natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Член 22 a (нов)
Article 22 a (new)
Член 22а
Article 22a
При обработката на лични данни за целите на настоящото Рамково решение се спазват най-малко следните основни принципи:
The processing of personal data for the purpose of this Framework Decision shall comply with at least the following basic principles:
а) обработката на данни се извършва дотолкова, доколкото това е разрешено от закона, наложително е и съответства на целта за събиране на данни и/или тяхната последваща им обработка;
a) data processing shall only be undertaken insofar as it is permitted by law and is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of collection and/or further processing;
б) данните се събират единствено за конкретни и законни цели и тяхната последваща обработка се осъществява по начин, съответстващ на тези цели;
b) data shall be collected only for specified and legitimate purposes and further processed in a way compatible with those purposes;
в) данните трябва да са точни и да се актуализират;
c) data shall be accurate and updated;
г) специални категории данни, отнасящи се за расовия или етнически произход, политическите възгледи, религиозните или философски убеждения, членството в партийни или синдикални организации, сексуалната ориентация или здравното състояние, се обработват единствено, ако това е абсолютно наложително за целите на конкретен случай и при предоставяне на подходящи гаранции.
d) special categories of data concerning racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, party or trade union membership, sexual orientation or health shall be processed only if absolutely necessary for the purpose of a specific case and in accordance with appropriate safeguards.
Параграф 22 б (нов)
Article 22 b (new)
Член 22б
Article 22b
Права на субекта на данните
Rights of the data subject
Всички субекти на данните се информират за обработката на лични данни, които се отнасят за тях.
All data subjects shall be informed of the fact that personal data concerning them are being processed.
Предоставянето на тази информация може да бъде отложено, при необходимост, с оглед да не се възпрепятства постигането на целите, за които данните се обработват.
The provision of that information may be delayed where necessary in order not to hamper the purposes for which the data are being processed.
Субектът на данните има право да получи своевременно информация за обработваните данни на разбираем за него език, както и да поправи, и по целесъобразност, да заличи данни, чиято обработка е в нарушение на посочените в член 22а принципи.
A data subject shall have the right to obtain, without undue delay, information as to which data are being processed in a language which he or she understands, as well as to rectify and, where appropriate, erase data processed in breach of the principles referred to in Article 22a.
Предоставянето на информация по параграфи 1 и 2 може да бъде отказано или отложено, когато това е строго наложително:
The provision of information under paragraphs 1 or 2 may be refused or delayed, where strictly necessary:
а) за защита на сигурността и обществения ред;
(a) to protect security and public order;
б) за предотвратяване на престъпление;
(b) to prevent a crime;
в) за да не се възпрепятства разследване и съдебно преследване на криминални деяния;
(c) so as not to hamper the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences;
г) за защита на правата на трети лица.
(d) to protect the rights of third parties.
Pre-trial detention shall be regarded as an exceptional measure which must be strictly tested against the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence
Pre-trial detention shall be regarded as an exceptional measure which must be strictly tested against the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence
Article 6(2) TEU provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, 1950) and as they result from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
Article 6(2) TEU provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, 1950) and as they result from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
The basic rights or fundamental freedoms that govern pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention and that are determined by the ECHR are as follows:
The basic rights or fundamental freedoms that govern pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention and that are determined by the ECHR are as follows:
It shall never be compulsory nor be used for punitive reasons
It shall never be compulsory nor be used for punitive reasons
Recommendation of the Council of Europe, Rec(2006)13. .
Recommendation of the Council of Europe, Rec(2006)13. .
Consequently, in the pre-trial stage the widest possible use should be made of non-custodial supervision measures.
Consequently, in the pre-trial stage the widest possible use should be made of non-custodial supervision measures.
The supervisory measures regarding the alternatives to pre-trial detention in principle only aim to eliminate the three classical dangers that allow deprivation of liberty (danger of flight, danger of suppression of evidence and danger of repetition of offences).
The supervisory measures regarding the alternatives to pre-trial detention in principle only aim to eliminate the three classical dangers that allow deprivation of liberty (danger of flight, danger of suppression of evidence and danger of repetition of offences).
In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that a suspect who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a suspect who is so resident.
In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that a suspect who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a suspect who is so resident.
However, currently the different alternatives to pre-trial detention cannot be transposed or transferred across borders as there is no mutual recognition of those measures and there are not international instruments that specifically allow it.
