natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
La Comisión se ha basado en gran medida en el Convenio del Consejo de Europa para la Prevención del Terrorismo que, entre otros aspectos, recoge estos tres tipos penales.
The Commission has to a large extent based its proposal on the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which, inter alia , recognises those three types of criminal offence.
A pesar de las apariencias, la inclusión de estos tres delitos supone un indudable valor añadido ya que el ámbito de aplicación de la Decisión Marco es más amplio:
Despite appearances, the inclusion of those three offences is unquestionably of added value since it broadens the scope of the Framework Decision:
§ En primer lugar, la definición de "actividad terrorista" prevista por la Decisión Marco es más amplia y completa que la que se desprende del Convenio del Consejo de Europa.
§ Firstly, the definition of ‘terrorist activity’ established by the Framework Decision is broader and more complete than the one deriving from the Council of Europe Convention.
Por ejemplo, ninguna de las convenciones de la ONU a las que hace referencia cubre la muerte de civiles con armas de fuego (sólo con explosivos
For example, none of the UN Conventions to which it refers covers the death of civilians caused by firearms (not simply explosives
Ver anexo del Convenio del Consejo de Europa. ), y
See the Annex to the Council of Europe Convention. ), and
§ En segundo lugar, el régimen jurídico de la Decisión marco es muy completo e incluye por ejemplo un régimen de sanciones que se aplicaría automáticamente a los tres delitos mencionados.
§ Secondly, the legal regime established by the Framework Decision is very comprehensive, including, for example, a system of penalties that would apply automatically to the three offences mentioned.
No obstante, es esencial que los Estados miembros ratifiquen cuanto antes el Convenio del Consejo de Europa para la prevención del terrorismo ya que la aplicación paralela y combinada de ambos instrumentos ofrecería unas garantías óptimas para los ciudadanos de la Unión y los nacionales de los Estados miembros del Consejo de Europa.
Nevertheless, it is essential for the Member States to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism as quickly as possible, since the parallel and combined implementation of both those instruments would provide maximum guarantees for citizens of the Union and nationals of the member states of the Council of Europe.
En lo relativo a la protección de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, es crucial dejar claro desde un principio que con el marco jurídico actual, estos derechos, y en particular la libertad de expresión y de asociación están plenamente garantizadas ya sea a nivel de la Decisión marco (artículo 1, apartado 2), de la Unión Europea (artículo 6 del TUE y Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE) e incluso del Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades Fundamentales a cuyos principios y jurisprudencia la UE está sometida.
As regards the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is vital to make it clear from the outset that, under the current legal framework, those rights, and particularly the freedom of expression and of association, are fully guaranteed at the level both of the Framework Decision (Article 1(2)) and of the European Union (Article 6 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), as well as in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to whose principles and relevant case law the EU is subject.
No es superfluo aportar precisiones a la Decisión marco, insistiendo en la libertad de expresión y asociación y citando la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales.
There is nothing superfluous in making clarifications to the Framework Decision that lay the emphasis on freedom of expression and association or refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
No obstante, es crucial dejar claro que, per se, el sistema jurídico de la UE protege plenamente los derechos humanos .
Nevertheless, it is vital to make it clear that the EU legal system, per se, fully protects human rights.
Cualquier intento de contraponer la lucha contra el terrorismo y la protección de los derechos humanos (dando a entender que sólo se puede luchar contra el terrorismo en detrimento de los derechos humanos) debe ser tajantemente descartada: lejos de ser objetivos incompatibles, la justificación suprema de la lucha contra el terrorismo es la defensa de los derechos humanos .
Any attempt to counterpose the combating of terrorism and the protection of human rights (implying that terrorism can only be combated to the detriment of human rights) should be emphatically discarded: far from being mutually incompatible objectives, the protection of human rights is the main justification for the combating of terrorism.
Esta dicotomía es artificial, jurídicamente errónea y políticamente peligrosa.
Any notion of a dichotomy is artificial, legally flawed and politically dangerous.
Finalmente, en lo relativo al adiestramiento de terroristas, se sugiere que también quede tipificado como delito la tentativa, ya que la posibilidad de descubrir y desmantelar infraestructuras de adiestramiento sin que éstas hayan sido todavía utilizadas es una posibilidad real y tiene que ser contemplada.
Lastly, with regard to training for terrorism, it is suggested that attempting to provide training should also be qualified an offence, since there is a real possibility of training facilities being discovered and dismantled before they have been used, and this must be taken into consideration.
