natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The consequence is that extradition may no longer be refused on the ground that the offence is ‘political’.
Zato se izročitev ne more več zavrniti z utemeljitvijo, da naj bi �lo za „politično“ kaznivo dejanje.
27 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).
27 – Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisana v Rimu 4. novembra 1950 (v nadaljevanju: EKČP).
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA and obligations or of any criminal charge against him within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA kazenske obtožbe zoper njo v smislu člena 6 EKČP.
32 as general principles of Community law. It follows that the Member States are subject to review of the conformity of their acts with the Treaties and the general principles of law when they implement the law of the Union 28(see also Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1)).
32 nadzoru skladnosti njihovih aktov s pogodbami in splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, ko izvajajo pravo Unije 28(glej tudi člen 51(1) Listine Unije o temeljnih pravicah, razgla�ene 7. decembra 2000 v Nici (UL C 364, str. 1)).
It remains to be examined, however, whether general principles of European Union law preclude the French Republic from dealing with the request for extradition made by the Kingdom of Spain in accordance with the 1996 Convention.
Vendar pa je treba preučiti, ali splo�na pravna načela Evropske unije nasprotujejo temu, da bi Francoska republika obravnavala zahtevo za izročitev, ki jo je vložila Kraljevina Španija, na podlagi Konvencije iz leta 1996. I. P.
It could therefore be argued that the Member States may not rely on Article 32 of the Framework Decision to apply an extradition system which is not consistent with fundamental rights.
Zato bi lahko trdili, da se države članice za uporabo metod izročitve, ki niso v skladu s temeljnimi pravicami, 29ne morejo sklicevati na člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
29It is not essential for the Court to rule on this point in the present proceedings, however.
Vendar ni nujno, da se Sodi�če v okviru tega nujnega postopka predhodnega odločanja opredeli o tem vpra�anju.
First, the point is not part of the reference for a preliminary ruling.
Najprej, vpra�anje ni del predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
Moreover, the general principles do not appear to have been breached, as will be shown below.
Poleg tega se zdi, da splo�na načela niso kr�ena, kot je dokazano v nadaljevanju.
The principle of the legality of penalties
Načelo zakonitosti kazni
The ECHR does not enshrine a right not to be extradited as such, 30and does not contain provisions on the conditions in which extradition may be ordered or on the procedure to be followed.
EKČP sicer sama po sebi ne daje pravice do neizročitve 30in ne vsebuje niti določb o pogojih, v katerih se lahko odobri izročitev, niti določb o postopku, ki ga je treba uporabiti.
31 Moreover, the extradition procedure does not concern the determination of the applicant’s civil rights
31Poleg tega se postopek izročitve ne nana�a na civilnopravne pravice in obveznosti tožeče stranke ali na utemeljenost
As regards the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege), it should be recalled that this is one of the general legal principles underlying the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
V zvezi z načelom zakonitosti v kazenskem pravu (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) je treba opozoriti, da je to načelo del splo�nih pravnih načel, na katerih temeljijo skupne ustavne tradicije držav članic.
It has been enshrined in various international
Potrjeno je bilo z različnimi mednarodnimi
29 — See, to that effect, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769, paragraphs 70 and 71.
29 – Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 27. junija 2006 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (C-540/03, ZOdl., str. I-5769, točki 70 in 71).
30 — EurCtHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 85, Series A no. 161.
30 – Sodba Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice z dne 7. julija 1989 v zadevi Soering proti Združenemu kraljestvu (série A, �t.
32 — See EurCtHR, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, 4 February 2005, nos.
32 – Glej sodbe Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice z dne 4. februarja 2005 v združenih zadevah Mamatkoulov in Askarov proti Turčiji (pritožbi �t. 46827/99 in 46951/99, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2005-I, točka 82); z dne 21. novembra 2000 v zadevi RAF proti Španiji (pritožba �t. 53652/00, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2000-XI); z dne 8. januarja 2004 v zadevi Sardinas Albo proti Italiji (pritožba �t.
56271/00, ECHR 2004-I; and Zaratin v. Italy (dec.), no. 33104/06, 23 November 2006.
56271/00, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2004-I), in odločitev z dne 23. novembra 2006 v zadevi Zaratin proti Italiji (pritožba �t. 33104/06).
