natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If the position were otherwise, there would be a risk that the regulation would be deprived of its useful effect, since the objective of the immediate return of the child would remain subject to the condition that the redress procedures allowed under the domestic law of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained have been exhausted.
Če ne bi bilo tako, bi namreč obstajalo tveganje, da Uredba ne bi imela učinka, saj bi moral biti za cilj takoj�nje vrnitve otroka izpolnjen pogoj izčrpanosti pravnih sredstev v nacionalnem pravu države članice, v kateri se otroka neupravičeno zadržuje. Čeprav cilj Uredbe �t.
Thus, even if the object of Regulation No 2201/2003 is not to unify the rules of substantive law and of procedure of the
2201/2003 ni poenotenje pravil materialnega in postopkovnega prava različnih držav članic, pa je pomembno, da uporaba teh nacionalnih
SUMMARY — CASE C-195/08 PPU been lodged beforehand is capable of satisfying various objectives, either of a substantive nature, in particular those relating to the best interests of the child or the stability and harmony of the family, or of a procedural nature, by making it possible to bring forward the production of evidence which might no longer be available in the future.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU nana�ajo na interese otroka ali stabilnost in mirnost družine, bodisi postopkovne, tako da omogoča, da se vnaprej predložijo dokazi, ki v prihodnosti morebiti ne bi bili več na voljo.
Such an application must however comply with the procedure provided for in Section 2 of Chapter III of the regulation and, in particular, it can be pursued according to the provisions of domestic law only if they do not limit the scope and effects of the regulation.
S takim predlogom pa mora biti spo�tovan postopek iz poglavja III, oddelek 2, Uredbe, pri čemer se zlasti lahko po določbah notranjega prava obravnava le, če to ne omejuje niti obsega niti učinkov te uredbe.
(see paras 92-96, operative part 2)
(Glej točke od 92 do 96 in točko 2 izreka.)
The situation envisaged in the event of an application for nonrecognition is different from that covered by Article 31(1).
Položaj v primeru predloga za nepriznanje je namreč drugačen od tistega iz člena 31(1).
Thus, since the procedure provided for in Article 31 of the Regulation is of an enforceable and unilateral nature, it cannot take account of the submissions of the party against whom enforcement is sought without assuming a declaratory and adversarial nature, which would run counter to its very logic according to which the rights of the defence are ensured by means of the appeal provided for in Article 33 of the Regulation.
Prav tako v postopku iz člena 31 Uredbe, ker je izvr�ilen in enostranski, ne more biti dovoljeno, da stranka podaja izjave, saj bi tako ta postopek postal deklaratoren in kontradiktoren, kar pa bi bilo v nasprotju z njegovo logiko, in sicer da so pravice obrambe zagotovljene s pravnim sredstvom iz člena 33 Uredbe.
On the contrary, in the event of an application for nonrecognition of a judicial decision where the applicant is the person against whom the application for a declaration of enforceability might have been brought and where the conditions justifying the exclusion, for the party against whom enforcement is sought, of the possibility of making submissions are not fulfilled, the purpose of the procedure is to seek a negative assessment which, by its nature, calls for an adversarial procedure.
Nasprotno, v primeru predloga za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, kjer je predlagatelj oseba, proti kateri se lahko vloži zahteva za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti, in kjer niso izpolnjeni pogoji, ki za stranko, proti kateri je vložena zahteva za izvr�itev, upravičujejo izključitev možnosti podajanja izjav, se predmet postopka nana�a na negativno ugotovitev, ki po svoji naravi zahteva kontradiktorni postopek.
It follows that the party against whom the application for nonrecognition has been lodged cannot, in the event of an application for non-recognition, be deprived of the possibility of making submissions.
Iz tega sledi, da stranki, proti kateri je vložena zahteva za nepriznanje, v primeru predloga za nepriznanje, ne more biti odvzeta možnost, da podaja izjave.
Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, in so far as it provides that neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to make any submissions on the application, is not applicable to proceedings initiated for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision.
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. 1347/2000 v delu, v katerem določa, da oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, in otrok v tej fazi postopka nimata možnosti podajati kakr�nih koli izjav glede zahteve, ne velja v postopku za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, v zvezi s katero pred tem ni bil vložen predlog za priznanje.
In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking recognition, is entitled to make submissions.
