natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission’s December 2006 communication on EPCIP sets out a number of elements which the framework of such a programme might comprise including, this proposal for a directive containing a procedure for the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure in need of improved protection.
The Commission’s December 2006 communication on EPCIP sets out a number of elements which the framework of such a programme might comprise including, this proposal for a directive containing a procedure for the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure in need of improved protection.
This directive is intended to complement existing national programmes on the protection of important infrastructures and to be built on existing Critical Infrastructure sector-based measures.
This directive is intended to complement existing national programmes on the protection of important infrastructures and to be built on existing Critical Infrastructure sector-based measures.
The Commission proposes that an infrastructure should be a designated as a European Critical Infrastructure if its disruption or destruction would affect two or more Member States, or a single Member State if the critical infrastructure is located in another Member State.
The Commission proposes that an infrastructure should be a designated as a European Critical Infrastructure if its disruption or destruction would affect two or more Member States, or a single Member State if the critical infrastructure is located in another Member State.
Each Member State should identify European Critical Infrastructure (ECI) located within its territory as well as critical infrastructures outside its territory that may have an impact on it, and notify such the Commission of such infrastructures.
Each Member State should identify European Critical Infrastructure (ECI) located within its territory as well as critical infrastructures outside its territory that may have an impact on it, and notify such the Commission of such infrastructures.
On this basis the Commission intends to draw up centrally, under the comitology procedure, a specific list of European Critical Infrastructures.
On this basis the Commission intends to draw up centrally, under the comitology procedure, a specific list of European Critical Infrastructures.
Alongside this proposal for a directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure, existing sector-specific legislation will remain in force.
Alongside this proposal for a directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure, existing sector-specific legislation will remain in force.
In the transport sector, for example, security legislation already exists, e.g. for vessels and port facilities, airports, civil aviation and the transport of dangerous goods.
In the transport sector, for example, security legislation already exists, e.g. for vessels and port facilities, airports, civil aviation and the transport of dangerous goods.
Rapporteur’s amendments
Rapporteur’s amendments
Your rapporteur believes that, with this proposal for a directive, the Commission is exceeding its powers, misunderstanding its instructions and seeking to achieve an objective which contravenes the subsidiarity principle.
Your rapporteur believes that, with this proposal for a directive, the Commission is exceeding its powers, misunderstanding its instructions and seeking to achieve an objective which contravenes the subsidiarity principle.
The initiative on the protection of critical infrastructure is intended to guarantee internal security.
The initiative on the protection of critical infrastructure is intended to guarantee internal security.
It is not an initiative to protect the stability of the Internal Market.
It is not an initiative to protect the stability of the Internal Market.
Rather than complementing the measures of the Member States, which is its real task, the Commission clearly wishes to replace the Member States’ existing measures.
Rather than complementing the measures of the Member States, which is its real task, the Commission clearly wishes to replace the Member States’ existing measures.
The proposed system of reporting requirements creates additional and counter-productive bureaucratic structures.
The proposed system of reporting requirements creates additional and counter-productive bureaucratic structures.
Furthermore, the proposal does not address the real task, but delegates it to a comitology committee, and indeed it is questionable whether there is any need for such a directive at all.
Furthermore, the proposal does not address the real task, but delegates it to a comitology committee, and indeed it is questionable whether there is any need for such a directive at all.
Your rapporteur considers that critical infrastructures should be identified and designated solely by the Member States.
Your rapporteur considers that critical infrastructures should be identified and designated solely by the Member States.
She opposes the requirement for the Member States to notify the Commission of specific critical infrastructures.
She opposes the requirement for the Member States to notify the Commission of specific critical infrastructures.
This would be against national security interests, since a European list of critical infrastructures would be an interesting source of information to terrorists.
This would be against national security interests, since a European list of critical infrastructures would be an interesting source of information to terrorists.
In order to reduce the level of risk the only appropriate measure would seem to be devolved management of ECI in the Member States.
In order to reduce the level of risk the only appropriate measure would seem to be devolved management of ECI in the Member States.
The only infrastructures which should be regarded as critical from a European point of view are those whose disruption or destruction would affect at least three Member States, or two Member States other than the one in which they are located.
The only infrastructures which should be regarded as critical from a European point of view are those whose disruption or destruction would affect at least three Member States, or two Member States other than the one in which they are located.
