natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Different key issues were also raised, such as the crucial role of efficient university governance, the paramount importance of quality teaching and innovative curricula or the many common internal and external challenges which European higher education must still face in order to remain competitive and performing in the 21-century globalising world.
Different key issues were also raised, such as the crucial role of efficient university governance, the paramount importance of quality teaching and innovative curricula or the many common internal and external challenges which European higher education must still face in order to remain competitive and performing in the 21-century globalising world.
The Bologna Process is taken forward through a work programme that receives orientations from biannual ministerial conferences: Prague 2001, Berlin 2003, Bergen 2005, London 2007 and Leuven/Louvaine-la-Neuve 2009.
The Bologna Process is taken forward through a work programme that receives orientations from biannual ministerial conferences: Prague 2001, Berlin 2003, Bergen 2005, London 2007 and Leuven/Louvaine-la-Neuve 2009.
These conferences are prepared by a Bologna Follow-up Group
These conferences are prepared by a Bologna Follow-up Group
The European Commission participates as a full member in the Bologna Follow-up Group, as well as in the Bologna Board. , which is chaired by the country that currently holds the Presidency of the European Union, and supported by a Bologna Secretariat, organised by the host country/countries of the next Ministerial meeting.
The European Commission participates as a full member in the Bologna Follow-up Group, as well as in the Bologna Board. , which is chaired by the country that currently holds the Presidency of the European Union, and supported by a Bologna Secretariat, organised by the host country/countries of the next Ministerial meeting.
The key to success of the Bologna cooperation is the underlying partnership approach, in both policy-making and implementation.
The key to success of the Bologna cooperation is the underlying partnership approach, in both policy-making and implementation.
Today, the Process unites 46 countries, all party to the European Cultural Convention, that cooperate in a flexible way, involving also international organisations and European associations representing higher education institutions, students, staff and employers.
Today, the Process unites 46 countries, all party to the European Cultural Convention, that cooperate in a flexible way, involving also international organisations and European associations representing higher education institutions, students, staff and employers.
Bologna process is a fine example of European cooperation, both within and outside the EU framework.
Bologna process is a fine example of European cooperation, both within and outside the EU framework.
We all know that higher education is a basic piece in the development of individuals.
We all know that higher education is a basic piece in the development of individuals.
It enhances social, cultural and economic growth, active citizenship and ethical values.
It enhances social, cultural and economic growth, active citizenship and ethical values.
However, as far as the European Union is concerned, higher education is not one of the responsibilities of the Commission of the European Communities: it is still a very much national matter, and the competence for the content and the organisation of studies remains at national level.
However, as far as the European Union is concerned, higher education is not one of the responsibilities of the Commission of the European Communities: it is still a very much national matter, and the competence for the content and the organisation of studies remains at national level.
Rapporteur approach
Rapporteur approach
The Rapporteur is particularly concerned about student mobility within the European Union and about eventual interferences of the Bologna process on it: is the new European Area of Higher Education contributing to increase European students' mobility or is it rather discouraging and hindering it?
The Rapporteur is particularly concerned about student mobility within the European Union and about eventual interferences of the Bologna process on it: is the new European Area of Higher Education contributing to increase European students' mobility or is it rather discouraging and hindering it?
It should not be forgotten that mobility is one of the six main objectives specified on the Bologna Declaration, whose signatories intend to promote it by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of the free movement , with particular attention not only to students, but also to teachers, researchers and administrative staff.
It should not be forgotten that mobility is one of the six main objectives specified on the Bologna Declaration, whose signatories intend to promote it by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of the free movement , with particular attention not only to students, but also to teachers, researchers and administrative staff.
Mobility is therefore a cornerstone regarding the establishment of the European Area of Higher Education, as well as one of the priority issues on the 2007-2009 agenda.
Mobility is therefore a cornerstone regarding the establishment of the European Area of Higher Education, as well as one of the priority issues on the 2007-2009 agenda.
The Rapporteur approves the progressive approach adopted by the European Commission and also supports its ongoing work.
The Rapporteur approves the progressive approach adopted by the European Commission and also supports its ongoing work.
Member States should be supported in their efforts to modernise and innovatively reform their respective higher education systems, which is absolutely needed in order to face the challenges of globalisation.
Member States should be supported in their efforts to modernise and innovatively reform their respective higher education systems, which is absolutely needed in order to face the challenges of globalisation.
Nevertheless, the Rapporteur is concerned about past and future implementation of the Bologna Process, as a number current developments taking place in some Member States are not in the intended or desired direction.