En definitiva, si bien es mejorable, la propuesta de la Comisión es pertinente ya que supone un paso adelante notable para luchar con más eficacia contra el terrorismo en la UE.
In short, and although it could be improved upon, the Commission proposal is an appropriate one, as it constitutes a major step towards a more effective combating of terrorism in the EU.
Cabe destacar que la propuesta de la Comisión no sólo permitiría a los Estados miembros luchar contra el ciberterrorismo sino también neutralizar cualquier tipo de mensaje público que constituya una inducción pública o apología del terrorismo, a través de cualquier medio y en cualquier lugar.
It should be highlighted that the Commission proposal would enable the Member States not only to counteract cyberterrorism, but also to neutralise any publicity that constitutes public provocation to commit terrorism, or apologias for it, via any medium and in any place.
Por las razones expuestas, y con la salvedad de las enmiendas que se proponen en este informe, la propuesta de la Comisión debe ser apoyada.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission proposal should be supported, subject solely to the amendments proposed in this report.
Комисията по правни въпроси приканва водещата комисия по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи да включи в доклада си следните изменения:
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affaire, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(4а) Въпреки че борбата срещу кибертероризма е от приоритетно значение, целесъобразността на инкриминирането на публичното подбудителство във всички държави-членки на Съюза се определя и от необходимостта от неутрализиране на всякакви видове публични послания, които представляват публично подбудителство или апология на тероризма, чрез каквито и да е средства и на което и да е място.
(4a) While the combating of cyberterrorism is a priority, the relevance of criminalising public provocation in all the EU Member States also stems from the need to neutralise any type of publicity that constitutes public provocation to commit terrorism, or apologias for it, via any medium and in any place.
(12а) Измененията, съдържащи се в настоящото предложение, допълват Конвенцията на Съвета на Европа за предотвратяване на тероризма от 16 май 2005 г. и поради това е наложително, успоредно с влизането в сила на настоящото решение, всички държави-членки да ратифицират тази конвенция във възможно най-кратък срок.
(12a) The amendments contained in this proposal are complementary to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16 May 2005, and it is therefore essential, in parallel with the entry into force of this Decision, that all Member States ratify that Convention.
Incluir los delitos previstos por el Convenio del Consejo de Europa en el marco jurídico de la Unión, y mas concretamente en la Decisión Marco 475/2002 constituye un indudable valor añadido ya que se enmarcarían estos delitos en un régimen jurídico más completo.
Including the offences set out in the Council of Europe Convention within the Union’s legal framework, and more specifically Framework Decision 2002 475/JHA, is unquestionably of added value since this would insert those offences into a more comprehensive legal regime.
No obstante, es necesario que los Estados miembros ratifiquen dicho Convenio ya que la Decisión marco no lo reemplaza.
There is nevertheless a need for Member States to ratify that Convention, since the Framework Decision is not intended to replace it.
La aplicación paralela de ambos instrumentos ofrecerá una protección aún mayor contra el terrorismo, tanto en la UE, como en los terceros países que son miembros del Consejo de Europa.
The parallel implementation of both instruments will provide even greater protection against terrorism, both in the EU and in third countries that are members of the Council of Europe.
Решение 2002/475/ПВР
Decision 2002/475/JHA
Настоящото рамково решение не отменя задължението за спазване на основните права и основните принципи на правото, които са прокламирани в член 6 от Договора за Европейски съюз , и на правата, признати в Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз, по-специално свободата на сдруженията и свободата на изразяването на мнение . “
This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union or the rights recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, especially the freedom of association and the freedom of expression.".
Conviene actualizar el artículo 1, apartado 2, de la Decisión marco añadiendo una mención de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE.
Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision should be updated with a reference to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
A su vez, es pertinente insistir en las dos libertades fundamentales susceptibles de ser menoscabadas por una interpretación errónea de la Decisión marco: la libertad de asociación y la libertad de expresión.
Similarly, it would be appropriate to emphasise the two fundamental freedoms liable to be prejudiced by erroneous interpretation of the Framework Decision: freedom of association and freedom of expression.
„Всяка държава-членка предприема необходимите мерки, за да гарантира, че опити за извършване на престъпление, посочено в член 1, параграф 1 и член 3, с изключение на притежаването по член 1, параграф 1, буква е) и престъпленията по член 1, параграф 1, буква и) и член 3, параграф 2, букви a) до в) , са наказуеми.“
"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 1(1) and Article 3, with the exception of possession as provided for in Article 1(1)(f) and the offences referred to in Article 1(1)(i) and Article 3(2)(a) to (c) , is made punishable.".
