natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That is why I am of the opinion that the objective of social rehabilitation, pursued by Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, is no justification for a Member State depriving its judicial authorities of any discretion where a European arrest warrant concerns one of its nationals who opposes his surrender.
Zato menim, da cilj resocializacije, zastavljen s členom 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, ne more upravičiti, da država članica svojim pravosodnim organom odvzame vsako diskrecijsko pravico, kadar se evropski nalog za prijetje nana�a na državljana te države, ki nasprotuje svoji predaji.
The nonextradition by a State of its nationals constitutes a traditional principle of the law of extradition.
Neizročitev svojih državljanov s strani države je tradicionalno načelo prava o izročitvah.
It has the status of a constitutional principle in a number of Member States.
V več državah članicah je to načelo uvr�čeno med ustavna načela.
18It is acknowledged by the European Convention on Extradition, signed by the Member States of the Council of Europe on 13 December 1957, Article 6(1)(a) of which provides that a Contracting Party has the right to refuse extradition of its nationals.
18Priznano je z Evropsko konvencijo o izročitvi, ki so jo države članice Sveta Evrope podpisale 13. decembra 1957 in v katere členu 6(1)(a) je določeno, da ima vsaka pogodbenica pravico zavrniti izročitev svojih državljanov.
18 — For example, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland and the Portuguese Republic.
18 – Med drugim v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji, Republiki Estoniji, Helenski republiki, Republiki Avstriji, Republiki Poljski in Portugalski republiki.
If the arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of the execution of a sentence concerning a national of the executing Member State and if he opposes his surrender, the judicial authority of that State must, in my opinion, be able to assess, in the
Kadar se evropski nalog za prijetje, izdan zaradi izvr�itve kazni, nana�a na državljana izvr�itvene države članice in ta nasprotuje svoji predaji, mora pravosodni organ te države po mojem mnenju imeti možnost, da glede na konkreten položaj te osebe in
KOZŁOWSKI context of which it is difficult for them to mount their defence. 19
KOZŁOWSKI katerem ne poznajo niti postopka niti jezika in v katerem bi se težko branili. 19
With a view to preventing that principle from resulting in total impunity for nationals of a State in respect of crimes committed by them abroad, the national courts have, as a rule, jurisdiction to try cases on the basis of those facts under their domestic criminal law.
Da to načelo ne bi privedlo do tega, da bi bili državljani države popolnoma nekaznovani za kazniva dejanja, ki bi jih storili v tujini, so nacionalna sodi�ča na splo�no pristojna za sojenje za taka dejanja v skladu s svojim notranjim kazenskim pravom.
Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Extradition in fact makes that a binding corollary of the application of the principle of the nonextradition of nationals.
V členu 6(2) Evropske konvencije o izročitvi je to celo obvezna protiutež uporabi načela neizročitve svojih državljanov.
As we have seen, its purpose is to abolish, as between the Member States, the extradition procedure and to replace it with a system of surrender, under which the executing judicial authority may refuse surrender only by a decision specifically based on one of the grounds for nonexecution exhaustively listed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision.
Kot smo videli, je cilj Okvirnega sklepa, da se med državami članicami postopek izročitve odpravi in nadomesti s sistemom predaje, na podlagi katerega lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ tej predaji nasprotuje samo z odločbo, posebej obrazloženo z enim od razlogov za neizvr�itev, taksativno na�tetih v členih 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa.
Traditionally, extradition therefore entails the surrender, to a foreign judicial authority, of a foreigner found by a State on its territory.
Tradicionalno je namen izročitve torej omogočiti predajo tujca, ki ga država najde na svojem ozemlju, tujemu pravosodnemu organu.
As for the nationals of that State, they are excluded from the scope of that procedure and must answer to crimes committed by them abroad before their national courts, notwithstanding the difficulties encountered by the latter in trying such cases, particularly with regard to the obtaining of evidence.
Državljani te države pa so izključeni s področja uporabe tega postopka in morajo za kazniva dejanja, ki so jih storili v tujini, odgovarjati pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodi�či kljub težavam, s katerimi bi se ta sodi�ča lahko srečala pri sojenju za taka dejanja, zlasti pri pridobivanju dokazov.
