natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията към Европейския парламент и Съвета ( COM(2007)0192 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0192 ),
– като взе предвид член 251, параграф 2 и член 95 от Договора за ЕО, съгласно които предложението e внесено от Комисията ( C6‑0108/2007 ),
– having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0108/2007 ),
– като взе предвид междуинституционалното споразумение от 20 декември 1994 г. относно ускорен метод на работа за официална кодификация на законодателни текстове
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по правни въпроси ( A6‑0022/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0022/2008 ),
Bruxelles, Avril 2007
Brussels, April 2007
Avis du Groupe consultatif des Services juridiques du Parlement européen, du Conseil et de la Commission
Opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
Proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative à l'Installation des dispositifs d'éclairage et de signalisation lumineuse des tracteurs agricoles ou forestiers a roues
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors
( COM(2007)0192 du 17.4.2007 - 2007/0066(COD) )
( COM(2007)0192 final of 17.4.2007 - 2007/0066 (COD))
Eu égard a 1'accord interinstitutionnel du 20 décembre 1994 sur une méthode de travail accélérée en vue d'une codification officielle des textes législatifs, et notamment a son point 4, le Groupe consultatif composé des services juridiques du Parlement européen, du Conseil et de la Commission a tenu le 24 avril 2007 une réunion consacrée a l'examen de la proposition susmentionnée, présentée par la Commission.
Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts, and in particular of paragraph 4 thereof, the consultative working party of the legal services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission held a meeting on 24 April 2007 to consider the aforementioned proposal, submitted by the Commission.
Lors de l'examen de la proposition de directive
Upon considering the proposal for a directive
Le Groupe disposait de toutes les versions linguistiques de la proposition et a travaille" sur la base de la version en langue francaise, version originale du document de travail. du Parlement européen et du Conseil visant à codifier la directive 78/93 3/CEE du Conseil du 17 octobre 1978 concernant le rapprochement des législations des Etats membres relatives à l'installation des dispositifs d'éclairage et de signalisation lumineuse des tracteurs agricoles ou forestiers à roues, le Groupe a, d'un commun accord, constaté ce qui suit.
The Consultative Working Party had all the language versions at its disposal and worked on the basis of the French version, which was the original version of the working document. of the European Parliament and of the Council to codify Council Directive 78/933/EEC of 17 October 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors, the working party, by common accord, noted the following:
Au premier paragraphe de l'article 7, l'expression "les directives visées à l'annexe III devrait être suivie par l'indication "Partie A".
In the first paragraph of Article 7, the expression ‘ the Directives listed in Annex III ’ should be followed by the words ‘ Part A ’.
A l'Annexe I, point 1.3, l'indication "2.4" devrait se lire "2.1.1".
In Annex I, paragraph 1.3, the number ‘ 2.4 ’ should be ‘ 2.1.1 ’.
A l'Annexe I, point 4.5.4.2, le mot "plague" devrait être remplacé par le mot "plage".
[ Does not affect English version ].
A l'annexe I, point 4.15, la ligne qui actuellement regroupe les points 4.15.3 a 4.15.9 devrait être remplacée par deux signes différentes, l'un regroupant les points 4.15.3 a 4.15.6 sous l'indication "Aucune spécification particulière", et l'autre regroupant les points 4.15.7, 4.15.8 et 4.15.9 sous l'indication "Avec un autre feu".
In Annex I, paragraph 4.15, the line which currently groups together paragraphs 4.15.3 to 4.15.9 should be replaced by two separate lines, one grouping together paragraphs 4.15.3 to 4.15.6, marked ‘ No individual specifications ’, and the other grouping together paragraphs 4.15.7, 4.15.8 and 4.15.9, marked ‘ with another lamp ’.
Cet examen a ainsi permis au Groupe de constater d'un commun accord que la proposition se limite effectivement à une codification pure et simple, sans modification de substance des actes qui en font l'objet.
The working party was thus able to establish, by common accord, that the proposal was indeed a straightforward codification involving no substantive changes to the acts concerned.
