This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Interpreting, Editing/proofreading, Subtitling, Training
Serbian to Romanian: UGOVOR br. 1 - o pružanju usluga - CONTRACT nr. 1 - de prestări servicii General field: Bus/Financial Detailed field: Economics
Source text - Serbian UGOVORNE STRANE:
1. „------------------" d.o.o. Beograd,
"--------------", Beograd,
Republika Srbija
PIB: 101xxxxxxx, koga zastupa direktor
Pxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, dipl.ecc.
(u daljem tekstu: NARUČILAC POSLA)
Banka: Raiffeisen banka a.d. Beograd, Srbija
SWIFT: xxxxxxxxxx;
IBAN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
2. SC „Mxxxxxxxx" Sxxxxx SRL, sa sedištem u
Str. xxxxxx nr. x, sc.x, ap. x - Oxxxxxxx ,
Jud. Mehedinti, Rumunija,
koga zastupa direktor Pxxxxxx xxxxxx
CUI xxxxxxxxxx,
Banka: BRD SA
račun: RO xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(u daljem tekstu: IZVOĐAČ POSLA)
I. UVODNE ODREDBE
Član 1.
Ovaj Ugovor je zaključen na osnovu prethodnih
pregovora i uz saglasnost obe ugovorne strane, koje u
momentu zaključenja ugovora znaju svoja prava i
obaveze, i zasniva se na uzajamnom poverenju.
Zaključenje ugovora, njegov tok i izvršenje, podleže
zakonima Republike Srbije.
II. OSNOVNI PARAMETRI UGOVORA
Član 2.
Predmet ovog ugovora je sečenje metalnog otpada.
Sečenje će se vršiti u Srbiji sa radnom snagom
Izvođača, na lokacijama koje odredi Naručilac.
Ovaj se posao obavlja na zemlji i do tri metra visine, a
sečenje se vrši na maksimalne dimenzije
pojedinačnih komada metalnog otpada: 500 mm x
1500 mm (namenjeno za drumski transport).
Izvođač posla je u obavezi da mesečno izreže
najmanje 7001 (sedamstotina tona) metalnog
otpada.
Član 3.
Izvođač će nakon isteka roka od jednog meseca,
Naručiocu dostaviti fakturu za izvršenu uslugu, kojuće Naručilac isplatiti u roku od 15 dana od njenog
prispeća u sedištu Naručioca.
Ako Izvođač obavi veći obim posla od predviđenog
mesečnog no rmativa od 700 tona, način plaćanja
„viška" obavljene usluge je: Izvođač će Naručiocu
ispostaviti fakturu na 50% vrednosti viška obavljene
usluge, a Naručilac će prihvatiti i isplatiti tu vrednost
(preostalih 50% vrednosti „viška" obavljene uslugu
pripada Naručiocu).
Ugovorne strane su utvrdile cenu usluge sečenja po
jednoj toni metalnog otpada od 10,00 € (deset evra).
Izvođaču će biti prezentirane sve kopije vagarskih
listova izrezanog metalnog otpada, na osnovu kojih će
se uz saglasnost obe stranke utvrditi obim izvršenog
posla.
Plaćanje će se izvršiti putem međunarodnog platnog
prometa.
Član 4.
Stranke su se dogovo rile, da se posao obavlja u roku
od 3 meseca od dana uvođenja Izvođača u posao, pri
čemu taj rok teče od dana kada Naručilac dostavi
Izvođaču odobrenje za izvođenje prekogranične
usluge.
Ako za obe strane nastupe nepredviđeni događaji, a
nema krivice ni na jedn oj strani, onda će Naručilac
odrediti naknadni rok, koji Izvođač prihvata, te
ukoliko na bilo koji način dođe do probijanja
utvrđenog roka od tri meseca, onda će Naručilac
pribaviti dozvolu za produženi rad i to samo pod
uslovom da se radi o objektivnim smetnjama.
III. PRAVA I OBAVEZE UGOVORNIH STRANA
Član 5.
