natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission states that its proposal is necessary because Slovakia, for historical reasons, does not have sufficient reserves to cover the cost of dismantling the reactors and because commitments have been entered into under the Act of Accession regarding the early shutdown of the Bohunice VI reactors.
The Commission states that its proposal is necessary because Slovakia, for historical reasons, does not have sufficient reserves to cover the cost of dismantling the reactors and because commitments have been entered into under the Act of Accession regarding the early shutdown of the Bohunice VI reactors.
The rapporteur accepts these grounds and stresses that both partners must comply with the provisions laid down in the Act of Accession.
The rapporteur accepts these grounds and stresses that both partners must comply with the provisions laid down in the Act of Accession.
The decision to decommission Bohunice VI stemmed from a detailed safety review of the reactors in 1999.
The decision to decommission Bohunice VI stemmed from a detailed safety review of the reactors in 1999.
International experts came to the conclusion that the design flaws in the reactors were so serious that they could not be remedied effectively at a reasonable cost.
International experts came to the conclusion that the design flaws in the reactors were so serious that they could not be remedied effectively at a reasonable cost.
Having established that Bohunice units 1 and 2 could not ‘reasonably achieve a high level of nuclear safety’, the Commission again confirmed in 2002 that they would have to be decommissioned
Having established that Bohunice units 1 and 2 could not ‘reasonably achieve a high level of nuclear safety’, the Commission again confirmed in 2002 that they would have to be decommissioned
Bohunice VI is a twin-unit facility with WWER 440/230 reactors.
Bohunice VI is a twin-unit facility with WWER 440/230 reactors.
In order not to jeopardise security of energy supply, it has been agreed that Unit 1 will begin to be decommissioned at the end of 2006 and Unit 2, at the end of 2008.
In order not to jeopardise security of energy supply, it has been agreed that Unit 1 will begin to be decommissioned at the end of 2006 and Unit 2, at the end of 2008.
Because of interactions that might have a bearing on safety, the relatively cramped conditions in the pressure vessel system, and radiation from the second reactor, which will still be in operation, essential decommissioning operations will be impossible to undertake immediately after Unit 1 has been shut down.
Because of interactions that might have a bearing on safety, the relatively cramped conditions in the pressure vessel system, and radiation from the second reactor, which will still be in operation, essential decommissioning operations will be impossible to undertake immediately after Unit 1 has been shut down.
Initially, therefore, after the fuel elements have been removed and the water circuits and the vessels – as far as possible – emptied, the reactor should be mothballed so as to be brought into as safe a quiescent condition as possible.
Initially, therefore, after the fuel elements have been removed and the water circuits and the vessels – as far as possible – emptied, the reactor should be mothballed so as to be brought into as safe a quiescent condition as possible.
Once Unit 2 has likewise been shut down, the major structural decommissioning operations can be started.
Once Unit 2 has likewise been shut down, the major structural decommissioning operations can be started.
According to the information currently available, the two units are to be decommissioned in stages
According to the information currently available, the two units are to be decommissioned in stages
COM(2004)0719 . and remain ‘in mothballs’ for 30 years.
COM(2004)0719 . and remain ‘in mothballs’ for 30 years.
The Slovak Government estimates that, at 2000 prices, decommissioning of the twin-unit facility, including waste disposal and final storage of the fuel elements, will cost €750 m
The Slovak Government estimates that, at 2000 prices, decommissioning of the twin-unit facility, including waste disposal and final storage of the fuel elements, will cost €750 m
As regards a twin-unit facility with the same WWER 440/230 reactor type, the figure, purely for decommissioning up to the ‘green field’ stage, quoted by the Greifswald-based German state-controlled company Energiewerke Nord is €434 m
As regards a twin-unit facility with the same WWER 440/230 reactor type, the figure, purely for decommissioning up to the ‘green field’ stage, quoted by the Greifswald-based German state-controlled company Energiewerke Nord is €434 m
BFS 2000: Federal Radiation Protection Office, Nuclear Safety Department: Ermittlung von Einsparpotenzialen bei Stilllegung und Rückbau deutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen (Calculation of potential savings in the decommissioning and dismantling of German nuclear facilities), project O2 S 7778, commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. .
BFS 2000: Federal Radiation Protection Office, Nuclear Safety Department: Ermittlung von Einsparpotenzialen bei Stilllegung und Rückbau deutscher kerntechnischer Anlagen (Calculation of potential savings in the decommissioning and dismantling of German nuclear facilities), project O2 S 7778, commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. .
Without drawing any conclusions beyond a rough approximation, therefore, the figure of €750 m quoted for Bohunice can be considered fairly realistic.
