natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kromě toho se TCB používá také jako rozpouštědlo, nosič barviva a inhibitor koroze.
In addition, TCB has other minor uses as a solvent, a dye carrier and as a corrosion inhibitor.
Na základě hodnocení rizik a doporučené strategie pro omezení rizik Komise navrhuje omezit uvádění na trh a používání toluenu, TCB i přípravků obsahujících tyto látky.
On the basis of the risk assessments and recommended risk reduction strategies the Commission is proposing that the marketing and use of toluene, TCB, and of preparations containing them, be restricted.
Doporučení zpravodaje
Rapporteur's recommendation
Uplatňování navržené směrnice by v průmyslu a v obchodě nemělo být problémem, neboť se toluen a TCB používají v současnosti v daných případech méně a podniky již vyvinuly alternativní řešení.
The proposed Directive should pose few problems for the industry or trade, as the use of toluene and TCB is declining in the cases in question, and companies have already developed alternatives.
Aby byla navržená směrnice ku prospěchu ochrany lidského zdraví a životního prostředí a aby bylo možné snížit náklady, bude navrženo přijetí předložené směrnice s jedním pozměňovacím návrhem.
As the proposed Directive would yield benefits in terms of protecting human health and the environment and this should be achieved at little cost, it is proposed that the Directive be adopted with just one amendment.
Návrh směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady o omezení uvádění na trh a používání toluenu a trichlorbenzenu (dvacátá osmá změna směrnice 76/769/EHS)
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of toluene and trichlorobenzene (twenty-eighth amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC)
Datum, kdy výbor JURI zaujal stanovisko
Legal basis disputed Date of JURI opinion
Datum, kdy výbor BUDG zaujal stanovisko
Financial endowment amended Date of BUDG opinion
Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Edite Estrela, Jillian Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Norbert Glante, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Dan Jørgensen, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Jules Maaten, Riitta Myller, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund
Adamos Adamou, Georgs Andrejevs, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Edite Estrela, Jillian Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Norbert Glante, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Dan Jørgensen, Holger Krahmer, Urszula Krupa, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Jules Maaten, Riitta Myller, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, María Sornosa Martínez, Antonios Trakatellis, Thomas Ulmer, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund
o žádosti o ochranu imunity a výsad Kolda Gorostiagy
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Koldo Gorostiaga
PR_IMM_art 6-3
PR_IMM_art 6-3
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ................................................................................................4
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................5
- s ohledem na žádost Kolda Gorostiagy o ochranu jeho imunity v souvislosti se soudním řízením, jež probíhá u francouzského soudu, ze dne 7. července 2004, která byly oznámena na plenárním zasedání dne 22. července 2004,
- having regard to the request by Koldo Gorostiaga for defence of his immunity in connection with legal proceedings pending before a French court, of 7 July 2004, announced in plenary sitting on 22 July 2004,
- s ohledem na rozsudky Soudního dvora Evropských společenství ze dne 12. května 1964 a 10. července 1986
- having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
- s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro právní záležitosti ( A6-0006/2005 ),
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0006/2005 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že Koldo Gorostiaga byl zvolen do Evropského parlamentu v pátých přímých volbách, které se konaly dne 13. června 1999, a vzhledem k tomu, že jeho pověřovací listiny byly ověřeny dne 15. prosince 1999 a jeho volební období skončilo dne 19. července 2004,
A. whereas Koldo Gorostiaga was elected to the European Parliament in the fifth direct elections held on 13 June 1999, and whereas his credentials were verified on 15 December 1999, and his term of office expired on 19 July 2004,
B. vzhledem k tomu, že Koldo Gorostiaga si stěžuje, že soud první instance v Paříži mu zabavil určitou peněžní částku, a vzhledem k tomu, že tvrdí, že tyto peníze byly příspěvky, které mu vyplatil Parlament,
B. whereas Koldo Gorostiaga complains that a certain amount of his money was seized by the Court of First Instance of Paris and whereas he claims that these monies were allowances paid to him by Parliament,
C. vzhledem k tomu, že Koldo Gorostiaga tvrdí, že zabavení jeho údajného majetku bylo porušením Protokolu o výsadách a imunitách,
C. whereas Koldo Gorostiaga asserts that the seizure of his alleged property constituted a violation of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
D. vzhledem k tomu, že Koldo Gorostiaga si stěžuje, že druhá vyšetřovací komora Odvolacího soudu v Paříži proti němu v rozsudku ze dne 11. června 2004 uvádí, že „je vyšetřován“ a že to bylo porušením Protokolu o výsadách a imunitách,
D. whereas Koldo Gorostiaga complains that he would have been declared "under examination" by the second investigating Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Paris, in its judgment of 11 June 2004, and that this was a violation of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
E. vzhledem k tomu, že na základě důkazů, které poskytl, Koldo Gorostiaga není chráněn parlamentní imunitou vůči jakýmkoliv nárokům, na které byl upozorněn předseda Evropského parlamentu,
E. whereas, on basis of the evidence that he has provided, Koldo Gorostiaga is not protected by Parliamentary immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President of the European Parliament,
rozhodl nechránit imunitu a výsady Kolda Gorostiagy.
