natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The reservation expressed in Article 21(3) of the Regulation by the use of the terms ‘[w]ithout prejudice to Section 4’, which is the subject of the fourth question put by the referring court, is intended to make it clear that the option afforded by that provision to any interested party to apply for a decision that the judgment issued in a Member State be or not be recognised does not preclude the possibility, where the conditions are satisfied, of recourse to the rules provided for in Articles 11(8), 40 and 42 of the Regulation in the event of return of a child following a judgment of nonreturn, since those rules take precedence over those provided for in Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter III.
Namen pridržka iz člena 21(3) Uredbe, izraženega z uporabo besed „brez poseganja v oddelek 4“, ki je predmet četrtega vpra�anja, ki ga je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, je pojasniti, da možnost, ki jo ta določba daje vsaki zainteresirani stranki, da predlaga, naj se sprejme odločba o priznanju ali nepriznanju odločbe, izdane v državi članici, ne izključuje možnosti – ob izpolnjenih pogojih –, da se uporabi sistem, predviden v členih 11(8), 40 in 42 Uredbe, za primer vrnitve otroka, ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne, ker ima ta sistem prednost pred sistemom iz oddelka 1 in 2 tega poglavja III.
It should be noted that the procedure provided for in the event of return of a child following a judgment of nonreturn takes over and reinforces the provisions of Art -icles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention.
Poudariti je treba, da postopek, določen za primer vrnitve otroka, ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne, povzema in utrjuje določbe členov 12 in 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980.
In particular, the period for adjudicating on an application for nonreturn is very short.
Med drugim je rok za odločitev o predlogu za zadržanje zelo kratek.
Moreover, a final decision requiring return may be adopted by a court having jurisdiction under the Regulation.
Poleg tega lahko na podlagi Uredbe pristojno sodi�če sprejme končno odločbo, ki odreja vrnitev.
Lastly, the procedure culminates in the certification of the decision which gives it special enforceability, the conditions for granting that certificate and the effects thereof being expressly set out in the Regulation.
Končno, postopek doseže vrh s potrditvijo odločbe, s katero dobi posebno izvr�ljivost, saj so pogoji podelitve in učinki potrdila izrecno opredeljeni z Uredbo.
Thus, as regards the conditions for granting a certificate, Article 42(2) of the Regulation provides that the judge of origin who delivered the judgment referred to in Article 40(1)(b) of the Regulation is to issue the certificate only if:
Tako da glede pogojev za izdajo iz člena 42(2) Uredbe izhaja, da sodi�če izvora, ki je izdalo odločbo iz člena 40(1)(b) te uredbe, izda potrdilo, le če:
‘(a) the child was given an opportunity to be heard, unless a hearing was considered inappropriate having regard to his or her age or degree of maturity;
„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) the court has taken into account in issuing its judgment the reasons for and evidence underlying the order issued pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention.’
RINAU 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“.
As regards the effects of certification, once the certificate has been issued, the judgment requiring the return of a child referred to in Article 40(1)(b) is to be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition.
Glede učinkov potrdila je treba ugotoviti, da se, takoj ko je bilo to izdano, odločba o vrnitvi otroka iz člena 40(1)(b) prizna in je izvr�ljiva v drugi državi članici, ne da bi bila potrebna razglasitev izvr�ljivosti in brez možnosti nasprotovanja njenemu priznanju.
It should be recalled that those rules apply only in the event of return of a child following a judgment ordering nonreturn referred to in Article 11(8) of the Regulation.
Opozoriti je treba, da ta sistem velja le v primeru vrnitve otroka, ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne, iz člena 11(8) Uredbe.
Article 11(8) of the Regulation supports that view, stating 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’.
Temu v prid je tudi člen 11(8), v katerem je določeno, 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“.
Although the expression ‘[n]otwithstanding a judgment of non-return’ is somewhat ambiguous, its link with the words ‘any subsequent judgment’ indicates a chronological relationship between a decision, namely that of nonreturn, and the subsequent decision, such wording leaving no room for any doubt as regards the prior nature of the first decision.
Čeprav je izraz „[n]e glede na sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne“ na neki način dvoumen, pa njegova povezava z izrazom „kakr�na koli kasnej�a sodna odločba“ kaže na kronolo�ko povezavo med odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, in poznej�o sodno odločbo, ker taka formulacija ne dopu�ča nobenega dvoma o predhodnosti prve odločbe.
Recital 17 in the preamble to the Regulation confirms that interpretation, stating that a nonreturn 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’.
To razlago potrjuje uvodna izjava 17 Uredbe, tako da pojasnjuje, da sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, „lahko nadomesti kasnej�a odločba sodi�ča države članice otrokovega običajnega prebivali�ča pred njegovo neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem“.