Without drawing any conclusions beyond a rough approximation, therefore, the figure of €750 m quoted for Bohunice can be considered fairly realistic.
On the other hand, it should also be borne in mind that the EU contribution will be payable up to 2013, in other words while decommissioning is still in its early stages.
On the other hand, it should also be borne in mind that the EU contribution will be payable up to 2013, in other words while decommissioning is still in its early stages.
The initially high level of support will enable purposeful steps to be taken at the start of decommissioning, and that is a sensible approach because, for historical reasons, Slovakia did not begin to pay into a fund until 1995 and only €320 m has consequently been amassed so far
The initially high level of support will enable purposeful steps to be taken at the start of decommissioning, and that is a sensible approach because, for historical reasons, Slovakia did not begin to pay into a fund until 1995 and only €320 m has consequently been amassed so far
That said, the financial requirements mentioned are based on estimates.
That said, the financial requirements mentioned are based on estimates.
The costs of all the measures to be financed wholly or partly by EU appropriations need to be calculated more accurately so as to prevent infringements of the rules of competition on the liberalised energy market.
The costs of all the measures to be financed wholly or partly by EU appropriations need to be calculated more accurately so as to prevent infringements of the rules of competition on the liberalised energy market.
On the whole, the Commission proposal appears to be sound:
On the whole, the Commission proposal appears to be sound:
· Continuation of the aid from the EU budget is in keeping with the commitments entered into when Slovakia joined the Union.
· Continuation of the aid from the EU budget is in keeping with the commitments entered into when Slovakia joined the Union.
· If no support were provided, the fear would be that the Bohunice VI reactors might remain in operation, posing considerable risks of incidents that would not affect Slovakia alone.
· If no support were provided, the fear would be that the Bohunice VI reactors might remain in operation, posing considerable risks of incidents that would not affect Slovakia alone.
· In Slovakia there are as yet no sufficient reserves to finance the decommissioning.
· In Slovakia there are as yet no sufficient reserves to finance the decommissioning.
If one or both reactors were to be shut down and there were no EU appropriations, it might not be possible to guarantee that decommissioning operations would be undertaken without delay in order to protect people and the environment.
If one or both reactors were to be shut down and there were no EU appropriations, it might not be possible to guarantee that decommissioning operations would be undertaken without delay in order to protect people and the environment.
Be that as it may, Protocol No 9 does not stipulate completely beyond doubt that shutdown has to be followed immediately by decommissioning.
Be that as it may, Protocol No 9 does not stipulate completely beyond doubt that shutdown has to be followed immediately by decommissioning.
· Given the presently low volume of funding, the EU appropriations will make for a high degree of safety in the decommissioning operations, thus protecting people and the environment.
· Given the presently low volume of funding, the EU appropriations will make for a high degree of safety in the decommissioning operations, thus protecting people and the environment.
However, the requirements arising from the need to protect people and the environment when dealing with Bohunice VI at later stages will be impossible to meet under the regulation unless the proposed amendments are likewise taken into account.
However, the requirements arising from the need to protect people and the environment when dealing with Bohunice VI at later stages will be impossible to meet under the regulation unless the proposed amendments are likewise taken into account.
The changes/additions to the recitals and Article 2 clarify the use to be made of the appropriations and link it to the EU’s three priority objectives of ensuring compliance with stringent safety standards in the decommissioning, achieving the aim of climate protection by promoting renewable energy sources, and implementing the liberalised energy market by averting distortions of competition in the longer term.
The changes/additions to the recitals and Article 2 clarify the use to be made of the appropriations and link it to the EU’s three priority objectives of ensuring compliance with stringent safety standards in the decommissioning, achieving the aim of climate protection by promoting renewable energy sources, and implementing the liberalised energy market by averting distortions of competition in the longer term.
Article 6 of the regulation is intended to enable effective scrutiny to be brought to bear on the use of EU appropriations and ensure that they are used at the right time.
Article 6 of the regulation is intended to enable effective scrutiny to be brought to bear on the use of EU appropriations and ensure that they are used at the right time.
Information on the state of the authorisation procedure at any given moment would be helpful from that point of view.
Information on the state of the authorisation procedure at any given moment would be helpful from that point of view.
In addition, regular checks will be needed in order to determine whether the use of EU appropriations is distorting competition.
In addition, regular checks will be needed in order to determine whether the use of EU appropriations is distorting competition.
o návrhu nařízení Rady o provádění protokolu č. 9 o jaderné elektrárně Bohunice V1 na Slovensku, který je přílohou Aktu o podmínkách přistoupení České republiky, Estonska, Kypru, Litvy, Lotyšska, Maďarska, Malty, Polska, Slovenska a Slovinska k Evropské unii
on the proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of Protocol No 9 on the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia, as annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
Rozpočtový výbor přezkoumal návrhy dvou nařízení Rady o provádění protokolů č. 4 a 9 týkajících se jaderné elektrárny Ignalia (Litva) a Bohunice V1 (Slovensko), které jsou přílohou Aktu o přistoupení v roce 2004 (KOM (2004)0624).
