natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court thus held that in the case giving rise to the judgment in Hengst Import the document which instituted the proceedings was constituted by the combination of the order to pay (‘decreto ingiuntivo’) issued by an Italian court in accordance with Article 641 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and the plaintiff’s application.
Sodi�če je tako presodilo, da sta v zadevi, ki je bila podlaga za zgoraj navedeno sodbo Hengst Import, tožbo sestavljala sklep o plačilnem nalogu (decreto ingiuntivo), ki ga je italijanski sodnik izdal v skladu s členom 641 italijanskega zakona o pravdnem postopku, in predlog tožeče stranke.
It is the joint service of both those documents which starts time running for the defendant to oppose the order.
S skupno vročitvijo teh dveh listin začne namreč teči rok, v katerem lahko tožena stranka vloži ugovor.
Moreover, the plaintiff cannot obtain an enforceable order before the expiry of that timelimit (Hengst Import, paragraph 20).
Tožeča stranka pa pred iztekom tega roka ne more pridobiti izvr�ljive odločbe (zgoraj navedena sodba Hengst Import, točka 20).
Conversely, service of the application alone does not enable the defendant to decide whether to defend the action since, without the ‘decreto ingiuntivo’, he does not know whether the court had granted or refused the application.
Nasprotno pa tožena stranka na podlagi vročitve predloga ne more ugotoviti, ali naj pripravi svojo obrambo, saj brez decreto ingiuntivo ne ve, ali je sodnik predlog sprejel ali zavrnil.
Moreover, the requirement for joint service of the ‘decreto ingiuntivo ’and the application was confirmed by Article 643 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, according to which it marked the start of the proceedings (Hengst Import, paragraph 21).
Sicer pa je nujnost dvojne vročitve decreto ingiuntivo in predloga potrjena tudi v členu 643 italijanskega zakona o pravdnem postopku, iz katerega izhaja, da pomeni začetek postopka (zgoraj navedena sodba Hengst Import, točka 21).
It is apparent from that autonomous definition of the document instituting the proceedings, as interpreted by the Court, that such a document must consist of the document or documents, where they are intrinsically linked, enabling the defendant to understand the subjectmatter and grounds of the plaintiff’s application and to be aware of the existence of legal proceedings in which he may assert his rights, either by defending a pending action or, as was the case in the matter giving rise to the judgment in Hengst Import, by challenging a judgment delivered on the basis of an ex parte application.
Iz samostojnega pojma tožbe, kot ga razlaga Sodi�če, izhaja, da mora tako pisanje obsegati listino ali listine, če so te neločljivo povezane, na podlagi katerih se lahko tožena stranka seznani s predmetom in razlogi zahtevka tožeče stranke ter z obstojem sodnega postopka, v katerem lahko uveljavlja svoje pravice, in sicer tako, da se v postopku brani ali pa, kot se je to zgodilo v zadevi, ki je bila podlaga za zgoraj navedeno sodbo Hengst Import, da vloži pravno sredstvo zoper odločbo, ki je bila izdana na podlagi enostranskega predloga.
Moreover, as was pointed out at paragraph 43 above, under some national legal systems there is no requirement for the documentary evidence in a case to be annexed to what is defined as a document instituting the proceedings and they may be communicated separately.
Poleg tega, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 43 te sodbe, nekateri nacionalni pravni redi ne predvidevajo, da bi morala biti pisanju, ki je opredeljeno kot tožba, priložena dokazila, temveč dopu�čajo ločeno predložitev teh pisanj.
Such documents are not therefore regarded as intrinsically linked to the document instituting the proceedings, in that they are essential to enable the defendant to understand the claim brought against him and to be aware of the existence of the legal proceedings, but have a probative function which is distinct from the purpose of service itself.
Taka pisanja se torej ne obravnavajo kot neločljivo povezana s tožbo v tem smislu, da se tožena stranka brez njih ne bi mogla seznaniti z zahtevkom proti njej in z obstojem sodnega postopka, ampak opravljajo dokazno funkcijo, ločeno od predmeta vročitve ali same vročitve.
