natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, according to Article 21(3) (without prejudice to Section 4 — which, as I have indicated, is not relevant for decisions awarding custody), ‘any interested party may, in accordance with
Vendar v skladu z odstavkom 3 (brez poseganja v oddelek 4 tega poglavja – ki, kot sem navedla, ni pomemben za odločbe o dodelitvi varstva in vzgoje otroka) „lahko vsaka zainteresirana stranka
According to Article 21(3), it seems that the person against whom a decision might be enforced (who is quite clearly an ‘interested party’) may apply
Glede na člen 21(3) se zdi, da oseba, proti kateri se lahko izvr�i odločba (ki je očitno „zainteresirana
RINAU for a declaration that the decision should not be recognised, but Article 31(1) appears to exclude any possibility for that person 23to make submissions on the application at that stage.
RINAU stranka“), lahko zahteva izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju te odločbe, vendar se zdi, da je v členu 31(1) izključena možnost, da ta oseba 23 predloži predloge v tej fazi.
Regulation. It is clear that the Community legislature intended all such judgments to enjoy, systematically, automatic recognition on the basis of the principle of mutual trust (see recitals 21 and 23 in the preamble).
Jasno je, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti želel, da bi se vse te sodne odločbe sistematično samodejno priznale na podlagi načela medsebojnega zaupanja (glej uvodni izjavi 21 in 23 Uredbe).
However, Article 21(3) allows an application for a decision that a judgment should, or should not, be recognised ‘in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 2 of this Chapter’.
V skladu z odstavkom 3 tega člena pa je vseeno dovoljeno zahtevati izdajo odločbe o priznanju oziroma nepriznanju „v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2“.
Since Section 2 concerns applications for a declaration of enforceability, I infer that it deals with situations in which recognition and enforcement are both required.
Ker se oddelek 2 nana�a na zahteve za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti, iz tega sklepam, da gre za položaje, v katerih sta potrebna priznanje in izvr�itev.
That is the case with the award of custody to the father in the present case, since the mother does not agree.
Tako je pri dodelitvi varstva in vzgoje otroka očetu v obravnavani zadevi, saj ji mati nasprotuje.
It is, moreover, clear from Article 31 of the Regulation that the procedure for obtaining a declaration of enforceability (which thus covers applications for recognition and non-recognition) must be simplified and expeditious.
Poleg tega je iz člena 31 Uredbe jasno razvidno, da mora biti postopek za razglasitev izvr�ljivosti (ki torej vključuje predloge za priznanje in nepriznanje) hiter in poenostavljen.
That appears perfectly in accordance with the principle of automatic recognition on the basis of mutual trust.
To se zdi popolnoma v skladu z načelom samodejnosti priznanja na podlagi medsebojnega zaupanja.
In some contexts, those two concepts necessarily go hand in hand.
V nekaterih okoli�činah ta pojma nujno spadata skupaj.
That is so, for example, of a judgment entailing a child’s return, where it would make no sense to recognise the judgment without making it enforceable.
Tako je predvsem pri sodni odločbi, s katero se odreja vrnitev otroka in za katero priznanje veljavnosti brez razglasitve izvr�ljivosti ne bi bilo smiselno.
By contrast, there is no need to confer ‘enforceability’ on a divorce judgment in order to allow one of the former spouses to remarry; mere recognition that the judgment is valid will suffice.
Nasprotno ni treba razglasiti „izvr�ljivosti“ odločbe o razvezi, da bi se eden ali drugi od nekdanjih zakoncev lahko znova poročil; zadostuje samo priznanje veljavnosti odločbe.
As regards a decision on the exercise of parental responsibility, it will depend on the circumstances.
V zvezi z odločbo o izvr�evanju star�evske odgovornosti je to odvisno od okoli�čin.
If the parent to whom the exercise of that responsibility is not awarded is recalcitrant, a declaration of enforceability will be needed.
Če se tisti od star�ev, ki mu ni bilo dodeljeno izvr�evanje te odgovornosti, ne strinja, bo potrebna razglasitev izvr�ljivosti.
If the parents are in agreement, mere recognition will be enough.
Če pa se star�i strinjajo, zadostuje zgolj priznanje.
Chapter III, Section 1, of the Regulation concerns recognition.
