natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Their involvement is compulsory in extradition matters and they give decisions in proceedings
Njihovo posredovanje je obvezno na področju izročitve in odločajo v sodnem postopku, v katerem zadevna oseba in
2008 — CASE C-296/08 PPU of a judicial nature in the course of which the person concerned is heard, as is the public prosecutor’s office, at a hearing inter partes.
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU državno tožilstvo podajata izjave v kontradiktornem postopku.
They review the conditions of lawfulness of extradition and give a reasoned opinion.
Ti senati nadzorujejo okoli�čine zakonitosti izročitve in podajo obrazloženo mnenje.
If the opinion is unfavourable, once it has become final it puts an end to the extradition procedure and automatically entails the release of a requested person who has been detained pending extradition.
Če je to negativno, se z njim, ko je dokončno, zaključi postopek izročitve in se zahtevano osebo, ki je bila pridržana zaradi izročitve, po uradni dolžnosti izpusti na prostost.
In addition, as the French Government explains in its observations, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) has since 1984 accepted that an opinion of an indictment division can be the subject of an appeal in cassation based on errors of form and procedure.
Poleg tega, kot je izpostavila francoska vlada v svojih stali�čih, Cour de cassation od leta 1984 dopu�ča, da je zoper mnenje preiskovalnega senata zaradi oblikovnih in postopkovnih kr�itev mogoče vložiti kasacijsko pritožbo.
That possibility of an appeal on a point of law is now laid down in Article 696-15 of the Code de procedure pénale.
Ta možnost je od tedaj uzakonjena v členu 696-15 zakonika o kazenskem postopku.
Finally, where an appeal in the interests of the law is brought before the Cour de cassation against an opinion of an indictment division, the court rules on the substantive conditions of extradition.
Nazadnje, če je pri Cour de cassation zoper mnenje preiskovalnega senata vložen zahtevek za varstvo zakonitosti, to odloči o temelju izročitve.
It follows from all those elements that the Court has jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.
Iz vsega navedenega izhaja, da je Sodi�če pristojno, da odgovori na postavljeni vpra�anji.
He submits that, although the conventions on extradition apply to acts which took place before their entry into force, a new convention on extradition cannot have the effect of reopening situations that have been definitively settled.
Navaja, da čeprav se konvencije o izročitvi uporabljajo za dejstva, ki so nastala, preden so te začele veljati, pa ni mogoče dopustiti, da bi bil učinek nove konvencije o izročitvi ta, da bi se ponovno postavili pod vpra�aj položaji, o katerih je že bilo dokončno odločeno.
On this point, it must be stated that, in so far as the preliminary point raised by the defendant in the main proceedings concerns the problems arising from the successive temporal application of the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 and the 1996 Convention, it is extraneous to the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling and the interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of the Framework Decision.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da če se uvodne trditve tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari nana�ajo na probleme, ki izvirajo iz zaporedne uporabe Evropske konvencije o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957 in Konvencije iz leta 1996, ne spadajo v kontekst odgovora na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje in razlage členov 31 in 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
It must be recalled that, under Article 35 EU, it is for the national court or tribunal, not the parties to the main proceedings, to bring a matter before the Court of Justice.
Spomniti pa je treba, da je v skladu s členom 35 EU nacionalno sodi�če pristojno, da predloži zadevo Sodi�ču, in ne stranke v sporu v glavni stvari.
The right to determine the questions to be put to the Court thus devolves on the national court alone and the parties may not change their tenor (see inter alia, with reference to Article 234 EC, Case 44/65 Singer [1965] ECR 965, at p. 970, and Case C-412/96 Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne [1998] ECR I-5141, paragraph 23).
Možnost določati vpra�anja, ki se jih predloži Sodi�ču, ima torej le nacionalno sodi�če, stranke pa ne morejo spremeniti njihove vsebine (v zvezi s členom 234 ES glej zlasti sodbi z dne 9. decembra 1965 v zadevi Singer, 44/65, Recueil, str. 1191, 1198, in z dne 17. septembra 1998 v zadevi Kainuun Liikenne in Pohjolan Liikenne, C-412/96, Recueil, str.