It is appropriate to note that the conditions for recognition of judgments laid down in Regulation No 44/2001 have been relaxed by comparison with the conditions laid down in the Brussels Convention.
V zvezi s tem ni odveč opozoriti, da so pogoji za priznanje odločb v Uredbi �t. 44/2001 milej�i od tistih v Bruseljski konvenciji.
Article 34(2) of that regulation departed from the requirement in Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention that the document instituting the proceedings be duly served, in order to place the emphasis on effective observance of the rights of the defence, which are considered to have been observed when the defendant is aware of the pending legal action and has been able to commence proceedings to challenge a judgment entered against him (see, to that effect, ASML, paragraphs 20 and 21).
Člen 34, točka 2, te uredbe namreč opu�ča zahtevo po pravilnosti tožbe, ki jo je vseboval člen 27, točka 2, Bruseljske konvencije, in poudarja dejansko spo�tovanje pravic obrambe, pri čemer se �teje, da se te spo�tujejo, če je bila tožena stranka seznanjena s tekom sodnega postopka in je lahko vložila pravno sredstvo zoper odločbo, izdano proti njej (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo ASML, točki 20 in 21).
That change in Regulation No 44/2201 by comparison with the Brussels Convention supports the interpretation of the term ‘document to be served’ — where that consists of a document instituting the proceedings — that such a document must include the essential information enabling a defendant to be aware primarily of the existence of legal proceedings but not of every item of documentary evidence which makes it possible to prove the various facts and points of law on which the application is based.
Ta sprememba v Uredbi �t. 44/2001 glede na Bruseljsko konvencijo podpira razlago pojma pisanja za vročitev – če je to pisanje tožba –, v skladu s katero mora tako pisanje vsebovati bistvene elemente, da se tožena stranka lahko seznani predvsem z obstojem sodnega postopka, ne pa tudi vseh dokazil, s katerimi se dokazujejo različni dejanski in pravni elementi, na katerih temelji zahtevek.
It follows from the above considerations that the term ‘document to be served’ in Article 8 of Regulation No 1348/2000, where such a document consists of a document
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba pojem pisanja za vročitev iz člena 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, če je to pisanje tožba, razlagati tako, da dokazila, ki opravljajo zgolj dokazno funkcijo
2008 — CASE C-14/07 instituting the proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that documentary evidence which has a purely evidential function and is not intrinsically linked to the application in so far as it is not necessary for understanding the subjectmatter of the claim and the cause of action does not form an integral part of that document.
2008 – ZADEVA C-14/07 in niso neločljivo povezana s tožbo, tako da bi bila nujna za razumevanje predmeta in podlage tožnikovega zahtevka, niso njen sestavni del.
It is possible from an examination of the term ‘document’, as follows from the ECHR and, in particular, Article 6(3)(a) of that convention, referred to at paragraph 57 above, to reach a similar conclusion as regards criminal proceedings.
Preučitev pojma pisanja, kot izhaja iz EKČP in zlasti iz njenega člena 6(3)(a), na katerega je opozorjeno v točki 57 te sodbe, vodi k podobnemu sklepu v zvezi s kazenskimi zadevami.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, an indictment must enable the person charged to be informed not only of the cause of the accusation against him, that is the acts he is alleged to have committed and on which the accusation is based, but also of the detailed legal characterisation of those facts (see judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 March 1999, Pélissier and Sassi v France, ECHR 1999-II, § 51, and of 19 December 2006, Mattei v France, No 34043/02, § 34).
Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice namreč meni, da mora obtožnica obdolžencu omogočiti, da se seznani ne le z vzrokom za obtožbo, torej z materialnimi dejstvi, ki ga bremenijo in na katerih temelji obtožba, temveč tudi s pravno opredelitvijo teh dejstev, in to podrobno (glej sodbi Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice v zadevi Pélissier in Sassi proti Franciji z dne 25. marca 1999, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1999-II, točka 51, ter v zadevi Mattei proti Franciji z dne 19. decembra 2006, �t.
On the other hand, the rights of the defence are not undermined by the mere fact that the indictment does not include the evidence in support of the facts on which the accused stands charged.
34043/02, točka 34). Nasprotno pravice obrambe ne ogroža sàmo dejstvo, da obtožnica ne vključuje vseh dokazil o dejstvih, ki bremenijo obdolženca.
Ruling in respect of Article 6(3)(e) of the ECHR, under which a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to an interpreter, the European Court of Human Rights has also held that that right does not go so far as to require a written translation of all items of written evidence or official documents in the procedure (judgment of 19 December 1989, Kamasinski v Austria, Series A, No 168, § 74).
V zvezi s členom 6(3)(e) EKČP, ki obdolžencu priznava pravico do pomoči tolmača, je Evropsko sodi�če presodilo tudi, da na podlagi te pravice ni mogoče zahtevati pisnega prevoda vseh pisnih dokazil ali uradnih listin v spisu (Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice, sodba z dne 19. decembra 1989 v zadevi Kamasinski proti Avstriji, serija A, �t. 168, točka 74).
As is apparent from the conclusion at paragraph 57 above, the requirements for the protection of the rights of the defence are not as stringent in civil and commercial matters as they are in criminal proceedings.
Iz ugotovitve v točki 57 te sodbe pa izhaja, da varstvo pravic obrambe v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah ne vključuje tako obsežnih zahtev kot v kazenskih zadevah.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the term ‘document to be served’ in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000, where such a document is a document instituting the proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning the document or documents
Glede na vse to je treba pojem „pisanje za vročitev“ iz člena 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, če je to pisanje tožba, razlagati kot pisanje ali pisanja, katerih pravočasna vročitev toženi stranki omogoča uveljavljanje njenih pravic v okviru sodnega postopka v
Documents which have a purely evidential function and are not necessary for the purpose of understanding the subjectmatter of the claim and the cause of action do not form an integral part of the document instituting the proceedings within the meaning of Regulation No 1348/2000.
Listine, ki opravljajo zgolj dokazno funkcijo in niso nujne za razumevanje predmeta in podlage zahtevka, niso sestavni del tožbe v smislu Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
That interpretation is consistent with the objectives of Regulation No 1348/2000 to improve and expedite the transmission of documents.
Taka razlaga je v skladu s ciljem izbolj�anega in hitrej�ega po�iljanja pisanj iz Uredbe �t. 1348/2000.
Indeed, it can take a long time to translate supporting documents and, in any event, such translation is not necessary for the purposes of the action which will take place before the court of the Member State of transmission and in the language of that State.
Prevajanje dokazil lahko namreč zahteva precej časa, medtem ko se tega prevoda vsekakor ne zahteva za potrebe postopka, ki teče pred sodi�čem države članice prosilke in v jeziku te države.
It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting the proceedings enables the defendant to assert his rights in the Member State of transmission and, in particular, to identify the subjectmatter and the cause of action as well as to be aware of the existence of the legal proceedings.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali tožena stranka glede na vsebino tožbe lahko uveljavi svoje pravice v državi prosilki in se zlasti seznani s predmetom in podlago zahtevka proti njej ter obstojem sodnega postopka.
If the national court considers that the content is inadequate in that regard on the ground that certain necessary information relating to the application is to be found in the annexes, it must endeavour to resolve that problem in accordance with its national procedural law, taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of Regulation No 1348/2000, in compliance with its objective (see, to that effect, Leffler, paragraph 69), while according maximum protection to the interests of both parties to the dispute.
Če nacionalno sodi�če presodi, da ta vsebina za navedene namene ne zado�ča, ker so bistveni elementi v zvezi z zahtevkom v prilogah, si mora za re�itev te težave prizadevati v okviru svojega nacionalnega procesnega prava, pri čemer mora zagotoviti polni učinek Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ob upo�tevanju njenega namena (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Leffler, točka 69) in ob najbolj�em mogočem varovanju interesov obeh strank.
2008 — CASE C-14/07 forwarding one as soon as possible in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation No 1348/2000.
2008 – ZADEVA C-14/07 učinka po�iljanja prevoda na datum vročitve je Sodi�če presodilo, da ga je treba določiti po analogiji s sistemom dvojnega datuma iz člena 9(1) in (2) Uredbe �t.
The Court has held that the effect that sending a translation has on the date of service should be determined by analogy with the double-date system developed in Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1348/2000 (Leffler, paragraphs 65 to 67) in order to protect the parties’ interests.
1348/2000 (zgoraj navedena sodba Leffler, točke od 65 do 67), da se tako zavarujejo interesi strank.
By its second question, posed in the event that the answer to the first is that the addressee of a document may refuse to accept it if the annexes to that document are not translated, the Bundesgerichtshof asks whether Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document to be served is deemed to ‘understand’ the language of a Member State of transmission
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem, ki ga je zastavilo za primer, če bi iz odgovora izhajalo, da naslovnik pisanja lahko zavrne sprejem, če priloge k temu pisanju niso prevedene, spra�uje, ali je treba člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da naslovnik pisanja za vročitev „razume“ jezik države članice prosilke v smislu te uredbe že zato, ker se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi s tožečo stranko dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku te države članice prosilke.
In view of the reservation formulated to the answer to the first question, it is necessary to answer the second question.
Upo�tevajoč omejitve, ki izhajajo iz odgovora na prvo vpra�anje, je na drugo vpra�anje treba odgovoriti.
In order to establish whether the addressee of a document served understands the language of the Member State of transmission in which the document is written, the court must examine all the relevant evidence submitted by the applicant.
Da bi ugotovilo, ali naslovnik vročenega pisanja razume jezik države članice prosilke, v katerem je napisano pisanje, mora sodi�če preučiti vse navedbe, ki mu jih v zvezi s tem predloži tožeča stranka.
The parties which have submitted observations are divided on the question whether the addressee of a document should be deemed to understand the language of the Member State of transmission because he has signed a clause agreeing to the use of that language, as described by the referring court.
Stranke, ki so predložile stali�ča, si nasprotujejo glede vpra�anja, ali se �teje, da naslovnik pisanja razume jezik države članice prosilke, ker je podpisal klavzulo o uporabi jezika, kakr�no je opisalo predložitveno sodi�če.
According to Grimshaw, it alone is in a position to say whether it understands the document served.
Biro Grimshaw meni, da lahko le sami vedo, ali razumejo vročeno pisanje.
IHK Berlin defends the opposite position, namely that signature of such a clause entails acceptance of that language as the language in which a judicial document is to be served, in the same way as a jurisdiction clause is valid between parties.
IHK Berlin zastopa nasprotno stali�če, in sicer da se s podpisom take klavzule �teje, da se ta jezik sprejema kot jezik za vročitev sodnega pisanja, enako kot je med strankama veljavna klavzula o sodni pristojnosti.
The other parties which submitted observations are of the view that, while knowledge of the language of the document for the purpose of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 cannot be inferred from such a clause, it is an indication of knowledge of that language.
Druge stranke, ki so predložile stali�ča, menijo, da iz take klavzule ni mogoče sklepati o znanju jezika, v katerem je pisanje napisano, v smislu člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, vendar pa klavzula kaže na znanje tega jezika.
Weiss and the Czech and Slovak Governments point out, inter alia, that the degree of knowledge of a language required for correspondence is not the same as that needed to defend an action.
Biro Weiss in če�ka ter slova�ka vlada poudarjajo zlasti, da stopnja znanja jezika, ki je potrebna za dopisovanje, ni enaka tisti, ki je nujna za obrambo v sodnem postopku.
Grimshaw’s interpretation cannot be accepted, as that would mean that whether service was effective was dependent on whether the addressee of the document was willing to accept it.
Razlage biroja Grimshaw ni mogoče sprejeti, saj bi to pomenilo, da je učinkovitost vročitve odvisna od dobre volje naslovnika pisanja.
Nor is it possible to accept IHK’s interpretation.
Prav tako ni mogoče sprejeti razlage, ki jo predlaga IHK Berlin.
In order for Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 to be effective, the competent court must verify that the requirements of that provision are in fact met.
Za polni učinek člena 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 mora namreč pristojno sodi�če preveriti, ali so pogoji iz te določbe dejansko izpolnjeni.
