natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Бихте ли оттеглил кандидатурата си, ако становището на Парламента е против назначаването Ви за член на Сметната палата?
Would you withdraw your candidacy if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the Court were unfavourable?
По-горе беше посочено, че Сметната палата има за задача да подпомага Парламента в осъществяването на контрол над изпълнението на бюджета на Съюза, и аз подчертах значението на духа на диалог, сътрудничество и взаимно уважение, който трябва да характеризира отношенията на Сметната палата и Парламента.
It was pointed out earlier that the Court of Auditors has a duty to assist the Parliament in exercising control over the implementation of the Union’s budget, and I stressed the importance of the spirit of dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect that should characterise relations between the Court and the Parliament.
Едно становище против дадено назначение би могло да представлява пречка за тези отношения.
An unfavourable opinion on an appointment could constitute an obstacle to such relations.
Договорът обръща специално внимание на независимостта и професионализма на членовете на Сметната палата.
The Treaty makes special reference to the independence and professionalism of the Members of the Court.
В случай че Парламентът има основания да се съмнява в моята независимост и професионална компетентност и на тази основа изкаже становище против назначаването ми на длъжността член на Сметната палата, имам готовност да оттегля кандидатурата си.
If Parliament were to cast doubt on my independence and my professional competence and, on that basis, to give an unfavourable opinion on my appointment as a Member of the Court, I would be prepared to withdraw my candidacy.
Назначаване на член на Сметната палата (г-н Michel Cretin)
Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Mr Michel Cretin)
PE 396.489v02-00
PE 396.489v02-00
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 1: CURRICULUM VITAE НА David Bostock
ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF David BOSTOCK
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ 2: краткО изложение НА HUBERT WEBER НА ОПИТА МУ КАТО ЧЛЕН НА СМЕТНАТА ПАЛАТА И ЦЕЛИТЕ МУ ЗА ЕДИН БЪДЕЩ МАНДАТ
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY BY David BOSTOCK OF EXPERIENCE AS A COURT MEMBER AND OBJECTIVES FOR A FUTURE MANDATE
– като взе предвид член 247, параграф 3, от Договора за ЕО и член 160 Б, параграф 3, от Договора Евратом, съгласно които Съветът се е консултирал с него ( C6‑0304/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 247(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 160b(3) of the Euratom Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0304/2007 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по бюджетен контрол ( A6‑0439/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control ( A6‑0439/2007 ),
Член на Европейската сметна палата, представител на Обединеното кралство.
UK Member of the European Court of Auditors.
Образование: Оксфордски университет (съвременна история), University College London (икономика на държавната политика).
Educated: Oxford University (Modern History), University College London (Economics of Public Policy).
Работил 30 години в държавната администрация, първоначално в министерството на финансите, а в края на този период - като специалист по въпросите на ЕС.
Spent 30 years in the British civil service, starting in the Treasury and ending as an EU specialist.
Завеждащ група „Европейски съюз“ в Министерството на финансите, 1990-1994 г.; заместник-директор и по-късно директор на Европейската инвестиционна банка, 1990-1994 г.; заместник на постоянния представител на Обединеното кралство в Европейския съюз, 1995-1998 г.; завеждащ секретариата по европейските въпроси към правителствената канцелария, 1999-2000 г.; гост преподавател в Центъра по международни изследвания към Лондонското висше училище по икономика (London School of Economics ), 2000-2001 г.; научен сътрудник и преподавател в Европейския институт към Университета в Съсекс.
Head of the Treasury's European Union Group 1990-1994; Assistant Director then Director of the European Investment Bank, 1990-1994; United Kingdom Deputy Permanent Representative to the European Union, 1995 -1998; Head of the European Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, 1999-2000; Visiting Fellow at the Centre for International Studies at the London School of Economics 2000-2001; Practitioner Fellow at the University of Sussex European Institute.