Nevertheless, the Rapporteur is concerned about past and future implementation of the Bologna Process, as a number current developments taking place in some Member States are not in the intended or desired direction.
Almost a decade after its launch, the Rapporteur thinks that it is time for reflexion and debate as far as the Bologna process, its achievements and its failures are concerned.
Almost a decade after its launch, the Rapporteur thinks that it is time for reflexion and debate as far as the Bologna process, its achievements and its failures are concerned.
We should try to determine how education systems have changed as a result of Bologna throughout the European Union, and also how these developments and changes have affected the quality of European higher education.
We should try to determine how education systems have changed as a result of Bologna throughout the European Union, and also how these developments and changes have affected the quality of European higher education.
First of all, the Rapporteur would like to underline that access to high quality education must be an option for every European citizen, regardless of their citizenship, country or area of birth.
First of all, the Rapporteur would like to underline that access to high quality education must be an option for every European citizen, regardless of their citizenship, country or area of birth.
Mobility has many positive effects not only on the mobile individual, but also on higher education institutions and on the society as a whole.
Mobility has many positive effects not only on the mobile individual, but also on higher education institutions and on the society as a whole.
Moreover, its social dimension should not be forgotten: mobility provides an experience of invaluable richness in terms of academic, cultural and social diversity.
Moreover, its social dimension should not be forgotten: mobility provides an experience of invaluable richness in terms of academic, cultural and social diversity.
Finally, it eases networking and cooperation between higher education institutions, which is absolutely necessary for a qualitative development of the European higher education and research establishment.
Finally, it eases networking and cooperation between higher education institutions, which is absolutely necessary for a qualitative development of the European higher education and research establishment.
The Rapporteur wants to stress and to draw special attention to:
The Rapporteur wants to stress and to draw special attention to:
Student mobility: Quality and Efficiency
Student mobility: Quality and Efficiency
Higher education reform and modernisation of universities: quality, innovation and flexibility
Higher education reform and modernisation of universities: quality, innovation and flexibility
Funding and investment in student mobility and social dimension
Funding and investment in student mobility and social dimension
Quality and full recognition of diplomas
Quality and full recognition of diplomas
Bologna Process implementation in all countries concerned
Bologna Process implementation in all countries concerned
Although the Rapporteur acknowledges the paramount importance of such intergovernmental initiative, insist on the fact that its implementation is very fragmented at national level.
Although the Rapporteur acknowledges the paramount importance of such intergovernmental initiative, insist on the fact that its implementation is very fragmented at national level.
Therefore, for the time being it is rather difficult to recognise the European "facade" of the Bologna Process, and that is why a legal framework should be created, having always in mind that students must be at the heart of all questions and initiatives as far as education is concerned.
Therefore, for the time being it is rather difficult to recognise the European "facade" of the Bologna Process, and that is why a legal framework should be created, having always in mind that students must be at the heart of all questions and initiatives as far as education is concerned.
Комисията по бюджети приканва водещата комисия по култура и образование да включи в предложението за резолюция, което ще приеме, следните предложения:
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Culture and Education, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
А. като има предвид, че Парламентът винаги е разглеждал мобилността на студентите като свой бюджетен приоритет и полага усилия да гарантира подходящо равнище на финансиране за програмите на ЕС в областта на образованието; като има предвид, че неговата твърда позиция по този въпрос доведе, въпреки съкращаването на средства от страна на Съвета по предложението на Комисията, до увеличаване на бюджетните кредити за програмите „Обучение през целия живот“ и „Еразмус Мундус“, договорено в Многогодишната финансова рамка 2007-2013 г., както и в последните бюджетни процедури,
A. whereas Parliament has constantly made the mobility of students its budgetary priority and endeavoured to ensure an appropriate level of funding for the EU programmes in the field of education; whereas its firm position on that issue led, despite cuts operated by the Council on the Commission's proposal, to an increase of appropriations for the Lifelong Learning and Erasmus Mundus programmes negotiated under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-2013 and in recent budgetary procedures,
Maria Badia i Cutchet, Katerina Batzeli, Ivo Belet, Giovanni Berlinguer, Nicodim Bulzesc, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Milan Gaľa, Claire Gibault, Vasco Graça Moura, Luis Herrero-Tejedor, Ruth Hieronymi, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Manolis Mavrommatis, Dumitru Oprea, Doris Pack, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Mihaela Popa, Christa Prets, Pál Schmitt, Hannu Takkula, Helga Trüpel, Thomas Wise, Tomáš Zatloukal
Maria Badia i Cutchet, Katerina Batzeli, Ivo Belet, Giovanni Berlinguer, Nicodim Bulzesc, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Milan Gaľa, Claire Gibault, Vasco Graça Moura, Luis Herrero-Tejedor, Ruth Hieronymi, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Manolis Mavrommatis, Dumitru Oprea, Doris Pack, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Mihaela Popa, Christa Prets, Pál Schmitt, Hannu Takkula, Helga Trüpel, Thomas Wise, Tomáš Zatloukal
Victor Boştinaru, Mary Honeyball, Ewa Tomaszewska, Cornelis Visser, Jaroslav Zvěřina
Victor Boştinaru, Mary Honeyball, Ewa Tomaszewska, Cornelis Visser, Jaroslav Zvěřina
PE 402.864v02-00
PE 402.864v02-00
ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ НА МОТИВИТЕ.............................................................................................17
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................14
<TitreType СТАНОВИЩЕ на комисията по икономически и парични въпроси 19
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ...............19
<TitreType> СТАНОВИЩЕ </TitreType><CommissionResp> на комисията по граждански свободи , правосъдие и вътрешни работи 27
OPINION of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs 22
РЕЗУЛТАТ ОТ ОКОНЧАТЕЛНОТО ГЛАСУВАНЕ В КОМИСИЯ...................................31
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................26
– като взе предвид член 11 от Хартата за основните права на Европейския съюз
– having regard to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
– като взе предвид протокола за системата на публичното радиоразпръскване в държавите-членки, приложен към Договора от Амстердам
– having regard to the protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States
– като взе предвид работния документ на службите на Комисията, озаглавен „Плурализъм на медиите в държавите-членки на Европейския съюз“ ( SEC(2007)0032 ),
– having regard to the Commission staff working document entitled "Media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union" ( SEC(2007)0032 ),
– като взе предвид Директива 2007/65/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 11 декември 2007 г. за изменение на Директива 89/552/ЕИО на Съвета относно координирането на някои разпоредби, формулирани в действащи закони, подзаконови и административни актове на държавите-членки, отнасящи се до упражняване на телевизионна дейност
– having regard to Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 20 ноември 2002 г. относно концентрирането на медиите
– having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2002 on media concentration
– като взе предвид приетата 2005 г. Конвенция на ЮНЕСКО за опазване и насърчаване на многообразието от форми на културно изразяване (Конвенция на ЮНЕСКО за културното многообразие),
– having regard to the 2005 Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (Unesco Convention on cultural diversity),
– като взе предвид резолюцията си от 22 април 2004 г. относно рисковете за нарушаване на свободата на изразяване и информация в ЕС и особено в Италия (член 11, параграф 2 от Хартата за основните права)
– having regard to its resolution of 22 April 2004 on the risks of violation, in the EU and especially in Italy, of freedom of expression and information (Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
– като взе предвид Съобщението на Комисията от 2001 г. за прилагане на правилата за държавните помощи по отношение на публичната услуга разпространение на радио- и телевизионни програми (2001/C 320/04),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 2001 on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting ((2001/C 320/04),
– като взе предвид Резолюцията на Съвета от 25 януари 1999 г. относно публичната услуга разпространение на радио- и телевизионни програми (1999/C 30/01),
– having regard to the Council Resolution of 25 January 1999 concerning public service broadcasting (1999/C 30/01),
– като взе предвид Препоръка Rec(2007)3 на Комитета на министрите на Съвета на Европа от 31 януари 2007 г. към държавите-членки относно мисията на обществените медии в информационното общество,
– having regard to the Recommendation Rec(2007)3 of 31 January 2007 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on the remit of public service media in the information society,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по култура и образование и становищата на комисията по икономически и парични въпроси, комисията по промишленост, изследвания и енергетика и на комисията по граждански свободи, правосъдие и вътрешни работи ( A6‑0303/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and ( A6‑0303/2008 ),
A. като има предвид, че Европейският съюз потвърди своя ангажимент за защита и насърчаване на плурализма на медиите като съществен стълб на правото на свобода на изразяване на мнения и свобода на информация съгласно член 11 от Хартата на основните права, които представляват основни принципи за опазване на демокрацията, гражданския плурализъм и културното многообразие,
A. whereas the European Union has confirmed its commitment to the defence and the promotion of media pluralism, as an essential pillar of the right to information and freedom of expression enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which remain fundamental principles for preserving democracy, civic pluralism and cultural diversity,
Б. като има предвид, че Европейският парламент нееднократно е изразявал становището си, че Комисията следва да установи стабилна законова рамка, както в областта на медиите, така и за информационното общество като цяло, която да осигурява еднакво равнище на защита на плурализма в държавите-членки и да позволява на операторите да се възползват от възможностите, предоставени от единния пазар,
B. whereas Parliament has repeatedly expressed its view that the Commission should establish a stable legal framework, both in the media and in the information society as a whole, aimed at ensuring an equivalent level of protection of pluralism in the Member States and enabling operators to benefit from the opportunities created by the single market,
В. като има предвид, че както подчертава Комисията в гореспоменатия работен документ на службите си, концепцията за плурализма на средствата за масово осведомяване не може да се сведе единствено до въпроса за концентрирането на собствеността на дружествата, а включва и въпроси, свързани с обществените радио- и телевизионни услуги, политическата власт, икономическата конкуренция, културното многообразие, развитието на нови технологии, прозрачността и условията на труд за журналистите в Европейския съюз,
C. whereas, as the Commission stressed in its above-mentioned staff working document, the concept of media pluralism cannot be limited to the issue of concentration of ownership of companies, but also includes issues related to public broadcasting services, political power, competition in the economy, cultural diversity, the development of new technologies, transparency, and the working conditions of journalists in the Union,
Г. като има предвид, че обществените органи за радио- и телевизионни услуги трябва да разполагат с необходимите ресурси и институции, за да могат да бъдат действително независими по отношение на какъвто и да е политически натиск и по отношение на пазарните сили,
D. whereas public broadcasting services need to have the necessary resources and institutions to allow them to be genuinely independent of political pressures and market forces,
Д. като има предвид, че понастоящем обществените органи за радио- и телевизионни услуги са принудени, неоснователно и в ущърб на качеството на съдържанието на техните програми, да се конкурират за зрителския интерес с търговските канали, чиято крайна цел не е качеството, а удовлетворяване на търсенето от страната на мнозинството от аудиторията,
E. whereas as things stand public broadcasting services are under pressure, unjustifiably and to the detriment of content quality, to compete for ratings with commercial channels, whose objective is ultimately not quality but satisfaction of majority public taste,
Е. като има предвид, че Конвенция на ЮНЕСКО за културното многообразие отдава основно значение, наред с другото, на създаването на условия, допринасящи за многообразието на медиите,
F. whereas the Unesco Convention on cultural diversity attaches considerable importance to, inter alia, the creation of conditions conducive to media diversity,
Ж. като има предвид, че Конвенцията на ЮНЕСКО признава правото на участващите страни да предприемат мерки за насърчаване на многообразието от средства за масово осведомяване, включително посредством обществената услуга разпространение на радио- и телевизионни програми,
G. whereas the same Unesco Convention recognises the right of its parties to take measures aimed at enhancing diversity of the media, including through public service broadcasting,
З. като има предвид, че важната роля на обществените аудиовизуални средства за масово осведомяване по отношение на осигуряването на плурализма е призната в Конвенцията на ЮНЕСКО за културното многообразие и в приложения към Договора от Амстердам протокол за системата на публичното радиоразпръскване в държавите-членки, в който се казва, че системата на публичното радиоразпръскване в държавите-членки е пряко свързана с демократичните, социални и културни потребности на всяко общество и с необходимостта за запазване на плурализма на средствата за масово осведомяване, като държавите-членки са отговорни за определяне на мисията на общественото телевизионно и радиоразпръскване и за осигуряване на финансирането му,
H. whereas the important role of the public audiovisual media in ensuring pluralism is recognised in the Unesco Convention on cultural diversity and in the Amsterdam Treaty protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, which stipulates that the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and the need to preserve media pluralism, while the Member States are responsible for determining the remit of public television broadcasting and providing for its funding,
И. като има предвид, че Съобщението на Комисията от 2001 г. напълно признава централната роля на органите за общественото радиоразпръскване по отношение на насърчаването на плурализма и на културното и езиково многообразие и подчертава, че при проверката на споменатите държавни помощи, Комисията ще прилага критерии като например значението на насърчаването на културното многообразие и на задоволяването на демократичните, социални и културни потребности на всяко общество,
I. whereas the Commission Communication of 2001 fully recognises the central role played by public broadcasting bodies in promoting plurality and cultural and linguistic diversity and stresses that, in examining the State aids in question, the Commission will apply criteria such as the importance of promoting cultural diversity and meeting the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society,