natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
11. zdůrazňuje, že takové kroky se vzájemně doplňují, protože se budou týkat různých segmentů trhu veřejných zakázek v oblasti obrany, a že konkrétně přípravná práce agentury EDA na kodexu může dospět k výsledkům velmi přínosným pro budoucí práci na navrhované směrnici; vyjadřuje však své znepokojení nad tím, že na straně členských států není politická vůle uznat potřebnost zvláštní směrnice, a vyzývá je, aby nedopustily, aby pokrok při přípravě kodexu jednání zastavil úsilí o vypracování směrnice;
Stresses that such courses of action are complementary, since they will tend to address different segments of the defence procurement market, and that, more specifically, the preparatory work being undertaken by the EDA on the code of conduct may yield very relevant results for future work on the proposed directive; expresses its concern, however, about the lack of political will by Member States to embrace the need for a specific directive and calls on them not to let progress on the code of conduct preclude movement on a directive;
15. vyzývá Komisi – společně s Evropskou obrannou agenturou – aby předložily dlouhodobé návrhy, v nichž bude uvedeno, jak by mohly užší vazby mezi trhy veřejných zakázek v EU a v USA a také v zemích, jako je Ukrajina a – ve specifických odvětvích – Rusko, vést jak k větší možnosti výběru, tak k účinnější specializaci;
Calls on the Commission - together with the European Defence Agency - to put forward proposals for the long term indicating how closer links between EU procurement markets and those in the US and also in countries such as Ukraine and, in specific sectors, Russia could lead to both greater choice and more efficient specialisation;
Zelená kniha o veřejných zakázkách v oblasti obrany
Green Paper on Defence Procurement
Angelika Beer 8.12.2004
Angelika Beer 8.12.2004
Angelika Beer, Panagiotis Beglitis, Monika Beňová, André Brie, Elmar Brok, Ryszard Czarnecki, Véronique De Keyser, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Camiel Eurlings, Anna Elzbieta Fotyga, Alfred Gomolka, Richard Howitt, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Helmut Kuhne, Joost Lagendijk, Vytautas Landsbergis, Cecilia Malmström, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Francisco José Millán Mon, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, João de Deus Pinheiro, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Bernd Posselt, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski, Gitte Seeberg, Marek Maciej Siwiec, Hannes Swoboda, Geoffrey Van Orden, Ari Vatanen, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Josef Zieleniec
Angelika Beer, Panagiotis Beglitis, Monika Beňová, André Brie, Elmar Brok, Ryszard Czarnecki, Véronique De Keyser, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Camiel Eurlings, Anna Elzbieta Fotyga, Alfred Gomolka, Richard Howitt, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Helmut Kuhne, Joost Lagendijk, Vytautas Landsbergis, Cecilia Malmström, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Francisco José Millán Mon, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, João de Deus Pinheiro, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Bernd Posselt, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski, Gitte Seeberg, Marek Maciej Siwiec, Hannes Swoboda, Geoffrey Van Orden, Ari Vatanen, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Josef Zieleniec
STANOVISKO Výboru pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY
k Zelené knize o veřejných zakázkách v oblasti obrany
on the Green Paper on defence procurement
Výbor pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku vyzývá Výbor pro vnitřní trh a ochranu spotřebitelů jako příslušný výbor, aby do svého návrhu usnesení začlenil tyto návrhy:
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
2. zdůrazňuje, že klíčovou překážkou spravedlivé hospodářské soutěže a řádně fungujícího jednotného trhu je sama jeho roztříštěnost, a podtrhuje, že základní podmínkou dosažení těchto cílů ve všech členských státech pro všechny výrobce z EU je reciproční přístup, pokud jde o tuto soutěž; připomíná, že objem výdajů na obranné vybavení je velmi omezený a že trh je stále roztříštěn a deformován v důsledku existence státních podniků a státních podpor a nefungující hospodářské soutěže, což vytváří nerovnováhu mezi výdaji na výzkum a vývoj a objemem výroby;
Underlines that the fragmentation of the market in itself is a crucial hindrance to fair competition and a well-functioning single market and underlines that reciprocity regarding fair competition in all Member States for all producers in the EU is a precondition for this to be achieved; notes that the amount of spending on defence equipment is strongly reduced, while the fragmentation and distortion of the market in form of state-owned companies, state subsidies and lack of competition are still the case, creating unbalanced proportions between spending on R&D in relation to the quantities produced;