Moreover, to answer the question formulated by the defendant in the main proceedings referred to in paragraph 43 above would be incompatible with the function given to the Court by Article 35 EU and with its duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, bearing in mind that under that provision only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties (see inter alia, with reference to Article 234 EC, Case C-352/95 Phytheron International [1997] ECR I-1729, paragraph 14, and Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne, paragraph 24).
Poleg tega odgovor na predlog, ki ga je podala tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari iz člena 43 te sodbe, ne bi bil skladen z vlogo, ki jo ima Sodi�če na podlagi člena 35 EU, in z obveznostjo Sodi�ča, da zagotovi možnost vladam držav članic in zainteresiranim strankam, da predložijo izjave v skladu s členom 23 Statuta Sodi�ča, upo�tevajoč dejstvo, da so na podlagi te določbe zainteresirane stranke obve�čene le o predložitvenih odločbah (v zvezi s členom 234 ES glej zlasti sodbo z dne 20. marca 1997 v zadevi Phytheron International, C-352/95, Recueil, str. I-1729, točka 14, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Kainuun Liikenne in Pohjolan Liikenne, točka 24).
By its first question the referring court asks essentially whether Article 31 of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the word ‘replace’ in paragraph 1 of that article, the failure of a Member State, such as the Kingdom of Spain, to notify that it intends to apply bilateral or multilateral
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da ob upo�tevanju pojma „nadomesti“ iz prvega odstavka tega člena to, da država članica, kot je Kraljevina Španija, ni poslala uradnega obvestila, da namerava uporabljati dvostranske ali večstranske sporazume v skladu
2008 — CASE C-296/08 PPU agreements in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision has the consequence that that Member State cannot make use of extradition procedures other than the European arrest warrant procedure with another Member State, such as the French Republic, which has made a statement pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
2008 – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU s členom 31(2) tega sklepa, državi članici onemogoča, da bi z drugo državo članico – kot je Francoska republika, ki je podala izjavo na podlagi člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa – uporabljala druge postopke izročitve, kot je postopek z evropskim nalogom za prijetje.
The interpretations put forward in their written observations by the French Government and the Commission are mere extrapolations.
Razlage, ki sta jih predlagali francoska vlada in Komisija v svojih pisnih stali�čih, naj bi bile le domneve.
The French and Spanish Governments and the Commission, on the other hand, take the view that Article 31 of the Framework Decision is not applicable to the main proceedings.
Francoska in �panska vlada ter Komisija v nasprotju s tem menijo, da člena 31 Okvirnega sklepa v postopku v glavni stvari ni mogoče uporabiti.
On this point, it is apparent from recitals 5, 7 and 11 in the preamble to the Framework Decision that, in order to eliminate the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the extradition procedures then applicable, it aims to replace the system of multilateral extradition between Member States based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 by a system of surrender between judicial authorities.
V zvezi s tem iz 5., 7. in 11. uvodne izjave Okvirnega sklepa izhaja, da je zato, da se odpravijo tedaj veljavni zapleteni in zamudni postopki izročitve, njegov cilj nadomestiti večstranski sistem izročitve med državami članicami, ki temelji na Evropski konvenciji o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957, s sistemom predaje oseb med pravosodnimi organi.
Recital 11 thus states that ‘[i]n relations between Member States, the European arrest warrant should replace all the previous instruments concerning extradition’.
Ta 11. uvodna izjava pojasnjuje, da naj bi „[v] odnosih med državami članicami […] evropski nalog za prijetje zamenjal vse prej�nje dokumente o izročitvi“.
Recitals 3 and 4 in the preamble to the Framework Decision mention the conventions applicable between all or some of the Member States, and the conventions approved by the Member States which form part of the Union acquis, including the 1996 Convention.
