natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Firstly, the relevant authorities in the Member States which hold information concerning euro counterfeiting (for example, information concerning printing works in which false euros are made or data concerning the circulation of false euros within the EU) will not be able to supply such information or data direct to Europol, since the exchange of information between Europol and the Member States takes place through the national liaison offices.
Firstly, the relevant authorities in the Member States which hold information concerning euro counterfeiting (for example, information concerning printing works in which false euros are made or data concerning the circulation of false euros within the EU) will not be able to supply such information or data direct to Europol, since the exchange of information between Europol and the Member States takes place through the national liaison offices.
This fact -combined with the specific nature of currency counterfeiting - means that an exchange of information which is not direct will be futile, since it would hinder the flow of information and might expose the euro to even greater risk.
This fact -combined with the specific nature of currency counterfeiting - means that an exchange of information which is not direct will be futile, since it would hinder the flow of information and might expose the euro to even greater risk.
This is precisely what the draft report points out and tries to prevent.
This is precisely what the draft report points out and tries to prevent.
Furthermore, Europol labours under significant restrictions when establishing direct contact with third countries or other international organisations: pursuant to Article 2 of the 1999 Council Act, Europol may not forward personal data to a third country or body other than within the framework of an Agreement between the two parties.
Furthermore, Europol labours under significant restrictions when establishing direct contact with third countries or other international organisations: pursuant to Article 2 of the 1999 Council Act, Europol may not forward personal data to a third country or body other than within the framework of an Agreement between the two parties.
Should no such agreement exist, no information may be forwarded.
Should no such agreement exist, no information may be forwarded.
These two factors constitute serious and decisive obstacles preventing Europol from acting effectively and satisfactorily as the EU's central office dealing with euro counterfeiting.
These two factors constitute serious and decisive obstacles preventing Europol from acting effectively and satisfactorily as the EU's central office dealing with euro counterfeiting.
For this reason your rapporteur considers that if the proposal's ultimate objective (i.e. proper protection of the euro against counterfeiting) is to be achieved, the central offices currently in existence in the Member States should retain their powers as regards protection of the euro.
For this reason your rapporteur considers that if the proposal's ultimate objective (i.e. proper protection of the euro against counterfeiting) is to be achieved, the central offices currently in existence in the Member States should retain their powers as regards protection of the euro.
This - combined with the establishment of a mechanism for close cooperation and the exchange of information between those offices and Europol - would provide all the bodies and authorities involved in protecting the euro with more effective weapons with which to combat counterfeiting.
This - combined with the establishment of a mechanism for close cooperation and the exchange of information between those offices and Europol - would provide all the bodies and authorities involved in protecting the euro with more effective weapons with which to combat counterfeiting.
Europol is regulated by a Convention which dates from 1995 and which has been successively revised over the period since it came into force - the main purpose of the revisions being to extend Europol's powers.
Europol is regulated by a Convention which dates from 1995 and which has been successively revised over the period since it came into force - the main purpose of the revisions being to extend Europol's powers.
However, nothing has been done so far to amend Europol's legal framework, despite a series of requests from Parliament
However, nothing has been done so far to amend Europol's legal framework, despite a series of requests from Parliament
See its Recommendation of 30 May 2002 on the future development of Europol and its automatic incorporation into the institutional system of the European Union (OJ C 187 E, 7.8.2003, p.
See its Recommendation of 30 May 2002 on the future development of Europol and its automatic incorporation into the institutional system of the European Union (OJ C 187 E, 7.8.2003, p.
144) and its Recommendation of 10 April 2003 on the future development of Europol (OJ C 64 E, 12.3.2004, p.
144) and its Recommendation of 10 April 2003 on the future development of Europol (OJ C 64 E, 12.3.2004, p.
588). which has pointed out that if Europol is genuinely to become an effective means of combating organised crime in the EU, the following restrictions must be lifted:
588). which has pointed out that if Europol is genuinely to become an effective means of combating organised crime in the EU, the following restrictions must be lifted:
§ Europol still acts within the framework of intergovernmental cooperation, despite the fact that its powers are being constantly increased.
§ Europol still acts within the framework of intergovernmental cooperation, despite the fact that its powers are being constantly increased.
§ Decisions relating to Europol continue to be adopted by the Council acting unanimously.
§ Decisions relating to Europol continue to be adopted by the Council acting unanimously.
§ Parliament is unable to exercise proper democratic control over Europol.
§ Parliament is unable to exercise proper democratic control over Europol.
§ The current procedure for amending the Convention is excessively long-winded and laborious and it has to be ratified by all the Member States, whilst replacing it with a Council Decision would run up against the problem of securing the requisite political agreement.
§ The current procedure for amending the Convention is excessively long-winded and laborious and it has to be ratified by all the Member States, whilst replacing it with a Council Decision would run up against the problem of securing the requisite political agreement.
Hence neither option is really satisfactory.
Hence neither option is really satisfactory.
For all of the above reasons, Parliament has repeatedly called for Europol to be converted into a proper Community body , equipped with its own budget and subject to democratic control carried out by Parliament and the Court of Justice.