Oddelek 1 poglavja III Uredbe se nana�a na priznanje.
Article 21(1) provides for automatic recognition for any judgment falling within the scope of the
V členu 21(1) je določeno, da je to priznanje samodejno za vse sodne odločbe, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Uredbe.
23 — Even if it may seem a little odd, when a decision awards custody to one parent, to speak of enforcing that decision against the other parent, it seems to me clear from the scheme of Chapter III, Section 2, of the Regulation that the concept of ‘person against whom enforcement is sought’ covers a parent to whom custody was not awarded.
23 – Čeprav se mogoče lahko zdi nekoliko nenavadno, kadar se varstvo in vzgoja z odločbo dodelita enemu od star�ev, reči izvršiti to odločbo proti drugemu od star�ev, se mi zdi, da je iz sistematike poglavja III, oddelek 2, Uredbe jasno razvidno, da pojem „oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev“ pokriva tistega od star�ev, ki mu otrok ni bil dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo.
Thus, any request for recognition or nonrecognition of a decision awarding custody of a child must comply with the procedures of Section 2.
Tako mora biti vsak predlog za priznanje ali nepriznanje odločbe, s katero se dodelita varstvo in vzgoja otroka, v skladu s postopki iz oddelka 2.
The problem which appears to arise in a context such as that of the present case is the apparent inequality of arms as between the parties, in the light of the wording of Article 31(1).
V okoli�činah, kakr�ne so v obravnavani zadevi, se postavlja vpra�anje očitne neenakosti orožij obeh strank glede na besedilo člena 31(1).
If the parent awarded custody wishes to have the decision recognised and enforced, that parent may make such submissions as he or she sees fit,
Če tisti od star�ev, ki mu je bil otrok dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo, zahteva priznanje in izvr�itev odločbe, ima možnost predložiti predloge, ki se mu zdijo primerni, medtem ko drugi
VIEW OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-195/08 PPU whereas the same opportunity is not available to the other parent.
STALIŠČE E. SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU od star�ev te možnosti nima.
However, if the other parent seeks a decision of non-recogni-tion, the situation is not reversed, at least on a literal reading of the provision.
Nasprotno, če drugi od star�ev zahteva izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju, položaj ni obrnjen, vsaj ne, če določbo beremo dobesedno.
event verify whether any of the grounds of nonrecognition referred to in Article 31(2) are present.
pri katerem je bil vložen predlog, vsekakor preveriti morebitni obstoj razlogov za nepriznanje, na katere se sklicuje člen 31(2).
And those are the only grounds which the other parent could have raised.
To pa so edini razlogi, na katere bi se lahko skliceval drugi od star�ev.
That parent is deprived therefore only of the possibility of developing his or her arguments concerning the grounds for refusal.
Temu je torej odvzeta le možnost, da predstavi trditve v zvezi z razlogi za zavrnitev.
In the submissions to the Court, it has been suggested that Article 31(1), which appears to be directed above all at applications for recognition or enforcement, should be interpreted either as applicable to applications for nonrecognition mutatis mutandis (that is to say, by reading ‘the person against whom enforcement is sought’ as ‘the person opposing the application’) or as inapplicable to such applications.
V stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču, se je predlagalo, naj se člen 31(1), za katerega se zdi, da se nana�a predvsem na predloge za priznanje ali razglasitev izvr�ljivosti, razlaga bodisi tako, da se mutatis mutandis uporablja za predloge za nepriznanje (torej, da se izraz „oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvr�itev“ razlaga kot „oseba, ki nasprotuje zahtevi“), bodisi tako, da se ne more uporabljati za take predloge.
On the other hand, when it is the latter parent who seeks nonrecognition of the decision, the application must necessarily be made by a document which sets out the grounds of nonrecognition adduced.
Po drugi strani, kadar zadnjenavedeni od star�ev predlaga nepriznanje sodne odločbe, se predlog lahko vloži samo z vlogo, v kateri so navedeni zatrjevani razlogi za nepriznanje.
Even if that parent cannot expand further on those grounds at that stage of the proceedings, whereas the parent awarded custody may make such submissions as seem appropriate, his or her point of view will in any event be taken into account by the court seised.
Čeprav ta od star�ev ne more več predstaviti trditev v tej fazi, medtem ko tisti od star�ev, ki mu je bil otrok dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo, lahko predloži predloge, ki se mu zdijo potrebni, bo sodi�če, pri katerem je bil vložen predlog, vsekakor upo�tevalo njegovo stali�če.
The situation is, in fact, one of a procedure limited to a single exchange of arguments between the parties, and it is hardly extraordinary in the context of a simplified and expeditious procedure.
Gre za postopek, omejen na samo eno izmenjavo trditev med strankama, kar ni nenavadno v hitrem in poenostavljenem postopku.
In both cases, either party can appeal under adversarial rules, by virtue of Article 33 of the Regulation.
V obeh primerih se lahko obe stranki pritožita v skladu s pravili kontradiktornega postopka na podlagi člena 33 Uredbe.
I do not, however, consider that there is any overriding reason to reject a literal interpretation and application.
Menim, da ni nobenega nujnega razloga za zavrnitev dobesedne razlage in uporabe.
The inequality of arms cannot be denied, but it accords with the primacy attached to mutual trust and recognition, it is less significant than one might suppose, and it is not such as to deprive the disadvantaged party of any possibility of presenting his or her arguments.
Neenakosti orožij ni mogoče zanikati, vendar je v skladu s prednostjo, dodeljeno vzajemnemu zaupanju in priznavanju, je manj�a, kot bi lahko mislili, in stranki v slab�em položaju ne more odvzeti možnosti, da predstavi svoje trditve.
The system established thus provides a reasonable balance between the aim of ensuring the recognition and enforcement of judgments, on the basis of the principle of mutual trust, by means of a simplified and expeditious procedure, and the right to a fair hearing, which, in fact, is denied to neither
Uvedeni sistem tako zagotavlja razumno ravnotežje med ciljem zagotavljanja priznavanja in izvr�itve sodnih odločb na podlagi načela medsebojnega zaupanja s hitrim in poenostavljenim postopkom in pravico do po�tenega sojenja, ki nazadnje ni
On the one hand, in the case of an application for recognition and enforceability brought by the parent awarded custody, it is clear that the court seised must in any party.
Po eni strani je ob predlogu za priznanje in razglasitev izvr�ljivosti, ki ga vloži tisti od star�ev, ki mu je bil otrok dodeljen v varstvo in vzgojo, očitno, da mora sodi�če, odvzeta nobeni stranki.
For all the reasons I have set out above, I suggest that, in reply to the questions raised by the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court should rule that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 are to be interpreted to the effect that:
Iz vseh razlogov, ki sem jih predstavila zgoraj, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis teismas, odgovori:
— the adoption of a decision ordering the return of the child by the court of the Member State of habitual residence after the court of the Member State where the child is actually present has ordered his or her return is in no way incompatible with the aims and procedural rules of the Regulation;
– dejstvo, da sodi�če države članice običajnega prebivali�ča izda odločbo o vrnitvi otroka, potem ko je sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, izdalo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka, nikakor ni nezdružljivo s cilji in postopki Uredbe;
— in principle, the issue of a certificate under Article 42 of the Regulation by the court of the Member State of habitual residence, in respect of a return order which it has made after the court of the Member State where the child is actually present has itself ordered his or her return does not comply with the procedural rules of the Regulation;
– izdaja potrdila iz člena 42 Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 s strani sodi�ča države članice običajnega prebivali�ča otroka o odločbi o vrnitvi otroka, ki jo je to sodi�če izdalo po tem, ko je sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, sámo sprejelo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka, načeloma ni v skladu s postopki Uredbe;
— the fact that a nonreturn decision is issued by a court of the Member State where the child is actually present is sufficient to trigger the procedures provided for in Article 11(6) to (8) of the Regulation, whatever the subsequent fate of the decision, and in particular even if it is later appealed against or quashed;
– dejstvo, da je odločbo, da se otrok ne vrne, izdalo sodi�če države članice, v kateri je otrok, je dovolj za začetek postopkov iz člena 11, od (6) do (8), Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 ne glede na poznej�o usodo te odločbe, pa čeprav je nato zoper njo vložena pritožba ali je razveljavljena;