Член на Европейската сметна палата от м. януари 2002 г., отговарящ първоначално за селското стопанство и по-късно (от м. март 2006 г.) - за структурните и вътрешни политики.
Member of the European Court of Auditors since January 2002 with responsibilities first for agriculture then (since March 2006) for structural and internal policies.
Сметна палата: Предишен опит и бъдещи цели
The Court of Auditors: Past Experience and Future Objectives
През 2005 и началото на 2006 проведох, по искане на председателя на Сметната палата, вътрешно проучване за това как Сметната палата да оповестява по най-добър начин резултатите от своята одитна дейност.
In 2005 and early 2006 I carried out, at the request of the Court's President, an internal study on how the Court could best communicate the results of its audit work.
През март 2006 се присъединих към одитната група, отговаряща за разходите по политиката за сближаване, изследванията и някои други вътрешни политики на Съюза.
In March 2006 I joined the audit group responsible for spending on cohesion, research and some other internal policies of the Union.
По-рано тази година представих специален доклад за междинната оценка, междинния одит и усвояването на резервния фонд за изпълнение на структурните фондове през 2000-2006 г.
Earlier this year I presented a special report on the mid-term evaluation, mid-term revision and implementation of the performance reserve for the structural funds in 2000-2006 (SR1/2007).
(SR1/2007).Вземал съм активно участие в обсъжданията на политически въпроси, засягащи Сметната палата.
I have contributed actively to discussions of policy issues affecting the Court.
Членовете на Сметната палата изпълняват ролята на докладчици по отделни аспекти на нейната работа; участват в одитни групи, и са членове на колегията, носеща колективна отговорност за развитието на Сметната палата.
Members of the Court act as rapporteurs for individual items of work; as members of audit groups; and as members of the college exercising collective responsibility for the Court's development.
Личните им цели следва да се разглеждат в този контекст.
Personal objectives are best considered in this framework.
Като докладчик моята цел ще бъде да гарантирам съответния стандарт на работата на Сметната палата, нейното извършване в срок и в рамките на бюджета, както и добрата обосновка и ясното и точно представяне на и резултатите от одитите.
As rapporteur my objective will be to ensure that work is carried out to the appropriate standard, on time and within budget; that audit findings are soundly based; and that the results are reported in a way which is clear and relevant.
Като член на одитна група моята цел ще бъде да гарантирам ясното формулиране на задачите на одита по начин, позволяващ задоволителен отговор на въпросите от одита, точно и реалистично тълкуване на резултатите от одитите и тяхното ясно представяне.
As member of an audit group my objective will be to ensure that audit tasks are clearly defined in a way which should permit audit questions to be satisfactorily answered; that audit results are interpreted rigorously but realistically; and that audit findings are clearly communicated.
Докладите на Сметната палата трябва да бъдат разбираеми за възможно най-широк кръг от читатели, а не само за специалистите.
The Court's reports should be intelligible to as wide a range of readers as possible, not just to experts.
Като член на колегията ще продължа да правя всичко по силите си за да допринеса за функционирането на Сметната палата като съвременна, високоефективна публична одитна институция, която:
As a member of the college, I shall continue to do my best to help the Court to behave as a high-performing modern public audit institution which:
- реагира на и при нужда оказва влияние върху развитието на одитната дейност и на Европейския съюз;
· responds to, and where appropriate influences, relevant developments in audit and in the European Union;
- черпи от най-добрите практики на други публични одитни институции, най-вече чрез предстоящото провеждане на партньорски оценки;
· draws on best practice in other public audit institutions, notably through the peer review which is soon to begin;
- степенува работата си по приоритети и използва ресурсите си ефективно;
· prioritises its tasks and deploys its resources efficiently; and
- информира гражданите на Европейския съюз и техните избрани представители за достоверността на отчетите на Съюза, законността и редовността на транзакциите и ефективността, ефикасността и икономичността на програмите за разходване на средства.