V takem primeru lahko tožena stranka, ki zahteva priznanje, podaja izjave.
(see paras 101-107, operative part 3)
(Glej točke od 101 do 107 in točko 3 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON of 1 July 2008 1 provisions here in full, but I shall refer to them in my analysis.
STALIŠČE GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON,
The main elements of the factual and procedural background may be summarised in tabular form.
Glavne elemente dejanskega in postopkovnega okvira spora lahko povzamem v obliki preglednice.
In the table below:
V preglednici, ki sem jo pripravila spodaj:
A child born in Germany in 2005 to a German father and a Lithuanian mother, who were married at the time but are now divorced, is at present in Lithuania with the mother, against the wishes of the father.
Otrok, rojen leta 2005 v Nemčiji Nemcu in Litovki, ki sta bila takrat poročena, vendar sta zdaj razvezana, je trenutno v Litvi pri materi proti očetovi volji.
In the context of the divorce proceedings, the German courts awarded custody of the child to the father, and ordered that she be returned to him.
Nem�ka sodi�ča so v postopku za razvezo zakonske zveze varstvo in vzgojo otroka dodelila očetu in odredila, da se otrok vrne k njemu.
The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) seeks a preliminary ruling on six questions concerning the conditions governing examination of the mother’s application for a declaration of nonrecognition of those aspects of the divorce judgment.
Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis teismas (litovsko vrhovno sodi�če) postavlja �est vpra�anj o pogojih preučitve predloga matere za izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju teh vidikov sodbe o razvezi.
Such a situation is governed in Community law, by the ‘Brussels II bis’ 2Regula-tion, read together with the 1980 3Hague
Na ravni Skupnosti je tak položaj urejen z Uredbo „Bruselj II bis“ 2 v povezavi s Haa�ko konvencijo iz leta 1980 3.
2 — Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p.
2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 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 (ES) �t. 1347/2000 (UL L 338, str.
1) (‘the Regulation’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Uredba).
3 — Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the Convention’ or ‘the Hague Convention’).
3 – Konvencija o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok, sklenjena 25. oktobra 1980, v nadaljevanju: Konvencija ali Haa�ka konvencija.
Unlike the Regulation, the Convention does not contain any rules conferring jurisdiction.
Ugotovimo lahko, da Konvencija v nasprotju z Uredbo ne vsebuje pravil o pristojnosti.
In that regard, the Regulation draws on the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, which is not yet in force between all the Member States, and in particular not between Germany and Lithuania.
Uredba se v zvezi s tem zgleduje po pravilih v Konvenciji o pristojnosti, pravu, ki se uporablja, priznavanju, uveljavljanju in sodelovanju glede star�evske odgovornosti in ukrepov za varstvo otrok, sklenjeni v Haagu 19. oktobra 1996, ki �e ni začela veljati med vsemi državami članicami, zlasti ne med Zvezno republiko Nemčijo in Republiko Litvo.
It may be noted that, under Article 60, the Regulation takes precedence over the Convention in so far as the latter concerns matters governed by the Regulation.
Ugotovimo lahko, da Uredba v skladu s členom 60 nadome�ča Konvencijo v delu, v katerem se ta nana�a na zadeve, urejene s to uredbo.
VIEW OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-195/08 PPU
STALIŠČE E. SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU
The parents separate; custody remains joint; the child lives with the mother but maintains frequent contact with the father Divorce proceedings commence
Star�a nehata živeti skupaj; varstvo in vzgoja ostaneta skupna; otrok prebiva pri materi, vendar ima pogoste stike z očetom. Začne se postopek za razvezo.
With the father’s consent, the mother takes the child to Lithuania for two weeks’ holiday
Mati z otrokom ob soglasju očeta odide za dva tedna na počitnice v Litvo.
The mother remains in Lithuania with the child
Mati ostane z otrokom v Litvi.
The Amtsgericht (Local Court) in Oranienburg annuls joint custody and awards provisional custody to the father
Amtsgericht Oranienburg (prvostopenjsko sodišče v Oranienburgu) (Nemčija) razveljavi skupno varstvo in vzgojo ter začasno dodeli varstvo in vzgojo očetu.
The mother appeals against the Oranienburg court’s decision
Mati vloži pritožbo zoper odločbo Amtsgericht Oranienburg.
The Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht (Brandenburg Regional Appeal Court) dismisses the mother’s appeal and confirms the provisional award of custody to the father
Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg (regionalno pritožbeno sodišče v Brandenburgu) (Nemčija) zavrne pritožbo matere in potrdi začasno dodelitev varstva in vzgoje očetu.
The father asks the Klaipėda court 4 to order the child’s return to
Oče predlaga Klaipėdos apygardos teismas (regionalno sodišče v Klaipėdi) (Litva) 4 , naj odredi vrnitev otroka v Nemčijo.
The mother requests a reopening of the proceedings leading to the order of 15/3/2007, alleging new circumstances and the child’s interests, on the basis of Article 13 of the Convention
Mati predlaga obnovo postopka, v katerem je bila sprejeta odločba z dne 15. marca 2007, ter se sklicuje na nova dejstva in otrokovo korist na podlagi člena 13 Konvencije.
The State Attorney of the Republic of Lithuania requests the reopening of the same proceedings, alleging misapplication of the Convention by the Court of Appeal
Državni tožilec Republike Litve predlaga obnovo istega postopka in trdi, da je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas napačno uporabilo Konvencijo.
The Oranienburg court grants divorce, awards custody to the father, orders the child’s return and issues a certificate under Article 42 of the Regulation
Amtsgericht Oranienburg razglasi razvezo zakonske zveze ter dodeli otroka v varstvo in vzgojo očetu, odredi vrnitev otroka in izda potrdilo na podlagi člena 42 Uredbe.
The mother appeals against the award of custody and the return order
Mati se pritoži zoper dodelitev varstva in vzgoje ter odločbo o vrnitvi otroka.
On appeal by the mother and the State Attorney, the Court of Appeal confirms the dismissal of the applications for a reopening
Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas na pritožbo matere in državnega tožilca potrdi zavrnitev predlogov za obnovo postopka.
The mother applies for a decision that the Oranienburg court’s judgment of 20/6/2007 should not be recognised to the extent that it grants custody to the father and orders the child’s return
Mati predlaga, naj se izda odločba o nepriznanju odločbe Amtsgericht Oranienburg z dne 20. junija 2007 v delu, v katerem je otrok dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo očetu ter je odrejena vrnitev otroka.
The mother appeals on a point of law against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 14/9/2007
Mati vloži zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zoper odločbo Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z dne 14. septembra 2007.
On appeal by the mother and the State Attorney, the Supreme Court quashes the decisions of 19/6 and 27/8/2007on the ground of noncompliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and refers the applications for a reopening back to the Klaipėda Court
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis teismas na podlagi zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti, ki sta jo vložila mati in državni tožilec, razveljavi odločbi z dne 19. junija in 27. avgusta 2007 zaradi neupoštevanja zakonika o civilnopravnem postopku in predloga za obnovo postopka pošlje v odločanje Klaipėdos apygardos teismas.
The Brandenburg Appeal Court dismisses the mother’s appeal against the decision of 20/6/2007
Oberlandesgericht Brandenburg zavrne pritožbo matere zoper odločbo z dne 20. junija 2007.
The Klaipėda court again dismisses the applications for a reopening by the mother and the State Attorney
Klaipėdos apygardos teismas znova zavrne predloga za obnovo postopka, ki sta ju vložila mati in državni tožilec.
The Court of Appeal confirms the rejection of the applications for a reopening The Supreme Court decides to seek a preliminary ruling on six questions in the context of the appeal on a point of law against the decision of 14/9/2007
Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas potrdi zavrnitev predlogov za obnovo postopka.Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis teismas odloči, da bo postavilo šest vprašanj za predhodno odločanje v okviru zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti, vložene zoper odločbo z dne 14. septembra 2007.
The preliminary questions are received at the Court of Justice
Sodišče prejme vprašanja za predhodno odločanje.
The Supreme Court rules that the mother’s appeal on a point of law against the decisions of 21/3 and 30/4/2008 is admissible, and suspends enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s order of 15/3/2007
Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis teismas odloči, da je zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti, ki jo je vložila mati zoper odločbi z dne 21. marca in 30. aprila 2008 dopustna, ter odloži izvršitev odločbe Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z dne 15. marca 2007.
