natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If, as a result of the feasibility assessment, it is considered necessary to adapt the requirements as regards the safety performance, Article 5(2) of the Directive requires that the Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council to amend the Directive accordingly, under the condition that the amendments afford at least the same level of protection as the existing provisions.
If, as a result of the feasibility assessment, it is considered necessary to adapt the requirements as regards the safety performance, Article 5(2) of the Directive requires that the Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council to amend the Directive accordingly, under the condition that the amendments afford at least the same level of protection as the existing provisions.
The results of this study indicates that the requirements of the phase II would not be completely technically feasible for all vehicles and vehicle types as presently constituted.
The results of this study indicates that the requirements of the phase II would not be completely technically feasible for all vehicles and vehicle types as presently constituted.
As a possible complementary measure which could be used, in recognition that the Directive specifically allowed a combination of active and passive measures, the report considered the use of Brake Assist systems.
As a possible complementary measure which could be used, in recognition that the Directive specifically allowed a combination of active and passive measures, the report considered the use of Brake Assist systems.
Based on the outcome of the study, the Commission proposes the following:
Based on the outcome of the study, the Commission proposes the following:
- New regulation
- New regulation
This approach has the advantage that the Regulation is directly applicable throughout the EU, does not require transposition into national law and provides enterprises and approval authorities with a single set of rules. , instead of the revision of the directive, replacing and merging the directive 2003/102/EC and directive 2005/66/EC on frontal protection systems
This approach has the advantage that the Regulation is directly applicable throughout the EU, does not require transposition into national law and provides enterprises and approval authorities with a single set of rules. , instead of the revision of the directive, replacing and merging the directive 2003/102/EC and directive 2005/66/EC on frontal protection systems
Directive 2005/66/EC relating to the use of frontal protection systems provides for the control of these systems either as original equipment or in the aftermarket.
Directive 2005/66/EC relating to the use of frontal protection systems provides for the control of these systems either as original equipment or in the aftermarket.
The proposal combines these requirements with those providing pedestrian protection and thus provides consistency in provision of protection for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. ;
The proposal combines these requirements with those providing pedestrian protection and thus provides consistency in provision of protection for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. ;
- Transfer of the Phase I requirements and timetable from directive 2003/102/EC, lower (feasible) Phase II requirements and new timetable and the introduction of the active brake system in order to meet at least the same level of protection as in the directive 2003/102/EC.
- Transfer of the Phase I requirements and timetable from directive 2003/102/EC, lower (feasible) Phase II requirements and new timetable and the introduction of the active brake system in order to meet at least the same level of protection as in the directive 2003/102/EC.
- Widening of the scope in comparison to directive 2003/102/EC as also M1 and N1 over 2.5 t are considered
- Widening of the scope in comparison to directive 2003/102/EC as also M1 and N1 over 2.5 t are considered
Your rapporteur's views on his amendments
Your rapporteur's views on his amendments
Your rapporteur shares the view of the Commission that measures to reduce fatalities and injuries of pedestrian and other vulnerable road users are necessary.
Your rapporteur shares the view of the Commission that measures to reduce fatalities and injuries of pedestrian and other vulnerable road users are necessary.
The amendments he proposes therefore are aimed to strengthen the regulation where possible.
The amendments he proposes therefore are aimed to strengthen the regulation where possible.
The Commission proposes in Article 9 a timetable for the implementation of the regulation which is based on the lead-times normally necessary for the automotive industry to adapt to the new legislation .
The Commission proposes in Article 9 a timetable for the implementation of the regulation which is based on the lead-times normally necessary for the automotive industry to adapt to the new legislation .
Your rapporteur proposes a more ambitious timetable based on the following arguments:
Your rapporteur proposes a more ambitious timetable based on the following arguments:
a) The Phase I requirements (see Annex I, section 2 of the proposal)
a) The Phase I requirements (see Annex I, section 2 of the proposal)
The timetable of these requirements are already defined in the directive 2003/102/EC.
The timetable of these requirements are already defined in the directive 2003/102/EC.
The new regulation should only incorporate the timetable already in force.
The new regulation should only incorporate the timetable already in force.
For new type of vehicles the timetable foresees 2005 as starting point, for new vehicles the starting point is 31 December 2012.
For new type of vehicles the timetable foresees 2005 as starting point, for new vehicles the starting point is 31 December 2012.
But following the Commission proposal the soonest possible date for application of the Phase I requirements for new M1 and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t is 2014 (60 months, starting from end of 2008).
But following the Commission proposal the soonest possible date for application of the Phase I requirements for new M1 and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t is 2014 (60 months, starting from end of 2008).
Therefore your rapporteur proposes to re-install 31 December 2012 as deadline.