· informs European citizens and their elected representatives about the reliability of the Union's accounts, the legality and regularity of transactions and the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of expenditure programmes.
David Bostock
David Bostock
Назначаване на член на Сметната палата (г-н David Bostock)
Appointment of a Member of the Court of Auditors (Mr David Bostock)
(Опростена процедура - член 43, параграф 1 от правилника)
(Simplified procedure - Rule 43 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)
PE 396.744v01-00
PE 396.744v01-00
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията към Европейския парламент и към Съвета (COM (2007)0411),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0411 ),
– като взе предвид член 251, член 47, параграф 2 и членове 55 и 95 от Договора за ЕО, съгласно които предложението е внесено от Комисията,
– having regard to Article 251 and Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по промишленост, изследвания и енергетика ( A6‑0440/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0440/2007 ),
Изменение на Директива 2003/54/EО по отношение на Естония
Amendment of Directive 2003/54/EC as regards Estonia
разглеждане в комисия
Discussed in committee
9.10.2007 5.11.2007
9.10.2007 5.11.2007
относно проекта на решение на Съвета относно пълното прилагане на разпоредбите на достиженията на правото от Шенген в Чешката република, Република Естония, Република Латвия, Република Литва, Република Унгария, Република Малта, Република Полша, Република Словения и Словашката република
on the draft Council decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic
PE 396.505v03-00
PE 396.505v03-00
– като взе предвид проекта на решение на Съвета (11722/2007),
– having regard to the draft Council decision (11722/2007),
OВ L 236, 23.9.2003 г., стp.33. , съгласно който Съветът се е допитал до него ( C6‑0244/2007 ),
OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p.33. pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0244/2007 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи ( A6‑0441/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0441/2007 ),
(4) На Х ХХХХХХ 2007 г. Съветът заключи, че условията във всяка от споменатите области са били изпълнени от въпросните държави-членки.
(4) On X XXXXXX 2007, the Council concluded that the conditions in each of the areas mentioned had been fulfilled by the Member States concerned.
(4) На Х ХХХХХХ 2007 г. Съветът заключи, че условията във всяка от споменатите области са били изпълнени от заинтересованите държави-членки.
(4) On X XXXXXX 2007, the Council concluded that the conditions in each of the areas mentioned had been fulfilled by the Member States concerned.
Всяка заинтересована държава-членка следва писмено да информира Съвета и Европейския парламент през следващите шест месеца относно последващите действия, които същата решава да предприеме вследствие на препоръките, съдържащи се в доклада и споменати в съобщението относно последващите действия, които все още предстои да бъдат извършени.
Each Member State concerned should inform the Council and the European Parliament in writing in the course of the next six months on the follow-up it decides to give to the recommendations contained in the report and mentioned in the follow-up which are still to be implemented.
Five Member States - France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - signed the Schengen Agreement on 14 June 1985 and the Schengen Convention on 19 June 1990 (the latter came into force in 1995).
Five Member States - France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - signed the Schengen Agreement on 14 June 1985 and the Schengen Convention on 19 June 1990 (the latter came into force in 1995).
They agreed, on an intergovernmental basis, to gradually remove all the controls at their common borders and to introduce freedom of movement inside the territory, normally designated as the Schengen area.
They agreed, on an intergovernmental basis, to gradually remove all the controls at their common borders and to introduce freedom of movement inside the territory, normally designated as the Schengen area.
In parallel to the removal of controls at the internal borders, some compensatory measures were implemented, including: the establishment of efficient controls at the external borders, the reinforcement of the cooperation between those Member States' administrative, customs, police and judicial authorities, a common visa policy, and the creation of the Schengen Information System (SIS).
In parallel to the removal of controls at the internal borders, some compensatory measures were implemented, including: the establishment of efficient controls at the external borders, the reinforcement of the cooperation between those Member States' administrative, customs, police and judicial authorities, a common visa policy, and the creation of the Schengen Information System (SIS).
