natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Subject to that reservation, if an application for nonrecognition of a judicial decision is brought and no application for recognition of that decision has been submitted, Article 31(1) of the Regulation must be interpreted in the light of the specific scheme of Section 2 of Chapter III of the Regulation.
S tem pridržkom je treba ugotoviti, da se v primeru, ko je predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe vložen, ne da bi bil vložen predlog za priznanje te odločbe, člen 31(1) Uredbe razlaga glede na posebno sistematiko poglavja III, oddelka 2, Uredbe.
Accordingly, that provision must remain unapplied.
Zato se ta določba ne uporabi.
Article 31 of the Regulation relates to the declaration of enforceability.
Člen 31 Uredbe se namreč nana�a na razglasitev izvr�ljivosti.
It provides that, in that case, the party against whom enforcement is sought is not entitled to make any submissions on the application.
Določa, da v tem primeru stranka, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, nima možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve.
Such a procedure must be understood in the light of the fact that, being of an enforceable and unilateral nature, it cannot take account of the submissions of that party without assuming a declaratory and adversarial nature, which would run counter to its very logic according to which the rights of the defence are ensured by means of the appeal provided for in Article 33 of the Regulation.
Tak postopek je treba razumeti glede na dejstvo, da zato ker je izvr�ilen in enostranski, ne more biti dovoljeno, da stranka podaja izjave, saj bi tako ta postopek postal deklaratoren in kontradiktoren, kar pa bi bilo v nasprotju z njegovo logiko, in sicer da so pravice obrambe zagotovljene s pravnim sredstvom iz člena 33 Uredbe.
The situation envisaged in the event of an application for nonrecognition is different.
Položaj v primeru predloga za nepriznanje je drugačen.
The reason for that difference lies in the fact that, in such a situation, the applicant is the person against whom the application for a declaration of enforceability might have been brought.
Razlog za to razliko je v dejstvu, da je predlagatelj v takem položaju oseba, proti kateri se lahko vloži zahteva za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti.
Since the requirements referred to in paragraph 101 of this judgment are no longer justified, the party against whom the application for nonrecognition is brought cannot be deprived of the possibility of making submissions on the application.
Ker zahteve iz točke 101 obravnavane sodbe niso več utemeljene, stranki, proti kateri je vložen predlog za nepriznanje, ne more biti odvzeta možnost, da podaja izjave.
Any other outcome would result in limiting the effectiveness of the applicant’s action, since the purpose of the nonrecognition procedure is to seek a negative assessment which, by its nature, calls for an adversarial procedure.
Kakr�na koli druga re�itev bi omejevala učinkovitost tožbe predlagatelja, ker se predmet postopka o nepriznanju nana�a na negativno ugotovitev, ki po svoji naravi zahteva kontradiktorni postopek.
It follows that, as the Commission asserted, the defendant, who is seeking recognition, is entitled to make submissions on the application.
Iz tega izhaja, da – kot navaja Komisija – tožena stranka, ki zahteva priznanje, lahko podaja izjave.
The answer to the second question must therefore be that Article 31(1) of the Regulation, in so far as it provides that neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to make any submissions on the application, is not applicable to proceedings initiated for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision.
Na drugo vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da člen 31(1) Uredbe, v delu, v katerem določa, da oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, in otrok v tej fazi postopka nimata možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve, ne velja v postopku za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, v zvezi s katero pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje.
In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking recognition, is entitled to make such submissions.
V takem primeru lahko tožena stranka, ki zahteva priznanje, podaja izjave.
By its third question, the referring court asks whether 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 return of the child to the Member State of origin, a decision in respect of which the
S tretjim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali mora nacionalno sodi�če, ki je od nosilca star�evske odgovornosti prejelo predlog za nepriznanje odločbe sodi�ča države izvora, v katerem se od nosilca zahteva, naj otroka vrne v državo izvora, glede
RINAU certificate provided for in Article 42 of the Regulation has been issued, is 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) thereof.
RINAU te odločbe pa je bilo izdano potrdilo iz člena 42 Uredbe, ta predlog preučiti na podlagi določb iz oddelkov 1 in 2 poglavja III Uredbe, kot to določa člen 40(2) te uredbe.
As is apparent from the answers to the previous questions, an application for nonrecognition of a judicial decision is not permitted if a certificate has been issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation.
Kot izhaja iz odgovorov na prej�nja vpra�anja, predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe ni sprejet, če je bilo na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe izdano potrdilo.
In such a situation, the decision which has been certified is enforceable and no opposition to its recognition is permitted.
V takem primeru je odločba, ki je bila potrjena, izvr�ljiva, zoper njeno priznanje pa ni mogoče vložiti ugovora.
There is therefore no need to answer the third question.
