natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Datum narození ______________________ Místo narození _______________________ Pohlaví: ______
Date of birth ___________________________ Place of birth _______________________ Sex: ______
Cestovní doklad ________________________ číslo _______________________________
Travel document ________________________ number _______________________________
Číslo víza_______________ (přichází-li v úvahu), které vydal _____________________________________
Visa number_______________ (if applicable) issued by _________________________________________
na dobu ____ dní z těchto důvodů: ________________________________________
for a period of ____ days on the following grounds: ________________________________________
Vzhledem k předloženým důkazům týkajícím se délky pobytu této osoby na území členských států se má za to, že tato osoba na území členského státu ______________ vstoupila dne ___________ v _______na hraničním přechodu ________.
Having regard to the evidence relating to the duration of his (her) stay on the territory of the Member States that he (she) has provided, he (she) is considered to have entered the territory of the Member State ______________on ___________at _______at the border point________
Kontaktní údaje na níže podepsaný orgán:
Contact details of the undersigning authority:
Dotyčná osoba obdrží kopii tohoto dokumentu.
The person concerned shall receive a copy of this document.
For a general presentation of the Commission's proposal as well as for the general political objectives and guiding principles for its examination the rapporteur would like to refer to his working documents of 17 December 2004 which were presented in committee on 19 January 2005.
For a general presentation of the Commission's proposal as well as for the general political objectives and guiding principles for its examination the rapporteur would like to refer to his working documents of 17 December 2004 which were presented in committee on 19 January 2005.
The present texts seeks to explain the amendments suggested by the rapporteur.
The present texts seeks to explain the amendments suggested by the rapporteur.
They can be grouped under the following headlines:
They can be grouped under the following headlines:
Situating border control in the Community legal framework
Situating border control in the Community legal framework
At the same time the Schengen acquis was integrated in the Union framework.
At the same time the Schengen acquis was integrated in the Union framework.
Despite the fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam is in force since almost six years there remain leftovers from the period in which the Schengen cooperation was developed outside the treaties.
Despite the fact that the Treaty of Amsterdam is in force since almost six years there remain leftovers from the period in which the Schengen cooperation was developed outside the treaties.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that these leftovers need to be addressed now because otherwise the legislation under examination here cannot have the indended effect, namely, as the Commission states, to consolidate and develop further the acquis.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that these leftovers need to be addressed now because otherwise the legislation under examination here cannot have the indended effect, namely, as the Commission states, to consolidate and develop further the acquis.
First of all, the European Court of Justice needs to be competent to rule on all parts of the border code.
First of all, the European Court of Justice needs to be competent to rule on all parts of the border code.
See for example answer to question No.
See for example answer to question No.
E-1321/04 of Robert Goebbels to the Commission It is evident that a law whose respect by Member States cannot be controlled by the Court of Justice cannot be accepted in the Community framework.
E-1321/04 of Robert Goebbels to the Commission It is evident that a law whose respect by Member States cannot be controlled by the Court of Justice cannot be accepted in the Community framework.
Secondly, so far the control of the implementation of the Schengen acquis does not follow the Community method.
Secondly, so far the control of the implementation of the Schengen acquis does not follow the Community method.
Decision SCH/ Com-ex (98)26 def.) of 1998, i.e. taken after the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam but before its entry into force, provides for the setting up of a standing committee within Council for 1) to check whether countries wanting to join the Schengen area are ready and 2) "to lay the foundations so that the Executive Committee can ensure the proper application of the Convention."
Decision SCH/ Com-ex (98)26 def.) of 1998, i.e. taken after the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam but before its entry into force, provides for the setting up of a standing committee within Council for 1) to check whether countries wanting to join the Schengen area are ready and 2) "to lay the foundations so that the Executive Committee can ensure the proper application of the Convention."
These so-called Schengen evaluations (part 2) cannot and should not replace the Community method.
These so-called Schengen evaluations (part 2) cannot and should not replace the Community method.
The reports produced have no judicial follow-up, are secret, are not send to the European Parliament or to national
The reports produced have no judicial follow-up, are secret, are not send to the European Parliament or to national
Parliaments and are criticised as too soft.
Parliaments and are criticised as too soft.
Greece and the Nordic countries for example were so far not subject to any evaluation since they joined Schengen fully.
Greece and the Nordic countries for example were so far not subject to any evaluation since they joined Schengen fully.
To fulfil this task the Commission should have the possibility to set up a group of independent inspectors.
To fulfil this task the Commission should have the possibility to set up a group of independent inspectors.
In addition, the rapporteur urges the Commission to make more use of its powers under the treaty to launch infringement procedures against Member States in case of violations.
In addition, the rapporteur urges the Commission to make more use of its powers under the treaty to launch infringement procedures against Member States in case of violations.
