natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The IRG distinguishes between the decision concerning the admissibility of the extradition request and the decision to grant or refuse extradition.
IRG razlikuje med odločbo o dopustnosti zahteve za izročitev in odločbo o sami zahtevi, s katero se izročitvi ugodi oziroma se jo zavrne.
According to Articles 29 to 32 of the IRG, it is in any event for the Oberlandesgerichte (Higher Regional Courts) to examine the admissibility of the extradition request, on application by the executing judicial authority.
V skladu s členi od 29 do 32 IRG so Oberlandesgerichte (vi�ja deželna sodi�ča) dolžna preizkusiti dopustnost vsake zahteve, za katero to predlaga izvr�itveni pravosodni organ.
By contrast, the decision to grant or refuse extradition, in the case of extradition requests submitted by an issuing judicial authority of another Member State, is a matter for the executing judicial authority.
Nasprotno pa je za odločanje o tem, ali naj se ugodi zahtevi za izročitev, ki jo predloži odreditveni pravosodni organ posamezne države članice, pristojen izvr�itveni pravosodni organ.
Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision was transposed, in relation to persons other than German nationals — whether nationals of another Member State or of a third State — by Article 83b(2)(b) of the IRG.
Člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa je bil glede oseb, ki nimajo nem�kega državljanstva, pri čemer gre lahko za državljane druge države članice ali tretje države, prenesen s členom 83b(2)(b) IRG.
According to that provision, entitled ‘Grounds for non-execution’:
Ta določba z naslovom „Razlogi za neizvr�itev“ določa:
‘The extradition of a foreign national whose habitual residence is in Germany may also be refused, if
„Izročitev tujega državljana, ki ima v državi običajno prebivali�če, se lahko zavrne tudi:
(b) in the case of extradition for the purpose of execution of sentence, he does not consent to such extradition after being informed of his rights (such information being minuted by the judge) and if he has an interest in execution of the sentence in Germany that deserves protection and predominates …’
(b) če v primeru izročitve za izvr�itev kazni, potem ko je poučen o svojih pravicah, za zapisnik o zasli�anju izjavi, da ne sogla�a z izročitvijo, in če je treba dati prednost njegovemu interesu, upravičenemu do varstva, da se kazen izvr�i na nacionalnem ozemlju […]“
Paragraph 79(2) of the IRG lays down the procedures for the ruling on the extradition request as follows:
S procesnega vidika člen 79(2) IRG tako določa postopek, po katerem se odloča o predlogu za izročitev:
‘Before the Oberlandesgericht has ruled on the admissibility of the [extradition] request, the body competent to grant or refuse the request [the ‘Generalstaatsanwaltschaften’ — General Prosecutor’s Offices] shall indicate whether it intends to raise any grounds of nonexecution under Paragraph 83b.
„Preden Oberlandesgericht odloči o dopustnosti zahteve [za izročitev], se morajo pristojne službe za odločanje o zahtevi (Generalstaatsanwaltschaften) izjaviti o tem, ali nameravajo uveljavljati razloge za neizvr�itev v skladu s členom 83b.
Reasons shall be given for a decision not to raise any such ground.
Odločitev, da se ne bo uveljavljal nobeden od razlogov za neizvr�itev, je treba obrazložiti.
That decision is subject to review by the Oberlandesgericht … ’
Za presojo te odločitve je pristojno Oberlandesgericht […]“
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Postopek v glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
The sentence imposed by that judgment has become final, but has not yet been executed.
Kazen, izrečena s to sodbo, je postala pravnomočna, vendar �e ni bila izvr�ena.
KOZŁOWSKI was sentenced by two judgments of the Amtsgericht Stuttgart, dated 27 July 2006 and 25 January 2007, in respect of 61 fraud offences committed in Germany.
Amtsgericht Stuttgart z dne 27. julija 2006 oziroma 25. januarja 2007 obsojen zaradi 61 kaznivih dejanj goljufije, ki jih je storil v Nemčiji.
The Polish issuing judicial authority requested the German executing judicial authority, by a European arrest warrant issued on 18 April 2007, to surrender Mr Kozłowski for the purposes of execution of the sentence of imprisonment of five months imposed on him by the Sąd Rejonowy w Tucholi.
