natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It can be confirmed on the basis of an examination of the scheme established by the Framework Decision that the European arrest warrant is intended to achieve the enforced transfer of a person from one Member State to another.
Na podlagi preučitve sistema, določenega z Okvirnim sklepom, je mogoče trditi, da se evropski nalog za prijetje nana�a na prisilni transfer osebe iz ene države članice v drugo.
Upon examining that scheme and those objectives, I consider that the German Government’s argument runs contrary to both for the following reasons.
Ob preučitvi tega sistema in teh ciljev menim, da je trditev, ki jo zagovarja nem�ka vlada, v nasprotju s tem sistemom in cilji iz naslednjih razlogov.
First, under the scheme provided for by the Framework Decision, the lack of consent on the part of the requested person may not, as such, justify a decision not to execute the warrant.
Po eni strani v sistemu, določenem z Okvirnim sklepom, neobstoj soglasja osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, kot tak ne more upravičiti odločbe o neizvr�itvi.
Secondly, a refusal can be based on Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision only if it becomes apparent that execution of the sentence in the executing Member State is necessary in order to facilitate the
Po drugi strani lahko odločba o zavrnitvi temelji na členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa samo, če se izvr�itev kazni v izvr�itveni državi članici izkaže za nujno za izbolj�anje možnosti ponovne vključitve te osebe v družbo.
12 — See, for a recent application by the Court sitting in Grand Chamber formation, Case C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483, paragraph 110 and the caselaw cited.
12 – V zvezi z nedavno uporabo Sodi�ča v sestavi velikega senata glej sodbo z dne 15. aprila 2008 v zadevi Impact (C-268/06, ZOdl., str. I-2483, točka 110 in navedena sodna praksa).
According to that scheme, the Member States are obliged to execute any European arrest warrant, as is made clear, in the French version, by the use of the present indicative
Iz tega sistema namreč izhaja, da morajo države članice izvr�iti vsak evropski nalog za prijetje, kot to v francoski različici dokazuje uporaba sedanjika v povednem naklonu
13 concerned consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be taken by the executing judicial authority within 10 days of consent being given, whereas, if that person does not consent to surrender, the decision must be taken within 60 days of his arrest.
13 sklepa, kadar zadevna oseba sogla�a s svojo predajo, končno odločitev o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje sprejeti v 10 dneh po tem soglasju, medtem ko mora to odločitev, kadar ta oseba ne sogla�a s predajo, sprejeti v 60 dneh po njenem prijetju.
It also follows from the scheme of the Framework Decision that execution can be refused only by decision of the executing judicial authority, based specifically on one of the grounds for nonexecution exhaustively listed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision.
Iz tega sistema tudi izhaja, da se lahko izvr�itev zavrne samo z odločbo izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa, ki je posebej obrazložena z enim od razlogov za neizvr�itev, taksativno na�tetih v členih 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa.
It must be held that lack of consent on the part of the requested person is not one of the grounds for mandatory or optional nonexecution stated, respectively, in those two provisions.
Treba je ugotoviti, da neobstoj soglasja osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, ni med razlogi za obvezno ali fakultativno neizvr�itev, na�tetimi v teh dveh členih.
The purpose of the right conferred on the person concerned to consent to his surrender is therefore to enable him to speed up the surrender procedures.
Cilj pravice, priznane zadevni osebi, da sogla�a s predajo, je torej omogočiti tej osebi, da pospe�i postopek predaje.
It gives him the right to reduce the length of the procedures in the executing Member State and, as the case may be, the length of time during which he is held in detention in that State for the purposes of applying the European arrest warrant.
Ta oseba ima torej pravico, da skraj�a roke postopka v izvr�itveni državi članici, in kjer je to ustrezno, trajanje zapora, odrejenega v tej državi zaradi izvajanja evropskega naloga za prijetje.
As a result, he is able to appear sooner before the issuing judicial authority in order to assert his rights.
Posledično lahko prej pride pred odreditveni pravosodni organ, da bi tam uveljavljala svoje pravice.
The possibility of consenting or not to surrender is one of the rights conferred by Article 11 of the Framework Decision on the requested person.
Možnost sogla�anja ali nesogla�anja s predajo spada med pravice, ki so osebi, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, priznane v členu 11 Okvirnega sklepa.