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU treaties, in particular in Article 7(1) of the ECHR, 33and more recently in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
STALIŠČE J. KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU pogodbami, predvsem s členom 7(1) EKČP 33, nedavno pa tudi s členom 49 Listine Unije v materialnem pravu, torej pri vpra�anju, ali se dejanje lahko kaznuje ali ne.
substantive law, that is, the question whether or not an act can incur penalties.
Ne uporablja pa se za postopkovne vidike kazenskega prava.
The principle does not apply to the procedural aspects of criminal law.
35 o temeljnih pravicah.
35A person may thus have applied to him procedural provisions introduced or amended after the date of the offence he is charged with without the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) being breached.
Za osebo se lahko torej uporabijo postopkovne določbe, uvedene ali spremenjene po datumu dejanj, ki jo bremenijo, ne da bi bilo kr�eno načelo nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia).
That is the case in particular with provisions governing the extradition of persons between States, 36since they are of a purely procedural nature.
To velja zlasti za določbe, ki urejajo izročitev oseb med državami, 36 saj so te izključno postopkovne.
That principle could be called into question by the fact that, despite the wording of Article 32 of the Framework Decision referring to ‘the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’, a Member State wishes to apply rules that became applicable after that date.
V zvezi s tem načelom bi se lahko pojavili dvomi zaradi dejstva, da država članica ne glede na besedilo člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ki se sklicuje na „metode izročitve, ki se uporabljajo do 1. januarja 2004“, želi uporabiti pravila, ki so začela veljati po tem datumu.
The principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege means that the law must define clearly offences and the penalties which they attract.
Načelo nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege pomeni, da mora zakon jasno opredeliti kr�itve in kazni zanje.
34 It is closely linked to the principle of non-retroactivity of offences and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia), by virtue of which the legislature cannot retroactively create an offence or a penalty, or make a penalty more severe.
34Tesno je povezano z načelom prepovedi retroaktivnosti kaznivih dejanj in kazni (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia), v skladu s katerim zakonodajalec ne sme retroaktivno določiti kaznivega dejanja ali kazni niti poostriti kazni.
The principle of legal certainty and the principle non bis in idem
Načelo pravne varnosti in načelo non bis in idem
However, the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) applies only to
Vendar se načelo nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) uporablja samo
35 — See, to that effect, Pupino, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 46, read together with paragraphs 44 and 45.
35 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Pupino (opomba 11, točka 46 v povezavi s točkama 44 in 45). Glej med drugim sklep Bundesverfassungsgericht (Nemčija) z dne 26. februarja 1969 v zadevi 2 BvL 15, 23/68 (objavljen v Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1969, str.
1059, 1061, and BVerfGE vol. 25, p. 269, 286 et seq.
1059, 1061, in v zbirki odločb nem�kega ustavnega sodi�ča, BverfGE, zv. 25, str.
33 — See Advocaten voor de Wereld, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited, and judgment of 22 May 2008 in Case C-266/06 P Evonik Degussa v Commission and Council, paragraph 38.
33 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Advocaten voor de Wereld (opomba 28, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa) ter sodbo z dne 22. maja 2008 v zadevi Evonik Degussa proti Komisiji in Svetu (C-266/06 P, točka 38).
36 — EurCommHR, X v. the Netherlands, no.
34 – Glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Advocaten voor de Wereld (opomba 28, točka 50) ter Evonik Degussa proti Komisiji in Svetu (opomba 33, točka 39).
12192/86, Commission decision of 6 March 1991; and Bakhtiar v. Switzerland, no.
12192/86) in z dne 18. januarja 1996 v zadevi Bakhtiar proti Švici (pritožba �t. 27292/95).
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA of the general principles of law applied by the Court.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA razvidno, da spada med splo�na pravna načela, ki jih uporablja Sodi�če.
38 However, res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question. 39
38 Vendar se pravnomočnost nana�a zgolj na dejanska in pravna vpra�anja, ki so bila dejansko ali nujno obravnavana v zadevni sodni odločbi. 39
37It might therefore be asked whether the present extradition request, made on 2 June 2008, conflicts with legal certainty or the non bis in idem rule.