However, currently the different alternatives to pre-trial detention cannot be transposed or transferred across borders as there is no mutual recognition of those measures and there are not international instruments that specifically allow it.
This absence of mutual recognition obstructs the judicial protection of individual rights.
This absence of mutual recognition obstructs the judicial protection of individual rights.
There is a clear risk of unequal treatment between the two categories - EU citizens who are not residents in the territory of the Member State where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence and EU citizens who are residents.
There is a clear risk of unequal treatment between the two categories - EU citizens who are not residents in the territory of the Member State where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence and EU citizens who are residents.
Furthermore, that could also been seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
Furthermore, that could also been seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
Taking into account the above-mentioned, the rapporteur strongly supports the necessity of this proposal which will allow a mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision orders.
Taking into account the above-mentioned, the rapporteur strongly supports the necessity of this proposal which will allow a mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision orders.
This instrument would encourage competent national authorities not to detain EU non-residents in pre-trial process due to the danger of absconding but let them return to the Member State of their current lawful and ordinary residence.
This instrument would encourage competent national authorities not to detain EU non-residents in pre-trial process due to the danger of absconding but let them return to the Member State of their current lawful and ordinary residence.
In the opinion of the rapporteur it is important to clarify the definition of the residence.
In the opinion of the rapporteur it is important to clarify the definition of the residence.
In the light of the aim of the proposal, it is vital not to restrict the meaning of the residence to the `permanent` residence which is already well-accepted Community terminology.
In the light of the aim of the proposal, it is vital not to restrict the meaning of the residence to the `permanent` residence which is already well-accepted Community terminology.
However, it should be clarified that the stay of the person in a respective Member State should be lawful and ordinary.
However, it should be clarified that the stay of the person in a respective Member State should be lawful and ordinary.
The fact if the residence is lawful and ordinary should be determined by de facto circumstances.
The fact if the residence is lawful and ordinary should be determined by de facto circumstances.
Moreover, the rapporteur proposes to widen the scope of the Framework Decision and to include a possibility of a suspect to request the issuing competent authority to return to other Member State than his or her ordinary and lawful Member State.
Moreover, the rapporteur proposes to widen the scope of the Framework Decision and to include a possibility of a suspect to request the issuing competent authority to return to other Member State than his or her ordinary and lawful Member State.
Mostly, it could be the Member State of his/her nationality in situations when a person works in another Member State.
Mostly, it could be the Member State of his/her nationality in situations when a person works in another Member State.
In opinion of the rapporteur the Commission's proposal to create a specific separate transfer mechanism of persons who breach the European supervision order (ESO) could endanger and complicate current system of surrender/transfer.
In opinion of the rapporteur the Commission's proposal to create a specific separate transfer mechanism of persons who breach the European supervision order (ESO) could endanger and complicate current system of surrender/transfer.
The efficacy of the parallel system to EAW is questionable.
The efficacy of the parallel system to EAW is questionable.
At the moment there are surrender procedures provided for in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
At the moment there are surrender procedures provided for in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p.1 (EAW).
OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p.1 (EAW).
The implementation of the EAW is completed and it is already being used by practitioners.
The implementation of the EAW is completed and it is already being used by practitioners.
EAW gains more and more trust among practitioners.
EAW gains more and more trust among practitioners.
One should not underestimate the element of trust in applying instruments of mutual recognition.
One should not underestimate the element of trust in applying instruments of mutual recognition.
In this regard the rapporteur proposes to adjust the procedures of the EAW to the ESO in situations when there is a breach of the ESO.
In this regard the rapporteur proposes to adjust the procedures of the EAW to the ESO in situations when there is a breach of the ESO.
At the moment the EAW covers such acts which are punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months.
At the moment the EAW covers such acts which are punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months.
However, taking into account the aim of the proposal on the ESO, all offences should be covered (without setting a threshold).
However, taking into account the aim of the proposal on the ESO, all offences should be covered (without setting a threshold).
Therefore, when applying the ESO, the EAW should be extended to cover all offences.
Therefore, when applying the ESO, the EAW should be extended to cover all offences.
Before introducing detailed amendments to the ESO with regard to extension of the EAW to all offences, in-depth analyses and consultation should be done.
Before introducing detailed amendments to the ESO with regard to extension of the EAW to all offences, in-depth analyses and consultation should be done.
