natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Jim Allister, Alfonso Andria, Elspeth Attwooll, Iles Braghetto, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Paulo Casaca, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Alfred Gomolka, Pedro Guerreiro, Heinz Kindermann, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Philippe Morillon, Joop Post, Luca Romagnoli, Struan Stevenson, Margie Sudre
Jim Allister, Alfonso Andria, Elspeth Attwooll, Iles Braghetto, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Paulo Casaca, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Alfred Gomolka, Pedro Guerreiro, Heinz Kindermann, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Philippe Morillon, Joop Post, Luca Romagnoli, Struan Stevenson, Margie Sudre
Jan Mulder, Carl Schlyter, Thomas Wise
Jan Mulder, Carl Schlyter, Thomas Wise
за добавяне на нов член 204а относно "Списъци на грешки” в Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент
on insertion of a new Rule 204a on "Corrigenda" in Parliament's Rules of Procedure
PE 384.619v02-00
PE 384.619v02-00
– като взе предвид писмото на своя председател от 10 март 2005 г.,
– having regard to the letter from its President dated 10 March 2005,
– като взе предвид доклада на Комисията по конституционни въпроси ( A6‑0229/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0229/2007 ),
Член 204а (нов)
Rule 204a (new)
Когато в текст, приет от Парламента, бъде открита грешка, председателят по целесъобразност представя на компетентната комисия проект на списък на грешки.
Where an error is identified in a text adopted by Parliament, the President, where appropriate, shall refer a draft corrigendum to the committee responsible.
Компетентната комисия разглежда проекта на списък на грешките и го внася в Парламента, когато се увери, че е налице грешка, която може да бъде поправена по предложения начин.
The committee responsible shall examine the draft corrigendum and submit it to Parliament if it is satisfied that an error has occurred which can be corrected in the proposed manner.
Списъкът на грешките се обявява на следващата месечна сесия.
The corrigendum shall be announced at the next part-session.
Той се счита за приет, освен ако най-късно до четиридесет и осем часа от обявяването му политическа група или най-малко четиридесет членове на Парламента пожелаят да бъде поставен на гласуване.
It shall be deemed approved unless, not later than forty-eight hours after its announcement, a request is made by a political group or at least forty Members that it be put to the vote.
Ако списъкът на грешки не бъде одобрен, той се връща за ново разглеждане в компетентната комисия, която може да предложи променен списък на грешки или да закрие процедурата.
If the corrigendum is not approved, it shall be referred back to the committee responsible which may propose a modified corrigendum or close the procedure.
Одобрените списъци на грешки се публикуват по същия начин, както и текстът, за който се отнасят.
Approved corrigenda shall be published in the same way as the text to which they refer.
Already before the elections to the European Parliament of June 2004, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs had been asked to examine whether it would be suitable to introduce into the Rules of Procedure specific provisions on the legal linguistic revision of texts, namely with a view of the adoption of such texts in codecision at first reading, and on internal procedures for corrigenda in the context of codecision procedures.
Already before the elections to the European Parliament of June 2004, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs had been asked to examine whether it would be suitable to introduce into the Rules of Procedure specific provisions on the legal linguistic revision of texts, namely with a view of the adoption of such texts in codecision at first reading, and on internal procedures for corrigenda in the context of codecision procedures.
Letter by President Cox to chairman Napolitano 201539 of 11 March 2004.
Letter by President Cox to chairman Napolitano 201539 of 11 March 2004.
A draft report was presented to the committee dealing with the first question and suggesting to make provision for the possible postponement of the final vote in such circumstances.
A draft report was presented to the committee dealing with the first question and suggesting to make provision for the possible postponement of the final vote in such circumstances.
This draft report could not get to the plenary stage in time and therefore lapsed
This draft report could not get to the plenary stage in time and therefore lapsed
Draft report 2004/2027(REG) of 31 March 2004, Rapporteur Richard Corbett. .
Draft report 2004/2027(REG) of 31 March 2004, Rapporteur Richard Corbett. .
One year later, the same two questions were referred to the committee again
One year later, the same two questions were referred to the committee again
Letter by President Borrell Fontelles 201364 to Chairman Leinen of 10 March 2005. .
Letter by President Borrell Fontelles 201364 to Chairman Leinen of 10 March 2005. .
As the question of legal-linguistic revision of texts under the codecision procedure had been already dealt with in a Joint Declaration of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 4 May 1999 on Practical Arrangements for the Codecision Procedure
As the question of legal-linguistic revision of texts under the codecision procedure had been already dealt with in a Joint Declaration of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 4 May 1999 on Practical Arrangements for the Codecision Procedure
Official Journal C 148 of 28.5.1999, p.
