natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Problém definování „osobní potřeby“ je bezpochyby nejcitlivějším problémem při provádění směrnice 92/12/EHS.
Defining 'personal use' is undoubtedly the most delicate issue relating to the implementation of Directive 92/12/EEC.
Tento návrh umožní vyhnout se tomu, aby se soukromé osoby odvolávaly na svou osobní potřebu při převozu velkých množství výrobků, určených ve skutečnosti k obchodním účelům (obvykle jde o alkohol a cigarety určené k zásobování neoficiálního trhu, zejména pak nočních podniků, které toto zboží prodávají, aniž by jej zahrnuly do svého obratu).
Pursuant to that concept, individuals will not be able to cite their own needs as justification for transporting large quantities of products which are actually intended for commercial purposes (generally speaking, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages to be sold unofficially in night-time establishments which do not record such sales in their turnover figures).
Je proto nyní namístě pro každou z uvedených situací definovat jednoznačně osobu plátce spotřební daně a povinnosti, které musí dodržovat v cílovém členském státě, za účelem harmonizace příslušných vnitrostátních předpisů platných v jednotlivých členských státech.
An unambiguous definition should therefore be given of the person from whom excise duty is due and the requirements to be met in the Member State of destination in each of the situations referred to , with a view to harmonisation of the relevant internal laws in force in the Member States .
„Za obchodní účely se považují veškeré účely jiné, než jsou osobní potřeby soukromých osob“
'Commercial purposes' shall be deemed to be all purposes other than personal use by private individuals.
Za obchodní účely se považují veškeré účely jiné, než jsou osobní potřeby soukromých osob.
'Commercial purposes' shall be deemed to be all purposes other than personal use by private individuals.
Osobní potřebou se rozumí pořízení výrobků v malých množstvích pro použití k čistě soukromým účelům.
'Personal use' means the purchase of products in small quantities to be used for purely private purposes.
Problém definování „osobní potřeby“ je bezpochyby nejcitlivějším problémem při uplatňování směrnice 92/12/EHS.
Defining 'personal use' is undoubtedly the most delicate issue relating to the implementation of Directive 92/12/EEC.
Tento návrh umožní vyhnout se tomu, aby se soukromé osoby odvolávaly na svou osobní potřebu při převozu velkých množství výrobků, určených ve skutečnosti k obchodním účelům (obvykle jde o alkohol a cigarety určené k zásobování neoficiálního trhu, zejména pak nočních podniků, které toto zboží prodávají, aniž by ho zahrnuly do svého obratu).
Pursuant to that concept, individuals will not be able to cite their own needs as justification for transporting large quantities of products which are actually intended for commercial purposes (generally speaking, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages to be sold unofficially in night-time establishments which do not record such sales in their turnover figures).
U výrobků pořízených soukromými osobami pro jejich osobní potřebu a jimi převážených z jednoho členského státu do druhého se spotřební daně vybírají v tom členském státě, kde byly výrobky pořízeny.“
Excise duty on products acquired by private individuals for personal use and transported from one Member State to another by them shall be charged in the Member State in which the products are acquired.
„U výrobků pořízených soukromými osobami pro jejich osobní potřebu (tzn. pro použití k čistě soukromým účelům v malých množstvích , a jimi převážených z jednoho členského státu do druhého se spotřební daně vybírají v tom členském státě, kde byly výrobky pořízeny.“
Excise duty on products acquired by private individuals for personal use (i.e. to be used for private purposes in small quantities) and transported from one Member State to another by them shall be charged in the Member State in which the products are acquired.
Koordinační pozměňovací návrh.
This is a coordination amendment.
Skutečnost, že rovněž v článku 8 je uvedeno, že užití musí sloužit k čistě soukromým účelům v malých množstvích, logicky upevňuje znění navrhované v článku 7.
The statement in Article 8 that use must be for private purposes in small quantities follows on logically the wording proposed for Article 7.