Therefore, the rapporteur calls on the European Commission, which has all necessary resources, to revise the proposal on ESO and to introduce necessary changes in order to provide for an opportunity to apply the surrender procedures of the EAW.
Therefore, the rapporteur calls on the European Commission, which has all necessary resources, to revise the proposal on ESO and to introduce necessary changes in order to provide for an opportunity to apply the surrender procedures of the EAW.
If the European Commission considers it necessary, the rapporteur calls on it to submit needed changes to EAW.
If the European Commission considers it necessary, the rapporteur calls on it to submit needed changes to EAW.
Instruments of mutual recognition always involve a high level of exchange of sensitive and private information.
Instruments of mutual recognition always involve a high level of exchange of sensitive and private information.
Therefore, it is important to provide for data protection.
Therefore, it is important to provide for data protection.
The rapporteur calls on the Council to adopt the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters
The rapporteur calls on the Council to adopt the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters
COM(2005)0475 l - CNS 2005/0202 .
COM(2005)0475 l - CNS 2005/0202 .
However, current absence of the above-mentioned Framework Decision should not reduce and endanger appropriate level of the protection of data.
However, current absence of the above-mentioned Framework Decision should not reduce and endanger appropriate level of the protection of data.
Thus the rapporteur proposes to insert in the proposal specific articles on data protection.
Thus the rapporteur proposes to insert in the proposal specific articles on data protection.
The Framework Decision on the supervision order in pre-trial procedures is a very significant legislative proposal, aimed not only at ensuring more efficient legal cooperation within the legislative area of the European Union but also at creating the legislative background for reducing the scope of the application of arrest – a non-custodial supervision measure (especially in cases of minor offences).
The Framework Decision on the supervision order in pre-trial procedures is a very significant legislative proposal, aimed not only at ensuring more efficient legal cooperation within the legislative area of the European Union but also at creating the legislative background for reducing the scope of the application of arrest – a non-custodial supervision measure (especially in cases of minor offences).
In your Draftsman's opinion, it can be unambiguously stated that this legislative proposal is not only important but absolutely necessary.
In your Draftsman's opinion, it can be unambiguously stated that this legislative proposal is not only important but absolutely necessary.
There are, however, several matters of principle that have to be agreed upon in advance in order to assess the provisions of this legislative proposal from a legal point of view:
There are, however, several matters of principle that have to be agreed upon in advance in order to assess the provisions of this legislative proposal from a legal point of view:
- The suggested type of cooperation is very similar to a unitary State and should be discussed, because at present it means ‘opening the door to nowhere’ (from a legal aspect, of course).
- The suggested type of cooperation is very similar to a unitary State and should be discussed, because at present it means ‘opening the door to nowhere’ (from a legal aspect, of course).
It is undoubtedly a political issue, yet as its resolution will have a serious legislative impact, the legal wording of the legislative proposal must therefore be clear and unambiguous.
It is undoubtedly a political issue, yet as its resolution will have a serious legislative impact, the legal wording of the legislative proposal must therefore be clear and unambiguous.
In your Draftsman's opinion, the text unfortunately raises more questions than it answers and it would therefore be preferable to opt for a classical method of cooperation and legal regulation (as in the case of the European arrest warrant, for example);
In your Draftsman's opinion, the text unfortunately raises more questions than it answers and it would therefore be preferable to opt for a classical method of cooperation and legal regulation (as in the case of the European arrest warrant, for example);
- The proposed legislative proposal needs to define clearly whether it unifies or coordinates State laws (prescribing to what extent States can expand on the legal regulation of issues within their national laws).
- The proposed legislative proposal needs to define clearly whether it unifies or coordinates State laws (prescribing to what extent States can expand on the legal regulation of issues within their national laws).
In your Draftsman's opinion, the legislative proposal has a considerable number of legal gaps, which could have grave legal consequences for guaranteeing the protection of human rights and freedoms, e.g. it is not clear which State is responsible for damage caused through illegal supervision; also certain procedural aspects, e.g. the suspect’s right to appeal against the European supervision order etc., are not completely clear.
In your Draftsman's opinion, the legislative proposal has a considerable number of legal gaps, which could have grave legal consequences for guaranteeing the protection of human rights and freedoms, e.g. it is not clear which State is responsible for damage caused through illegal supervision; also certain procedural aspects, e.g. the suspect’s right to appeal against the European supervision order etc., are not completely clear.
