natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
52 — Commission’s observations, paragraphs 31 and 32.
52 – Stali�če Komisije, točki 31 in 32.
In the case of a consumer who did not understand the language ‘imposed’ by the undertaking, the right to refuse to accept the untranslated documents would be justified. 56
V primeru potro�nika, ki ne razume jezika, ki mu ga je podjetje „vsililo“, bi bila pravica do zavrnitve sprejema v zvezi z neprevedenimi pisanji utemeljena. 56
Otherwise the document would have to be translated into the language of the Member State addressed 54 even where there was, first, a contract concluded between the parties in the course of their business in which the language of the Member State of transmission was laid down for correspondence with the authorities and public institutions of that Member State of transmission, second, a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of the Member State of transmission and, third, a choice of law clause in favour of the law of the Member State of transmission.
V nasprotnem primeru bi moralo biti pisanje prevedeno v jezik zapro�ene države članice tudi, 54prvič, kadar obstaja med strankama pogodba, sklenjena pri opravljanju njune poslovne dejavnosti, v kateri je bil izbran jezik države članice prosilke za dopisovanje z organi in javnimi ustanovami te države, drugič, kadar sta izbrali pristojno sodi�če in, tretjič, kadar sta izbrali pravo države članice prosilke, ki se uporablja.
Such a result would run counter to the purpose of Regulation No 1348/2000, however. 55
Tak izid pa bil bil v nasprotju z namenom Uredbe �t. 1348/2000. 55
Lastly, I would like to mention that such a solution would not be appropriate in the case of crossborder consumer contracts.
Končno bi rada �e omenila, da taka re�itev ne bi bila primerna za mednarodno potro�ni�ko pogodbo.
In such a case a stronger party, an undertaking
V takem primeru bi lahko močnej�a stranka, podjetje, �ibkej�i
366, who sees a specific need to protect the addressee/consumer in such cases, which does not exist, however, in the case of a contract concluded between the parties in the course of their business.
366, ki v teh primerih vidi posebno potrebo po varstvu naslovnika/potro�nika, ki pa pri pogodbi, sklenjeni med strankama pri opravljanju njune poslovne dejavnosti, ne obstaja.
55 — See point 44 of this Opinion.
55 – Glej točko 44 teh sklepnih predlogov.
In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof as follows:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Bundesgerichtshof odgovori:
Since it is only a rebuttable presumption, however, it is open to the addressee to rebut that presumption in accordance with the rules on evidence of the Member State in which the court proceedings are conducted.
Ker pa obstaja samo izpodbojna domneva, ima naslovnik možnost, da jo izpodbija v skladu z dokaznim pravom države članice, v kateri poteka civilni postopek.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 8. maja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 21 December 2006, received at the Court on 22 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-14/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi členov 68 ES in 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 21. decembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 22. januarja 2007, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-14/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-14/07 generalna pravobranilka: V.
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Trstenjak, sodni tajnik: B. Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 24. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, so jih predložili:
— Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd, by P.-A. Brand and U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwälte, — the Czech Government, by T. Boček, acting as Agent,
– za Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd P.-A. Brand in U. Karpenstein, odvetnici, – za če�ko vlado T. Boček, zastopnik,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 8 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1348/2000 z dne 29. maja 2000 o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah (UL L 160, str. 37).
The reference has been made in the context of proceedings between Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (‘IHK Berlin’) and the firm of architects Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners (‘Grimshaw’), a company governed by English law, concerning an action for damages for defective design of a building, the latter company joining Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR (‘Weiss’), established in Aachen, to the proceedings. I - 3403
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (v nadaljevanju: IHK Berlin) in arhitekturnim birojem Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd (v nadaljevanju: biro Grimshaw), družbo angle�kega prava, zaradi od�kodninskega zahtevka zaradi napak pri načrtovanju stavbe, pri čemer je zadnjenavedena družba o pravdi obvestila Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR (v nadaljevanju: biro Weiss) s sedežem v Aachnu. I - 3403
2008 — CASE C-14/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-14/07
Community and international law
Pravo Skupnosti in mednarodno pravo
Recitals 8 and 10 in the preamble to Regulation No 1348/2000 are worded as follows:
V osmi in deseti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 je določeno:
‘(8) To secure the effectiveness of this Regulation, the possibility of refusing service of documents is confined to exceptional situations.
„(8) Zaradi zagotovitve učinkovitosti te uredbe se možnost, da se vročitev pisanja zavrne, omeji na izjemne primere.
(10) For the protection of the addressee’s interests, service should be effected in the official language or one of the official languages of the place where it is to be effected or in another language of the originating Member State which the addressee understands.’
