natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, to take suchmeasures — in the context of an action plan and in the short term — as are capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances and all opposing interests.
Države članice imajo – pod nadzorom nacionalnega sodišča – samo obveznost, da v okviru načrta ukrepanja in kratkoročno sprejmejo take ukrepe, ki lahko zmanjšajo nevarnost preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti na čim manjšo mero, ob upoštevanju dejanskih okoliščin in vseh obstoječih interesov, ter zagotavljajo postopno vračanje na raven pod temi vrednostmi ali pragovi.
In the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau (judgment of 11 July 2008) is to be noted in particular. This was the first case decided by the Court under the urgent preliminaryruling procedure, which entered into force on 1 March 2008.
Med zadevami, predloženimi Sodišču na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah, je treba opozoriti na zadevo Rinau (sodba z dne 11. julija 2008, C-195/08 PPU), prvo sodbo, ki jo je izdalo Sodišče na koncu nujnega postopka predhodnega odločanja, ki velja od 1. marca 2008.
Application had been made to the Supreme Court of Lithuania for non-recognition in Lithuania of a decision made by a German court awarding custody of a child to her father, who was resident in Germany, and ordering the mother, who was resident in Lithuania, to return the child to the father. The Supreme Court was uncertain to what extent the enforceability of the German court’s decision requiring the child’s return, conferred on that decision by the certificate issued pursuant to Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
Vrhovno sodišče Litve se je, ker mu je bil predložen predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe v Litvi, in sicer sodbe, ki jo je izdalo nemško sodišče in s katero je bilo varstvo otroka dodeljeno očetu, ki ima stalno prebivališče v Nemčiji, materi, ki stalno prebiva v Litvi, pa naloženo, naj otroka vrne očetu, vprašalo, koliko je mogoče izpodbijati izvršljivost odločbe o vrnitvi, ki jo je izdalo nemško sodišče, če izvršljivost odločbe potrjuje potrdilo, izdano na podlagi Uredbe št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrše-
Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55).
Direktiva Sveta 96/62/ES z dne 27. septembra 1996 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka (UL L 296, str. 55).
Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 adapting to Council Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the ECTreaty (OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 1882/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. septembra 2003 o prilagoditvi določb glede odborov, ki pomagajo Komisiji pri uresničevanju njenih izvedbenih pooblastil, predvidenih aktih, za katere se uporablja postopek iz člena 251 Pogodbe ES, Sklepu Sveta 1999/468/ES (UL L 284, str. 1).
Proceedings of judgments inmatrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (63), could be called into question on the ground that the Lithuanian courts had finally ordered that the child be returned to Germany.
Sodišče vanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo63, ker so litvanski sodni organi nazadnje odredili vrnitev otroka v Nemčijo.
The Court of Justice held that, once a decision that a child not be returned has been taken and brought to the attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering return, insofar as the return of the child has not actually taken place.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da ko je odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, sprejeta in je o njej obveščeno sodišče izvora, za namen izdaje potrdila iz člena 42 Uredbe št. 2201/2003 ni pomembno, ali je bila izvršitev te odločbe odložena, ali je bila ta odločba spremenjena, razveljavljena oziroma kakor koli ni postala pravnomočna ali pa jo je nadomestila odločba o vrnitvi otroka, saj do vrnitve otroka dejansko ni prišlo.
Since no doubt had been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the standard form set out in Annex IV to the regulation, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return was not permitted and it was for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child.
Ker glede verodostojnosti tega potrdila ni bil izražen noben dvom in ker je bilo to sestavljeno v skladu z obrazcem iz Priloge IV k tej uredbi, je nasprotovanje priznanju odločbe o vrnitvi otroka prepovedano, naloga zaprošenega sodišča pa je le ugotoviti izvršljivost potrjene odločbe in ugoditi takojšnji vrnitvi otroka.
According to the Court, if the position were otherwise, there would be a risk that Regulation No 2201/2003 would be deprived of its useful effect, since the objective of the return of the child would remain subject to the condition that the redress procedures allowed under the domestic law of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained have been exhausted.
