natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Инкриминирането на деянията, посочени в параграф 2, букви а)—в), не води до ограничаване или възпрепятстване на разпространяването на информация за научни, академични, художествени или отчетни цели или на изразяването на радикални, полемични или спорни възгледи при публичен дебат по чувствителни политически въпроси, включително тероризъм.
The criminalisation of the acts covered in paragraph 2(a) to (c) shall not have the effect of reduc ing or restrict ing the dissemination of information for scientific , academic, artistic or reporting purposes, the expression of radical, polemic or controversial views in the public debate on sensitive political questions, including terrorism.
Член 3 параграф 3 б (нов)
Article 3 - paragraph 3 b (new)
Държавите-членки също така гарантират, че инкриминирането на деянията, посочени в параграф 2, букви а)—в) на настоящия член, се извършва по начин, който е съразмерен с естеството и обстоятелствата на престъплението, като се отчитат преследваните законни цели, необходими в едно демократично общество, и който не допуска каквато и да е форма на произвол, дискриминация или расизъм.
Member States shall also ensure that the criminalisation of the acts referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (c) of this Article is effected in a way which is proportionate to the nature and the circumstances of the offence , having regard to the legitimate aims pursued and the necessity thereof in a democratic society , and exclude s any form of arbitrariness and discriminatory or racist treatment.
In order to ensure balance in the text, a specific reference must be made to the basic principles of proportionality, necessity and non-discrimination.
In order to ensure balance in the text, a specific reference must be made to the basic principles of proportionality, necessity and non-discrimination.
Член 9 - параграф 1 а
Article 9 - paragraph 1 a
Държавите-членки могат да вземат решение да не прилагат или да прилагат само в определени случаи или при определени обстоятелства разпоредбите в параграф 1, букви г) и д) относно юрисдикцията във връзка с престъпленията, посочени в член 3, параграф 2, букви а)— в) и в член 4, доколкото те са свързани с престъпленията, посочени в член 3, параграф 2, букви а)—в) .“
A Member State may decide not to apply , or to apply only in specific cases or under specific circumstances , the jurisdictional provisions in paragraph 1(d) and (e) in respect of the offences referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c) and in Article 4, in so far as they are linked to the offences referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c). "
Member States should not be required to establish their jurisdiction extra-territorially as regards the three new offences, since this is a highly sensitive matter, the perception of which varies greatly from one Member State to another.
Member States should not be required to establish their jurisdiction extra-territorially as regards the three new offences, since this is a highly sensitive matter, the perception of which varies greatly from one Member State to another.
The Member States should thus be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9(d) and (e).
The Member States should thus be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9 (d) and (e) .
The attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 were not the first-ever manifestation of terrorism but they did make the world aware of the extent of the threat and they prompted further consideration as to how terrorism should be prevented.
The attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 were not the first-ever manifestation of terrorism but they did make the world aware of the extent of the threat and they prompted further consideration as to how terrorism should be prevented.
The European Union (EU) - which has set out to provide its citizens with a high level of security in an area of freedom, security and justice - reacted without delay, since the safety of its 500 million inhabitants was at stake and the basic values and principles on which the EU is founded had to be protected.
The European Union (EU) - which has set out to provide its citizens with a high level of security in an area of freedom, security and justice - reacted without delay, since the safety of its 500 million inhabitants was at stake and the basic values and principles on which the EU is founded had to be protected.
Hence a whole series of measures was adopted over the months following the attacks in New York, including Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on action to combat terrorism (the purpose of which is to further approximate the definitions of terrorist offences in the various Member States and to ensure that suitable sanctions can be imposed on natural or legal persons who perpetrate or who are responsible for such offences).
Hence a whole series of measures was adopted over the months following the attacks in New York, including Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on action to combat terrorism (the purpose of which is to further approximate the definitions of terrorist offences in the various Member States and to ensure that suitable sanctions can be imposed on natural or legal persons who perpetrate or who are responsible for such offences).
Since then the EU has repeatedly experienced tragedy on its territory as a result of terrorist activity (in Madrid in March 2004, in London in July 2005).
Since then the EU has repeatedly experienced tragedy on its territory as a result of terrorist activity (in Madrid in March 2004, in London in July 2005).
This has prompted it to step up its efforts to combat and prevent such activity.
This has prompted it to step up its efforts to combat and prevent such activity.
This task is rendered all the more difficult on account of the fact that the tools and the methods used by terrorists have been redesigned and diversified.
This task is rendered all the more difficult on account of the fact that the tools and the methods used by terrorists have been redesigned and diversified.
The development of information and communication technologies (in particular the Internet), provides terrorists with a genuine world platform from which to disseminate (at minimum cost and risk) propaganda messages and on-line instructions and training manuals.
The development of information and communication technologies (in particular the Internet), provides terrorists with a genuine world platform from which to disseminate (at minimum cost and risk) propaganda messages and on-line instructions and training manuals.
With a view to enabling the EU and its Member States to respond more effectively to modern terrorism and the latter's new modus operandi , the Commission has proposed revising the 2002 framework decision
With a view to enabling the EU and its Member States to respond more effectively to modern terrorism and the latter's new modus operandi , the Commission has proposed revising the 2002 framework decision
OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p.
OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p.
3-7 and bringing it into line with the Council of Europe's 2005 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism,
3-7 and bringing it into line with the Council of Europe's 2005 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism,
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/196.htm namely the inclusion of the concept of terrorism in certain specific preparatory acts: public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/196.htm namely the inclusion of the concept of terrorism in certain specific preparatory acts: public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism.
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's intention to step up EU action to combat recruitment and training for terrorism and considers that there is genuine added value to be derived from incorporating such action into the EU's integrated institutional framework (no lengthy signing and ratification procedures), from providing for those specific preparatory acts a uniform legal framework as regards the nature and the level of penal sanctions, and from enabling the EU's cooperation mechanisms relating to the 2002 framework decision
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's intention to step up EU action to combat recruitment and training for terrorism and considers that there is genuine added value to be derived from incorporating such action into the EU's integrated institutional framework (no lengthy signing and ratification procedures), from providing for those specific preparatory acts a uniform legal framework as regards the nature and the level of penal sanctions, and from enabling the EU's cooperation mechanisms relating to the 2002 framework decision
For example, Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation in respect of terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p.
For example, Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation in respect of terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p.
22-24). to be applied to those acts.
22-24). to be applied to those acts.
The rapporteur considers, however, that the Commission proposal (which provides for 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' to be criminalised) could pose a threat to fundamental rights and freedoms, since penalties would no longer be imposed solely on terrorist offences themselves but also on words (either spoken or written) which are deemed to have caused a terrorist offence to be committed or may simply have that effect.
The rapporteur considers, however, that the Commission proposal (which provides for 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' to be criminalised) could pose a threat to fundamental rights and freedoms, since penalties would no longer be imposed solely on terrorist offences themselves but also on words (either spoken or written) which are deemed to have caused a terrorist offence to be committed or may simply have that effect.
In the rapporteur's view the proposal does not enable the types of behaviour which are to be criminalised to be defined clearly and precisely enough or a clear, precise response to be given to the two indissoluble objectives constituted by the fight against terrorism and the upholding of human rights and basic freedoms.
In the rapporteur's view the proposal does not enable the types of behaviour which are to be criminalised to be defined clearly and precisely enough or a clear, precise response to be given to the two indissoluble objectives constituted by the fight against terrorism and the upholding of human rights and basic freedoms.
And since the dividing line between freedom of speech and law-breaking is in practice sometimes rather blurred, the rapporteur fears that such shortcomings may open the door to abuse.
And since the dividing line between freedom of speech and law-breaking is in practice sometimes rather blurred, the rapporteur fears that such shortcomings may open the door to abuse.
Hence she suggests in this draft report that a number of changes should be made in order to shift the balance within the Commission text and to increase the level of legal certainty therein.
Hence she suggests in this draft report that a number of changes should be made in order to shift the balance within the Commission text and to increase the level of legal certainty therein.
This mainly concerns the following points: the concept of 'public provocation' and the definition thereof, safeguards relating to the protection of fundamental freedoms, the criminalisation of any attempt to commit one of the three new offences and the jurisdictional rules applicable thereto.
This mainly concerns the following points: the concept of 'public provocation' and the definition thereof, safeguards relating to the protection of fundamental freedoms, the criminalisation of any attempt to commit one of the three new offences and the jurisdictional rules applicable thereto.
The concept of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence'
The concept of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence'
The rapporteur considers that the definition of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' should be tightened up.
The rapporteur considers that the definition of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' should be tightened up.