Decides not to defend the immunity and privileges of Koldo Gorostiaga.
A certain sum of money (EUR 200 304), that Mr Gorostiaga claims to be his property (points 1 and 2 of his letter), was seized by the Court of First Instance of Paris in Case P.02.082.3902/5.
A certain sum of money (EUR 200 304), that Mr Gorostiaga claims to be his property (points 1 and 2 of his letter), was seized by the Court of First Instance of Paris in Case P.02.082.3902/5.
The above-mentioned sum was found in possession of the treasurer of "Euskal Herritarrok" and Mr Gorostiaga claims that this comes from the allowances paid to him by Parliament
The above-mentioned sum was found in possession of the treasurer of "Euskal Herritarrok" and Mr Gorostiaga claims that this comes from the allowances paid to him by Parliament
Mr Gorostiaga was elected a Member of the EP in 1999 in the list of the Spanish political party Euskal Herritarrok/Batasuna.
Mr Gorostiaga was elected a Member of the EP in 1999 in the list of the Spanish political party Euskal Herritarrok/Batasuna.
This political party was later held to be unlawful in Spain by the Supreme Court and declared illegal.
This political party was later held to be unlawful in Spain by the Supreme Court and declared illegal.
It was also included in the list of terrorist organisations established by the European Union.
It was also included in the list of terrorist organisations established by the European Union.
This situation of his party did not affect his mandate as a Member. (point 3 of this letter).
This situation of his party did not affect his mandate as a Member. (point 3 of this letter).
The seizure of the money has been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal by the former Member (points 4 and 5 of his letter).
The seizure of the money has been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal by the former Member (points 4 and 5 of his letter).
Mr Gorostiaga maintains that this seizure violates his parliamentary immunity as conferred by Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of 8 April 1965 (PPI), because "parliamentary immunity is intended to ensure the personal protection of Members... and constitute a procedural safeguard... " (point 7 of his letter) and because " immunity ... extends against... his property... " (point 8 of his letter).
Mr Gorostiaga maintains that this seizure violates his parliamentary immunity as conferred by Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of 8 April 1965 (PPI), because "parliamentary immunity is intended to ensure the personal protection of Members... and constitute a procedural safeguard... " (point 7 of his letter) and because " immunity ... extends against... his property... " (point 8 of his letter).
He also affirms that the seizure violates Article 10(b) of the Protocol (point 7) because he considers that "legal proceedings ... should be interpreted as including any measure provided ... which prevents the Member from performing the duties...".
He also affirms that the seizure violates Article 10(b) of the Protocol (point 7) because he considers that "legal proceedings ... should be interpreted as including any measure provided ... which prevents the Member from performing the duties...".
The seizure of the money constitutes - according to Mr Gorostiaga - a "legal proceeding" impeding the Member in the performance of his duties as parliamentarian (point 8)
The seizure of the money constitutes - according to Mr Gorostiaga - a "legal proceeding" impeding the Member in the performance of his duties as parliamentarian (point 8)
Thirdly, he claims that the seizure of the money from the treasurer on the ground of contravention of customs regulations was in breach of Article 7 of the PPI (he clearly meant Article 8).
Thirdly, he claims that the seizure of the money from the treasurer on the ground of contravention of customs regulations was in breach of Article 7 of the PPI (he clearly meant Article 8).
In conclusion, Mr Gorostiaga asserts that the seizure of his alleged property amounts to a violation of the PPI.