Návrh směrnice Rady, kterou se mění směrnice 92/12/EHS o obecné úpravě, držení, pohybu a sledování výrobků podléhajících spotřební dani
Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products
Datum jmenování
Jacques Toubon
Charlotte Cederschiöld, Bert Doorn, Mia De Vits, Janelly Fourtou, Evelyne Gebhardt, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour,Christopher Heaton-Harris, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Alexander Lambsdorff, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Manuel Medina Ortega, Zita Pleštinská, Zuzana Roithová, Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda, Andreas Schwab, Heide Rühle, József Szájer, Jacques Toubon, Barbara Weiler, Phillip Whitehead
Charlotte Cederschiöld, Bert Doorn, Mia De Vits, Janelly Fourtou, Evelyne Gebhardt, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Alexander Lambsdorff, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Manuel Medina Ortega, Zita Pleštinská, Zuzana Roithová, Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda, Andreas Schwab, Heide Rühle, József Szájer, Jacques Toubon, Barbara Weiler, Phillip Whitehead
Návrh směrnice Rady, kterou se mění směrnice 92/12/EHS o obecné úpravě, držení, pohybu a sledování výrobků podléhajících spotřební dani
Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding movement and monitoring of such products
článek 93 Smlouvy o ES
Article 93EC
IMCO 15.9..2004
IMCO 15.9..2004
Zpravodaj Datum jmenování
Rapporteur (s) Date appointed
Dariusz Rosati 13.9.2004
Dariusz Rosati 13.9.2004
Konzultace s Evropským hoposdářským a sociálním výborem Datum rozhodnutí na zasedání
European Economic and Social Committee consulted Date of decision in plenary
Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, Paolo Cirino Pomicino, Jan Christian Ehler, Elisa Ferreira, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Robert Goebbels, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Ian Hudghton, Sophia in 't Veld, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Kurt Joachim Lauk, Astrid Lulling, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Dariusz Rosati, Eoin Ryan, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Peter Skinner, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Sahra Wagenknecht, Lars Wohlin
Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, Paolo Cirino Pomicino, Jan Christian Ehler, Elisa Ferreira, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Robert Goebbels, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Ian Hudghton, Sophia in 't Veld, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Kurt Joachim Lauk, Astrid Lulling, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Dariusz Rosati, Eoin Ryan, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Peter Skinner, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Sahra Wagenknecht, Lars Wohlin
Datum předložení – A[6
Date tabled – A[6
PE 355.666v03-00
PE 355.666v03-00
– s ohledem na podnět Lucemburského velkovévodství (5429/2005)
– having regard to the initiative of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (5429/2005)
– s ohledem na sdělení Komise Evropskému parlamentu a Radě - Demokratický dohled nad Europolem ( KOM(2002)0095 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council - Democratic Control over Europol ( COM(2002)0095 ),
− s ohledem na své doporučení Radě ze dne 30. května 2002 o budoucím směřování Europolu a jeho automatickém začlenění do systému institucí Evropské unie
− having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 30 May 2002 on the future development of Europol and its automatic incorporation into the institutional system of the European Union
Přijaté texty, P5_TA(2002)0269 . ,
Texts Adopted, P5_TA(2002)0269 . ,
– s ohledem na své doporučení Radě ze dne 10. dubna 2003 o budoucím směřování Europolu
– having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 10 April 2003 on the future development of Europol
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro občanské svobody, spravedlnost a vnitřní věci ( A6‑0139/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0139/2005 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že žádná provozní a organizační opatření týkající se Europolu ani současná činnost Europolu a budoucí programy na základě potřeb Evropské unie a členských států nebyly s Parlamentem konzultovány a ani o nich nebyl informován; že nedostatek informací neumožňuje Parlamentu posoudit relevantnost a přiměřenost navrženého rozhodnutí;
A. whereas Parliament has not been consulted on, or informed of, any of the operational and organisational measures concerning Europol, or Europol’s current activities and future programmes in response to the needs of the EU and the Member States; whereas this lack of information makes it impossible for Parliament to assess the relevance and adequacy of the proposed decision;
The European Parliament has been consulted on the initiative presented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with a view to adopting a Council Decision adjusting the basic salaries and allowances of Europol staff.
The European Parliament has been consulted on the initiative presented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with a view to adopting a Council Decision adjusting the basic salaries and allowances of Europol staff.
Like his predecessors your rapporteur believes that this proposal needs to be assessed in the more general context of the latest developments concerning Europol, and in particular, checking whether the European Parliament's repeated requests on the requisite democratic control of Europol and on data protection and access to documents are being satisfied by the Council or not.
Like his predecessors your rapporteur believes that this proposal needs to be assessed in the more general context of the latest developments concerning Europol, and in particular, checking whether the European Parliament’s repeated requests on the requisite democratic control of Europol and on data protection and access to documents are being satisfied by the Council or not.
Europol: an EU security body lacking transparency and accountability
Europol: an EU security body lacking transparency and accountability
The Parliament had made a series of requests - already set out, in part, in an earlier recommendation
The Parliament had made a series of requests - already set out, in part, in an earlier recommendation
EP Recommendation (Turco-Von Boetticher report) to the Council, 30 May 2002, P5-TAPROV(2002)0269 . - regarding various problematic aspects of Europol, on which it demanded urgent Council action, with specific reference to greater democratic, judicial and budgetary control over Europol.
EP Recommendation (Turco-Von Boetticher report) to the Council, 30 May 2002, P5-TAPROV(2002)0269 . - regarding various problematic aspects of Europol, on which it demanded urgent Council action, with specific reference to greater democratic, judicial and budgetary control over Europol.