However, the only legal consequence of that position, which is laid down expressly in the Framework Decision, concerns the period within which the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be taken by the executing judicial authority.
Vendar pa se edina pravna posledica tega stali�ča, ki je izrecno določena v tem okvirnem sklepu, nana�a na rok, v katerem mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ sprejeti končno odločitev o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje.
However, under the scheme provided for in the Framework Decision, the consent or lack of consent on the part of the person concerned has no binding influence on the decision taken by the executing judicial authority.
Vendar pa v sistemu, določenem z Okvirnim sklepom, soglasje ali neobstoj soglasja zadevne osebe ne vpliva nujno na to, kako bo odločil izvr�itveni pravosodni organ.
Thus, under Article 17(2) and (3) of the Framework Decision, where the person
Tako mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ v skladu s členom 17(2) in (3) Okvirnega
13 — An examination of the other language versions leads to same conclusion.
13 – Preučitev drugih jezikovnih različic vodi do enake ugotovitve. Tako je v nem�čini napisano „Die Mitgliedstaaten vollstrecken jeden Europäischen Haftbefehl“; v angle�čini „Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant“ itd.
It is possible to imagine that the fact that the person concerned objects might lead the executing judicial authority to examine whether there are grounds for nonexecution under Articles 3 or 4 of the Framework Decision, a question which, in the event of consent, it would not necessarily have
Mogoče je meniti, da bo izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zaradi nasprotovanja zadevne osebe preučil morebitni obstoj razlogov za neizvr�itev iz členov 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa, ki jih ob soglasju ni nujno preveril po uradni dolžnosti glede na zelo
KOZŁOWSKI examined on its own initiative, given the very tight deadlines applicable to the surrender procedure in that situation.
KOZŁOWSKI kratke roke, ki veljajo za postopek predaje v tem primeru.
Similarly, the application of the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is not conditional upon the consent or lack of consent of the person concerned, even though, in all probability, it is an element which must be taken into consideration by the executing judicial authority when assessing that ground.
Prav tako uporaba razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa ni odvisna od soglasja ali neobstoja soglasja zadevne osebe, čeprav je to povsem verjetno element, ki ga izvr�itveni pravosodni organ mora upo�tevati pri presoji tega razloga.
It must therefore be found, at this stage of reasoning, that lack of consent on the part of the requested person cannot in itself constitute a ground for the nonexecution of the European arrest warrant.
Na tej stopnji sklepanja si je torej treba zapomniti, da neobstoj soglasja osebe, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, ne more biti sam po sebi razlog za neizvr�itev tega naloga.
I am thinking, for example, of the grounds laid down in Articles 3(2) and 4(5) of the Framework Decision, concerning situations where final judgment has been passed on that person in another Member State or in a third State in respect of the acts referred to in the European arrest warrant and where sentence has already been served or its execution is no longer possible.
V mislih imam na primer razloga iz člena 3(2) in člena 4(5) Okvirnega sklepa, ki se nana�ata na primere, v katerih je bila za dejanja, na katera se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, v drugi državi članici ali tretji državi izrečena pravnomočna sodba, ki je že bila izvr�ena ali je ni več mogoče izvr�iti.
Under those provisions, those reasons constitute or may constitute a ground for nonexecution, in so far as ‘the executing judicial authority is informed’.
V skladu s tema členoma ta razloga pomenita ali bi lahko pomenila razlog za neizvr�itev, če „izvr�itveni pravosodni organ dobi obvestilo“.
The absence of any reference to that lack of consent among the grounds for nonexecution listed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision confirms the intention of the European Union legislature, as stated in the first recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision, to prevent a requested person from fleeing from justice in the Member State in which he has committed, or is suspected of having committed, a crime.
Neobstoj sklicevanja na ta neobstoj soglasja med razlogi za neizvr�itev, na�tetimi v členih 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa, potrjuje v uvodni izjavi 1 Okvirnega sklepa izraženo željo zakonodajalca Evropske unije preprečiti, da bi se lahko oseba, na katero se nana�a evropski nalog za prijetje, izognila pravici države članice, v kateri je storila kaznivo dejanje ali je osumljena, da je storila kaznivo dejanje.
If the person concerned objects to his surrender and invokes one of those grounds when being heard by the executing judicial authority, even though such a ground does not appear in the information communicated by the issuing judicial authority, the executing judicial authority might well ask the latter authority for supplementary information in order to ascertain whether that ground exists and to draw the necessary inferences in its decision.
Če zadevna oseba nasprotuje svoji predaji in se med zasli�anjem pred izvr�itvenim pravosodnim organom sklicuje na enega od navedenih razlogov, medtem ko takega razloga ni bilo med informacijami, ki jih je poslal odreditveni pravosodni organ, je popolnoma razumno meniti, da bo izvr�itveni pravosodni organ od odreditvenega pravosodnega organa zahteval dodatne informacije, da bi preveril obstoj razloga in iz tega izpeljal posledice svoje odločitve.
However, the Framework Decision does not expressly provide that those matters are to be taken into consideration because the European Union legislature wanted to give precedence in the Framework Decision to the person’s speedy surrender.
Vendar pa to upo�tevanje ni izrecno določeno v Okvirnem sklepu, ker je v njem zakonodajalec Evropske unije hotel dati prednost predaji osebe v zelo kratkih rokih.
Consequently, irrespective of whether the person concerned does or does not consent to his surrender to the issuing judicial authority, it is for the executing judicial authority to rule on the execution of the European arrest warrant and it can oppose execution only by a decision based specifically on one of the grounds for nonexecution listed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision.
Zato je ne glede na to, ali zadevna oseba sogla�a s svojo predajo odreditvenemu pravosodnemu organu ali ne, izvr�itveni pravosodni organ tisti, ki mora odločiti o izvr�itvi evropskega naloga za prijetje, in ta lahko tej nasprotuje samo z odločbo, posebej obrazloženo z enim od razlogov za neizvr�itev, navedenih v členih 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 presented by the Commission of the European Communities.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08
It follows that a provision of the legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 80(3) of the IRG, which makes lack of consent on the part of a national an absolute ground for nonexecution is, as such, contrary to the scheme of the Framework Decision.
Določba zakonodaje države članice, kot je člen 80(3) IRG, na podlagi katerega je neobstoj soglasja državljana te države absoluten razlog za neizvr�itev, je torej v nasprotju s sistemom Okvirnega sklepa.
Unlike the German Government, I do not believe that the objective underlying Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision can invalidate that analysis.
V nasprotju z nem�ko vlado menim, da se s ciljem, ki je podlaga člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, ta analiza ne more ovreči.
‘The execution of a European arrest warrant in respect of a requested person may be refused if this person would have better possibilities of reintegration in the executing Member State, and if he or she consents to serve the sentence in this Member State.
„Izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje zoper zahtevano osebo se lahko zavrne, če ima ta oseba večje možnosti za ponovno vključitev v družbo v izvr�itveni državi članici in če sogla�a, da bo svojo kazen prestala v tej državi članici.
The objective pursued in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision cannot justify an absolute bar to execution of a European arrest warrant concerning a national of the executing State where that national opposes his surrender
Cilj, zastavljen v členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa, ne more upravičiti popolne nezmožnosti izvr�itve evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki se nana�a na domačega državljana, kadar ta državljan nasprotuje svoji predaji
In that case, the sentence pronounced in the issuing Member State shall be served in the executing Member State in accordance with the laws of the latter Member State. The sentence pronounced in the issuing Member State shall not be substituted by a sanction prescribed by the law of the executing Member State for the same offence.’
V tem primeru se kazen, izrečena v odreditveni državi članici, prestane v izvr�itveni državi članici v skladu s pravom te države članice, vendar pa se ne more nadomestiti s kaznijo, določeno s pravom te države članice za isto kaznivo dejanje.“
As the German Government states in its written observations and as the Oberlandesgericht has explained in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the purpose of the ground for nonexecution provided for in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is to facilitate the reintegration of the convicted person at the end of his sentence.
Kot nem�ka vlada navaja v pisnih stali�čih in kot je Oberlandesgericht navedlo v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, je cilj razloga za neizvr�itev iz člena 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa omogočiti ponovno vključitev obsojene osebe v družbo po izteku kazni te osebe.
Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision differs from that proposal.
Člen 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa se razlikuje od tega predloga.