So far there were only 5 cases in front of the Court.
So far there were only 5 cases in front of the Court.
321/87 and C-68/89 on border control, C-449/04 and C-512/03 on directive 2001/51 and C-503/03 on visas This corresponds heavily to the 509 ongoing infringement procedures related to violations of EU environmental law.
321/87 and C-68/89 on border control, C-449/04 and C-512/03 on directive 2001/51 and C-503/03 on visas This corresponds heavily to the 509 ongoing infringement procedures related to violations of EU environmental law.
Fifth Annual Survey on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law
Fifth Annual Survey on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law
Thirdly, the role of Community institutions needs to be strengthened.
Thirdly, the role of Community institutions needs to be strengthened.
Reinforcing EU citizens' and third-country national's rights
Reinforcing EU citizens' and third-country national's rights
Numerous are the complaints about discrimination when border controls are made.
Numerous are the complaints about discrimination when border controls are made.
"Foreign-looking" persons and men are much more likely to be controlled than others.
"Foreign-looking" persons and men are much more likely to be controlled than others.
Complaints are also made that persons are often not well treated when subject to a control.
Complaints are also made that persons are often not well treated when subject to a control.
The rapporteur therefore introduces a new article on the "conduct of checks" recalling the obligation to respect the human dignity at all times and not to discriminate on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
The rapporteur therefore introduces a new article on the "conduct of checks" recalling the obligation to respect the human dignity at all times and not to discriminate on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
The rapporteur also supports the Commission's proposal as regards the checks on EU citizens.
The rapporteur also supports the Commission's proposal as regards the checks on EU citizens.
EU citizens should only be subject to an identity check.
EU citizens should only be subject to an identity check.
Since in the course of their activity border guards exchange personal data the rapporteur introduces a recital recalling that the data protection directive 95/46 applies.
Since in the course of their activity border guards exchange personal data the rapporteur introduces a recital recalling that the data protection directive 95/46 applies.
The rapporteur also wants to strengthen the rights of third-country nationals who are refused entry.
The rapporteur also wants to strengthen the rights of third-country nationals who are refused entry.
So far the Commission's proposals only requires that the decision to refuse entry is "substantiated" and states the procedure for appeal.
So far the Commission's proposals only requires that the decision to refuse entry is "substantiated" and states the procedure for appeal.
The latter does, however, not mean that there is a procedure for appeal in the first place.
The latter does, however, not mean that there is a procedure for appeal in the first place.
The rapporteur introduces a series of amendments which aim to develop the Commission's proposal: a second opinion of a superior officer before refusing entry, a more detailed justification for the refusal, the obligation for Member States to have a procedure for appeal, information on the procedure and the possibility that the third-country national be represented during the appeal's procedure since there is no right to remain.
The rapporteur introduces a series of amendments which aim to develop the Commission's proposal: a second opinion of a superior officer before refusing entry, a more detailed justification for the refusal, the obligation for Member States to have a procedure for appeal, information on the procedure and the possibility that the third-country national be represented during the appeal's procedure since there is no right to remain.
The rapporteur also is of the opinion that the rule of law requires Member States to grant entry for third-country nationals once they fulfil all conditions.
The rapporteur also is of the opinion that the rule of law requires Member States to grant entry for third-country nationals once they fulfil all conditions.
We cannot leave a margin of discretion (see also below) to the border guard whether to allow entry even when the third-country national fulfils all conditions.
We cannot leave a margin of discretion (see also below) to the border guard whether to allow entry even when the third-country national fulfils all conditions.
This idea is already reflected in the standard form for refusal (Annex VIII B) which has no category of reasons for refusal like "other grounds."
This idea is already reflected in the standard form for refusal (Annex VIII B) which has no category of reasons for refusal like "other grounds."
All grounds relate to the conditions for entry.
All grounds relate to the conditions for entry.
In several cases the rapporteur proposes to provide more information to travellers.
In several cases the rapporteur proposes to provide more information to travellers.
This concerns for example information to third-country nationals on what documents they have to be able to provide, that the border guard has the obligation to stamp their passport even if no controls are made (relaxation) and on the procedure of a so-called "second-line" checks.
This concerns for example information to third-country nationals on what documents they have to be able to provide, that the border guard has the obligation to stamp their passport even if no controls are made (relaxation) and on the procedure of a so-called "second-line" checks.
Strengthening border control
Strengthening border control
We need effective and efficient border control.
We need effective and efficient border control.
To this end the rapporteur proposes for example that objects and vehicles of third-country nationals "shall" be checked instead of "may", that checks are only relaxed in very exceptional circumstances, that the possibility to reintroduce internal border controls in case of an exceptional serious threat remains in the text (while in Council there seems to be a tendency to delete this provision) and that third-country nationals who do not require a visa to travel to the EU can be subject to a special check to evaluate the risk of illegal immigration.