It is also apparent from Article 42(2)(c) of the Regulation, which requires the court to take into consideration the reasons for and evidence underlying the order issued pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, that that court may adjudicate only after the adoption of a nonreturn decision in the Member State of enforcement.
Iz člena 42(2)(c) Uredbe, ki sodi�ču nalaga, naj pri izdaji sodne odločbe upo�teva razloge in dokaze, na podlagi katerih se izda odločba v skladu s členom 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980, izhaja, da lahko to sodi�če odloči �ele po izdaji odločbe, da se otrok ne vrne, ki je bila sprejeta v državi članici izvr�itve.
It follows from this that Article 40(1)(b) of the Regulation is a provision which applies only where a nonreturn decision has been taken beforehand in the Member State of enforcement.
Iz tega sledi, da je člen 40(1)(b) Uredbe določba, ki se uporabi le, kadar je bila v državi članici izvr�itve pred tem izdana odločba, da se otrok ne vrne.
The consequences that the observations referred to in paragraph 58 of this judgment infer from that interpretation cannot however be accepted.
Vendar ni mogoče sprejeti posledic, ki so v stali�čih, omenjenih v točki 58 obravnavane sodbe, izpeljane iz te razlage.
Article 11(3) of the Regulation requires that courts to which an application for return is made act expeditiously, using the most expeditious procedures available in national law.
Člen 11(3) Uredbe namreč zahteva, naj sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen zahtevek za vrnitev otroka, ukrepa kar se da hitro in uporabi najhitrej�i postopek, ki ga predvideva nacionalno pravo.
The second subparagraph of Article 11(3) requires, in addition, that, without prejudice to that objective of expedition, the judgment must be issued, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, no later than six weeks after the application is lodged.
V drugem pododstavku iste določbe je določeno, da se brez poseganja v ta cilj hitrosti sodna odločba izda v roku �estih tednov po vložitvi zahtevka, razen takrat, kadar izjemne okoli�čine to onemogočajo.
More specifically, Article 11(6) provides that, where a nonreturn order has been issued by a court, the court must immediately, either directly or through its central authority, transmit a copy of that court order 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 habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention.
Natančneje je v odstavku 6 navedenega člena 11 določeno, da mora sodi�če, če je izdalo sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, takoj neposredno ali prek 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 urgent nature of those steps is also revealed by the last sentence of Article 11(6), which provides that the court of origin ‘shall receive all the mentioned documents within one month of the date of the nonreturn order’.
Nujnost teh ukrepov se prav tako izraža v zadnjem stavku tega odstavka, ki določa, da mora sodi�če izvora „prejeti vse omenjene dokumente v enem mesecu od dne izdaje odločbe o tem, da se otrok ne vrne“.
Those provisions seek not only to secure the immediate return of the child to the Member State where he or she was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, but also to enable the court of origin to assess the reasons for and evidence underlying the nonreturn decision issued.
Te določbe se ne nana�ajo le na zagotovitev takoj�nje vrnitve otroka v državo članico, v kateri je običajno prebival neposredno pred neupravičeno premestitvijo ali zadržanjem, temveč tudi na to, da omogočijo sodi�ču izvora, da presodi razloge in dokaze, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločba, da se otrok ne vrne.
In particular, the court of origin is required to examine whether the conditions set out in paragraph 67 of this judgment are satisfied.
Sodi�če izvora je zlasti dolžno preučiti, ali so pogoji, navedeni v točki 67 te sodbe, izpolnjeni.
Since responsibility for that assessment ultimately lies with the court of origin, pursuant to Articles 10 and 40(1)(b) of the Regulation, procedural steps which, after a nonreturn decision has been taken, occur or recur in the Member State of enforcement are not decisive and may be regarded as irrelevant for the purposes of implementing the Regulation.
Ker je ta presoja, v zadnji instanci, naloga sodi�ča izvora na podlagi členov 10 in 40(1)(b) Uredbe, postopkovna vpra�anja, ki se po tem, ko je bila izdana odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, pojavijo ali ponovno pojavijo v državi članici izvr�itve, niso odločilna in se lahko �teje, da za potrebe izvajanja Uredbe nimajo vpliva.
If the position were otherwise, there would be a risk that the Regulation would be deprived of its useful effect, since the objective of the immediate 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.
Če to ne bi bilo tako, bi obstajalo tveganje, da Uredba ne bi imela učinka, saj bi moral biti za cilj takoj�nje vrnitve otroka izpolnjen pogoj izčrpanosti pravnih sredstev v nacionalnem pravu države članice, v kateri se otroka neupravičeno zadržuje.
That risk should be particularly balanced because, as far as concerns young children, biological time cannot be measured according to general criteria, given the intellectual and psychological structure of such children and the speed with which that structure develops.