The Parliament asked for:
The Parliament asked for:
- a single annual activities report to be forwarded to Council and Parliament; the formal right to hold an exchange of views with the Council presidency on the annual activities report; a formal right to ask the Director of Europol to appear before the appropriate parliamentary committee;
- a single annual activities report to be forwarded to Council and Parliament; the formal right to hold an exchange of views with the Council presidency on the annual activities report; a formal right to ask the Director of Europol to appear before the appropriate parliamentary committee;
- the obligation for the joint supervisory body responsible for data protection to draw up an annual activities report, forward it to the EP and present it to the appropriate parliamentary committee;
- the obligation for the joint supervisory body responsible for data protection to draw up an annual activities report, forward it to the EP and present it to the appropriate parliamentary committee;
The protocol did only partially addressed these issues
The protocol only partially addressed these issues
New article 34 "Informing the European Parliament" (point 8.2 of the Protocol) states: 'The Presidency of the Council or its representative may appear before the European Parliament with a view to discuss general questions relating to Europol.
New article 34 ‘Informing the European Parliament’ (point 8.2 of the Protocol) states: ‘The Presidency of the Council or its representative may appear before the European Parliament with a view to discuss general questions relating to Europol.
The Presidency of the Council or its representative may be assisted by the Director of Europol.
The Presidency of the Council or its representative may be assisted by the Director of Europol.
The Presidency of the Council or its representative shall, with respect to the European Parliament, take into account the obligations of discretion and confidentiality'. but it did not meet other expectations:
The Presidency of the Council or its representative shall, with respect to the European Parliament, take into account the obligations of discretion and confidentiality’. but it did not meet other expectations:
- reform of the Europol Management Board to ensure that over and above a representative of each Member State, it also contained two representatives from the Commission and Parliament respectively;
- reform of the Europol Management Board to ensure that over and above a representative of each Member State, it also contained two representatives from the Commission and Parliament respectively;
- EP involvement on an equal basis with the Council in the Europol Director nomination and dismissal process.
- EP involvement on an equal basis with the Council in the Europol Director nomination and dismissal process.
The Europol convention, being of intergovernmental nature, makes no reference to information or involvement of the European Parliament (out of article 34) when dealing with budget (article 35), Europol annual report or work programme (article 28 paragraph 10).
The Europol convention, being of intergovernmental nature, makes no reference to information or involvement of the European Parliament (out of article 34) when dealing with budget (article 35), Europol annual report or work programme (article 28 paragraph 10).
In this context none of the following documents - of certain relevance and importance! - has been forwarded to the Parliament :
In this context none of the following documents - of certain relevance and importance! - has been forwarded to the Parliament :
- Europol annual report for 2004;
- Europol annual report for 2004;
- Europol work programme for 2006;
- Europol work programme for 2006;
- Draft Europol budget for 2006.
- Draft Europol budget for 2006.
This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation.
This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation.
How can there be, in the so-called Area of freedom, security and justice, such an imbalance between security goals and transparency requirements?
How can there be, in the so-called Area of freedom, security and justice, such an imbalance between security goals and transparency requirements?
The only document received by our Committee is the second activity report of the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (November 2002-October 2004).
The only document received by our Committee is the second activity report of the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (November 2002-October 2004).
Your rapporteur would like to emphasize that it is due only to the initiative of Mr Emilio Aced Feléz, Chairman of the JSB, and not to Council.
Your rapporteur would like to emphasize that it is due only to the initiative of Mr Emilio Aced Feléz, Chairman of the JSB, and not to Council.
In its previous recommendations to the Council, the EP demanded that the latter adopt a provision guaranteeing a level of data protection and controls on the respect of such rules, equivalent to the level guaranteed in the first pillar (EP and Council Directive 95/46/EC), and the gathering of data concerning the development of organised crime, which should be included in the annual reports to be forwarded to the EP.
In its previous recommendations to the Council, the EP demanded that the latter adopt a provision guaranteeing a level of data protection and controls on the respect of such rules, equivalent to the level guaranteed in the first pillar (EP and Council Directive 95/46/EC), and the gathering of data concerning the development of organised crime, which should be included in the annual reports to be forwarded to the EP.
The problem of protecting privacy and personal data has become chronic in the third pillar, particularly regarding exchange of data (whether personal or not) with third countries (ie the United States) and with European institutions or bodies (such as the draft agreement between Europol and Eurojust).
The problem of protecting privacy and personal data has become chronic in the third pillar, particularly regarding exchange of data (whether personal or not) with third countries (i.e. the United States) and with European institutions or bodies (such as the draft agreement between Europol and Eurojust).
The Commission has several times announced that it would present a legal act in this connection but without any concrete effect until now.
The Commission has several times announced that it would present a legal act in this connection but without any concrete effect until now.
Your rapporteur welcomes the approach of the Joint Supervisory Body aimed at "examining all the agreements that Europol has drawn up with third states and bodies and scrutinising orders to open analysis files" as well as its commitment to "ensure that data protection concerns are taken into account when new initiatives involving Europol are being drawn up"
Your rapporteur welcomes the approach of the Joint Supervisory Body aimed at ‘examining all the agreements that Europol has drawn up with third states and bodies and scrutinising orders to open analysis files’ as well as its commitment to ‘ensure that data protection concerns are taken into account when new initiatives involving Europol are being drawn up’
Second activity report of the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (November 2002-October 2004), p.25 and 27. .
Second activity report of the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (November 2002-October 2004), p.25 and 27. .
This is of particular relevance insofar as the exchange of data between Europol and third countries is to increase in the context of the fight against international organised crime and terrorism.
This is of particular relevance insofar as the exchange of data between Europol and third countries is to increase in the context of the fight against international organised crime and terrorism.
Such agreements should not reduce the level of protection of privacy for EU citizens.
Such agreements should not reduce the level of protection of privacy for EU citizens.
Some doubts could be cast on the Council action as regards Europol.
Some doubts could be cast on the Council action as regards Europol.
The restrictive approach followed by Member States has led to give Europol a too limited initial mandate that since then, has to be enlarged so as to better fight and organised crime and terrorism.
The restrictive approach followed by Member States has led to give Europol a too limited initial mandate that since then, has to be enlarged so as to better fight and organised crime and terrorism.
A number of protocols to the Europol convention have been adopted (the Parliament being only consulted) but most of them are not yet ratified, making Council decisions ineffective and, more important, reducing Europol efficiency and added-value.
A number of protocols to the Europol convention have been adopted (the Parliament being only consulted) but most of them are not yet ratified, making Council decisions ineffective and, more important, reducing Europol efficiency and added-value.
Much remains to be done as shown in the Hague Programme (Presidency Conclusions, 4-5 November 2004, paragraph 2.3 on Police cooperation :
Much remains to be done as shown in the Hague Programme (Presidency Conclusions, 4-5 November 2004, paragraph 2.3 on Police cooperation :
"The European Council urges the Member States to enable Europol in cooperation with Eurojust to play a key role in the fight against serious cross-border (organised) crime and terrorism by:
‘The European Council urges the Member States to enable Europol in cooperation with Eurojust to play a key role in the fight against serious cross-border (organised) crime and terrorism by:
· ratifying and effectively implementing the necessary legal instruments by the end of 2004
· ratifying and effectively implementing the necessary legal instruments by the end of 2004
· providing all necessary high quality information to Europol in good time;
· providing all necessary high quality information to Europol in good time;
· encouraging good cooperation between their competent national authorities and Europol."
· encouraging good cooperation between their competent national authorities and Europol.’
In particular, several Member States have not yet ratified the protocol strengthening Europol's operational support function with respect to national police authorities
In particular, several Member States have not yet ratified the protocol strengthening Europol’s operational support function with respect to national police authorities
TU Protocol amending the Europol Convention of 27 November 2003, OJ C2, 6.1.2004, p.3. .
TU Protocol amending the Europol Convention of 27 November 2003, OJ C2, 6.1.2004, p.3. .
The perspective of the Constitutional Treaty
The perspective of the Constitutional Treaty
The JSB activity report refers in diplomatic terms to the lack of democratic control: "There is also the wider issue of parliamentary scrutiny of Europol.
The JSB activity report refers in diplomatic terms to the lack of democratic control: ‘There is also the wider issue of parliamentary scrutiny of Europol.
In 2002 the Commission came to the conclusion that the existing controls in place to supervise the work of Europol - exercised by national parliaments, the European Parliament, national data protection authorities, the JSB and the Europol Management Board - were not 'insufficient'.
In 2002 the Commission came to the conclusion that the existing controls in place to supervise the work of Europol - exercised by national parliaments, the European Parliament, national data protection authorities, the JSB and the Europol Management Board - were not ‘insufficient’.
It was noted, however, that the indirect and fragmented nature of much of this control would suggest that 'something clearer and more transparent is needed'.
It was noted, however, that the indirect and fragmented nature of much of this control would suggest that ‘something clearer and more transparent is needed’.
Such issues fall outside the remit of the JSB but it is clear that as Europol's tasks become increasingly operational, control and scrutiny of Europol's work will have to adapt to take account of this"
Such issues fall outside the remit of the JSB but it is clear that as Europol’s tasks become increasingly operational, control and scrutiny of Europol’s work will have to adapt to take account of this’
The draft Constitutional Treaty is expected to considerably improve the situation as shown in article III-276
The draft Constitutional Treaty is expected to considerably improve the situation as shown in article III-276
Article III-276 reads:
Article III-276 reads: