natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Formålet med dialogen er at sætte Kommissionen i stand til at finde en løsning sammen med den pågældende medlemsstat med henblik på at forebygge fremkomsten af en systemisk trussel mod retsstatsprincippet, som vil kunne udvikle sig til en »klar risiko for alvorligt brud«, der potentielt vil kunne udløse iværksættelsen af proceduren i henhold til artikel 7 i TEU.
The purpose of this dialogue is to enable the Commission to find a solution with the Member State concerned in order to prevent the emergence of a systemic threat to the rule of law that could develop into a ‘clear risk of a serious breach’ which would potentially trigger the use of the ‘Article 7 TEU Procedure’.
Hvis der er klare tegn på en systemisk trussel mod retsstatsprincippet i en medlemsstat, kan Kommissionen indlede en dialog med denne medlemsstat inden for retsstatsrammen.
Where there are clear indications of a systemic threat to the rule of law in a Member State, the Commission can initiate a dialogue with that Member State under the Rule of Law Framework.
Den Europæiske Unions Domstols og Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols praksis samt en række dokumenter, Europarådet har udarbejdet, og som navnlig bygger på Den Europæiske Kommission for Demokrati gennem Rets (»Venedigkommissionen«) ekspertise, indeholder en ikke-udtømmende liste over disse principper, hvori retsstatsprincippet grundlæggende defineres som en fælles værdi i Unionen, jf. artikel 2 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Union (TEU).
Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as documents drawn up by the Council of Europe, building notably on the expertise of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (‘Venice Commission’), provides a non-exhaustive list of these principles and hence defines the core meaning of the rule of law as a common value of the Union in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Et af disse principper er legalitetsprincippet, der indebærer en gennemsigtig, ansvarlig, demokratisk og pluralistisk procedure for vedtagelse af love, retssikkerhed, forbud mod vilkårlighed i den offentlige forvaltning, uafhængige og upartiske domstole, en effektiv domstolsprøvelse, hvorved det bl.a. kontrolleres, at de grundlæggende rettigheder er overholdt, og lighed for loven [2].
Those principles include legality, which implies a transparent, accountable, democratic and pluralistic process for enacting laws; legal certainty; prohibition of arbitrariness of the executive powers; independent and impartial courts; effective judicial review including respect for fundamental rights; and equality before the law [2].
Udover at sikre overholdelsen af disse principper og værdier er de statslige institutioner også forpligtet til at arbejde loyalt sammen.
In addition to upholding those principles and values, State institutions also have the duty of loyal cooperation.
Den retlige ramme vil blive aktiveret i situationer, hvor en medlemsstats myndigheder træffer foranstaltninger eller tolererer situationer, som systematisk og negativt vil kunne påvirke institutionernes integritet, stabilitet eller hensigtsmæssige funktion og de mekanismer, der er indført på nationalt plan for at beskytte retsstatsprincippet [3].
The Framework is to be activated in situations where the authorities of a Member State are taking measures or are tolerating situations which are likely to systematically and adversely affect the integrity, stability or the proper functioning of the institutions and the safeguard mechanisms established at national level to secure the rule of law [3].
Formålet er at tage hånd om systemiske trusler mod retsstatsprincippet [4].
The purpose is to address threats to the rule of law which are of a systemic nature [4].
Den politiske, institutionelle og/eller retslige orden i en medlemsstat som sådan, dens forfatningsmæssige struktur, magtfordeling, retsvæsenets uafhængighed eller upartiskhed samt systemet med domstolsprøvelse, herunder forfatningsdomstole, hvor et sådant system findes, skal være truet [5].
The political, institutional and/or legal order of a Member State as such, its constitutional structure, separation of powers, the independence or impartiality of the judiciary, or its system of judicial review including constitutional justice where it exists, must be threatened [5].
Den retlige ramme vil blive aktiveret i situationer, hvor de nationale foranstaltninger til beskyttelse af retsstatsprincippet ikke synes effektivt at kunne afværge disse trusler.
The Framework is to be activated in situations when national ‘rule of law safeguards’ do not seem capable of effectively addressing those threats.
Retsstatsrammen har tre faser.
The Rule of Law Framework has three stages.
Den 30. december 2015 skrev Kommissionen til den polske regering [8] og udbad sig yderligere oplysninger om de foreslåede reformer af forvaltningen af de statsejede radio- og tv-stationer.
If there is no satisfactory follow-up within the time limit set, resort can be had to the ‘Article 7 TEU Procedure’; the procedure can be triggered by a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the Commission.
Den 31. december 2015 vedtog det polske senat »den lille medielov« om ledelsen og bestyrelsen af de polske offentlige radio- og tv-stationer.
In November 2015, the Commission became aware of an ongoing dispute in Poland concerning in particular the composition of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as the shortening of the mandates of its current President and Vice-President.
Den 7. januar 2016 modtog Kommissionen et svar fra den polske regering [9] på brevet om medieloven, hvori enhver negativ indvirkning på mediepluralisme blev afvist.
The Constitutional Tribunal rendered two judgments on this matter, on 3 and 9 December 2015.
Den 11. januar modtog Kommissionen et svar fra den polske regering om reformen af forfatningsdomstolen [10].
On 22 December 2015, the Sejm adopted a law amending the law on the Constitutional Tribunal, which concerns the functioning of the Tribunal as well as the independence of its judges [6].
Svarene fjernede ikke de eksisterende betænkeligheder.
In a letter of 23 December 2015, to the Polish Government [7], the Commission asked to be informed about the constitutional situation in Poland, including the steps envisaged by the Polish authorities with respect to the abovementioned two judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Den 13. januar 2016 havde kommissærkollegiet en første orienterende drøftelse for at vurdere situationen i Polen.
As regards the amendments contained in the law adopted on 22 December 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal, the Commission stated it would expect that this law is not finally adopted or at least not put into force until all questions regarding the impact of this law on the independence and the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal have been fully and properly assessed.
Kommissionen besluttede at undersøge situationen i henhold til retsstatsrammen og gav førstenæstformand Timmermans beføjelser til at indlede en dialog med Republikken Polens institutioner med henblik på at afklare problemstillingen og finde mulige løsninger.
The Commission also recommended to the Polish authorities to work closely with the Council of Europe's Venice Commission.
Den 19. januar 2016 skrev Kommissionen til den polske regering [12] og tilbød at bidrage med ekspertise og drøfte spørgsmål vedrørende den nye medielov.
However, the Polish Parliament did not await this opinion before taking further steps, and the Law was published in the Official Journal and entered into force on 28 December 2015.
Den 19. januar 2016 skrev den polske regering til Kommissionen [13] og redegjorde for sine synspunkter i striden om udnævnelsen af dommere og henviste bl.a. til en forfatningsmæssig tradition for udnævnelse af dommere.
On 30 December 2015, the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [8] to seek additional information about the proposed reforms to the governance of Poland's Public State Broadcasters.
Den polske regering fremhævede en række positive virkninger, som ændringen af loven om forfatningsdomstolen forventes at ville få.
On 31 December 2015, the Polish Senate adopted the ‘small media law’ concerning the management and supervisory boards of the Polish public television broadcaster and public radio broadcaster.
Samme dag afholdt Europa-Parlamentet et plenarmøde om situationen i Polen.
On 7 January 2016, the Commission received a response from the Polish Government [9] on the letter on the media law denying any adverse impact on media pluralism.
Den 1. februar 2016 skrev Kommissionen til den polske regering [14] og bemærkede, at forfatningsdomstolens afgørelser om udnævnelse af dommere stadig ikke var blevet opfyldt.
On 11 January, the Commission received a response from the Polish Government on the Constitutional Tribunal reform [10].
Det blev ligeledes understreget i brevet, at der er behov for en yderligere undersøgelse af loven om forfatningsdomstolen, navnlig med hensyn til den »kombinerede effekt« af de mange foretagne ændringer, og der blev anmodet om mere detaljerede forklaringer.
These responses did not remove existing concerns.
I brevet blev der ligeledes anmodet om oplysninger om andre love, der var blevet vedtaget for nylig, navnlig den nye lov om offentlig tjeneste, loven om ændring af politiloven og visse andre love såvel som loven om den offentlige anklager, og om hvilke lovgivningsmæssige reformer, der var planlagt, især yderligere reformer af medielovgivningen.
On 13 January 2016, the College of Commissioners held a first orientation debate in order to assess the situation in Poland.
Ved brev af 29. februar 2016 [15] fremlagde den polske regering yderligere præciseringer for Kommissionen om embedsperioden for formanden for forfatningsdomstolen.
The Commission decided to examine the situation under the Rule of Law Framework and mandated First Vice-President Timmermans to enter into a dialogue with the institutions of the Republic of Poland in order to clarify the issues at hand and identify possible solutions.
I brevet blev det præciseret, at de foreløbige bestemmelser i den ændrede lov, hvorefter nedlæggelsen af formandens embedsperiode blev fastlagt, ifølge domstolens afgørelse af 9. december 2015 var kendt forfatningsstridige og havde mistet deres retsvirkning.
On the same day, the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [11] informing the Government that it was examining the situation under the Rule of Law Framework and wished to enter into a dialogue with the institutions of the Republic of Poland in order to clarify the issues at hand and identify possible solutions.
I brevet blev der desuden bedt om en afklaring af, hvad Kommissionen mente, når den insisterede på, at de bindende og endelige afgørelser fra forfatningsdomstolen stadig ikke var blevet opfyldt, og en forklaring på, hvorfor de resolutioner, ved hvilke der den 2. december 2015 var blevet valgt tre dommere til forfatningsdomstolen, ifølge Kommissionen skulle være i modstrid med domstolens efterfølgende afgørelse.
On 19 January 2016 the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [12] offering to contribute expertise and discuss matters related to the new media law.
I brevet blev der ligeledes anmodet om oplysninger om andre nyligt vedtagne love og yderligere lovgivningsmæssige reformer, der var planlagt.
On 19 January 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission [13] setting out its views on the dispute concerning the appointment of judges, referring, inter alia, to a constitutional custom relating to the appointment of judges.
Den 9. marts 2016 fastslog forfatningsdomstolen, at den lov, der blev vedtaget den 22. december 2015, var forfatningsstridig.
The Polish Government set out a number of positive effects considered to result from the amendment to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal.
Denne afgørelse er indtil videre ikke blevet kundgjort af regeringen i statstidende med den konsekvens, at den ikke har retsvirkning.
On the same day the European Parliament held a plenary debate on the situation in Poland.
Den 11. marts 2016 vedtog Venedigkommissionen en udtalelse om »ændringer af loven af 25. juni 2015 om forfatningsdomstolen« [17].
On 1 February 2016, the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [14] noting that the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal on the appointment of judges had still not been implemented.
Hvad angår udnævnelse af dommere blev det polske parlament i udtalelsen opfordret til at finde en løsning baseret på retsstatsprincippet under iagttagelse af domstolens afgørelser.
The letter also underlined the need to further examine the amendment to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal, in particular the ‘combined effect’ of the various changes made, requesting more detailed explanations.
Det blev også bl.a. påpeget, at et højt beslutningsdygtigt antal på to tredjedeles flertal for godkendelse af afgørelser og strenge regler, der gør det umuligt at behandle hastesager, navnlig kombineret set, ville have gjort domstolen ineffektiv.
The letter also requested information about other laws which had been adopted recently, in particular the new Civil Service Act, the Act amending the law on the Police and certain other laws, as well as the Law on the Public Prosecution Office, and about legislative reforms which were being envisaged, notably further reforms of the media legislation.
Endelig fremgår det af udtalelsen, at afvisningen af at kundgøre afgørelsen af 9. marts 2016 vil forværre den forfatningsmæssige krise i Polen.
On 29 February 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission [15] providing further clarifications on the mandate of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Den 31. marts 2016 skrev den polske regering til Kommissionen og fremlagde de nyeste oplysninger og retlige vurderinger vedrørende striden om forfatningsdomstolen i Polen.
As a result, the current President of the Tribunal would continue to exercise his mandate pursuant to the old legislative provisions until his mandate expired on 19 December 2016.
Efter disse møder fandt der adskillige møder sted mellem den polske regering, repræsenteret ved justitsministeriet, og Kommissionen.
The letter furthermore requested clarifications as to what the Commission meant by insisting that the binding and final judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal had still not been implemented as well as clarifications why according to the Commission the resolutions electing three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal on 2 December 2015 ran counter to the Tribunal's subsequent judgment.