To this end the rapporteur proposes for example that objects and vehicles of third-country nationals "shall" be checked instead of "may", that checks are only relaxed in very exceptional circumstances, that the possibility to reintroduce internal border controls in case of an exceptional serious threat remains in the text (while in Council there seems to be a tendency to delete this provision) and that third-country nationals who do not require a visa to travel to the EU can be subject to a special check to evaluate the risk of illegal immigration.
The rapporteur urges Member States to have a sufficient number of border guards at the border crossing-points to allow for 100% of the persons crossing to be checked in accordance with the provisions of this regulation.
The rapporteur urges Member States to have a sufficient number of border guards at the border crossing-points to allow for 100% of the persons crossing to be checked in accordance with the provisions of this regulation.
Prioritising legislation by political decision-makers over executive power
Prioritising legislation by political decision-makers over executive power
In two respects the proposal of the Commission leaves, in the view of the rapporteur, too much power in the hands of national administrations.
In two respects the proposal of the Commission leaves, in the view of the rapporteur, too much power in the hands of national administrations.
Firstly, the wording of the text often leaves an extremely large margin of discretion to the national services for border-control.
Firstly, the wording of the text often leaves an extremely large margin of discretion to the national services for border-control.
The rapporteur has tried to define the rules in a more precise way without attempting to legislate for every possible occurrence at the border which would be an impossible task.
The rapporteur has tried to define the rules in a more precise way without attempting to legislate for every possible occurrence at the border which would be an impossible task.
He considers that the rules should be as precise as possible because if the margin of discretion is too large it might be used by the executive power in such a way that the end result is one which was not intended by the legislator.
He considers that the rules should be as precise as possible because if the margin of discretion is too large it might be used by the executive power in such a way that the end result is one which was not intended by the legislator.
Secondly, to make all annexes subject to change by comitology is unacceptable.
Secondly, to make all annexes subject to change by comitology is unacceptable.
The rapporteur agrees with the approach of the Commission to make the very long text (the English version, including the explanatory statement, has 229 pages) more readable by using annexes.
The rapporteur agrees with the approach of the Commission to make the very long text (the English version, including the explanatory statement, has 229 pages) more readable by using annexes.
This does however not mean that they should all be changed by the comitology procedure.
This does however not mean that they should all be changed by the comitology procedure.
The rapporteur proposes that whenever they contain abstract, general norms or touch upon sensitive issues they should be changed by the legislative procedure.
The rapporteur proposes that whenever they contain abstract, general norms or touch upon sensitive issues they should be changed by the legislative procedure.
At the same time the rapporteur proposes to introduce the right to call back delegated power as foreseen in the Constitution.
At the same time the rapporteur proposes to introduce the right to call back delegated power as foreseen in the Constitution.
Quality of legal drafting
Quality of legal drafting
Finally, the rapporteur introduces a series of amendments which try to improve the quality of the legal text.
Finally, the rapporteur introduces a series of amendments which try to improve the quality of the legal text.
He uses as a basis the Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation
He uses as a basis the Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation
OJ C 73, 17.3.1999, p.1 to which Parliament is a signatory.
OJ C 73, 17.3.1999, p.1 to which Parliament is a signatory.
The codecision procedure establishes joint responsibility for the overall quality of the text.
The codecision procedure establishes joint responsibility for the overall quality of the text.
STANOVISKO VÝBORU PRO PRÁVNÍ ZÁLEŽITOSTI NA NÁVRŽENÝ PRÁVNÍ ZÁKLAD
OPINION of the Committee ON LEGAL AFFAIRS on the proposed legal basis
Věc: Právní základ návrhu nařízení Rady, kterým se stanoví kodex Společenství o pravidlech upravujících přeshraniční pohyb osob ( KOM(2004)0391 – C6‑0080/2004 – 2004/0127(COD) )
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders ( COM(2004)0391 – C6‑0080/2004 – 2004/0127(COD) )
Výbor projednal výše uvedenou otázku na schůzi dne 21. dubna 2005.
The Committee considered the above question at its meeting of 21 April 2005.
22 Schengenské úmluvy stanovuje, že „cizinci“ jsou povinni se přihlásit u příslušných orgánů „buď při vstupu nebo do tří pracovních dnů ode dne vstupu“.
Article 22 of the Schengen Convention states that ‘aliens’ are required to report to the competent authorities ‘either on entry or within three working days of entry’.
Členské státy určují podmínky tohoto ustanovení i osvobození z této povinnosti. .
The Member States are to lay down the conditions and exemptions for this. .