Therefore your rapporteur proposes to re-install 31 December 2012 as deadline.
b) BAS (see Annex I, section 4 of the proposal)
b) BAS (see Annex I, section 4 of the proposal)
Your rapporteur estimates that 33 months lead-time for the implementation of BAS for M1 and N1 is too long.
Your rapporteur estimates that 33 months lead-time for the implementation of BAS for M1 and N1 is too long.
To insert BAS into vehicles is quite unproblematic for vehicles which have already ABS and almost all M1 vehicles and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t have ABS.
To insert BAS into vehicles is quite unproblematic for vehicles which have already ABS and almost all M1 vehicles and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t have ABS.
The reduction of lead-time for the active safety measure represents a statistical measurable benefit in terms of reduction of fatalities and heavy injuries.
The reduction of lead-time for the active safety measure represents a statistical measurable benefit in terms of reduction of fatalities and heavy injuries.
c) The new Phase II requirements (see Annex I, section 3 of the proposal)
c) The new Phase II requirements (see Annex I, section 3 of the proposal)
As mentioned before, the timetable proposed by the Commission is under normal circumstances adequate for implementation of new legislative requirements.
As mentioned before, the timetable proposed by the Commission is under normal circumstances adequate for implementation of new legislative requirements.
But here we speak about requirements and timetables that are already the binding law in directive 2003/102/EC.
But here we speak about requirements and timetables that are already the binding law in directive 2003/102/EC.
The Commission, following the outcome of the feasibility study, propose to lower sensibly the original Phase II requirements foreseen in the law.
The Commission, following the outcome of the feasibility study, propose to lower sensibly the original Phase II requirements foreseen in the law.
Should in addition to this concession also the timetable be postponed?
Should in addition to this concession also the timetable be postponed?
Your rapporteur estimates that the new Phase II requirements are quite similar to the current phase I, and that the automotive industry is able to respect the new phase II requirements from an earlier starting point and proposes therefore a timetable close to the timetable established in the directive 2003/102/EC.
Your rapporteur estimates that the new Phase II requirements are quite similar to the current phase I, and that the automotive industry is able to respect the new phase II requirements from an earlier starting point and proposes therefore a timetable close to the timetable established in the directive 2003/102/EC.
Anti-collision system
Anti-collision system
So far there is no efficient anti-collision system for pedestrians on the market.
So far there is no efficient anti-collision system for pedestrians on the market.
Your rapporteur understands and appreciates, that the Commission by way of proposing Article 11 encourages the industry to develop such a system, even if he estimates that many pedestrian accidents cannot be avoided.
Your rapporteur understands and appreciates, that the Commission by way of proposing Article 11 encourages the industry to develop such a system, even if he estimates that many pedestrian accidents cannot be avoided.
With his amendments he wants to assure that once such a system is developed, the co-legislators have the possibility to analyse and judge the effective potential of this active safety measure and that there will be no automatic trade-off between passive safety requirements and anti-collision systems.
With his amendments he wants to assure that once such a system is developed, the co-legislators have the possibility to analyse and judge the effective potential of this active safety measure and that there will be no automatic trade-off between passive safety requirements and anti-collision systems.
Frontal protection system
Frontal protection system
The directive 2005/66/EC on FPS will be replaced by this regulation.
The directive 2005/66/EC on FPS will be replaced by this regulation.
The safety requirements for FPS should be on the same level as the safety requirements for vehicles without FPS installed.
The safety requirements for FPS should be on the same level as the safety requirements for vehicles without FPS installed.
Therefore the new Phase II requirements should be imposed also on FPS.
Therefore the new Phase II requirements should be imposed also on FPS.
Your rapporteur considers that it is important to be continuously attentive towards technical possibilities also for increased passive safety standards and to monitor properly the possibilities for increased safety requirements.
Your rapporteur considers that it is important to be continuously attentive towards technical possibilities also for increased passive safety standards and to monitor properly the possibilities for increased safety requirements.
Gabriele Albertini, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Saïd El Khadraoui, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Erik Meijer, Seán Ó Neachtain, Willi Piecyk, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle
Gabriele Albertini, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Saïd El Khadraoui, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Erik Meijer, Seán Ó Neachtain, Willi Piecyk, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle
Donato Tommaso Veraldi
Donato Tommaso Veraldi
относно насоките за бюджетната процедура за 2009 г.
on the guidelines for the 2009 budget procedure
Раздел І – Европейски парламент
Section I – European Parliament
Раздел ІІ – Съвет
Section II – Council
Раздел VIІ – Комитет на регионите
Section VII – Committee of the Regions
PE 402.816v02-00
PE 402.816v02-00
относно насоките във връзка с бюджетната процедура за 2009 г., Раздел І – Европейски парламент, Раздел II – Съвет, Раздел IV – Съд, Раздел V – Сметна палата, Раздел VI – Европейски икономически и социален комитет, Раздел VII – Комитет на регионите, Раздел VIII – Европейски омбудсман, Раздел IX – Европейски надзорен орган по защита на данните
on the guidelines for the 2009 budget procedure, Section I – European Parliament, Section II – Council, Section IV – Court of Justice, Section V – Court of Auditors, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, Section VIII – European Ombudsman, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor
– като взе предвид член 272 от Договора за ЕО,
– having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty,
– като взе предвид петия доклад на генералните секретари на институциите относно тенденциите на развитие на функция 5 на финансовата перспектива от май 2006 г.,
– having regard to the fifth report by the Secretaries-General of the Institutions on trends in heading 5 of the financial perspective of May 2006,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по бюджети ( A6-0082/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets ( A6-0082/2008 ),
А. като има предвид, че на този етап от годишната процедура Европейският парламент очаква прогнозите на другите институции и предложенията на своето Бюро относно бюджета за 2009 г.,
A. whereas, at this stage of the annual procedure, the European Parliament is awaiting the other institutions' estimates and its own Bureau's proposals for the 2009 Budget,
Б. като има предвид, че е постигнато съгласие относно пилотен проект, съгласно който по време на цялата бюджетна процедура за 2009 г. ще се прилага подход на засилено сътрудничество и връзки между Бюрото и комисията по бюджети,
B. whereas a pilot exercise was agreed in which enhanced cooperation and relations between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets would be applied throughout the 2009 budget procedure,
В. като има предвид, че таванът на функция 5 през 2009 г. е 7 777 000 000 евро
C. whereas the ceiling of heading 5 in 2009 is EUR 7 777 000 000
В това число 78 000 000 евро от вноски на персонала към пенсионната схема , което представлява увеличение с 4,3% в сравнение с 2008 г.,
Including EUR 78 000 000 in staff contributions for pensions. , representing an increase of 4, 3 % compared to 2008,
Г. като има предвид, че бюджетът на Европейския парламент през 2008 г. възлиза на 1 452 517 167 евро, което представлява 19,68% от функция 5 през настоящата година,
D. whereas the European Parliament's budget for 2008 amounts to EUR 1 452 517 167, representing 19, 68% of heading 5 this year,
Обща рамка и основни предизвикателства
General Framework and main challenges
- предизвикателства, свързани с влизането в сила на Договора от Лисабон,
- Challenges related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon,
- предизвикателства, свързани с 2009 г. като година на избори за Парламента,
- Challenges related to 2009 as an election year for the Parliament,
3. отбелязва поставянето в документа на Бюрото на въпроса за доброволния дял от 20% на Парламента ; желае да припомни, че няколко последователни бюджета са показали излишък в края на годината и, въпреки че е вярно, че несъмнено ще са необходими някои допълнителни разходи за специалните потребности на 2009 г., желае да преразгледа всички разходни позиции в рамките на дела от 20%;
Notes the opening of the question of the voluntary 20% share of the Parliament presented in the Bureau's document; wishes to recall that successive budgets have shown surpluses at the end of the year and, although it is ready to consider additional expenditures that will certainly be needed for the particular demands of 2009, wishes to review all expenditure items while staying within the 20% share;
Предизвикателства, свързани с влизането в сила на Договора от Лисабон
Challenges related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon
Предизвикателства, свързани с 2009 г. като година на избори за Парламента,
Challenges related to 2009 as an election year for the Parliament
20. вярва, че промените, свързани с годината на избори, все пак трябва да се разглеждат в контекста на разумното финансово управление и не трябва автоматично да бъдат считани за допълнителни разходи, които се явяват „в добавка” към другите дейности; счита, че в година на избори също така се изисква определено съсредоточаване на дейности и разходи в тази конкретна година;
Believes that changes related to the election year must however be seen in the context of prudent financial management and not automatically considered as additional expenditure that comes "on top" of other activities; believes that an election year also requires a certain amount of focus of actions and expenditure in that particular year;
Предизвикателства, свързани с новия Устав на членовете на Европейския парламент и с промяната на мандата
Challenges related to the new Statute for Members and to the change of term
25. приема, че би могло да се предвиди условна сума във връзка с възможността за приемане на хърватски наблюдатели в края на 2009 г. и очаква прогноза за финансовото отражение;
Agrees that a provisional amount could be foreseen for the possibility of admitting Croatian observers at the end of 2009 and looks forward to an estimation of the financial implications;
Приети текстове, Р6_TA (2007)0474. ; призовава Бюрото и своя генерален секретар да докладват за напредъка по въпроса своевременно преди първо четене;
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2007)0474 . ; calls on the Bureau and its Secretary General to report on the progress on the matter in due time before the first reading;
32. счита, че числеността на персонала е във фаза на консолидиране след значителното увеличение в резултат на последните разширявания; призовава всички служби и политическите групи да представят подробен анализ и обосновка на разпределението на персонала в различните отдели на Парламента преди да отправят искания за допълнителен персонал и създаване на нови длъжности, както и да използват възможностите за реорганизация на персонала, когато това е осъществимо; счита, че тази финансова година следва да продължи усилията в тази насока през 2008 г., като признава специалните предизвикателства през 2009 г. и факта, че възможностите за реорганизация ще се променят през годините;
Considers that staffing levels have now entered a phase of consolidation following the very significant increases made with the last enlargements; calls on all services and the political groups to provide a detailed analysis and justification of staff deployment in Parliament´s various departments before making any requests for staffing and creating any new posts, and to use possibilities of re-deployment whenever feasible; considers that this budgetary exercise shall constitute a continuation of such efforts in 2008, while recognising the special challenges for 2009 and the fact that redeployment possibilities will vary from one year to the next;
36. заинтересуван е силно да узнае как бъдещата Европейска служба за външна дейност ще бъде интегрирана в рамките на бюджета на ЕС и, в случай, че подобна служба или части от нея бъдат включени в частта на Съвета, призовава Съвета и Комисията да бъдат напълно прозрачни и проактивни по отношение на последиците, включително по отношение на линията, която разделя административните и оперативните разходи;
Is very interested in how a future European External Action Service would be integrated into the EU budget overall and, in the event of this Service, or parts thereof, being absorbed into the Council's section, calls on the Council and the Commission to be fully transparent and pro-active as to the implications this will have, including the dividing lines between administrative and operational expenditure;
39. възлага на своя председател да предаде настоящата резолюция на Съвета, Комисията, Съда, Сметната палата, Европейския икономически и социален комитет, Комитета на регионите, Европейския омбудсман, както и на Европейския надзорен орган по защита на данните.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor.
Насоки за бюджетната процедура за 2009 г, Раздел I – Европейски парламент, Раздел II – Съвет, Раздел IV – Съд, Раздел V – Сметна палата, Раздел VI – Европейски икономически и социален комитет, Раздел VII – Комитет на регионите, Раздел VIII(A) – Европейски омбудсман, Раздел VIII(B) – Европейски надзорен орган по защита на данните
Guidelines for the 2009 budget procedure, Section I – European Parliament, Section II – Council, Section IV – Court of Justice, Section V – Court of Auditors, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, Section VIII(A) – European Ombudsman, Section VIII(B) – European Data Protection Supervisor
Дата на решението за съставяне на доклад
Date of decision to draw up report
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Richard James Ashworth, Reimer Böge, Herbert Bösch, Daniel Dăianu, Brigitte Douay, James Elles, Göran Färm, Szabolcs Fazakas, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Ingeborg Gräßle, Louis Grech, Catherine Guy-Quint, Jutta Haug, Ville Itälä, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Janusz Lewandowski, Vladimír Maňka, Jan Mulder, Gianni Pittella, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, László Surján, Gary Titley, Helga Trüpel, Kyösti Virrankoski, Ralf Walter
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Richard James Ashworth, Reimer Böge, Herbert Bösch, Daniel Dăianu, Brigitte Douay, James Elles, Göran Färm, Szabolcs Fazakas, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Ingeborg Gräßle, Louis Grech, Catherine Guy-Quint, Jutta Haug, Ville Itälä, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Janusz Lewandowski, Vladimír Maňka, Jan Mulder, Gianni Pittella, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, László Surján, Gary Titley, Helga Trüpel, Kyösti Virrankoski, Ralf Walter
Thijs Berman, Paul Rübig
Thijs Berman, Paul Rübig
относно предложението за решение на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно мобилизирането на Европейския фонд за приспособяване към глобализацията, съгласно точка 28 от Междуинституционалното споразумение между Европейския парламент, Съвета и Комисията от 17 май 2006 г. относно бюджетната дисциплина и доброто финансово управление
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in application of point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
PE 402.790v02-00
PE 402.790v02-00
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията до Европейския парламент и до Съвета ( COM(2008)0094 - C6-0085/2008 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2008)0094 - C6-0085/2008 ),
– като взе предвид Междуинституционалното споразумение между Европейския парламент, Съвета и Комисията от 17 май 2006 г. относно бюджетната дисциплина и доброто финансово управление
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management