Official Journal C 148 of 28.5.1999, p.
1. and as this interinstitutional agreement was to be revised anyway, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided to wait for the outcome of the negotiations before examining possible modifications to the Rules of Procedure.
1. and as this interinstitutional agreement was to be revised anyway, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided to wait for the outcome of the negotiations before examining possible modifications to the Rules of Procedure.
As these negotiations have led to more detailed arrangements with regard to the legal-linguistic finalisation of texts agreed at first or second reading or during conciliation,
As these negotiations have led to more detailed arrangements with regard to the legal-linguistic finalisation of texts agreed at first or second reading or during conciliation,
See text resulting from the meeting at political level of 13 December 2006 pending its approval by the Conference of Presidents, points IV.
See text resulting from the meeting at political level of 13 December 2006 pending its approval by the Conference of Presidents, points IV.
2. to 6.
2. to 6.
the first issue originally referred to the committee can be considered as being settled and not requiring changes in the Rules of Procedure, at least for the time being.
the first issue originally referred to the committee can be considered as being settled and not requiring changes in the Rules of Procedure, at least for the time being.
This report therefore deals only with the second issue, the question of introducing provisions on the establishment of corrigenda.
This report therefore deals only with the second issue, the question of introducing provisions on the establishment of corrigenda.
Parliament unlike the Council does up to now not have any provisions on the matter.
Parliament unlike the Council does up to now not have any provisions on the matter.
The Council has models for the drafting of corrigenda in its collection of models of acts to be adopted by the Council of the European Union.
The Council has models for the drafting of corrigenda in its collection of models of acts to be adopted by the Council of the European Union.
The proposed rule
The proposed rule
Errors can occur in the parliamentary activities even if the services work with greatest care.
Errors can occur in the parliamentary activities even if the services work with greatest care.
In the legislative activity of the Union this is namely due to time pressure, the involvement of at least three institutions and the multiplicity of languages.
In the legislative activity of the Union this is namely due to time pressure, the involvement of at least three institutions and the multiplicity of languages.
The need for appropriate and legally sound procedures to correct errors is therefore undeniable.
The need for appropriate and legally sound procedures to correct errors is therefore undeniable.
The Court of Justice has in a recent ruling acknowledged the admissibility of and the need for corrigenda
The Court of Justice has in a recent ruling acknowledged the admissibility of and the need for corrigenda
Judgement of the Court of 12 December 206 in Case C-380/03,Federal Republic of Germany against European Parliament and Council of the European Union, paragraphs 126 and 127. .
Judgement of the Court of 12 December 206 in Case C-380/03,Federal Republic of Germany against European Parliament and Council of the European Union, paragraphs 126 and 127. .
The proposed new provision in the Rules of Procedure is intended to fill this gap.
The proposed new provision in the Rules of Procedure is intended to fill this gap.
It is formulated broadly to cover all types of errors which may be more or less obvious, purely formal or linguistic, appear only in certain language versions or be of a more or less substantive nature.
It is formulated broadly to cover all types of errors which may be more or less obvious, purely formal or linguistic, appear only in certain language versions or be of a more or less substantive nature.
The proposed new provision covers legislative procedures where the need for the possibility of corrigenda is the most prominent, but covers also the non-legislative activities of Parliament and the conclusion of interinstitutional agreements.
The proposed new provision covers legislative procedures where the need for the possibility of corrigenda is the most prominent, but covers also the non-legislative activities of Parliament and the conclusion of interinstitutional agreements.
The process leading to the adoption of a corrigendum is suggested to be divided between the President, the committee which was responsible for the text in which the error has been detected and Parliament at plenary stage.
The process leading to the adoption of a corrigendum is suggested to be divided between the President, the committee which was responsible for the text in which the error has been detected and Parliament at plenary stage.
The President is in charge of ensuring that the proceedings of Parliament are properly conducted and that texts adopted are in conformity with the Rules (Rule 19).
The President is in charge of ensuring that the proceedings of Parliament are properly conducted and that texts adopted are in conformity with the Rules (Rule 19).
The President in legislative procedures under codecision of Parliament and Council is held further to check texts agreed with the Council with a view to their joint adoption (Rule 66) and to sign them together with the President-in-Office of the Council before their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The President in legislative procedures under codecision of Parliament and Council is held further to check texts agreed with the Council with a view to their joint adoption (Rule 66) and to sign them together with the President-in-Office of the Council before their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The President, assisted by the Secretary-General, is therefore best placed within the institutional set up of Parliament to initiate the correction of an error.