Pomnenju Sodišča, če to ne bi bilo tako, bi obstajalo tveganje, da Uredba št. 2201/2003 ne bi imela učinka, saj bi moral biti za cilj vrnitve otroka izpolnjen pogoj izčrpanosti pravnih sredstev v nacionalnem pravu države članice, v kateri se otroka neupravičeno zadržuje.
Police andjudicial cooperation in criminal matters, and combating terrorism
Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah in boj proti terorizmu
In Case C-66/08 Kozłowski (judgment of 17 July 2008), relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant, the Court interpreted Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (64), which permits the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warrant 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 in accordance with its domestic law.
V zadevi Kozłowski (sodba z dne 17. julija 2008, C-66/08) v zvezi z evropskim nalogom za prijetje je Sodišče razlagalo člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa 2002/58464, na podlagi kate- rega lahko izvršitveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvršitev naloga, če se zahtevana oseba „nahaja v izvršitveni državi članici ali je državljan ali prebivalec te države“ in se ta država zaveže, da bo kazen izvršila v skladu s svojim notranjim pravom.
The Court held that a requested person is‘resident’in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da zahtevana oseba„prebiva“ v izvršitveni državi članici, če ima v njej dejansko prebivališče.
He is‘staying’there when, following a stable period of presence in the executing Member State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence; it is for the executing judicial authority to determine whether there are such connections by making an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and his family and economic connections.
V njej se„nahaja“, če se v izvršitveni državi članici že nekaj časa neprekinjeno zadržuje in je zato z njo ustvarila podobne vezi, kot izhajajo iz prebivališča in katerih obstoj mora izvršitveni pravosodni organ ugotoviti tako, da opravi celostno presojo več objektivnih dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo položaj te osebe, med drugim zlasti trajanja, narave in razmer, v katerih se zahtevana oseba zadržuje v izvršitveni državi članici, ter družinskih in ekonomskih vezi.
Since the objective of the framework decision is to put in place a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of criminal proceedings, based on the principle of mutual recognition— a surrender which the executing judicial authority can oppose only on one of the grounds for refusal provided for by the framework decision — the terms‘staying’and‘resident’, which determine the scope of the framework decision, must be defined uniformly as they concern autonomous concepts of Union law.
Ker je namen tega okvirnega sklepa, da se na načelu medsebojnega priznavanja vzpostavi sistem predaje obsojenih ali osumljenih oseb med pravosodnimi organi zaradi izvršitve kazni ali kazenskega pregona, pri čemer lahko izvršitveni pravosodni organ predaji nasprotuje le na podlagi enega od zavrnitvenih razlogov iz Okvirnega sklepa, je treba namreč pojma„nahajati se“ in„prebivati“, ki določata področje uporabe tega sklepa, opredeliti enotno, saj gre za samostojna pojma prava Unije.
Therefore, in their national law transposing the framework decision, the Member States are not entitled to give those terms a broader meaning than that which derives from such a uniform interpretation.
Zato države članice v notranjem pravu, s katerim prenesejo Okvirni sklep, tema pojmoma ne smejo pripisati širšega pomena, kot izhaja iz enotne razlage.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments inmatrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004 (OJ 2004 L 367, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1347/2000, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta št. 2116/2004 z dne 2. decembra 2004 (UL L 367, str. 1).
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskemnalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, str. 1).
In Case C-91/05 Commission v Council (judgment of 20 May 2008), the Court annulled Decision 2004/833 (65) implementing Joint Action 2002/589 (66) with a view to a EuropeanUnion contribution to the Economic Community of West African States in the framework of a moratorium on small arms and lightweapons .
V zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (sodba z dne 20. maja 2008, C-91/05) je Sodišče razglasilo ničnost Sklepa 2004/83365 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 2002/58966 z namenom prispevanja Evropske unije Gospodarski skupnosti zahodnoafriških držav v okviru moratorija na lahko orožje in orožje malega kalibra.
That Council decision had been adopted on the basis of the Treaty on European Union, under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), rather than on the basis of the EC Treaty, under development cooperation policy.