Dále je dobré mít na paměti, že účelem navrhovaného dodatku by nebylo měnit postup pro přijímání aktu, v němž je ve dvou případech požadováno spolurozhodování v souladu s rozhodnutím Rady ze dne 22. prosince 2004, podle kterého by se některé relevantní oblasti hlavy IV kapitoly III Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství řídily postupem uvedeným v článku 251 této smlouvy (2004/927/ES).
Second, it should be observed that the proposed addition would not have the effect of changing the procedure for adopting the act, since codecision is required in both cases, under Council Decision 2004/927/EC of 22 December 2004 providing for certain areas covered by Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure laid down in Article 251 of that Treaty.
Na základě těchto důvodů a na návrh navrhovatele pana Manuela Mediny Ortegy Výbor pro právní záležitosti na schůzi dne 21. dubna 2005 jednomyslně rozhodl
In view of these considerations and on a proposal by its draftsman Mr Manuel Medina Ortega, at its meeting of 21 April 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided unanimously
Cílem navrženého nařízení je vyjasnit, restrukturalizovat, konsolidovat a dále rozvinout existující legislativu upravující hraniční kontroly osob.
The objectives of the proposed regulation are to clarify, restructure, consolidate and develop existing legislation on border controls on persons.
Cílem tohoto nařízení je zejména stanovit kodex Společenství o pravidlech upravujících přeshraniční pohyb osob.
In particular, the regulation seeks to establish a Community Code governing the movement of persons across borders.
Je součástí opatření, která mají být přijata v krátké době tak, jak bylo oznámeno ve sdělení Komise z května 2002 s názvem K integrovanému systému řízení vnějších hranic členských státu Evropské unie.
It forms part of the measures to be taken in the short term that were announced in the Commission's May 2002 Communication entitled 'Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union'.
Hlavním cílem je dát této oblasti celoevropský rozměr a uvést ji do souladu s pravidly, která byla vypracována v rámci Schengenské úmluvy a integrována do Smlouvy od května 1999.
The main aim is to give a more 'Community' character and form to the rules that have been developed within the Schengen intergovernmental framework and integrated into the Treaty since May 1999.
Kodex Společenství stanovený v tomto návrhu obsahuje dvě části: část týkající se vnějších hranic a část o vnitřních hranicích.
The Community Code set out in the proposal contains two sections: one on 'external borders' and the other on 'internal borders'.
Navrhovatel se zaměřil na první část, která zahrnuje veškerá pravidla o kontrole osob na vnějších hranicích, včetně následujících: podmínky pro překročení vnějších hranic a pro vstup do členských států; zásady upravující kontroly na vnějších hranicích, včetně kontroly mezi schválenými hraničními přechody, a podmínky odepření vstupu; a spolupráce mezi členskými státy, včetně provádění hraničních kontrol.
Your draftsman focused on the first section, which includes all the rules on the control of persons at external borders, including the following: the conditions for crossing external borders and for entry to Member States; the principles governing controls at external borders, including surveillance between authorised border crossing-points and the conditions for refusal of entry; and cooperation between Member States, including the implementation of border checks.
Kodex stanoví speciální podrobná pravidla pro hraniční kontroly pro různé druhy hraničních přechodů (pozemní, vzdušné a námořní) a specifické postupy pro některé kategorie osob (námořníci, piloti dopravních letadel, diplomaté atd.).
The Code lays down special detailed rules for border checks for different kinds of borders (land, air and maritime) and specific procedures for certain categories of persons (seamen, aircraft pilots, diplomats, etc.).
Navrhovatel výrazně podporuje zavedení celoevropského systému řízení vnějších hranic v rámci procesu zjednodušování a harmonizace pravidel EU.
Your draftsman strongly advocates the 'communitisation' of the management of external borders as part of the simplification and harmonisation of EU rules.
Hlavní část tohoto nařízení je technické povahy, což spadá mimo odbornost a kompetence Výboru pro rozvoj.
The main body of the regulation is of a technical nature, which goes beyond the terms of reference of the Development Committee.
Navrhovatel proto zaměřil své pozměňovací návrhy pouze na několik základních aspektů, a to:
That is why your draftsman has focused his amendments on a only few fundamental aspects, as follows:
- respektování základních lidských práv při výkonu hraničních kontrol, včetně přijetí opatření na ochranu před jakoukoli diskriminací v souladu s Listinou základních práv Unie (článek 3 a 6 nařízení).
- Respect for fundamental rights in the application of border controls, to include the fight against any discrimination, taking the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union as the reference point (Articles 3 and 6 of the Regulation).
- zavedení humanitárních důvodů nebo krizových situací jako platných důvodů pro odchylku od základních ustanovení (článek 4 a 5).
- Introduction of humanitarian concerns or emergency situations as valid reasons for derogating from the basic provisions (Articles 4 and 5).