37Postavlja se vpra�anje, ali je ta zahteva za izročitev, ki je bila vložena 2. junija 2008, v nasprotju s pravno varnostjo in pravilom non bis in idem.
Here the earlier decision admittedly related to an extradition request relating to the same person and the same facts as the present one.
V tej zadevi se je v prej�nji odločbi sicer obravnavala zahteva za izročitev, ki se nana�a na isto osebo in na ista dejanja kot ta.
However, the competent court did not rule on that request under the 1996 Convention, since that convention did not apply at the time.
Vendar pa pristojno sodi�če o tej zahtevi ni odločalo v skladu s Konvencijo iz leta 1996, saj ta takrat ni veljala.
The status of res judicata of an unfavourable opinion given at that time cannot therefore prevent the present extradition request, relating to the same person and the same facts, from being dealt with under a new legal basis, namely the 1996 Convention. 40
Pravnomočnost takrat izraženega negativnega mnenja torej ne more ovirati tega, da bi se ta zahteva za izročitev, ki se nana�a na isto osebo in ista dejanja, obravnavala na podlagi nove pravne podlage, torej Konvencije iz leta 1996. 40
However, this question will arise in the context of the assessment of the extradition request as such, rather than the preliminary examination concerning the rules applicable to such an assessment.
Vendar to vpra�anje spada v okvir presoje zahteve za izročitev kot take, in ne k predhodni preučitvi v zvezi s pravili, ki veljajo za tako presojo.
The subject of the present reference for a preliminary ruling is solely the question of which extradition system applies in this case.
Predmet tega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je samo vpra�anje, katera metoda izročitve se uporablja v tej zadevi.
Nevertheless, the national court is required to verify and ensure that fundamental rights, including legal certainty and the non bis in idem rule, are respected in its assessment of the request.
Iz tega izhaja, da mora nacionalno sodi�če pri presoji zahteve preveriti in zagotoviti spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic, med katerimi sta pravna varnost in pravilo non bis in idem.
The Court can give some indications in this respect.
Sodi�če lahko v zvezi s tem predloži nekaj pojasnil.
38 — Case C-2/06 Kempter [2008] ECR I-411, paragraph 37.
39 – Sodba z dne 12. junija 2008 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski (C-462/05, ZOdl., str. I-4183, točka 23).
40 — See also the judgments of the French Cour de cassation, criminal division, of 15 February 2006, no 05-86.095 (Zuru­tuza Sarasola); 12 May 1987, Bull. Crim.
40 – Glej tudi sodbe Cour de cassation (Francija), Chambre criminelle, z dne 15. februarja 2006, �tevilka 05-86.095 (zadeva Zurutuza Sarasola); z dne 12. maja 1987, Bull. Crim.
1987, no 194 (Dario Fantig); and 9 July 1987, Bull. Crim. 1987, no 229 (Imaz­Martiarena).
1987, �tevilka 194 (zadeva Dario Fantig), in z dne 9. julija 1987, Bull. Crim.
Precisely on this point the law has changed, as the 1996 Convention no longer allows the executing Member State to rely on the fact that an offence is statute-barred under its own national law. 41
Natanko v tej točki se je pravo spremenilo, saj Konvencija iz leta 1996 od zdaj izvr�itveni državi članici ne dovoljuje več navajanja zastaranja dejanj po svojem nacionalnem pravu.
45The Spanish authorities have merely made several attempts to obtain his extradition from the French Republic, all in the context of the same criminal proceedings.
45 Španski organi so le večkrat posku�ali doseči, da jim ga Francoska republika izroči, in to vedno v okviru istih kazenskih pregonov.
As regards the principle non bis in idem, enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the ECHR and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, this is a fundamental principle of Community law the observance of which is guaranteed by the judicature. 42
V zvezi z načelom non bis in idem, ki je bilo potrjeno v členu 4 Protokola �t. 7, ki je priložen EKČP, in v členu 50 Listine Unije o temeljnih pravicah, je treba navesti, da je temeljno načelo prava Skupnosti, katerega spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če. 42
Extradition as such is not a penalty, and the mere fact of extraditing a person does not in any way prejudge the question whether, in law, the requesting State will be able to impose a penalty on the person concerned and enforce that penalty.