Article 3 of the Framework Decision, concerning the mandatory grounds for nonexecution, does not provide for any exception — whether on grounds of principle or for reasons of systemic cohesion — for nationals of the executing Member State. 20
V členu 3 Okvirnega sklepa, ki se nana�a na razloge za obvezno neizvr�itev, ni določena nobena načelna ali sistematična izjema v korist državljanov izvr�itvene države članice. 20
In Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, the status of national of the executing
V členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa je status državljana izvr�itvene države članice naveden
20 — The three cases listed in Article 3 of the Framework Decision are as follows: (i) where the offence on which the arrest warrant is based is covered by an amnesty in the executing Member State; (ii) where final judgment has already been passed in another Member State in respect of that offence and any sentence imposed thereunder has been served or may no longer be served; and (iii) the person concerned is not old enough to be criminally responsible in the executing Member State.
20 – Trije primeri iz člena 3 Okvirnega sklepa so naslednji. Prvič, za kaznivo dejanje, na katerem temelji evropski nalog za prijetje, velja amnestija v izvr�itveni državi članici, drugič, za kaznivo dejanje je bila v drugi državi članici že izrečena pravnomočna sodba, ki je bila izvr�ena ali je ni več mogoče izvr�iti, in, tretjič, zadevna oseba zaradi svoje starosti ne more biti kazensko odgovorna v izvr�itveni državi članici.
At the root of the principle of the nonextradition of nationals is the sovereign authority of the State over its nationals, the reciprocal obligations linking them and a lack of trust in the legal systems of other States.
Načelo neizročitve svojih državljanov izvira iz suverenosti držav v zvezi s svojimi državljani, vzajemnih obveznosti, ki jih povezujejo, in pomanjkanja zaupanja v sodne sisteme drugih držav.
Thus, among the grounds relied upon to justify that principle are the State’s duty to protect its nationals from the application of a foreign legal system, of whose procedures and language they are ignorant and in the
Tako je med razlogi, ki jih navajajo kot utemeljitev tega načela, zlasti dolžnost države, da svoje državljane za�čiti pred uporabo tujega kazenskega sistema, v
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 mutual recognition, which the European Council meeting at Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 referred to as the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 zasedanju 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 v Tempereju opredelil kot „temeljni kamen“ pravosodnega sodelovanja.
Member State is referred to as a factor which may, possibly, justify a decision by the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender if that authority considers that the execution of the custodial sentence in its State is necessary to facilitate the reintegration in society of the person concerned.
kot okoli�čina, ki lahko morda upraviči odločbo izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa o zavrnitvi, kadar ta organ meni, da je izvr�itev kazni v njegovi državi nujna za spodbuditev ponovne vključitve zadevne osebe v družbo.
In addition, in that provision, the European Union legislature provided that that ground for nonexecution must apply in exactly the same terms to persons residing in the executing Member State, which clearly confirms that it is not nationality as such which provides the justification for that ground for nonexecution.
Poleg tega je zakonodajalec Evropske unije v tej odločbi predvidel, da je treba ta razlog za neizvr�itev uporabljati popolnoma enako za osebe, ki prebivajo v izvr�itveni državi članici, kar potrjuje, da navedeni razlog za neizvr�itev ne temelji na državljanstvu kot takem.
Pursuant to that principle, as soon as a decision is taken by a judicial authority in compliance with the law of its home State, it takes full and direct effect throughout the European Union, meaning that the competent authorities of all the other Member States are under an obligation to assist its execution as if it originated from one of their own judicial authorities.
Na podlagi tega načela ima odločba, ki jo pravosodni organ sprejme v skladu s pravom svoje države, poln in neposreden učinek v vsej Uniji, tako da morajo pristojni organi vsake druge države članice pomagati pri izvr�itvi odločbe, kot če bi jo izdal pravosodni organ njihove države.
21The scope of a judicial decision is therefore no longer limited to the territory of the issuing Member State but extends to the whole Union.
21Področje uporabe sodne odločbe torej ni več omejeno na ozemlje odreditvene države članice, ampak zajema celotno Unijo.