(10) Zaradi varovanja interesov naslovnika je treba vročitev opraviti v uradnem jeziku ali v enem od uradnih jezikov kraja vročitve ali v drugem jeziku države članice izvora, ki ga naslovnik razume.“
Article 4(1) of that regulation provides as follows:
Člen 4(1) te uredbe določa:
‘Judicial documents shall be transmitted directly and as soon as possible between the agencies designated on the basis of Article 2.’
„Po�iljanje pisanj med organi, imenovanimi na podlagi člena 2, poteka neposredno in čim hitreje.“
Article 5 of the regulation, entitled ‘Translation of documents’, provides as follows:
Člen 5 te uredbe z naslovom Prevod pisanj določa:
The applicant shall be advised by the transmitting agency to which he or she forwards the document for transmission that the addressee may refuse to accept it if it is not in one of the languages provided for in Article 8.
Organ za po�iljanje pouči prosilca, od katerega prejme pisanje v po�iljanje, da lahko naslovnik odkloni sprejem pisanja, če leto ni v enem od jezikov, določenih v členu 8.
The applicant shall bear any costs of translation prior to the transmission of the document, without prejudice to any possible subsequent decision by the court or competent authority on liability for such costs.’
Pred po�iljanjem pisanja krije prosilec vse stro�ke prevoda, ne glede na možno kasnej�o odločitev sodi�ča ali pristojnega organa glede obveznosti plačila teh stro�kov.“
Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000, entitled ‘Refusal to accept a document’, provides as follows:
Člen 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 z naslovom Zavrnitev sprejema pisanja določa:
(a) the official language of the Member State addressed or, if there are several official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected; or
(a) v uradnem jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali, če je v tej državi več uradnih jezikov, v uradnem jeziku ali v enem od uradnih jezikov kraja, kjer je treba opraviti vročitev; ali
Where the receiving agency is informed that the addressee refuses to accept the document in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall immediately inform the transmitting agency by means of the certificate provided for in Article 10 and return the request and the documents of which a translation is requested.’
Če je organ za sprejem obve�čen, da naslovnik zavrača prejem pisanja v skladu z odstavkom 1, o tem nemudoma obvesti organ za po�iljanje s potrdilom iz člena 10 ter vrne zaprosilo in pisanje, za katera se zahteva prevod.“
Article 19(1) of the regulation provides as follows:
Člen 19(1) te uredbe določa:
‘Where a writ of summons or an equivalent document has had to be transmitted to another Member State for the purpose of service, under the provisions of this Regulation, and the defendant has not appeared, judgment shall not be given until it is established that:
„Kadar je treba zaradi vročitve poslati v drugo državo članico pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje v skladu z določbami te uredbe in se toženec ne spusti v postopek, se sodba ne izreče, dokler se ne ugotovi:
(a) the document was served by a method prescribed by the internal law of the Member State addressed for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory; or
(a) ali je bilo pisanje vročeno na način, ki je predpisan po pravu zapro�ene države članice za vročanje pisanj osebam, ki se nahajajo na njenem ozemlju, oziroma
(b) the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by another method provided for by this Regulation; and that in either of these cases the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.’
(b) ali je bilo pisanje dejansko dostavljeno tožencu ali v njegovo prebivali�če na drug način, predviden s to uredbo; in da je bila v obeh primerih vročena ali dostavljena dovolj zgodaj, da je toženec lahko pripravil svojo obrambo.“
The remaining paragraphs of Article 19 of Regulation No 1348/2000 are concerned with particular situations in which the defendant does not enter an appearance.
Drugi odstavki člena 19 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 urejajo posebne primere v zvezi s tožencem, ki se ni spustil v postopek.
Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p.
Člen 26 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 2001, L 12, str. 1) se glasi:
Where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation.
Če je toženec s stalnim prebivali�čem v eni od držav članic tožen v drugi državi članici in se ne spusti v postopek, se sodi�če po uradni dolžnosti izreče za nepristojno, razen če pristojnost izhaja iz določb te uredbe.
The court shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end.
Sodi�če prekine postopek za toliko časa, dokler se ne ugotovi, da je bilo tožencu omogočeno prejeti pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje pravočasno, da je lahko pripravil obrambo, ali da so bili storjeni vsi potrebni koraki v tej smeri.
Article 19 of … Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 … shall apply instead of the provisions of paragraph 2 if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted from one Member State to another pursuant to this Regulation.
Če je treba v skladu s to uredbo poslati iz ene države članice v drugo državo članico pisanje o začetku postopka ali drugo enakovredno pisanje, se namesto določb iz odstavka 2 uporabi člen 19 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1348/2000 […].
Where the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 are not applicable, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters shall apply if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted pursuant to that Convention.’
