natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Grimshaw Architects considers that an addressee has the right to refuse to accept a document if solely the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
Biro Grimshaw izhaja iz tega, da naslovnikova pravica do zavrnitve sprejema obstaja, kadar samo priloge k pisanju za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
According to the wording of Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000, documents are not only applications lodged by lawyers, but all letters and evidence communicated for the purpose of service.
Že v skladu s členom 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 pisanja niso samo tožbe, ki jih vložijo odvetniki, ampak vsi dopisi in dokazila, ki se posredujejo zaradi vročitve.
The spirit and purpose of Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 strongly suggest that ‘documents’ must also include annexes to an application.
Smisel in namen členov 5(1) in 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 odločilno govorita v prid temu, da morajo biti „pisanja“ tudi priloge k tožbi.
Grimshaw Architects also refers to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (Article 29(3)) and of the Court of First Instance (Article 35(3)), under which the application and annexes thereto are regarded as forming a whole.
Biro Grimshaw se sklicuje tudi na poslovnika Sodi�ča (člen 29(3)) in Sodi�ča prve stopnje (člen 35(3)), iz katerih izhaja, da se tožba in priloge obravnavajo kot celota. Oboje mora biti napisano v istem jeziku, namreč po potrebi v jeziku, ki ga tožena stranka razume.
There is no criterion offering sufficient legal certainty to determine the need for a translation which is necessary for the defence of the defendant.
Tako merilo, da bi nujnost prevoda temeljila na tem, kaj naj bi bilo potrebno za obrambo tožene stranke, naj ne bi v zadostni meri nudilo pravne varnosti.
Rather, it is necessary to translate all the
Nasprotno, prevesti bi bilo treba vse priloge, saj bi njihovo poznavanje omogočilo ne samo
IHK Berlin points out that, together with the application, Grimshaw Architects also received the annexes referred to.
IHK Berlin opozarja na to, da je biro Grimshaw s tožbo prejel tudi zadevne priloge.
IHK Berlin contends that the addressee’s right to refuse acceptance under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 relates only to judicial documents according to the wording and scheme of that provision.
IHK Berlin navaja, da se naslovnikova pravica do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 nana�a glede na besedilo in sistematiko zgolj na pisne vloge stranke.
Annexes are not documents in that sense.
Priloge naj ne bi bila pisanja v tem smislu.
They constitute other documents to be transmitted.
Nasprotno, priloge so drugi dokumenti, ki jih je treba posredovati.
In order to fulfil the purpose of informing the defendant of the subjectmatter and cause of action, it is not necessary to translate lengthy annexes in which only a single clause might be relevant.
Za uresničitev namena, da se toženo stranko obvesti o predmetu in temelju tožbe, ni treba prevesti obsežnih prilog, v katerih bi bila morda pomembna le ena sama klavzula.
Evidence of the facts claimed must be produced in the course of the proceedings and it is possible at any time during that stage to arrange for the translation of certain documents which were not translated when the action was brought. Requiring the applicant
Dokaz zatrjevanih dejstev se izvede med postopkom in bi bilo zato v tej fazi kadar koli mogoče prevesti določene dokumente, ki pri
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-14/07 to translate all annexes could prove to be very expensive and contrary to the purpose of the regulation, which is to expedite the process.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-14/07 vložitvi tožbe niso bili prevedeni. Naložiti tožeči stranki, naj prevede vse priloge, bi se lahko izkazalo za drago in bi bilo v nasprotju z ciljem pospe�itve, določenim v Uredbi.
a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
ali države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
The addressee for service must therefore be given the right to refuse the document even if the translation requirements laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 are not met only in respect of one or two annexes.
Naslovniku vročitve je torej treba priznati pravico, da zavrne pisanje, tudi če zahteva po prevodu, predvidena v členu 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, ne bi bila izpolnjena samo glede ene priloge ali nekaj prilog.
The French Government states that the translation of all documents transmitted into a language which the addressee understands is a necessary precondition for protecting his interests and for guaranteeing the rights of the defence.
