natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, the term ‘flight’ must be interpreted in the light of the provisions of Regulation No 261/2004 as a whole and the objectives of that regulation.
V teh okoli�činah je treba pojem let razlagati ob upo�tevanju vseh določb Uredbe �t. 261/2004 kot tudi cilja, ki ga slednja zasleduje.
Before undertaking that analysis, however, it should be observed that Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, the provision to which the national court refers, must be read together with Article 3(1)(b) of the regulation.
Vendar je treba, preden se opravi to analizo, navesti, da je treba člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004, na katerega se sklicuje predložitveno sodi�če, brati v povezavi s točko b) istega člena 3(1).
It follows from Article 3(1) as a whole that the regulation applies to situations in which passengers use a flight either departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State (indent (a)) or departing from an airport located in a nonmember country and flying to an airport located in the territory of a Member State if the air carrier operating the flight concerned is a Community carrier (indent (b)).
Iz celega prvega odstavka izhaja, da se ta uredba uporabi v primerih, ko potniki uporabijo letalo, ki odhaja z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice (točka a)) ali z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države in je namenjeno na letali�če na ozemlju države članice, pod pogojem, da je dejanski prevoznik zadevnega leta iz Skupnosti (točka b)).
It follows that a situation in which passengers depart from an airport located in a nonmember country cannot be regarded as a situation covered by Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, and therefore falls within the scope of that regulation only subject to the condition in Article 3(1)(b), namely that the air carrier operating the flight is a Community carrier.
Iz tega izhaja, da se za primer, ko potniki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države, ne bi �telo, da zanj velja člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 in da zato spada na področje uporabe uredbe samo pod pogojem, določenim v členu 3(1)(b), namreč da je dejanski letalski prevoznik zadevnega leta iz Skupnosti.
As regards, next, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 261/2004, it must be observed, first, that Article 8(2) of the regulation refers to a flight which forms part of a package, implying that a flight is not the same as a tour or journey, which may consist of several flights.
Glede razlage zadevnih določb te uredbe je treba najprej navesti, da se člen 8(2) Uredbe �t.
Article 8(1) expressly refers to a ‘return
261/2004 sklicuje na let, ki je del paketa, kar vključuje, da let ni popolnoma isto kot potovanje in da je lahko slednje sestavljeno iz več letov. Poleg tega se
EMIRATES AIRLINES flight’, thus pointing to the existence of an outward flight in the course of the same journey.
EMIRATES AIRLINES prvi odstavek tega člena izrecno sklicuje na pojem „povratni let“, kar kaže na to, da se v okviru istega potovanja izvede tudi „let tja“.
That is borne out by Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004, which defines ‘final destination’ as the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight.
Ta trditev je okrepljena s členom 2(h) Uredbe �t. 261/2004, kjer je opredeljen „končni namembni kraj“ kot kraj, ki je naveden na vozovnici, ki je predložena pri prijavi na let, ali v primeru vmesnih letov za zvezo namembni kraj zadnjega leta.
Next, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 distinguishes between the first point of departure and the final destination of passengers, thus referring to two different places.
Poleg tega člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 razlikuje med krajem odhoda in namembni krajem in predvideva tudi dva različna kraja.
If a ‘flight’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the regulation were to be regarded as an outward and return journey, that would amount to considering that the final destination of a journey was the same as its first point of departure.
Da se „let“ v smislu člena 3(1)(a) te uredbe �teje za povratni let, bi bilo treba namembni kraj �teti za kraj, ki je enak začetnemu kraju odhoda.
In those circumstances, that provision would make no sense.
V teh okoli�činah bi bila ta določba brezsmiselna.
In addition, first, Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provide for redress for various kinds of damage that may occur in connection with a flight, but do not contemplate that one of those occasions of damage may occur several times during a single flight.
Poleg tega je v členih 4(1), 5(1) in 8(1) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 predvidena od�kodnina za različne vrste �kode, ki lahko nastane v zvezi z letom, vendar ni predvideno, da bi lahko ena izmed takih vrst �kode nastala večkrat na istem letu.
In those circumstances, passengers departing originally from an airport located in a Member State could claim the benefit of that protection only once if they were to suffer the same damage on the outward and the return legs.
V takem primeru potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, ne morejo trditi, da so upravičeni do tovrstnega varstva več kot enkrat, če so utrpeli isto �kodo tako na letu tja kot nazaj.
Second, to interpret Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 in such a way that a flight includes an outward and return journey would further amount to depriving passengers of their rights in a situation in which the flight departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State is not operated by a Community carrier.
Po drugi strani bi razlaga člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 v smislu, da let vključuje povratni let, potnike prikraj�ala v njihovih pravicah v primeru, ko leta z odhodom z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice ne opravi letalski prevoznik Skupnosti.
Passengers on such a flight who had originally departed from an airport located in a nonmember country would not be able to enjoy the protection provided by Regulation No 261/2004.
Glede na to potniki na takem letu, ko letalo prvotno odleti z letali�ča v tretji državi, ne bi mogli biti deležni varstva na podlagi Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
By contrast, passengers starting their journey on the same flight would be able to enjoy that protection, as they would be regarded as passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State.
Nasprotno, potniki, ki potovanje začnejo z istim letom, bi bili lahko po drugi strani deležni takega varstva, kakor hitro bi se jih �telo za potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice.
Passengers on the same flight whose protection in respect of harmful consequences must be the same would then be treated differently.
Potnike istega leta, katerih varstvo z vidika posledic, ki iz njega izhajajo, mora biti identično, bi se torej obravnavalo drugače.
In the light of all the above considerations, the concept of ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as consisting essentially in an air transport operation, being as it were a ‘unit’ of such transport, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedb je treba pojem „let“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 261/2004 razlagati tako, da ga v bistvu sestavlja en zračni prevoz, ki je na določen način tudi „enota“ tega prevoza, ki ga izvede letalski prevoznik, ki določi svojo pot.
By contrast, the concept of ‘journey’ attaches to the person of the passenger, who chooses his destination and makes his way there by means of flights operated by air carriers.
Nasprotno se pojem „potovanje“ nana�a na potnika, ki izbere svojo destinacijo in se tja odpravi z letalom na letu, ki ga izvede letalski prevoznik.
A journey, which normally comprises ‘outward’ and ‘return’ legs, is determined above all by the personal and individual purpose of travelling.
Potovanje, ki je sestavljeno iz „poti tja“ in „vrnitve“, opredeljuje predvsem osebni in individualni cilj premestitve.
Since the term ‘journey’ does not appear in the wording of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, it has in principle no effect on the interpretation of that provision.
Pojem „potovanje“, ki ga ni v besedilu člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004, načeloma nima posledic za razlago slednjega.
In those circumstances, it must be ascertained whether other relevant legal instruments may affect the interpretation of the term ‘flight’.
V teh okoli�činah je treba preveriti, ali drugi zadevni pravni instrumenti lahko vplivajo na razlago pojma let.
In this respect, it must be examined whether, as the referring court appears to have found, the Montreal Convention is decisive.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali je Montrealska konvencija, kot se zdi, da je ugotovilo predložitveno sodi�če, odločilnega pomena.
That convention defines the obligations of air carriers towards passengers with whom they have concluded a contract for transport, and fixes in particular the terms on which passengers may obtain individualised compensation in the form of damages for losses arising from a delay.
V slednji so določene obveznosti letalskih prevoznikov do potnikov, s katerimi so sklenili pogodbo o prevozu in določili podrobne pogoje, v skladu s katerimi lahko potniki dobijo indivi -dualno nadomestilo v obliki od�kodnine za �kodo, ki je posledica te zamude.
It is true that the Montreal Convention forms an integral part of the Community legal order (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 35 and 36).
Res je, da je Montrealska konvencija sestavni del pravnega reda Skupnosti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi IATA in ELFAA, točki 35 in 36).
Moreover, it is clear from Article 300(7) EC that the Community institutions are bound by agreements concluded by the Community and, consequently, that those agreements have primacy over secondary Community legislation (see, to that effect, Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, paragraph 52).
Med drugim izhaja iz člena 300(7) ES, da so sporazumi, ki jih sklene Skupnost, za institucije Skupnosti zavezujoči, zato imajo prednost pred akti sekundarne zakonodaje (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 10. septembra 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-61/94, Recueil, str. I-3989, točka 52).
However, the Montreal Convention does not in any way determine the extent of the obligations mentioned above by any reference to the concept of ‘flight’, a term which does not appear in the text of the convention.
Vendar Montrealska konvencija nikakor ne določa obsega navedenih obveznosti, ki so ga predhodno nakazala vsakr�na sklicevanja na pojem let, ki se sicer ne pojavi v besedilu te konvencije.
