What is the translation of " THE ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION " in Slovenian?

• na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti
• odgovor na tretje vprašanje
• na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti
• odgovor na tretje vpra�anje

Examples of using The answer to the third question in English and their translations into Slovenian

Of course this should be adjusted also with the answer to the third question above.
K temu je treba dodati, da ta predlog vključuje tudi odgovor na tretje postavljeno vprašanje.

In view of the answer to the third question, it is unnecessary to reply to the fourth question..
Glede na odgovor na tretje vprašanje ni treba odgovoriti na četrto vprašanje.

With regard to the third question, the Czech Government refers to the arguments on the second question and considers that the answer to the third question is already contained in the answer to the second question..
Češka vlada v zvezi s tretjim vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje opozarja na navedbe k drugemu vpra�anju in uveljavlja, da je odgovor na tretje vpra�anje vsebovan že v odgovoru na drugo vpra�anje..

Likewise, in their view, the answer to the third question is irrelevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Prav tako naj odgovor na tretje vprašanje nikakor ne bi vplival na rešitev spora o glavni stvari.

If the answer to the third question is in the negative, is Directive 2000/78… compatible with the above provisions of the primary law of the European Union?
Če je odgovor na tretje vprašanje nikalen, ali je Direktiva 2000/78[…] skladna z zgoraj navedenimi določbami primarne zakonodaje[…][U]nije?

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti tako, da je treba člen 56 PDEU razlagati tako, da:.

If the answer to the third question is affirmative, are such additives excluded from the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC by virtue of the first indent of Article 4(b) of that Directive?
Če je odgovor na tretje vprašanje pritrdilen, ali so taki dodatki izključeni iz področja Direktive 2003/96/ES zaradi prve alinee člena 4(b) te Direktive?

To my mind, that plea of inadmissibility must be rejected, since the answer to the third question is necessary in order to assess whether Article 8 of that BIT is compatible with the EU and FEU Treaties.
Po mojem mnenju je treba ta ugovor nedopustnosti zavrniti, ker je odgovor na tretje vprašanje potreben, da bi se presodila združljivost člena 8 tega BIT s Pogodbama EU in DEU.

The answer to the third question is not affected where there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment of value added tax which was wrongly levied has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
Dejstvo, da gospodarski udeleženec, ki mu je bil zavrnjen zahtevek za nepravilno obračunan davek na dodano vrednost, ni imel finančne izgube ali da ni bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ne vpliva na odgovor na tretje vprašanje.

The answer to the fourth question must therefore be that the answer to the third question is not affected where there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment of VAT which was wrongly levied has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
Na četrto vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da dejstvo, da gospodarski udeleženec, ki mu je bil zavrnjen zahtevek za nepravilno obračunan DDV, ni imel finančne izgube ali da ni bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ne vpliva na odgovor na tretje vpra�anje.

The answer to the third question must therefore be that processing of personal data such as that described in the reply to the first question is not covered by any of the exceptions in Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46.
Torej je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da obdelava osebnih podatkov, kakršna je obdelava iz odgovora na prvo vprašanje, ne spada pod nobeno od izjem iz člena 3(2) Direktive 95/46.

By this question, the national court is essentially asking the Court whether the answer to the third question would be different if there is evidence that a trader who has been refused repayment on the ground of the unjust enrichment resulting from that refund has not suffered any financial loss or disadvantage.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če, ali bi bil odgovor na tretje vpra�anje drugačen, če bi obstajal dokaz, da je gospodarski udeleženec utrpel finančno izgubo ali bil postavljen v manj ugoden položaj, ker je bilo zavrnjeno vračilo zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, do katere bi to vračilo privedlo.

Does the answer to the third question differ in circumstances where the structure of the transactions chosen by the company in question means that the benefit of the election cannot be enjoyed?
Ali je odgovor na tretje vprašanje drugačen v okoliščinah, v katerih zaradi strukture transakcij, ki jih izbere zadevna družba, ni mogoče izkoristiti ugodnosti opcije?

Third, as follows from the answer to the third question,(52) the obligations flowing from the GMO Directive do not apply to(some types of) mutagenesis.
Tretjič, iz odgovora na tretje vprašanje izhaja,(52) da obveznosti na podlagi Direktive o GSO za(nekatere vrste) mutageneze ne veljajo.

If the answer to the third question is affirmative, should Article 13(1) of Regulation 604/2013 be interpreted in the sense that it prevents the return of the third country national to the State where he or she first entered the EU territory?
V primeru, da je odgovor na tretje vprašanje pritrdilen, ali je treba posledično člen 13(1) Uredbe[Dublin III] razlagati tako, da prepreči vrnitev državljana tretje države v državo, kjer je najprej vstopil v območje[Unije]?

In those circumstances, the answer to the third question must be that, in the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora, če se lahko tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari utemeljeno sklicuje, da je zaradi diskriminacije.