Francoska vlada poudarja, da je prevod vseh posredovanih dokumentov v jezik, ki ga naslovnik razume, nujna predpostavka za varstvo njegovih interesov in zagotovitev pravic obrambe.
It also takes the view that the same rules on transmission and in particular the same translation requirements apply to all documents affected by service irrespective of whether they are the documents to be served themselves or annexes.
Meni tudi to, da za vse dokumente, na katere se nana�a vročitev, veljajo enaka pravila po�iljanja in predvsem enake obveznosti prevajanja, ne glede na to, ali gre pri tem za sama pisanja za vročitev ali za priloge k njim.
The annexes form an integral part of the document.
Priloge so namreč sestavni del pisanja.
Furthermore, Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1348/2000 provides that the receiving agency must return the documents of which a translation is requested to the transmitting agency if the addressee refuses to accept the document to be served.
Sicer pa člen 8(2) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 predvideva, da organ za sprejem dokumente, za katere se zahteva prevod, po�lje nazaj organu za po�iljanje, če naslovnik zavrne sprejem dokumenta za vročitev.
It thus follows from the wording of that article that the translation of all documents transmitted, and not only of the document to be served, may be required.
Tako iz besedila tega člena izhaja, da se lahko zahteva prevod vseh poslanih dokumentov, ne samo pisanj za vročitev.
The Italian Government considers, with reference to the use of the plural noun ‘documents’, that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the addressee may refuse to accept the document to be served where the relevant annexes are in a language other than that of the Member State addressed or
Italijanska vlada na podlagi napotila na uporabo samostalnika v množini „pisanja“ meni, da je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da lahko naslovnik zavrne sprejem pisanja za vročitev, kadar so pripadajoče priloge napisane v drugem jeziku, kot je uradni jezik zapro�ene države članice
The Slovak Government states, in the light of the system provided for in Regulation No 1348/2000, explained first and foremost in its recitals, that in the interest of a uniform interpretation and application of the regulation the expression ‘document to be served’ means not only the main document, but also the annexes which have been served on the addressee together with that document.
Slovaška vlada glede na pravilo, vsebovano v Uredbi �t. 1348/2000, v svojih stali�čih najprej ugotavlja, da se zaradi enotne razlage in uporabe Uredbe pod pojmom „pisanje za vročitev“ ne sme razumeti samo glavnega pisanja, ampak tudi priloge, ki so bile naslovniku vročene skupaj s tem pisanjem.
In order for the addressee to be able to familiarise itself thoroughly with the document which was served on it in the present case and to be able effectively to assert its rights before the court of the Member State of transmission, it is necessary for it to know precisely the content of the entire document to be served.
Da bi se lahko naslovnik temeljito seznanil s pisanjem, ki mu je bilo vročeno v tej zadevi, in bi s tem učinkovito uveljavljal svoje pravice pred sodi�čem države članice prosilke, bi moral natančno poznati vsebino celotnega pisanja za vročitev.
For that reason, the Slovak Government takes the view that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an addressee also has the right to refuse to accept a document to be served pursuant to Article 8(1) where only the annexes to the document to be served are not in a language of the Member State addressed or in the language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.
Slova�ka vlada zato meni, da je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da ima naslovnik pravico, da zavrne sprejem pisanja za vročitev v skladu s členom 8(1) tudi takrat, kadar samo priloge k pisanju za vročitev niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali v jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume.
The standard form in the annex to Regulation No 1348/2000 does not answer the question of what is meant by a document to be served.
1348/2000 ne odgovori na vpra�anje, kaj je pisanje za vročitev.
The Czech Government takes the view that the annexes to the application are to be understood as forming a whole with the application, and the same language rules must be applied to those annexes.
Češka vlada meni, da je treba priloge k tožbi skupaj s tožbo obravnavati kot celoto in da je treba zanje uporabiti enaka jezikovna pravila.
The main argument for this interpretation is the fact that the importance of the annexes to the application for the defendant and for the court during the proceedings justifies an interpretation of the right to correct procedure as covering the notification of the defendant of the content of the annexes.
V prid temu razumevanju govori predvsem to, da pomen prilog k tožbi za toženo stranko in za sodi�če v okviru postopka upravičuje razlago pravice do pravilno izvedenega postopka tako, da vsebuje informiranje tožene stranke o vsebini prilog.
The annexes must be translated even where the applicant cites significant parts of those annexes in the application or elsewhere.
Priloge bi morale biti prevedene, tudi če tožeča stranka bistvene dele teh prilog citira ali sicer navaja v vloženi tožbi.
A balance must be created between the parties, which implies equality of arms in legal proceedings.
Doseči bi bilo treba uravnotežen položaj strank, ki v pravnem sporu pomeni enakost orožij.
If the applicant encloses an annex with the application, it may be assumed that he is aware of its content and that opportunity must also be given to the defendant.
Če tožeča stranka k tožbi priloži prilogo, je iz tega mogoče sklepati, da ji je njena vsebina znana in mora biti to omogočeno tudi toženi stranki.
Quoting the relevant parts in the application itself does not affect the defendant’s right at all.
Navedba pomembnih delov v tožbi sami ne spremeni ničesar glede te pravice tožene stranke.
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is therefore to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee also has the right to refuse to accept a document where only the annexes to the document are in a language other than the official language or language which the addressee understands.
Člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 je treba razlagati tako, da ima naslovnik pravico, da zavrne sprejem pisanja, tudi če so le priloge k pisanju napisane v drugem jeziku, kot je uradni jezik ali jezik, ki ga naslovnik razume.
The Commission points out, first of all, that annexes to an application are generally intended to provide additional information to the application or to prove the accuracy of information contained in the application. Annexes therefore form an integral part of the application in principle.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da je namen prilog k tožbi praviloma ta, da vsebujejo dodatne informacije k tožbi oziroma dokazujejo pravilnost navedb v tožbi.
Recital 10 in the preamble to Regulation No 1348/2000 contains a reason for the language regime set forth in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Uvodna izjava 10 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 vsebuje utemeljitev za jezikovno ureditev v členu 8(1) te uredbe. Nujnost prevoda prilog je treba presojati glede na vpliv na interese naslovnika tožbe.
Thus, it is not necessary to translate the annexes if their content is reproduced in the application itself.
Tako ni nujno, da se priloge prevede, če je njihova vsebina navedena v sami tožbi.
On the other hand, linguistic comprehension of the annexes is important for the protection of the addressee’s interests if the application refers to annexes without quoting their content.
Nasprotno pa naj bi bilo razumevanje jezika prilog pomembno za varstvo interesov naslovnika, kadar tožba napotuje na priloge, ne da bi navedla njihovo vsebino.
If the annexes contain necessary information which is not contained in the application, the defendant may refuse to accept them if they are not translated.
Če priloge vsebujejo v tem smislu nujne navedbe, ki v tožbi niso navedene, lahko tožena stranka zavrne njihov sprejem, če niso prevedene.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-14/07
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-14/07 vprašanje za predhodno
State of transmission is merely circumstantial evidence of linguistic knowledge.
B – Drugo odločanje naj bi bil zgolj indic za znanje jezikov.
If service of the application were effected on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the right to a fair hearing would be infringed.
Če bi bila vročitev tožbe opravljena na podlagi indicev, bi bila kr�ena pravica biti sli�an.
That the addressee agreed in a contract that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the State of transmission does not mean that he actually understands that language.
To, da se je naslovnik v pogodbi dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, �e ne pomeni, da ta jezik tudi dejansko razume.
Nor can it be justified, dogmatically, why a contractual agreement between persons governed by private law which the parties intended to apply only to the proper performance of the contract between those two parties should have a restrictive effect with regard to the public law right to a fair hearing enjoyed by the addressee vis-à-vis the courts having jurisdiction.
Dogmatično tudi ni mogoče utemeljiti, zakaj bi pogodbeni dogovor med zasebnimi subjekti, ki naj bi po volji strank veljal samo za redno izpolnjevanje pogodbe med obema zasebnima subjektoma, omejil javnopravno pravico biti sli�an, ki jo ima naslovnik v razmerju do sodi�č, ki izvajajo državno oblast.
Büro Weiss points out that it is not compatible with Regulation No 1348/2000 to make the right to refuse acceptance dependent on whether the addressee concluded a contract with the opposing party in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission.
Biro Weiss opozarja na to, da z Uredbo �t. 1348/2000 ni združljivo, da bi bila pravica do zavrnitve sprejema odvisna od tega, ali je naslovnik z nasprotno stranko v postopku sklenil pogodbo, v kateri se je dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke.
Such provision does not indicate that the addressee for service actually understands the language of the Member State of transmission.
Tako dogovor ne kaže na to, da naslovnik vročitve dejansko razume jezik države članice prosilke.
In particular, he could employ the services of a translation company in conducting correspondence.
Lahko bi pri dopisovanju uporabil tudi storitve agencije za prevajanje.
Agreeing on a contractual language cannot be treated in the same way as agreeing to conduct legal proceedings in the corresponding language of the court.
Dogovora o pogodbenem jeziku ni mogoče enačiti s pristankom na vodenje spora v ustreznem jeziku sodi�ča.
Conducting legal proceedings typically places much higher demands on the addressee’s knowledge of the foreign language than dealing with contractual relations in the addressee’s own specialist area, in particular because of the specialist legal language used.
Vodenje sodnega postopka – že zaradi posebnega pravnega strokovnega jezika – navadno jasno postavlja vi�je zahteve glede razumevanja tujega jezika naslovnika kot pa urejanje pogodbenega razmerja na njegovem strokovnem področju.
Grimshaw Architects takes the view that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 cannot be interpreted as meaning that an addressee ‘understands’ the language of a Member State of transmission because, in the course of his business, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission.
Biro Grimshaw meni, da člena 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ni mogoče razlagati tako, da naslovnik „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke že zato, ker se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke.
The fact that in the course of his business the addressee of a document agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member
Dejstvo, da se je naslovnik pisanja pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke,
IHK Berlin takes the view that an agreement between the parties to use a certain language in the disputed legal relationship now the subject of litigation takes precedence over Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
IHK Berlin meni, da ima dogovor strank, da za pravno razmerje, ki je postalo sporno, uporabijo določen jezik, prednost pred členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
Such an agreement establishes the factual presumption that the addressee understands a document if it concerns the specific legal relationship and is written in the agreed language.
Tak dogovor utemeljuje dejansko domnevo, da naslovnik razume pisanje, če se to nana�a na konkretno pravno razmerje in je napisano v dogovorjenem jeziku.
The fact that the parties had specified a language for their legal relationship was intended to serve the smooth performance of the contract and was also important if a conflict were to arise, including a legal action.
Če stranki določita, kateri jezik je odločilen za njuno pravno razmerje, je to namenjeno nemotenemu izpolnjevanju pogodbe in je pomembno tudi takrat, kadar v primeru nesoglasij pride do tožbe.
By making such provision, the parties mutually waive the
S takim določilom se stranki vzajemno
WEISS UND PARTNER right to rely on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 when they receive a document written in the contractual language.
WEISS UND PARTNER odpovesta temu, da bi se pri prejemu pisanja, ki je napisano v pogodbenem jeziku, sklicevali na člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
The French Government takes the view, first of all, that it is for the national courts to assess on the basis of the facts of the case whether the language of the Member State of transmission may be considered to be understood by the addressee for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
vročitev oziroma priloge k temu pisanju, ki niso sestavljeni v uradnem jeziku zapro�ene države članice, ki ga naslovnik razume; pri tem izbrani pogodbeni jezik strank v okviru njunega dopisovanja ni pomemben, in sicer niti takrat, kadar so bile priloge k pisanju vročene naslovniku v tem pogodbeno dogovorjenem jeziku.
The fact that the language of the Member State of transmission was chosen by the contracting parties for correspondence may be taken into consideration as one factor.
Pravica zavrniti pisanje, ki je napisano v drugem jeziku, kot tistem, ki ga naslovnik vročitve razume, ne more prenehati samo na podlagi dejstva, da sta se stranki dogovorili, da bosta pri dopisovanju uporabljali ta jezik.
The entitlement to refuse service of a document which is in a language other than the language known to the addressee cannot cease to apply solely because the parties agreed to use that language in their correspondence.
Francoska vlada najprej meni, da morajo nacionalna sodi�ča glede na dejansko stanje posameznega primera presoditi, ali bi bilo mogoče jezik države članice prosilke obravnavati tako, da naslovnik razume v smislu člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
However, that fact alone is not sufficient for it to be considered that the language of the Member State of transmission is understood by the addressee for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 and to release the national court from the need to make an assessment in the individual case.
Ta okoli�čina pa sama ne zado�ča, da bi se �telo, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke v smislu člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 in da s tem sodi�ču ne bi bilo treba preučevati posameznega primera.
If the language of the Member State of transmission were considered to be understood by the addressee solely because a clause of the contract provided that correspondence was to be conducted in that language, a legal presumption would be introduced which went far beyond the provision made in the regulation.
Če bi se namreč �telo, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke samo zato, ker pogodbena klavzula predvideva, da dopisovanje poteka v tem jeziku, bi bila s tem uvedena zakonska domneva, ki bi močno presegala tisto, kar predvideva Uredba.
The Italian Government takes the view that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000
Italijanska vlada meni, da je treba člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da ima naslovnik pravico zavrniti pisanje za
In the view of the Slovak Government, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 cannot be interpreted as meaning that the addressee ‘understands’ the language of a Member State of transmission solely because an agreement exists between him and the applicant to conduct their correspondence in the context of their business activities in the language of the Member State of transmission.
Po mnenju slovaške vlade člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ni mogoče razlagati tako, da naslovnik „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke samo zato, ker med njim in tožečo stranko obstaja dogovor, da bo v okviru opravljanja njune poslovne dejavnosti dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke.
According to the Slovak Republic, a private agreement between the addressee and the applicant to use the language of the Member State of transmission in correspondence in the context of their business
Slova�ka republika meni, da zasebni dogovor med naslovnikom in tožečo stranko o uporabi jezika države članice prosilke pri dopisovanju v okviru opravljanja njune
the applicant, in the course of its business, that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission may be used only as an indication that that language is understood; that agreement in itself is not sufficient proof, however, that the addressee actually understands the language of the Member State of transmission.
Tako se lahko okoli�čina, da se je v tej zadevi naslovnik pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da se bo za dopisovanje uporabljal jezik države članice prosilke, uporablja le kot oporna točka za razumevanje tega jezika; ta dogovor pa sam ni zadosten dokaz za to, da naslovnik tudi dejansko razume jezik države članice prosilke.
C — The third question
C – Tretje odločanje
The Czech Government takes the view that the agreement to use a certain language in the exercise of business activity does not necessarily imply knowledge of the language for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Češka vlada meni, da dogovor o uporabi določenega jezika v okviru poslovne dejavnosti ne implicira nujno znanja jezika za namene člena 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
The agreement between the parties to use a certain language may be taken into consideration by the court in assessing whether a refusal to accept a document constitutes the misuse of a right, but does not give a clear answer itself.
Sodi�če lahko dogovor strank o uporabi določenega jezika upo�teva pri presoji, ali gre pri zavrnitvi sprejema pisanja za zlorabo pravice, vendar pa tak dogovor sam ne da jasnega odgovora.