Efter afgørelsen af 9. marts 2016 begyndte forfatningsdomstolen atter at træffe afgørelser.
On 3 March 2016, the Commission wrote to the Polish Government [16], providing clarifications concerning the issue of the appointment of judges as requested by the Polish Government in the letter of 29 February 2016.
Den polske regering deltog ikke i disse sager, og de afgørelser, som forfatningsdomstolen har afsagt siden den 9. marts 2016, er indtil videre ikke blevet kundgjort af regeringen i statstidende [18].
Regarding the amendment to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal the letter noted that according to a preliminary assessment, certain amendments, both individually and taken together, made more difficult the conditions under which the Constitutional Tribunal could review the constitutionality of newly passed laws and requested more detailed explanations on this.
Den 13. april 2016 vedtog Europa-Parlamentet en beslutning om situationen i Polen og opfordrede bl.a. den polske regering til at overholde, kundgøre og straks fuldt ud opfylde forfatningsdomstolens afgørelse af 9. marts 2016 og til at opfylde afgørelserne af 3. og 9. december 2015, ligesom den polske regering blev opfordret til fuldt ud at efterkomme Venedigkommissionens henstillinger.
The letter also asked for information about other laws which had been adopted recently and further legislative reforms which were being envisaged.
Den 20. april 2016 mødtes Kommissionen med repræsentanter fra Netværket af Præsidenterne for Den Europæiske Unions Øverste Domstole og Konferencen af Europæiske Forfatningsdomstole med det formål at drøfte situationen i Polen.
On 9 March 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the law adopted on 22 December 2015 was unconstitutional.
Den 26. april 2016 vedtog den polske højesterets præsidium en beslutning, hvorved det slås fast, at forfatningsdomstolens afgørelser er gyldige, også selv om den polske regering nægter at kundgøre dem i statstidende.
That judgment has so far not been published by the Government in the Official Journal, with the consequence that it does not have legal effect.
Den 29. april 2016 fremlagde en gruppe af medlemmer af Sejm et lovforslag for Sejm om en ny lov om forfatningsdomstolen med henblik på at erstatte den eksisterende lov.
On 11 March 2016, the Venice Commission adopted its opinion ‘on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal’ [17].
I løbet af april blev der samlet en ekspertgruppe i Sejm, hvis opgave var at hjælpe med at forberede en ny lov om forfatningsdomstolen.
As regards the appointment of judges, the opinion called on the Polish Parliament to find a solution on the basis of the rule of law, respecting the judgments of the Tribunal.
Den 24. maj 2016 havde førstenæstformand Timmermans møder i Warszawa med Polens premierminister, formanden og næstformanden for forfatningsdomstolen, ombudsmanden og Warszawas borgmester samt med medlemmer af oppositionspartierne i Sejm.
It also considered, inter alia, that a high attendance quorum, the requirement of a two-thirds majority for adopting judgments and a strict rule making it impossible to deal with urgent cases, especially in their combined effect, would have made the Tribunal ineffective.
Den 26. maj 2016 mødtes førstenæstformand Timmermans med den polske vicepremierminister i Bruxelles.
Finally, it considered that a refusal to publish the judgment of 9 March 2016 would further deepen the constitutional crisis in Poland.
Efterfølgende fandt der yderligere udvekslinger og møder sted mellem Kommissionen og den polske regering.
On 21 March 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission inviting First Vice-President Timmermans to a meeting in Poland to assess the dialogue carried out so far between the Polish Government and the Commission and to determine how to continue it in an impartial, evidence-based and cooperative way.
Til trods for, at Kommissionen og den polske regering havde både detaljerede og konstruktive udvekslinger, var de imidlertid ikke i stand til at fjerne Kommissionens betænkeligheder.
On 31 March 2016, the Polish Government wrote to the Commission with recent information and legal assessments regarding the dispute around the Constitutional Tribunal in Poland.
Den 1. juni 2016 vedtog Kommissionen en udtalelse vedrørende Polens overholdelse af retsstatsprincippet.
On 5 April 2016, meetings took place in Warsaw between First Vice-President Timmermans and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as with the President and the Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Som opfølgning på den dialog med de polske myndigheder, som havde været i gang siden den 13. januar, fandt Kommissionen det nødvendigt at formalisere sin vurdering af den aktuelle situation i denne udtalelse.