Vendar izročitev sama po sebi ni kazen ter zgolj dejstvo, da se oseba izroči, v ničemer ne vpliva na vpra�anje, ali bo po pravu država, ki vloži zahtevo, tej osebi lahko naložila kazen in jo tudi izvr�ila.
The application of the principle non bis in idem is subject to the threefold condition of identity of the facts, unity of offender and unity of the legal interest protected.
Za uporabo načela non bis in idem so določeni trije pogoji, in sicer istovetnost dejstev, enotnost kr�itelja in enotnost pravno zavarovanega interesa.
Under that principle, therefore, the same person cannot be punished (or tried 43) more than once for a single unlawful course of conduct in order to protect the same legal asset. 44
To načelo torej prepoveduje, da bi se zaradi zavarovanja iste pravne dobrine ista oseba večkrat kaznovala (oziroma preganjala 43) za isto nezakonito ravnanje. 44
41 — Article 8(1) of the 1996 Convention.
41 – Člen 8(1) Konvencije iz leta 1996.
Consequently, the principle non bis in idem does not apply to extradition proceedings themselves.
Zato se načelo non bis in idem pri samih postopkih izročitve ne uporablja.
42 — Case C-308/04 P SGL Carbon v Commission [2006] ECR I-5977, paragraph 26 and the caselaw cited.
42 – Sodba z dne 29. junija 2006 v zadevi SGL Carbon proti Komisiji (C-308/04 P, ZOdl., str.
43 — Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
43 – Člen 50 Listine Unije o temeljnih pravicah.
44 — Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, paragraph 338.
45 – Drugače kot v sodbi z dne 28. septembra 2006 v zadevi Gasparini in drugi (C-467/04, ZOdl., str. I-9199).
45 — Unlike the position in Case C-467/04 Gasparini and Others [2006] ECR I-9199.
44 – Sodba z dne 7. januarja 2004 v združenih zadevah Aalborg Portland in drugi proti Komisiji (C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P in C-219/00 P, Recueil, str. I-123, točka 338).
In the light of the above considerations, the following answer should be given to the questions referred by the Cour d’appel de Montpellier for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve predlagam, naj se na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je postavilo Cour d’appel de Montpellier, odgovori tako:
JUDGMENT OF 12. 8.
SODBA Z DNE 12. 8.
2008 — CASE C-296/08 PPU
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU
12 August 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 12. avgusta 2008 *
Advocate General: J. Kokott,Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, head of unit,
Kokott, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja enote,
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA having regard to the request of the referring court of 3 July 2008, received at the Court on the same day, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under an urgent procedure pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure, having regard to the decision of the Third Chamber of 7 July 2008 granting that request, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 August 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA na podlagi predloga predložitvenega sodi�ča z dne 3. julija 2008, ki je istega dne prispel na Sodi�če, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v skladu s členom 104b Poslovnika obravnava po nujnem postopku, na podlagi odločbe tretjega senata z dne 7. julija 2008, da se temu predlogu ugodi, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. avgusta 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-296/08 PPU after hearing the Advocate General, gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 31 in 32 Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, str.
1, ‘the Framework Decision’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Okvirni sklep).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought before the Chambre de l’instruction (Indictment Division) of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier (Court of Appeal, Montpellier) following an extradition request made on 2 June 2008 by the Spanish authorities.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru postopka, ki je potekal pred Chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel de Montpellier (v nadaljevanju: senat za preiskovalne zadeve vi�jega sodi�ča v Montpellieru), zaradi zahteve za izročitev, ki so jo 2. junija 2008 vložili �panski organi.
The European Convention on Extradition was signed at Paris on 13 December 1957.
Evropska konvencija o izročitvi je bila podpisana v Parizu 13. decembra 1957.
Article 10 of the convention, ‘Lapse of time’, provides:
Njen člen 10 z naslovom „Zastaranje“ določa:
‘Extradition shall not be granted when the person claimed has, according to the law of either the requesting or the requested Party, become immune by reason of lapse of time from prosecution or punishment.’
„Izročitev se ne odobri, če je zahtevana oseba po zakonu pogodbenice prosilk[e ali] zapro�ene pogodbenice postala izvzeta iz pregona ali kaznovanja zaradi zastaranja.“
The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism was signed at Strasbourg on 27 January 1977.