In conclusion, Mr Gorostiaga asserts that the seizure of his alleged property amounts to a violation of the PPI.
The second complaint made by Mr Gorostiaga is that he would have been declared " mis en examen " (under examination) by the second investigating Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Paris, on 11 June 2004, in connection with Case P.02.082.3902/5.
The second complaint made by Mr Gorostiaga is that he would have been declared " mis en examen " (under examination) by the second investigating Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Paris, on 11 June 2004, in connection with Case P.02.082.3902/5.
He therefore considers (point 10 of his letter) that he has been somehow prosecuted or under investigation, and hence that the proceedings were conducted in breach of Article 9 of the PPI (points 10, 11 and 12 of his letter).
He therefore considers (point 10 of his letter) that he has been somehow prosecuted or under investigation, and hence that the proceedings were conducted in breach of Article 9 of the PPI (points 10, 11 and 12 of his letter).
As the President of Parliament considered that Koldo Gorostiaga had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
As the President of Parliament considered that Koldo Gorostiaga had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988 in Case 260/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR.
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988 in Case 260/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR.
(a) by their own government, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;
(a) by their own government, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;
(b) by the government of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.
(b) by the government of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.
(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Before assessing the possible infringement of the PPI, it is useful to state three facts which affect every transgression denounced by the former Member:
Before assessing the possible infringement of the PPI, it is useful to state three facts which affect every transgression denounced by the former Member:
(a) it has not been proved that the money seized by the French authorities is undoubtedly the money paid by Parliament as indemnities or as travel expenses to the former Member.
(a) it has not been proved that the money seized by the French authorities is undoubtedly the money paid by Parliament as indemnities or as travel expenses to the former Member.
The money was seized from the treasurer of a political party, " Euskal Herritarrok", not from the former Member.
The money was seized from the treasurer of a political party, " Euskal Herritarrok", not from the former Member.
Mr Gorostiaga's claim that the money seized is the money paid to him by Parliament remains to be ascertained;
Mr Gorostiaga's claim that the money seized is the money paid to him by Parliament remains to be ascertained;
(b) Case No P.02.082.3902/5 initiated in France has been brought not against the former Member but against two other members of "Euskal Herritarrok", Mikel Corcuera and Jon Gorrotxategi.
(b) Case No P.02.082.3902/5 initiated in France has been brought not against the former Member but against two other members of "Euskal Herritarrok", Mikel Corcuera and Jon Gorrotxategi.
Mr Gorostiaga was later involved in the procedure and only because he claimed to be the owner of the money seized
Mr Gorostiaga was later involved in the procedure and only because he claimed to be the owner of the money seized
According to the facts as alleged by the former Member before the Court of Justice in Case T-146/04 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament , he ordered the withdrawal from a bank account (opened by him and his political party) of the sum of € 210.304 and delivered € 200.300 to the treasurer of Euskal Herritarrok, who was arrested when he arrived in France with the money in cash.
According to the facts as alleged by the former Member before the Court of Justice in Case T-146/04 Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament , he ordered the withdrawal from a bank account (opened by him and his political party) of the sum of € 210.304 and delivered € 200.300 to the treasurer of Euskal Herritarrok, who was arrested when he arrived in France with the money in cash.
The proceedings were subsequently referred to the Court of First Instance of Paris. ;
The proceedings were subsequently referred to the Court of First Instance of Paris. ;
(c) Mr Gorostiaga has not at any time been prosecuted.
(c) Mr Gorostiaga has not at any time been prosecuted.
Only the judgment of the "Court d'appel de Paris" of 11 June 2004 makes reference to Mr Gorostiaga as a person mis en examen; no other point of the judgment makes reference to any kind of proceedings brought or to be brought against Mr Gorostiaga.
Only the judgment of the "Court d'appel de Paris" of 11 June 2004 makes reference to Mr Gorostiaga as a person mis en examen; no other point of the judgment makes reference to any kind of proceedings brought or to be brought against Mr Gorostiaga.
It is instructive to consider how and to what extent the above-mentioned facts and allegations fall within the scope of the privileges and immunities granted by Chapter III, Articles 8 to10(b) of the PPI:
It is instructive to consider how and to what extent the above-mentioned facts and allegations fall within the scope of the privileges and immunities granted by Chapter III, Articles 8 to10(b) of the PPI:
(1) Article 8, second paragraph, point (b) grants MEPs in other Member States, with respect to customs and exchange control, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.