Moreover, as the referring court rightly points out, successive carriages are regarded under the Montreal Convention as ‘one undivided carriage’, inter alia if they have been agreed upon in the form of a single contract.
Poleg tega, kot pravilno navaja predložitveno sodi�če, se prevozi, izvedeni drug za drugim, v skladu z Montrealsko konvencijo �tejejo za „enoten prevoz“, zlasti če so bili dogovorjeni v obliki ene same pogodbe.
In so far as that concept of un -divided carriage refers to a succession of several stages chosen by the passenger, it resembles rather the concept of ‘journey’ as defined in paragraph 41 above.
Če se ta pojem enotnega prevoza sklicuje na več zaporednih voženj, ki jih je izbral potnik, se bolj približuje pojmu „potovanje“, kot je bil opredeljen v členu 41 te sodbe.
The Montreal Convention is not therefore decisive for the interpretation of the concept of ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004.
Poleg tega Montrealska konvencija ni bistvenega pomena za razlago pojma „let“ v smislu Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
It follows from paragraphs 32 to 41 above that a journey out and back cannot be regarded as a single flight.
Iz točk od 32 do 41 te sodbe izhaja, da povratnega leta ni mogoče �teti za en in isti let.
Consequently, Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 cannot apply to the case of an outward and return journey such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State travel back to that airport on a flight departing from an airport located in a nonmember country.
Zato se člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 ne bi uporabilo v situaciji povratnega leta, kot je v zadevi v glavni stvari, v kateri se potniki, ki so prvotno odleteli z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, vrnejo na to letali�če na letalu, ki prileti z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države.
That interpretation is also supported by the second indent of Article 17 of Regulation No 261/2004, as seen in the light of recital 23 in the preamble to the regulation, in which the Community legislature envisages the possibility of extending the scope of the regulation in future to passengers on flights from a nonmember country to a Member State not operated by Community carriers.
Tak�na razlaga je prav tako podkrepljena s členom 17, druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 261/2004, kot pojasnjuje tudi njena 23. uvodna izjava, v skladu s katerim zakonodajalec Skupnosti v prihodnje predvideva morebitno raz�iritev področja uporabe te uredbe na potnike na letih z odhodom iz tretjih držav na letali�če države članice, ki jih ne opravljajo letalski prevozniki Skupnosti.
If Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 referred also to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State embark on a flight departing from an airport located in a nonmember country, the passengers referred to in the second indent of Article 17 of the regulation would already fall within its scope.
Če člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 ravno tako predvideva primere povratnih letov, na katerih se potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, vkrcajo na letalo, ki odleti z letali�ča v tretji državi, bi se področje uporabe člena 17, druga alinea, že nana�alo na potnike, predvidene v tem členu.
That provision would therefore be pointless.
Zato bi bila ta določba brezsmiselna.
The fact that passengers make a single booking has no effect on the independent nature of the two flights.
Dejstvo, da imajo potniki eno rezervacijo, ne vpliva na neodvisnost dveh letov.
Consequently, the method of reservation cannot be regarded as a relevant factor in determining the scope of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004.
Zato način rezervacije ni odločilni dejavnik pri določitvi obsega člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
In the light of the above considerations, the answer to the question must be that Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a nonmember country.
Z vidika navedenega je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da se člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 ne uporabi v primeru povratnega leta, v okviru katerega potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero veljajo določbe Pogodbe, priletijo na to letali�če v okviru leta z odhodom z letali�ča v tretji državi.
Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the EC Treaty applies travel back to that
Člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe (ES) št. 261/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 295/91 je treba razlagati tako, da se ne uporabi v primeru povratnega leta, v okviru katerega potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z leta-
2008 — CASE C-173/07 airport on a flight from an airport located in a nonmember country.
2008 – ZADEVA C-173/07 lišča na ozemlju države članice, za katero veljajo določbe Pogodbe ES, priletijo na to letališče v okviru leta z odhodom z letališča v tretji državi.
The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.
Okoliščina, da je povratni let predmet ene rezervacije, ne vpliva na razlago te določbe.
Case C-195/08 PPU
Zadeva C-195/08 PPU
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments — Enforcement in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Application for nonrecognition of a decision requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in another Member State — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
„Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah – Pristojnosti in priznavanje ter izvr�evanje sodnih odločb – Izvr�evanje v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo – Uredba (ES) �t. 2201/2003 – Predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe o vrnitvi otroka, ki se nezakonito zadržuje v drugi državi članici – Nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 6 March 2008 . . . . . .