Furthermore, all that should be done centrally by the Commission is to define and list in general terms the European priority sectors at risk, and to draw up fundamental criteria based on the importance of the infrastructure to the security (of supply) of the population.
Furthermore, all that should be done centrally by the Commission is to define and list in general terms the European priority sectors at risk, and to draw up fundamental criteria based on the importance of the infrastructure to the security (of supply) of the population.
In deciding whether an infrastructure is critical, the “human factor” must therefore be taken into consideration.
In deciding whether an infrastructure is critical, the “human factor” must therefore be taken into consideration.
It needs to be made clear that this directive centres on the citizen and that the proposed rules are being adopted for his welfare, since the proposal for a directive is intended to contribute to better public security and thus improve quality of life for citizens.
It needs to be made clear that this directive centres on the citizen and that the proposed rules are being adopted for his welfare, since the proposal for a directive is intended to contribute to better public security and thus improve quality of life for citizens.
This clarification should include tunnels, bridges, stations, locks, ports and airports.
This clarification should include tunnels, bridges, stations, locks, ports and airports.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
The Committee on Transport and Tourism calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Robert Atkins, Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Georg Jarzembowski, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Bogusław Liberadzki, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Robert Navarro, Seán Ó Neachtain, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Willi Piecyk, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Georgios Toussas, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle
Robert Atkins, Inés Ayala Sender, Etelka Barsi-Pataky, Paolo Costa, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Petr Duchoň, Saïd El Khadraoui, Robert Evans, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Georg Jarzembowski, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Bogusław Liberadzki, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Robert Navarro, Seán Ó Neachtain, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Willi Piecyk, Luís Queiró, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Georgios Toussas, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle
Alexander Alvaro, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Fausto Correia, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Esther De Lange, Panayiotis Demetriou, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Lilli Gruber, Adeline Hazan, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Roger Knapman, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Edith Mastenbroek, Dan Mihalache, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Athanasios Pafilis, Luciana Sbarbati, Inger Segelström, Károly Ferenc Szabó, Vladimir Andreev Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Alexander Alvaro, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giuseppe Castiglione, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Fausto Correia, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Esther De Lange, Panayiotis Demetriou, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Roland Gewalt, Lilli Gruber, Adeline Hazan, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Lívia Járóka, Ewa Klamt, Roger Knapman, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Edith Mastenbroek, Dan Mihalache, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Athanasios Pafilis, Luciana Sbarbati, Inger Segelström, Károly Ferenc Szabó, Vladimir Andreev Urutchev, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Adamos Adamou, Edit Bauer, Simon Busuttil, Gérard Deprez, Koenraad Dillen, Iratxe García Pérez, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Metin Kazak, Jörg Leichtfried, Marianne Mikko, Herbert Reul, Rainer Wieland
Adamos Adamou, Edit Bauer, Simon Busuttil, Gérard Deprez, Koenraad Dillen, Iratxe García Pérez, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Metin Kazak, Jörg Leichtfried, Marianne Mikko, Herbert Reul, Rainer Wieland
относно стратегия за опростяване на нормативната среда”
on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment
PE 388.366v03-00
PE 388.366v03-00
ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ НА МОТИВИТЕ...............................................................................................8
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................7
СТАНОВИЩЕ на Комисията по околна среда, обществено здраве и безопасност на храните 12
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 11
относно стратегия за опростяване на нормативната среда
on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’
– като взе предвид Междуинституционалното споразумение “За по-добро законотворчество” от 16 декември 2003 г.
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking, signed on 16 December 2003
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 26 октомври 2000 г. относно докладите на Комисията до Европейския съвет “По-добро законотворчество: отговорност, която трябва да бъде споделена – 1998 г.” и “По-добро законотворчество – 1999 г.”
– having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2000 on the Commission reports to the European Council: Better lawmaking - A shared responsibility (1998) and Better lawmaking 1999
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 29 ноември 2001 г. относно Бялата книга на Комисията “Европейско управление”
– having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2001 on the Commission White Paper on European governance
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 8 април 2003 г. относно доклада на Комисията до Европейския съвет “По-добро законотворчество – 2000 г.” и докладa на Комисията до Европейския съвет “По-добро законотворчество – 2001 г.”