— when a court of a Member State has issued a judgment ordering the return of a child and has certified that judgment in accordance with the provisions of Article 42(2) of the Regulation, its competence to do so can be challenged only by appealing against the decision to the appropriate higher court of the same Member State, which precludes any possibility of review by the courts of the requested Member State;
– če je sodi�če države članice izdalo odločbo o vrnitvi otroka in potrdilo o tej odločbi v skladu s členom 42(2) Uredbe �t. 2201/2003, se njegova pristojnost za to lahko izpodbija samo z vložitvijo pritožbe zoper odločbo pri pristojnem vi�jem sodi�ču iste države članice, kar izključuje preverjanje s strani sodi�č zapro�ene države članice;
— when such a certificate has been issued, it is not possible to oppose recognition of the certified decision or, a fortiori, to make a separate application for a declaration that it should not be recognised;
– če se izda tako potrdilo, ni mogoče nasprotovati priznanju odločbe, o kateri je bilo izdano potrdilo, niti a fortiori vložiti ločenega predloga za izdajo odločbe o nepriznanju;
— in the case of other judicial decisions, opposition to which is not precluded by Article 42 of the Regulation, an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 may request nonrecognition without any prior application for recognition having been brought;
– pri drugih sodnih odločbah, za katere v členu 42 Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 ni izključeno nasprotovanje njihovemu priznanju, zainteresirana stranka v smislu člena 21 navedene uredbe lahko zahteva njihovo nepriznanje, ne da bi bil pred tem vložen predlog za priznanje;
— in such a case, Article 31(1) of the Regulation allows such a party to set out the grounds for nonrecognition adduced in the application, but not to respond to the arguments of the other party at that stage in the proceedings.
– v takem primeru določbe člena 31(1) Uredbe �t. 2201/2003 tej stranki dovoljujejo, da v predlogu predstavi zatrjevane razloge za nepriznanje, vendar ne sme odgovoriti na trditve druge stranke v tej fazi postopka.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 11. julija 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania), made by decision of 30 April 2008, received at the Court on 14 May 2008, in the proceedings brought by
V zadevi C-195/08 PPU, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Lietuvos Auk�čiausiasis Teismas (Litva) z odločbo z dne 30. aprila 2008, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 14. maja 2008, v postopku, ki ga je sprožila
Registrars: C. Strömholm, Administrator, and M.A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the request of the referring court, of 21 May 2008, received at the Court on 22 May 2008, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under an urgent procedure pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure,
Gaudissart, vodja oddelka, na podlagi predloga predložitvenega sodi�ča z dne 21. maja 2008, ki je na Sodi�če prispel 22. maja, da se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnava po nujnem postopku v skladu s členom 104b Poslovnika,
* Language of the case: Lithuanian.
* Jezik postopka: litov�čina.
JUDGMENT OF 11. 7.
SODBA Z DNE 11. 7.
2008 — CASE C-195/08 PPU having regard to the decision of 23 May 2008 of the Third Chamber granting that request, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 26 and 27 June 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU na podlagi odločbe tretjega senata z dne 23. maja 2008, da se temu predlogu ugodi, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 26. in 27. junija 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, so jih predložili:
— the French Government, by A.-L. During, acting as Agent,
– za francosko vlado A.-L. During, zastopnica,
— the Netherlands Government, by C. ten Dam, acting as Agent,
– za nizozemsko vlado C. ten Dam, zastopnica,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents, after hearing the Advocate General, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët in A. Steiblytė, zastopnici, po opredelitvi generalne pravobranilke izreka naslednjo
2008 — CASE C-195/08 PPU
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU
The 1980 Hague Convention
Haaška konvencija iz leta 1980
Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’) provides:
Člen 3 Haa�ke konvencije z dne 25. oktobra 1980 o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok (v nadaljevanju: Haa�ka konvencija iz leta 1980) določa:
(b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
„Šteje se, da je otrok nezakonito odpeljan ali zadržan: a) če so s tem kr�ene pravice do skrbi zanj, ki jih je dobila oseba, in�titucija ali katerokoli drugo bodisi kolektivno bodisi posamično telo po zakonu države, v kateri je otrok stalno prebival, preden je bil odpeljan ali zadržan; b) če so se v času, ko je bil otrok odpeljan ali zadržan, te pravice uveljavljale bodisi kolektivno bodisi posamično ali bi se uveljavljale, če otrok ne bi bil odpeljan ali zadržan.