None the less, it largely retains the substance of the proposal and it appears successfully to meet the same objectives, that is to say, to facilitate the reintegration of the convicted person.
Kljub temu v veliki meri ohranja bistvo in zdi se, da dobro izpolnjuje isti cilj, to je spodbujanje ponovne vključitve obsojene osebe v družbo.
That opinion is shared by all the parties who intervened in the present proceedings.
S tem mnenjem se strinjajo tudi vse stranke, ki so intervenirale v tem postopku.
It is based on a number of factors.
Temelji na več elementih.
14 — Proposal of 25 September 2001 for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States (COM(2001) 522 final).
14 – Predlog Okvirnega sklepa z dne 25. septembra 2001 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami (COM(2001) 522 konč.).
Admittedly, that objective is not expressly stated in the Framework Decision, but it featured very clearly in the proposal
Res je, da ta cilj v Okvirnem sklepu ni izrecno naveden, čeprav je bil zelo jasno naveden v predlogu Komisije Evrop-
The objective can be inferred, first, from the Framework Decision itself.
Prvič, ta cilj izhaja iz samega Okvirnega sklepa.
That analysis is confirmed, secondly, by a number of documents in which the Member States and the Community institutions have stated that criminal penalties must not be solely punitive but should also assist rehabilitation.
Drugič, to analizo potrjuje več aktov, v katerih so države članice in institucije Skupnosti potrdile, da kazen ne sme biti samo odvzem prostosti, ampak mora imeti tudi socializacijsko funkcijo.
Thus, under Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, the application of that provision is conditional upon an undertaking by the executing Member State to execute the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced in the issuing Member State.
Tako je v členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa določeno, da je njegova uporaba pogojena z zavezo izvr�itvene države članice, da bo izvr�ila kazen ali ukrep, vezan na odvzem prostosti in izrečen v odreditveni državi članici.
In the light of the European arrest warrant scheme, under which surrender is the rule and the grounds for nonexecution the exceptions to that rule, a nonexecution decision can therefore be based on Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision only if there is a legitimate interest in the execution of the sentence in the territory of the State where the person concerned was arrested.
Glede na sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje, v skladu s katerim je predaja načelo, razlogi za neizvr�itev pa so izjeme od tega načela, lahko odločitev o neizvr�itvi torej temelji na členu 4(6) Okvirnega sklepa samo, če obstaja upravičen interes za izvr�itev kazni na ozemlju države, v kateri je bila zadevna oseba prijeta.
The role to be played by penalties in assisting rehabilitation has, for example, been asserted by the Council of Europe, first, in the recommendations on European prison rules 15and, secondly, in the Council of Europe Convention on Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983.
To funkcijo je tako Svet Evrope potrdil, po eni strani, v priporočilih o evropskih zaporskih pravilih 15in, po drugi strani, v Konvenciji Sveta Evrope z dne 21. marca 1983 o transferju obsojenih oseb.
That role is also mentioned in the Resolution of the European Parliament on respect for human rights in the European Union (1997), 16in which the Parliament stated that prison sentences are intended to have both a corrective and a social rehabilitation function and that the objective is the human and social reintegration of the prisoner. 17
Navedena funkcija je omenjena tudi v resoluciji Evropskega parlamenta o spo�tovanju človekovih pravic v Evropski uniji (1997) 16, v kateri je ta institucija opozorila, da ima kazen korektivno funkcijo in funkcijo resocializacije ter da je v tem smislu cilj ponovna vključitev zapornika v družbo. 17
The same analysis holds true with regard to Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision, which is applicable where a European arrest warrant is issued for the purposes of a prosecution.
Enako analizo je mogoče opraviti v zvezi s členom 5(3) Okvirnega sklepa, ki se uporablja, kadar je evropski nalog za prijetje izdan za uvedbo kazenskega postopka.
Under that provision, it will be recalled, the surrender of a person who is a national or resident of the executing Member State can be made subject to the condition that the person be returned to that State in order to serve there the sentence pronounced against him in the issuing Member State.
Naj opozorim, da je v skladu s to določbo predajo osebe, ki je državljan ali prebivalec izvr�itvene države članice, mogoče pogojiti s tem, da se ta oseba vrne v to državo, da bi v njej prestajala kazen, ki bi ji jo izrekla odreditvena država članica.
