natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- въз основа на проведените изпитвания за канцерогенност, съгласно изискванията за данните за активни вещества и продуктите за растителна защита и другите налични данни и информация, то е класифицирано като канцерогенно вещество от категория 1 или 2, в съответствие с разпоредбите на Директива 67/548/ЕИО, освен ако излагането на хора на въздействието на това активно вещество в продукта за растителна защита е незначително, в рамките на предлаганите реални условия на употреба.
– on the basis of assessment of carcinogenicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances and the plant protection products and other available data and information, it is or has to be classified, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 67/548/EEC, as carcinogen category 1 or 2 unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use is negligible.
- въз основа на проведените изпитвания за репродуктивна токсичност, съгласно изискванията за данните за активните вещества и продуктите за растителна защита, и другите налични данни и информация, то е класифицирано в репродуктивнотоксична категория 1 или 2, в съответствие с разпоредбите на Директива 67/548/ЕИО, освен ако излагането на хора на въздействието на това активно вещество в продукта за растителна защита е пренебрежимо при предлаганите реални условия на употреба.
- on the basis of assessment of reproductive toxicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances and the plant protection products and other available data and information, it is or has to be classified, in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, as toxic for reproduction category 1 or 2 unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use, is negligible.
- е считано за устойчиво, биоакумулиращо се и токсично (УБТ) вещество.
- it is considered to be a persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic (PBT) substance.
Вещество, което отговаря на всички изброени по-долу три критерия, е УБТ вещество.
A substance that fulfils all three of the criteria below is a PBT substance.
- полуразпадът в сладка или естуарна вода надвишава 40 дни,
– the half-life in fresh or estuarine water is higher than 40 days,
- полуразпадът в седимент на сладка или естуарна вода е над
– the half-life in fresh or estuarine water sediment is higher
120 дни, или
than 120 days, or
- полуразпадът в почвата надвишава 120 дни.
– the half-life in soil is higher than 120 days.
Оценката за устойчивост в околната среда се основава на наличните данни относно полуразпада, получени при подходящи условия, които се описват от заявителя.
Assessment of persistency in the environment shall be based on available half-life data collected under appropriate conditions, which shall be described by the applicant.
- съществуват други доказателства за хронична токсичност, определена от класификациите: Т, R 48 или Xn , R 48, съгласно Директива 67/548/ЕИО.
– there is other evidence of chronic toxicity, as identified by the classifications: T, R48 or Xn, R48 pursuant to Directive 67/548/EEC.
- веществото е много устойчиво и много биоакумулиращо се (vPvB).
- it is very persistent and very bioaccumulating (vPvB).
Вещество, което отговаря и на двата критерия по-долу, е много устойчиво и много биоакумулиращо се вещество ( vPvB ).
A substance that fulfils both of the criteria below is a vPvB substance.
- полуразпадът в почвата надвишава 180 дни.
– the half-life in soil is higher than 180 days.
Активно вещество отговаря на критерия за биоакумулиране, когато факторът на биоконцентрация (ФБК) надвишава 5000.
An active substance fulfils the very bioaccumulative criterion where the bioconcentration factor is greater than 5000.
These criteria should be used to identify substances as candidates for substitution not to reject substances without proper evaluation.
These criteria should be used to identify substances as candidates for substitution not to reject substances without proper evaluation.
The ‘candidate for substitution’ criteria currently used in the draft regulation have little or no correlation to real risks arising from the use of plant protection products.
The ‘candidate for substitution’ criteria currently used in the draft regulation have little or no correlation to real risks arising from the use of plant protection products.
Приложение ІV, точка 3, алинея 1
Annex IV, point 3, subparagraph 1
Значителен практически или икономически недостатък за потребителя се определя като количествено нарушаващ работните практики или търговските дейности и водещ до невъзможност да се поддържа достатъчен контрол над целевия организъм.
Significant practical or economic disadvantage to the user is defined as a major quantifiable impairment of working practices or business activity leading to inability to maintain sufficient control of the target organism.