Poljski odreditveni pravosodni organ je z evropskim nalogom za prijetje, ki ga je izdal 18. aprila 2007, od nem�kega izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa zahteval predajo S. Kozłowskega zaradi izvr�itve zaporne kazni petih mesecev, na katero ga je obsodilo Sąd Rejonowy w Tucholi.
He stated to the latter, in the course of that hearing, that he did not consent to his surrender to the Polish issuing judicial authority.
Na zasli�anju pred tem sodi�čem je izjavil, da ne sogla�a s predajo poljskemu odreditvenemu pravosodnemu organu.
On 18 June 2007, the German executing judicial authority informed Mr Kozłowski that it did not intend to raise any ground for nonexecution.
Nem�ki izvr�itveni pravosodni organ je 18. junija 2007 S. Kozłowskega obvestil, da ne namerava uveljavljati nobenega razloga za neizvr�itev.
According to that authority, there is no ground for nonexecution within the meaning of Paragraph 83b of the IRG and, in particular, Mr Kozłowski does not have his habitual residence in Germany.
Ta organ je namreč menil, da ne obstaja nobeden od razlogov za neizvr�itev iz člena 83b IRG, zlasti pa naj zadevna oseba v Nemčiji ne bi imela običajnega prebivali�ča.
His successive periods of presence on German territory were characterised by the commission of several crimes, without any lawful activity.
Za večkratno zadrževanje zadevne osebe na nem�kem ozemlju naj bi bilo značilno, da je storila več kaznivih dejanj, opravljala pa ni nobenih zakonitih dejavnosti.
Consequently, since it considered that it was not necessary to initiate enquiries in order to discover where, with whom and why Mr Kozłowski was staying in Germany, the executing judicial authority requested the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart to authorise the execution of the European arrest warrant in question.
Glede na to, da ni bilo treba opraviti poizvedb, da bi odkrili, ali ter pri kom in zakaj se je S. Kozłowski zadrževal v Nemčiji, je nem�ki izvr�itveni pravosodni organ predlagal Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, naj odobri izvr�itev navedenega evropskega naloga za prijetje.
With regard to Mr Kozłowski’s personal situation, the order for reference indicates that, according to the convictions against him in Germany, he is single and childless.
V zvezi z osebnim položajem S. Kozłowskega iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je glede na podatke v obsodilnih sodbah, ki so bile zoper njega izdane v Nemčiji, samski in nima otrok.
He has little or even no command of the German language.
Nem�ko naj bi znal slabo ali celo sploh ne.
He grew up, then worked, in Poland until the end of 2003.
Odrasel naj bi na Poljskem in nato tam delal do leta 2003.
Thereafter, for approximately one year, he drew unemployment benefit in that Member State.
Nato naj bi v tej državi članici približno eno leto prejemal nadomestilo za brezposelnost.
The national court proceeds on the assumption that from February 2005 until 10 May 2006, the date of his arrest in Germany, Mr Kozłowski lived predominantly in Germany.
Predložitveno sodi�če izhaja iz domneve, da se je S. Kozłowski od meseca februarja 2005 do 10. maja 2006, ko je bil v Nemčiji aretiran, zadrževal pretežno na nem�kem ozemlju.
That stay was interrupted during the 2005 Christmas holidays, and possibly even in the month of June 2005 and the months of February and March 2006.
To bivanje naj bi prekinil med božičnimi prazniki leta 2005, morda pa tudi junija 2005 ter februarja in marca 2006.
He worked occasionally on building sites but earned his living essentially by committing crimes.
Občasno naj bi delal v gradbeni�tvu, večinoma pa naj bi se preživljal s kaznivimi dejanji.
Finally, the national court explains that, in the course of the review which it is required to carry out under Paragraph 79(2) of the IRG, it is called upon to ascertain whether Mr Kozłowski’s ‘habitual residence’ within the meaning of Article 83b(2) of that law was, at the time of the request for surrender, in Germany, and whether it is still there.
Nazadnje predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da mora v okviru dejanske presoje, ki jo je dolžno opraviti na podlagi člena 79(2) IRG, ugotoviti, ali je imel S. Kozłowski na dan, ko je prispela zahteva za predajo, „običajno prebivali�če“ v smislu člena 83b(2) tega zakona na nem�kem ozemlju in ali ga ima �e zmeraj.
If that question is answered in the negative, the national court must according to German law authorise the execution of the European arrest warrant, since all the other conditions required under that law are fulfilled.
Če je odgovor na to vpra�anje nikalen, bo moralo navedeno sodi�če v skladu z nem�kim pravom odobriti izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, saj so vsi preostali pogoji, ki jih to določa, izpolnjeni.
(a) his stay in the Member State [of execution] has not been uninterrupted;
(a) se ta oseba ne nahaja neprekinjeno v [izvr�itveni] državi članici,
(b) his stay there does not comply with the national legislation on residence of foreign nationals;
(b) se ta oseba tam ne nahaja v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo v zvezi z vstopom in bivanjem tujcev,
As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, as noted in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the Court has jurisdiction, in the present case, to rule on the interpretation of the Framework Decision under Article 35 EU.
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v tem primeru, kot izhaja iz točke 12 te sodbe, pristojno podati razlago Okvirnega sklepa na podlagi člena 35 EU.
By its first question, the national court seeks, in essence, to ascertain what is the scope of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ contained in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision and, in particular, whether in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a requested person in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant can be considered as covered by that provision.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, kaj obsegata pojma „prebivati“ in „nahajati se“ iz člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa oziroma, natančneje, ali je mogoče v takem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, �teti, da ta določba zajema zahtevano osebo v okviru postopka izvr�itve evropskega naloga za prijetje.
In order to reply to that question, it should be recalled that the objective of the Framework Decision, as made clear in particular by Article 1(1) and (2) and by recitals 5 and 7 in its preamble, is to replace the multilateral system of extradition between Member States by a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of criminal proceedings, that system of surrender being based on the principle of mutual recognition (see C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld [2007] ECR I-3633, paragraph 28).
Da bi lahko odgovorili na to vpra�anje, je treba opozoriti, da je namen tega Okvirnega sklepa, kot izhaja zlasti iz njegovega člena 1(1) in (2) ter pete in sedme uvodne izjave, nadomestitev sistema večstranske izročitve med državami članicami s sistemom predaje obsojenih ali osumljenih oseb med pravosodnimi organi zaradi kazenskega pregona ali izvr�itve kazni, pri čemer ta sistem temelji na načelu medsebojnega priznavanja (glej sodbo z dne 3. maja 2007 v zadevi Advocaten voor de Wereld, C-303/05, ZOdl., str. I-3633, točka 28).
According to Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision, Member States are to execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of that Framework Decision.
V skladu s členom 1(2) Okvirnega sklepa morajo države članice vsak evropski nalog za prijetje izvr�iti na podlagi načela medsebojnega priznavanja in v skladu z določbami tega Okvirnega sklepa.
In that regard, Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision sets out a ground for optional nonexecution of the European arrest warrant pursuant to which the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute such a warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person ‘is staying in, or is a national or a resident of, the executing Member State’, and that State undertakes to execute that sentence in accordance with its domestic law.
V zvezi s tem je v členu 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa naveden razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, na podlagi katerega lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvr�itev naloga, ki se izda zaradi izvr�itve kazni, če se zahtevana oseba „nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici ali je državljan ali prebivalec te države“ in se ta država zaveže, da bo kazen izvr�ila v skladu s svojim notranjim pravom.
Thus, according to Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, the scope of that ground for optional nonexecution is limited to persons who, if not nationals of the executing Member State, are ‘staying’ or ‘resident’ there.
Tako je v skladu s členom 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa področje uporabe tega razloga za fakultativno neizvr�itev omejeno na osebe, ki se, če niso državljani izvr�itvene države članice, tam „nahaja[jo]“ ali „prebiva[jo]“.
However, the meaning and scope of those two terms are not defined in the Framework Decision.
Vendar pa pomen in obseg teh dveh pojmov v Okvirnem sklepu nista opredeljena.
The Commission of the European Communities, while conceding that, in some linguistic versions of the Framework Decision, the wording of Article 4(6) could suggest that the term ‘staying’ is on the same level of importance as the criteria of residence or nationality, contends that, in any case, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the requested person is staying in the executing Member State is a necessary but not sufficient condition for invoking the ground for optional nonexecution referred to in Article 4(6).
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti – ki sicer priznava, da je mogoče besedilo člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa v nekaterih jezikovnih različicah razumeti, kot da se pojmu „nahajati se“ pripisuje enak pomen, kot ga imata merili prebivali�ča ali državljanstva – opozarja, da je treba to določbo vsekakor razlagati tako, da je dejstvo, da se zahtevana oseba nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici, sicer nujen, vendar ne zadosten pogoj za uveljavljanje razloga za fakultativno neizvr�itev iz navedenega člena 4, točka 6.
In that regard, it is certainly true that the term ‘staying’ cannot be interpreted in a broad way which would imply that the executing judicial authority could refuse to execute a European arrest warrant merely on the ground that the requested person is temporarily located on the territory of the executing Member State.
V zvezi s tem je sicer res, da pojma „nahajati se“ ni mogoče razlagati �iroko, kar bi pomenilo, da lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje zgolj zato, ker se zahtevana oseba začasno zadržuje na ozemlju izvr�itvene države članice.
However, Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision equally cannot be interpreted as meaning that a requested person who, without being a national or resident of the executing Member State, has been staying there for a certain period of time is not in any circumstances capable of having established connections with that State which could enable him to invoke that ground for optional nonexecution.
Vendar pa člena 4, točka 6, tudi ni mogoče razlagati tako, da zahtevana oseba, ki se že določen čas nahaja v izvr�itveni državi članici, ne da bi imela njeno državljanstvo ali bi tam prebivala, s to državo nikakor ne more vzpostaviti vezi, na podlagi katerih bi lahko upravičeno uveljavljala ta razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev.
It follows that, notwithstanding differences in the various language versions of Article 4(6), the category of requested persons who are ‘staying’ in the executing Member State within the meaning of that provision is not, as was argued in par -ticular by the Netherlands Government at the hearing of the present case, completely irrelevant for the purposes of ascertaining the scope of that provision.
Iz tega izhaja, da ne glede na razlike med posameznimi jezikovnimi različicami navedenega člena 4, točka 6, skupine zahtevanih oseb, ki „se nahajajo“ v izvr�itveni državi članici v smislu te določbe, ni mogoče prezreti pri določitvi področja uporabe te določbe, kot je to na obravnavi v tej zadevi med drugim zatrjevala nizozemska vlada.
Consequently, it is not sufficient to take into account only the term ‘resident’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, but it is also necessary to ascertain in what way the term ‘staying’ may complement the meaning of the first of those two terms.
Zato ne zado�ča, da se upo�teva pojem „prebivati“ v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa, temveč je treba določiti tudi, kako se lahko njegov pomen dopolni s pojmom „nahajati se“.
First, that reading of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision cannot be affected by the fact that, according to the wording of Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision, which concerns a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution, surrender may be made subject by the law of the executing Member State to the condition contained in that provision only if the person concerned is a national or resident of that Member State, no reference being made to his ‘staying’ there.
Na tako razumevanje člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa ne sme vplivati dejstvo, da se lahko v skladu z besedilom člena 5, točka 3, tega Okvirnega sklepa – ki se nana�a na osebo, ki je predmet evropskega naloga za prijetje z namenom uvedbe kazenskega postopka – v pravu izvr�itvene države članice pogoj za predajo iz te določbe določi, le če je zadevna oseba državljan ali prebivalec te države članice, pri čemer ni navedbe o tem, da se tam „nahaja“.
Second, with regard to the interpretation of the terms ‘staying’ and ‘resident’, it should be pointed out that, contrary to the argument of the Czech and Netherlands Governments, the definition of those two terms cannot be left to the assessment of each Member State.
Vendar pa je treba v zvezi z razlago pojmov „nahajati se“ in „prebivati“ navesti tudi, da njune opredelitve v nasprotju z mnenjem če�ke in nizozemske vlade ni mogoče prepustiti presoji vsake posamezne države članice.
Since the objective of the Framework Decision, as indicated in paragraph 31 of this judgment, is to put in place a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of criminal proceedings, based on the principle of mutual recognition — a surrender which the executing judicial authority can oppose only on one of the grounds for refusal provided for by the Framework Decision — the terms ‘staying’ and ‘resident’, which determine the scope of Article 4(6), must be defined uniformly, since they concern autonomous concepts of Union law.
Iz zahteve po enotni uporabi prava Skupnosti in iz načela enakosti namreč izhaja, da je treba pojme v posamezni določbi tega prava, ki se za opredelitev svojega smisla in obsega ne sklicuje posebej na pravo držav članic, običajno razlagati samostojno in enotno v celotni Skupnosti, in sicer ob upo�tevanju okvira, v katerega je določba ume�čena, in cilja, ki ga zasleduje zadevna ureditev (glej po anologiji sodbo z dne 18. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Österreichischer Rundfunk, C-195/06, ZOdl., str.
In order to establish whether, in a specific situation, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant, it must, initially, ascertain only whether the requested person is a national of the executing Member State, a ‘resident’ of that State or ‘staying’ there within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision and thus covered by it.
Za odgovor, ali lahko izvr�itveni pravosodni organ v konkretnem primeru zavrne izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, mora ta najprej ugotoviti le, ali je zahtevana oseba državljan ali „prebivalec“ oziroma „se nahaja“ v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa in se tako ta določba zanjo uporablja.
Second, and only if the executing judicial authority finds that that person is covered by one of those terms, it must assess whether there is a legitimate interest which would justify the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State being executed on the territory of the executing Member State.
Le če izvr�itveni pravosodni organ ugotovi, da za navedeno osebo velja eden od navedenih pojmov, nato presoja tudi, ali obstaja upravičen interes za prestajanje kazni, ki je bila izrečena v odreditveni državi članici, na ozemlju izvr�itvene države članice.
In that regard, it must be emphasised, as also pointed out by all the Member States which submitted observations to the Court as well as by the Commission, that the ground for optional nonexecution stated in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision has in particular the objective of enabling the executing judicial authority to give particular weight to the possibility of increasing the requested person’s chances of reintegrating into society when the sentence imposed on him expires.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, kot so to storile vse države članice, ki so Sodi�ču predložile svoja stali�ča, ter Komisija, da je bil razlog za fakultativno neizvr�itev iz člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa uveden z namenom omogočiti izvr�itvenemu pravosodnemu organu, da kot posebej pomembno izpostavi možnost, da se zahtevani osebi po prestani kazni, na katero je bila obsojena, omogočijo bolj�e možnosti za ponovno vključitev v družbo.
Accordingly, the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ cover, respectively, the situations in which the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant has either established his actual place of residence in the executing Member State or has acquired, following a stable period of presence in that State, certain connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence.
Zato se pojma „prebivati“ oziroma „nahajati se“ nana�ata na položaje, ko oseba, zoper katero je izdan evropski nalog za prijetje, v izvr�itveni državi članici dejansko prebiva ali pa je z njo vzpostavila podobne vezi, kot izhajajo iz prebivali�ča, ker se v tej državi že nekaj časa neprekinjeno zadržuje.
In the light of the information contained in the order for reference, Mr Kozłowski is not ‘resident’ in Germany within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Glede na podatke iz predložitvene odločbe S. Kozłowski ne „prebiva“ v Nemčiji v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa.
Consequently, the interpretation which follows concerns only the term ‘staying’ contained in that provision.
Zato se bo razlaga v nadaljevanju navezovala le na pojem „nahajati se“ iz te določbe.
In order to determine whether, in a specific situation, there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, it is necessary to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, which include, in par -ticular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which he has with the executing Member State.
Za ugotovitev, ali v konkretnem primeru med zahtevano osebo in izvr�itveno državo članico obstajajo vezi, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, da je zajeta s pojmom „se nahaja“ v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa, je treba opraviti celostno presojo več objektivnih dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo položaj te osebe, med drugim zlasti trajanja, narave in razmer, v katerih se zahtevana oseba zadržuje v izvr�itveni državi članici, ter družinskih in ekonomskih vezi, ki jih ima z njo.