– having regard to its resolution of 8 April 2003 on the Commission reports to the European Council entitled ‘Better lawmaking 2000’ and ‘Better lawmaking 2001’
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 26 февруари 2004 г. относно доклада на Комисията до Европейския съвет “По-добро законотворчество – 2002 г.”
– having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the Commission report entitled ‘Better Lawmaking 2002’
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 9 март 2004 г. относно Съобщенията на Комисията относно опростяване и подобряване на общностното регулиране
– having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2004 on the Commission communication on simplifying and improving the Community's regulatory activity
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 20 април 2004 г. относно оценката на въздействието на общностното законодателство и процедурите на консултация
– having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 16 май 2006 г. относно стратегията за опростяване на нормативната среда
– having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 16 май 2006 г. относно доклада на Комисията до Европейския съвет “По-добро законотворчество – 2004 г.: прилагане на принципа за субсидиарност – 12-ти годишен доклад”
– having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on ‘Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity’ (12th annual report)
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 16 май 2006 г. относно резултата от разглеждането на законодателните предложения, представени на законодателя
– having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator
– като взе предвид работния документ на Комисията от 14 ноември, озаглавен “Първи доклад относно прилагането на стратегия за опростяване на нормативната среда”( COM(2006)0690 ),
– having regard to the Commission working document of 14 November 2006 entitled ‘First progress report on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’ ( COM(2006)0690 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по правни въпроси и становището на комисията по околна среда, обществено здраве и безопасност на храните (A6-0000/2007),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0271/2007 ) and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,
A. като има предвид систематичния ангажимент на Комисията, Съвета и Европейския парламент за определяне, прилагане и усъвършенстване на инструментите за опростяване на законодателството,
A. having regard to the current unstinting and systematic commitment by the Commission, the Council and Parliament to bring about, define and improve the application of legislative simplification tools,
Б. като счита, че опростяването на законодателната среда, гаранция за яснота, ефективност и качество на законодателството, е основна предпоставка за постигане на целта „за по-добро законотворчество”, на свой ред е приоритетна за Европейския съюз и е насочена към осигуряване на високи нива на икономически растеж и заетост,
B. whereas simplifying the legislative environment to ensure the clarity, efficacy and quality of legislation is an essential prerequisite for attaining the objective of ‘better lawmaking’, which, in turn, is a priority for the Union with a view to securing high levels of growth and employment,
В. като отбелязва, че един от основните резултати от опростяването е прогресивното обхващане от законодателството на Общността на всички области, в които Европейският съюз участва,
C. whereas one of the main results of simplification is its progressive coverage of all EC regulatory areas,
Д. като констатира, че работният документ на Комисията „е пряко следствие от съобщението от 25 октомври 2005 г., озаглавено „Прилагане на програмата на Общността от Лисабон: стратегия за опростяване на нормативната среда” ( COM(2005)0535 )”,
E. whereas the above-mentioned Commission working document is a follow-up to, and implements, the Commission communication of 25 October 2005 entitled ‘Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment’ ( COM(2005)0535 ),
Е. като взе предвид, че въпросният документ съдържа актуализирана версия за периода 2006-2009 г. на постоянна програма за опростяване, в която се предвиждат мерки за опростяване в структурно отношение, разделени в 43 преработки, 12 кодификации и 8 отмени, както и 46 други мерки за опростяване по отношение на съдържанието, определени общо като случаи на „преразглеждане”,
F. whereas the above-mentioned working document sets out a new ‘simplification rolling programme’ covering the period 2006-2009, in which measures are announced to simplify form, based on 43 recasts, 12 codifications and 8 repeals, in addition to 46 other measures to simplify substance, generally defined as cases of ‘revision’,
Ж. като взе предвид, че към тези мерки за опростяване се добавят още около 500 нови законодателни инициативи (от които близо 200 само за 2007 г.), изброени в отделна постоянна програма, посветена на кодификацията,
G. whereas in addition to the above simplification measures, some 500 new legislative initiatives (some 200 of which in 2007 alone) have been included in a separate rolling programme specifically dedicated to codifications,
З. като констатира уточнението на Комисията, че програмата за кодификация е само примерна, тъй като нейното завършване зависи от наличието на всички езикови редакции на въпросните актове, както и че според нея, кодификацията, освен това, трябва да бъде отложена, когато се предвиждат нови изменения на актове, така че последователността в представянето на постоянната програма да може, според Комисията, да се променя в зависимост от тези два фактора,