The renunciation of the principle of nonextradition of nationals in the Framework Decision is again confirmed — if further confirmation be needed — by the transitional provisions laid down in Article 33 of the Framework Decision for the benefit of the Republic of Austria, authorising that Member State to maintain the principle for as long as is required for the amendment of its constitution and, at the latest, until 31 December 2008.
Opustitev načela neizročitve svojih državljanov v Okvirnem sklepu je, če bi bilo potrebno, potrjena tudi s prehodnimi določbami člena 33 tega sklepa v korist Republike Avstrije, s katerimi je tej državi članici dovoljeno, da tako načelo ohrani toliko časa, kolikor ga potrebuje za spremembo svoje ustave, najpozneje pa do 31. decembra 2008.
Such renunciation is perfectly logical in the light of the principle which underpins the Framework Decision.
Ta opustitev je popolnoma logična glede na načelo, ki je podlaga za Okvirni sklep.
It follows that, if a judicial authority of a Member State requests the surrender of a person, whether pursuant to a final conviction or because he is being prosecuted for an offence, that decision must be recognised and automatically executed in all the Member States, with no possible ground for nonexecution except those laid down in the Framework Decision.
Iz tega sledi, da kadar pravosodni organ države članice zahteva predajo osebe bodisi na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe bodisi zato, ker je ta oseba kazensko preganjana, mora biti njegova odločba samodejno priznana in izvr�ena v vseh državah članicah brez drugega mogočega razloga za neizvr�itev, razen tistih, ki so določeni v Okvirnem sklepu.
In other words, by agreeing to set up the European judicial area and, in particular, the European arrest warrant scheme on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition, the Member States have given up the sovereign power to shield
Z drugimi besedami, države članice so se s privolitvijo v vzpostavitev evropskega pravosodnega območja in sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje na podlagi načela medsebojnega priznavanja odpovedale svoji suvereni pristojnosti, da svoje državljane
21 — See, in that regard, the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 26 July 2000 on Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters (COM(2000) 495 final, in particular, p. 8).
21 – Glej v zvezi s tem Sporočilo Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu z dne 26. julija 2000 o vzajemnem priznavanju pravnomočnih odločb v kazenskih zadevah (COM(2000) 495 konč., zlasti str. 8).
As is stated repeatedly in the recitals in its preamble and in its enacting terms, the Framework Decision is based on the principle of mutual recognition.
Kot je bilo večkrat navedeno v uvodnih izjavah in členih tega okvirnega sklepa, ta sklep temelji na načelu medsebojnega priznavanja.
The European arrest warrant, as stated in the 16th recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision, is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 6 Okvirnega sklepa, je evropski nalog za prijetje na področju kazenskega prava prvi konkretni ukrep izvajanja načela medsebojnega priznavanja, ki ga je Evropski svet na
KOZŁOWSKI their own nationals from the investigations and penalties of the judicial authorities of the other Member States.
KOZŁOWSKI izključijo iz preiskav in kazni pravosodnih organov drugih držav članic.
penalty comes to be imposed, the Member States have mutual trust in their criminal justice systems and each of them recognises the criminal law in force in the other Member States even where the outcome would be different if its own national law were applied. 24
pomeni, da ne glede na postopke, v skladu s katerimi je bila izrečena kazen, obstaja vzajemno zaupanje držav članic v svoje zadevne kazenskopravne sisteme, in da vsaka država članica sprejema uporabo kazenskega prava, ki velja v drugih državah članicah, čeprav bi izvajanje njenega nacionalnega prava privedlo do drugačne re�itve. 24
That surrender of sovereignty has been made possible because, as is stated in the 10th recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision, ‘[t]he mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States’.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 10 Okvirnega sklepa, je ta odpoved postala mogoča, ker „mehanizem evropskega naloga za prijetje temelji na visoki stopnji zaupanja med državami članicami“.
That trust stems from various factors.
To zaupanje izhaja iz več dejavnikov.
First, all Member States have shown, by establishing the European Communities or acceding to them, that they adhere to the rule of law and observe fundamental rights, such as those laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and, since 7 December 2000, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Po eni strani so vse države članice z ustanovitvijo Evropskih skupnosti ali pristopom k njim dokazale, da so pravne države, ki spo�tujejo temeljne pravice, kot so določene v Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisani 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu, in od 7. decembra 2000 v Listini temeljnih pravic Evropske unije.