Evropska konvencija o zatiranju terorizma je bila podpisana v Strasburgu 27. janu -arja 1977.
The Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union was drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union by Council Act of 10 March 1995 and signed on that date by all the Member States (OJ 1995 C 78, p.
Konvencija o poenostavljenem postopku izročitve med državami članicami Evropske unije je bila pripravljena na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji z aktom sveta z dne 10. marca 1995 in so jo istega dne podpisale vse države članice (UL C 78, str.
1, ‘the 1995 Convention’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1995).
According to Article 1(1) of the 1995 Convention:
Člen 1(1) te konvencije določa:
‘The aim of this Convention is to facilitate the application, between the Member States of the European Union, of the European Convention on Extradition [of 13 December 1957], by supplementing its provisions.’
„Cilj te konvencije je olaj�ati uporabo Evropske konvencije o izročitvi [z dne 13. decembra 1957] med državami članicami Evropske unije z dopolnitvijo njenih določb.“
The Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union, known as the Dublin Convention, was drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States (OJ 1996 C 313, p.
Konvencija o izročitvi med državami članicami Evropske unije, imenovana „Dublinska konvencija“ je bila pripravljena na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji z aktom Sveta z dne 27. septembra 1996 in istega dne so jo podpisale vse države članice (UL C 313, str.
11, ‘the 1996 Convention’).
11, v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1996).
Article 1 of the 1996 Convention provides in particular:
V njenem členu 1 je določeno zlasti:
The purpose of this Convention is to supplement the provisions and facilitate the application between the Member States of the European Union:
Namen te konvencije je dopolniti naslednje določbe in med državami članicami Evropske unije olaj�ati njihovo uporabo:
— of the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 …
– Evropske konvencije o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957 […],
— the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 27 January 1977 …
– Evropske konvencije o zatiranju terorizma z dne 27. januarja 1977 […],
— the Convention of 19 June 1990 applying the Schengen Agreement 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
– Konvencije z dne 19. junija 1990 o uporabi Schengenskega sporazuma z dne 14. junija 1985 [med vladami držav ekonomske unije Benelux, Zvezne republike
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA abolition of checks at their common borders [OJ 2000 L 239, p.
Nemčije in Francoske republike] o postopni odpravi nadzora na skupnih mejah [UL 2000, L 239, str.
19] in relations between the Member States which are party to that Convention …’
19] v okviru odnosov med državami članicami, ki so podpisnice navedene konvencije […]“
Article 8(1) of the 1996 Convention reads as follows:
Člen 8(1) Konvencije iz leta 1996 določa:
‘Extradition may not be refused on the ground that the prosecution or punishment of the person would be statute-barred according to the law of the requested Member State.’
„Izročitve ni mogoče zavrniti z utemeljitvijo, da je pregon ali kaznovanje osebe po pravu zapro�ene države članice zastaralo.“
It follows from Article 18(2) and (3) of the 1996 Convention that it is to enter into force 90 days after notification, by the last Member State to adopt it, that its constitutional procedures for adoption have been completed.
Iz člena 18(2) in (3) Konvencije iz leta 1996 izhaja, da ta začne veljati 90 dni po obvestilu zadnje države članice o sprejetju te konvencije, da so končani postopki, ki so v skladu z njihovimi ustavnimi pravili potrebni za njeno sprejetje.
As not all the Member States have adopted the Convention, it has not therefore entered into force in accordance with that provision.
Ker te konvencije niso sprejele vse države članice, ta v skladu s to določbo ni začela veljati.
Article 18(4) of the 1996 Convention states:
Člen 18(4) Konvencije iz leta 1996 določa:
‘Until this Convention enters into force, any Member State may, when giving the notification referred to in paragraph 2, or at any other time, declare that as far as it is concerned this Convention shall apply to its relations with Member States that have made the same declaration.
„Do začetka veljavnosti te konvencije lahko vsaka država članica ob obvestilu iz odstavka 2 ali ob katerem koli drugem času izjavi, da se, v kolikor se nana�a nanjo, ta konvencija uporablja v njenih odnosih z državami članicami, ki so podale enako izjavo.