Izvođač posla prihvata, da uslugu koju mu je dao
Naručilac, izvrši prema svim važećim odredbama i
pravilima ovog ugovora kao i važećim standardima za
ovu vrstu posla, te da uslugu izvrši u rokovima koji su
određeni.
Član 6.
Naručilac će primiti posao koji preda Izvođač, samo
ako on bude urađen prema dogovoru i pravilima
posla, u protivnom, zadržava pravo da Izvođaču
reklamira nedostatke i zahteva da u razumnom roku
oni budu otklonjeni.
Član 7.
Naručilac posla će o svom trošku, a za potrebe
Izvođača, obezbediti sve energente potrebne za
normalni tok rada i to na licu mesta, i u količinama"
...
Translation - Romanian PĂRŢILE CONTRACTANTE:
1. „------------------" d.o.o. Belgrad,
"--------------", Belgrad,
Republica Serbia
PIB: 101xxxxxxx, reprezentată de director
Pxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, dipl.ecc.
(denumită în continuareŞ CLIENT)
Banca: Raiffeisen banka a.d. Belgrad, Serbia
SWIFT: xxxxxxxxxx;
IBAN: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
2. SC „Mxxxxxxxx" Sxxxxx SRL, cu sediul în
Str. xxxxxx nr. x, sc.x, ap. x - Oxxxxxxx ,
Jud. Mehedinţi, România,
reprezentată de director Pxxxxxx xxxxxx
CUI xxxxxxxxxx,
Banca: BRD SA
Cont: RO xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(denumit in continuare: PRESTATOR)
I. PREVEDERI INTRODUCTIVE
Articolul 1.
Prezentul contract este incheiat pe baza negocierilor
precedente si cu acordul ambelor parti contractante,
care in momentul incheierii contractului asi cunose
drepturile si obligaţiile, si se bazează pe increderea
reciproca.
încheierea contractului, derularea si finalizarea sa, se
realizează cu respectarea legilor Republici Serbia.
II. PARAMETRI DE BAZA Al CONTRACTULUI
Articolul 2.
Obiectul prezentului contract il reprezintă tăierea
fierului vechi. Operaţiunea se va executa in Serbia cu
forţa de munca a prestatorului in locaţiie stabilite de
beneficiar.
Activitatea se desfăşoară pe pamant si pana la trei
metri inaltime, iar tăierea se realizează la dimensiunea
maxima a fiecărei bucati de fier vechi: 500 mm x 1500
mm (special pentru transportul rutier).
Prestatorul este obligai sa taie lunar cel puţin 700t
(şapte sute ton e) de fier vechi.
Articolul 3.
Prestatorul dupa trecerea termenului de o luna, va
prezenta Clientului factura pentru serviciile prestate,pe care Clientul o va achita in termen de 15 zile de la
primirea acesteia la sediul Clientului.
Daca Prestatorul realizează o cantitate mai mare decât
cea prevăzuta pentru normativul lunar de 70 0 tone,
modalitatea de plata pentru "plusul" realizat este:
prestatorul va intocmi factura clientului cu 50% din
valoraea serviciilor prestate, iar Clientul va accepta si
va plaţi acea suma (restul de 50% din "plus" aparţine
Clientului).
Părţile contractante au convenit preţul serviciilor de
taiere pentru o tona de fier vechi de 10,00 euro (zece
euro).
Prestatorului ii vor fi prezentate toate copiile listelor
de taiere ale fierului vechi, pe baza cărora ambele
parti vor stabili nivelul realizărilor.
Plăţile se vor efectua prin sistmul de plata
international.
Articolul 4.
Părţile au convenit ca activizatea sa se desfăşoare in
termen de 3 luni de la data inceperii lucrului de către
prestator, astfel ca acei termen curge de la data cand
Clientul pune la dispoziţia Prestatorului autorizaţia de
desfăşurare de activităţi transfrontalière.
Daca ambelor parti li se intampla un eveniment
nepravazut, si nu este din vina nici unei a, atunci
Clientul va stabili un termen pe care-l va accepta
Prestatorul, daca in vre-un fel se va ajunge la ţ» >
depăşirea termenului de 3 luni, atunei Clientul va \
obţine o alta autorizaţie de prelungire a activităţii si
aceasta doar cu condiţia sa fie vorba despre
evenimente obiective.
III. DREPTURI SI OBLIGAŢII ALE PÂRTILOR
CONTRACTANTE
Articolul 5.
Prestatorul accepta, ca serviciul pe care i l-a dat
Clientul sa-l execute cu respectarea tuturor
prevederilor legale si a condiţiilor din prezentul
contract, precum si la standardele pentru astfel de
activităţi.
Articolul 6.
Clientul va primi activitatea pe care i-o va preda
Prestatorul, doar daca ea va fi conform prevederilor
contractuale, din contra, isi menţine dreptul de a-i
reclama prestatorului neajunsurile si cere ca intr-un
termen scurt acestea sa fie eliminate.
Articolul 7.
Clientul, pe cheltuiala sa, si pentru nevoile
prestatorului, va asigura toate nevoile energetice"
...
Romanian to English: Court of Appeal Sentence General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law (general)
Source text - Romanian ROMÂNIA
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREŞTI - DIVIZIA A 2-A PENALA
DOSARUL NR. 34XX/2/201X
(1326/201X)
...
Translation - English ROMANIA
COURT OF APPEAL OF BUCHAREST – 2nd CRIMINAL DIVISION
CASE NO. 34XX/2/201X
(1326/201X)
PENAL DECISION no. 2XX/F
Advising Chamber Session of 25.06.2012
Ministry of Justice – The Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest is represented by Lxxxxx Cxxxxxxxx.
Pending is the decision regarding the case submitted by the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal Bucharest, grounded on the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article No. 162 and Article No. 163 of Law No. 302/2004 republished, against the transferable person Bxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, regarding the recognition and enforcement of the penal sentence issued on XX.XX.2011 by Manchester Crown Court, final sentence issued on XX.XX.2011 by the Court of Appeal in London, during the procedure of awarding a solution on the issue of the application formulated by the judiciary authorities of Great Britain for the transfer of the aforementioned person to a detention facility in Romania.
The following were present at the roll call in the Advising Chamber: Mxxxxx Xxxxx the duty solicitor of the transferable person Bxxx Nxxxxxx, with power of attorney no. 014XXX/XX.04.2012, filed at page 7, the transferable person Bxxx Nxxxxx being absent.
Fully compliant procedure.
The court clerk presents the case summary, followed by :
In absence of further preliminary applications to be formulated, exceptions to be invoked and evidence to be submitted, the Court admits the case and allows the submission of arguments on the merits.
The Representative of the Ministry of Justice, being invited to speak, makes submissions as to grant the request of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest to recognise the penal sentence issued on XX.01.2011 by Manchester Crown Court, final sentence issued on XX.07.2011 by the Court of Appeal in London and, accordingly, to transfer the convicted person to a detention facility in Romania to serve the remainder of the sentence.
It is also requested that the time already spent in custody by the transferable person be taken off the total prison sentence.
The duty solicitor of the transferable person Bxxxxx Nxxxxxxxx, being invited to speak, deeming the conditions established by Article No 143 of Law No. 302/2004 as met, makes submissions as to grant the request of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, to recognise the penal sentence issued by the foreign judiciary authorities and, accordingly, to transfer the convicted person to a detention facility in Romania to serve the remainder of the sentence after the deduction of the time already spent in custody from the total prison sentence.
THE COURT
Ruling on the penal case herein, acknowledges the following:
By the resolution of XX April 2012, issued by the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, file no. XXX/II/5/2012, it was disposed, under the provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article No. 162 and Article No. 163 of Law No. 302/2004 republished, the initiation of proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Bucharest regarding the recognition of the sentence issued on XX.01.2011 by Manchester Crown Court, final sentence issued on XX.07.2011 by the Court of Appeal in London, regarding the aforementioned Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx and the enforcement thereof in accordance with the provisions of Article 158 of Law No. 302/2004 republished.
Pending for the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – 2nd Criminal Division is file no. XXXX/2/2012, registered on XX.04.2012.
Upon the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds and orders as follows:
According to notice no. XX168/2011, registered at the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the Ministry of Justice – International Law and Judiciary Co-operation Department – Section International Judiciary Co-operation in Criminal Matters forwards, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 302/2004, republished, the application formulated by the judiciary authorities of Great Britain, requesting the transfer of the convicted person BXXXX NXXXXXXX to a detention facility in Romania to serve the remainder of the 9 year custodial sentence issued by the applicant state courts.
The application formulated by the judiciary authorities of Great Britain is supported by the documents mentioned in Paragraph 2 of Article No. 6 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg in 1983, as follows: a certified copy of the judgment and the law on which it is based, a statement indicating how much of the sentence has already been served, a declaration containing the consent to the transfer and a social and familial report on the sentenced person.
Assessing the documents annexed to the case, the Court finds that the conditions for transfer cumulatively stated at Letters a-f, Paragraph 1, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (transposed in national legislation by the provisions of Letters a-f, Article 143 of Law No. 302/2004) are fulfilled only partially, respectively only conditions stated at Letters a-e hereof.
Therefore, the verifications effectuated at the Ministry of Administration and Interior, respectively at the Directorate for Persons Record and Databases Management and at Passports General Directorate show that the aforementioned Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx (son of Sxxxx and Fxxxxx, date of birth 17.08.1959, born in Bxxxxx, Teleorman County, resident of Pitesti City, XX Gxxxxx St, Arges County, owner of ID Card Series XX, No. xxxxxx, issued at XX.XX.20XX by SPCLEP Pitesti, Personal Identification Code XXXXXXXX0020, owner of passport no. XXXXXX, issued by SPCEEPS of Teleorman County) is a Romanian Citizen, thus fulfilling the condition mentioned by Letter a, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Extradition of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg and Letter a, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004, republished.
The information and documents forwarded by the sentencing state, in accordance with the provisions of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg in 1983 show that the aforementioned Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx was sentenced on XX.01.201X by Manchester Crown Court to 9 years in prison for the crimes of: human trafficking into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation mentioned in Paragraph 1, Article 57 of Sexual Offences Act, human trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation mentioned in Paragraph 1, Article 58 of Sexual Offences Act, controlling prostitution for gain mentioned in Paragraph 1, Article 53 of Sexual Offences Act, assault occasioning bodily harm mentioned in Article 47 of Offences Against the Person Act, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice mentioned in Criminal Justice Act.
In fact, it is stated that between 01.11.2007 and 30.11.2007, the convicted person Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx, together with another person, facilitated the arrival into and travel within the United Kingdom of Fxxxxx Xxxxxxx with the purpose of sexual exploitation, controlled prostitution for gain and the convicted person assaulted the aforementioned occasioning bodily harm. Also, it is stated that the convicted person, together with another person, between 01.04.2008 and 17.10.2008 facilitated the arrival into the United Kingdom of Xxxxxx Xxxx with the purpose of sexual exploitation, between 01.04.200X and XX.10.200X facilitated the arrival into the United Kingdom of Dxxxxx Gxxxxxx with the purpose of sexual exploitation, between 15.08.2008 and 15.09.2008 deliberately facilitated the arrival into the United Kingdom of Mxxxxx X Xxxxxxxx with the purpose of sexual exploitation, between 01.01.200X and 31.12.200X tried to offer money and to threaten witnesses in the criminal trial with the purpose of determining them not to give statements in the criminal proceedings.
This sentence became final on XX.07.2011, by the sentence issued by the Court of Appeal in London, thus fulfilling the condition mentioned by Letter b, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg and Letter b, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004.