The fact that a clause has been signed which provides that a particular language is to be used for correspondence and performance of the contract cannot give rise to a presumption of knowledge of the agreed language.
V zvezi s tem podpis klavzule o uporabi določenega jezika za dopisovanje in izvajanje pogodbe ne more pomeniti domneve o znanju dogovorjenega jezika.
On the other hand, the signature of such a clause must be regarded as evidence of knowledge of the language of the document served.
Vendar pa je treba ugotoviti, da podpis take klavzule kaže na znanje jezika, v katerem je napisano vročeno pisanje.
Greater weight will attach to that evidence where the clause refers not only to correspondence between the parties but also to correspondence with the authorities and public institutions.
Na tako sklepanje se je mogoče �e bolj opreti, ker se klavzula ne nana�a le na dopisovanje med strankama, temveč tudi na dopisovanje z javnimi organi in ustanovami.
It may be supported by other evidence, such as the fact that correspondence was actually conducted by the addressee of the document in the language of the document served, or the presence in the original contract of clauses conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State of transmission in the event of dispute or making the contract subject to the law of that Member State.
Podpirajo ga tudi drugi znaki, na primer naslovnikovo dejansko po�iljanje dopisov v jeziku, v katerem je bilo napisano vročeno pisanje, ali obstoj klavzul, s katerimi je bilo v prvotni pogodbi določeno, da so za morebitno odločanje o sporih pristojna sodi�ča države prosilke oziroma da se za pogodbo uporablja pravo te države članice.
As stated by Weiss and the Czech and Slovak Governments, the degree of knowledge of a language required for correspondence is not the same as that needed to defend an action.
Kot so navedli biro Weiss in če�ka ter slova�ka vlada, stopnja znanja jezika, ki je potrebna za dopisovanje, ni enaka tisti, ki je nujna za obrambo v sodnem postopku.
However, that is a matter of fact to be taken into account by the court in determining whether the addressee of a document served is capable of understanding the document so as to be able to assert his rights.
Vendar pa mora sodi�če tako dejstvo upo�tevati pri ugotavljanju, ali naslovnik vročenega pisanja tega razume toliko, da lahko uveljavlja svoje pravice.
It is necessary for the court, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, to take account of the extent to which an individual domiciled in the Member State of transmission would understand a judicial document written in the language of that State.
Sodi�če se mora pri tem v skladu z načelom enakovrednosti opreti na to, kako lahko sodno pisanje, napisano v jeziku države prosilke, razume posameznik s prebivali�čem v tej državi.
By its third question, posed in the event that the second question referred by the Bundesgerichtshof is answered in the negative, that court asks whether Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not, in any event, rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands if the addressee concludes a contract in the course of his business in which he agrees that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem, ki ga je zastavilo za primer, da bi bil odgovor na drugo vpra�anje, kot je bilo to zastavljeno, nikalen, spra�uje, ali je treba člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da naslovnik pisanja za vročitev nikakor ne sme s sklicevanjem na to določbo zavrniti sprejema takih prilog k pisanju, ki niso napisane v jeziku zapro�ene države članice ali jeziku države članice prosilke, ki ga naslovnik razume, kadar pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti sklene pogodbo in se v njej dogovori, da bo dopisovanje potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, ter se priloge nana�ajo na to dopisovanje in so napisane v dogovorjenem jeziku.
It follows from the answer given by the Court to the first question that it may be necessary to translate certain annexes to a document instituting proceedings which has been served if the content of that document which has been translated is insufficient to enable the subjectmatter of the claim and the cause of action to be identified, so that the defendant can assert his rights, on the ground that certain necessary information relating to the application is to be found in those annexes.
Iz odgovora Sodi�ča na prvo vpra�anje izhaja, da se lahko prevod nekaterih prilog k vročeni tožbi zahteva, če se na podlagi vsebine tega pisanja, ki je bilo prevedeno, ni mogoče seznaniti s predmetom in podlago zahtevka in tožena stranka ne more uveljavljati svojih pravic, saj so nekateri temeljni elementi zahtevka v teh prilogah.