The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph (a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.’
Pravice do skrbi za otroka, omenjene v prvem odstavku pod a), se lahko pridobijo predvsem z izvajanjem zakona ali na podlagi sodne ali upravne odločbe ali na podlagi sporazuma, ki ima pravni učinek po zakonu zadevne države.“
Under Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention:
Člen 12 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 določa:
‘Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.
„Če je bil otrok nezakonito odpeljan ali zadržan po 3. členu [in je] na dan, ko se je začel postopek pred sodnim ali upravnim organom [države] pogodbenice, v kateri je otrok, […] minilo manj kot leto dni od dneva, ko je bil nezakonito odpeljan ali zadržan, odredi pristojni organ takoj�njo vrnitev otroka.
The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.
Tudi če se je […] postopek začel po poteku enoletnega roka iz prej�njega odstavka, odredi sodni ali upravni organ vrnitev otroka, če se ne dokaže, da se je otrok prilagodil novemu okolju.
Where the judicial or administrative authority in the requested State has reason to believe that the child has been taken to another State, it may stay the proceedings or dismiss the application for the return of the child.’
Če sodni ali upravni organ v državi, ki ji je bila poslana zahteva, upravičeno verjame, da je bil otrok odpeljan v kak�no drugo državo, lahko ustavi postopek ali zavrže pro�njo za vrnitev otroka.“
Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention provides:
Člen 13 Haa�ke konvencije iz leta 1980 določa:
(a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
„Sodnemu ali upravnemu organu države, ki ji je bila poslana zahteva, ne glede na določbe prej�njega člena ni treba odrediti vrnitve otroka, če oseba, in�titucija ali kak�no drugo telo, ki nasprotuje njegovi vrnitvi, dokaže: a) da v času, ko je bil otrok odpeljan ali zadržan, oseba, in�titucija ali drugo telo, ki skrbi za otrokovo osebnost, ni dejansko uveljavljalo [izvajalo] pravice do skrbi zanj ali da se je strinjalo ali pozneje pristalo, da se otrok odpelje ali zadrži;
(b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-195/08 PPU b) da obstaja resna nevarnost, da bi bil otrok zaradi vrnitve izpostavljen telesnemu nasilju ali du�evni travmi ali kako drugače pripeljan v neugoden položaj.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
Prav tako lahko sodni ali upravni organ zavrne, da odredi otrokovo vrnitev, če ugotovi, da otrok nasprotuje vrnitvi in da je dopolnil tisto starost in je na taki stopnji zrelosti, ko je treba upo�tevati njegovo mnenje.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority [of the State] of the child’s habitual residence.’
Pri obravnavi okoli�čin iz tega člena upo�tevata sodni in upravni organ podatke o otrokovem socialnem poreklu [položaju], ki jih dobita od centralnega izvr�ilnega organa ali kak�nega drugega pristojnega organa države, v kateri je otrokovo stalno prebivali�če.“
The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force on 1 December 1983.
Haa�ka konvencija iz leta 1980 je začela veljati 1. decembra 1983.
All the Member States of the European Union are contracting parties to that convention.
Vse države članice Evropske unije so njene pogodbenice.
Recital 17 in the preamble to the Regulation states:
Uvodna izjava 17 Uredbe se glasi:
‘In cases of wrongful removal or retention of a child, the return of the child should be obtained without delay, and to this end the [1980 Hague Convention] would continue to apply as complemented by the provisions of this Regulation, in particular Article 11.
„V primerih neupravičene premestitve ali zadržanja otroka je treba nemudoma doseči otrokovo vrnitev in v ta namen se Haa�ka konvencija [iz leta 1980] uporablja �e naprej, kot je bila dopolnjena z določbami te uredbe, zlasti s členom 11.
The courts of the Member State to or in which the child has been wrongfully removed or retained should be able to oppose his or her return in specific, duly justified cases.
Sodi�ča države članice, v katero ali v kateri je bil otrok neupravičeno preme�čen ali zadržan, bi morala biti upravičena do nasprotovanja otrokovi vrnitvi v posebnih, ustrezno utemeljenih primerih.