In addition, apart from the ratification of that Convention and the proclamation of that Charter, all Member States are closely committed to the concept of the rule of law, as stated by the Commission in paragraph 1 of the explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Framework Decision. 25
Poleg ratifikacije te konvencije in razglasitve te listine je vsem tem državam skupen zahteven koncept pravne države, kot je Komisija ugotovila v točki 1 obrazložitve svojega predloga Okvirnega sklepa. 25
That confidence is expressed first by the waiver by the Member States of the exercise of their right to prosecute, contained in the ne bis in idem principle, which is enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, 22under which a person whose trial has finally been disposed of in one Member State cannot be prosecuted again in another Member State for the same acts.
To zaupanje se je najprej pokazalo, ko so se države članice odpovedale uresničevanju svoje pravice do kazenskega pregona, kot izhaja iz načela ne bis in idem, potrjenega v členu 54 Konvencije o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma 22, v skladu s katerim se oseba, proti kateri je bil sodni postopek v eni državi članici pravnomočno končan, za ista dejanja ne sme preganjati v drugi državi članici.
The objective of that principle is to ensure that no one is prosecuted for the same acts in several Member States on account of having exercised his right to freedom of movement.
Cilj tega načela je preprečiti, da bi bila oseba, ki izvr�uje pravico do prostega pretoka, za ista dejanja kazensko preganjana na ozemlju več držav članic.
As the Court stated in Gözütok and Brügge, 23according to that principle there is a necessary implication that, however the
Kot je Sodi�če poudarilo v sodbi z dne 11. februarja 2003 v združenih zadevah Gözütok in Brügge 23, navedeno načelo nujno
Despite the absence, to date, of extensive harmonisation of substantive and procedural
Čeprav do tega dne kazensko materialno in procesno pravo v Evropski uniji �e nista
22 — Convention of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p.
22 – Sporazum z dne 14. junija 1985 med vladami držav Gospodarske unije Beneluks, Zvezne republike Nemčije in Francoske republike o postopni odpravi kontrol na skupnih mejah (UL 2000, L 239, str.
19), signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990.
19), podpisan 19. junija 1990 v Schengenu.
24 — Paragraph 33.25 — See footnote 14.
24 – Točka 33.25 – Glej opombo 14.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 criminal law within the European Union, 26the Member States have therefore succeeded in convincing each other that the conditions in accordance with which their nationals are prosecuted and tried in other Member States are such as to ensure compliance with the rights of those nationals and to enable them to defend themselves adequately, notwithstanding language problems and a lack of familiarity with the procedures.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 bila obsežno usklajena, 26 so se države članice lahko prepričale, da se pri pogojih, pod katerimi se njihovi državljani kazensko preganjajo in jim sodijo v drugih državah članicah, spo�tujejo pravice teh državljanov in da jim ti pogoji kljub jezikovnim težavam in nepoznavanju postopka omogočajo ustrezno obrambo.
With the creation of citizenship of the Union, a further stage was reached, since each Member State is also obliged to admit to its territory nationals of other Member States who wish to live there, if those nationals have, at least during the first five years, sufficient resources and insurance cover.
Z oblikovanjem državljanstva Unije je bila končana �e ena etapa, saj je vsaka država članica dolžna na svojem ozemlju sprejeti državljane drugih držav članic, ki želijo tam prebivati, če imajo ti državljani vsaj za prvih pet let zadostna sredstva in socialno zavarovanje.
It must also allow them to participate in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament.
Omogočiti jim mora tudi udeležbo na lokalnih volitvah in volitvah v Evropski parlament.
It must finally also extend the protection afforded by its diplomatic or consular authorities to every citizen of the Union in a third country, if protection by that person’s own Member State is lacking.
Nazadnje mora za�čito svojih diplomatskih ali konzularnih organov raz�iriti na vsakega državljana Unije, ki se nahaja v tretji državi, če ne obstaja za�čita države članice, katere državljan je zadevna oseba.
Secondly, the confidence which each Member State and its nationals should have in the systems of justice of other Member States is the logical and inevitable outcome of the creation of the single market and of European citizenship.