(1) Article 8, second paragraph, point (b) grants MEPs in other Member States, with respect to customs and exchange control, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.
This protection is granted only to Members and not to their aides or assistants or any other persons working with them.
This protection is granted only to Members and not to their aides or assistants or any other persons working with them.
The wording of the article admits of no other interpretation.
The wording of the article admits of no other interpretation.
But even if this protection could be extended to assistants (an argument which it is difficult to uphold given the wording of this article and the following), the formalities provided for by Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961 on diplomatic relations (which requires an official document indicating the status of the diplomatic courier) have not been met.
But even if this protection could be extended to assistants (an argument which it is difficult to uphold given the wording of this article and the following), the formalities provided for by Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961 on diplomatic relations (which requires an official document indicating the status of the diplomatic courier) have not been met.
(2) Article 9 grants full protection to members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
(2) Article 9 grants full protection to members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
In the light of the cases considered by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the clear-cut language of this article of the Protocol, it is difficult to accept that the facts established in point I.1. of this Explanatory Statement could fall within the circumstances considered in this article.
In the light of the cases considered by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the clear-cut language of this article of the Protocol, it is difficult to accept that the facts established in point I.1. of this Explanatory Statement could fall within the circumstances considered in this article.
Moreover, the money was seized from a third person and not from the Member himself.
Moreover, the money was seized from a third person and not from the Member himself.
Article 9 protects members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast in Parliament, or even when they are not physically within the premises of the House, but is limited to circumstances in which they are acting solely as parliamentarians.
Article 9 protects members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast in Parliament, or even when they are not physically within the premises of the House, but is limited to circumstances in which they are acting solely as parliamentarians.
Even if the money been seized from Mr Gorostiaga, or even if the connection between the money and the Member were clearly established, it would still be very difficult to conclude that the situation under consideration falls within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 9.
Even if the money been seized from Mr Gorostiaga, or even if the connection between the money and the Member were clearly established, it would still be very difficult to conclude that the situation under consideration falls within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 9.
The Committee on Legal Affairs has always been very careful not to extend the scope of this article beyond its natural purpose
The Committee on Legal Affairs has always been very careful not to extend the scope of this article beyond its natural purpose
See the case of the request to waive Mr Camre's immunity ( A5-0243/2003 - P5_TA(2003)0308 ), in which Parliament recalled that it had chosen to pursue a restricted interpretation of Article 9. .
See the case of the request to waive Mr Camre's immunity ( A5-0243/2003 - P5_TA(2003)0308 ), in which Parliament recalled that it had chosen to pursue a restricted interpretation of Article 9. .
(3) Article 10 provides: " During the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: ...( b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings ".
(3) Article 10 provides: " During the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: ...( b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings ".
As has already been established, there are no proceedings against Mr Gorostiaga in France.
As has already been established, there are no proceedings against Mr Gorostiaga in France.
This fact confounds his ambiguous declaration as to his having been mis en examen - an affirmation that has not had any follow-up or effect at any time throughout the proceedings against the treasurer.
This fact confounds his ambiguous declaration as to his having been mis en examen - an affirmation that has not had any follow-up or effect at any time throughout the proceedings against the treasurer.
Secondly, it is highly doubtful that Article 10 can apply to former Members of Parliament.
Secondly, it is highly doubtful that Article 10 can apply to former Members of Parliament.
There exists no case-law covering this situation.
There exists no case-law covering this situation.
When a Member ceases to be a parliamentarian, he may need to be defended against an attack on him for an opinion or a vote in Parliament (which is why Rule 6(3) makes provision for such a situation), but it is difficult to see how the protection can extend beyond Article 9 of the Protocol.
When a Member ceases to be a parliamentarian, he may need to be defended against an attack on him for an opinion or a vote in Parliament (which is why Rule 6(3) makes provision for such a situation), but it is difficult to see how the protection can extend beyond Article 9 of the Protocol.
Articles 8 and 10 appear to be limited by the case-law of the Court of Justice and the cases considered by the Committee on Legal Affairs to cases involving active Members of Parliament during parliamentary sessions.
Articles 8 and 10 appear to be limited by the case-law of the Court of Justice and the cases considered by the Committee on Legal Affairs to cases involving active Members of Parliament during parliamentary sessions.