However, contrary to the position of the German Government, I do not believe that, in every case, the social rehabilitation of a German national who opposes his surrender is necessarily better guaranteed if he serves his sentence in Germany.
Vendar pa v nasprotju s stali�čem, ki ga zagovarja nem�ka vlada, ne verjamem, da bo za resocializacijo nem�kega državljana, ki nasprotuje svoji predaji, v vseh primerih nujno bolje poskrbljeno, če bo svojo kazen prestal v Nemčiji.
In other words, even if the status as a national of the executing Member State demonstrates the existence of a very strong connection with that State, I am not convinced that it can
Z drugimi besedami, čeprav status državljana izvr�itvene države članice dokazuje obstoj zelo močne vezi s to državo, nisem prepričan, da bi lahko utemeljil neovrgljivo domnevo, v skladu s katero
15 — See, inter alia, Recommendation No R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers on the European Prison Rules, adopted on 12 February 1987 and replaced by Recommendation Rec(2006)2, adopted on 11 January 2006.
15 – Glej zlasti Priporočilo �t. R (87) 3 Odbora ministrov za države članice o evropskih zaporskih pravilih, sprejeto 12. februarja 1987 in nadome�čeno s Priporočilom Rec(2006)2, sprejetim 11. januarja 2006.
279.17 — Paragraph 78.
279.17 – Točka 78.
The only legitimate interest that I can see is that of facilitating the reintegration of the convicted person, in his own interests and in the interests of the community at large, in which that person is once more to live when his sentence has been served.
Ne vidim drugega upravičenega interesa, kot je spodbujanje ponovne vključitve obsojene osebe v družbo v interesu te osebe in celotne družbe, v kateri bo ta oseba morala znova zaživeti po izteku svoje kazni.
VIEW OF MR BOT — CASE C-66/08 establish an irrebuttable presumption that the execution of the sentence in that State best favours the social rehabilitation of the person concerned.
STALIŠČE Y. BOTA – ZADEVA C-66/08 izvr�itev kazni v navedeni državi izbolj�a možnosti za resocializacijo zadevne osebe.
light of the person’s factual situation and criteria which I shall go on to propose in this View, whether execution of the custodial sentence in the territory of that State is really required in order to facilitate his social rehabilitation.
merila, ki jih bom predlagal v nadaljevanju teh stali�č, preveri, ali je izvr�itev kazni na ozemlju navedene države dejansko nujna za spodbuditev njegove resocializacije.
The opposite interpretation, contended for by the German Government, leads in my opinion to the reintroduction, to a certain extent, of the principle of nonextradition of nationals — a principle which the Framework Decision seeks to renounce — and, in consequence, partly frustrates the effectiveness of that decision.
Nasprotna razlaga, ki jo zagovarja nem�ka vlada, po mojem mnenju deloma pomeni vnovično uvedbo načela neizročitve svojih državljanov, ki je bilo opu�čeno z Okvirnim sklepom, zaradi česar ta delno izgubi svoj polni učinek.
As proof of this one can point to the great variety of human situations with which the judicial authorities of a Member State are confronted on a daily basis.
Kot dokaz navajam veliko raznolikost položajev, v katerih se znajde človek in s katerimi se sodni organi države članice dnevno srečujejo.
Thus, one can imagine the case of a German national who has been living for many years in a Member State other than the Federal Republic of Germany, in which he has a family and a job, and which he has only left in order to flee from justice in that State.
Tako si lahko zamislimo primer nem�kega državljana, ki že dolga leta živi v drugi državi članici, kot je Zvezna republika Nemčija, ima tam družino in zaposlitev in ki naj bi to državo zapustil, samo da bi se izognil izvr�itvi kazni, izrečeni zoper njega, v tej državi.
I do not believe that, in such a situation, there can be an irrebuttable presumption that the social rehabilitation of that person is necessarily better guaranteed in Germany.
Menim, da v takem primeru ni mogoče neovrgljivo domnevati, da bo za resocializacijo zadevne osebe nujno bolje poskrbljeno v Nemčiji.
The renunciation in the Framework Decision of the principle of the nonextradition of nationals, and the effectiveness of the Framework Decision
Opustitev načela neizročitve svojih državljanov v Okvirnem sklepu in polni učinek tega sklepa