Po drugi strani se zaupanje, ki ga vsaka država članica in njeni državljani morajo imeti v sodstvo drugih držav članic, zdi logičen in neizogiben rezultat vzpostavitve enotnega trga in evropskega državljanstva.
The completion of the single market and the creation of citizenship of the Union have therefore gradually obliged the Member States to treat nationals of other Member States in the same way as their own nationals in an increasingly broad spectrum of economic, social and political life.
Uresničitev enotnega trga in državljanstvo Unije sta torej postopno privedla do tega, da morajo države članice državljane drugih držav članic obravnavati enako kot svoje državljane v vse večjem delu ekonomskega, socialnega in političnega življenja.
They also allow every citizen to go to live or work in the Member State of their choice within the Union, in the same way as any national of that State.
Vsakemu državljanu omogočata tudi, da živi ali dela v državi članici Unije po svoji izbiri tako kot kateri koli državljan te države.
Each Member State has the obligation, in implementation of the rights concerning freedom of movement laid down by the EC Treaty, to allow the nationals of other Member States to carry out an economic activity in its territory — whether as employed or selfemployed persons — under the same conditions as its own nationals.
Obveznost vsake države članice je namreč, da na podlagi prostega pretoka, uvedenega s Pogodbo ES, državljanom drugih držav članic dovoli, da na njenem ozemlju kot samozaposleni ali zaposleni opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost pod enakimi pogoji kot njeni državljani.
26 — To date, about 20 framework decisions have been adopted.
26 – Do danes je bilo sprejetih približno dvajset okvirnih sklepov.
Harmonisation has focused on the definition and prevention of crossborder crime, such as counterfeiting of the euro, fraud and counterfeiting of means of payment, money laundering, terrorism, human trafficking, facilitating illegal immigration, corruption in the private sector, sexual exploitation of children, drug trafficking and attacks against information systems.
Usklajevanje se je nana�alo na opredelitev in kaznovanje čezmejnih kaznivih dejanj, kot so ponarejanje denarja v �kodo eura, goljufije in ponarejanje plačilnih sredstev, pranje denarja, terorizem, trgovina z ljudmi, pomoč pri nezakonitem priseljevanju, korupcija v zasebnem sektorju, spolno izkori�čanje otrok, promet s prepovedanimi drogami in napadi na informacijske sisteme.
It has also concerned operational matters and the enforcement of decisions, such as the establishment of joint investigation teams, the mutual recognition of confiscation orders or of orders freezing property or evidence, or indeed financial penalties, as well as the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.
Nana�alo se je tudi na sredstva ukrepanja ali izvr�evanja, kot so vzpostavitev skupnih preiskovalnih enot, vzajemno priznavanje odredb o zaplembi, zaseg premoženja ali dokazov ali denarne kazni in položaj žrtev v kazenskih postopkih.
The European Union has also adopted a number of decisions, creating bodies such as Eurojust and the European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, or providing for activities such as the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record, training activities and programmes.
Unija je tudi sprejela več sklepov, s katerimi so bili ustanovljeni organi, kot sta Eurojust in evropska mreža kontaktnih točk v zvezi z osebami, odgovornimi za genocid, hudodelstva zoper človečnost in vojna hudodelstva, ali so bili določeni ukrepi, kot so izmenjava podatkov iz kazenskih evidenc, ukrepi usposabljanja in programi.
The right moment therefore seems to have arrived to add equal treatment before the courts to these legal constructs.
Čas se je torej zdel zelo primeren, da se temu pravnemu ustroju doda enaka obravnava pred sodi�čem.
In other words, since a citizen of the Union from now on has rights in every Member State which are largely the same as those enjoyed by nationals of that State, it is fair that he should comply with the same obligations in criminal law matters and, if he commits an offence, be prosecuted and tried before the courts of that State in the same way as its nationals.
Z drugimi besedami, ker ima državljan Unije odslej v vsaki državi članici večinoma enake pravice kot državljani te države, je pravično, da zanj veljajo enake obveznosti v kazenskih zadevah in da se, če tam stori kaznivo dejanje, tam kazensko preganja in mu je sojeno na sodi�čih navedene države kot državljanom te države.