V primeru, da se določbe Uredbe (ES) �t. 1348/2000 ne uporabljajo, se uporabi člen 15 Haa�ke konvencije o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah z dne 15. novembra 1965, če je treba vročiti pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje v skladu s to konvencijo.“
Moreover, Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides that a judgment given in one Member State is not to be recognised in another Member State where ‘it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’.
Poleg tega člen 34(2) Uredbe �t. 44/2001 določa, da se sodna odločba, izdana v državi članici, v drugi državi članici ne prizna, „če tožencu, ki se ni spustil v postopek, ni bilo vročeno pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje pravočasno in na tak način, da bi lahko pripravil obrambo, razen če toženec ni začel postopka za izpodbijanje sodne odločbe, čeprav je imel to možnost“.
Provision was also made for such measures in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p.
Tovrstne določbe vsebuje tudi Konvencija z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL 1972, L 299, str.
36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p.
32), kot je bila spremenjena s Konvencijo z dne 9. oktobra 1978 o pristopu Kraljevine Danske, Irske in Združenega kraljestva Velika Britanija in Severna Irska (UL L 304, str.
1, and — amended version — p.
1 in – spremenjeno besedilo – str.
77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p.
77), s Konvencijo z dne 25. oktobra 1982 o pristopu Helenske republike (UL L 388, str.
1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p.
1), s Konvencijo z dne 26. maja 1989 o pristopu Kraljevine Španije in Portugalske republike (UL L 285, str. 1) in s Konvencijo z dne 29. novembra 1996 o pristopu Republike Avstrije, Republike Finske in Kraljevine Švedske (UL 1997, C 15, str.
1) (‘the Brussels Convention’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Bruseljska konvencija).
Article 20 of that convention concerns the default procedure.
Člen 20 te konvencije se nana�a na sojenje v odsotnosti.
Article 27 of the convention provides as follows:
Člen 27, točka 2, te konvencije določa:
‘A judgment shall not be recognised:
„Odločbe se ne priznajo:
2. where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence
2. če toženi stranki, ki se ni spustila v postopek, pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje ni bilo vročeno pravilno in pravočasno, da bi lahko pripravila obrambo;
Article 5 of The Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (‘the 1965 Hague Convention’), provides as follows:
Člen 5 Haa�ke konvencije z dne 15. novembra 1965 o vročitvi sodnih in zunajsodnih listin v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v tujini (v nadaljevanju: Haa�ka konvencija iz leta 1965) določa:
(b) by a particular method requested by the applicant, unless such a method is incompatible with the law of the State addressed.
„Osrednji organ zapro�ene države vroči listino ali poskrbi, da je ustrezno vročena: a) na način, ki je po njenem notranjem pravu predpisan za vročanje listin osebam, ki prebivajo na njenem ozemlju, ali b) na poseben način, ki ga zahteva prosilec, če ta ni v nasprotju s pravom zapro�ene države.
If the document is to be served under the first paragraph above, the Central Authority may require the document to be written in, or translated into, the official language or one of the official languages of the State addressed. …’
Če je listino treba vročiti v skladu s prvim odstavkom tega člena, lahko osrednji organ zahteva, da je listina napisana v uradnem jeziku ali enem od uradnih jezikov zapro�ene države ali v tak jezik prevedena. […]“
The first paragraph of Article 15 of that convention provides as follows:
Člen 15(1) te konvencije določa:
(b) the document was actually delivered to the defendant or to his residence by another method provided for by this Convention, and that in either of these cases the service or the delivery was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.’
„Kadar je treba zaradi vročitve poslati v tujino vabilo ali enakovredno listino v skladu z določbami te konvencije in toženec ne pride na obravnavo, se sodba ne izreče, dokler se ne ugotovi: a) ali je bila listina vročena na način, ki je predpisan po pravu zapro�ene države za vročanje listin osebam, ki so na njenem ozemlju, oziroma b) ali je bila listina dejansko dostavljena tožencu ali v njegovo prebivali�če na drug način, predviden s to konvencijo; in da je bila v obeh primerih vročena ali dostavljena dovolj zgodaj, da lahko toženec pripravi svojo obrambo.“
Subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the 1965 Hague Convention states that the Contracting States are not to be prevented from entering an agreement to dispense with the language requirements of, inter alia, the third paragraph of Article 5.
V členu 20, točka (b), Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1965 je določeno, da konvencija ne preprečuje dogovora med dvema ali več državami pogodbenicami o odstopanju od, med drugim, člena 5(3).
A document instituting proceedings is defined in Paragraph 253 of the Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure).
Tožbo opredeljuje člen 253 zakona o pravdnem postopku (Zivilprozessordnung). Ta določba se glasi:
‘(1) An action shall be commenced by the service of a written pleading (application).
„(1) Šteje se, da je tožba vložena z vročitvijo tožbenega predloga.