H. whereas the Commission points out that the codification programme remains indicative, since it depends on the availability in all languages of the acts to be codified and whereas, according to the Commission, codification should be postponed when new amendments of these acts are envisaged, with the result that, in the Commission’s view, the order of acts in the rolling programme might change in the light of these two factors,
И. като отбелязва, че в горепосочения документ Комисията възнамерява да затвърди практиката в предложенията, които представя, да се включва обяснителен меморандум, който разяснява по-ясно поставените цели за опростяване,
I. whereas, in the above-mentioned working document, the Commission proposes increasing the practice of including in its proposals an initial explanatory memorandum in order better to explain the simplification objectives pursued,
K. като счита, че опростяването, популяризирано на европейско ниво, трябва да бъде придружено от съответното опростяване на национално ниво, така че предимствата от опростяването на равнище на Общността да не бъдат осуетени от националните нормативни уредби или от пречки от технически характер,
K. whereas the simplification being promoted at European level should be accompanied by appropriate simplification at national level to ensure that the advantages of Community simplification are not undermined by national rules or technical barriers,
2. изразява задоволство от факта, че за първи път инициативите за опростяване фигурират в законодателната и в работната програма на Комисията за 2007 г., което показва политическия приоритет, който се придава на стратегията за опростяване;
Welcomes the fact that, for the first time, the simplification initiatives have been included in the Commission’s legislative and work programme for 2007, in confirmation of the political priority to be given to the simplification strategy;
8. приканва, освен това, Комисията да има предвид винаги, че ако преработването не е възможно, кодификацията на въпросната законодателна област би трябвало се извърши в срок от шест месеца и при обичайната законодателна техника; в тази връзка счита, че съобразно споменатото междуинституционално споразумение, заедно със Съвета и Комисията могат специално за целта да се създадат специализирани структури с цел насърчаване на опростяването;
Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to bear in mind that where recasting is impossible, the codification of the legislative area concerned should be the standard legislative technique to be carried out within a six-month time-frame; takes the view that, in accordance with the above-mentioned interinstitutional agreement, Parliament, together with the Council and the Commission and providing for the necessary involvement of those parties concerned, could set up special ad hoc structures with the precise aim of promoting simplification;
10. подчертава първостепенната важност на сътрудничеството между европейските институции, съществено условие за успеха на всяка стратегия за опростяване; изтъква добрата воля, която самият Европейски парламент е показал в това отношение с внасянето на изменения в своя правилник, които имат за цел да улеснят процедурата по приемане на кодификации и по въвеждане на специална законодателна процедура за преработките;
Stresses the vital importance of cooperation between the Community institutions as a prerequisite for the success of any simplification strategy; highlights in this respect the strong signal of goodwill emitted by the European Parliament thanks to the amendments to its Rules of Procedure designed, respectively, to facilitate the adoption procedure for codifications and to introduce an ad hoc legislative procedure for recasts;
Il s'agissait de 11 propositions de codification, 51 propositions de refonte, 7 propositions d'abrogation et de 30 autres propositions n'entrant pas dans ces catégories mais visant aussi à la simplification de l'environnement réglementaire (simplifications de fond).
These included 11 proposals for codification, 51 proposals for recasting, 7 proposals for repeal and 30 proposals which cannot be categorised under the any of the above but which nevertheless aim to simplify the regulatory framework (i.e. simplify the substance).
Cela implique donc la réélaboration du texte consolidé en un seul acte juridique, nouveau, cohérent et compréhensible, qui remplace formellement l'acte originel et toutes les modifications ultérieures
It therefore involves the re-drafting of the text which is consolidated into a single, new legal act which is consistent and comprehensible and which officially replaces the original act and all subsequent amendments.
Son fonctionnement est, concrètement, rendu possible par le groupe consultatif des services juridiques des trois institutions, auquel il appartient d'examiner de près les propositions de la Commission et de donner au Parlement européen et au Conseil la garantie qu'elles représentent une codification authentique et que la Commission n'a pas introduit dans les textes de modifications de fond.
In practical terms, codification is made possible thanks to the Legal Services' Consultative Working Party of the three institutions, which has the task of assessing the Commission’s proposals and assuring the European Parliament and the Council that they are genuine codifications and that the Commission has not made any substantive changes to the texts.