Following these meetings, several meetings also took place between the Polish Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice, and the Commission.
I udtalelsen giver Kommissionen udtryk for sine betænkeligheder og fokuserer på den igangværende dialog med de polske myndigheder, hvis formål er at komme frem til en løsning.
Following the judgment of 9 March 2016, the Constitutional Tribunal resumed the adjudication of cases.
Den 24. juni 2016 skrev den polske regering til Kommissionen og bekræftede modtagelsen af Kommissionens udtalelse af 1. juni vedrørende overholdelsen af retsstatsprincippet [19].
The Polish Government did not participate in these proceedings and the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Tribunal since 9 March 2016 have so far not been published by the Government in the Official Journal [18].
I brevet informerede den polske regering Kommissionen om den aktuelle situation med hensyn til det parlamentariske arbejde i Polen, herunder arbejdet med den nye lov om forfatningsdomstolen, og der blev givet udtryk for overbevisningen om, at parlamentets arbejde var den rigtige måde at nå en konstruktiv løsning på.
On 13 April 2016, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the situation in Poland, inter alia, urging the Polish Government to respect, publish and fully implement without further delay the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment of 9 March 2016 and to implement the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015, and calling on the Polish Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
HENSTILLER, AT:
On 26 April 2016, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Poland adopted a resolution attesting that the rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal are valid, even if the Polish Government refuses to publish them in the Official Journal.
Polen bør tage behørigt hensyn til Kommissionens analyse som anført nedenfor og træffe foranstaltningerne i denne henstillings afsnit 6 med henblik på at løse de konstaterede problemer inden for den fastsatte frist.
On 29 April 2016, a group of members of the Sejm submitted to the Sejm a legislative proposal for a new Constitutional Tribunal Act with a view to replacing the current Act.
HENSTILLINGENS ANVENDELSESOMRÅDE
The proposal contained several provisions which were already criticised by the Venice Commission in its opinion of 11 March 2016 and declared unconstitutional by the Tribunal in its ruling of 9 March 2016.
I nærværende henstilling giver Kommissionen udtryk for sine betænkeligheder med hensyn til Polens overholdelse af retsstatsprincippet og kommer med anbefalinger til de polske myndigheder om, hvordan de kan tage hånd om disse betænkeligheder.
This included the requirement of a two-thirds majority for adopting decisions for ‘abstract’ constitutional review of newly adopted laws.
Betænkelighederne vedrører følgende:
In the course of April an expert group was composed in the Sejm to help prepare a new law on the Constitutional Tribunal.
udnævnelsen af dommere til forfatningsdomstolen og den manglende opfyldelse af forfatningsdomstolens afgørelser af 3. og 9. december 2015 på dette område
On 24 May 2016, First Vice-President Timmermans had meetings in Warsaw with the Prime Minister of Poland, with the President and the Vice-President of the Constitutional Tribunal, with the Ombudsman, with the Mayor of the City of Warsaw and with members of the opposition parties in the Sejm.
den manglende kundgørelse i statstidende og den manglende opfyldelse af afgørelsen af 9. marts 2016 og af de afgørelser, som forfatningsdomstolen har truffet siden den 9. marts 2016
On 26 May 2016, First Vice-President Timmermans had a meeting in Brussels with the Deputy Prime Minister of Poland.
effektiviteten af forfatningsdomstolens virkemåde og effektiviteten af den forfatningsretlige gennemgang af ny lovgivning, navnlig set i lyset af den lov om forfatningsdomstolen, som Sejm vedtog den 22. juli 2016.
Subsequently, further exchanges and meetings took place between the Commission and the Polish government.
UDNÆVNELSE AF DOMMERE TIL FORFATNINGSDOMSTOLEN
However, despite the detailed and constructive nature of the exchanges between the Commission and the Polish Government, they were not able to resolve the concerns of the Commission.
Forud for parlamentsvalget til Sejm den 25. oktober 2015 udpegede den afgående lovgivende forsamling den8. oktober fem personer, som skulle »udnævnes« til dommere ved forfatningsdomstolen af den polske præsident.
On 1 June 2016, the Commission adopted an Opinion concerning the rule of law in Poland.