The President, assisted by the Secretary-General, is therefore best placed within the institutional set up of Parliament to initiate the correction of an error.
For the sake of transparency and political accountability however the political body from which the text which is at stake stems from, the "committee responsible", has to be involved in an adequate manner.
For the sake of transparency and political accountability however the political body from which the text which is at stake stems from, the "committee responsible", has to be involved in an adequate manner.
It will have to assess the kind of error and whether it can be corrected in the proposed manner.
It will have to assess the kind of error and whether it can be corrected in the proposed manner.
It might in some cases even come to the conclusion that there is not a case for a corrigendum but for a formal legislative proposal by the Commission.
It might in some cases even come to the conclusion that there is not a case for a corrigendum but for a formal legislative proposal by the Commission.
In order to be accountable to Parliament as institution, there has to be some form of confirmation of a corrigendum at plenary stage.
In order to be accountable to Parliament as institution, there has to be some form of confirmation of a corrigendum at plenary stage.
This necessity has to be balanced with the requirement not to overload Parliament's agenda and namely its voting hours.
This necessity has to be balanced with the requirement not to overload Parliament's agenda and namely its voting hours.
The solution proposed here is used in similar form in other instances in the Rules as for example the election of Members of committees (Rule 177(3)) or the production of interpretations of the Rules (Rule 201).
The solution proposed here is used in similar form in other instances in the Rules as for example the election of Members of committees (Rule 177(3)) or the production of interpretations of the Rules (Rule 201).
Добавяне на нов член 204а относно "Списъци на грешки” в Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент
Insertion of a new Rule 204a on "Corrigenda" in Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Основно(и) предложение(я) за изменение
Proposal(s) for amendment considered
AFCO 28.4.2005
AFCO 28.4.2005
Дата на обявяване в заседание на разрешението
Date authorisation announced in plenary
Richard Corbett 20.4.2005
Richard Corbett 20.4.2005
Членове на ЕП, присъстващи на окончателното гласуване
Member(s) present for the final vote
Jens-Peter Bonde, Richard Corbett, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Johannes Voggenhuber
Jens-Peter Bonde, Richard Corbett, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Johannes Voggenhuber
Gérard Onesta, Reinhard Rack, Alexander Stubb
Gérard Onesta, Reinhard Rack, Alexander Stubb
за изменение на член 201 от Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент относно прилагането или тълкуването на Правилника за дейността
on amendment of Rule 201 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on application or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
PE 384.620v02-00
PE 384.620v02-00
ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ НА МОТИВИТЕ...............................................................................................4
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................4
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕ ЗА ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ НА ПРАВИЛНИКА ЗА ДЕЙНОСТТА НА ЕП (B6-0166/2006) 5
PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT OF PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE (B6-0166/2006) 5
– като взе предвид предложението за изменение на своя правилник ( B6‑0166/2006 ),
– having regard to the proposal for amendment of its Rules of Procedure ( B6‑0166/2006 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на Комисията по конституционни въпроси ( A6‑0230/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0230/2007 ),
Член 201, параграф 1
Rule 201, paragraph 1
Ако възникне съмнение относно прилагането или тълкуването на настоящия правилник, председателят може, без с това да се накърнява някое от предходните решения в тази област , да отнесе въпроса за разглеждане от компетентната комисия.
Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may , without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field, refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.
Председателите на комисии могат да направят това, когато такова съмнение възникне в процеса на работа на комисията и е свързано с нея.
Committee chairs may do so where such a doubt arises in the course of the committee's work and is related to it.
The chairman of the Committee on legal affairs, Giuseppe Gargani, made on 9.3.2006 a proposal to amend Rule 201, Application of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to allowing committee chairmen to refer under certain conditions questions of interpretation of the Rules of Procedure to the committee responsible for the Rules in order to get an authoritative guidance for the future.
The chairman of the Committee on legal affairs, Giuseppe Gargani, made on 9.3.2006 a proposal to amend Rule 201, Application of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to allowing committee chairmen to refer under certain conditions questions of interpretation of the Rules of Procedure to the committee responsible for the Rules in order to get an authoritative guidance for the future.
Till now only the President of Parliament has this power.
Till now only the President of Parliament has this power.
Part of this reality is reflected in Rule 186 which declares a large number of Rules concerning plenary sittings applicable in committee.
Part of this reality is reflected in Rule 186 which declares a large number of Rules concerning plenary sittings applicable in committee.
One of the provisions declared applicable, Rule 166(5), gives the chairman of a committee already now the possibility to refer a matter which was raised as a point of order to the committee responsible.
One of the provisions declared applicable, Rule 166(5), gives the chairman of a committee already now the possibility to refer a matter which was raised as a point of order to the committee responsible.