Na tretje vpra�anje torej ni treba odgovoriti.
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 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become
Ko je odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, sprejeta in je o njej obveščeno sodišče izvora, za namen izdaje potrdila iz člena 42 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1347/2000 ni pomembno, ali je bila izvršitev te odločbe odložena, ali je bila ta odločba spremenjena, razveljavljena oziroma v vsakem primeru ni postala pravnomočna ali pa jo je nadomestila odločba
2008 — CASE C-195/08 PPU 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.
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU o vrnitvi otroka, saj do vrnitve otroka dejansko ni prišlo.
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 zaprošenega sodišča pa je le ugotoviti izvršljivost potrjene odločbe in ugoditi takojšnji vrnitvi otroka.
Except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to Articles 11(8) and 40 to 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003, any interested party can apply for nonrecognition of a judicial decision, even if no application for recognition of the decision has been submitted beforehand.
Razen v primeru, ko se v postopku obravnava potrjena odločba ob uporabi členov 11(8) in od 40 do 42 Uredbe št. 2201/2003, lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka predlaga, naj se sodna odločba ne prizna, čeprav pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje odločbe.
Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, in so far as it provides that neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to make any submissions on the application, is not applicable to proceedings initiated for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision.
Člen 31(1) Uredbe št. 2201/2003 v delu, v katerem določa, da oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, in otrok v tej fazi postopka nimata možnosti podajati kakršnih koli izjav glede zahteve, ne velja v postopku za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, v zvezi s katero pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje.
Case C-51/05 P
Zadeva C-51/05 P
(Appeals — Common organisation of the market in wine — Aid for distillation — Actions for damages — Noncontractual liability of the Community — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run)
„Pritožba – Skupna ureditev trga za vino – Pomoči za destilacijo – Od�kodninska tožba – Nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti – Zastaralni rok – Izhodi�če“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 22. no -vembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run(Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46)
Odškodninska tožba – Zastaralni rok – Izhodišče(člena 235 ES in 288, drugi odstavek, ES; Statut Sodišča, člen 46)
SUMMARY — CASE C-51/05 P that legal rules be clear and precise in order that interested parties can ascertain their position in situations and legal relationships governed by Community law.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-51/05 P jasna in določena ter da zagotavljajo predvidljivost dejanskih stanj in pravnih razmerij, ki izhajajo iz pravnega reda Skupnosti.
The fiveyear limitation period for bringing proceedings against the Community in matters relating to noncontractual liability laid down in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice cannot begin to run until all the requirements governing the obligation to provide compensation for damage are satisfied and, in particular, until the damage to be made good has materialised.
Petletni zastaralni rok za tožbe zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti iz člena 46 Statuta Sodi�ča začne teči, ko so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, od katerih je odvisna obveznost povračila, in zlasti ko je �koda, ki jo je treba povrniti, konkretizirana.
Therefore, in cases where the liability of the Community has its origin in a legislative measure, that period of limitation does not begin until the damaging effects of that measure have arisen and, therefore, until the time at which the persons concerned were bound to have suffered certain damage.
Zato, kadar gre za primer, ko odgovornost Skupnosti izvira iz normativnega akta, začne ta zastaralni rok teči, ko nastanejo �kodljivi učinki tega akta, torej ko je tožečim strankam povzročena nedvomna �koda.
Furthermore, preventing the limitation period for proceedings against the Community for noncontractual liability from starting to run as long as the party who has allegedly been harmed is not personally convinced that he has suffered damage has the result that the point in time at which those proceedings become timebarred varies according to the individual perception that each party may have as to the reality of the damage, something which is at variance with the requirement of legal certainty necessary for the application of limitation periods.
Poleg tega je posledica zadržanja zastaralnega roka tožbe zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti za toliko časa, dokler domnevni o�kodovanec ni osebno prepričan, da je bil o�kodovan, sprememba trenutka ugasnitve navedene tožbe v skladu z osebnim dojemanjem, ki bi ga lahko imela posamezna stranka, glede obstoja �kode, kar je v nasprotju z zahtevo po pravni varnosti, potrebno za uporabo zastaralnih rokov.
In that connection, knowledge of the facts is not one of the conditions which must be met in order for the limitation period to start running.
V zvezi s tem poznavanje dejanskega stanja ni pogoj, ki mora biti izpolnjen za začetek teka zastaralnega roka.
The subjective appraisal of the reality of the damage cannot therefore be taken into consideration in order to determine the moment at which that period starts to run.
Subjektivne presoje obstoja �kode se tako ne upo�teva pri določitvi začetka navedenega zastaralnega roka.
In that connection, the conditions to which the obligation to make good the damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is subject, and, therefore, the rules on limitation periods which govern actions for compensation in respect of that damage may be based only on strictly object- ive criteria.