The Committee on Budgets examined the proposals for two Council regulations on the implementation of Protocols Nos 4 and 9 on the nuclear power plants in Ignalina (Lithuania) and Bohunice V1 (Slovakia), as annexed to the 2004 Act of Accession ( COM(2004)0624 ).
Částka navržená na práce spojené s vyřazením jaderné elektrárny Ignalina z provozu činí 815 milionů eur a pro jadernou elektrárnu Bohunice V1 237 milionů eur.
The amount proposed for implementation of the action of decommissioning Ignalina is EUR 815 million, and Bohunice V1 EUR 237 million.
Váš navrhovatel je znepokojený tím, že Rada konzultovala s Evropským parlamentem pouze nařízení týkající se jaderné elektrárny Bohunice V1 (Slovensko) a nařízení týkající se elektrárny Ignalina (Litva) nikoliv, přestože finanční důsledky u této elektrárny jsou mnohem významnější.
Your draftsman is concerned that the European Parliament has only been consulted by the Council on the regulation on Bohunice V1 (Slovakia) and not on the regulation on Ignalina (Lithuania), although the financial implications for the latter are much more important.
Důvodem je, že Komise použila ve svých dvou návrzích rozdílné právní základy:
The reason for this is the difference in legal basis put forward by the Commission in its two proposals:
- v případě elektrárny Bohunice V1 se za právní základ považuje článek 203 Smlouvy o Euratomu (Evropské společenství pro atomovou energii).
- in the case of Bohunice V1, Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty is supposed to be the legal base.
Protokol o jaderné elektrárně Ignalina ne předpokládá konzultace s Evropským parlamentem, zatímco podle článku 203 Smlouvy o Euratomu musí Rada konzultovat Evropský parlament.
The Protocol on Ignalina does not foresee consultation of the European Parliament,, whereas according to Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty, Parliament has to be consulted by Council.
Protokol č. 4 o elektrárně Ignalina nepočítá s navrhovanou částkou ve výši 815 milionů eur v období po 31. prosinci 2006, navrhovaný výdaj by proto byl nepovinný .
The proposed amount of EUR 815 million for the period after 31 December 2006 is not foreseen in Protocol No 4 on Ignalina, which means that the proposed expenditure would be non-compulsory.
Parlament by proto měl měl být konzultován i o návrhu týkajícím se elektrárny Ignalina.
Parliament should therefore have been consulted also on the proposal on Ignalina.
Rozpočtový výbor navrhl, aby si Výbor pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku podle článku 35 jednacího řádu Parlamentu vyžádal stanovisko Výboru pro právní záležitosti o platnosti nebo přiměřenosti právního základu návrhu nařízení Rady o provádění protokolu č. 4 o jaderné elektrárně Ignalina v Litvě, který je přílohou Aktu týkajícího se podmínek přistoupení České republiky, Estonska, Kypru, Litvy, Lotyšska, Maďarska, Malty, Polska, Slovenska a Slovinska k Evropské unii – „Programu Ignalina”.
The Committee on Budgets has suggested that the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, in accordance with Rule 35 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, request the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the validity or the appropriateness of the legal basis of the proposed Council regulation on the implementation of Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania, as annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia -“Ignalina Programme”.
Při čekání na rozhodnutí a ve snaze vyhnout se nesrovnalosti mezi částkami vyčleněnými v rámci tohoto základního právního aktu a případnou dohodou o finančním výhledu na období po roce 2006 navrhuje váš navrhovatel tři standardní pozměňovací návrhy, přičemž bere v úvahu nedávné usnesení Evropského parlamentu ze dne 8. června 2005 o politických výzvách a rozpočtových prostředcích rozšířené Unie v letech 2007–2013.
Pending a decision, your draftsman proposes three standard amendments, in an attempt to avoid any inconsistency between the amounts decided in the present basic legal act and a possible agreement on the Financial Perspective beyond 2006, taking into account the recent resolution by the European Parliament of 8 June 2005 on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013
Odstavec 2a (nový)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
The financial amounts cannot be established before agreement is reached on the financial perspective.
The financial amounts cannot be established before agreement is reached on the financial perspective.
Once a decision has been adopted, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to establish the financial amounts while keeping within the relevant ceiling of the financial framework concerned.
Once a decision has been adopted, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal to establish the financial amounts while keeping within the relevant ceiling of the financial framework concerned.
Částka potřebná k provedení prací podle článku 2 v období od 1. ledna 2007 do 31. prosince 2013 činí 237 milionů eur.
The amount necessary for implementation of the action provided for in Article 2 for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 shall be EUR 237 million..
Částka potřebná k provedení prací podle článku 2 se stanoví orientačně, podle ustanovení odstavce 34 Interinstitucionální dohody ze dne 6. května 1999 mezi Evropským parlamentem, Radou a Komisí o rozpočtové kázni a zlepšení rozpočtového postupu 1 , na 237 milionů eur, a to na období 7 let počínaje 1. lednem 2007.
The amount necessary for implementation of the action provided for in Article 2 shall be fixed on an indicative basis, under the terms of paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure 1 , at EUR 237 million, for a period of seven years beginning on 1 January 2007 .
Dohoda ve znění pozměněném rozhodnutím 2003/429/ES Evropského parlamentu a Rady (Úř. věst.
Agreement as amended by Decision 2003/429/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( OJ L 147, 14.6.2003, p.
The financial amounts are indicative until such time as the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 is adopted.
The financial amounts are indicative until such time as the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 is adopted.
Once a decision has been taken in that regard, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal that takes into account the corresponding ceiling of the financial framework in question.
Once a decision has been taken in that regard, the Commission should submit a legislative proposal that takes into account the corresponding ceiling of the financial framework in question.
Návrh nařízení Rady o provádění protokolu č. 9 o jaderné elektrárně Bohunice V1 na Slovensku, který je přílohou Aktu o podmínkách přistoupení České republiky, Estonska, Kypru, Litvy, Lotyšska, Maďarska, Malty, Polska, Slovenska a Slovinska k Evropské unii
Proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of Protocol No 9 on the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia, as annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
Výbor požádaný o stanovisko Datum oznámení na zasedání
Opinion by Date announced in plenary
Užší spolupráce – datum oznámení na zasedání
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary
Jean-Claude Martinez, José Albino Silva Peneda, Peter Šťastný
Jean-Claude Martinez, José Albino Silva Peneda, Peter Šťastný
Poznámky (údaje jsou k dispozici pouze v jednom jazyce
Comments (data available in one language only)
Návrh nařízení Rady o provádění protokolu č. 9 o jaderné elektrárně Bohunice V1 na Slovensku, který je přílohou Aktu o podmínkách přistoupení České republiky, Estonska, Kypru, Litvy, Lotyšska, Maďarska, Malty, Polska, Slovenska a Slovinska k Evropské unii
Proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of Protocol Nº 9 on the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia, as annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
článek 203 Smlouvy o ES
Article 203 EC
Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Renato Brunetta, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Lorenzo Cesa, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Nils Lundgren, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Renato Brunetta, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Lorenzo Cesa, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Adam Gierek, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Nils Lundgren, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
o návrhu nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady, kterým se stanoví obecná pravidla pro poskytování finanční pomoci Společenství v oblasti transevropských dopravních a energetických sítí a kterým se mění nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2236/95
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council determining the general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport networks and energy and amending Council Regulation (EC) n° 2236/95
PE 360.047v02-00
PE 360.047v03-00
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ..............................................................................................19
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................23
STANOVISKO Výboru pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku ...........................23
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ...............26
STANOVISKO Výboru pro dopravu a cestovní ruch .......................................34
OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ................................37
– s ohledem na návrh Komise předložený Evropskému parlamentu a Radě ( KOM(2004)0475 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2004)0475 )
– s ohledem na zprávu Rozpočtového výboru a stanoviska Výboru pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku a Výboru pro dopravu a cestovní ruch ( A6‑0283/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Transport and Tourism ( A6‑0283/2005 ),
( 4a) Ve svém usnesení ze dne 8. června 2005 o politických výzvách a rozpočtových prostředcích rozšířené Unie v letech 2007 – 2013 1 Evropský parlament zdůraznil strategický význam dopravních sítí pro konečné posílení jednotného trhu EU a pro bližší vztahy EU s kandidátskými zeměmi, předkandidátskými zeměmi a zeměmi patřícími do „okruhu přátel“.
( 4a) In its Resolution of 8 June 2005 on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 1 , t he European Parliament underlined the strategic importance of transport networks for final consolidation of the EU single market and for closer EU relations with candidate, pre-candidate and 'ring of friends' countries.
Mimoto také vyjádřil svoji ochotu zvážit inovační finanční nástroje, jako jsou záruky za úvěry, evropské koncese, evropské půjčky a fond úrokových úlev;
Moreover it also expressed its willingness to examine innovative financing instruments such as loan guarantees, European concessions, European loans and an interest relief fund.
1 Úř. věst.
1 OJ C ....