natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 19 June 2007, that court dismissed those applications on the ground that the jurisdiction to adjudicate on them did not belong to it, but to the German courts.
To sodi�če je 19. junija 2007 te predloge zavrnilo, ker naj ne bi bilo pristojno za odločanje, to pristojnost naj bi namreč imela nem�ka sodi�ča.
Mrs Rinau lodged an appeal against that dismissal, but the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas upheld the decision by a decision of 27 August 2007.
Ker je I. Rinau zoper to odločbo o zavrnitvi vložila pritožbo, jo je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas potrdilo z odločbo z dne 27. avgusta 2007.
Both those decisions were quashed by the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas by a judgment of 7 January 2008, which referred the applications back to the Klaipėdos apygardos teismas.
Ti zadnji odločbi je Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis Teismas razveljavilo s sodbo z dne 7. januarja 2008 in zadevo s temi predlogi vrnilo Klaipėdos apygardos teismas.
That decision was upheld by the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas by a decision of 30 April 2008.
To odločbo je potrdilo Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z odločbo z dne 30. aprila 2008. Na predlog I.
Meanwhile, by a judgment of 20 June 2007, the Amtsgericht Oranienburg granted the divorce of Mr and Mrs Rinau.
Med tem časom je Amtsgericht Oranienburg s sodbo z dne 20. junija 2007 razglasilo razvezo zakonske zveze zakoncev Rinau.
It awarded permanent custody of Luisa to Mr Rinau.
Dokončno varstvo in vzgojo Luise je dodelilo M. Rinauu.
On the same day, the Amtsgericht Oranienburg annexed to its decision a certificate issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation.
Istega dne je Amtsgericht Oranienburg tej odločbi priložilo potrdilo, izdano na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe.
Mrs Rinau was present at the hearing and made submissions.
Rinau je bila na obravnavi prisotna in je predložila stali�ča.
According to that court, the certificate issued by the Amtsgericht Oranienburg pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation stated that all the conditions necessary to the issue of such a certificate, as set out in Article 42(2), had been satisfied.
Po mnenju tega sodi�ča potrdilo, ki ga je na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe izdalo Amtsgericht Oranienburg, kaže na to, da so vsi pogoji, potrebni za izdajo tega potrdila, na�teti v odstavku 2 tega člena, izpolnjeni.
Taking the view that the judgment, in so far as it ordered the return of the child to Germany, ought to have been directly enforced pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation, without the need for special exequatur proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions, the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas held that it was necessary to declare inadmissible Mrs Rinau’s application for nonrecognition of the part of the judgment ordering her to return the child to Mr Rinau and to leave her in his custody.
Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas je menilo, da bi morala biti ta sodba, v delu, v katerem je z njo odrejena vrnitev otroka v Nemčijo, izvr�ena neposredno na podlagi določb poglavja III, oddelek 4, Uredbe, ne da bi bilo treba uporabiti poseben postopek za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti priznanja in izvr�itve sodnih odločb, zato je presodilo, da je treba predlog I. Rinau za nepriznanje dela sodbe, s katerim ji je bila naložena vrnitev Luise očetu in prepustitev temu njenega varstva in vzgoje, razglasiti za nedopusten.
In these circumstances the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis Teismas prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje postavilo ta vpra�anja:
Can an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of [the Regulation] apply for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application has been submitted for recognition of that decision?
Ali lahko zainteresirana stranka v smislu člena 21 Uredbe […] predlaga, naj se sodna odločba ne prizna, če ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje te odločbe?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: how is a national court, when examining an application for nonrecognition of a decision brought by a person against whom that decision is to be enforced, to apply Article 31(1) of [the Regulation], which states that ‘… [n]either 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’?
V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje: kako naj nacionalno sodi�če pri obravnavanju predloga za nepriznanje odločbe, ki jo vloži oseba, proti kateri se mora odločba izvr�iti, uporabi člen 31(1) Uredbe […], ki določa, da ‚[…] [o]seba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, [in otrok] v tej fazi postopka nima[ta] možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve‘?
Is the national court which has received an application by the holder of parental responsibility for nonrecognition of that part of the decision of the court of the Member State of origin requiring the child staying with that person to be returned to the State of origin, and in respect of which the certificate provided for in Article 42 of [the Regulation] has been issued, required to examine that application on the basis of the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter III of [the Regulation], as provided for in Article 40(2) of that regulation?
Ali mora nacionalno sodi�če, ki je od nosilca star�evske odgovornosti prejelo predlog za nepriznanje odločbe sodi�ča države članice izvora, s katero je nosilcu odrejeno, naj otroka, ki živi z njim, vrne v državo izvora, in glede katere je bilo izdano potrdilo iz člena 42 Uredbe […], to zahtevo preučiti na podlagi določb iz oddelkov 1 in 2 poglavja III Uredbe […], kot to določa člen 40(2) te uredbe?
What meaning is to be attached to the condition laid down in Article 21(3) of [the Regulation] (‘[w]ithout prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter’)?
Kaj pomeni pogoj iz člena 21(3) Uredbe […] (‚[b]rez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja‘)?
Do the adoption of the decision to return the child and the issue of the certificate under Article 42 of [the Regulation] in the court of the Member State of origin, after a court of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained has taken a decision that the child be returned to his or her State of origin, comply with the objectives of and procedures under [the Regulation]?
Ali sta odločba o vrnitvi otroka in potrdilo na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe […], ki ju izda sodi�če države članice izvora, potem ko je sodi�če države članice, v kateri se nezakonito zadržuje otroka, izdalo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka v njegovo državo izvora, v skladu s cilji in postopki Uredbe […]?
Does the prohibition in Article 24 of [the Regulation] of review of the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin mean that, if it is unable to review the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin and cannot identify any other grounds for nonrecognition of decisions as set out in Article 23 of [the Regulation], a national court which has received an application for recognition or nonrecognition of a decision of a foreign court is obliged to recognise the decision of the court of the Member State of origin ordering the child’s return if the court of the Member State of origin failed to observe the procedures laid down in the Regulation when deciding on the issue of the child’s return?’
Ali prepoved preverjanja pristojnosti sodi�ča države članice izvora iz člena 24 Uredbe […] pomeni, da je nacionalno sodi�če, ki je prejelo predlog za priznanje ali nepriznanje odločbe tujega sodi�ča in ki ne sme preverjati pristojnosti sodi�ča države članice izvora niti ni ugotovilo, da obstajajo drugi razlogi za nepriznanje odločb iz člena 23 Uredbe […], dolžno priznati odločbo sodi�ča države članice izvora o vrnitvi otroka, če sodi�če države članice izvora pri odločanju o otrokovi vrnitvi ni upo�tevalo postopka iz Uredbe?“
The urgent procedure
Nujni postopek
By an order of 21 May 2008, lodged at the Court Registry on 22 May 2008, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas requested that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure provided for in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure.
Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis Teismas je s sklepom z dne 21. maja 2008, ki ga je vložilo v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča 22. maja 2008, predlagalo, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v skladu s členom 104b obravnava po nujnem postopku.
The referring court reasoned that request by reference to recital 17 in the preamble to the Regulation, which refers to the return without delay of a child which has been removed or retained, and to Article 11(3) of that regulation, which sets a deadline of six weeks for the court to which an application for return is made to issue its judgment.
Predložitveno sodi�če je ta predlog obrazložilo s sklicevanjem na uvodno izjavo 17 Uredbe, ki se nana�a na takoj�njo vrnitev odvzetega otroka, in na člen 11(3) iste uredbe, ki sodi�ču, pri katerem je bil vložen zahtevek za vrnitev, določa rok �estih tednov, da izda sodbo.
The referring court finds that it is necessary to act urgently on the ground that any delay would be very unfavourable to the relationship between the child and the parent with whom she does not live.
Nacionalno sodi�če ugotavlja potrebo po nujnem ukrepanju, ker naj bi bil kakr�en koli odlog neugoden za razmerje med otrokom in star�em, s katerim ne živi.
The damage to that relationship could be irreparable.
Poslab�anje tega razmerja bi lahko bilo nepopravljivo.
The referring court also relies on the need to protect the child against any possible harm and the need to ensure a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of her parents, which is another reason for having recourse to the urgent procedure.
Predložitveno sodi�če to utemeljuje tudi s potrebo po varstvu otroka pred morebitno �kodo in z nujnostjo zagotovitve pravilnega ravnotežja med interesi otroka in interesi njegovih star�ev, zaradi česar naj bi bilo ravno tako potrebno obravnavanje po nujnem postopku.
On a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, the Third Chamber of the Court decided to allow the referring court’s request that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under an urgent procedure.
Na predlog sodnika poročevalca in po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca je tretji senat Sodi�ča odločil, da ugodi predlogu predložitvenega sodi�ča, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnava po nujnem postopku.
The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p.
Cilj Konvencije z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 1972, L 299, str.
36), which has subsequently been amended on several occasions, sought to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters as between the Contracting States.
32), ki je bila pozneje večkrat spremenjena, je bil olaj�anje priznavanja in izvr�evanja sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah med državami pogodbenicami.
To that end, it introduced rules on jurisdiction and procedures for the recognition and enforcement of judgments in those matters.
V ta namen je uvedla pravila o pristojnosti in postopkih priznavanja in izvr�evanja sodnih odločb v teh zadevah.
Those rules were based on the principle of the trust of the courts of one Contracting State in the decisions taken by the courts of another Contracting State and vice versa.
Ta pravila so temeljila na načelu zaupanja sodi�č ene države pogodbe -nice v sodne odločbe, ki jih izdajo sodi�ča druge države pogodbenice, in obratno.
According to Article 1 thereof, that convention is not to apply as regards the status or legal capacity of natural persons and rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship.
V skladu z njenim členom 1 se ta konvencija ne uporablja za osebna stanja ali pravno in poslovno sposobnost fizičnih oseb in za premoženjska razmerja iz zakonske zveze.
The 1980 Hague Convention was adopted on the basis that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody and that it is necessary to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access.
Haa�ka konvencija iz leta 1980 je bila sprejeta, ker je interes otroka bistvenega pomena za vsa vpra�anja v zvezi z njegovim varstvom in vzgojo in ga je treba na mednarodni ravni varovati pred �kodljivimi učinki neupravičene premestitve ali zadržanja ter ker
The guiding principles of the conventions referred to in the two previous paragraphs were taken over, in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, by the Regulation.
Usmeritev konvencij, omenjenih v prej�njih dveh točkah, je bila v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo povzeta v Uredbi.
The Regulation is applicable in civil matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment and to the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility.
Ta se uporablja v civilnih zadevah, ki se nana�ajo po eni strani na razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze ter po drugi strani na podelitev, izvr�evanje, prenos, omejitev ali odvzem star�evske odgovornosti.
Under recital 21 in the preamble thereto, the Regulation is based on the idea that the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State must be based on the principle of mutual trust and the grounds for nonrecognition must be kept to the minimum required.
V skladu z uvodno izjavo 21 Uredbe ta izhaja iz pojmovanja, da mora priznavanje in izvr�evanje sodnih odločb, izrečenih v državi članici, temeljiti na načelu medsebojnega zaupanja in da je treba razloge za nepriznanje omejiti na kar najmanj�i obseg.
According to recitals 12 and 13 in the preamble thereto, the Regulation is based on the idea that the best interests of the child must prevail and, under recital 33, the Regulation seeks to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of the child, as set out in Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
V skladu z uvodnima izjavama 12 in 13 Uredbe ta izhaja iz pojmovanja, da je interes otroka najpomembnej�i, pri čemer v skladu z uvodno izjavo 33 ta uredba zagotavlja spo�tovanje temeljnih otrokovih pravic, kakor so določene v členu 24 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije.
The Regulation seeks, in particular, to deter child abductions between Member States and, in cases of abduction, to obtain the child’s return without delay.
Namen Uredbe je zlasti odvračati od ugrabitev otrok v državah članicah in v primeru ugrabitve doseči takoj�njo vrnitev otroka.
Under recital 17 in the preamble thereto, the Regulation complements the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention, which nevertheless remains applicable.
V skladu z uvodno izjavo 17 te uredbe ta dopolnjuje določbe Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980, ki se kljub temu �e uporablja.
Pursuant to Article 60, the Regulation is to take precedence over the 1980 Hague Convention.
Na podlagi člena 60 Uredba nadomesti Haa�ko konvencijo iz leta 1980.
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered in the light of the observations and principles recalled in paragraphs 47 to 54 of this judgment.
Na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje je treba odgovoriti ob upo�tevanju stali�č in načel, navedenih v točkah od 47 do 54 te sodbe.
The fourth to sixth questions
Četrto, peto in šesto vprašanje
By its fourth to sixth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together and first, the referring court is essentially asking whether the adoption by a court of the Member State of origin of a decision that the child be returned and the issue of the certificate under Article 42 of the Regulation comply with the objectives of and procedures under that regulation where a court of the Member State where the child is wrongfully retained has taken a decision that the child be returned to the Member State of origin.
S četrtim, petim in �estim vpra�anjem, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali sta odločba o vrnitvi otroka in potrdilo na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe, ki ju izda sodi�če države članice izvora, v skladu z njenimi cilji in postopki v primeru, ko je sodi�če države članice, v kateri se nezakonito zadržuje otroka, izdalo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka v njegovo državo članico izvora.
The referring court also seeks to ascertain whether Article 24 of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained is obliged to recognise the decision requiring the child’s return issued by the court of the Member State of origin if that court failed to observe the procedures laid down in the Regulation.
Nacionalno sodi�če tudi zanima, ali je treba člen 24 Uredbe razlagati tako, da mora sodi�če države članice, v kateri se nezakonito zadržuje otroka, priznati odločbo, s katero sodi�če države članice izvora odreja vrnitev otroka, če to sodi�če ni upo�tevalo postopka iz Uredbe.
Article 11(8) of the Regulation states that ‘[n]otwithstanding 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’.
Člen 11(8) Uredbe določa, da je „[n]e glede na sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, na podlagi člena 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 […] 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“.
According to some of the observations submitted to the Court, the effect of that provision is that a certificate can be issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation only if a judgment of nonreturn has been issued beforehand pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention.
V nekaterih stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču, se zastopa mnenje, da je učinek te določbe ta, da je mogoče na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe potrdilo izdati le, če je bila na podlagi člena 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 predhodno izdana odločba, da se otrok ne vrne.
It would follow, in the main proceedings, that the fact that the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas ordered the return of the child, by its decision of 15 March 2007, would have prevented the courts of the Member State of origin from issuing a certificate pursuant to Article 42, as the Amtsgericht Oranienburg did by its decision of 20 June 2007, which was upheld by the decision of 20 February 2008 of the Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht.
Iz tega naj bi sledilo, da je v zadevi v glavni stvari dejstvo, da je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z odločbo z dne 15. marca 2007 odredilo vrnitev otroka, onemogočilo sodi�čem države članice izvora izdajo potrdila na podlagi člena 42, kot je to storilo Amtsgericht Oranienburg z odločbo z dne 20. junija 2007, ki jo je Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht potrdilo z odločbo z dne 20. februarja 2008.
The interpretation that a certificate cannot be issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation unless a judgment of nonreturn has been issued beforehand must be adopted.
Veljati mora razlaga, da na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe ni mogoče izdati potrdila, ne da bi bila prej izdana odločba, da se otrok ne vrne.
That is the interpretation which follows from the Regulation as a whole and, in particular, from Article 11(8) thereof.
To je namreč razlaga, ki izhaja iz Uredbe kot celote in zlasti iz njenega člena 11(8).
Having provided that a judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required, the Regulation organises the recognition and declaration of enforceability of judgments in two parts (Articles 21(1) and (3), 11(8), 40(1) and 42(1)).
Potem, ko je bilo določeno, da se sodna odločba, izdana v državi članici, v drugih državah članicah prizna, ne da bi bilo potrebno za priznanje začeti kakr�enkoli poseben postopek, sta bila z Uredbo urejena priznanje in razglasitev izvr�ljivosti sodnih odločb v dveh delih (členi 21(1) in (3), 11(8), 40(1) in 42(1)).
According to the first part, the adoption of a decision of recognition and the declaration of enforceability may be requested in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Chapter III of the Regulation.
V skladu s prvim delom se sprejetje odločbe o priznanju in razglasitvi izvr�ljivosti lahko predlaga le po postopkih iz poglavja III, oddelek 2, te uredbe.
By the second part, the enforceability of certain judgments concerning rights of access or requiring the return of the child is subject to the provisions of Section 4 of that chapter.
V skladu z drugim se za izvr�ljivost nekaterih odločb o pravici do stikov ali o odreditvi vrnitve otroka uporabljajo določbe oddelka 4 istega poglavja.
That second part ties in very closely with the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention and seeks, provided that certain conditions are satisfied, the immediate return of the child.
Drugi del je strogo povezan z določbami Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 in se – ob izpolnitvi nekaterih pogojev – nana�a na takoj�njo vrnitev otroka.
Although intrinsically connected with other matters governed by the Regulation, in particular rights of custody, the enforceability of a judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of nonreturn enjoys procedural autonomy, so as not to delay the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed to or retained in a Member State other than that in which that child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention.
Izvr�ljivost odločbe, ki odreja vrnitev otroka in ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne, je procesno samostojna, čeprav je neločljivo povezana z drugimi zadevami, ki jih ureja Uredba, zlasti s pravico do varstva, in sicer zato da se ne odla�a z vrnitvijo otroka, ki je bil nezakonito preme�čen ali zadržan v drugi državi članici, ki ni država članica, kjer je običajno prebival neposredno pred nezakonito premestitvijo ali zadržanjem.
The procedural autonomy of the provisions in Articles 11(8), 40 and 42 of the Regulation and the priority given to the jurisdiction of the court of origin, in the context of Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation, are reflected in Articles 43 and 44 of the
Postopkovna avtonomija določb iz členov 11(8), 40 in 42 Uredbe in prednost, ki jo ima pristojnost izvornega sodi�ča v okviru poglavja III, oddelek 4, Uredbe, sta izražena v členih 43 in 44 te uredbe, v katerih je določeno, da se za vsak popravek potrdila
Regulation, which provide that the law of the Member State of origin is to be applicable to any rectification of the certificate, that no appeal is to lie against the issuing of a certificate and that that certificate is to take effect only within the limits of the enforceability of the judgment.
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU uporablja pravo države članice izvora, da zoper izdajo potrdila ni pravnega sredstva in da potrdilo učinkuje le v okvirih izvr�ljivosti sodne odločbe.