4. vyjadřuje své pochybnosti, zda lze dosáhnout pozitivních výsledků pouhým interpretativním sdělením, které jen vyjasňuje stávající právní rámec a nezabývá se zásadnějšími změnami, které je třeba provést; vítá myšlenku nové směrnice, ale poukazuje na problémy se státními podniky a státní účastí a na jiné deformace trhu, které je třeba vyřešit, pokud má být zajištěna spravedlivá soutěž; domnívá se, že tato směrnice by měla omezit používání článku 296 na nezbytně nutnou míru;
Is sceptical as to what can be achieved by an interpretative communication as this only provides clarification of present legal framework, thereby not addressing the more fundamental changes that must be made; welcomes the idea of a new directive but points out the problems that must be solved regarding state-owned industry and state involvement, as well as other market distortions, in order to guarantee fair competition; considers that any such directive should reduce the use of Article 296 to the absolute minimum necessary;
8 domnívá se, že Evropská vojenská agentura a Komise by měly při přípravě návrhů přihlížet zejména k situaci výkonných malých a středních podniků;
Considers that the European Defence Agency and the Commission should pay particular attention in their proposals to the situation of small and medium-sized undertakings;
Zelená kniha o veřejných zakázkách v oblasti obrany
Green Paper on defence procurement
Gunnar Hökmark 17.3.2005
Gunnar Hökmark 17.3.2005
IMCO 10.3.2005
IMCO 10.3.2005
Výbory požádané o stanovisko Datum oznámení na zasedání
Committees(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary
ITRE 10.3.2005
ITRE 10.3.2005
Joachim Wuermeling 30.11.2004
Joachim Wuermeling 30.11.2004
Mia De Vits, Bert Doorn, Nigel Farage, Janelly Fourtou, Evelyne Gebhardt, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Pierre Jonckheer, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Alexander Lambsdorff, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Toine Manders, Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Bill Newton Dunn, Béatrice Patrie, Zita Pleštinská, Guido Podestà, Giovanni Rivera, Zuzana Roithová, Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Andreas Schwab, Eva-Britt Svensson, József Szájer, Marianne Thyssen, Jacques Toubon, Bernadette Vergnaud, Barbara Weiler, Phillip Whitehead, Joachim Wuermeling
Mia De Vits, Bert Doorn, Nigel Farage, Janelly Fourtou, Evelyne Gebhardt, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Pierre Jonckheer, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Alexander Lambsdorff, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Toine Manders, Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Bill Newton Dunn, Béatrice Patrie, Zita Pleštinská, Guido Podestà, Giovanni Rivera, Zuzana Roithová, Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Andreas Schwab, Eva-Britt Svensson, József Szájer, Marianne Thyssen, Jacques Toubon, Bernadette Vergnaud, Barbara Weiler, Phillip Whitehead, Joachim Wuermeling
Alexander Stubb, Diana Wallis
Alexander Stubb, Diana Wallis
o žádosti, aby byl poslanec Vladimír Železný zbaven imunity
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný
PE 362.633v02-00
PE 362.633v02-00
NÁVRH ROZHODNUTÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU
PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION................................................3
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................4
– s ohledem na článek 27 Ústavy České republiky,
– having regard to Article 27 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic,
– s ohledem na čl.
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0289/2005 ),
2. pověřuje svého předsedu, aby předal toto rozhodnutí a zprávu příslušného výboru příslušnému orgánu České republiky.
Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of the committee responsible to the appropriate authority of the Czech Republic.
At the sitting of 13 September 2004, the President of Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Metropolitan Court for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity on Vladimir Železný.
At the sitting of 13 September 2004, the President of Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Metropolitan Court for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity on Vladimir Zelezný.
In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The application ( suplicatoire ) was submitted by Dr Dušan Paška, Presiding Judge in the Prague Metropolitan Court to the President of Parliament.
The application ( suplicatoire ) was submitted by Dr Dusan Paske, Presiding Judge in the Prague Metropolitan Court to the President of Parliament.
Pursuant to Rule 7 (7) the Committee on Legal Affairs considered that the Prague Metropolitan Judge is the appropriate authority to submit the application.
Pursuant to Rule 7 (7) the Committee on Legal Affairs considered that the Prague Metropolitan Judge is the appropriate authority to submit the application.
The Court is requesting the waiver on parliamentary immunity of Dr Železný on the grounds that he is liable to criminal proceedings under Section 148 (1) and (4) of the Penal Code of the Czech Republic for persistent evasion of taxes, duties and other compulsory payments, on the basis of an indictment submitted by the Prague Public prosecutor on 8 March 2004.
The Court is requesting the waiver on parliamentary immunity of Dr Zelezný on the grounds that he is liable to criminal proceedings under Section 148 (1) and (4) of the Penal Code of the Czech Republic for persistent evasion of taxes, duties and other compulsory payments, on the basis of an indictment submitted by the Prague Public prosecutor on 8 March 2004.
The Court requests Parliament's consent for the continuation of the criminal proceedings conducted under file number 46 T 5/2004 of the Metropolitan Court of Prague.
The Court requests Parliament's consent for the continuation of the criminal proceedings conducted under file number 46 T 5/2004 of the Metropolitan Court of Prague.
The Court stresses that Dr Železný has remained at liberty during the above-mentioned criminal proceedings as there are no grounds for his imprisonment and nothing prevents him from continuing to perform his duties as a parliamentarian.
The Court stresses that Dr Zelezný has remained at liberty during the above-mentioned criminal proceedings as there are no grounds for his imprisonment and nothing prevents him from continuing to perform his duties as a parliamentarian.
In the application , the acting judge points out that Dr Železný was a senator of the Parliament of the Czech Republic before his election to the EP and that the Senate waived his immunity at its sitting of 23 January 2003.
In the application , the acting judge points out that Dr Zelezný was a senator of the Parliament of the Czech Republic before his election to the EP and that the Senate waived his immunity at its sitting of 23 January 2003.
Pursuant to Rule 7 (3) of the Rules of Procedure Dr. Zelezny was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to Rule 7 (3) of the Rules of Procedure Dr. Zelezny was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
At this hearing Dr Zelezny informed the committee of his views about the situation at his country with respect to him.
At this hearing Dr Zelezny informed the committee of his views about the situation at his country with respect to him.
He also delivered a written declaration translated into English with numerous annexes and exhibits.
He also delivered a written declaration translated into English with numerous annexes and exhibits.
Dr. Železný has acknowledged that, when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity had been presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity in the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
Dr. Zelezný has acknowledged that, when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity had been presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity in the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
The Senate waived the parliamentary immunity of Dr Železný apparently for the same or similar acts as those considered in connection with the present request.
The Senate waived the parliamentary immunity of Dr Zelezný apparently for the same or similar acts as those considered in connection with the present request.
When he appeared before the Committee, Dr Železný claimed that he has been a victim of political harassment and public intimidation for the last six years.
When he appeared before the Committee, Dr Zelezný claimed that he has been a victim of political harassment and public intimidation for the last six years.
He also mentioned two other cases that the police are currently investigating.
He also mentioned two other cases that the police are currently investigating.
Dr. Železný asserts that the three cases are linked (the two other cases are dealt with in two other reports).
Dr. Zelezný asserts that the three cases are linked (the two other cases are dealt with in two other reports).
In his written presentation to the Committee, Dr. Železný pointed out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
In his written presentation to the Committee, Dr. Zelezný pointed out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Dr. Železný also claims that the cases against him are groundless and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
Dr. Zelezný also claims that the cases against him are groundless and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, responded to most of the observations made by Dr. Železný, stating its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr. Železný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, responded to most of the observations made by Dr. Zelezný, stating its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr. Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: TEXTS AND PRINCIPLES
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: TEXTS AND PRINCIPLES
Article 10 of the Protocol of the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities(
Article 10 of the Protocol of the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities(
() See also Article 9 of this Protocol: 'Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.' ), annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities(
() See also Article 9 of this Protocol: 'Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.' ), annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities(
()Referred to in Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976. ), which incorporates the provisions of Article 9 of each of the protocols annexed to the Treaties establishing the ECSC, the EEC and the EAEC, reads as follows:
()Referred to in Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976. ), which incorporates the provisions of Article 9 of each of the protocols annexed to the Treaties establishing the ECSC, the EEC and the EAEC, reads as follows:
(b) in the territory of any other Member States, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
(b) in the territory of any other Member States, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
The charges brought against Dr Vladimír Železný, a Czech MEP, relate to events that took place within the territory of the Czech Republic.
The charges brought against Dr Vladimír Železný, a Czech MEP, relate to events that took place within the territory of the Czech Republic.
Dr Železný therefore enjoys the same immunities as those granted to Members of the Czech Parliament, as based on Article 26 of the Czech Constitution.
Dr Železný therefore enjoys the same immunities as those granted to Members of the Czech Parliament, as based on Article 26 of the Czech Constitution.
The procedure to be followed by the European Parliament is laid down in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
The procedure to be followed by the European Parliament is laid down in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
Ever since its Members have been elected by direct suffrage, Parliament has responded to applications for the parliamentary immunity of its Members to be waived.
Ever since its Members have been elected by direct suffrage, Parliament has responded to applications for the parliamentary immunity of its Members to be waived.
Certain general principles have emerged from Parliament's deliberations; these were given recognition in the resolution adopted at the sitting of 10 March 1987(
Certain general principles have emerged from Parliament's deliberations; these were given recognition in the resolution adopted at the sitting of 10 March 1987(
Purpose of parliamentary immunity
A. Purpose of parliamentary immunity
Parliamentary immunity is not a Member's personal privilege, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities.
Parliamentary immunity is not a Member's personal privilege, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities.
On the basis of this principle, the date on which the alleged deeds took place is of no importance and may be either prior to or subsequent to the election of the Member, since protection of Parliament through its Members is the sole consideration.
On the basis of this principle, the date on which the alleged deeds took place is of no importance and may be either prior to or subsequent to the election of the Member, since protection of Parliament through its Members is the sole consideration.
The Court of Justice has twice been consulted on the interpretation of the phrase 'during the sessions of the European Parliament', which appears in Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities.
The Court of Justice has twice been consulted on the interpretation of the phrase 'during the sessions of the European Parliament', which appears in Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities.
Furthermore, it stems from the very purpose of parliamentary immunity that the latter remains effective throughout a Member's term of office and covers the commencement of the proceedings, preparatory inquiries, measures for the execution of pre-existing judgements, appeals or applications for judgments to be set aside.
Furthermore, it stems from the very purpose of parliamentary immunity that the latter remains effective throughout a Member's term of office and covers the commencement of the proceedings, preparatory inquiries, measures for the execution of pre-existing judgements, appeals or applications for judgments to be set aside.
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, section (a), of the Protocol refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not mean that the European Parliament cannot create its own rules which, in some way, constitute 'case law'.
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, section (a), of the Protocol refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not mean that the European Parliament cannot create its own rules which, in some way, constitute 'case law'.
As regards the waiver of parliamentary immunity, such immunity, which is identical for Members of a given nationality in their national parliament and in the European Parliament, must not be confused with the waiver thereof, which is a prerogative of each individual parliament.
As regards the waiver of parliamentary immunity, such immunity, which is identical for Members of a given nationality in their national parliament and in the European Parliament, must not be confused with the waiver thereof, which is a prerogative of each individual parliament.
These rules, which are derived from decisions adopted in respect of applications for immunity to be waived, create a consistent notion of European parliamentary immunity which, in general terms, is independent of the various national parliamentary procedures.
These rules, which are derived from decisions adopted in respect of applications for immunity to be waived, create a consistent notion of European parliamentary immunity which, in general terms, is independent of the various national parliamentary procedures.
If this were not the case the disparities between members of one and the same parliament would be accentuated on the basis of their nationality.
If this were not the case the disparities between members of one and the same parliament would be accentuated on the basis of their nationality.
Through application of these principles, a constant factor has emerged in Parliament's decisions, which has become a basic criterion in its response to each request for waiver of immunity.
Through application of these principles, a constant factor has emerged in Parliament's decisions, which has become a basic criterion in its response to each request for waiver of immunity.
Immunity is not waived in any case where a Member is accused of actions that come under the heading of political activity.
Immunity is not waived in any case where a Member is accused of actions that come under the heading of political activity.