To tveganje je treba toliko bolj upo�tevati pri mlaj�ih otrocih, ker biolo�kega časa ni mogoče meriti po splo�nih merilih zaradi intelektualne in psiholo�ke strukture teh otrok ter hitrosti, s katero se ta razvija.
It should be added that that interpretation of the Regulation is consistent with its requirements and purpose and that it is the only interpretation which best ensures the effectiveness of Community law.
Dodati je treba, da je ta razlaga Uredbe skladna z njenimi zahtevami in namenom in je edina, ki najbolje zagotavlja učinkovitost prava Skupnosti.
Moreover, it is backed up by two elements.
Poleg tega je podkrepljena z dvema dejstvoma.
The first is based on the words ‘any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child’ in Article 11(8) of the Regulation, words which express the idea that, once the nonreturn decision has been taken, the court of origin may be required to take one or more decisions in order to obtain the return of the child, including in situations where there is a procedural or factual impasse.
Prvo temelji na izrazu „kakr�na koli kasnej�a sodna odločba, ki zahteva vrnitev otroka“ iż člena 11(8) Uredbe, ki izraža idejo, da je sodi�če izvora, ko je sprejeta odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, lahko obvezano, da izda eno ali več odločb, katerih namen je vrnitev otroka, tudi v primerih, ki so postopkovno ali dejansko brezizhodni.
The second element is of a systemic nature and rests on the fact that, contrary to the procedure laid down in Articles 33 to 35 of the Regulation in respect of the application for a declaration of enforceability, judgments issued in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III thereof (rights of access and return of the child) may be declared enforceable by the court of origin irrespective of any possibility of appeal, whether in the Member State of origin or in that of enforcement.
Drugo dejstvo je sistemsko in temelji na dejstvu, da lahko sodi�če izvora – v nasprotju s postopkom, določenim v členih od 33 do 35 te uredbe za zahtevo za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti – odločbe, izdane v skladu s poglavjem III, oddelek 4, te uredbe (pravica do stikov in vrnitve otroka), razglasi za izvr�ljive neodvisno od tega, ali obstaja možnost vložitve pravnega sredstva, bodisi v državi članici izvora bodisi državi članici izvr�itve.
By excluding any appeal against the issuing of a certificate pursuant to Article 42(1), other than an action seeking rectification within the meaning of Article 43(1), the Regulation seeks to ensure that the effectiveness of its provisions is not undermined by abuse of the procedure.
S tem da zoper izdajo potrdila na podlagi člena 42(1) ni dopustno nobeno pravno sredstvo z izjemo popravka potrdila v smislu člena 43(1) Uredbe, ta uredba sledi cilju preprečitve zmanj�anja učinkovitosti njenih določb zaradi zlorabe postopka.
Moreover, Article 68 does not list among the redress procedures any appeal against decisions taken pursuant to Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation.
Poleg tega v členu 68 med pravnimi sredstvi ni omenjeno nobeno pravno sredstvo, ki se vloži zoper odločbe, sprejete na podlagi poglavja III, oddelek 4, Uredbe.
The foregoing considerations cover the characteristics of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Ti preudarki ustrezajo posebnostim spora o glavni stvari.
First, the sequence of the decisions taken by the Lithuanian courts, as regards both the application for return and that for nonrecognition of the decision certified pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation, does not appear to have observed the autonomy of the procedure provided for in that provision.
Po eni strani ni videti, da vrsta odločb, ki so jih izdala litovska sodi�ča tako glede zahtevka za vrnitev kot glede predloga za nepriznanje odločbe, potrjene v skladu s členom 42 Uredbe, spo�tuje avtonomijo postopka, določenega v zadnji določbi.
Second, the number of decisions and their diverse nature (to set aside, overturn, reopen, suspend) are evidence that, even if the most expeditious domestic procedures may have been adopted, the periods of time elapsed were already, on the date on which the certificate was issued, in manifest contradiction to the requirements of the Regulation.
Po drugi strani �tevilo odločb in njihova različnost (razveljavitve, spremembe, obnove, odložitve izvr�itve) dokazujejo, da je bil, kljub temu da so bili morebiti uporabljeni najhitrej�i postopki notranjega prava, čas, ki je potekel že na dan izdaje potrdila, v očitnem nasprotju z zahtevami te uredbe.
It remains to be pointed out that, since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity of the certificate issued by the Amtsgericht Oranienburg, and since that certificate contains all the elements required by Article 42 of the Regulation, an appeal against the issue of the certificate or opposition to its recognition could, under Article 43(2) of the Regulation, only have been dismissed, the requested court being able only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision.
Ker ni bil izražen noben dvom o verodostojnosti potrdila, ki ga je izdalo Amtsgericht Oranienburg, in ker to vsebuje vse podatke, zahtevane v členu 42 Uredbe, je treba �e pojasniti, da sta lahko pravno sredstvo zoper izdajo potrdila ali ugovor zoper njegovo priznanje, v skladu s členom 43(2) Uredbe le zavrnjena, ker lahko zapro�eno sodi�če le ugotovi izvr�ljivost potrjene odločbe.
In the light of the foregoing observations, the answer to the fourth to sixth questions must be that, once a nonreturn decision 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 the Regulation, 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, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken place.
Glede navedenega je treba na četrto, peto in �esto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da tedaj, ko je odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, sprejeta in je o njej obve�čeno sodi�če izvora, za namen izdaje potrdila iz člena 42 Uredbe ni pomembno, ali je bila izvr�itev te odločbe odložena, ali je bila ta odločba spremenjena, razveljavljena oziroma v vsakem primeru ni postala pravnomočna ali pa jo je nadomestila odločba o vrnitvi otroka, saj do vrnitve otroka dejansko ni pri�lo.
Since no doubt has 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 is not permitted and it is 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 Uredbi, je nasprotovanje priznanju odločbe o vrnitvi otroka prepovedano, naloga zapro�enega sodi�ča pa je le ugotoviti izvr�ljivost potrjene odločbe in ugoditi takoj�nji vrnitvi otroka.
By its first question, the referring court is essentially asking whether an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of the Regulation can apply for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application has been submitted for recognition of that decision.
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, 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.
The answer to the fourth to sixth questions precludes the possibility of an application for nonrecognition in the event that a decision requiring the return of the child has been adopted and certified in accordance with Articles 11(8) and 42 of the Regulation.
Odgovor na četrto, peto in �esto vpra�anje izključuje možnost predloga za nepriznanje v primeru, ko je bila odločba o vrnitvi otroka sprejeta in potrjena v skladu z določbami členov 11(8) in 42 Uredbe.
Nevertheless, that possibility cannot be discounted in general terms.
Vendar te možnosti ni mogoče zavrniti na splo�no.
Article 21(3) of the Regulation provides that, ‘[w]ithout 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’.
Člen 21(3) Uredbe namreč določa, da „[b]rez 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“.
The second subparagraph of Article 21(3) lays down, to that end, the rules of local jurisdiction.
Drugi podostavek tega odstavka določa v ta namen pravila krajevne pristojnosti.
Nor is it precluded that an application for nonrecognition of a decision results incidentally in its recognition, in which case Article 21(4) would apply.
Izključeno ni niti, da predlog za nepriznanje odločbe incidenter povzroči njeno priznanje; to je primer, v katerem bi se uporabil odstavek 4 navedenega člena 21.
The possibility of submitting an application for nonrecognition if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand is capable of satisfying various objectives, either of a substantive nature, in particular those relating to the best interests of the child or the stability and harmony of the family, or of a procedural nature, by making it possible to bring forward the production of evidence which might no longer be available in the future.
Možnost vložitve predloga za nepriznanje, če ni bil pred tem vložen predlog za priznanje, lahko izpolnjuje različne cilje, bodisi vsebinske, zlasti tiste, ki se nana�ajo na interese otroka ali stabilnost in mirnost družine, bodisi postopkovne, tako da omogoča, da se vnaprej predložijo dokazi, ki v prihodnosti morebiti ne bi bili več na voljo.
The application for nonrecognition must however comply with the procedure provided for in Section 2 of Chapter III of the Regulation and, in particular, it can be pursued according to the provisions of domestic law only if they do not limit the scope and effects of the Regulation.
S predlogom za nepriznanje pa mora biti spo�tovan postopek iz poglavja III, oddelek 2, Uredbe, pri čemer se zlasti lahko po določbah notranjega prava obravnava le, če to ne omejuje niti obsega niti učinkov te uredbe.
Therefore, the answer to the first question must be that, except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to Articles 11(8) and 40 to 42 of the Regulation, any interested party can apply for nonrecognition of a judicial decision, even if no application for recognition of the decision has been submitted beforehand.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da razen v primeru, ko se v postopku obravnava potrjena odločba ob uporabi členov 11(8) in od 40 do 42 Uredbe, lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka predlaga, naj se sodna odločba ne prizna, čeprav pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje odločbe.
By its second question, the referring court asks, in the event that it is necessary to examine an application for nonrecognition of a decision brought by the person against whom that decision is to be enforced and when no application for recognition has been submitted beforehand, how Article 31(1) of the Regulation should be applied, in particular the sentence which reads ‘[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’.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, kako naj, kadar mora obravnavati predlog za nepriznanje odločbe, ki jo vloži oseba, proti kateri naj se odločba izvr�i, in če pred tem ni bil vložen noben predlog za priznanje, 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“.
The reservation expressed in paragraph 91 of this judgment also applies in the context of this question.
Pridržek iz točke 91 obravnavane sodbe velja tudi v okviru tega vpra�anja.