natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is to be accepted that the addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission if the addressee is a national of a State with the same official language (Heiderhoff, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p. 1221).
Domneva se, da naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke, če ima državljanstvo države z istim uradnim jezikom (Heiderhoff, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str. 1221).
WEISS UND PARTNER that it can be assumed that the parties know that language and that the right to refuse acceptance may therefore be ruled out.
WEISS UND PARTNER domnevati znanje jezikov strank in s tem izključiti pravico do zavrnitve sprejema.
36 understands German.
36 za zastopanje, ne razume nem�ko.
However, it is undisputed that the contract which is the subjectmatter of these proceedings and the correspondence are in German and that Berlin was agreed as a place of jurisdiction.
Vendar ni sporno, da so pogodba, na kateri temelji ta postopek, in dopisi napisani v nem�kem jeziku in da je bilo dogovorjeno, da je pristojno sodi�če v Berlinu.
It is pointed out in the legal literature that Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 does not make clear whose linguistic knowledge is to be taken into account where a document is to be served on a legal person.
V teoriji se opozarja na to, da iz člena 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 ne izhaja jasno, na katero znanje jezikov se je treba opreti, če se pisanje vroči pravni osebi.
34At present, the only practicable solution by which it is possible to answer this question would seem to be by reference to the registered office of the legal person as the relevant connecting factor for the linguistic knowledge of the legal person.
34Za zdaj se zdi edina praktična re�itev, s katero je mogoče odgovoriti na to vpra�anje, napotitev na sedež pravne osebe kot odločilno navezno okoli�čino za poznavanje jezika pravne osebe.
35Because Grimshaw Architects has its registered office in London, the relevant language would be English.
35 Tako bi bil to zaradi sedeža biroja Grimshaw v Londonu angle�ki jezik.
In fact, however, German was agreed on for correspondence in the architect’s contract of 16 February 1994.
Vendar pa je bil konkretno v pogodbi o delu arhitekta z dne 16. februarja 1994 za dopisovanje dogovorjen nem�ki jezik.
It is difficult to ascertain whether the addressee is in a position, on the basis of his individual linguistic knowledge, to understand a document which is not written in the language of the Member State addressed.
Težko je ugotoviti, ali je naslovnik glede na svoje znanje jezikov v položaju, da razume pisanje, ki ni napisano v jeziku zapro�ene države članice.
The question whether or not a person understands a foreign language ultimately depends on his own judgment.
Ali oseba razume tuji jezik ali ne, je navsezadnje odvisno od njene lastne presoje.
37Rudimentary linguistic knowledge is probably not sufficient to understand judicial documents.
37 Rudimentarno znanje jezika za razumevanje sodnih pisanj najbrž ne zado�ča.
The linguistic knowledge must therefore be good enough for even legal documents to be essentially understood from a linguistic point of view.
Znanje jezika mora biti zaradi tega tako dobro, da se lahko v bistvu razume tudi pravne vloge z jezikovnega vidika.
38This may be assumed, for example, where the addressee agreed by contract for correspondence between that State’s authorities and public institutions to be conducted in the language of the State of transmission, as in this case.
38To je očitno, če se je naslovnik pogodbeno dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje med organi in javnimi ustanovami te države potekalo v jeziku države članice prosilke, kot je v tem primeru.
‘Public institutions’ suggests that the language of correspondence between the parties was agreed for all the State’s organs, including the courts, and not only the executive. 39
Zaradi pojma javne ustanove je mogoče domnevati, da je bil jezik dopisovanja strank dogovorjen z vsemi državnimi organi, h katerim spadajo tudi sodi�ča, in ne samo organi uprave. 39
It must also be examined whether specifying a certain language in a contract means
Dalje je treba preučiti, ali je na podlagi pogodbene določitve nekega jezika mogoče
37 — See Mayr and Czernich, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p. 182.
37 – Glej Mayr/Czernich, n.n.m. (opomba 4), str. 182.
The difficulties in ascertaining individual linguistic knowledge apply to both the transmitting and the receiving agency.
Težavnost ugotavljanja posameznikovega znanja jezikov velja tako za organ za po�iljanje kot za organ za sprejem.
38 — See Jastrow, loc. cit. (footnote 4), p. 1306.
38 – Glej Jastrow, n.n.m. (opomba 4). str. 1269 (1306).
Badura states that the State organ which performs the functions of the administration of justice is the court.
Badura navaja, da je državni organ, ki opravlja naloge sodne oblasti, sodi�če.