But this possibility is limited to questions arising in connection with committee sittings whereas the need for a clarification of the Rules often arises with regard to other questions like the cooperation between committees, the respective roles of the Parliament at plenary stage and the parliamentary committees etc.
But this possibility is limited to questions arising in connection with committee sittings whereas the need for a clarification of the Rules often arises with regard to other questions like the cooperation between committees, the respective roles of the Parliament at plenary stage and the parliamentary committees etc.
The adequate solution to the problem appears to be to give the committee chairs, by an amendment to Rule 201 as proposed with this report, a more general power to seek for an interpretation of the Rules.
The adequate solution to the problem appears to be to give the committee chairs, by an amendment to Rule 201 as proposed with this report, a more general power to seek for an interpretation of the Rules.
This power would be restricted to questions which arise in the course of the committee's work and are related to it.
This power would be restricted to questions which arise in the course of the committee's work and are related to it.
The general power of the President under this Rule would not be put into question.
The general power of the President under this Rule would not be put into question.
On the same occasion, the wording of Rule 201 could be improved under two aspects:
On the same occasion, the wording of Rule 201 could be improved under two aspects:
The existing second subparagraph of paragraph 1 could be deleted because it is redundant with Rule 166(5) third sentence which has exactly the same object and effect.
The existing second subparagraph of paragraph 1 could be deleted because it is redundant with Rule 166(5) third sentence which has exactly the same object and effect.
The phrase" without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field" does not seem to be necessary because it goes without saying that previous decisions taken by the President when applying the Rules are not affected in their validity by an interpretation which is given later.
The phrase" without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field" does not seem to be necessary because it goes without saying that previous decisions taken by the President when applying the Rules are not affected in their validity by an interpretation which is given later.
This idea is expressed in the same Rule in paragraph 6 in the following terms: "Interpretations shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned." (underlining by the author).
This idea is expressed in the same Rule in paragraph 6 in the following terms: "Interpretations shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned." (underlining by the author).
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕ ЗА ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ НА ПРАВИЛНИКА ЗА ДЕЙНОСТТА НА ЕП ( B6-0166/2006 )
PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT OF PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE ( B6-0166/2006 )
pursuant to Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure
pursuant to Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure
by Giuseppe Gargani
by Giuseppe Gargani
Amendment of Rule 201
Amendment of Rule 201
PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE
PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE
Present text
Present text
Rule 201, paragraph 1 a (new)
Rule 201, paragraph 1 a (new)
Committee chairmen may refer to the committee responsible matters concerning the interpretation of these Rules of Procedure which arise in connection with the exercise by the committees of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by these Rules of Procedure.
Committee chairmen may refer to the committee responsible matters concerning the interpretation of these Rules of Procedure which arise in connection with the exercise by the committees of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by these Rules of Procedure.
The committee and delegation chairmen are required to apply and interpret the Rules of Procedure when performing their duties.
The committee and delegation chairmen are required to apply and interpret the Rules of Procedure when performing their duties.
Accordingly, they should have the right to refer to the competent body, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, matters arising in connection with the exercise by the committees and delegations of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by the Rules of Procedure.
Accordingly, they should have the right to refer to the competent body, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, matters arising in connection with the exercise by the committees and delegations of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by the Rules of Procedure.
Such a measure would help to guarantee uniformity in the application of the Rules of Procedure and legal certainty within Parliament's internal system of rules.
Such a measure would help to guarantee uniformity in the application of the Rules of Procedure and legal certainty within Parliament's internal system of rules.
Moreover, a precedent for this proposal can be found in Rule 166 of the Rules of Procedure, which, pursuant to Rule 186, is applicable in committee.
Moreover, a precedent for this proposal can be found in Rule 166 of the Rules of Procedure, which, pursuant to Rule 186, is applicable in committee.
Paragraph 5 of that rule, which concerns points of order, stipulates that 'the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible'.
Paragraph 5 of that rule, which concerns points of order, stipulates that 'the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible'.
Изменение на член 201 от Правилника за дейността на Европейския парламент относно прилагането или тълкуването на Правилника за дейността
Amendment of Rule 201 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on application or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
JURI 10.4.2007
JURI 10.4.2007
Richard Corbett 12.7.2006
Richard Corbett 12.7.2006
Jens-Peter Bonde, Richard Corbett, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo und Johannes Voggenhuber.
Jens-Peter Bonde, Richard Corbett, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Johannes Voggenhuber
Gérard Onesta, Reinhard Rack und Alexander Stubb.
Gérard Onesta, Reinhard Rack, Alexander Stubb