imovinskopravni zahtjev oor Engels

imovinskopravni zahtjev

Vertalings in die woordeboek Kroaties - Engels

associated action for damages

voorbeelde

Druge stranke: stranke koje su postavile imovinskopravni zahtjev
Other parties: Parties claiming damages

20 VSB i dr. ističu da je imovinskopravni zahtjev koji su društva Aertssen podnijela u biti kaznenopravne naravi.
20 VSB and others contend that the complaint lodged by the Aertssen companies seeking to join a civil action to proceedings is essentially a criminal matter.

Kao što je Sud zaključio u točki 36. ove presude, navedeno područje primjene obuhvaća i imovinskopravni zahtjev podnesen pred sucem istrage.
As the Court held in paragraph 36 of this judgment, a complaint lodged with an investigating magistrate seeking to join a civil action to proceedings falls within that scope.

Svaki oštećenik koji podnese prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva može najmanje jednom biti saslušan od strane suca istrage zaduženog za predmet.“
Any victim who joins a civil action to the proceedings may be heard, on request, at least once, by the investigating magistrate responsible for the case.’

„Svaka osoba koja se smatra oštećenom kaznenim djelom ili deliktom može podnijeti prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva pred nadležnim sucem istrage.
‘Any person who claims to have been harmed by a crime or an offence may lodge a complaint of that harm and join a civil action to the proceedings before the investigating magistrate with jurisdiction.

Osim toga, prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva podnesen u Belgiji usmjeren je protiv stranaka pozvanih pred sud koji je uputio zahtjev.
Moreover, the complaint lodged in Belgium is directed against the parties summoned before the referring court.

Dodaju i da taj prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva i zahtjev podnesen pred Rechtbank Gelderland (sud u Gelderlandu) nemaju ni isti predmet niti istu kauzu.
VSB and others add that the complaint and the action brought before the Rechtbank Gelderland (District Court, Gelderland) do not involve the same cause of action.

22 S druge strane, cilj imovinskopravnog zahtjeva nije samo pokretanje kaznenog postupka, već također i to da se u okviru kaznenog progona tužitelju dodijeli i naknada štete.
22 Second, according to the referring court, the purpose of the complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings is not merely that a criminal investigation should be undertaken but also that, within a criminal prosecution, compensation should be awarded to the complainant.

U toj je presudi odlučeno da prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva nije ekvivalentan zahtjevu za pokretanje glavnog postupka u smislu članka 700. stavka 3. Zakona o građanskom postupku.
It was held in that judgment that a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings could not be the equivalent of an action initiating the main proceedings within the meaning of Article 700(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Naime, iz odluke kojom se upućuje prethodno pitanje proizlazi da su društva Aertssen podnijela imovinskopravni zahtjev protiv tuženika čiji je identitet poznat, odnosno osoba navedenih u točki 11. ove presude.
It is apparent from the order for reference that the Aertssen companies lodged their complaint seeking to join to proceedings a civil action against defendants whose identity is known, namely the persons referred to in paragraph 11 of this judgment.

58 Slijedom navedenog, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u ovom slučaju mora ispitati jesu li društva Aertssen, prilikom isticanja imovinskopravnog zahtjeva, podlijegala, na temelju primjenjivog nacionalnog prava, obvezi prethodne dostave tog imovinskopravnog zahtjeva.
58 Consequently, it is necessary that the referring court examine, in this case, whether the Aertssen companies were, at the time when their complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings was brought, subject, under the applicable national law, to a duty to effect prior service of that complaint.

21 Corte d’appello di Venezia (Žalbeni sud u Veneciji, Italija), odlučivši da su kaznene optužbe protiv zastupnika Rica Italia zastarjele, obustavio je postupak, ali je potvrdio prvostupanjsku presudu u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na imovinskopravne zahtjeve.
21 Taking the view that the charges against Rico Italia’s representative had become time-barred, the Corte d’appello di Venezia (Appeal Court, Venice, Italy) found that there was no purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings but upheld the judgment at first instance in so far as it concerned the civil claims.

„Ako osudi optuženika zbog kaznenog djela kojim je on drugoj osobi prouzročio štetu navedenu u članku 46. stavku 1., sud će mu u pravilu presudom također naložiti da naknadi štetu oštećeniku ako je on pravodobno podnio imovinskopravni zahtjev.
‘Where the court finds the accused guilty of the offence which caused to others the damage stated in Article 46(1), the court shall, in general, in the sentence, require the accused to pay compensation to the injured party if the latter has duly exercised his right within the prescribed period.

budući da je Ingeborg Gräßle 10. lipnja 2017. upravljajući automobilom u Heidenheimu prošla kroz crveno svjetlo na križanju ulica Brenzstrasse i Ploucquetstrasse te uzrokovala nesreću u kojoj je jedna osoba ozlijedila rame; budući da je podnesen imovinskopravni zahtjev;
whereas on 10 June 2017, at the junction of Brenzstraße and Ploucquetstraße in Heidenheim, Ms Gräßle drove through a red light and caused an accident in which a person suffered a shoulder injury; whereas a private action has been brought for damages;

33 Međutim, prema članku 187.undecies TUF-a, Consob ima mogućnost sudjelovati u kaznenom postupku, posebno podnošenjem prijedloga za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva, te je također dužan, sukladno članku 187.decies TUF-a, pravosudnim tijelima dostaviti dokumentaciju prikupljenu u obavljanju postupka nadzora.
33 According to Article 187j of the TUF, Consob is free to participate in criminal proceedings, in particular as a civil party, and is moreover required, under Article 187i of the TUF, to send to the judicial authorities the documents collected during the exercise of its supervision.

Članak 27. stavak 1. Uredbe br. 44/2001 treba tumačiti na način da se u smislu te odredbe postupak vodi kada je istaknut imovinskopravni zahtjev pred sucem istrage, iako istraga u predmetu o kojem je riječ još uvijek nije dovršena.
Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings are brought, within the meaning of that provision, when a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings has been lodged with an investigating magistrate, even though the judicial investigation of the case at issue has not yet been closed.

17 Društva Aertssen međutim zahtijevaju od Rechtbanka Gelderland (sud u Gelderlandu), ponajprije, da se oglasi nenadležnim te da utvrdi da je prijedlog za ostvarivanje imovinskopravnog zahtjeva podnesen u Belgiji ekvivalentan podnošenju zahtjeva za pokretanje glavnog postupka u smislu članka 700. stavka 3.
17 The Aertssen companies none the less claim, first, that the Rechtbank Gelderland (District Court, Gelderland) should declare that it lacks jurisdiction and rule that the complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings, pending in Belgium, is the equivalent of an action initiating the main proceedings within the meaning of Article 700(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Ako je odgovor potvrdan: od kojega trenutka se smatra da se za potrebe članka 27. stavka 1. i članka 30. navedene uredbe u predmetu – u kojem je postupak započet imovinskopravnim zahtjevom – vodi postupak i/ili da je pred sudom započet postupak?
(3) If the answer is in the affirmative, when will the action initiated by the lodging before the court of a complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings be deemed to have been brought and/or when must the court be deemed to be seised of that action for the purposes of Article 27(1) and Article 30 of [that regulation]?

18 Podredno, oni smatraju da bi Rechtbank Gelderland (sud u Gelderlandu) trebao zastati s postupanjem na temelju članka 28. te uredbe iz razloga što je predmet u glavnom postupku povezan s onim koji je u tijeku u Belgiji nakon isticanja imovinskopravnog zahtjeva.
18 In the alternative, the Aertssen companies claims that the Rechtbank Gelderland (District Court, Gelderland) should stay proceedings, under Article 28 of that regulation, on the ground that the main proceedings are related to the proceedings which are pending, in Belgium, following the complaint seeking to join a civil action to proceedings.

Association pour un hébergement et un tourisme professionnels (AHTOP) 24. siječnja 2017. podnio je imovinskopravni zahtjev, među ostalim, zbog obavljanja djelatnosti posredovanja i upravljanja nekretninom i goodwillom bez strukovne iskaznice prema Hoguetovu zakonu za razdoblje od 11. travnja 2012. do 24. siječnja 2017.
22 On 24 January 2017, the Association pour un hébergement et un tourisme professionnels (Association for professional tourism and accommodation, AHTOP) lodged a complaint together with an application to be joined as a civil party to the proceedings, inter alia, for the practice of activities concerning the mediation and management of buildings and businesses without a professional licence, under the Hoguet Law, between 11 April 2012 and 24 January 2017.

22 Association pour un hébergement et un tourisme professionnels (AHTOP) 24. siječnja 2017. podnio je imovinskopravni zahtjev, među ostalim, zbog obavljanja djelatnosti posredovanja i upravljanja nekretninom i goodwillom bez strukovne iskaznice prema Hoguetovu zakonu za razdoblje od 11. travnja 2012. do 24. siječnja 2017.
22 On 24 January 2017, the Association pour un hébergement et un tourisme professionnels (Association for professional tourism and accommodation, AHTOP) lodged a complaint together with an application to be joined as a civil party to the proceedings, inter alia, for the practice of activities concerning the mediation and management of buildings and businesses without a professional licence, under the Hoguet Law, between 11 April 2012 and 24 January 2017.

31 U tom pogledu Sud je, u točki 19. presude Sonntag (C‐172/91, EU:C:1993:144), zaključio da iako se imovinskopravni zahtjev raspravlja pred kaznenim sudom, taj zahtjev, podnesen radi naknade štete koja je pojedincu nastala zbog kaznenog prijestupa, zadržava svoj građanskopravni karakter.
31 In that regard, in paragraph 19 of the judgment in Sonntag (C‐172/91, EU:C:1993:144), the Court held that, even though it is joined to criminal proceedings, a civil action for compensation for injury to an individual resulting from a criminal offence continues to be civil in nature.