Такова важно нарушение може да бъде, например, липсата на технически съоръжения за използването на алтернативното(ите) вещество(а) или икономическата неприложимост на съоръженията.
Such a major impairment might be, for example, where no technical facilities for the use of the alternative substance(s) are available or economically feasible.
Значителен практически или икономически недостатък за потребителя се определя като количествено нарушаващ работните практики или търговските дейности и водещ до невъзможност да се поддържа достатъчен контрол над целевия организъм или до намаляване на конкурентоспособността на селскостопанската дейност .
Significant practical or economic disadvantage to the user is defined as a major quantifiable impairment of working practices or business activity leading to inability to maintain sufficient control of the target organism or impairment of the competitiveness of agricultural activity .
The competitiveness of Community agriculture must be safeguarded.
The competitiveness of Community agriculture must be safeguarded.
Приложение IV 3, алинея 2a (нова)
Annex IV 3, subparagraph 2 a (new)
При сравнителната оценка се вземат предвид потребителите, на които е издадено разрешение за маловажна употреба.
The comparative assessment shall take authorised minor users into account.
See justification for amendment to Article 48, paragraph 1, point (c)
See justification for amendment to Article 48, paragraph 1, point (c).
Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Sergio Berlato, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Dumitru Gheorghe Mircea Coşea, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Duarte Freitas, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Neil Parish, Radu Podgorean, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Marc Tarabella, Jeffrey Titford, Witold Tomczak, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Janusz Wojciechowski
Vincenzo Aita, Peter Baco, Sergio Berlato, Thijs Berman, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Giuseppe Castiglione, Dumitru Gheorghe Mircea Coşea, Albert Deß, Gintaras Didžiokas, Michl Ebner, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Duarte Freitas, Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Elisabeth Jeggle, Heinz Kindermann, Mairead McGuinness, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Neil Parish, Radu Podgorean, Agnes Schierhuber, Willem Schuth, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Alyn Smith, Marc Tarabella, Jeffrey Titford, Witold Tomczak, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Janusz Wojciechowski
Bernadette Bourzai, Hynek Fajmon, Christa Klaß, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Astrid Lulling, Kyösti Virrankoski
Bernadette Bourzai, Hynek Fajmon, Christa Klaß, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Astrid Lulling, Kyösti Virrankoski
Дата на становището BUDG
Date of JURI opinion
Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, Pilar Ayuso, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Mojca Drčar Murko, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Jens Holm, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Marios Matsakis, Linda McAvan, Alexandru-Ioan Morţun, Riitta Myller, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott
Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Margrete Auken, Liam Aylward, Pilar Ayuso, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Hiltrud Breyer, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Mojca Drčar Murko, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Jens Holm, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Marios Matsakis, Linda McAvan, Alexandru-Ioan Morţun, Riitta Myller, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott
PE 393.871v01-00
PE 393.871v02-00
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията до Съвета ( COM(2007)0277 ),
– having regard to the Commission recommendation to the Council ( COM(2007)0277 ),
– като взе предвид член 3, параграф 4 от Акта за присъединяване на Република България и Румъния, съгласно който Съветът се е допитал до него ( C6‑0238/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 3(4) of the Act of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0238/2007 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи ( A6‑0360/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committeе on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0360/2007 ),
Текст на Комисията
Text proposed by the Commission
(4a) Българското и румънското правителство са положили усилия да спазят съответно предвидените параметри за започване на опростената процедура по присъединяване ,
(4a) The Bulgarian and Romanian governments have made efforts to meet the respective benchmarks provided for the activation of the simplified accession procedure,
The purpose of the proposed insertion is to point out that the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the respective normative instruments is not an automatic consequence from the act of the accession of the two countries to the EU but comes in response to the efforts undertaken by the respective societies to meet the criteria of the Union for "good governance" and to ensure the upholding of the Community interests in regard to the specific subject matter of the Convention.
The purpose of the proposed insertion is to point out that the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the respective normative instruments is not an automatic consequence from the act of the accession of the two countries to the EU but comes in response to the efforts undertaken by the respective societies to meet the criteria of the Union for "good governance" and to ensure the upholding of the Community interests in regard to the specific subject matter of the Convention.
The adoption of this assessment will provide positive back feed for to the respective governments that their policies of reforming the sectors of the internal security and public finance are properly assessed on the European parliamentarian level.
The adoption of this assessment will provide positive back feed for to the respective governments that their policies of reforming the sectors of the internal security and public finance are properly assessed on the European parliamentarian level.
Such awareness on the national level, for the countries concerned, will provide the necessary incentives for the further deepening of the reform processes.
Such awareness on the national level, for the countries concerned, will provide the necessary incentives for the further deepening of the reform processes.
Присъединяването на България и Румъния към Конвенцията от 26 юли 1995 г. за защитата на финансовите интереси на Европейските общности и към различни протоколи на същата конвенция
Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and to the various Protocols to the Convention
PE 390.566v02-00
PE 390.566v02-00
– като взе предвид предложението за решение на Съвета (12550/2007)
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (12550/2007)
– като взе предвид Втория допълнителен протокол към Споразумението за асоцииране между Европейската общност и нейните държави-членки, от една страна, и Република Чили, от друга, предвид присъединяването към Европейския съюз на Република България и Румъния,
– having regard to the Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union,
– като взе предвид искането за одобрение, представено от Съвета съгласно член 300, параграф 3, алинея втора, във връзка с член 310 и член 300, параграф 2, алинея първа, първо и второ изречение от Договора за създаване на Европейската общност ( C6‑0325/2007 ),
– having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 310 and Article 300(2) first subparagraph, first and second sentence of the EC Treaty ( C6‑0325/2007 ),
– като взе предвид член 75, член 83, параграф 7 и член 43, параграф 1 от своя правилник,
– having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– като взе предвид препоръката на комисията по международна търговия ( A6‑0361/2007 ),
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade ( A6‑0361/2007 ),
Приемане на протокол към Споразумението за асоцииране между Европейската общност и Чили с оглед на присъединяването към ЕС на България и Румъния
Conclusion of a Protocol to the Association Agreement between the EC and Chile to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU
Kader Arif, Graham Booth, Daniel Caspary, Françoise Castex, Glyn Ford, Eduard Raul Hellvig, Jacky Henin, Syed Kamall, Sajjad Karim, Alain Lipietz, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Helmuth Markov, Cristiana Muscardini, Vural Öger, Georgios Papastamkos, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Tokia Saïfi, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Gianluca Susta, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Zbigniew Zaleski
Kader Arif, Graham Booth, Daniel Caspary, Françoise Castex, Glyn Ford, Eduard Raul Hellvig, Jacky Henin, Syed Kamall, Sajjad Karim, Alain Lipietz, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Helmuth Markov, Cristiana Muscardini, Vural Öger, Georgios Papastamkos, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Tokia Saïfi, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Gianluca Susta, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Zbigniew Zaleski
относно проекта на рамково решение на Съвета относно прилагането на принципа за взаимно признаване на съдебни решения по наказателни дела, с които се налагат наказания лишаване от свобода или мерки, изискващи лишаване от свобода, за целите на тяхното изпълнение в Европейския съюз
on the draft Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
(Възобновена консултация)
(Renewed consultation)
PE 393.875v02-00
PE 393.875v02-00
(Процедура на консултация - възобновена консултация)
(Consultation procedure - renewed consultation)
– като взе предвид проекта на Съвета (9688/2007)
– having regard to the Council draft (9688/2007)
– като взе предвид инициативата на Република Австрия, Република Финландия и Кралство Швеция (7307/2005)
– having regard to the initiative by the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (7307/2005)
– като взе предвид позицията си от 14 юни 2006 г.
– having regard to its position of 14 June 2006
Приети текстове, P6_TA(2006)0256 . ,
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0256 . ,
– като взе предвид член 31, параграф 1, буква а) и член 34, параграф 2, буква б) от Договора за ЕС,
– having regard to Articles 31(1)(a) and 34(2)(b) of the EC Treaty of the European Union,
– като взе предвид член 39, параграф 1 от Договора за ЕС, съгласно който Съветът се е допитал до него (С6-0209/2007),
– having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0209/2007 )),
– като взе предвид членове 93, 51 и член 55, параграф 3 от Правилника за дейността,
– having regard to Rules 93, 51 and 55(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи (A6--0362/2007),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0362/2007 ),
Текст, предложен от Съвета
Text proposed by the Council
(2a) Процесуалните права при наказателни производства са решаващ елемент за гарантиране на взаимното доверие между държавите-членки в областта на съдебното сътрудничество и въпреки усилията на германското председателство, след представянето на проект на рамково решение от Комисията, подкрепен от Парламента, досега не е постигнато споразумение;
(2a) Procedural rights in criminal proceedings are a crucial element for ensuring mutual confidence among the Member States in judicial cooperation, and despite the efforts of the German Presidency, no agreement has thus far been reached following the presentation of a draft Framework Decision by the Commission, backed by Parliament;
The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition, which should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.
The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition, which should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.
On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, in which it called for an assessment of the need for modern mechanisms for the mutual recognition of final sentences involving deprivation of liberty and for extended application of the principle of the transfer of sentenced persons to cover persons resident in a Member State.
On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, in which it called for an assessment of the need for modern mechanisms for the mutual recognition of final sentences involving deprivation of liberty and for extended application of the principle of the transfer of sentenced persons to cover persons resident in a Member State.
The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires the Member States to complete the programme of measures, in particular in the field of enforcing final custodial sentences.
The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires the Member States to complete the programme of measures, in particular in the field of enforcing final custodial sentences.
Relations between the Member States, which are characterised by special mutual confidence in other Member States' legal systems, enable recognition by the executing State of decisions taken by the issuing State's authorities.
Relations between the Member States, which are characterised by special mutual confidence in other Member States' legal systems, enable recognition by the executing State of decisions taken by the issuing State's authorities.
Notwithstanding the necessity of providing the sentenced person with adequate safeguards, his or her involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant by requiring in all cases his or her consent to the forwarding of a judgment to another Member State for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement of the sentence imposed.
Notwithstanding the necessity of providing the sentenced person with adequate safeguards, his or her involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant by requiring in all cases his or her consent to the forwarding of a judgment to another Member State for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement of the sentence imposed.
This Framework decision should be implemented and applied in a manner which allows for respecting general principles of equality, fairness and reasonableness.
This Framework decision should be implemented and applied in a manner which allows for respecting general principles of equality, fairness and reasonableness.
This Framework Decision should also, mutatis mutandis, apply to the enforcement of sentences in the cases under Articles 4(6) und 5(3) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
This Framework Decision should also, mutatis mutandis, apply to the enforcement of sentences in the cases under Articles 4(6) und 5(3) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
This inter alia means, that without prejudice to the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the executing Member State could verify the existence of grounds for refusal as provided for in Article 9, including checking of dual criminality to the extent the executing State has made a declaration under Article 7(4), as a condition to recognise and enforce the judgment with a view to consider whether to surrender the person or to enforce the sentence in cases pursuant to Article 4(6) of the said Framework Decision.
This inter alia means, that without prejudice to the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the executing Member State could verify the existence of grounds for refusal as provided for in Article 9, including checking of dual criminality to the extent the executing State has made a declaration under Article 7(4), as a condition to recognise and enforce the judgment with a view to consider whether to surrender the person or to enforce the sentence in cases pursuant to Article 4(6) of the said Framework Decision.
This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof.
This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof.
Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute a decision when there are objective reasons to believe that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced on anyone of those grounds.
Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute a decision when there are objective reasons to believe that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced on anyone of those grounds.