The Schengen acquis (Agreement/Convention/implementing rules and related agreements), was integrated into the institutional and legal framework of the European Union in 1999, with the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The Schengen acquis (Agreement/Convention/implementing rules and related agreements), was integrated into the institutional and legal framework of the European Union in 1999, with the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The initial membership of five Member States has been extended over time to all 15 old Member States: Italy joined in 1990, Spain and Portugal in 1991, Greece in 1992, Austria in 1995, and Finland, Sweden and Denmark (under a special arrangement) in 1996.
The initial membership of five Member States has been extended over time to all 15 old Member States: Italy joined in 1990, Spain and Portugal in 1991, Greece in 1992, Austria in 1995, and Finland, Sweden and Denmark (under a special arrangement) in 1996.
Ireland and the United Kingdom are only partial participants, since their border controls have been maintained.
Ireland and the United Kingdom are only partial participants, since their border controls have been maintained.
Two non-Community countries - Iceland and Norway - also joined in 1996, but they have a limited role in terms of decision-taking.
Two non-Community countries - Iceland and Norway - also joined in 1996, but they have a limited role in terms of decision-taking.
The 10 new Member States (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Cyprus) adopted the Schengen acquis on joining the EU in 2004.
The 10 new Member States (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Cyprus) adopted the Schengen acquis on joining the EU in 2004.
At this moment, we are facing the biggest enlargement in Schengen's history, with the declaration by 9 of them (excluding Cyprus) of readiness to start the evaluation procedure.
At this moment, we are facing the biggest enlargement in Schengen's history, with the declaration by 9 of them (excluding Cyprus) of readiness to start the evaluation procedure.
SCHENGEN EVALUATION
SCHENGEN EVALUATION
According to Article 3(2) of the Act of Accession, the verification through evaluation procedures that the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis have been met by the new Member States is a precondition for the Council to decide regarding the abolition of checks at internal borders with those Member States.
According to Article 3(2) of the Act of Accession, the verification through evaluation procedures that the necessary conditions for the application of all parts of the Schengen acquis have been met by the new Member States is a precondition for the Council to decide regarding the abolition of checks at internal borders with those Member States.
The evaluations for these new Member States started in 2006, following a request by each Member State (declaration of readiness).
The evaluations for these new Member States started in 2006, following a request by each Member State (declaration of readiness).
They were conducted, new Member State by new Member state, under the responsibility of the Schengen evaluation working party.
They were conducted, new Member State by new Member state, under the responsibility of the Schengen evaluation working party.
The evaluation procedures started with a questionnaire to the Member State concerned on all parts of the Schengen acquis (borders, visa issuance, data protection and police cooperation), and were followed by evaluation visits.
The evaluation procedures started with a questionnaire to the Member State concerned on all parts of the Schengen acquis (borders, visa issuance, data protection and police cooperation), and were followed by evaluation visits.
Teams of experts were sent to the borders, consulates, SIS facilities, etc, and prepared exhaustive reports containing factual descriptions, assessments, and recommendations which could require additional measures and follow-up visits.
Teams of experts were sent to the borders, consulates, SIS facilities, etc, and prepared exhaustive reports containing factual descriptions, assessments, and recommendations which could require additional measures and follow-up visits.
The final report should establish whether the new Member State concerned, after being subjected to a full evaluation procedure, fulfils all the preconditions for the practical application of the Schengen acquis.
The final report should establish whether the new Member State concerned, after being subjected to a full evaluation procedure, fulfils all the preconditions for the practical application of the Schengen acquis.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING EACH NEW MEMBER STATE
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING EACH NEW MEMBER STATE
Declaration of readiness: 1 January 2006.
Declaration of readiness: 1 January 2006.
The future external borders will consist of airports only.
The future external borders will consist of airports only.
Prague airport was found to be fully in line with Schengen standards, while it was necessary to revisit Brno airport.