V 3. in 4. uvodni izjavi Okvirnega sklepa so navedene konvencije, veljavne v vseh ali nekaterih državah članicah, in konvencije, o katerih so se države članice sporazumele in so del pravnega reda Unije, med katerimi je Konvencija iz leta 1996.
In accordance with the aim stated in the preamble to the Framework Decision, Article 31(1) provides, between Member States, for the replacement of the conventions it mentions by the European arrest warrant system established by the decision.
V skladu s ciljem, navedenim v uvodnih izjavah Okvirnega sklepa, njegov člen 31(1) določa, da se v državah članicah konvencije, ki jih navaja, nadomestijo s sistemom evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki ga uvaja Okvirni sklep.
Those conventions include the ones referred to in recitals 3 and 4 in the preamble to the decision, thus including the 1996 Convention.
Med temi konvencijami so tiste, ki so navedene v uvodnima izjavama 3 in 4 Okvirnega sklepa, in torej Konvencija iz leta 1996.
Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision allows the Member States to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements in force at the time of adoption of the decision, or to conclude such bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements after the entry into force of the decision in so far as they allow the prescriptions of the decision to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants.
Člen 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa dovoljuje državam članicam, da lahko tudi po tem, ko bo ta okvirni sporazum sprejet, uporabljajo veljavne dvostranske in večstranske sporazume in dogovore ter sklenejo dvostranske in večstranske sporazume in dogovore tudi po začetku veljavnosti tega okvirnega sklepa, če ti sporazumi in dogovori omogočajo raz�iritev ciljev Okvirnega sklepa in pomagajo �e bolj poenostaviti in pospe�iti postopke predaje oseb, ki so predmet evropskih nalogov za prijetje.
However, that provision cannot refer to the conventions mentioned in Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision, since the objective of the decision is precisely to replace them by a simpler and more effective system.
Vendar pa se ta določba ne more nana�ati na konvencije iz člena 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa, ker je njen cilj ravno nadomestiti te konvencije s sistemom, ki je enostavnej�i in učinkovitej�i.
As the Commission noted in its observations and the Spanish Government pointed out at the hearing, Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision refers to other conventions by which the Member States go beyond the Framework Decision in the direction of facilitating and simplifying procedures for surrender, while remaining within the framework of the European arrest warrant.
Kot je Komisija navedla v svojih stali�čih in �panska vlada poudarila na obravnavi, se člen 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa nana�a na druge konvencije, s katerimi gredo države članice dlje od Okvirnega sklepa v smislu olaj�evanja in poenostavljanja postopkov izročitve, ob tem da ostajajo v okviru evropskega naloga za prijetje.
It follows that the 1996 Convention is not among the bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements mentioned in Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision for which notification could be possible.
Iz tega sledi, da Konvencija iz leta 1996 ni del dvostranskih in večstranskih sporazumov in dogovorov iz člena 31(2) Okvirnega sklepa, v zvezi s katero bi bilo potrebno uradno obvestilo.
Moreover, the European arrest warrant system applies only under the conditions laid down in the Framework Decision, in particular, in accordance with Article 32, for requests received after 1 January 2004, provided that the executing Member State has not made a statement pursuant to that provision in order to place a temporal limitation on the application of that system.
Vendar pa se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje uporablja le v okoli�činah, ki jih določa Okvirni sklep, in posebej v skladu z njegovim členom 32, za zahteve, prejete po 1. januarju 2004, in če izvr�itvena država članica ni podala izjave v skladu s to določbo, da bi vzpostavila časovno omejitev uporabe tega sistema.
Therefore, as the Commission has observed, the replacement under Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision of the conventions mentioned in that provision does not entail the abolition of those conventions, which retain their relevance in cases covered by a statement made by a Member State pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, and also in other situations in which the European arrest warrant system is not applicable.
Kot je pojasnila Komisija, v členu 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa določena nadomestitev konvencij iz te določbe ne povzroči tega, da ni več teh konvencij, ki ostajajo veljavne za primere, v katerih država članica poda izjavo v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ter tudi v drugih položajih, kjer sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje ne bi veljal.
