natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ако „да”, моля попълнете следните данни относно водача на моторното превозно средство:
If yes, please complete the following in respect of the driver :
(1) Регистрирано ли е на Ваше име МПС, фабрична марка ….., с регистрационен номер…..?
(1) Is the vehicle, make... registration number...registered in your name?
Ако „не”, собственикът на свидетелството за регистрация е:
If not, the holder of the registration certificate is:
(фамилно име, собствено име, адрес)
(name, first name, address)
(2) Признавате ли, че Вие сте извършили пътнотранспортното нарушение?
(2) Do you acknowledge that you committed the offence?
Ако „не”, моля посочете защо:
(3) If you do not acknowledge this, please explain why:
(3) Ако не признавате, че Вие сте извършителят на пътнотранспортното нарушение, включително ако отказвате да разкриете самоличността на водача, моля посочете защо:
(3) If you do not acknowledge this, including refusing to reveal the identity of the driver, please explain why:
Моля, изпратете попълнената форма в срок от 60 дни от датата на това уведомление на следния орган:
Please send the completed form within 60 days from the date of this notification to the following authority:
Моля, изпратете попълнения формуляр в срок от 60 дни от датата на настоящото уведомление на следния орган:
Please send the completed form within 60 days from the date of this notification to the following authority:
на посочения адрес
at the following address
Предложените в текста изменения трябва да бъдат отразени във формуляра.
The amendments proposed in the text must be reflected in the form.
A new legal instrument to reduce by 50% the number of persons killed on European roads by 2010
A new legal instrument to reduce by 50% the number of persons killed on European roads by 2010
On the occasion of the White Paper on European transport policy published in 2001, the European Union set itself the ambitious objective of reducing by 50% the number of persons killed on the roads by 2010, a target that now applies to all the 27 Member States.
On the occasion of the White Paper on European transport policy published in 2001, the European Union set itself the ambitious objective of reducing by 50% the number of persons killed on the roads by 2010, a target that now applies to all the 27 Member States.
When the White Paper was issued in a Europe of 25 Member States, the number of road traffic fatalities was 54 000
When the White Paper was issued in a Europe of 25 Member States, the number of road traffic fatalities was 54 000
Source: Care (EU database on road accidents) or national publications. .
Source: Care (EU database on road accidents) or national publications. .
Since then significant progress has been made, and there has been a general downward trend in road deaths.
Since then significant progress has been made, and there has been a general downward trend in road deaths.
However, this progress took place mostly during the first half of the decade.
However, this progress took place mostly during the first half of the decade.
Since 2005 the reduction in the number of road deaths has been slowing down.
Since 2005 the reduction in the number of road deaths has been slowing down.
In 2007 over 40 000 people were killed in the European Union: this represents a fall in the number of road deaths by some 20% over the entire period.
In 2007 over 40 000 people were killed in the European Union: this represents a fall in the number of road deaths by some 20% over the entire period.
This result falls far short of the target fixed for 2010 which required a reduction of 37% over the same period.
This result falls far short of the target fixed for 2010 which required a reduction of 37% over the same period.
Even more seriously, the number of road traffic deaths did not fall in 2007.
Even more seriously, the number of road traffic deaths did not fall in 2007.
Over the same period, studies commissioned by the Commission show that non-residents account for a disproportionately high number of road traffic accidents, particularly as regards speeding.
Over the same period, studies commissioned by the Commission show that non-residents account for a disproportionately high number of road traffic accidents, particularly as regards speeding.
This phenomenon is partly linked to increased mobility within the European Union and the opening of borders between Member States.
This phenomenon is partly linked to increased mobility within the European Union and the opening of borders between Member States.
However, sanctions imposed for offences committed on the territory of Member States other than the driver's country of residence are most frequently not enforced.
However, sanctions imposed for offences committed on the territory of Member States other than the driver's country of residence are most frequently not enforced.
This is particularly the case for automatically recorded offences, which have greatly increased with the widespread installation of automatic radar systems on European roads.
This is particularly the case for automatically recorded offences, which have greatly increased with the widespread installation of automatic radar systems on European roads.
This relative impunity undermines the objectives of road safety and encourages drivers not to respect road traffic rules in other Member States because they feel that sanctions will not be enforced.
This relative impunity undermines the objectives of road safety and encourages drivers not to respect road traffic rules in other Member States because they feel that sanctions will not be enforced.
But it also undermines the legitimacy of these controls in the eyes of European citizens generally who could call them into question, arguing that residents and non-residents must be treated equally.
But it also undermines the legitimacy of these controls in the eyes of European citizens generally who could call them into question, arguing that residents and non-residents must be treated equally.
The objective of the proposal under review is therefore to address these two concerns, coming, as it does, in the wake of a number of initiatives launched by the Commission, such as the recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/CE).
The objective of the proposal under review is therefore to address these two concerns, coming, as it does, in the wake of a number of initiatives launched by the Commission, such as the recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/CE).
The European Parliament, through members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, demanded on a number of occasions that legislation be introduced on the cross-border enforcement of sanctions linked to road safety.
The European Parliament, through members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, demanded on a number of occasions that legislation be introduced on the cross-border enforcement of sanctions linked to road safety.
The Commission's proposal for a directive
The Commission's proposal for a directive
The Commission seeks to facilitate the enforcement of penalties against drivers who have committed offences relating to speeding, drink-driving, a failure to wear a seatbelt or failure to stop at red lights in a Member State other than their own.
The Commission seeks to facilitate the enforcement of penalties against drivers who have committed offences relating to speeding, drink-driving, a failure to wear a seatbelt or failure to stop at red lights in a Member State other than their own.
The Commission deliberately chose to limit the scope of the Directive, which marks a new approach in European road safety policy - to the four offences (Article 1) which are responsible for most fatalities in the EU.
The Commission deliberately chose to limit the scope of the Directive, which marks a new approach in European road safety policy - to the four offences (Article 1) which are responsible for most fatalities in the EU.
Furthermore, they are all considered offences in the 27 EU Member States.
Furthermore, they are all considered offences in the 27 EU Member States.
The proposal seeks to establish a procedure for exchanging information between Member States (Article 3) through an electronic data exchange network (Article 4) to identify a vehicle which has committed an offence.
The proposal seeks to establish a procedure for exchanging information between Member States (Article 3) through an electronic data exchange network (Article 4) to identify a vehicle which has committed an offence.
Following identification, an offence notification is sent by the relevant authority in the State of offence to the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned (Article 5) which describes the details of the offence, the amount of the financial penalty that the holder is required to pay, the payment procedures - these procedures must facilitate as far as possible crossborder banking transactions - and appeals procedures.
Following identification, an offence notification is sent by the relevant authority in the State of offence to the holder of the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned (Article 5) which describes the details of the offence, the amount of the financial penalty that the holder is required to pay, the payment procedures - these procedures must facilitate as far as possible crossborder banking transactions - and appeals procedures.
As far as follow-up is concerned, this constitutes the second phase of the treatment of the penalty under Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of the Council on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties.
As far as follow-up is concerned, this constitutes the second phase of the treatment of the penalty under Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of the Council on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties.
The proposal for a directive also provides personal data protection safeguards (Article 7), referring in this connection to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
The proposal for a directive also provides personal data protection safeguards (Article 7), referring in this connection to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
Finally, the proposal introduces comitology measures (Article 8) concerning the drawing up of common rules for the establishment of the electronic network or the adjustment of the offence notification model.
Finally, the proposal introduces comitology measures (Article 8) concerning the drawing up of common rules for the establishment of the electronic network or the adjustment of the offence notification model.
The rapporteur's position on the Commission proposal
The rapporteur's position on the Commission proposal
Your rapporteur shares the Commission's objectives as regards road safety and takes the view that the approach adopted will indeed reduce the number of offences on European roads.
Your rapporteur shares the Commission's objectives as regards road safety and takes the view that the approach adopted will indeed reduce the number of offences on European roads.
She supports in particular the priority given by the Commission to the four offences referred to in Article 1 of the proposal for a directive, the purpose being to concentrate on those road safety offences that are responsible for most fatalities.
She supports in particular the priority given by the Commission to the four offences referred to in Article 1 of the proposal for a directive, the purpose being to concentrate on those road safety offences that are responsible for most fatalities.
However, a number of points should be addressed with a view to making improvements or overcoming certain shortcomings in the proposal.
However, a number of points should be addressed with a view to making improvements or overcoming certain shortcomings in the proposal.
1) The follow-up of offences : your rapporteur reiterates that this should take place, as far as possible, through Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA.
1) The follow-up of offences : your rapporteur reiterates that this should take place, as far as possible, through Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA.
However, in order to take into account differences between national legislations as regard road traffic sanction decisions, your rapporteur would also like enforcement safeguards to be provided where the framework decision is not applicable.
However, in order to take into account differences between national legislations as regard road traffic sanction decisions, your rapporteur would also like enforcement safeguards to be provided where the framework decision is not applicable.
For in some EU Member States sanctions are an administrative rather than criminal matter.
For in some EU Member States sanctions are an administrative rather than criminal matter.
In order to take into account these specific national features, your rapporteur has proposed an addition allowing the penalty decision to be transmitted to and followed up by the authorities of the State of residence of the person having committed the offence.
In order to take into account these specific national features, your rapporteur has proposed an addition allowing the penalty decision to be transmitted to and followed up by the authorities of the State of residence of the person having committed the offence.
2) Road safety control practices : your rapporteur would like Member States to strengthen these practices by establishing minimum comparable criteria by means of guidelines.
2) Road safety control practices : your rapporteur would like Member States to strengthen these practices by establishing minimum comparable criteria by means of guidelines.
3) Personal data protection : your rapporteur has taken on board a number of concerns voiced by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in his opinion of 8 May 2008.
3) Personal data protection : your rapporteur has taken on board a number of concerns voiced by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) in his opinion of 8 May 2008.
The proposals that have been made will thus allow the technical measures taken in comitology on the management of the electronic data exchange network to be incorporated and safeguard a number of rights provided by Directive 95/45/EC to be enshrined in the body of the directive and in the offence notification contained in the Annex.
The proposals that have been made will thus allow the technical measures taken in comitology on the management of the electronic data exchange network to be incorporated and safeguard a number of rights provided by Directive 95/45/EC to be enshrined in the body of the directive and in the offence notification contained in the Annex.
4) Informing European drivers : European drivers must be informed of the implementation of this directive, in particular when they cross from one Member State to another.
4) Informing European drivers : European drivers must be informed of the implementation of this directive, in particular when they cross from one Member State to another.
5) Report and evaluation of the directive : your rapporteur proposes inserting in the directive an obligation for the Commission to report, two years after the entry into force of the directive, on its implementation and experience gathered following this evaluation.
5) Report and evaluation of the directive : your rapporteur proposes inserting in the directive an obligation for the Commission to report, two years after the entry into force of the directive, on its implementation and experience gathered following this evaluation.
On the basis of this report, the Commission will be required to proposals for amending the directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of implementation, its scope, the control practices and the standardisation of control equipment.
On the basis of this report, the Commission will be required to proposals for amending the directive, in particular as regards the effectiveness of implementation, its scope, the control practices and the standardisation of control equipment.
Съдържащите се в предложението норми са предназначени да улеснят прилагането на санкциите, предвидени за пътнотранспортни нарушения (независимо от квалифицирането им като нарушения с наказателно-правен или административно-правен характер), при които самоличността на нарушителя не може да бъде установена веднага, тъй като нарушението е регистрирано с помощта на електронни устройства или тъй като, въпреки незабавното установяване на самоличността на нарушителя, е необходимо, съгласно предложението, допълнително разследване, както в случая на шофиране в нетрезво състояние.
Rules set in the proposal are intended to facilitate the enforcement of sanctions provided for traffic offences (irrespective of their qualification as criminal or administrative offences) where the offender cannot be immediately identified, for instance because the offence was detected by means of electronic devices, or the offender is immediately identified but further investigation is required as, according to the proposal, it is the case for drink-driving.
Обхватът на предложението е по-скоро ограничен и включва четири вида пътнотранспортни нарушения, а именно: движение с превишена скорост, шофиране в нетрезво състояние, неизползване на обезопасителен колан и преминаване на червена светлина.
The scope of the proposal is rather narrow and covers four road traffic offences, meaning: speeding, drink-driving, non-use of seat-belt and failing to stop at a red traffic light.
Предложението поражда известна загриженост от гледна точка на закрилата на основните права.
The proposal raises some concern from the point of view of the protection of fundamental rights.
По отношение на нарушението шофиране в нетрезво състояние следва да се отбележи, че съгласно член 2, буква е), „шофиране в нетрезво състояние” означава управление на МПС със съдържание на алкохол в кръвта, по-голямо от максимално разрешеното в държавата, в която се извършва нарушението.
With regard to the offence of drink-driving, it must be noted that according to Article 2 (f) drink-driving means "driving with a blood alcohol level higher then the maximum level in force in the State of offence".
Това означава, че независимо от факта, че съществуват други по-малко агресивни начини за установяване на шофиране в нетрезво състояние, като например балон за алкохолна проба, предложението не взема предвид възможността за установяване на шофиране в нетрезво състояние по начин, който не предполага вземането на кръвни проби от заподозряното лице.
This means that, irrespective from the fact that there are other less intrusive ways to detect drink driving, such as the breathalyzer, the proposal does not take into consideration the option of detecting drink-driving in a way which does not imply taking a blood sample from the suspect.
Това би могло да засегне сериозно основните права, след като в нито една от разпоредбите на директивата не е ясно посочено, че никой не може да бъде задължен да даде кръвни проби за тази цел и че шофирането в нетрезво състояние следва да бъде установявано винаги първо чрез балон за алкохолна проба.
This might deeply affect fundamental rights as far as no provision in the Directive clearly states that nobody can be obliged to provide a blood sample for this purpose and that drink-driving should in first instance always be detected by means of a breathalyzer.
По отношение на процесуалните гаранции според комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи директивата следва да предвижда, че нарушението трябва да бъде установено с помощта на автоматични устройства или от компетентните правоприлагащи органи в момента на неговото извършване и че процедурата по уведомяване е законосъобразна, и по-специално, че се спазва принципът за правото на едно лице да не дава показания, които могат да доведат до повдигане на обвинение срещу него.
With regard to procedural guaranties, it is the opinion of the LIBE Committee that the Directive should provide that the offence must be detected by automated equipments or by competent law enforcement authorities at the time of its occurrence and that the notification procedure is compliant with the rule of law and notably with the principle of non self-incrimination.
В заключение комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи споделя становището на Европейския надзорен орган по защита на данните (ЕНЗД), което гласи, че предложението отговаря на изискванията за защита на данните.
Finally, the LIBE Committee agrees with the opinion delivered by the EDPS, stating that the proposal is compliant with data protection requirements.
Член 1 – параграф 1 – буква г д (нова)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point d e (new)
гд) всяко друго значително нарушение на безопасността по пътищата;
(de) any other major road safety offences;
Директивата следва да отразява усилията на европейските градове и региони за изпълнение на новаторските политики за устойчив транспорт, като например прилагане на пътни такси, зелени зони и ограничения на пътното движение, за да се подобри скоростта на видовете обществен транспорт с цел насърчаване на прехвърлянето към друг вид транспорт.
The directive should reflect the efforts of Europe’s cities and regions to implement innovative sustainable transport policies such as road charging, green zones and traffic restrictions to improve the speed of public transport modes in cities to encourage modal shift.
Член 1 – параграф 1 а (нов)
Article 1 - paragraph 1 a (new)
Кръвни проби могат да бъдат вземани единствено със съгласието на заподозряното лице.
Blood samples may be taken only with the consent of the suspect.
От отказа на заподозряното лице да даде кръвна проба не могат да произтичат правни последици.
No legal consequence may come from the refusal of the suspect to give a blood sample
Вземането на кръвни проби без съгласието на заподозряното лице може сериозно да засегне основните права.
Taking blood samples could deeply affect fundamental rights if done without the consent of the suspect.
Следователно следва да се отдава приоритет на други по-малко агресивни начини за установяване на шофиране в нетрезво състояние, като например балон за алкохолна проба.
Priority should therefore be given to other less intrusive means of detection such as the breathalyzer.
Следователно е необходимо да се предвиди разпоредба, която ясно да гласи, че никой не може да бъде задължен да даде кръвна проба, като се има предвид обхватът на настоящата директива (пътнотранспортни нарушения, а не тежки престъпления).
A provision clearly stating that nobody can be obliged to provide a blood sample is therefore required keeping in mind the scope of the Directive (traffic offences not serious crimes).
Член 1 – параграф 2 а (нов)
Article 1 - paragraph 2 a (new)
При установяването на пътнотранспортни нарушения следва винаги да се гарантира достоверност на фактите и липса на злоупотреби.
Certainty and lack of abuses in the detection of offences should always been ensured.
В тази връзка пътнотранспортните нарушения, попадащи в приложното поле на настоящата директива, следва да бъдат установявани пряко от компетентните правоприлагащи органи или с помощта на автоматични устройства .
In this view, it should be provided that the road offences within the scope of this Directive are detected either directly by law enforcement authorities or by means of automated equipment.
га) „централен орган“ означава орган, отговарящ за гарантиране на защитата на данните във всяка държава-членка;
(da) “central authority” means the authority responsible for ensuring data protection in each Member State ;
Член 5 – параграф 2
Article 5 - paragraph 2
Счита се за уместно адресатът на уведомлението да бъде подробно запознат с пътнотранспортното нарушение, органите, от които е установено, и предмета на уведомлението.
It seems relevant for the addressee of the notification that he/she is clearly informed about the offence, the authority that has detected it and about the object of the notification.