Ta sklep Sveta je bil sprejet na podlagi Pogodbe EU v okviru skupne zunanje in varnostne politike (SZVP), in ne na podlagi Pogodbe ES v okviru politike razvojnega sodelovanja.
The Court stated that, while the objectives of development cooperation policy should not be limited to measures directly related to the campaign against poverty, it is nonetheless necessary, if a measure is to fall within that policy, that it contributes to the pursuit of the policy’s economic and social development objectives.
Pomnenju Sodišča, čeprav ciljev politike razvojnega sodelovanja ni treba omejiti na ukrepe, ki se neposredno nanašajo na boj proti revščini, mora ukrep, da ga je mogoče uvrstiti v okvir te politike, kljub temu prispevati k doseganju ciljev gospodarskega in socialnega razvoja navedene politike.
Certain measures aiming to prevent fragility in developing countries, including those adopted in the framework of the moratorium, can contribute to the pursuit of these objectives.
Nekateri ukrepi, namenjeni preprečevanju šibkosti držav v razvoju, vključno s tistimi, ki so bili sprejeti na področju navedenega moratorija, lahko prispevajo k doseganju navedenih ciljev.
A concrete measure aiming to combat the proliferation of small arms and lightweapons may be adopted by the Community under its development cooperation policy only if the measure, by virtue both of its aim and of its content, falls within the scope of the competences conferred by the ECTreaty on the Community in that field.
Skupnost lahko sprejme konkretni ukrep proti širjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra v okviru svoje politike razvojnega sodelovanja le, če ta ukrep po namenu in vsebini spada v pristojnosti, ki jih Skupnosti na tem področju da je Pogodba ES.
The Court recalled the case-law stating that where a measure simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components, without one being incidental to the other, and various legal bases of the ECTreaty are applicable, the measure will have to be founded, exceptionally, on the various corresponding legal bases.
Sodišče opozarja na sodno prakso, v skladu s katero mora ukrep, ki hkrati sledi več ciljem ali ima več sestavnih delov, ne da bi bil en v primerjavi z drugim le stranski, če je mogoče uporabiti različne pravne podlage Pogodbe ES, izjemoma temeljiti na različnih ustreznih pravnih podlagah.
The Court held, however, that under Article 47 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion such a solution is impossible with regard to a measure which, like Decision 2004/833, pursues a number of objectives or which has several components falling, respectively, within development cooperation policy and within the CFSP, and where one of those components is not incidental to the other.
Sodišče pa je razsodilo, da je taka rešitev na podlagi člena 47 Pogodbe EU izključena glede ukrepa, ki – kot Sklep 2004/833 – sledi več ciljem ali ki ima več sestavnih delov, ki spadajo na področje politike razvojnega sodelovanja in na področje SZVP, ne da bi bili nekateri stranski.
Since Article 47 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion precludes the Union from adopting, on the basis of that Treaty, a measure which could properly be adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty, the Union cannot have recourse to a legal basis falling within the CFSP in order to adopt provisions which also fall within a competence conferred by the ECTreaty on the Community.
Ker namreč člen 47 Pogodbe EU prepoveduje, da bi Unija na podlagi Pogodbe EU sprejela ukrep, ki bi bil lahko veljavno sprejet na podlagi Pogodbe ES, se Unija za sprejetje določb, ki prav tako spadajo v pristojnost, ki jo Pogodba ES priznava Skupnosti, nemore sklicevati na pravno podlago, ki se nanaša na SZVP.
The Court concluded that the Council infringed Article 47 of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion by adopting Decision 2004/833 on the basis of the CFSP, since that decision also fell within development cooperation policy.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da je Svet s tem, da je sprejel Sklep 2004/833 na podlagi SZVP, čeprav ta prav tako spada na področje politike razvojnega sodelovanja, kršil člen 47 Pogodbe EU.
Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a EuropeanUnion contribution to Ecowas in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and LightWeapons (OJ 2004 L 359, p. 65).
Sklep Sveta 2004/833/SVZP z dne 2. decembra 2004 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 2002/589/SZVP z namenom prispevanja Evropske unije ECOWAS-u v okviru moratorija na lahko orožje in orožje malega kalibra (UL L 359, str. 65).
Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and lightweapons (OJ 2002 L 191, p. 1).
Skupni ukrep Sveta 2002/589/SZVP z dne 12. julija 2002 o prispevku Evropske unije k boju proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in razširjanju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega strelnega orožja (UL L 191, str. 1).
(Order of precedence as at 6October 2008)
(po vrstnem redu nastopa funkcije)
L. Bay Larsen, President of Chamber; G. Arestis, President of Chamber; M. Poiares Maduro, First Advocate General; A. Rosas, President of Chamber; P. Jann, President of Chamber; V.Skouris , President of the Court; C.W. A. Timmermans, President of Chamber; K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber; A. Tizzano, President of Chamber; U. Lõhmus, President of Chamber.
Rojen leta 1948; diploma iz prava svobodne univerze v Berlinu (1970); doktorat iz ustavnega in upravnega prava univerze v Hamburgu (1973); docent na univerzi v Hamburgu (1972–1977); profesor javnega prava na univerzi v Bielefeldu (1978); profesor javnega prava na univerzi v Solunu (1982); minister za notranje zadeve (1989 in 1996); član upravnega odbora univerze na Kreti (1983–1987); direktor centra za mednarodno gospodarsko in evropsko pravo v Solunu (1997–2005); predsednik grškega društva za evropsko pravo (1992–1994); član grškega nacionalnega odbora za raziskovanje (1993–1995); član visokega sveta za izbor grških uradnikov (1994–1996); član znanstvenega sveta akademije za evropsko pravo v Trieru (od 1995); član upravnega odbora grške nacionalne šole za sodnike (1995–1996); član znanstvenega sveta pri ministrstvu za zunanje zadeve (1997–1999); predsednik grškega ekonomsko socialnega odbora v letu 1998; sodnik na Sodišču od 8. junija 1999; predsednik Sodišča od 7. oktobra 2003.
E. Juhász, Judge; J. Makarczyk, Judge; J. Kokott, Advocate General; J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judge; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judge; K. Schiemann, Judge; P. Kūris, Judge; A. Borg Barthet, Judge.
Rojen leta 1935; doktorat iz pravnih znanosti univerze na Dunaju (1957); imenovan za sodnika in dodeljen na zvezno ministrstvo za pravosodje (1961); sodnik za zadeve s področja medijskega prava na Straf-BezirksgerichtWien (1963–1966); tiskovni predstavnik ministrstva za pravosodje (1966–1970), nato zaposlen pri oddelku za mednarodne zadeve istega ministrstva; svetovalec odbora za pravosodje in tiskovni predstavnik Parlamenta (1973–1975); imenovan za sodnika ustavnega sodišča (1978); stalni sodnik poročevalec na istem sodišču do konca leta 1994; sodnik Sodišča od 19. januarja 1995.
Third row, from left to right:
Letno poročilo 2008
Fourth row, from left to right:
Dámaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
P re flight :
Sodišče
Born 1948; graduated in law from the Free University, Berlin (1970); awarded doctorate in constitutional and administrative law at Hamburg University (1973); Assistant Professor at Hamburg University (1972–77); Professor of Public Law at Bielefeld University (1978); Professor of Public Law at the University of Thessaloniki (1982); Minister of Internal Affairs (in 1989 and 1996); Member of the Administrative Board of the University of Crete (1983–87); Director of the Centre for International and European Economic Law, Thessaloniki (1997–2005); President of the Greek Association for European Law (1992–94); Member of the Greek National Research Committee (1993–95); Member of the Higher Selection Board for Greek Civil Servants (1994–96); Member of the Academic Council of the Academy of European Law, Trier (from 1995); Member of the Administrative Board of the Greek National Judges’ College (1995–96); Member of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997–99); President of the Greek Economic and Social Council in 1998; Judge at the Court of Justice since 8 June
Rojen leta 1967; diploma iz prava univerze v Lizboni (1990); asistent (evropski univerzitetni inštitut v Firencah, 1991); doktor pravnih znanosti (evropski univerzitetni inštitut v Firencah, 1996); gostujoči profesor (London School of Economics; Collège d'Europe de Natolin; Instituto Ortega y Gasset de Madrid; katoliška univerza Portugalske; Institute of European Studies, Macao), profesor (avtonomna univerza v Lizboni, 1997), Fulbrightov gostujoči raziskovalec (univerza Harvard, 1998); namestnik direktorja Academy of International Trade Law; sourednik (Hart Series on European Law and Integration, European Law Journal) in član uredniških odborov več pravnih revij; generalni pravobranilec na Sodišču od 7. oktobra 2003.