In the procedure which has given rise to the reference for a preliminary ruling, the Supreme Court of Lithuania must decide whether to quash the decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeal’s decision of 14 September 2007 dismissing the mother’s application for nonrecognition of the divorce judgment to the extent that it grants custody to the father and orders the child’s return to Germany.
Litovsko Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis teismas mora v postopku, v katerem je bila izdana predložitvena odločba, odločiti, ali je treba razveljaviti odločbo Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas z dne 14. septembra 2007, s katero je bil zavrnjen predlog matere za izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju sodbe o razvezi v delu, v katerem sta bila varstvo in vzgoja otroka dodeljena očetu ter je bila odrejena vrnitev otroka v Nemčijo.
The Court of Appeal also recalled that, on 15 March 2007, it had itself ordered the child’s return on the basis of the Regulation and the Convention.
Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas je tudi opozorilo, da je 15. marca 2007 odredilo vrnitev otroka na podlagi Uredbe in Konvencije.
The Orianenburg Court’s judgment of 20 June 2007 should therefore have been enforced directly in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation, without any special exequatur procedure.
Odločba Amtsgericht Oranienburg z dne 20. junija 2007 bi se morala torej neposredno izvr�iti v skladu z določbami poglavja III, oddelek 4, Uredbe brez posebnega postopka za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Article 11(8) of the Regulation meant that, failing proceedings to obtain recognition of the judgment, the child’s return should be ordered only when a judgment of nonreturn has been issued under Article 13 of the Convention.
Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas je zavrnilo trditev, da je iz člena 11(8) Uredbe razvidno, da se brez postopka za priznanje sodne odločbe vrnitev otroka lahko izvede samo, če se sodna odločba, da se otrok ne vrne, izda na podlagi člena 13 Konvencije.
In the Court of Appeal’s view, the wording ‘notwithstanding a judgment of non-return’ shows that, even if such a judgment has been delivered, the child’s return can be ordered under the Regulation without applying the procedure for recognition of the judgment.
Po mnenju Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas izraz „ne glede na sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne“ dokazuje, da je celo ob taki odločbi vrnitev mogoča na podlagi Uredbe, ne da bi bilo treba uporabiti postopek za priznanje sodne odločbe.
When an order for the child’s return has been made under the Convention, it must be enforced concurrently with the comparable judgment issued under the Regulation, without any prior recognition procedure (Article 42(1) of the Regulation).
Če je bila sodna odločba o vrnitvi otroka že sprejeta na podlagi Konvencije, se mora izvr�iti hkrati s podobno odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi Uredbe, brez predhodnega postopka za priznanje (člen 42(1) Uredbe).
With regard to custody, the Court of Appeal considered that the application for nonrecognition could not be examined in the absence of a request for recognition of that part of the judgment.
V zvezi z varstvom in vzgojo otroka je treba navesti, da je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas odločilo, da zaradi neobstoja predloga za priznanje tega dela sodbe predloga za nepriznanje ni mogoče preučiti.
With regard to the child’s return, the Court of Appeal had noted that, under Article 11(8) of the Regulation, notwithstanding a judgment 5 of nonreturn pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, any subsequent judgment which requires the return of the child issued by a court having jurisdiction is to be enforceable in accordance with Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation.
V zvezi z vrnitvijo otroka je treba navesti, da je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas ugotovilo, da je na podlagi člena 11(8) Uredbe ne glede na sodno odločbo 5, da se otrok ne vrne, na podlagi člena 13 Haa�ke konvencije, kakr�nakoli poznej�a sodna odločba, ki zahteva vrnitev otroka in jo izda pristojno sodi�če, izvr�ljiva v skladu z oddelkom 4 poglavja III.
By virtue of Article 42(1), which forms part of that section, any such subsequent judgment is to be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition, provided that it is enforceable and has been certified in the Member State of origin.
Na podlagi člena 42(1), ki je del tega oddelka, se taka poznej�a sodna odločba prizna in je izvr�ljiva v drugi državi članici, ne da bi bila potrebna razglasitev izvr�ljivosti in brez možnosti nasprotovanja njenemu priznanju, če je izvr�ljiva in je bilo o njej v državi članici izvora izdano potrdilo.
The Oranienburg court had issued the relevant certificate, indicating that all the conditions required for such issue were met.
Amtsgericht Oranienburg je izdalo zadevno potrdilo in navedlo, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, zahtevani za njegovo izdajo.