Glede tega so pogoji, od katerih je odvisna obveznost povračila �kode, ki so določeni v členu 288, drugi odstavek, ES, in torej pravila zastaranja, ki urejajo tožbe za povračilo navedene �kode, lahko utemeljeni le na strogo objektivnih merilih.
If it were otherwise, there would be a risk of undermining the principle of legal certainty on which the rules on limitation periods specifically rely and which require
Sicer bi namreč to lahko �kodilo načelu pravne varnosti, na katero se opirajo pravila zastaranja in s katerim se zahteva, da so pravna pravila prava Skupnosti
(see paras 54, 59-61)
(Glej točke 54 in od 59 do 61.)
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 22 November 2007 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 22. novembra 2007 1
The Commission has brought the present appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission. 2
Komisija je vložila obravnavano pritožbo zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl in drugi proti Komisiji (T-166/98 2).
Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organisation of the market in wine 4provides that preventive distillation 5 of table wines and wines suitable for yielding table wine may take place each wine year.
Člen 11(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 337/79 z dne 5. februarja 1979 o skupni ureditvi trga za vino 4določa, da se lahko preventivna destilacija 5 namiznih vin in vin, iz katerih se lahko pridobijo namizna vina, opravi vsako vinsko leto.
On 15 September 1982 the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 laying
Komisija je 15. septembra 1982 sprejela Uredbo (EGS) �t. 2499/82 o določbah za
Those proceedings arose out of the insolvency of the distiller Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba (‘DAI’), as a result of which a number of wine producers did not receive the Community aid to which they were in principle entitled for distillations of their wine that had duly taken place under DAI’s auspices in the first half of 1983.
Ta postopek je sprožila plačilna nesposobnost destilarne Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba (v nadaljevanju: DAI), zaradi katere �tevilni proizvajalci vina niso prejeli pomoči Skupnosti, do katere so bili načeloma upravičeni za destilacijo svojega vina, ki je bila opravljena v skladu s predpisi v okviru DAI v prvi polovici leta 1983.
Initially those producers participated in proceedings before the national court between DAI and the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (the Italian intervention agency, ‘AIMA’).
Prvotno so proizvajalci intervenirali v postopku pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, ki je potekal med DAI in Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (v nadaljevanju: AIMA).
Those proceedings were protracted and unsuccessful.
Postopek je bil dolg in zanje ni bil uspe�en.
Eventually, after further enquiries, on 12 October 1998 the wine producers brought proceedings against the Commission seeking compensation.
Končno so proizvajalci vina 12. oktobra 1998, po dodatnih poizvedbah, zoper Komisijo vložili od�kodninsko tožbo.
One of the issues before the Court of First Instance was when the fiveyear time period applicable to proceedings against the Community in matters arising from noncontractual liability 3started to run.
Eno od vpra�anj pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje je bilo, kdaj začne teči petletni rok, ki velja za postopek zoper Skupnost v zadevah iz nepogodbenih odgovornosti.
The present appeal is concerned solely with that issue.
3 Obravnavana pritožba obravnava izključno to vpra�anje.
1; as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/82 of 27 July 1982 (OJ 1982 L 227, p. 1).
1; kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 2144/82 z dne 27. julija 1982 (UL L 227, str. 1).
5 — Voluntary distillation intended to withdraw forecasted wine surplus with a view to improving prices.
5 – Prostovoljna destilacija, ki je namenjena umiku predvidenih presežkov vina iz prometa, da bi se izbolj�ale cene.
7 the Member States, provision should be made for procedures for payment of aids and advances which are suited to the administrative systems of the different Member States.
7 članicah, je treba prav tako določiti način plačila pomoči in predujmov, ki ustreza upravnim sistemom različnih držav članic.
Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 provides that producers wishing to have their wines distilled under Article 11 of Regulation No 337/79 must conclude supply contracts with an approved distiller and submit them to the national intervention agency.
Člen 1(1) te uredbe določa, da morajo proizvajalci, ki želijo destilirati svoje namizno vino na podlagi člena 11 Uredbe �t. 337/79, skleniti pogodbe o dobavi s poobla�čenim destilaterjem in jih predložiti nacionalnemu intervencijskemu organu.
Article 8 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides that for the payment of the minimum buyingin price for wines and for the payment of aid by the intervention agency, one or other of the procedures referred to in Articles 9 and 10 is to be applied, at the choice of the Member States.
Člen 8 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 določa, da lahko države članice za plačilo minimalne nakupne cene za vino in za plačilo pomoči s strani intervencijskega organa po svoji izbiri uporabijo en ali drug postopek, ki ju določata člena 9 in 10 iste uredbe.
Italy decided to apply in its territory the procedure referred to in Article 9.