In this specific case, Berlin was agreed on as the place of jurisdiction in Paragraph 10.2 of the architect’s contract.
Konkretno je bilo v tej zadevi v točki 10.2 pogodbe o delu arhitekta kot pristojno sodi�če s sporazumom določeno sodi�če v Berlinu.
For that reason, where possible only general, objective criteria should be employed, including business transactions and written correspondence in the relevant language of the Member State of transmission.
Zato bi bilo treba po možnosti uporabiti izključno splo�na, objektivna merila, med katere spadata poslovanje in dopisovanje v zadevnem jeziku države članice prosilke.
Verification of individual linguistic knowledge presents enormous difficulties for all the parties to the proceedings, with the exception of the addressee.
Preverjanje posameznikovega znanja jezikov je za vse stranke postopka, z izjemo naslovnika, povezano z velikimi težavami.
40 If it is disputed whether the addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission, this can be clarified only by means of measures of inquiry before the national court hearing the case.
40 Če je sporno, ali naslovnik razume jezik države članice prosilke, se lahko to razjasni le v dokaznem postopku pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, pred katerim poteka postopek.
Thus it can be established that the addressee of the document understands the language of the Member State of transmission in which the document is written. 41
Tako je mogoče dokazati, da naslovnik pisanja razume jezik države članice prosilke, v katerem je to pisanje napisano. 41
A situation may well arise where one of the parties to the contract does not actually understand the contractual language.
Sicer lahko pride do primera, v katerem ena od pogodbenih strank dejansko ne razume pogodbenega jezika.
However, by the valid agreement on the contractual language, that party, who is relying on insufficient linguistic knowledge with regard to the attempted service, has indicated to everyone that he has sufficient linguistic knowledge.
Vendar je ta pogodbena stranka, ki se pri poskusu vročitve sklicuje na nezadostno znanje jezika, z veljavnim dogovorom glede pogodbenega jezika navzen sporočila, da ima zadostno znanje jezika. 44 Ta stranka je objektivno po presoji in razumevanju dobrovernega udeleženca v pravnem prometu vzbudila vtis, da razume jezik države članice prosilke.
Deciding on a contractual language helps to avoid or reduce problems of comprehension which might arise between parties who do not speak the same language.
Določitev pogodbenega jezika je namenjena temu, da se izogne oziroma zmanj�a težave pri razumevanju med strankami, ki ne govorijo istega jezika.
42If the parties to a contract in an international legal relationship agree on a contractual language, that is evidence that both parties have a command of that language.
42 Če se pogodbeni stranki v mednarodnem pravnem prometu dogovorita o pogodbenem jeziku, je to indic za to, da obe pogodbeni stranki obvladata ta jezik.
If, in an international legal relationship, the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of transmission or the law of the State of transmission as the appli-
Če se v mednarodnem pravnem prometu pogodbeno določi pristojnost sodi�ča države članice prosilke ali pravo
1222.41 — Leffler (cited in footnote 10 above), paragraph 52.
1222.41 – Sodba Leffler (navedena zgoraj v opombi 10, točka 52).
By deciding in a contract on the contractual language, the applicable law and above all the place of jurisdiction, the expectation
S pogodbeno določitvijo pogodbenega jezika, prava, ki se uporablja, in predvsem pristojnega sodi�ča se poleg tega tudi pri
43 — Such a clause might read as follows: ‘This contract and its interpretation shall be subject to the law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
43 – Taka klavzula bi se lahko glasila tako: „Za to pogodbo in njeno razlago se uporablja pravo Zvezne republike Nemčije.
The courts of Berlin shall have exclusive jurisdiction.’
Za spore je izključno pristojno sodi�če v Berlinu.“
In the comments made in the order for reference in this case, the author does not address the issue of the place of jurisdiction and the applicable law.
Avtor pri komentiranju predložitvenega sklepa v tej zadevi ne obravnava vpra�anja sodne pristojnosti in prava, ki se uporablja.
42 — I would also refer to Case T-338/94 Finnboard v Commission [1998] ECR II-1617, paragraphs 48 to 55.
42 – Rada bi opozorila �e na sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 14. maja 1998 v zadevi Finnboard proti Komisiji (T-338/94, Recueil, str. II-1617; točke od 48 do 55).
WEISS UND PARTNER such a case.
WEISS UND PARTNER primeru lahko izključeno.
47Since there is only a rebuttable presumption, however, it is open to the addressee to rebut it in accordance with the rules on evidence of the Member State in which the civil proceedings are conducted.