Consequently, the answer to the third question is that Article 36 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the review of proportionality of a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be confined to examining only information, evidence or other material available to the national legislature when it adopted that measure.
Zato je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 36 PDEU razlagati tako, da preizkus sorazmernosti nacionalnega ukrepa, kot je ta iz zadeve v glavni stvari, ni omejen le na informacije, dokaze ali drugo gradivo, ki ga je imel na voljo nacionalni zakonodajalec, ko je sprejel tak ukrep.

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question must be that Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to defendants not domiciled in the European Union.
Glede na navedeno je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da se člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe št. 44/2001 ne uporabi za tožene stranke, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča v Evropski uniji.

The answer to the third question must therefore be that all contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 must be subject to the procedures laid down in that directive.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da za naročila, ki jih odda naročnik, ki je oseba javnega prava v smislu direktiv 2004/17 in 2004/18, ter so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja ta naročnik v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17, veljajo postopki, navedeni v tej direktivi.

In light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question in Case C‑509/09 is that Article 3 of the Directive must be interpreted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na tretje vprašanje v zadevi C-509/09 odgovoriti, da je treba člen 3 Direktive razlagati tako, da ne zahteva prenosa v obliki posebnega kolizijskega pravila.

The answer to the third question must therefore be that, in order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora predložitveno sodi�če, da bi preverilo pristojnost države članice, ki je izterjevala carino, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče v trenutku, ko se je ugotovilo, da po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, določiti kraj kr�itve ali nepravilnosti.

In the light of those observations the answer to the third question must be that in the framework of the common system of VAT, national tax authorities are obliged to respect the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Glede na vse predhodne ugotovitve je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da morajo nacionalni davčni organi v okviru skupnega sistema DDV spoštovati načelo varstva legitimnega pričakovanja.

The answer to the third question must therefore be that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 lahko zavrne izvozno nadomestilo zaradi kr�itve določb Direktive 91/628/EGS, ki se nana�ajo na za�čito živali, čeprav na podlagi nobenega dejstva ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je bilo dobro počutje prevažanih živali v konkretnem primeru ogroženo.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that a Member State cannot, in its national law, lay down an exception or limitation other than those provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 to the phonogram producer's right provided for in Article 2(c) of that directive.
Glede na navedene preudarke je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da država članica v svojem nacionalnem pravu ne more določiti druge izjeme ali omejitve pravice proizvajalca fonograma iz člena 2(c) Direktive 2001/29 poleg tistih, ki so določene v členu 5 te direktive.

Therefore, the answer to the third question should be that Article 17(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State is required not to transfer an applicant to the Member State responsible, it must itself examine the application for international protection lodged with it even though that examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in that regulation.
Zato je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da člena 17(1) Uredbe št. 604/2013 ni mogoče razlagati tako, da mora država članica, kadar je zavezana, da ne preda prosilca v odgovorno državo članico, sama obravnavati prošnjo za mednarodno zaščito, ki je bila vložena v njej, tudi če tako obravnavanje ni njena odgovornost glede na merila iz te uredbe.

Consequently, the answer to the third question is that the right of a Member State to conclude and ratify the ESM Treaty is not subject to the entry into force of Decision 2011/199.
Zato je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da pravica države članice, da sklene in ratificira Pogodbo o EMS, ni odvisna od uveljavitve Sklepa 2011/199.

In view of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the public lending exception laid down therein from applying to the making available by a public library of a digital copy of a book in the case where that copy was obtained from an unlawful source.
Glede na navedeno je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 6(1) Direktive 2006/115 razlagati tako, da nasprotuje temu, da se v njem določena izjema javnega posojanja uporabi, kadar javna knjižnica daje na razpolago primerek knjige v digitalni obliki, ki je bil pridobljen iz nezakonitega vira.

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted to mean that it does not extend to acts such as the printing out of works on paper or their storage on a USB stick, carried out by users from dedicated terminals installed in publicly accessible libraries covered by that provision.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 5(3)(n) Direktive 2001/29 razlagati tako, da ne zajema dejanj, kot sta tiskanje del na papir ali njihovo shranjevanje na ključ USB, ki jih uporabniki opravijo na posebnih terminalih, nameščenih v javno dostopnih knjižnicah iz te določbe.

(4) If the answer to the third question is in the negative, is the making of a temporary reproduction by an end user during the streaming of a copyright-protected work from a website where that copyright-protected work is offered without the authorisation of the right holder(s) then contrary to the“three-step test” referred to in Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29?'.
Če je odgovor na tretje vprašanje nikalen: ali izdelava začasne kopije, ki jo končni uporabnik naredi pri pretočnem predvajanju avtorskopravno varovanega dela s spletnega mesta tretje osebe, na katerem se to avtorskopravno varovano delo ponuja brez privoljenja imetnika pravice oziroma imetnikov pravic, v tem primeru vzdrži‚tristopenjski test‘ v smislu člena 5(5) Direktive?“ Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje.

In those circumstances, the answer to the third question must be that, in the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.
Glede na to je treba na tretje vprašanje odgovoriti, da mora, če se lahko tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari utemeljeno sklicuje, da je zaradi diskriminacije, katere žrtev je bila, utrpela škodo, predložitveno sodišče glede na veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo na področju nepogodbene odgovornosti presoditi, v kakšni obliki lahko zahteva povračilo škode.