Your Draftsman's comments on Mr Varvitsiotis's working document are made according to the following logic: aspects that are: a) mentioned in both the legislative porposal and the Varvitsiotis working document; b) mentioned in the Varvitsiotis working document only; and c) not mentioned, but are legally necessary in your Draftsman's opinion:
Your Draftsman's comments on Mr Varvitsiotis's working document are made according to the following logic: aspects that are: a) mentioned in both the legislative porposal and the Varvitsiotis working document; b) mentioned in the Varvitsiotis working document only; and c) not mentioned, but are legally necessary in your Draftsman's opinion:
Traditionally the main issue concerning legislative proposals aimed at legal cooperation is the rule of double crime (according to which Member States cooperate only when an act is deemed criminal in both States).
Traditionally the main issue concerning legislative proposals aimed at legal cooperation is the rule of double crime (according to which Member States cooperate only when an act is deemed criminal in both States).
The European Commission keeps trying to reject this rule or at least limit its scope.
The European Commission keeps trying to reject this rule or at least limit its scope.
In your Draftsman's opinion, this legislative proposal envisages to fully reject the rule (Article 10), whereas the Varvitsiotis working document (page 5) makes allowance for it (to a certain extent), but only in the event of an arrest.
In your Draftsman's opinion, this legislative proposal envisages to fully reject the rule (Article 10), whereas the Varvitsiotis working document (page 5) makes allowance for it (to a certain extent), but only in the event of an arrest.
Both attitudes are to be considered as ‘dangerous’ in several respects, because constitutional problems could arise in Lithuania (at least) if limitations on human rights and freedoms are imposed for acts that are not deemed criminal according to the Criminal Code of Lithuania.
Both attitudes are to be considered as ‘dangerous’ in several respects, because constitutional problems could arise in Lithuania (at least) if limitations on human rights and freedoms are imposed for acts that are not deemed criminal according to the Criminal Code of Lithuania.
On the other hand, if only more serious crimes are covered, the task of reducing the application of arrest will not be fulfilled.
On the other hand, if only more serious crimes are covered, the task of reducing the application of arrest will not be fulfilled.
In view of the above, it would be preferable to provide, among other grounds for refusing the European supervision order, the following: an act in a State that is asked to carry out supervision shall not be deemed criminal (this model might be like the European arrest warrant).
In view of the above, it would be preferable to provide, among other grounds for refusing the European supervision order, the following: an act in a State that is asked to carry out supervision shall not be deemed criminal (this model might be like the European arrest warrant).
As far as Lithuania is concerned, it is a key point related to constitutional obligations.
As far as Lithuania is concerned, it is a key point related to constitutional obligations.
Your Draftsman fully agrees with points 2 and 3 of the Varvitsiotis working document.
Your Draftsman fully agrees with points 2 and 3 of the Varvitsiotis working document.
In your Draftsman's opinion, point 1 in the Varvitsiotis working document should be supplemented by the following: a) according to Article 6 of the legislative proposal, supervision may be imposed during court proceedings only, but this possibility should also be ensured during the pre-trial investigation process (especially leaving the State conducting the investigation the right to decide at its own discretion); b) the provisions of Article 6(4) of the legislative proposal are correct and are indeed necessary, but they are unclear, because the meaning of ‘... modify the obligations’ is not clear: does it imply a type of non-custodial measure (e.g. working document seizure as part of cash bail) or does it relate only to the scope of the non-custodial measure itself?
In your Draftsman's opinion, point 1 in the Varvitsiotis working document should be supplemented by the following: a) according to Article 6 of the legislative proposal, supervision may be imposed during court proceedings only, but this possibility should also be ensured during the pre-trial investigation process (especially leaving the State conducting the investigation the right to decide at its own discretion); b) the provisions of Article 6(4) of the legislative proposal are correct and are indeed necessary, but they are unclear, because the meaning of ‘... modify the obligations’ is not clear: does it imply a type of non-custodial measure (e.g. working document seizure as part of cash bail) or does it relate only to the scope of the non-custodial measure itself?
This aspect is important because severe sanctions are envisaged for a breach of the supervision order (Chapter 5 of the legislative proposal).
This aspect is important because severe sanctions are envisaged for a breach of the supervision order (Chapter 5 of the legislative proposal).