47Ker pa obstaja samo izpodbojna domneva, ima naslovnik možnost, da jo v skladu z dokaznim pravom države članice, v kateri se vodi pravdni postopek, izpodbija.
is also created on the part of the other party that there exists sufficient linguistic knowledge of the language of the Member State of transmission.
drugi pogodbeni stranki vzbudi zaupanje, da obstaja zadostno znanje jezika države članice prosilke.
45This applies above all where the language of the Member State of transmission has been laid down by contract for correspondence between the parties to the contract and the authorities and public institutions. 46
45To velja predvsem takrat, kadar je bil za dopisovanje med pogodbenima strankama in organi ter javnimi ustanovami pogodbeno dogovorjen jezik države članice prosilke. 46
At this point I would like to draw attention to an order of the Court of First Instance.
Na tem mestu bi želela opozoriti �e na sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
In Hensotherm v OHIM 48 the Court answered, in the case of a Swedish undertaking which chose English as the language of the case in the administrative procedure before OHIM and had itself drafted documents in that language, in response to its objection that as a Swedish undertaking operating in international trade it did not have a good command of English, that that objection could not be upheld.
V zadevi Hensotherm proti UUNT (T-366/04) 48je Sodi�če prve stopnje v primeru �vedskega podjetja, ki je izbralo angle�čino za jezik postopka v upravnem postopku pred UUNT in je v tem jeziku samo sestavilo vloge, na ugovor tega podjetja, da kot �vedsko podjetje, ki je dejavno v mednarodni trgovini, ne obvlada angle�kega jezika, odgovorilo, da tak ugovor ni utemeljen.
Therefore, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a rebuttable presumption that the addressee of a document understands the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that
Zato je treba člen 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 razlagati tako, da obstaja izpodbojna domneva, da naslovnik pisanja razume jezik države članice prosilke v smislu te
With such a contractual agreement, a party to a contract indicates that he has sufficient linguistic knowledge in respect of correspondence with authorities and other public institutions.
S takim pogodbenim dogovorom pogodbena stranka navzven sporoča, da razpolaga z zadostnim znanjem jezika za dopisovanje z organi in drugimi javnimi ustanovami.
In such a case, it must therefore be assumed that a rebuttable presumption (praesumptio iuris tantum) is justified to the effect that the addressee has sufficient linguistic knowledge for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 to understand even official language, which includes court language in procedural law.
V takem primeru je treba zato izhajati iz tega, da je utemeljena izpodbojna domneva (prae­sumptio iuris tantum), da naslovnik razpolaga z zadostnim znanjem jezika v skladu s členom 8(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, da razume tudi jezik, ki je značilen za oblastne organe, med katere spada tudi jezik sodi�ča v procesnem pravu.
The exercise of the right to refuse acceptance under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 could be precluded in
Uresničevanje pravice do zavrnitve sprejema v skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 bi bilo v takem
In addition, a contrary conclusion would mean that the document would ultimately also have to be translated into the language of the Member State addressed in these cases.
Poleg tega bi nasprotni izid imel za posledico, da bi moralo biti pisanje nazadnje tudi v teh primerih prevedeno v jezik zapro�ene države članice.
The author also stresses that the translation requirement would run counter to the aims of Regulation No 1348/2000 which, having regard to the need to protect the addressee for service, seeks to restrict the translation requirement on account of the high costs and time taken and thus to simplify and expedite service on the whole.
Avtor tudi poudarja, da bi bila zahteva prevoda v nasprotju s cilji Uredbe �t. 1348/2000, ki želi ob upo�tevanju potrebe po varstvu naslovnika pisanja ravno omejiti zahtevo po prevodu zaradi visokih stro�kov in zamudnosti ter tako v celoti poenostaviti in pospe�iti vročitev.
An analogy can also be found in the theory of legal transactions in which Willenstheorie (will theory — theory of subjective intention) and Erklärungstheorie (theory of declaration — objective reliance) determine the basis of validity of a declaration of intent.
Tudi tu je mogoče najti analogijo k teoriji o pravnih poslih, v kateri teorija volje in teorija izjave določata podlago za veljavnost izjave volje.
46 — See point 5 of this Opinion, in which the relevant contractual clauses are reproduced.
46 – Glej točko 5 teh sklepnih predlogov, v kateri so navedene ustrezne pogodbene klavzule.
48 — Order in Case T-366/04 [2006] ECR II-65, paragraphs 43 and 44.