„Всяка държава-членка предприема необходимите мерки, за да гарантира, че опити за извършване на престъпление, посочено в член 1, параграф 1 и член 3, с изключение на притежаването по член 1, параграф 1, буква е) и престъпленията по член 1, параграф 1, буква и) и член 3, параграф 2, букви a) и б) , са наказуеми.“
"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 1(1) and Article 3, with the exception of possession as provided for in Article 1(1)(f) and the offences referred to in Article 1(1)(i) and Article 3(2)(a) and (b) , is made punishable.".
Es necesario considerar la tentativa de adiestramiento como un delito en todos los Estados miembros de la UE.
It is necessary for attempted training to be considered an offence in all the EU Member States.
La posibilidad de descubrir y desmantelar infraestructuras de adiestramiento sin que éstas hayan sido todavía utilizadas es una posibilidad real, en ningún caso remota, y tiene que ser contemplada.
There is a very real possibility of training facilities being discovered and dismantled before they have been used, and this is something that must be taken into consideration.
Alexander Alvaro, Catherine Boursier, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Esther De Lange, Gérard Deprez, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Roselyne Lefrançois, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Viktória Mohácsi, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Martine Roure, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Alexander Alvaro, Catherine Boursier, Emine Bozkurt, Philip Bradbourn, Mihael Brejc, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Esther De Lange, Gérard Deprez, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Claudio Fava, Armando França, Urszula Gacek, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Ewa Klamt, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Roselyne Lefrançois, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Viktória Mohácsi, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Martine Roure, Csaba Sógor, Vladimir Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Edit Bauer, Simon Busuttil, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Bill Newton Dunn, Maria Grazia Pagano, Eva-Britt Svensson
Edit Bauer, Simon Busuttil, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Bill Newton Dunn, Maria Grazia Pagano, Eva-Britt Svensson
PE 402.934v03-00
PE 402.934v03-00
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................4
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................5
РЕЗУЛТАТ ОТ ОКОНЧАТЕЛНОТО ГЛАСУВАНЕ В КОМИСИЯ...................................10
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................10
– като взе предвид писмото на председателя на комисията по правни въпроси от 26 септември 2007 г.,
– having regard to the letter from the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 26 September 2007,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по конституционни въпроси ( A6‑0324/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0324/2008 ),
Член 121 - параграф 3a (нов)
Rule 121 - paragraph 3a (new)
Председателят депозира възражения или встъпва от името на Парламента в съдебни производства, след като се консултира с компетентната комисия.
The President shall submit observations or intervene on behalf of Parliament in court proceedings after consult ing the committee responsible .
Ако председателят възнамерява да се отклони от препоръката на компетентната комисия, той информира за това компетентната комисия и мотивирано отнася въпроса за разглеждане от Председателския съвет.
Where the President intends to depart from the recom me ndation of the committee responsible , he shall inform the committee accordingly and shall refer the matter to the Conference of Presidents , stating his reasons.
Когато Председателският съвет счита, че по изключение Парламентът не следва да депозира възражения или да встъпва в дело пред Съда на Европейските общности, когато се поставя под въпрос действителност на приет от Парламента акт, въпросът незабавно се поставя на обсъждане в пленарно заседание.
Where the Conference of Presidents takes the view that Parliament should , exceptionally , not submit observations or intervene before the Court of Justice where the legal validity of an act of Parliament is being questioned , the matter shall be submitted to plenary without delay.
В неотложни случаи председателят може да извършва предохранителни действия с оглед спазване на определените от съответния съд срокове.
In case s of urgency, the President may take precautionary action in order to comply with the time limits prescribed by the court concerned .
В такива случаи предвидената в настоящия параграф процедура се прилага при първа възможност.
In such case s , the procedure provided for in this paragraph shall be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
Никоя от разпоредбите в правилника не възпрепятстват компетентната комисия да взема решения относно извършването на целесъобразни процесуални действия с оглед своевременно предаване на нейната препоръка в неотложни случаи.
Nothing in the Rules prevents the committee responsible from deciding on appropriate procedural arrangements for the timely transmi ssion of its recommendation in cases of urgency.
By letter dated 26 September 2007, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs presented a proposal to the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerning the interpretation of Rule 121 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
By letter dated 26 September 2007, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs presented a proposal to the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerning the interpretation of Rule 121 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
In his letter, Mr Gargani sought clarification from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as to whether this Rule, and in particular paragraph 3, refers only to actions brought by Parliament before the Court of Justice or whether it can be interpreted so as to also include observations and interventions by Parliament before the Court.
In his letter, Mr Gargani sought clarification from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs as to whether this Rule, and in particular paragraph 3, refers only to actions brought by Parliament before the Court of Justice or whether it can be interpreted so as to also include observations and interventions by Parliament before the Court.
Rule 121, entitled 'Proceedings before the Court of Justice', reads as follows:
Rule 121, entitled 'Proceedings before the Court of Justice', reads as follows:
Parliament shall, within the time limits specified by the Treaties and the Statute of the Court of Justice for action by the institutions of the Union and by any natural or legal persons, examine Community legislation and the implementing measures to ensure that the Treaties, in particular where Parliament's rights are concerned, have been fully respected.
Parliament shall, within the time limits specified by the Treaties and the Statute of the Court of Justice for action by the institutions of the Union and by any natural or legal persons, examine Community legislation and the implementing measures to ensure that the Treaties, in particular where Parliament's rights are concerned, have been fully respected.
The committee responsible shall report to Parliament, orally if necessary, where it suspects a breach of Community law.
The committee responsible shall report to Parliament, orally if necessary, where it suspects a breach of Community law.
The President shall bring an action on behalf of Parliament in accordance with the recommendation of the committee responsible.
The President shall bring an action on behalf of Parliament in accordance with the recommendation of the committee responsible.
At the start of the following part-session, he may put to plenary the decision on maintaining the action.
At the start of the following part-session, he may put to plenary the decision on maintaining the action.
Should plenary rule against the action by a majority of the votes cast, he shall withdraw it.
Should plenary rule against the action by a majority of the votes cast, he shall withdraw it.
Should the President bring an action contrary to the recommendation of the committee responsible, he shall put to plenary, at the start of the following part-session, the decision on maintaining the action".
Should the President bring an action contrary to the recommendation of the committee responsible, he shall put to plenary, at the start of the following part-session, the decision on maintaining the action".
Scope of the interpretation
Scope of the interpretation
Rule 121 is entitled 'Proceedings before the Court of Justice', while paragraph 3 refers expressly to 'actions' brought before the Court by the President on behalf of Parliament.
Rule 121 is entitled 'Proceedings before the Court of Justice', while paragraph 3 refers expressly to 'actions' brought before the Court by the President on behalf of Parliament.
Hence, Rule 121(3) applies when Parliament initiates judicial proceedings.
Hence, Rule 121(3) applies when Parliament initiates judicial proceedings.
In this case, the President acts upon a recommendation by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
In this case, the President acts upon a recommendation by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
If the President decides not to follow such a recommendation, the matter has to be submitted to Plenary for a final decision, although he/she may take precautionary action.
If the President decides not to follow such a recommendation, the matter has to be submitted to Plenary for a final decision, although he/she may take precautionary action.
When Parliament is a defendant in proceedings before the Court, it is evident that the President has to defend Parliament's position in accordance with article 19(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which expressly vests in him/her the power to represent Parliament in legal matters.
When Parliament is a defendant in proceedings before the Court, it is evident that the President has to defend Parliament's position in accordance with article 19(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which expressly vests in him/her the power to represent Parliament in legal matters.
There are also other types of proceedings brought before the Court of Justice in the course of which Parliament may have an interest to intervene or submit observations in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
There are also other types of proceedings brought before the Court of Justice in the course of which Parliament may have an interest to intervene or submit observations in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
This is notably the case in preliminary proceedings where the validity of a legislative act is being questioned and in particular where this act has been jointly adopted by the Parliament and the Council.
This is notably the case in preliminary proceedings where the validity of a legislative act is being questioned and in particular where this act has been jointly adopted by the Parliament and the Council.
According to current practice, in these cases the Committee on Legal Affairs is consulted on the appropriateness of presenting observations before the Court of Justice, while the President of Parliament takes the final decision under the powers conferred on him by Rule 19(4).
According to current practice, in these cases the Committee on Legal Affairs is consulted on the appropriateness of presenting observations before the Court of Justice, while the President of Parliament takes the final decision under the powers conferred on him by Rule 19(4).
In the above mentioned letter, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs suggests interpreting Rule 121(3) so as to cover not only actions initiated by Parliament, but also observations and interventions in cases before the Court.
In the above mentioned letter, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs suggests interpreting Rule 121(3) so as to cover not only actions initiated by Parliament, but also observations and interventions in cases before the Court.