The information forwarded by British authorities show that the custodial sentence will be considered served on XX.05.201X and the time spent on remand was deducted from the duration of the prison sentence.
Therefore, the condition mentioned by Letter c, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg and Letter c, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004 is fulfilled.
Examining the subject matter, the Court finds that the dual criminality requirement mentioned by Letter e, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004 and Letter e, Paragraph 1, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed in Strasbourg is fulfilled, as the facts attributed to the aforementioned Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx have a correspondent in the Romanian criminal legislation, realizing the constitutive content of the crimes mentioned by Paragraph 1, Article 180 of Criminal Code, Article No. 261¹, Article No. 12 of Law No. 678/2011 in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 41 of Criminal Code and Letter a, Article 33 of Criminal Code.
The convicted person consented to the transfer to a detention facility in Romania to serve the remainder of the custodial sentence, thus fulfilling the condition mentioned by Letter d, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004.
The application of the Public Prosecutor is thus not grounded, as the condition mentioned in Letter f, Paragraph 1, Article 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (respectively Letter f, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004) is not fulfilled, as the consent of the sentencing State to the transfer is missing.
The Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons expressly states (in the article previously mentioned) that the sentencing and administering States must agree to the transfer and the corresponding legal provisions in Romanian national legislation also state that the sentencing State and the administering State must agree on the transfer; otherwise, the transfer cannot take place.
Providing only general principles regarding the transfer, the Council of Europe's Convention does not mention the actual method for reaching this agreement, allowing the states involved to elaborate the procedural details of issuing a statement of acceptance or refusal of the transfer in accordance with the documents and statements mentioned in Paragraphs 1-3, Article No. 6 of the Convention.
In accordance with these provisions, the Romanian national legislation mentions, in Paragraph 4, Article No. 162 of Law No. 302/2004 that the admission of the case by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest as court of competent jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign judgement and its enforcement takes place at the moment of receipt by the Ministry of Justice of the statement of acceptance issued by the sentencing State, alongside the information mentioned in Paragraph 3, Article No. 146 and the documents mentioned in Paragraph 2, Article No. 147 of the aforementioned Law.
Notwithstanding, the sentencing State has the option, in accordance with Paragraph 3, Article No. 6 of the Convention, to make the final decision on the transfer after the receipt of the information mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the above mentioned article, but in the incipient stage of the application submitted to the court, an acceptance of the transfer, albeit preliminary, must be issued expressly by the sentencing State so that the Romanian judiciary authority can assess the cumulative fulfilment of the six conditions required for the transfer.
In the pending case it was established that, by means of notification no. PXX/N8832/6/1 of XX February 201X, the sentencing State forwarded the application for transfer formulated by Bxxxx Nxxxxxxx along with relevant documentation, expressly stating however that, at the present time, the legal consent to the extradition cannot be issued, as this depends on further information to be provided, respectively, on the data mentioned in Paragraphs 1, Article No. 6 of the Convention.
Considering the intentions thus expressed by the sentencing State, the Court finds that the notification forwarding the application for transfer constitutes an expression of the obligation of British authorities to inform, in accordance with Paragraph 2, Article No. 4 of the Convention and cannot constitute an expression of consent to the transfer by the sentencing State. The aforementioned intention is implied in the very details of the document, whereby the sentencing State informs the Romanian State of the intentions of the convicted person and requests, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3, Article No. 6, the issuance of documents previous to making a decision on the transfer, decision which was not communicated subsequently to the Romanian authorities, the application being forwarded to the Court in its absence.
The Court finds that the provisions of Law No. 302/2004 clearly describe the procedure applicable in the case when the Romanian State fulfils the role of administering State, expressly stating, according to the provisions of Paragraph 4, Article No. 162 that the statement of consent to the transfer by the sentencing State must be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice previous to the admission of the case by the Romanian court of competent jurisdiction.
Thus, following the logical interpretation of these legal provisions, it is to be concluded without doubt that the issuance of a decision by the Romanian judiciary authority on the transfer involves, necessarily, knowing the position of the sentencing State, which must be expressed clearly in written form.
An alternative interpretation would unreasonably restrict the area of applicability of the provisions of Article No. 162 of Law No. 3023/2004 to the situations whereby the convicted person opts to address the application to the administering State and ignores the general character of the procedure, which is manifest in the marginal title of the text and in the entirety of its provisions.
For these reasons the Court finds that in the pending case the application has been forwarded in the absence of an at least preliminary but expressly stated consent of the sentencing State, consent which cannot be presumed by the simple act of forwarding the transfer application and which is in contradiction with the explicit statements made in the notification no. PDP/N8832/6/1 of XX February 201X by the applicant State.
Therefore, the failure to fulfil all the conditions for transfer, as stated in Letters a-f, Paragraph 1, Article No. 3 of Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (respectively Letters a-f, Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004) results in the impossibility to carry out the transfer and the denial as such of the application formulated by the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest.
Finally, the Court finds that the failure to fulfil the conditions regarding the transfer of the convicted person and the denial of the application for transfer renders the recognition of the foreign judgement futile, as the latter is subsidiary to the transfer, being necessary only if the aforementioned transfer is granted and exclusively for the purpose of enforcing the sentence.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Court finds that the conditions of Article No. 143 of Law No. 302/2004 republished are not cumulatively fulfilled and therefore denies the application formulated by the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest.
Under Paragraph 3, Article No. 192 of Criminal Procedure Code, legal expenses are covered by the State.
ON THOSE GROUNDS
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW
R U L E S :
The denial of the application formulated by the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest regarding the convicted person BXXXX NXXXXXXX (son of Sxxxxx and Xxxxxx, date of birth XX.XX.195X, born in Bxxxxxx Village, Teleorman County, resident of Pitesti City, XX Gxxxxx St, Arges County, owner of ID Card Series XX, No. xxxxxx, issued at XX.10.200X by SPCLEP Pitesti, Personal Identification Code XXXXXXXX0020, owner of passport no. XXXXXX, issued by SPCEEPS of Teleorman County, Romanian citizen).
Under Paragraph 3, Article No. 192 of Criminal Procedure Code, legal expenses are covered by the State.
The duty solicitor fee amounting to 320 Lei will be covered by the funds of the Ministry of Justice.
The sentence is appealable within 10 days from the date of issuance for the prosecutor and from the date of communication for the convicted person.
Pronounced in open session today, 25 June 2012.
PRESIDING JUDGE :
Axxx Axxxxxxxxxx
COURT CLERK:
Sxxxxxx Dxxxxxx
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned………………………………………………………
Born at ……………………………….., son/daughter of………………….and
…………………….
Detained in …………………………………………………………penitentiary
Declare that I received sentence no. …………………………………………….
of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, Division………………………………….
and I have taken note of the provisions hereof.
After receipt of the sentence, I indicate that:
• I want to appeal (if you do not agree with the decision of the Court)
• I do not want to appeal (if you agree with the decision of the Court)
(check the appropriate box)
IMPORTANT
To be noted that the sentence is appealable within 10 days from the date you have been informed of the sentence.
Not appealing within the stated appeal term will result in the sentence becoming final.
Along with the appeal statement you have the possibility, if appropriate, to explain in writing your reasons for appeal.
DATE SIGNATURE
More
Less
Translation education
Other - Level 6 QCF Diploma - DIP; Chartered Institute of Linguists 2014
Experience
Years of experience: 18. Registered at ProZ.com: Aug 2012.
English to Romanian (Diploma in Police Interpreting (Metropolitan Polic) Romanian to English (Diploma in Police Interpreting (Metropolitan Polic) Serbian to Romanian (Certified translator by the Romanian Ministry of J) English to Romanian (National Register of Public Service Interpreters) English to Romanian (Diploma in Public Service Interpreting - English L)
Romanian to English (Diploma in Public Service Interpreting - English L) Serbian to Romanian (Certified Translator and Interpreter for Romanian )