Firstly, she believes the very term 'provocation' may create confusion on account of its imprecision and that it should therefore be replaced by the term 'incitement', which is more commonly used in legal language.
Firstly, she believes the very term 'provocation' may create confusion on account of its imprecision and that it should therefore be replaced by the term 'incitement', which is more commonly used in legal language.
Furthermore, the Commission includes the concept of 'public incitement to violence or hatred' in its proposal
Furthermore, the Commission includes the concept of 'public incitement to violence or hatred' in its proposal
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0664:FIN:FR:PDF for a framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (a choice also made by the Council in its 26 February 2008 guideline
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0664:FIN:FR:PDF for a framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (a choice also made by the Council in its 26 February 2008 guideline
Concerning the substance of the definition, the rapporteur thinks that the range of behaviour which may be criminalised should be more strictly delineated.
Concerning the substance of the definition, the rapporteur thinks that the range of behaviour which may be criminalised should be more strictly delineated.
Hence she considers that the behaviour in question must constitute a 'genuine' danger - and not just a hypothetical one - that a terrorist offence would be committed (in other words, there must be a sufficiently close link between incitement and the possibility that a terrorist act will be perpetrated).
Hence she considers that the behaviour in question must constitute a 'genuine' danger - and not just a hypothetical one - that a terrorist offence would be committed (in other words, there must be a sufficiently close link between incitement and the possibility that a terrorist act will be perpetrated).
Safeguards relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Safeguards relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
The rapporteur firmly supports the incorporation into the text of safeguard clauses equivalent to those laid down in Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
The rapporteur firmly supports the incorporation into the text of safeguard clauses equivalent to those laid down in Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
Although in its proposal the Commission has incorporated almost word for word the definitions of 'public provocation', 'recruitment' and 'training' which are contained in that convention, it has omitted the safeguards provided for in Article 12 which the Council of Europe itself regards as indissociable from those concepts, since they have an essential role to play in interpreting them.
Although in its proposal the Commission has incorporated almost word for word the definitions of 'public provocation', 'recruitment' and 'training' which are contained in that convention, it has omitted the safeguards provided for in Article 12 which the Council of Europe itself regards as indissociable from those concepts, since they have an essential role to play in interpreting them.
The rapporteur wishes to remedy this omission and the resulting imbalance by incorporating into the text new provisions intended to remind the Member States on the one hand of the need for them to uphold the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to meet their obligations as regards freedom of speech and freedom of association, and on the other hand of the fact that penalties must be proportionate ‘having regard to the legitimate aims pursued and the necessity thereof in a democratic society’ and exclude ‘any form of arbitrariness or of discriminatory or racist treatment’.
The rapporteur wishes to remedy this omission and the resulting imbalance by incorporating into the text new provisions intended to remind the Member States on the one hand of the need for them to uphold the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to meet their obligations as regards freedom of speech and freedom of association, and on the other hand of the fact that penalties must be proportionate ‘having regard to the legitimate aims pursued and the necessity thereof in a democratic society’ and exclude ‘any form of arbitrariness or of discriminatory or racist treatment’.
In the rapporteur’s opinion, such safeguard clauses are essential both in terms of legal certainty for European citizens and in terms of consistency with the Council of Europe’s position.
In the rapporteur’s opinion, such safeguard clauses are essential both in terms of legal certainty for European citizens and in terms of consistency with the Council of Europe’s position.
Criminalisation of attempts
Criminalisation of attempts
In this respect the rapporteur is in agreement with the Commission which, in Article 4(2) of its proposal, excludes any obligation to criminalise an attempt to commit one of the three new offences listed in Article 3(2)(a) to (c).
In this respect the rapporteur is in agreement with the Commission which, in Article 4(2) of its proposal, excludes any obligation to criminalise an attempt to commit one of the three new offences listed in Article 3(2)(a) to (c).
Within the Council, criminalising an attempt at ‘recruitment’ and an attempt at ‘training’ has nonetheless been discussed – some of the Member States being in favour and the others opposed.
Within the Council, criminalising an attempt at ‘recruitment’ and an attempt at ‘training’ has nonetheless been discussed – some of the Member States being in favour and the others opposed.
(An attempt at ‘public provocation’ is difficult to conceive, hence the possibility of making it a criminal offence was eliminated straight away.)
(An attempt at ‘public provocation’ is difficult to conceive, hence the possibility of making it a criminal offence was eliminated straight away.)
The arrangement finally adopted by the Council in its 18 April 2008 guideline (and also by the Council of Europe in the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism) is that of optional criminalisation of attempted recruitment and training.
The arrangement finally adopted by the Council in its 18 April 2008 guideline (and also by the Council of Europe in the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism) is that of optional criminalisation of attempted recruitment and training.
Although the rapporteur regards this arrangement as more reasonable than the mandatory criminalisation proposed by certain Member States, the rapporteur considers that it would be better to accept the Commission’s wording and hence not to table an amendment on this point.
Although the rapporteur regards this arrangement as more reasonable than the mandatory criminalisation proposed by certain Member States, the rapporteur considers that it would be better to accept the Commission’s wording and hence not to table an amendment on this point.
The jurisdictional rules applicable to the new offences
The jurisdictional rules applicable to the new offences
Like the Council the rapporteur considers that the new paragraph 1a incorporated by the Commission into Article 9 of the framework decision goes much too far and should thus be dropped.
Like the Council the rapporteur considers that the new paragraph 1a incorporated by the Commission into Article 9 of the framework decision goes much too far and should thus be dropped.
She also disagrees with the idea of requiring the Member States to establish their jurisdiction extraterritorially as regards the three new offences, since this is a highly sensitive matter, the perception of which varies greatly from one Member State to another.
She also disagrees with the idea of requiring the Member States to establish their jurisdiction extraterritorially as regards the three new offences, since this is a highly sensitive matter, the perception of which varies greatly from one Member State to another.
Hence she proposes that the Member States should be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9(d) and (e).
Hence she proposes that the Member States should be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9(d) and (e).
This is in any case what had initially been proposed by a number of delegations within the Council.
This is in any case what had initially been proposed by a number of delegations within the Council.
The rapporteur takes the terrorist threat very seriously and is concerned at the huge increase over the last few years in the number of terrorist-propaganda sites (of which there are currently approximately 5000) and at the impact which those sites may have, particularly in terms of the radicalisation of behaviour and of recruitment to the terrorist cause.
The rapporteur takes the terrorist threat very seriously and is concerned at the huge increase over the last few years in the number of terrorist-propaganda sites (of which there are currently approximately 5000) and at the impact which those sites may have, particularly in terms of the radicalisation of behaviour and of recruitment to the terrorist cause.
She nonetheless considers that, although tackling the problem is essential, particular care should be taken over how this is done, since in such a sensitive area the risk is that efforts to increase the security of European citizens will in practice result in restrictions on those citizens’ rights and freedoms.
She nonetheless considers that, although tackling the problem is essential, particular care should be taken over how this is done, since in such a sensitive area the risk is that efforts to increase the security of European citizens will in practice result in restrictions on those citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Her first concern is thus to draw up a balanced and legally clear text which will enable greater effectiveness in the fight against terrorism to be combined with a high level of protection for human rights and basic freedoms.
Her first concern is thus to draw up a balanced and legally clear text which will enable greater effectiveness in the fight against terrorism to be combined with a high level of protection for human rights and basic freedoms.
относно предложението за Рамково решение на Съвета за изменение на Рамково решение 2002/475/ПВР относно борбата срещу тероризма
on the proposal for a Council framework decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism
La Decisión marco 2002/475/JAI fue en su día un hito de la lucha contra el terrosismo en la UE.
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA was a landmark in the combating of terrorism in the EU.
Gracias a ella, se han armonizado la definición de terrorismo en todos los Estados miembros así como las penas aplicables a dichos comportamientos.
It enabled the definition of terrorism, and the penalties for it, to be harmonised across the Member States.
La Comisión, con el objetivo de actualizar este arsenal jurídico y, sobre todo, con la clara intención de establecer un marco jurídico apropiado para el ciberterrorismo , ha presentado una propuesta para modificar la Decisión marco.
The Commission has submitted a proposal for the amendment of that Framework Decision with the aim of updating that legal arsenal and, above all, with the clear intention of establishing an appropriate legal framework against cyberterrorism.
La propuesta de la Comisión añade al texto original tres delitos:
The Commission proposal adds three further criminal offences to the original text:
§ La inducción pública a la comisión de delitos de terrorismo;
§ public provocation to commit terrorist offences;
§ El reclutamiento de terroristas, y
§ recruitment for terrorism, and
§ El adiestramiento de terroristas.
§ training for terrorism.