(2) The application must include:
(2) Tožbeni predlog mora vsebovati:
1. the name of the parties and of the court
1. navedbo strank in sodi�ča,
2. a precise statement of subjectmatter and the cause of action relied on as well as specific heads of claim.
2. natančno navedbo predmeta in podlage ter jasne predloge.
(3) The application must also state, where the determination of the court having jurisdiction is at issue, the value of the subjectmatter of the dispute, unless that consists of a fixed sum of money, and must state whether there are reasons for which judgment should not be given in the case by a single judge.
(3) V tožbenem predlogu mora biti, če je od tega odvisna določitev pristojnega sodi�ča, navedena tudi vrednost spornega predmeta, razen če je sporni predmet denarni znesek, poleg tega pa morajo biti v njem navedeni morebitni razlogi, zaradi katerih zadeve ne bi smel obravnavati sodnik posameznik.
(4) Furthermore, the general provisions relating to preparatory documents shall also be applicable to the application.’
(4) Poleg tega se za tožbeni predlog uporabljajo splo�ne določbe o pripravljalnih vlogah.“
Article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure is entitled ‘Annexed documents’.
Člen 131 zakona o pravdnem postopku nosi naslov Priloge.
It is worded as follows:
Njegovo besedilo določa:
‘(1) The documents held by a party to which the preparatory pleading refers must be attached to that pleading in the form of the original or a copy.
„(1) Stranka mora listine, ki jih ima in na katere se sklicuje v pripravljalni vlogi, priložiti tej vlogi v izvirniku ali prepisu.
(2) Where only individual passages of a document are concerned, it is sufficient to attach an extract containing the introduction to the document, the extract which is relevant to the case, the purpose, date and signature.
(2) Če se na zadevo nana�ajo le posamezni deli listine, zado�ča predložitev izpiska s podatki o zadevi, zaključkom, datumom in podpisom.
(3) If the other party is already familiar with those documents or if they are voluminous, it is sufficient to indicate precisely what those documents are and that they are available for consultation.’
(3) Če je nasprotna stranka seznanjena s temi listinami ali če so te obsežne, zado�ča, da se te listine natančno navede in se jih predloži na vpogled.“
IHK Berlin is pursuing an action for damages against Grimshaw for defective design on the basis of an architect’s contract.
IHK Berlin na podlagi pogodbe o delu arhitekta od biroja Grimshaw zahteva nadomestilo �kode zaradi napake pri načrtovanju.
In the contract, Grimshaw undertook to draw up the plans for a construction project in Berlin.
Navedeni biro se je s pogodbo zavezal, da bo opravil storitve načrtovanja za gradbeni projekt v Berlinu.
Correspondence between [IHK Berlin] and [Grimshaw] and the authorities and public institutions shall be in German.’
Dopisi med [IHK Berlin] in [birojem Grimshaw] ter javnimi organi in ustanovami morajo biti v nem�kem jeziku.“
It is apparent from the documents before the court and was confirmed at the hearing that the contract is governed by German law (paragraph 10.4 of the contract) and that, in the event of a dispute, the courts having jurisdiction are the Berlin courts (paragraph 10.2 of the contract).
V spisu, ki je bil predložen Sodi�ču, je bilo navedeno – in na obravnavi potrjeno –, da se za pogodbo uporablja nem�ko pravo (točka 10.4 pogodbe) ter da je v primeru spora pristojno sodi�če v Berlinu (točka 10.2 pogodbe).
IHK Berlin’s application, which forms part of the case-file submitted to the court, refers to the various items of evidence relied on in support of its submissions.
V tožbi IHK, ki je del spisa, predloženega Sodi�ču, so navedeni različni dokazi, na katere se opira zahtevek.
That documentary evidence is annexed to the application in a file consisting of approximately 150 pages.
Ta dokazila so bila priložena tožbi in sestavljajo spis s približno 150 stranmi.
As stated by the Bundesgerichtshof, the content of those documents is partially reproduced in the application.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da je njihova vsebina delno povzeta v tožbi.
The annexes include the architect’s contract concluded between the parties, an addendum and the draft thereof, an extract of the contractual specifications, a large number of documents or extracts such as technical reports or statements of account, as well as several letters, including some from Grimshaw, relating to the correspondence with the companies entrusted with establishing and repairing the defects complained of in the main proceedings.
Navedene priloge vključujejo pogodbo o delu arhitekta, ki sta jo sklenili stranki, aneks k pogodbi in njegov osnutek, izpisek s seznama storitev, �tevilne listine oziroma izpiske listin, na primer tehnična poročila ali obračune, ter �tevilne dopise, vključno z dopisi biroja Grimshaw, ki vsebujejo dopisovanje s podjetji, ki so ugotavljala in odpravljala zadevne napake v postopku v glavni stvari.