Stali�če generalne pravobranilke E. Sharpston, predstavljeno 1. julija 2008 . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 11 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 11. julija 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104b)
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja – Pogoji (Poslovnik Sodišča, člen 104b)
SUMMARY — CASE C-195/08 PPU
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Enforceability of a certified judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of nonreturn
Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah – Pristojnost in priznavanje ter izvrševanje sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo – Uredba št. 2201/2003 – Izvršljivost potrjene odločbe, ki odreja vrnitev otroka in ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne
(Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 11(8), 40 and 42, and Annex IV)
(Uredba Sveta št. 2201/2003, členi 11(8), 40 in 42 ter priloga IV)
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Application for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been submitted beforehand
Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah – Pristojnost in priznavanje ter izvrševanje sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo – Uredba št. 2201/2003 – Predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, če ni bil prej vložen predlog za priznanje
child against any possible harm and the need to ensure a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the parents are also capable of justifying recourse to the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.
odločanja utemeljujeta tudi potreba po varstvu otroka pred morebitno �kodo in nujnost zagotovitve pravilnega ravnotežja med interesi otroka in interesi njegovih star�ev.
(see paras 44, 45)
(Glej točki 44 in 45.)
That is the case where any delay would be very unfavourable to the relationship between the child and the parent with whom he or she does not live and where the damage to that relationship could be irreparable.
Tako je v primeru, kadar bi bil kakr�en koli odlog neugoden za razmerje med otrokom in star�em, s katerim ne živi, in bi bilo lahko poslab�anje tega razmerja nepopravljivo.
Such a need is apparent both from recital 17 in the preamble to the regulation, which refers to the return without delay of a child which has been removed or retained, and to Article 11(3) of that regulation, which sets a deadline of six weeks for the court to which an application for return is made to issue its judgment.
Taka potreba izhaja tako iz uvodne izjave 17 Uredbe, ki se nana�a na takoj�njo vrnitev odvzetega otroka, kot iz člena 11(3) iste uredbe, ki sodi�ču, pri katerem je bil vložen zahtevek za vrnitev, določa rok �estih tednov, da izda sodbo.
The need to protect the
Obravnavanje po nujnem postopku predhodnega
That interpretation of the regulation, which is consistent with its requirements and purpose, is the only interpretation which best ensures the effectiveness of Community law.
Ta razlaga Uredbe, ki je skladna z njenimi zahtevami in namenom, je edina, ki najbolje zagotavlja učinkovitost prava Skupnosti.
No 1347/2000, that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become 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.
ta odločba spremenjena, razveljavljena oziroma v vsakem primeru ni postala pravnomočna ali pa jo je nadomestila odločba o vrnitvi otroka, saj do vrnitve otroka dejansko ni pri�lo.
If no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and if 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 zapro�enega sodi�ča pa je le ugotoviti izvr�ljivost potrjene odločbe in ugoditi takoj�nji vrnitvi otroka.
First, Article 21(3) of the egulation confirms such a possibility, subject to the provisions of Section 4 of Chapter III and, second, it is not precluded that an application for nonrecognition of a decision results incidentally in its recognition, in which case Article 21(4) would apply.
Razen v primeru, ko se v postopku obravnava potrjena odločba ob uporabi členov 11(8) in od 40 do 42 Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe �t.
The possibility of submitting an application for nonrecognition if no application for recognition has
1347/2000, možnosti, da lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka predlaga, naj se sodna odločba ne prizna, čeprav pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje odločbe, ni mogoče na splo�no zavrniti.
The enforceability of a judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of nonreturn enjoys proced -ural autonomy, so as not to delay the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed to or retained in a Member State other than that in which that child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention.
Izvr�ljivost odločbe, ki odreja vrnitev otroka in ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne, je namreč procesno samostojna, in sicer zato, da se ne odla�a z vrnitvijo otroka, ki je bil nezakonito preme�čen ali zadržan v drugi državi članici, ki ni država članica, kjer je običajno prebival neposredno pred nezakonito premestitvijo ali zadržanjem.
Procedural steps which, after a nonreturn decision has been taken, occur or recur in the Member State of enforcement are not decisive and may be regarded as irrelevant for the purposes of implementing the regulation.
Postopkovna vpra�anja, ki se po tem, ko je bila izdana odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, pojavijo ali ponovno pojavijo v državi članici izvr�itve, niso odločilna in se lahko �teje, da za potrebe izvajanja Uredbe nimajo vpliva.