48 – Sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. septembra 2006 v zadevi Hensotherm proti UUNT (T-366/04, ZOdl., str. II-65, točki 43 in 44).
regulation if, in the course of his business, he agreed in a contract that correspondence between the parties to the contract on the one hand and the authorities and public institutions of the Member State of transmission on the other was to be conducted in the language of that Member State of transmission.
uredbe, če se je pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi dogovoril, da bo dopisovanje med pogodbenima strankama na eni strani in javnimi ustanovami države članice prosilke na drugi strani potekalo v jeziku te države.
Since it is only a rebuttable presumption, however, it is open to the addressee to rebut that presumption in accordance with the rules on evidence of the Member State in which the court proceedings are conducted.
Ker pa obstaja samo izpodbojna domneva, ima naslovnik možnost, da jo izpodbija v skladu z dokaznim pravom države članice, v kateri poteka civilni postopek,.
Recital 8 in the preamble to Regulation No 1348/2000 states that ‘to secure the effectiveness of this Regulation, the possibility of refusing service of documents is confined to exceptional situations’.
Iz uvodne izjave 8 Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 izhaja, da se „zaradi zagotovitve učinkovitosti te uredbe […] možnost, da se vročitev pisanja zavrne, omeji na izjemne primere“.
In Community law exceptions are to be given a narrow interpretation (singularia non sunt extendenda). 49
Izjeme je treba v pravu Skupnosti razlagati ozko, singu­laria non sunt extendenda. 49
Such a conclusion cannot apply in general to consumer contracts, since, according to objective criteria, the correspondence of a consumer who is not familiar with specialist and legal fields cannot be treated in the same way as the transactions and correspondence of a trader.
Tak zaključek na splo�no ne more veljati v okviru potro�ni�kih pogodb, saj glede na objektivna merila dopisovanja potro�nika, ki prava in stroke neuka stranka, ni mogoče enačiti z dopisovanjem gospodarstvenika.
For that reason, the answer to the second question must be confined only to the specific case where a trader agrees in a contract, in the course of his business, that correspondence between the parties to the contract on the one hand and the authorities and public institutions of the Member State of transmission on the other is to be conducted in the language of that Member State of transmission.
Zato je treba odgovor na drugo vpra�anje omejiti samo na poseben primer, v katerem se gospodarstvenik pri opravljanju svoje poslovne dejavnosti v pogodbi dogovori, da bo dopisovanje med pogodbenima strankama na eni strani in organi ter javnimi ustanovami države članice prosilke na drugi strani potekalo v jeziku te države.
In its observations on the second question, Grimshaw Architects refers to the dogmatic impossibility of justifying why a contractual agreement between private individuals which, according to the intention of the parties, is to apply only to the performance of the contract should have restrictive effect with regard to the public law right to a fair hearing.
Biro Grimshaw se v svojem stali�ču k drugemu vpra�anju sicer sklicuje na dogmatično nezmožnost utemeljitve, zakaj bi imel pogodbeni dogovor med zasebnimi subjekti, ki naj bi po volji strank veljal le za izpolnjevanje pogodbe, omejevalni učinek glede na javnopravno pravico biti sli�an.
49 — Case C-151/02 Jaeger [2003] ECR I-8389, paragraph 89.
49 – Sodba z dne 9. septembra 2003 v zadevi Jaeger (C-151/02, Recueil, str.
In that case the Court held that, since they are exceptions to the Community system for the organisation of working time put in place by Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p.
I-8389, točka 89). V tej zadevi je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da je treba odstopanja, predvidena v členu 17 Direktive Sveta 93/104/ES z dne 23. novembra 1993 o določenih vidikih organizacije delovnega časa (UL L 307, str.
18), the derogations provided for in Article 17 of that regulation must be interpreted in such a way that their scope is limited to what is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which those derogations enable to be protected.
18), kot izjeme od ureditve Skupnosti o organizaciji delovnega časa razlagati tako, da se njihovo področje uporabe omeji na to, kar je nujno potrebno za varstvo interesov, katerih varstvo omogočajo.
With the third question, the Bundesgerichtshof wishes essentially to ascertain
Bundesgerichtshof želi s tretjim vpra�anjem v bistvu izvedeti, ali se naslovnik načelno zaradi manjkajočega prevoda
WEISS UND PARTNER forms an integral part of the contract, which is significant for the performance of the contract.
WEISS UND PARTNER izpolnitev pogodbe.
However, that part of the contract relates not only to the correspondence relevant to the performance of the contract, but also extends to correspondence in the event of differences of opinion over contractual obligations and to correspondence in connection with judicial proceedings brought in that regard.
Ta sestavni del pogodbe pa se ne nana�a samo na dopisovanje, ki se nana�a na izpolnitev te pogodbe, ampak se raz�irja tudi na dopisovanje v primeru različnih mnenj o pogodbenih obveznostih in na dopisovanje v zvezi s sodnim postopkom, ki poteka v zvezi s tem.
Doubts over such a broad interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 are raised above all by Paragraphs 10.2 and 10.4 of the architect’s contract, in which it is stipulated that ‘[t]he place of jurisdiction in the event of disputes shall be Berlin’ and that the architect’s contract shall be subject to German law.
Pomisleke zoper tako �iroko razlago člena 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000 sprožita predvsem točki 10.2 in 10.4 pogodbe o delu arhitekta, v kateri je dogovorjeno: „V primeru spora je pristojno sodi�če v Berlinu.“ in to, da se za pogodbo o delu arhitekta uporablja nem�ko pravo.
Those clauses of the contract, combined with the language clause in which the language of the Member State of transmission was agreed on for correspondence with authorities and public institutions 50of the Member State of transmission, represent an effective specific relinquishment of basic rights.
Ta pogodbena klavzula v povezavi s klavzulo o jeziku, v kateri je bil za dopisovanje z organi in javnimi ustanovami 50države članice prosilke dogovorjen jezik te države, pomeni učinkovito konkretno odpoved temeljni pravici.
51 In practical terms this means in the present case that acceptance of the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of transmission also entails recognition of the language of the court applicable in specific civil proceedings.
51To v tej zadevi pomeni, da pristanek na pristojnost sodi�ča države članice prosilke pomeni hkrati priznavanje veljavnega jezika sodi�ča v konkretnem pravdnem postopku.
The same also applies to arbitration agreements where the parties to an international contract decide in advance and at their complete discretion the language of the arbitration procedure.
Podobno velja za dogovor o arbitraži, pri katerem stranki mednarodne pogodbe po prosti presoji vnaprej določita jezik arbitražnega postopka.
Architects and IHK Berlin to use German
Kot je Komisija pravilno ugotovila 52, je dogovor v zvezi z uporabo nem�kega jezika, ki sta ga sklenila biro Grimshaw in IHK Berlin, sestavni del pogodbe, ki je pomemben za
In such a case the need for a document to be translated from the language of the Member State of transmission into the language of the Member State addressed can no longer be justified by the protection of the addressee’s interests.
V takem primeru nujnost prevoda pisanja iz jezika države članice prosilke v jezik zapro�ene države članice ne more biti več utemeljena z varstvom interesov naslovnika.
Anyone who voluntarily agrees with the other party in a contract concluded between traders on a certain language regime for correspondence cannot later claim that his legitimate interests would not be protected if that language regime were followed.
Kdor s svojim pogodbenim partnerjem v pogodbi, sklenjeni med gospodarstveniki, prostovoljno sogla�a z določeno izbiro jezika dopisovanja, se pozneje ne more sklicevati na to, da pri uporabi tega jezika niso bili varovani njegovi legitimni interesi.
Such a claim would come under the heading ‘venire contra factum proprium’.
Tako sklicevanje spada že pod venire contra factum proprium.
53In such a case the demand for a translation of annexes in the language of the Member State of transmission departs from the protective purpose of the right to refuse acceptance established in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000; by accepting such a contractual regime, the interest in a translation in
53Zahteva po prevodu prilog v jezik države članice prosilke v takem primeru ni odstopa od namena varstva pravice do zavrnitve sprejema, ki je urejena v členu 8(1) Uredbe �t. 1348/2000; s privolitvijo k taki pogodbeni
50 — I refer to the similarity between the concepts of public institution and State organ.
50 – Opozarjam na podobnost pojmov javna ustanova in državni organ.
See also footnote 39 of this Opinion.
Glej tudi opombo 39 teh sklepnih predlogov.
808, relinquishment of a basic right means the agreement by the holder of a basic right to specific interference with and impairments of basic rights.
808, je treba z odpovedjo temeljni pravici razumeti privolitev nosilca temeljne pravice v konkretne posege in poseganje v temeljne pravice.
53 — In Romanist legal orders in particular, the expression ‘nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans’ is preferred.
53 – Predvsem v romanskih pravnih redih se raje uporablja izraz nemo auditur suam propriam turpitudinem allegans.