Jurisconsulte Directeur Général
Jurisconsult Director-General
PE 396.678v02-00
PE 396.678v02-00
EXPLANTORY STATEMENT.................................................................................................17
EXPLANTORY STATEMENT.................................................................................................11
СТАНОВИЩЕ НА КОМИСИЯТА ПО БЮДЖЕТИ.............................................................25
OPINION of the Committee on Budgets .................................................................18
РЕЗУЛТАТ ОТ ОКОНЧАТЕЛНОТО ГЛАСУВАНЕ В КОМИСИЯ...................................31
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................24
– като взе предвид четвъртия доклад за икономическото и социално сближаване ( COM(2007)0273 ) („четвърти доклад за сближаване”),
– having regard to the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion ( COM(2007)0273 ) (‘the Fourth Cohesion Report'),
- като взе предвид съобщението на Комисията до Европейския парламент, Съвета, Европейския икономически и социален комитет и до Комитета на регионите, озаглавено „Стратегия за най-отдалечените региони: постижения и перспективи” ( COM(2007)0507 ),
- having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled Strategy for the Outermost Regions: Achievements and Future Prospects ( COM(2007)0507 ),
- като взе предвид член 158, член 159 и член 299, параграф 2 от Договора за създаване на Европейската общност,
- having regard to Articles 158, 159 and 299(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
– като взе предвид Териториалния дневен ред на ЕС и Лайпцигската харта за устойчиви европейски градове, както и Първата програма за действие относно прилагането на Териториалния дневен ред на Европейския съюз,
– having regard to the Territorial Agenda of the EUand the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, and the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union,
– като взе предвид доклада на Европейската мрежа за наблюдение на устройството на територията (ESPON), озаглавен „Бъдещето на територията – териториални сценарии за Европа” и този на Европейския парламент, озаглавен „Регионалните различия и сближаването: кои са стратегиите на бъдещето?”
– having regard to the report by the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network (ESPON) entitled Territorial Futures - Spatial scenarios for Europe and that of the European Parliament Regional Disparities and Cohesion: what Strategies for the Future?,
– като взе предвид становището на Комитета на регионите (COTER-IV-011) от 28 ноември 2007 г. и становището на Икономическия и социален комитет (CESE 1712/2007) от 12 декември 2007 г. относно четвъртия доклад за сближаване,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (COTER-IV-011) of 28 November 2007 and that of the European Economic and Social Committee (CESE 1712/2007) of 12 December 2007 on the Fourth Cohesion Report,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по регионално развитие и становищата на комисията по бюджети и на комисията по рибно стопанство ( A6-0023/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and of the Committee on Fisheries ( A6‑0023/2008 ),
A. като има предвид, че продължаващите съществени неравенства и специфични структурни проблеми в множество европейски региони, които се изостриха от неотдавнашното разширяване на Европейския съюз, все още налагат съществуването на цялостна европейска политика на сближаване,
A. whereas a comprehensive European cohesion policy continues to be made necessary by the persistence of major disparities and specific structural problems in numerous European regions, a situation that has been aggravated by the recent enlargement of the Union,
Б. като има предвид, че политиката за сближаване на ЕС представлява основен стълб в европейския процес на интеграция и изпълнява активна роля за намаляване на неравенствата и загубите в развитието,
B. whereas the EU’s cohesion policy thus remains an essential pillar in the process of European integration, and plays an active role in reducing disparities and development deficits,
В. като има предвид ясната връзка между засилването на евроскептичните настроения и увеличаването на неравенствата между отделните територии и вътре в тях, с което се показва необходимостта от икономическо, социално и териториално сближаване с цел постигане на по-голяма степен на сближаване и създаване на здрава основа за легитимността на Европейския съюз, която е постижима чрез видими действия на място в рамките на регионалната политика; като има предвид, че регионалните и местни органи и местните участници имат основна роля за доближаването на дейностите на ЕС до хората и при прилагането на регионалната политика, чиито достижения следва да се огласяват по-ефективно,
C. whereas there is a clear link between rising Euro-scepticism and the increase in territorial disparities between and inside regions, which demonstrates the need for economic, social and territorial cohesion in order to strengthen convergence and give a firm basis to the legitimacy of the European Union, which is achievable through a regional policy that is visible on the ground; whereas regional and local authorities and local actors have a central role to play in bringing the EU's activities closer to the people and in implementing regional policy, whose achievements should be publicised more effectively,
Г. като има предвид, че политиката на сближаване предлага на всеки регион възможността за конкретни ползи по отношение на дълготрайната заетост и по-висок жизнен стандарт за местното население, по-специално в изоставащите региони и съдейства за засилване на конкурентноспособността и административния капацитет и гарантира децентрализация на управлението; като има предвид, че в светлината на това основание всеки опит за повторно национализиране на тази политика трябва да бъде отхвърлен,
D. whereas cohesion policy offers every region the possibility of concrete benefits in terms of long-term employment and higher living standards for local populations, particularly in regions that are lagging behindand contributes to strengthening competitiveness and administrative capacity and ensuring decentralised management; whereas, in the light of this, any attempt to renationalise this policy must be rejected,
Д. като има предвид, че Договорът от Лисабон, одобрен от държавните и правителствени глави на 18 октомври 2007 г. и подписан на 13 декември 2007 г., поставя териториалното сближаване сред основните цели на Съюза, наред с икономическото и социално сближаване,
E. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon, which was approved by the Heads of State and Government on 18 October 2007 and signed on 13 December 2007, enshrines territorial cohesion among the fundamental objectives of the Union, alongside economic and social cohesion,
Е. като има предвид, че трябва да се отпуснат в бъдеще повече финансови средства за политиката на сближаване, с цел да се решат новите предизвикателства в бъдеще, които имат важно териториално въздействие, като демографските промени, струпването на населението в градовете, сегрегацията, миграционните движения (които са особено проблематични за селските и периферни райони), приспособяването към глобализацията, изменението на климата, енергийното снабдяване и бавния процес на догонване от страна на селските райони; като има предвид, че тези предизвикателства могат да бъдат разрешени само ако бъде признато важното значение на политиката за сближаване за тази цел в бъдеще;
F. whereas increased financial resources for cohesion policy must be guaranteed in the future in order to deal with the anticipated new challenges, which have an important territorial impact, such as demographic change, urban concentration, segregation, migratory movements (which are particularly problematic for rural and peripheral areas), adjustment to globalisation, climate change, energy supply, and the slow catch-up process of rural areas; whereas these challenges can be dealt with only if the great significance of cohesion policy is recognised for this purpose in the future;
Ясно изразени различия в постигнатото състояние на сближаване в Европейския съюз от 27 държави-членки
Contrasting data on the state of cohesion in the European Union of 27 Member States
13. подчертава ефекта на поляризиране в столичните региони- особено изразено явление в новите държави-членки - които създадоха средно 32% от БВП на съответната страна, а представляват едва 22% от населението; отбелязва, че това поляризиране може да доведе до големи разлики в процента на безработица в градските центрове;
Emphasises the effect of polarisation in the regions around capital cities – a particularly marked phenomenon in the new Member States – which on average generated 32% of their countries’ GDP, while representing only 22% of the population; notes that this polarisation can give rise to great disparities among unemployment rates in city centres;
Регионалната политика и Лисабонската стратегия
Regional policy and the Lisbon Strategy
22. посочва, че отчетените закъснения при изпълнението на структурната политика се дължат отчасти на много стриктни процедури, за които е подходящо да се помисли да бъдат опростени и да бъде направено точно разпределение на отговорностите и компетенциите между ЕС и държавите-членки;
Points out that the delays in implementing structural policy are due in part to the excessive rigidity of procedures and that, consequently, consideration should be given to simplifying those procedures and clearly dividing responsibilities and competences between the EU and the Member States;
Териториалното сближаване: към интегриран подход
Territorial cohesion: towards an integrated approach
30. предлага да се даде приоритет на политиките, които обслужват истинското полицентрично развитие на териториите, така че да се облекчи натиска върху столиците и да се насърчи появата на вторични центрове; счита,че в тази връзка не бива да се изгубва от погледа предоставянето на помощи за селските райони и важната роля, която играят малките и средни градове в селските райони;
Proposes that priority be given to policies that serve a genuinely polycentric development of territories, such that the pressures on capital cities are lessened and the emergence of secondary poles is encouraged; considers that support for rural areas and the important role played by small and medium-sized towns located in rural areas should not be overlooked in this connection;
37. отбелязва със задоволство обявлението на Комисията за предвидената за м. септември 2008 г. Зелена книга относно териториалното сближаване и изисква тя да съдържа конкретни насоки за прилагането на интегрирания подход;
Welcomes the announcement by the Commission of a future Green Paper on territorial cohesion, which is expected to be adopted in September 2008, and asks that it should contain concrete guidelines for the implementation of the integrated approach;
39. отчита важността на редовното сътрудничество между Парламента, посредством неговата комисията по регионално развитие, и Комитета на регионите във връзка с бъдещето на регионалната политика;
Is aware of the importance of regular cooperation between Parliament, represented by its Committee on Regional Development, and the Committee of the Regions on the subject of the future of regional policy;
Нови предизвикателства пред политиката на сближаване и общия бюджет на Европейския съюз
New challenges for cohesion policy and the general budget of the European Union
EXPLANTORY STATEMENT
EXPLANTORY STATEMENT
Cohesion, the aim of which is to reduce the economic and social disparities between European regions, is a fundamental objective of the European Union.
Cohesion, the aim of which is to reduce the economic and social disparities between European regions, is a fundamental objective of the European Union.
For over 20 years already, the regional policy has been working to achieve harmonious, sustainable development of the whole of Europe’s territory.
For over 20 years already, the regional policy has been working to achieve harmonious, sustainable development of the whole of Europe’s territory.
More than twenty years of programmes and structural adjustments to bring about convergence between increasingly diverse regions and improve the living conditions of all Europe’s citizens.
More than twenty years of programmes and structural adjustments to bring about convergence between increasingly diverse regions and improve the living conditions of all Europe’s citizens.
After the latest enlargement, which profoundly changed the EU’s territorial dimension, there is a great necessity to revive the objective of territorial cohesion in order to make a success of integration, and also to respond to the crisis of meaning that is sweeping through Europe and to reconcile its citizens to the European project.
After the latest enlargement, which profoundly changed the EU’s territorial dimension, there is a great necessity to revive the objective of territorial cohesion in order to make a success of integration, and also to respond to the crisis of meaning that is sweeping through Europe and to reconcile its citizens to the European project.
Parliament therefore welcomes this first report on cohesion since the enlargements of 2004 and 2007.
Parliament therefore welcomes this first report on cohesion since the enlargements of 2004 and 2007.
Mixed verdict on the state of convergence in the EU of 27
Mixed verdict on the state of convergence in the EU of 27
According to the data contained in the fourth report, the period from 2000 to 2006 has some success stories to show as regards convergence at national level.
According to the data contained in the fourth report, the period from 2000 to 2006 has some success stories to show as regards convergence at national level.
The main beneficiaries of cohesion – Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal - recorded impressive growth rates.
The main beneficiaries of cohesion – Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal - recorded impressive growth rates.
Since 2000, the highest rate of growth has been recorded in the countries where per-capita GDP was lowest in terms of purchasing power, Greece and Portugal for instance, with respective growth rates of 2.8% and 2% of their GDP between 2000 and 2006.
Since 2000, the highest rate of growth has been recorded in the countries where per-capita GDP was lowest in terms of purchasing power, Greece and Portugal for instance, with respective growth rates of 2.8% and 2% of their GDP between 2000 and 2006.
And the number of regions with a per-capita GDP lower than 75% of the EU average went down from 78 to 70.
And the number of regions with a per-capita GDP lower than 75% of the EU average went down from 78 to 70.
Nonetheless, having started from very low per-capita GDP levels, and despite dynamic growth rates, more difficulties are recorded in the new Member States than in the old ones.
Nonetheless, having started from very low per-capita GDP levels, and despite dynamic growth rates, more difficulties are recorded in the new Member States than in the old ones.
On the basis of current growth rates, it looks as if Poland, as well as Bulgaria and Romania, will take more than 15 years to reach a per-capita GDP of 75% of the EU-27 average.
On the basis of current growth rates, it looks as if Poland, as well as Bulgaria and Romania, will take more than 15 years to reach a per-capita GDP of 75% of the EU-27 average.
While narrowing of gaps between Member States has certainly progressed in recent years, the development gaps within Member States have widened.
While narrowing of gaps between Member States has certainly progressed in recent years, the development gaps within Member States have widened.
The widening of regional and infraregional disparities can be observed in a number of areas, whether in terms of employment, productivity, income, education levels or innovation capacity.
The widening of regional and infraregional disparities can be observed in a number of areas, whether in terms of employment, productivity, income, education levels or innovation capacity.
Some of the most developed regions are even beginning to experience very weak, or even negative, growth rates.
Some of the most developed regions are even beginning to experience very weak, or even negative, growth rates.
It is noted that between 1995 and 2004 productivity has fallen in 29 regions in Italy, France, Spain and Germany, while employment rates have fallen in 16 regions, essentially in the eastern part of Germany, the north-east of France and the north of England.
It is noted that between 1995 and 2004 productivity has fallen in 29 regions in Italy, France, Spain and Germany, while employment rates have fallen in 16 regions, essentially in the eastern part of Germany, the north-east of France and the north of England.
These regions will have to adapt to the pressures of world trade by developing innovative, high-technology economies.
These regions will have to adapt to the pressures of world trade by developing innovative, high-technology economies.
Often these regions are also the most affected by demographic change, particularly the ageing of their populations.
Often these regions are also the most affected by demographic change, particularly the ageing of their populations.
Depopulation accentuates economic problems, since regional purchasing power goes down and the qualified workforce emigrates from these regions in large numbers.
Depopulation accentuates economic problems, since regional purchasing power goes down and the qualified workforce emigrates from these regions in large numbers.
Cohesion policy must respond to this major challenge so that the demographic and territorial balance of the EU is maintained.
Cohesion policy must respond to this major challenge so that the demographic and territorial balance of the EU is maintained.
The report also carries out an interesting comparison with the EU’s main global competitors.
The report also carries out an interesting comparison with the EU’s main global competitors.
From this it emerges that regional disparities, measured in terms of per-capita GDP, are much more marked within the EU-27 than in the United States or Japan: all the states of the USA, and 40 of the 47 regions of Japan, have a per-capita GDP that is higher than the EU average.
From this it emerges that regional disparities, measured in terms of per-capita GDP, are much more marked within the EU-27 than in the United States or Japan: all the states of the USA, and 40 of the 47 regions of Japan, have a per-capita GDP that is higher than the EU average.