Since its judgment should have been immediately enforced without any special exequatur procedure, the application for a declaration of nonrecognition was inadmissible.
Ker bi se morala ta sodna odločba izvr�iti neposredno brez posebnega postopka za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti, je bil predlog za nepriznanje te odločbe nedopusten.
5 — According to Article 2(4) of the Regulation, the term ‘judgment’ means a divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, as well as a judgment relating to parental responsibility, pronounced by a court of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order or decision.
5 – V skladu s členom 2(4) Uredbe „sodna odločba“ pomeni odločbo o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, pa tudi sodno odločbo, ki se nana�a na star�evsko odgovornost in jo je izdalo sodi�če države članice, ne glede na to, kak�no je ime sodne odločbe, vključno s sklepom, odredbo ali odločbo.
A number of issues of interpretation arose in the course of the Supreme Court’s exam -ination of the further appeal on a point of law.
Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis teismas se je pri preučitvi zahteve za varstvo zakonitosti pojavilo nekaj vpra�anj o razlagi.
First, Article 21(3) of the Regulation provides that any interested party may apply for a decision that the judgment should or should not be recognised.
Najprej, v členu 21(3) Uredbe je določeno, da lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka zahteva izdajo odločbe o priznanju oziroma nepriznanju.
In accordance with Article 31(1), the person against whom enforcement is sought is not entitled to make any submissions on that application.
V skladu s členom 31(1) oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev, nima možnosti podajati izjav.
In the present case, the person against whom enforcement is sought has applied for a decision that the judgment should not be recognised, while the other party has not made any application for a decision that it should be recognised.
V obravnavani zadevi je predlog za nepriznanje vložila oseba, proti kateri naj bi se odločba izvr�ila, medtem ko druga stranka ni vložila predloga za priznanje.
In those circumstances, can the person against whom enforcement is sought apply for a decision that the judgment should not be recognised and, if so, how is Article 31(1) to be interpreted?
Ali lahko v teh okoli�činah oseba, proti kateri se mora izvr�iti odločba, zahteva nepriznanje te odločbe, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, kako je treba razlagati člen 31(1)?
issued an order on nonreturn pursuant to Article 13 of the Convention, it must transmit a copy of that order to the court with jurisdiction in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful retention.
s členom 13 Konvencije izdalo sodno odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, poslati kopijo pristojnemu sodi�ču v državi članici, v kateri je otrok običajno prebival pred neupravičenim zadržanjem.
Consequently, in the present case the German court would be entitled to rule on the question of the child’s return only if the Lithuanian court decided to refuse return.
Iz tega naj bi bilo v obravnavani zadevi razvidno, da bi nem�ko sodi�če lahko odločalo o vrnitvi otroka samo, če bi litovsko sodi�če odločilo, da se otrok ne vrne.
If the German court then ordered the child’s return and issued a certificate, that decision would be directly recognised and enforceable in Lithuania without any special exequatur procedure (Articles 11(8) and 42 of the Regulation).
Če bi nem�ko sodi�če odredilo vrnitev otroka in izdalo potrdilo, bi bila ta odločba neposredno priznana in izvr�ljiva v Litvi brez posebnega postopka za priznanje izvr�ljivosti (člena 11(8) in 42 Uredbe).
But, as the Lithuanian Court of Appeal had already ordered the child’s return, did the German court have jurisdiction to examine the question under Article 11 and issue a certificate under Article 42?
Ali je torej nem�ko sodi�če, ker je Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas že odredilo vrnitev otroka, pristojno za preučitev tega vpra�anja na podlagi člena 11 in izdajo potrdila na podlagi člena 42?
Was it compatible with the aims and procedures of the Regulation to order the child’s return and issue the certificate?
Ali sta bila sprejetje odločbe o vrnitvi otroka in izdaja potrdila v skladu s cilji in postopki Uredbe?
Next, according to Article 40(2) of the Regulation, the provisions of Section 4 are not to prevent a holder of parental responsibility from seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment.
Nato, v skladu s členom 40(2) Uredbe določbe oddelka 4 ne preprečujejo nosilcu star�evske odgovornosti, da zahteva priznanje in izvr�itev sodne odločbe. V obravnavani zadevi je mati vložila predlog za nepriznanje pri Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas.