natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lisaks on kõnealuse määruse õiguslikuks aluseks EÜ asutamislepingu artikkel 95 ning on arusaamatu, miks nõukogu selle viite välja jättis.
Finally, this Regulation derives its legal basis from Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and it seems inconceivable that the Council should be proposing to delete this reference.
Kõnealuse ühenduse teksti väljatöötamise kaudu saab Euroopa Liit enda käsutusse tõhusad vahendid, et aidata kaasa pediaatrias kasutatavate ravimite arendamisele ning leevendada olulisi puudujääke rahvatervise valdkonnas, mis siiani eksisteerivad.
With the introduction of this Community act, the European Union will have effective means of promoting the development of medicinal products for paediatric use and closing this current major gap in the area of public health.
Nii ei sõltu meie lapsed enam Ameerika või Aasia teadlaste heast tahtest.
That will mean that our children will no longer have to depend on the good will of the research sector in the USA or Asia.
Nõukogu 10. märtsi 2006. aasta ühine seisukoht eesmärgiga võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus pediaatrias kasutatavate ravimite ning määruse (EMÜ) nr 1768/92, direktiivi 2001/20/EÜ, direktiivi 2001/83/EÜ ja määruse (EÜ) nr 726/2004 muutmise kohta
Common Position adopted by the Council on 10 March 2006 with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004
EP 1. lugemise kuupäev – P-number
Date of first reading in EP – P number
Ühise seisukoha kättesaamisest istungil teada andmise kuupäev
Date on which receipt of common position announced in plenary
Lõpphääletuse tulemused
Outcome of final vote
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliige / asendusliikmed
Substitutes present for final vote
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliige / asendusliikmed (kodukorra art 178 lg 2)
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for final vote
Märkused (andmed on kättesaadavad ainult ühes keeles)
Comments (information available in one language only)
Jean-Marie Cavada , kodanikuvabaduste, justiits- ja siseasjade komisjon
Jean-Marie Cavada , Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
(*) Tõhustatud koostöö komisjonide vahel – kodukorra artikkel 47
(*)Enhanced cooperation between committees - Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
kodanikuvabaduste, justiits- ja siseasjade komisjoNI ARVAMUS ...........14
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS 13
Euroopa Kohtu 13. septembri 2005. aasta otsuse tagajärgede kohta (C-176/03 komisjon versus nõukogu)
on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of 13 September 2005 (C-176/03 Commission/Council)
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artiklit 10 ja Euroopa Liidu lepingu artiklit 47;
– having regard to Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Article 47 of the EU Treaty,
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artiklit 5;
– having regard to Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
– võttes arvesse oma 3. septembri 2003. aasta resolutsiooni pealkirjaga "Õiguslik alus ja ühenduse õiguse austamine"
– having regard to its Resolution of 3 September 2003 on legal bases and compliance with Community law
– võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduste Kohtu 13. septembri 2005. aasta otsust
– having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13 September 2005
Kohtuasi C-176/03, komisjon v. nõukogu, EKLs seni avaldamata. ;
Case C-176/03, Commission v. Council, not yet published in the reports (OJ C 315, 10.12.2005, p.2) ,
– võttes arvesse komisjoni teatist Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule Euroopa Kohtu 13. septembri 2005. aasta otsuse tagajärgede kohta (C-176/03 komisjon versus nõukogu) ( KOM(2005)0583 );
– having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v. Council) (COM 2005)0583),
– võttes arvesse õiguskomisjoni raportit ning kodanikuvabaduste, justiits- ja siseasjade komisjoni arvamust ( A6-0172/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0172/2006 ),
A. arvestades, et ühenduse õigusnormide tõhus rakendamine on ühenduse asutuste peamisi ülesandeid ning vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artiklile 10 liikmesriikide esmane kohustus;
A. whereas the effective implementation of Community law is one of the main concerns of the Community institutions and a fundamental obligation of the Member States, as laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
B. arvestades, et kogu ühenduse tegevuse suhtes kohaldatakse vastavalt asutamislepingu artiklile 5 subsidiaarsuse põhimõtet;
B. whereas any action taken by the Community must accord with the subsidiarity principle laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty,
C. arvestades, et Euroopa Kohtu praktikast tuleneb mitmel puhul, et meetmed, mis on vajalikud ühenduse õiguse tõhusaks rakendamiseks, võivad hõlmata kriminaalkaristusi;
C. whereas the case law of the Court of Justice has repeatedly established that the measures required to ensure the effective implementation of Community law may involve criminal penalties,
D. arvestades, et ühenduse õiguse ülimuslikkuse ja lojaalse koostöö põhimõtted võivad mõjutada liikmesriikide riigisisest kriminaalõigust, kohustades liikmesriike Euroopa Kohtu praktikast lähtuvalt:
D. whereas the principles of the primacy of Community law and cooperation in good faith can affect the national criminal legislation of the Member States in so far as the latter are obliged, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice:
EKL 1999, lk I-6207. ; 28. jaanuari 1999. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-77/97, Unilever, punkt 36: "… sätetes, mille … liikmesriigid võtavad vastu, et vältida … tuleb ette näha, et sellise reklaamivormi näol on tegemist kuriteoga, seejuures kriminaalkuriteoga, millega peaks olema seotud hoiatava loomuga karistused"
I-6207. ; judgment of 28 January 1999 in Case C-77/97, Unilever, point 36: ‘(…) the measures which the Member States are required to take (…) in order to prevent (…) must provide that such advertisements constitute a breach of the law and, in particular, a criminal offence punishable by penalties having a deterrent effect’
E. arvestades, et Euroopa Kohtu praktikas on eelkõige loodud selgus esimese ja kolmanda samba alusel kohaldatavate õiguslike aluste suhtes, ning et põhimõtteliselt ei tunnustata ühenduse õiguslooja pädevust kriminaalõiguses ega kriminaalmenetluse alal;
E. whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice primarily served to clarify which legal bases applied under the first and the third pillar while establishing that, as a general principle, the European legislature had no competence in relation to criminal matters or criminal procedural law,
F. arvestades eelkõige, et ülalnimetatud otsusega kinnitas Euroopa Kohus, et ehkki kriminaalõigus ei kuulu üldiselt Euroopa Ühenduse pädevusse, ei takista see ühenduse õigusloojal juhul, kui tõhusate, proportsionaalsete ja hoiatavate kriminaalkaristuste kohaldamine pädevate siseriiklike ametivõimude poolt on hädavajalik keskkonnaõiguse raskete rikkumistega võitlemiseks, võtmast liikmesriikide kriminaalõigusega seonduvaid meetmeid, mida ta peab vajalikuks, et tagada tema poolt keskkonnakaitse valdkonnas kehtestatud õigusnormide tõhusus;
F. whereas, in particular, in the abovementioned judgment, the Court of Justice, while finding that, as a general rule, criminal matters did not fall within the Community's competence, stated that that did not prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities was an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which related to the criminal law of the Member States which it considered necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it laid down on environmental protection were fully effective,
G. arvestades, et vastavalt ühenduse kohtupraktikale tuleb õigusakti õigusliku aluse kindlaksmääramisel võtta arvesse selle eesmärki ja sisu ning et seetõttu on vastavalt Euroopa Liidu lepingu artiklile 29 ja sellele järgnevatele artiklitele Euroopa Liidu lepingu VI jaotise alusel vastu võetud õigusaktid õigusvastased, kui eesmärgi ja sisu alusel oleksid need võinud põhineda EÜ asutamislepingul;
G. whereas, in accordance with settled case law , to ensure that a Community act is adopted on the correct legal basis, the aim and content of the act itself must be taken into account and consequently, pursuant to Articles 29 et seq. of the EU Treaty, acts adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty are unlawful if, by virtue of their aim and content, they could have been based on the EC Treaty instead,
H. arvestades, et Euroopa Kohtu otsus käsitleb vaid kriminaalasju, mis on seotud keskkonnakaitsega, millega tegelemine on vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artiklitele 2 ja 3 ühenduse peamisi ülesandeid;
H. whereas the subject of the judgment of the Court of Justice is limited to criminal matters relating to protection of the environment, which is one of the main tasks of the Community, as specified in Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty,
I. arvestades, et nimetatud teatises pidas komisjon vajalikuks laiendada Euroopa Kohtu järeldusi, pidades kriminaalsätete kehtestamist Euroopa Liidu lepingu VI jaotise alusel õigusvastaseks mitte ainult keskkonnapoliitikaga seotud küsimuste, vaid ka teiste ühenduse pädevusse jäävate valdkondade puhul;
I. whereas, in the abovementioned communication, the Commission sought to extend the conclusions of the Court of Justice, regarding as unlawful criminal provisions adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty which related to other areas of Community competence also, and not just those relating to environmental policy,
J. arvestades, et nimetatud kohtuotsuse laiendatud tõlgendus ei ole sugugi iseenesestmõistetav;
J. whereas there appear to be no grounds for an automatic presumption in favour of a broad interpretation of the judgment,
K. arvestades, et komisjon jõudis Euroopa Kohtu otsuse laiendatud tõlgendusele tuginedes järeldusele, et mõnel juhul võib Euroopa Liidu lepingu VI jaotisel põhinevate õigusaktide õiguslikku alust pidada ekslikuks;
K whereas furthermore, according to the Commission, current legislation may include acts based on Title VI of the EU Treaty whose legal basis should be regarded as incorrect in the light of the abovementioned judgment of the Court of Justice, according to the broad interpretation of that judgment adopted by the Commission,
L. arvestades, et kõnealuste õigusaktide tühistamise vältimiseks ja ühenduse õiguskindluse tagamiseks teeb komisjon ettepaneku muuta asjakohasel viisil vastavaid kehtivaid õigusakte ja pooleliolevaid algatusi;
L. whereas, in order to avert the need to annul the legislation in question and in order to ensure legal certainty, the Commission proposes to take various measures in relation to existing legislation and pending proposals,
M. arvestades, et kriminaalsätete sisaldumise õiguspärasus Euroopa Liidu esimese samba raames vastu võetud õigusaktides on ühenduse õiguse arengu seisukohalt äärmiselt oluline küsimus;
M. having regard to the importance of the question of the legitimacy of including criminal provisions in legislation adopted under the first pillar of the EU, as a further stage in the development of Community law,
N. arvestades, et Euroopa Parlamendil kui õigusloomega tegeleval organil, millel on demokraatlik legitiimsus ja mis esindab Euroopa rahvaid, tuleb nimetatud arengut koos teiste institutsioonidega edendada;
N having regard to Parliament's role as the legislative body invested with democratic authority as the representative of the peoples of Europe and, together with the other European institutions, the driving force behind the development of Community law,
1. tervitab Euroopa Kohtu ülalnimetatud otsust, millega täpsustati, et teatava õigusakti õigusliku aluse korrektseks kindlaksmääramiseks tuleb vaadelda kõnealuse akti eesmärki ja sisu, ning tühistati sellest tulenevalt keskkonnakaitset käsitlev raamotsus, mis oli ekslikult koostatud kolmandale ja mitte esimesele sambale tuginedes;
Welcomes the abovementioned judgment of the Court of Justice, which made it clear that the legal basis on which acts are adopted must be selected by reference to the aim and content of the act itself, and consequently annulled a framework decision on environmental protection which had been mistakenly adopted under the third, rather than the first, pillar;
3. kutsub komisjoni üles mitte laiendama Euroopa Kohtu järeldusi automaatselt kõikidele esimesesse sambasse kuuluvatele valdkondadele;
Urges the Commission not to automatically extend the conclusions of the Court of Justice to every other field falling within the scope of the first pillar;
5. on arvamusel, et ühenduse õiguslooja peaks piirduma kriminaalkaristuste kohaldamisel vaid nende juhtudega, kus see on vajalik ja nõutav, et:
Takes the view that the European legislator must restrict the application of criminal sanctions to cases where they are essential and necessary for the protection:
– kaitsta kodanike ja teiste isikute õigusi ja vabadusi (näiteks võideldes inimkaubanduse ja rassismiilmingute või raske diskrimineerimise juhtude vastu);
- of the rights and freedoms of citizens and other persons (for example in the fight against trafficking in human beings and the fight against racist or seriously discriminatory conduct),
– kaitsta Euroopa Liidu põhihuve, sealhulgas finantshuve, ja võidelda eurode võltsimise vastu;
- of the essential interests of the European Union, including its financial interests and the fight against counterfeiting of the euro;
8. kutsub komisjoni üles kõnealuseid õigusakte uuesti üks haaval läbi vaatama, vältides üldistavaid hinnanguid ja ebamäärasust, et tagada süvaanalüüs ja nõuetekohase õigusliku aluse valimine igal üksikul juhul eraldi;
Calls on the Commission to review the acts it has specified on a case-by-case basis, instead of adopting an undifferentiated, across-the-board approach, in order to ensure that, after careful consideration, the correct legal basis is chosen in each individual case;
10. tuletab komisjonile meelde, et kehtivate õigusaktide õigusliku aluse muutmise juures ei saa ka juhul, kui teksti põhiolemust ei muudeta, mööda minna Euroopa Parlamendi kaasõiguslooja rollist ega hüljata sel viisil demokraatlikku legitiimsust, mis on Euroopa Parlamendi kui valitava kogu ja kodanike esindaja panuseks Euroopa ülesehitusse;
10 Reminds the Commission that reviewing the legislation in force, and possibly submitting proposals designed to rectify the legal basis while leaving the substance of the legislation unchanged, must not involve depriving Parliament of its inalienable role as co-legislator and thus sacrificing the democratic input provided by Parliament, the elected body representing European citizens, in the process of European integration;
12. tuletab meelde Euroopa Kohtu täpsustust, et ainuüksi teatud direktiivile tuginedes ja ilma vastava seaduseta, mis on vastu võetud selle ülevõtmiseks, ei ole võimalik kõnealuse direktiivi sätete rikkumise eest kriminaalvastutusele võtta ega vastutuse suurust määrata
Notes, however, that the Court of Justice has ruled that a directive ‘cannot, of itself and independently of a national law adopted by a Member State for its implementation, have the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law of persons who act in contravention of the provisions of that directive’
Kohtuasi 80/86, Kolpinghuis v. Nijmegen, EKL 1987, lk 3969, punkt 13, ja kohtuasi C-60/02, X, EKL 2004, lk I-61, punkt 61 ja selles viidatud kohtupraktika. ;
Case 80/86, Kolpinghuis Nijmegen, European Court Reports, 1987, page 03969, point 13, and Case C-60/02, X, ECR 2004 p.I-651, point 61, and the case law cited therein. ;
16. tuletab liikmesriikidele meelde, et EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 10 alusel peavad liikmesriigid tagama ühenduse tegevuse tõhususe, ning soovitab neil seetõttu astuda samme, et tagada eespool nimetatud eesmärkide järgimine nende riiklikus kriminaalõigussüsteemis;
Reminds Member States that, pursuant to Article 10 of the EC Treaty, they are obliged to ensure that Community action is generally effective, and consequently urges them to do their utmost to ensure that the provisions of their respective national criminal law are also designed to comply with that objective;
18. teeb presidendile ülesandeks edastada käesolev resolutsioon nõukogule, komisjonile ning liikmesriikide valitsustele ja parlamentidele.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States.
I. Criminal law and the European Union
I. Criminal law and the European Union
As the Court of Justice has consistently acknowledged (in, for example, its judgment of 11 November 1981, in Case 203/80, Casati , point 27, and its judgment of 16 June 1998, Case C-226/97, Lemmens , Reports, point 19), criminal law and procedure do not, as a general rule, fall within the province of the European Community (i.e. 'under the first pillar'), because there has been no explicit transferral of general competence in criminal matters.
As the Court of Justice has consistently acknowledged (in, for example, its judgment of 11 November 1981, in Case 203/80, Casati , point 27, and its judgment of 16 June 1998, Case C-226/97, Lemmens , Reports, point 19), criminal law and procedure do not, as a general rule, fall within the province of the European Community (i.e. 'under the first pillar'), because there has been no explicit transferral of general competence in criminal matters.
Conversely, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters fall within the European Union’s competence under the so-called 'third pillar' (Title VI of the TEU).
Conversely, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters fall within the European Union’s competence under the so-called 'third pillar' (Title VI of the TEU).
In particular, under Article 31(1)(e) of the TEU, common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters should include ‘progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking’.
In particular, under Article 31(1)(e) of the TEU, common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters should include ‘progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking’.
On the basis of that legal basis, in its framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, the Council imposed on Member States the obligation to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law certain conduct which is extremely dangerous for the environment.
On the basis of that legal basis, in its framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, the Council imposed on Member States the obligation to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law certain conduct which is extremely dangerous for the environment.
The Commission challenged that framework decision before the Court of Justice, the competent body pursuant to Article 35 of the TEU, asking for the act to be annulled on the grounds that it had been adopted on the wrong legal basis.
The Commission challenged that framework decision before the Court of Justice, the competent body pursuant to Article 35 of the TEU, asking for the act to be annulled on the grounds that it had been adopted on the wrong legal basis.
In the opinion of the Commission, the appropriate legal basis in this instance is Article 175 of the TEC on environmental policy.
In the opinion of the Commission, the appropriate legal basis in this instance is Article 175 of the TEC on environmental policy.
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005
The Court of Justice, in its judgment of 13 September 2005, Case C-176/03, Commission v Council , while noting that, as a general rule, the European Community does not have competence in criminal matters, ruled that that finding did not ‘prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective’ (point 48).
The Court of Justice, in its judgment of 13 September 2005, Case C-176/03, Commission v Council , while noting that, as a general rule, the European Community does not have competence in criminal matters, ruled that that finding did not ‘prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective’ (point 48).
Furthermore, the Court considered that it was necessary to take the purpose and content of the measure into account when deciding on the correct legal basis for a Community act.
Furthermore, the Court considered that it was necessary to take the purpose and content of the measure into account when deciding on the correct legal basis for a Community act.
It follows that the framework decision in question, whose principal aim and content related to environmental protection, should have been adopted on the basis of Article 175 TEC (the 'first pillar') rather than Title VI TEU (the 'third pillar') (point 51).
It follows that the framework decision in question, whose principal aim and content related to environmental protection, should have been adopted on the basis of Article 175 TEC (the 'first pillar') rather than Title VI TEU (the 'third pillar') (point 51).
The Court, accordingly, accepted the Commission’s argument and annulled the framework decision.
The Court, accordingly, accepted the Commission’s argument and annulled the framework decision.
The position of the Commission
The position of the Commission
The Commission therefore adopted a communication
The Commission therefore adopted a communication
Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court’s judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583 . which follows the Court's line of reasoning and considers the legality of legislation relating to criminal matters adopted under the first pillar in every area of Community competence which might be involved.
Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court’s judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583 . which follows the Court's line of reasoning and considers the legality of legislation relating to criminal matters adopted under the first pillar in every area of Community competence which might be involved.