natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Всъщност разпоредбите на предложения инструмент се отнасят до изискванията и условията за одобрение на продукти за растителна защита, процедурата за одобрение, подновяването и преразглеждането на одобрения, дерогации, одобрение на растителнозащитни и синергизиращи вещества, забрана на недопустими коформуланти, разрешение за пускане на пазара и употреба, процедури за разрешение и освобождаване, взаимно признаване на разрешения, подновяване и отнемане на разрешения, специални случаи (нискорискови продукти, продукти, съдържащи ГМО, продукти, съдържащи вещества-кандидати за замяна, разрешения за маловажни употреби), дерогации за употреба при неотложни случаи, научноизследователска и развойна дейност, изисквания във връзка с употребата на продуктите за растителна защита и информация за потенциално вредните им въздействия, синергични добавки, защита и обмен на данни, публичен достъп до информация, опаковане, етикетиране и рекламиране, контрол, неотложни случаи и административни и финансови разпоредби (включително относно общата гражданска и наказателна отговорност).
In fact, the provisions of the proposed instrument are concerned with requirements and conditions for the approval of plant-protection products, the approval procedure, the renewal and review of approvals, derogations, approvals of safeners and synergists, a ban on unacceptable co-formulants, authorisation for placing on the market and use, procedures for authorisation and exemption, mutual recognitions of authorisations, renewal and withdrawal of authorisations, special cases (low-risk products, products containing GMOs, products containing candidates for substitution, authorisations for minor uses), derogations for emergency use and research and development, requirements relating to the use of and information on potentially harmful effects of plant protection products, adjuvants, data protection and data sharing, public access to information, packaging, labelling and advertising, controls, emergencies, and administrative and financial provisions (including provisions on civil and criminal liability).
Правното основание определя компетентността на Общността ratione materiae и посочва как ще се упражнява тази компетентност, а именно законовия/те инструмент/и, който/които могат да бъдат използвани и процедурата за вземане на решение.
The legal basis defines the Community's competence ratione materiae and specifies how that competence is to be exercised, namely the legislative instrument(s) which may be used and the decision-making procedure.
От установената съдебна практика на Съда на Европейските общности става ясно, че изборът на правно основание не се извършва по усмотрение на законодателя на Общността, а според обективни фактори, които подлежат на съдебен контрол
It is clear from settled case-law of the Court of Justice that the choice of legal basis is not at the discretion of the Community legislator but must be determined by objective factors which are amenable to judicial review
Освен това решаващият фактор трябва да бъде основния предмет на мярката
Furthermore, the decisive factor should be the main object of a measure
В съответствие със съдебната практика на Съда на Европейските общности, един общ член от Договора представлява достатъчно правно основание, дори и въпросната мярка да се стреми в подчинен порядък, към постигане на цел, заложена в конкретен член от Договора
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a general Treaty article constitutes a sufficient legal basis even though the measure in question also seeks, in a subordinate manner, to attain an aim sought by a specific Treaty article
Дело C-377/98 Нидерландия с/у Европейския парламент и Съвета [2001] ECR I-7079, параграфи 27-28; Дело C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) и Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, параграфи 93-94. .
Case C-377/98 Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, paras 27-28; Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paras 93-94. .
Въпреки това, когато една мярка си поставя няколко едновременни цели, неразривно свързани една с друга, без някоя от тях да е вторична или косвена по отношение на останалите, мярката трябва да бъде основана на съответните различни разпоредби от Договора
However, where a measure has several contemporaneous objectives which are indissolubly linked with each other without one being secondary and indirect in respect to the others, the measure must be based on the various relevant Treaty provisions
Предвид горепосоченото трябва да се установи какво е подходящото правно основание на предложения регламент.
In the light of the above, it is to be established what is the proper legal basis for the proposed regulation.
Европейската комисия предложи двойно правно основание, а именно член 37, параграф 2, заедно с член 152, параграф 4, буква б).
The European Commission proposed a dual legal basis, namely Article 37(2) together with Article 152(4)(b).
Комисията по околна среда предлага член 37, параграф 2 да се заличи и като правно основание да се използват член 152, параграф 4, буква б) и член 175, параграф 1.
The Environment Committee proposes deleting Article 37(2) and using Article 152(4)b) and Article 175(1) as the legal basis.
От своя страна, комисията по вътрешния пазар и защита на потребителите предлага член 37, параграф 2, член 152, параграф 4, буква б) и член 95.
For its part, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection suggests Article 37(2), Article 152(4)(b) and Article 95.
По отношение на член 95 , предвид съдебната практика в смисъл, че общ член от Договора съставлява достатъчно правно основание, дори ако въпросната мярка също така се стреми към, в подчинен порядък, към постигане на цел, заложена в конкретен член от Договора
As far as Article 95 is concerned, in view of the case-law to the effect that a general Treaty article constitutes a sufficient legal basis even though the measure in question also seeks, in a subordinate manner, to attain an aim sought by a specific Treaty article
Дело C-377/98 Нидерландия с/у Европейския парламент и Съвета [2001] ECR I-7079, параграфи 27-28; Дело C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) и Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, параграфи 93-94. , се счита, че не е необходимо позоваване на член 95.
Case C-377/98 Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, paras 27-28; Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paras 93-94. , it is considered that there is no need to refer to Article 95.
Въпреки че се подразбира, че разпоредбите за пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита, етикетирането и взаимното признаване са предназначени да гарантират функционирането на вътрешния пазар, основната цел на регламента е да осигури опазването на здравето на хората и животните и на околната среда, като гарантира, че продуктите за растителна защита, които са от жизненоважно значение за земеделието, не се пускат на пазара, без да са преминали официални изпитания и без да са получили разрешение, както и че се употребяват правилно.
Even though it is implicit that the provisions on placing plant-protection products on the market, labelling and mutual recognition are designed to secure the functioning of the internal market, the prime purpose of the regulation is to secure the protection of human and animal health and the environment by ensuring that plant-protection products, which are of vital importance for agriculture, are not placed on the market without being officially tested and authorised and are correctly used.
Това е "центъра на тежестта" на инструмента, а не установяването или функционирането на вътрешния пазар, което е подразбираща се, вторична и косвена цел спрямо основната цел.
This is the centre of gravity of the instrument and not the establishment or functioning of the internal market, which is only an implicit aim and secondary and indirect in respect to the main aim.
По отношение на член 37, параграф 2, позоваване на него не е необходимо предвид изричната дерогация, съдържаща се в член 152, параграф 4, буква б), относно мерките във фитосанитарната област, които пряко целят опазването на общественото здраве.
As far as Article 37(2) is concerned, there is no need to refer thereto in view of the express derogation contained in Article 152(4)(b) for measures in the phytosanitary field which have the protection of public health as their direct objective.
Няма съмнение, че, предвид целта и съдържанието на предложения регламент, опазването на общественото здраве е пряка цел на мярката.
There is no doubt whatsoever in view of the aim and content of the proposed regulation that protection of public heath is a direct objective of the measure.
Освен това фактът, че член 37, параграф 2 предвижда процедура на консултация, а не на съвместно вземане на решение, може да бъде причина този член да бъде счетен за несъвместим, освен ако не е възможно съдебната практика по член 133 да се тълкува също така с оглед на член 37, параграф 2
Furthermore, the fact that Article 37(2) provides for the consultation procedure and not co-decision might cause it to be regarded as incompatible unless the case-law on Article 133 can be construed as also applying to Article 37(2)
Виж съдебното решение от 10 януари 2006 г. по Дело C-178/03 Комисията с/у Парламента и Съвета , в параграф 59, и съдебното решение от същата дата по Дело C-94/03 Комисията с/у Съвета . .
See the judgment of 10 January 2006 in Case C-178/03 Commission v. Parliament and Council , at paragraph 59, and the judgment of the same date in Case C-94/03 Commission v. Council . .
Следователно член 152, параграф 4, буква б) предоставя достатъчно правно основание и не е необходимо позоваване на член 175, параграф 1 .
Consequently, Article 152(4)(b) suffices as legal basis and there is no need also to refer to Article 175(1) .
В тази връзка се счита, че целесъобразното правно основание е член 152, параграф 4, буква б).
Accordingly, it is considered that the appropriate legal basis is Article 152(4)(b).
В съответствие с това на своето заседание от 11 юни 2007 г. комисията по правни въпроси реши с единодушие
At its meeting of 11 June 2007 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided, unanimously
На окончателното гласуване присъстваха: Cristian Dumitrescu (изпълняващ длъжността председател на заседанието), Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (заместник-председател), Manuel Medina Ortega (докладчик по становище), Carlo Casini, Janelly Fourtou, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Hans-Peter Mayer, Michel Rocard, Aloyzas Sakalas, Gabriele Stauner, József Szájer, Jaroslav Zvěřina и Tadeusz Zwiefka. да препоръча като целесъобразно правно основание за предложението за регламент на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита член 152, параграф 4, буква б) от Договора за ЕО.
The following were present for the final vote: Cristian Dumitrescu (acting chairman), Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (vice-chairwoman), Manuel Medina Ortega (draftsman), Carlo Casini, Janelly Fourtou, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Hans-Peter Mayer, Michel Rocard, Aloyzas Sakalas, Gabriele Stauner, József Szájer, Jaroslav Zvěřina and Tadeusz Zwiefka. , to recommend that the appropriate legal basis for the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market is Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty.
до комисията по околна среда, здравеопазване и безопасност на храните
for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Plant protection products are essential for agriculture and food production.
Plant protection products are essential for agriculture and food production.
At the same time, their use is a threat to the environment and public health.
At the same time, their use is a threat to the environment and public health.
So in 1991 extensive legislation was introduced, resulting in the investigation of all stocks of such products throughout the EU.
So in 1991 extensive legislation was introduced, resulting in the investigation of all stocks of such products throughout the EU.
This led to a marked fall in the number of substances on the market: of the 969 substances that were looked at closely, only 77 are now permitted on the market and on 420 no decision has yet been taken.
This led to a marked fall in the number of substances on the market: of the 969 substances that were looked at closely, only 77 are now permitted on the market and on 420 no decision has yet been taken.
But plant protection products are still an environmental problem.
But plant protection products are still an environmental problem.
The substances are almost by definition harmful to the living environment and this can create problems, for instance when crops are being sprayed.
The substances are almost by definition harmful to the living environment and this can create problems, for instance when crops are being sprayed.
Every year the industry places about five new active substances on the market.
Every year the industry places about five new active substances on the market.
A number of plant protection products are produced on the basis of these substances.
A number of plant protection products are produced on the basis of these substances.
The research involved is complicated and expensive.
The research involved is complicated and expensive.
The industry’s costs for each active substance amount to about 200 million euros a year.
The industry’s costs for each active substance amount to about 200 million euros a year.
Partly because of the high research cost, substantial market concentration has taken place, both worldwide and in Europe.
Partly because of the high research cost, substantial market concentration has taken place, both worldwide and in Europe.
In view of the huge cost of new plant protection products, they are developed mainly for major crop species, primarily what are known as the Big Five: rice, wheat, maize, soya and cotton.
In view of the huge cost of new plant protection products, they are developed mainly for major crop species, primarily what are known as the Big Five: rice, wheat, maize, soya and cotton.
Products for the minor crops such as potatoes, tomatoes and leeks are often developed from the active substances in products for the Big Five.
Products for the minor crops such as potatoes, tomatoes and leeks are often developed from the active substances in products for the Big Five.
In view of the current situation the Commission is proposing a number of significant changes:
In view of the current situation the Commission is proposing a number of significant changes:
§ The approval of substances will be more centralised and take place at European level, giving a major role to the European Food Safety Authority, while the Commission will be more directly involved in supervision.
§ The approval of substances will be more centralised and take place at European level, giving a major role to the European Food Safety Authority, while the Commission will be more directly involved in supervision.
§ In three zones of Member States (North, Centre and South) plant protection products will be approved by mutual recognition – provided that the product contains no substances that need to be restricted.
§ In three zones of Member States (North, Centre and South) plant protection products will be approved by mutual recognition – provided that the product contains no substances that need to be restricted.
§ Incentives are included to develop more sustainable products: substances with a low risk profile will obtain a longer period of data protection and a longer initial approval period.
§ Incentives are included to develop less harmful products: substances with a low risk profile will obtain a longer period of data protection and a longer initial approval period.
§ There is provision for the minor crops: Member States can approve a plant protection product that is used for a major crop to be used for other crops if this is clearly effective.
§ There is provision for the minor crops: Member States can approve a plant protection product that is used for a major crop to be used for other crops if this is clearly effective.
§ To prevent the repetition of animal testing, test results obtained from research on vertebrate animals must be shared.
§ To prevent the repetition of animal testing, test results obtained from research on vertebrate animals must be shared.
§ Shorter approval and authorisation procedures: while approval under the old rules takes at least five years, there is now provision for a period of 25 months.
§ Shorter approval and authorisation procedures: while approval under the old rules takes at least five years, there is now provision for a period of 25 months.
The draftswoman takes a positive view of the Commission proposal.
The draftswoman takes a positive view of the Commission proposal.
It contains considerable improvements compared with the present situation.
It contains considerable improvements compared with the present situation.
But she would still like to make a number of further improvements:
But she would still like to make a number of further improvements:
§ Firstly, there is a need to lay down clear and objective criteria to define which substances can claim to have a low risk profile.
§ Firstly, there is a need to lay down clear and objective criteria to define which substances can claim to have a low risk profile.
To encourage the development of sustainable plant protection products, those products with substances with a low risk profile can claim a longer period of data protection and thus a longer cost recovery period.
To encourage the development of less harmful plant protection products, those products with substances with a low risk profile can claim a longer period of data protection and thus a longer cost recovery period.
A new ‘low risk’ category is also introduced.
A new ‘low risk’ category is also introduced.
§ Secondly, there is a need to encourage the development of products for the minor crops.
§ Secondly, there is a need to encourage the development of products for the minor crops.
The draftswoman is accordingly proposing three amendments.
The draftswoman is accordingly proposing three amendments.
The approval procedure can be carried out free of charge, applicants can expect an extension of the data protection period, and a European promotion fund is set up for small-scale approvals.
The approval procedure can be carried out free of charge, applicants can expect an extension of the data protection period, and a European promotion fund is set up for small-scale approvals.
§ A third, controversial, point concerns mutual recognition.
§ A third, controversial, point concerns mutual recognition.
This should naturally form part of a system in which substances are approved at European level.
This should naturally form part of a system in which substances are approved at European level.
But it can be undesirable to withhold from Member States the ultimate decision on approval for their territory, because natural conditions (the soil, water or climate) can differ considerably, even within one zone.
But it can be undesirable to withhold from Member States the ultimate decision on approval for their territory, because natural conditions (the soil, water or climate) can differ considerably, even within one zone.
§ Fourthly, the draftswoman wants to help further cut back the use of animal testing in the development of new plant protection products.
§ Fourthly, the draftswoman wants to help further cut back the use of animal testing in the development of new plant protection products.
§ Finally, the draftswoman has considered the position of the industry – and more particularly of applicants.
§ Finally, the draftswoman has considered the position of the industry – and more particularly of applicants.
Shorter approval and authorisation periods are a major gain for industry.
Shorter approval and authorisation periods are a major gain for industry.
But in some cases the approval period could be somewhat speeded up, thus further strengthening applicants’ position.
But in some cases the approval period could be somewhat speeded up, thus further strengthening applicants’ position.
Комисията по промишленост, изследвания и енергетика приканва комисията по промишленост, изследвания и енергетика, като водеща кoмисия, да включи в доклада си следните изменения:
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
8a) С оглед избягване на изпитването върху животни, изпитване върху гръбначни животни за целите на настоящия регламент би следвало да се извършва единствено в краен случай.
(8a) To prevent animal testing, tests on vertebrate animals should for the purposes of this Regulation be carried out only as a last resort.
В съответствие с Директива 86/609/EИО на Съвета от 24 ноември1986 г. относно сближаването на законовите, подзаконовите и административните разпоредби на държавите-членки по отношение на защитата на животните, използвани за експериментални и други научни цели*, изпитването върху гръбначни животни следва също да се замени с друг метод, да се ограничи или усъвършенства.
In accordance with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes*, tests on vertebrate animals must also be replaced, restricted or refined.
В максимален срок от седем години след влизане в сила на регламента, Комисията следва да преразгледа правилата за защита на данните от резултатите от изпитване върху гръбначни животни, и където е необходимо, тези правила да се променят.
Within at the latest seven years of the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission must review the rules on the data protection of results from tests on vertebrate animals and where necessary change those rules .
The measures to prevent the repetition of animal experiments need tightening up.
The measures to prevent the repetition of animal experiments need tightening up.
15a) С оглед насърчаване разработването на продукти за растителна защита, мерките за насърчаване следва да се прилагат и за пускането на пазара на продукти с нискорисков профил или с по-нискорисков профил от този на вече пуснати на пазара продукти.
(15a) To encourage the development of plant protection products, incentives must be incorporated for placing on the market products with a low risk profile or a risk profile that is lower than that of products already on the market.
С настоящия регламент се определят правилата за разрешаване на продукти за растителна защита в търговска форма и за тяхното пускане на пазара, за насърчаване разработването на продукти с по-малко вредно въздействие върху околната среда и за тяхната употреба и контрол в Общността.
This Regulation lays down rules for the authorisation of plant protection products in commercial form and for their placing on the market, for encouraging the development of products with a less harmful effect on the environment, and for their use and control within the Community.
Регламентът също така цели да насърчи разработването на продукти, предназначени за ограничена употреба.
The Regulation also aims to encourage the development of products intended for limited use.
Целта на настоящия регламент е да се гарантира високо равнище на закрила на здравето на хората и животните и на околната среда.
The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and of the environment.
Encouraging the development of less harmful plant protection products is a very important aim and should form part of the regulation’s subject matter.
Encouraging the development of less harmful plant protection products is a very important aim and should form part of the regulation’s subject matter.