Iščem...
Iskalni niz je ali predolg ali pa vsebuje preveč besed.
Prevodi: en > sl
1–20/20
judgment of the EC Court
1 Končna redakcija
DRUGO
judgment of the EC Court
sodba Sodišča ES
2 Objavljeno
izobraževanje
Ur. l. RS, št. MP 2005-15
The wording for that right in the first two paragraphs results from the case law (Court of Justice judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 15 of the grounds, judgment of 18 October 1989 in Case 374/87 Orkem [1989] ECR 3283, judgment of 21 November 1991 in Case C-269/90 TU München [1991] ECR I-5469, and Court of First Instance judgments of 6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal [1994] ECR II-1177, 18 September 1995 in Case T-167/94 Nölle [1995] ECR II-258) and the wording regarding the obligation to give reasons comes from Article 253 of the EC Treaty, now replaced by Article I-38(2) of the Constitution (cf. also the legal base in Article III-398 of the Constitution for the adoption of legislation in the interest of an open, efficient and independent European administration).
Besedilo navedene pravice v prvih dveh odstavkih izhaja iz sodne prakse (sodba Sodišča z dne 15. oktobra 1987 v zadevi 222/86 Heylens [1987] PSES 4097, odstavek 15 obrazložitve, sodba z dne 18. oktobra 1989 v zadevi 374/87 Orkem [1989] PSES 3283, sodba z dne 21. novembra 1991 v zadevi C-269/90 TU München [1991] PSES I-5469, in sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. decembra 1994 v zadevi T-450/93 Lisrestal [1994] PSES II-1177, z dne 18. septembra 1995 v zadevi T-167/94 Nölle [1995] PSES II-258) in besedilo glede obveznosti navedbe razlogov izhaja iz člena 253 Pogodbe ES, ki se sedaj nadomesti z drugim odstavkom I-38. člena Ustave (prim. tudi pravno podlago v III-398. členu za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov za odprto, učinkovito in neodvisno evropsko upravo).
3 Objavljeno
izobraževanje
Ur. l. RS, št. MP 2005-15
It is based in particular on Court of Justice case law regarding television, particularly in case C-288/89 (judgment of 25 July 1991, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others [1991] ECR I-4007), and on the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the EC Treaty and now to the Constitution, and on Council Directive 89/552/EC (particularly its seventeenth recital).
Predvsem temelji na sodni praksi Sodišča o televiziji, zlasti na zadevi C-288/89 (sodba z dne 25. julija 1991 Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda in drugi [1991] PSES I-4007) in na Protokolu o sistemu javne radiotelevizije v državah članicah, ki je priloga Pogodbi ES in sedaj Ustavi, ter na Direktivi sveta 89/552/ES o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov (UL L 298, z dne 17. 10. 1989, str. 23) (zlasti njeni sedemnajsti uvodni izjavi).
4 Končna redakcija
CELEX: 32004R0805
This Regulation shall not affect the possibility of seeking recognition and enforcement, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, of a judgment, a court settlement or an authentic instrument on an uncontested claim.
Ta uredba ne vpliva na možnost zahtevati priznavanje in izvršitev sodbe, sodne poravnave ali javne listine o nespornem zahtevku v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 44/2001.
5 Končna redakcija
CELEX: 32004L0035
This Directive, which does not provide for additional rules of conflict of laws when it specifies the powers of the competent authorities, is without prejudice to the rules on international jurisdiction of courts as provided, inter alia, in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters(7).
Ta direktiva, ki pri natančni navedbi pooblastil pristojnih organov ne predvideva dodatnih kolizijskih norm, ne posega v pravila o mednarodni pristojnosti sodišč, ki so predvidena med drugim v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [7].
6 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
Whereas, by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 18 June 1996(2), Council Directive 94/43/EC(3) of 27 July 1994, establishing Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC, was annulled;
ker je bila z sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 18. junija 1996 fn, Direktiva Sveta 94/43/ES fn z dne 27. julija 1994 o določitvi Priloge VI k Direktivi 91/414/EGS razveljavljena;
7 Pravna redakcija
promet
Judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities pursuant to an arbitration clause in a contract under the Sixth EC and Euratom Framework Programmes shall be enforceable on the same terms.
Sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti na podlagi arbitražne klavzule v pogodbi v okviru šestih okvirnih programov ES in Euratoma so izvršljive pod istimi pogoji.
8 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
An application for a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on the exercise of parental responsibility for children of both spouses should be submitted to the courts listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1347/ 2000.
Zahtevek za izjavo o izvršljivosti sodbe o izvajanju starševske odgovornosti do otrok obeh zakoncev je treba predložiti sodiščem, naštetim v Prilogi I k Uredbi (ES) št. 1347/2000.
9 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
In its judgment of 16 March 1999 on Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96, the Court of Justice partly annulled Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in so far as it registered the name 'Feta' as a protected designation of origin.
V svoji sodbi z dne 16. marca 1999 o združenih primerih C-289/96, C-293/96 in C-299/96, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti izreklo Uredbo (ES) št. 1107/96 za delno nično, kar zadeva registracijo imena "Feta" kot zaščiteno označbo porekla.
10 Pravna redakcija
okolje
CELEX: 32004R0805
This Regulation shall not affect the possibility of seeking recognition and enforcement, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, of a judgment, a court settlement or an authentic instrument on an uncontested claim.
Ta uredba ne vpliva na možnost zahtevati priznavanje in izvršitev sodbe, sodne poravnave ali javne listine o nespornem zahtevku v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 44/2001.
11 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
amending the list of competent courts in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses
o spremembi seznama pristojnih sodišč iz Priloge I Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1347/2000 z dne 29. maja 2000 o sodni pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodb v zakonskih zadevah in v zadevah starševske odgovornosti do otrok obeh zakoncev
12 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1185/2002 of 1 July 2002 amending the list of competent courts in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses
UREDBA KOMISIJE (ES) št. 1185/2002 z dne 1. julija 2002 o spremembi seznama pristojnih sodišč iz Priloge I Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1347/2000 z dne 29. maja 2000 o sodni pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodb v zakonskih zadevah in v zadevah starševske odgovornosti do otrok obeh zakoncev
13 Pravna redakcija
DRUGO
Where a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled, where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where the answer to the question admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may, after informing the court or tribunal which referred the question to it, after hearing any observations submitted by the persons referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute, Article 21 of the Euratom Statute and Article 103(3) of these Rules and after hearing the Advocate-General, give its decision by reasoned order in which, if appropriate, reference is made to its previous judgment or to the relevant case-law.'
Kadar je vprašanje, ki je poslano Sodišču v predhodno odločanje, enako vprašanju, o katerem je Sodišče že odločalo, kadar se odgovor na tako vprašanje lahko jasno zaključi iz obstoječe sodne prakse ali kadar odgovor na vprašanje ne dovoljuje resnega dvoma, lahko Sodišče po obvestilu sodišča ali tribunala, ki mu je poslalo vprašanje, po obravnavi vseh pripomb, ki so jih predložile osebe iz člena 20 Statuta ES, člena 21 Statuta Euratom in člena 103(3) tega Poslovnika, ter po zaslišanju generalnega pravobranilca, izreče svoj sklep z utemeljeno odredbo, v kateri se po potrebi sklicuje na svojo prejšnjo sodbo ali ustrezno sodno prakso.«
14 Prevajalska redakcija
izobraževanje
CELEX: 32000L0034
In its judgment in Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v. Council(6) the Court of Justice ruled that Council Directive 93/104/EC accords with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.
V svoji razsodbi v primeru C-84/94 Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu [6] je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti presodilo, da je Direktiva Sveta 93/104/ES skladna z načeli subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, določenimi v členu 5 Pogodbe.
15 Prevajalska redakcija
izobraževanje
CELEX: 32002R1829
In its judgment of 16 March 1999 on Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96, the Court of Justice partly annulled Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in so far as it registered the name "Feta" as a protected designation of origin.
V svoji sodbi z dne 16. marca 1999 o združenih primerih C-289/96, C-293/96 in C-299/96, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti izreklo Uredbo (ES) št. 1107/96 za delno nično, kar zadeva registracijo imena "Feta" kot zaščiteno označbo porekla.
16 Prevajalska redakcija
izobraževanje
CELEX: 31999R0183
Whereas the Court of First Instance, in its Judgment of 30 September 1998 in Case T-121/97, established that Article 2 of the above Regulation was unlawful and, consequently, Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 840/95 should be amended in order to remedy that unlawful situation,
ker je Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji sodbi z dne 30. septembra 1998 v zadevi T-121/97 ugotovilo, da je člen 2 navedene uredbe nezakonit in je zato treba Uredbo (ES, Euratom, ESPJ) št. 840/95 spremeniti, da se to nezakonito stanje odpravi,
17 Prevajalska redakcija
izobraževanje
CELEX: 32004L0035
This Directive, which does not provide for additional rules of conflict of laws when it specifies the powers of the competent authorities, is without prejudice to the rules on international jurisdiction of courts as provided, inter alia, in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters(7).
Ta direktiva, ki pri natančni navedbi pooblastil pristojnih organov ne predvideva dodatnih kolizijskih norm, ne posega v pravila o mednarodni pristojnosti sodišč, ki so predvidena med drugim v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [7].
Prevodi: en > sl
1–20/20
judgment of the EC Court