It follows that Articles 31 and 32 of the Framework Decision refer to distinct situations which are mutually exclusive.
Iz tega sledi, da se člena 31 in 32 Okvirnega sklepa nana�ata na različne položaje, ki se med seboj izključujejo.
While Article 31, headed ‘Relation to other legal instruments’, deals with the consequences of the application of the European arrest warrant system for international conventions in the field of extradition, Article 32, headed ‘Transitional provision’, envisages a situation in which that system does not apply.
Medtem ko člen 31 z naslovom „Razmerje do drugih pravnih aktov“ obravnava posledice uporabe sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje za mednarodne konvencije na področju izročitve, člen 32 z naslovom „Prehodna določba“ namreč določa okoli�čine, v katerih se ta sistem ne uporablja.
In the present case, the French Republic has made a statement in accordance with Article 32 of the Framework Decision, declaring that, as executing State, it will continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before 1 November 1993, the date of entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.
Francoska republika je v obravnavani zadevi v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa podala izjavo, v kateri je pojasnila, da bo kot izvr�itvena država članica �e naprej obravnavala zahteve v zvezi z dejanji, storjenimi pred 1. novembrom 1993 (dnevom začetka veljavnosti Maastrichtske pogodbe), v skladu z metodami izročitve, ki so se uporabljale do 1. januarja 2004.
Since the European arrest warrant system provided for by the Framework Decision does not apply to that request, Article 31 of the Framework Decision is not relevant.
Ker se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje, določen v Okvirnem sklepu, ne uporablja za to zahtevo, člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa ni upo�teven.
The answer to the first question must therefore be that Article 31 of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da se nana�a le na primer, v katerem se uporablja sistem evropskega naloga
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA za prijetje, to pa ni tako, kadar se zahteva za izročitev nana�a na dejstva, storjena pred datumom, ki ga je država članica navedla v izjavi, podani v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
By its second question the referring court asks essentially whether Article 32 of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as precluding the application by an executing Member State of the 1996 Convention where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da v izvr�itveni državi članici nasprotuje uporabi Konvencije iz leta 1996, kadar je ta v tej državi pričela veljati �ele po 1. januarju 2004.
The French and Spanish Governments and the Commission consider that the expression ‘extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’ is used in the Framework Decision in order to distinguish between, on the one hand, the extradition system constituted by the conventions existing at the time of adoption of the Framework Decision, referred to in the preamble and in Article 31(1), and, on the other hand, the European arrest warrant system created by the Framework Decision, which according to that decision was to apply to requests made after 1 January 2004.
Francoska in �panska vlada ter Komisija menijo, da je izraz „z metodami izročitve, ki se uporablja[jo] do 1. januarja 2004“ uporabljen v Okvirnem sklepu, da bi razlikoval med po eni strani metodo izročitve, ki jo uvajajo konvencije, ki veljajo ob sprejetju Okvirnega sklepa ter so navedene v njegovih uvodnih izjavah in v členu 31(1), in po drugi strani sistemom evropskega naloga za prijetje, ki ga je vzpostavil Okvirni sklep in za katerega ta določa uporabo za zahteve, vložene po 1. januarju 2004.
The use of that expression is not intended to ‘fix’ the state of the conventions referred to in Article 31(1) or to prevent improvements to the extradition system based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957.
Cilj uporabe tega izraza naj ne bi bil niti „zamrzniti“ stanja konvencij iz člena 31(1) niti preprečiti izbolj�anja metode izročitve, ki temelji na Evropski konvenciji o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957.
The French and Spanish Governments and the Commission further submit that the 1995 and 1996 Conventions were not yet in force on 1 January 2004, that they are still not in force today, and that they would lose all effectiveness if the Member States could not continue to adopt the procedures required by their national laws for them to apply.
Francoska in �panska vlada ter Komisija poleg tega navajajo, da konvenciji iz let 1995 in 1996 1. januarja 2004 �e nista veljali, da �e zdaj ne veljata in da bi izgubili ves smisel, če države članice ne bi mogle �e naprej sprejemati postopkov, ki so za njihovo uporabo zahtevani v nacionalnem pravu.
