means of the Framework Decision to renounce.
KOZŁOWSKI sklepa, ker deloma pomeni ponovno uvedbo načela neizročitve svojih državljanov, ki ga je zakonodajalec Evropske unije v tem okvirnem sklepu hotel opustiti.
However, that provision is not unambiguous.
Vendar pa ta določba ni enopomenska.
It can be equally well understood as meaning that the Member States must leave it to their judicial authorities to decide, in each case, whether to refuse execution of a European arrest issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where it concerns one of their nationals.
Mogoče jo je razumeti tudi tako, da morajo države članice pustiti svojim pravosodnim organom možnost, da vedno odločajo o tem, ali bodo zavrnili ali ne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zaradi izvr�itve kazni, kadar se ta nana�a na enega od njihovih državljanov.
That provision begins, in fact, with the words ‘[t]he executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant’.
Navedena določba se namreč začne s stavkom „Izvr�itveni pravosodni organ lahko zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje.“
I shall therefore examine each of those points in turn.
Po vrsti bom preučil vsako od teh točk.
I shall go on to conclude that, in accordance with the principles of primacy and of conforming interpre -tation, the national court must not take Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG into account, which means that that provision cannot preclude Mr Kozłowski’s surrender.
Nato bom iz tega sklepal, da nacionalno sodi�če v skladu z načeloma primarnosti in skladne razlage ne sme upo�tevati člena 80(3) IRG, tako da ta določba ne more ovirati predaje S. Kozłowskega.
I am therefore of the opinion, in accordance with settled caselaw, that Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision should be interpreted, for the purposes of the question under consideration, in the light of the scheme of which that provision forms part and of the objectives pursued by that scheme and by the Framework Decision. 12
Zato menim, da je treba člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pri obravnavanem vpra�anju razlagati glede na sistem, katerega del je ta člen, ter cilje, ki si jih prizadeva doseči, in cilje tega okvirnega sklepa. 12
The lack of consent of the requested person may not, as such, justify a decision not to execute that warrant
Neobstoj soglasja osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, kot tak ne more upravičiti odločbe o neizvr�itvi