Prague airport was found to be fully in line with Schengen standards, while it was necessary to revisit Brno airport.
Shortcomings were found in terms of lack of personnel, the risk analysis system and border management.
Shortcomings were found in terms of lack of personnel, the risk analysis system and border management.
The visits to the consulates revealed a positive exchange of information and an operational electronic data transmission system.
The visits to the consulates revealed a positive exchange of information and an operational electronic data transmission system.
Shortcomings were found regarding the decision-making process for visas, awareness of the risks of illegal immigration, the security situation of the infrastructures, the storage of visa stickers, etc.
Shortcomings were found regarding the decision-making process for visas, awareness of the risks of illegal immigration, the security situation of the infrastructures, the storage of visa stickers, etc.
No problems were found as regards data protection.
No problems were found as regards data protection.
Evaluation was positive regarding police cooperation, but one single contact point for crossborder surveillance and hot pursuit is needed.
Evaluation was positive regarding police cooperation, but one single contact point for crossborder surveillance and hot pursuit is needed.
The follow-up visits from 2 to 5 July 2007 concluded that the authorities had managed to address all the outstanding points signalled.
The follow-up visits from 2 to 5 July 2007 concluded that the authorities had managed to address all the outstanding points signalled.
The SIS evaluation took place in September 2007.
The SIS evaluation took place in September 2007.
Although some minor issues require further attention, the efforts to implement the SIS and the SIRENE functions were appreciated and considered successful.
Although some minor issues require further attention, the efforts to implement the SIS and the SIRENE functions were appreciated and considered successful.
Declaration of readiness: 1 May 2006.
Declaration of readiness: 1 May 2006.
Positive border management with streamlined and functional organisation and competent personnel (but insufficient in number).
Positive border management with streamlined and functional organisation and competent personnel (but insufficient in number).
Good intelligence and risk analysis system.
Good intelligence and risk analysis system.
Land borders: it was found necessary to revisit the Narva rail crossing point, which did not fulfil all the Schengen requirements.
Land borders: it was found necessary to revisit the Narva rail crossing point, which did not fulfil all the Schengen requirements.
Sea borders: the offshore patrol equipment (vessels and helicopters) was partly obsolete.
Sea borders: the offshore patrol equipment (vessels and helicopters) was partly obsolete.
Air borders: it was necessary to revisit Tallinn airport in order to evaluate the ongoing reconstruction plan.
Air borders: it was necessary to revisit Tallinn airport in order to evaluate the ongoing reconstruction plan.
The evaluation of visa issuance was positive, but it was found that special attention needed to be given to security (installations, visa stickers), to the excessive length of the visa decision- making process, and to awareness of the risks of illegal immigration.
The evaluation of visa issuance was positive, but it was found that special attention needed to be given to security (installations, visa stickers), to the excessive length of the visa decision- making process, and to awareness of the risks of illegal immigration.
There were no problems as regards police cooperation, but an intelligence strategy (policing with a multi-agency approach) was found to be needed, including an on-line database for sharing information.
There were no problems as regards police cooperation, but an intelligence strategy (policing with a multi-agency approach) was found to be needed, including an on-line database for sharing information.
Data protection was in general found satisfactory, but a crucial element was missing: there is no independent authority to supervise the SIS.
Data protection was in general found satisfactory, but a crucial element was missing: there is no independent authority to supervise the SIS.
The borders were revisited from 13 to 20 May 2007.
The borders were revisited from 13 to 20 May 2007.
Tallinn airport: the authorities had managed to address most of the recommendations, but the ongoing reconstruction work made it difficult to proceed to a full evaluation.
Tallinn airport: the authorities had managed to address most of the recommendations, but the ongoing reconstruction work made it difficult to proceed to a full evaluation.
Nevertheless, the transitional solution implemented for the existing terminal was in line with the Schengen requirements.
Nevertheless, the transitional solution implemented for the existing terminal was in line with the Schengen requirements.