Yet those conventions are Union acquis which the Member States are obliged to incorporate, and they remain relevant in cases in which the European arrest warrant system does not apply, as well as in extradition relations with the nonmember countries associated within the framework of the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985.
Ti konvenciji pa naj bi bili del pravnega reda Unije, ki naj bi ga države članice prevzele, in naj bi ostali koristni v primeru, v katerem se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje ne uporablja tako kot v razmerjih izročitve s tretjimi državami, pridruženimi v okviru Schengenskega sporazuma z dne 14. junija 1985.
The Member States were, moreover, encouraged within the Council to continue to ratify them despite the existence of the Framework Decision.
Države članice naj bi sicer Svet spodbujal, da jih kljub obstoju Okvirnega sklepa �e naprej ratificirajo.
The Commission observes, finally, that the French Republic could at any time withdraw the statement it made pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, which would have the consequence that the European arrest warrant system would be applicable immediately.
Komisija nazadnje navaja, da bi lahko Francoska republika kadarkoli umaknila svojo izjavo, podano v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa, posledica česar naj bi bila takoj�nja uporabnost evropskega naloga za prijetje.
It is therefore difficult to see why it should be forbidden to move partially in the direction of the European arrest warrant by applying the 1996 Convention, subsequently to the introduction of the system laid down by the Framework Decision.
Zato naj bi bilo težko ugotoviti, zakaj naj bi bilo prepovedano delno napredovati v smeri evropskega naloga za prijetje z uporabo Konvencije iz leta 1996, ki je poznej�a od sistema, ki ga določa Okvirni sklep.
On this point, it follows both from the preamble to the Framework Decision and from Articles 31 and 32 of the decision that by the expression ‘extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’ Article 32 of the Framework Decision refers in particular to all the conventions mentioned in recitals 3 and 4 and in Article 31(1) of the decision.
Glede tega iz uvodnih izjav Okvirnega sklepa in iz njegovih členov 31 in 32 izhaja, da izraz „z metodami izročitve, ki se uporablja[jo] do 1. januarja 2004“ v členu 32 Okvirnega sklepa pomeni zlasti celoto konvencij, navedenih v uvodnima izjavama 3 in 4 ter v členu 31(1) Okvirnega sklepa.
Those conventions are based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957, in that they amend or supplement that convention.
Te konvencije temeljijo na Evropski konvenciji o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957, kolikor jo spreminjajo ali dopolnjujejo.
Thus the 1996 Convention states in Article 1 that its purpose is to supplement the provisions and facilitate the application between the Member States of the Union of inter alia the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957.
Tako je v členu 1 Konvencije iz leta 1996 navedeno, da je namen te konvencije dopolniti določbe in med državami članicami Evropske unije olaj�ati njihovo uporabo ter med drugim tudi uporabo Evropske konvencije o izročitvi z dne 13. decembra 1957.
However, as the Commission stated at the hearing, the use of the term ‘applicable’ cannot have the consequence that the conventions mentioned become applicable solely by reason of the entry into force of the Framework Decision.
Vendar, kot je na obravnavi pojasnila Komisija, uporaba izraza „se uporablja“ ne more povzročiti, da bi se navedene konvencije uporabljale samo zaradi tega, ker je
That term cannot be understood as designating solely the conventions which would actually be applicable between the Member States on 1 January 2004.
Tega izraza ni mogoče razumeti, kot da označuje le konvencije, ki naj bi se 1. januarja 2004 med državami članicami dejansko uporabljale.
The system of statements provided for in the second and third sentences of Article 32 of the Framework Decision is intended to make it possible, on an exceptional basis, to extend the system provided for in the first sentence of that article to certain requests received after 1 January 2004.
Sistem izjave, predviden v tretjem in četrtem stavku člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa, namreč izjemoma dovoljuje raz�iritev sistema, predvidenega v prvem stavku tega člena, na nekatere zahteve, prejete po 1. januarju 2004.