natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Should the Commission decide not to take any action, in accordance with principles such as those of good administration, transparency and cooperation between institutions, Parliament must demand the reasons for such a decision to be clarified.
Should the Commission decide not to take any action, in accordance with principles such as those of good administration, transparency and cooperation between institutions, Parliament must demand the reasons for such a decision to be clarified.
Parliament is entitled, if not to demand action from the Commission, at least to know the reasons for which it has decided not to act, so that it can assess whether the Commission is exercising its discretion in a proper manner and understand the criteria guiding its decisions.
Parliament is entitled, if not to demand action from the Commission, at least to know the reasons for which it has decided not to act, so that it can assess whether the Commission is exercising its discretion in a proper manner and understand the criteria guiding its decisions.
As regards the representation of the European Parliament in court, it would be appropriate to officially confer on the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs the legal capacity to take part in court proceedings, where these involve the prerogatives of the European Parliament, representing Parliament as a whole.
As regards the representation of the European Parliament in court, it would be appropriate to officially confer on the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs the legal capacity to take part in court proceedings, where these involve the prerogatives of the European Parliament, representing Parliament as a whole.
To that end, an amendment to Rule 19 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure would be desirable, to the effect that the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs should be expressly appointed to represent the European Parliament in court in all legal proceedings in which its prerogatives are at issue.
To that end, an amendment to Rule 19 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure would be desirable, to the effect that the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs should be expressly appointed to represent the European Parliament in court in all legal proceedings in which its prerogatives are at issue.
With reference, in particular, to participation in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, under Article 23 of the Court’s Statute, Parliament may submit observations in applications for a preliminary ruling which concern the validity or interpretation of acts adopted under the codecision procedure.
With reference, in particular, to participation in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, under Article 23 of the Court’s Statute, Parliament may submit observations in applications for a preliminary ruling which concern the validity or interpretation of acts adopted under the codecision procedure.
However, as the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament are not included among such acts, it is to be hoped that the Court of Justice may encourage the involvement of the European Parliament where its prerogatives are at issue, on the basis of Article 24(2) which states: ‘The Court may also require the Member States and institutions not being parties to the case to supply all information which the Court considers necessary for the proceedings’.
However, as the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament are not included among such acts, it is to be hoped that the Court of Justice may encourage the involvement of the European Parliament where its prerogatives are at issue, on the basis of Article 24(2) which states: ‘The Court may also require the Member States and institutions not being parties to the case to supply all information which the Court considers necessary for the proceedings’.
It would, however, be advisable to amend the Statute so that the European Parliament’s power to submit its own observations may be extended to all cases in which, directly or indirectly, parliamentary prerogatives are being debated.
It would, however, be advisable to amend the Statute so that the European Parliament’s power to submit its own observations may be extended to all cases in which, directly or indirectly, parliamentary prerogatives are being debated.
But it is in the national courts that, without a doubt, an urgent need is felt for a strong European Parliament presence.
But it is in the national courts that, without a doubt, an urgent need is felt for a strong European Parliament presence.
Direct participation of the European Parliament in proceedings before the national judges in which its own prerogatives are at issue would have several advantages.
Direct participation of the European Parliament in proceedings before the national judges in which its own prerogatives are at issue would have several advantages.
It would, in fact, help to limit cases of possible infringement proceedings or referrals for a preliminary ruling, to foster greater efficiency in the courts and, lastly, to avoid forms of discrimination between national and European parliamentarians.
It would, in fact, help to limit cases of possible infringement proceedings or referrals for a preliminary ruling, to foster greater efficiency in the courts and, lastly, to avoid forms of discrimination between national and European parliamentarians.
First of all, it is essential to foster a policy of cooperation between the European Parliament and national judges.
First of all, it is essential to foster a policy of cooperation between the European Parliament and national judges.
Good practices in this regard have already been developed with the judicial authorities of several Member States.
Good practices in this regard have already been developed with the judicial authorities of several Member States.
The aim is to implement those practices and launch them successfully with those countries which up to now have not been so receptive to the issue.
The aim is to implement those practices and launch them successfully with those countries which up to now have not been so receptive to the issue.