Born 1935; Doctor of Law of the University ofVienna (1957); appointed Judge and assigned to the Federal Ministry of Justice (1961); Judge in press matters at the Straf-Bezirksgericht, Vienna (1963–66); spokesman of the Federal Ministry of Justice (1966–70) and subsequently appointed to the international affairs department of that ministry; Adviser to the Justice Committee and spokesman at the Parliament (1973–78); appointed as Member of the Constitutional Court (1978); permanent Judge-Rapporteur at that court until the end of 1994; Judge at the Court of Justice since 19 January 1995.
Rojen leta 1937, študij pravnih znanosti v Cambridgeu; barrister (1964–1980); Queen's Counsel (1980–1986); sodnik na High Court of England and Wales (višje sodišče Anglije in Walesa) (1986–1995); Lord Justice of Appeal (1995–2003); od leta 1985 bencher in leta 2003 Treasurer v Honourable Society of the Inner Temple; sodnik Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti od 8. januarja 2004.
Born 1949; Judge; Member of the ConsejoGeneral del Poder Judicial (General Council of the Judiciary); Professor; Head of the Private Office of the President of the ConsejoGeneral del Poder Judicial; ad hoc Judge at the European Court of Human Rights; Judge at the Tribunal Supremo (SupremeCourt) from 1996; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 January 1995.
Rojen leta 1938; diploma iz prava univerze vVilni (1961); doktorat iz pravnih znanosti univerze v Moskvi (1965); habilitacija (dr. hab) na univerzi v Moskvi (1973); pripravnik na Institut des Hautes Études Internationales (podmentorstvom prof. Ch.
Born 1939; university studies in the Faculties of Law and Economics at Montpellier and Paris; Doctor of Laws (1964); Lawyer (1964); Lawyeradvocate (1967); General Administrator at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; Member (1978–89), then President (1988–89), of the Economic and Social Council; Director of the Société nationale de crédit et d’investissement and of the Société européenne des satellites (until 1989); Member (1993–95), then Chairman of the Board (1995–2004), of the International University Institute of Luxembourg; Lecturer at the University of Luxembourg; Government Representative on the European Social Fund Committee, the Advisory Committee on FreedomofMovement for Workers and the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions (until 1989); Judge at theCourtofFirstInstance from 25 September 1989 to 11 July 1996; Judge at the Court of Justice from 12 July 1996 to 14 January 2008.
Rousseauja), univerza v Parizu (1967–1968); redni član litovske akademije znanosti (1996); častni doktorat litovske univerze za pravne znanosti (2001); razna upravna in učnamesta na univerzi vVilni (1961–1990); raziskovalec, docent, profesor mednarodnega javnega prava, dekan pravne fakultete, več mest v diplomatski službi in litovskem pravosodju, pravosodni minister (1990–1991), državni svetnik (1991), veleposlanik Republike Litve v Belgiji, Luksemburgu in na Nizozemskem (1992–1994); sodnik Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (nekdanjega) (junij 1994–november 1998); sodnik na vrhovnem sodišču Litve in predsednik tega sodišča (december 1994–oktober 1998); sodnik Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (od novembra 1998); sodelovanje na več mednarodnih konferencah; član delegacije Republike Litve na pogajanjih z ZSSR (1990–1992); avtor okoli 200 del; sodnik na Sodišču od 11. maja 2004.