Italijanska republika se je odločila, da bo na svojem ozemlju uporabljala postopek, ki ga določa člen 9.
Article 9 provides:
Člen 9 določa:
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 sets the minimum buyingin price for wines for distillation.
Člen 5(1) iste uredbe določa minimalno nakupno ceno vina, ki je namenjeno destilaciji.
That price normally renders it impossible to market the products of distillation at market prices.
Ta cena običajno ne omogoča trženja proizvodov, pridobljenih z destilacijo, po tržnih pogojih.
8Article 6 therefore lays down a compensation procedure whereby the intervention agency is to pay aid of a prescribed amount for wine distilled.
8 Zato člen 6 določa postopek kompenzacije, v skladu s katerim intervencijski organ izplača pomoč v predpisani vi�ini za destilirano vino.
The minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) shall be paid by the distiller to the producer not later than 90 days after the entry into the distillery [of the total quantity of wine or, where appropriate, of each consignment of wine].
Minimalno nakupno ceno iz prve alinee člena 5(1) plača destilater proizvajalcu najkasneje v devetdesetih dneh po tem, ko je v destilarno prispela [celotna količina vina ali, odvisno od primera, vsaka posamezna po�iljka vina].
The 11th recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2499/82 states that provision should be made for the minimum price guaranteed to producers to be paid to them, as a general rule, within a period which would enable them to obtain a profit comparable to that which they would obtain from a commercial sale.
Intervencijski organ destilaterju najkasneje v devetdesetih dneh po predložitvi dokaza, da je bila celotna količina vina, določenega v pogodbi, destilirana, izplača pomoč, določeno v členu 6.
The intervention agency shall pay to the distiller the aid provided for in Article 6 … within 90 days of submission of proof that the total quantity of wine specified in the contract has been distilled.
Enajsta uvodna izjava preambule Uredbe �t. 2499/82 navaja, da je treba določiti, da bo proizvajalcem minimalna zagotovljena cena izplačana v rokih, ki jim bodo omogočali, da iz tega pridobijo dobiček, ki je primerljiv s tistim, ki bi ga prejeli, če bi �lo za tržno prodajo.
16; as amended by Commission Regulations (EEC) No 311/83 of 7 February 1983 (OJ 1983 L 36, p.
16; kot je bila spremenjena z uredbama Komisije (EGS) �t. 311/83 z dne 7. februarja 1983 (UL L 36, str. 6) in �t. 2276/83 z dne 9. avgusta 1983 (UL L 219, str. 9).
8 — See the eighth recital in the preamble.
8 – Glej osmo uvodno izjavo preambule.
The distiller in the case referred to in Article 9 or the producer in the case referred to in Article 10 may ask for an amount equal to the aid referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 to be paid to him by way of advance on condition that he has provided a security equal to 110% of the said amount in the name of the intervention agency.
Destilater, v primeru, ki ga določa člen 9, ali proizvajalec v primeru, ki ga določa člen 10, lahko zahteva, da se mu izplača znesek, ki je enak pomoči, določeni v prvem odstavku člena 6, kot predujem, pod pogojem, da zagotovi zavarovanje v korist intervencijskega organa v vi�ini 110 % tega zneska.
The distiller shall be required to supply the intervention agency with proof that he has paid the minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) within the period specified in paragraph 1 … If such proof is not submitted within 120 days of the date of submission of the proof referred to in the first paragraph, the amounts paid shall be recovered by the intervention agency. …’ 9
Destilater mora intervencijskemu organu predložiti dokazilo, da je plačal minimalno nakupno ceno iz prve alinee člena 5(1) v roku, določenem v prvem odstavku.
Article 10 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides:
V členu 10 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 je določeno:
The advance shall be paid not later than 90 days after proof is furnished that the security has been provided and in any case after the date of approval of the contract or declaration.
Predujem se izplača najkasneje devetdeset dni po predložitvi dokaza, da je bilo zagotovljeno zavarovanje, in v vsakem primeru po dnevu, ko je bila potrjena pogodba ali deklaracija.
Not later than 30 days after the entry into the distillery [of the total quantity of wine or, where appropriate, each consignment of wine], the distiller shall pay the producer at least the difference between the minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) and the aid referred to in Article 6(1).
Najkasneje trideset dni po prihodu v destilarno [celotne količine vina ali, odvisno od primera, vsake posamezne po�iljke vina] destilater izplača proizvajalcu najmanj razliko med minimalno nakupno ceno iz prve alinee člena 5(1) in pomočjo iz člena 6(1).
Subject to Article 13, the security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released only if, not later than 29 February 1984, proof is furnished:
Z izjemo določbe člena 13 se zavarovanje iz prvega odstavka vrne samo, če je najkasneje do 29. februarja 1983 predložen dokaz,