In this connection it would be useful to note Article 8 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, according to which: ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act, brought in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Member States, or notified by them in accordance with their legal order on behalf of their national Parliament or a chamber thereof’.
In this connection it would be useful to note Article 8 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, according to which: ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act, brought in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Member States, or notified by them in accordance with their legal order on behalf of their national Parliament or a chamber thereof’.
Since the Community legal order recognises the right of national parliaments to take action before the Court of Justice should the principle of subsidiarity be infringed, it would be illogical not to accept, conversely, the European Parliament’s right to take legal action, or in any case to take part in proceedings which concern its own prerogatives before the national courts.
Since the Community legal order recognises the right of national parliaments to take action before the Court of Justice should the principle of subsidiarity be infringed, it would be illogical not to accept, conversely, the European Parliament’s right to take legal action, or in any case to take part in proceedings which concern its own prerogatives before the national courts.
Where national legal orders were not to recognise this right of the European Parliament, serious doubts would arise as to compliance with and enforcement of the ‘principle of sincere and loyal cooperation’ enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Where national legal orders were not to recognise this right of the European Parliament, serious doubts would arise as to compliance with and enforcement of the ‘principle of sincere and loyal cooperation’ enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Moreover, the case-law of the Court of Justice recognises an implicit power in respect of any legislative measures that are necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of rules laid down in an area falling within the competence of the Community legislator (for example, criminal penalties in matters relating to the infringement of environmental protection rules)
Moreover, the case-law of the Court of Justice recognises an implicit power in respect of any legislative measures that are necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of rules laid down in an area falling within the competence of the Community legislator (for example, criminal penalties in matters relating to the infringement of environmental protection rules)
Should, however, the Community legislator not consider it necessary to adopt legislative measures in this regard, it cannot ignore the decision in which the Court of Justice ruled that ‘it is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection’.
Should, however, the Community legislator not consider it necessary to adopt legislative measures in this regard, it cannot ignore the decision in which the Court of Justice ruled that ‘it is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection’.
In the light of that judgment and, more generally, of the principle of sincere and loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 10 of the EC Treaty, your rapporteur considers that the national legal orders in general, and national judges in particular, are required to accept the participation of the European Parliament in all court proceedings in which Parliament’s legally recognised prerogatives are in question.
In the light of that judgment and, more generally, of the principle of sincere and loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 10 of the EC Treaty, your rapporteur considers that the national legal orders in general, and national judges in particular, are required to accept the participation of the European Parliament in all court proceedings in which Parliament’s legally recognised prerogatives are in question.
СТАНОВИЩЕ на комисията по конституционни въпроси (*)
OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (*)
Комисията по конституционни въпроси приканва водещата комисия по правни въпроси да включи в предложението за резолюция, което ще приеме, следните предложения:
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
А. като има предвид, че се явява асоциирана комисия съгласно член 47 от правилника по доклада на комисията по правни въпроси относно защитата на прерогативите на Европейския парламент пред националните съдилища,
A. whereas it has been associated pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure with the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs on defending Parliament's prerogatives vis-à-vis the national courts,
Б. като има предвид, че в обхвата на това асоцииране попадат въпроси, свързани с междуинституционалните отношения и с правилника за дейността на Парламента, тъй като тези въпроси спадат към отговорностите на комисията по конституционни въпроси съгласно Приложение VI, част XVIII от правилника,
B. whereas the scope of this association is such that it covers questions concerning interinstitutional relations and Parliament's Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as those matters come within the responsibility of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs under Part XVIII of Annex VI to the Rules of Procedure,
отправя покана към водещата комисия по правни въпроси, съгласно член 47, четвърто тире от правилника за дейността на ЕП, да включи в предложението си за резолюция следните предложения, без да ги поставя на гласуване:
calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate pursuant to Rule 47, fourth indent, of the Rules of Procedure, without a vote, the following amendments in its motion for a resolution:
Параграф 1 следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Paragraph 1 should be amended to read as follows:
„приканва Комисията да отчита евентуалните искания на Европейския парламент за образуване на производство за установяване на неизпълнение срещу държава-членка, обвинена, че е нарушила определени парламентарни прерогативи, и изисква да бъде осведомяван от Комисията, в писмен вид и подробно, относно причините за всяко решение на Комисията да не предприема изискваните действия;“
"Calls on the Commission to take account of possible requests by the European Parliament to activate the infringement procedure against a State accused of having breached a parliamentary prerogative and requests to be informed by the Commission, in writing and in full detail, of the reasons for any decision by the Commission not to take the action requested;"
Параграф 3 следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Paragraph 3 should be amended to read as follows:
„предлага да се разгледа внимателно въпросът дали може да се създаде правен механизъм, подобен на предвидения в член 300, параграф 6 от Договора за ЕО, за да се прилага при случаи, в които прерогативите на Европейския парламент са сериозно застрашени, като на Парламента се даде възможност да поиска от Съда на Европейските общности да се произнесе относно съвместимостта на даден акт на националното право с първичното общностно право, без с това да се нарушава изключителното правомощие на Комисията да образува или да откаже образуването на процедура за установяване на неизпълнение срещу държава, която евентуално е извършила нарушение;
“Suggests that an in-depth examination be carried out as to whether a legal mechanism similar to that laid down in Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty could be developed to cater for cases in which the prerogatives of the European Parliament are seriously under threat, allowing Parliament to ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the compatibility of a certain act of national law with primary Community law, without prejudice to the exclusive power of the Commission to decide whether or not to initiate infringement proceedings against the State which may have committed an infringement;”
Параграф 4 следва да се заличи;
Paragraph 4 should be deleted;
Параграф 6 следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Paragraph 6 should be amended to read as follows:
„призовава Комисията да предложи подходящите законодателни мерки за гарантирането на пълни правни последици на правната защита от страна на Парламента на прерогативите му;“
“Calls on the Commission to propose the appropriate legislative measures in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the legal defence by Parliament of its prerogatives;”
Съображение А следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital A should be amended to read as follows:
„А. като има предвид, че Европейският парламент често е възпрепятстван в защитата на своите прерогативи пред националните съдилища поради проблеми, произтичащи от специфичния му характер,“
“A. whereas the European Parliament is often impeded, in proceedings before national courts, in protecting its prerogatives because of problems that are peculiar to its special nature;”
Добавя се ново съображение Аа, както следва:
A new recital Aa should be inserted, as follows:
„Аа. като има предвид, че Парламентът уважава правото на инициатива на Комисията, но защитава своето собствено право съгласно член 192 от Договора за създаване на ЕО да изисква от Комисията да представя законодателни предложения,“
“Aa. whereas Parliament respects the right of initiative of the Commission but upholds its own right under Article 192 of the EC Treaty to request the Commission to submit legislative proposals,”
Съображение Б следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital B should be amended to read as follows:
„Б. като има предвид, че в това отношение Европейският парламент разполага с редица предвидени в Договора правни средства, които гарантират защитата на горепосочените прерогативи пред другите институции на Общността, като действия за установяване на неправомерно бездействие (чл. 232 от Договора за създаване на ЕО) или действия за отмяна на актове на Общността (чл. 230 от Договора за създаване на ЕО),“
“B. whereas in this regard the European Parliament has at its disposal a range of remedies under the Treaty which ensure that the aforementioned prerogatives are protected vis-à-vis the other Community institutions, such as actions for failure to act (Article 232 of the EC Treaty) and actions for the annulment of Community acts (Article 230 of the EC Treaty),”
Добавя се ново съображение Ба, както следва:
A new recital Ba should be inserted, as follows:
„Ба. като има предвид, че според съдебната практика на Съда на европейските общности една държава-членка носи отговорност за неспазване на задълженията си по Договорите, независимо от това кой е органът на тази държава, чието действие или бездействие е довело до това неспазване, дори в случай на институция, която по конституция е независима 1 ,
"Ba. whereas, under the case-law of the Court of Justice, a Member State incurs liability for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, whatever the agency of that State whose action or inaction has caused the failure, even in the case of a constitutionally independent institution 1 ,
1 Решение от 18 ноември 1970 г., Дело 8/70 Комисия срещу Италия (ECR 1970, стр. 961).“
1 Judgment of 18 November 1970 in Case 8/70 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 961.”
Съображение В следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital C should be amended to read as follows:
„В. като има предвид, че Европейският парламент все пак не разполага с равностойни преки инструменти за ефективна защита на своите прерогативи в случай на решение, постановено от национална съдебна институция, в сферата на правото на Общността, което противоречи на прерогативите на Парламента, доколкото той не може да сезира пряко Съда на Европейските общности, за да защити собствените си решения,“
“C. whereas, however, the European Parliament does not have the same direct instruments with which to defend its prerogatives effectively in the event of a judgment of a national court in the field of Community law which runs counter to those prerogatives, since it is unable directly to bring an action before the Court of Justice to defend its decisions,”
Съображение Г следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital D should be amended to read as follows:
„Г. като има предвид, че Европейският парламент няма правомощие пряко да образува производство за установяване на неизпълнение по чл. 226 от Договора за създаване на ЕО срещу държава-членка, тъй като може да го направи единствено чрез Комисията,“
“D. whereas the European Parliament is not empowered to directly initiate infringement proceedings against a Member State under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, since it can do so only through the Commission,”
Съображение Д следва се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital E should be amended to read as follows:
„Д. като има предвид, че липсата на подходящи инструменти за ефективна защита на собствените му решения може да попречи на ефективността на Европейския парламент като политически и законодателен орган,“
“E. whereas the lack of appropriate instruments with which to defend its own decisions effectively can hamper the effectiveness of the European Parliament as a political and legislative body,”
Съображение Ж следва да се измени, така че да гласи следното:
Recital G should be amended to read as follows:
„Ж. като има предвид, че с оглед заобикалянето на гореизложените проблеми следва да се засилят средствата за защита на парламентарните прерогативи в европейската правна рамка не чрез изменение на Договора за създаване на ЕО, а като се задълбочи сътрудничеството с Комисията и/или като се насърчава Комисията при необходимост да предявява искове по процедурата по член 226 от Договора или като се използват механизмите и практиките за съдебно обжалване, установени от Съда на Европейските общности,“
“G. whereas, in order to circumvent the above-mentioned problems, the measures to protect parliamentary prerogatives within the European legal framework should be strengthened, not by amending the EC Treaty but rather by enhancing the collaboration with the Commission and/or with the aim of encouraging the Commission whenever necessary to bring actions under Article 226 of the Treaty, or by using the judicial review mechanisms and practices established by the Court of Justice,”;
противопоставя се на изменение 4 към доклада на комисията по правни въпроси, тъй като това изменение се отнася до въпрос, който вече се разглежда в доклада, който предстои да бъде изготвен от комисията по конституционни въпроси в отговор на официалното искане на комисията по правни въпроси.
is opposed to amendment 4 tabled to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs, because that amendment addresses a matter which is already under consideration in a report to be drawn up by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in response to a formal request by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The principle of legal cooperation between the Commission and the Parliament requires that any decision concerning a request by Parliament is taken by the college.
The principle of legal cooperation between the Commission and the Parliament requires that any decision concerning a request by Parliament is taken by the college.
Once this decision is taken the college, within its power of internal organisation, can delegate the task of notifying its decision to Parliament.
Once this decision is taken the college, within its power of internal organisation, can delegate the task of notifying its decision to Parliament.
At present the Parliament should avoid any possible misunderstandings concerning its intention in relation to new requests to amend EU primary law.
At present the Parliament should avoid any possible misunderstandings concerning its intention in relation to new requests to amend EU primary law.
The difficulties described in the draft report do not justify calling into question the prerogative of the President of the European Parliament to represent Parliament in legal matters.
The difficulties described in the draft report do not justify calling into question the prerogative of the President of the European Parliament to represent Parliament in legal matters.
The Commission cannot adopt legislative measures; it can only propose them if it considers them appropriate.
The Commission cannot adopt legislative measures; it can only propose them if it considers them appropriate.
Parliament can not be regarded as the "the main transnational legislative institution in Europe" as it shares this quality with the Council.
Parliament can not be regarded as the "the main transnational legislative institution in Europe" as it shares this quality with the Council.
The specific nature of Parliament is an obstacle only with regard to its possibility to act before national courts.
The specific nature of Parliament is an obstacle only with regard to its possibility to act before national courts.
At Union level the limits of these possibilities are a consequence of the present institutional balance.
At Union level the limits of these possibilities are a consequence of the present institutional balance.