For all of the above reasons, Parliament has repeatedly called for Europol to be converted into a proper Community body , equipped with its own budget and subject to democratic control carried out by Parliament and the Court of Justice.
The unsuitability of Europol's legal framework is once again reflected in the proposal with which this report is concerned: Europol has neither the legal nor the operational nor the budget resources with which to take effective action against euro counterfeiting.
The unsuitability of Europol's legal framework is once again reflected in the proposal with which this report is concerned: Europol has neither the legal nor the operational nor the budget resources with which to take effective action against euro counterfeiting.
Firstly (as your rapporteur has already pointed out), Europol's legal framework is the first of the impediments with which the European Police Office has to contend.
Firstly (as your rapporteur has already pointed out), Europol's legal framework is the first of the impediments with which the European Police Office has to contend.
Secondly, Europol has no operational functions of any nature - functions which (particularly in the field of currency counterfeiting) could lead to effective, decisive results.
Secondly, Europol has no operational functions of any nature - functions which (particularly in the field of currency counterfeiting) could lead to effective, decisive results.
Thirdly, Europol has no budget of its own with which to provide operational support in Member States (either inside or outside the euro area) in which action or investigation designed to stamp out euro counterfeiting is being conducted.
Thirdly, Europol has no budget of its own with which to provide operational support in Member States (either inside or outside the euro area) in which action or investigation designed to stamp out euro counterfeiting is being conducted.
In short, designating Europol as the Member States' central office dealing with action to combat euro counterfeiting should be accompanied by the provision of a legal and budgetary basis.
In short, designating Europol as the Member States' central office dealing with action to combat euro counterfeiting should be accompanied by the provision of a legal and budgetary basis.
This is the only way of equipping the EU with an adequate and effective means of combating fraud in respect of the single currency.
This is the only way of equipping the EU with an adequate and effective means of combating fraud in respect of the single currency.
Saksamaa Liitvabariigi, Hispaania Kuningriigi, Prantsuse Vabariigi, Itaalia Vabariigi ning Suurbritannia ja Põhja-Iiri Ühendkuningriigi algatuse kohta võtta vastu nõukogu otsus, mis käsitleb euro kaitsmist võltsimise eest, määrates Europoli euro võltsimise vastu võitlemise keskasutuseks
Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a view to adopting a Council Decision on protecting the euro against counterfeiting, by designating Europol as the Central Office for combating euro counterfeiting
art 93 ja art 51
Rules 93 and 51
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud liikmed
Members present for final vote
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed
Substitutes present for final vote
Lõpphääletuse ajal kohal olnud asendusliikmed (art 178 lg 2)
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for final vote
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, mis käsitleb teadusliku ja tehnoloogilise koostöö lepingu sõlmimist Euroopa Ühenduse ja Mehhiko Ühendriikide vahel
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the United Mexican States
(Lihtsustatud menetlus – kodukorra artikkel 43)
(Simplified procedure - Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure)
– võttes arvesse nõukogu otsuse ettepanekut ( KOM(2004)0802 )
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision ( COM(2004)0802 )
ELT C ... / ELTs seni avaldamata ;
OJ C ... / Not yet published in OJ. ,
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 170 lõiget 2 ja artikli 300 lõike 2 esimese lõigu esimest lauset;
– having regard to Articles 170(2) and 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence of the EC Treaty,
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 esimest lõiku, vastavalt millele nõukogu konsulteeris parlamendiga ( C6-0035/2005 );
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0035/2005 ),
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artiklit 51, artikli 83 lõiget 7 ja artiklit 43;
– having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) and 43 of its Rules of Procedure,
– võttes arvesse tööstuse, teadusuuringute ja energeetikakomisjoni raportit ( A6‑0080/2005 );
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0080/2005 ),
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, mis käsitleb teadusliku ja tehnoloogilise koostöö lepingu sõlmimist Euroopa Ühenduse ja Mehhiko Ühendriikide vahel
Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the United Mexican States
art 300 lg 3 esimene lõik (EÜ)
Article 300(3), first subparagraph, EC
art 51, 83 lg 7 ja 43
Rules 51, 83(7) and 43
INTA 3.2.2004
INTA 3.2.2005
Konsulteerimine Euroopa majandus- ja sotsiaalkomiteega
European Economic and Social Committee consulted
Richard James Ashworth, Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giles Chichester, Garrelt Duin, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, Umberto Guidoni, Andr?s Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, J?n Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
Richard James Ashworth, Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giles Chichester, Garrelt Duin, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, mis käsitleb teadusliku ja tehnoloogilise koostöö lepingu sõlmimist Euroopa Ühenduse ja Brasiilia Liitvabariigi vahel
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil
– võttes arvesse nõukogu otsuse ettepanekut ( KOM(2004)0625 )
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision ( COM(2004)0625 )
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 170 lõiget 2 koos artikli 300 lõike 2 esimese lõigu esimese lausega;
– having regard to Article 170, second paragraph, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph of the EC Treaty,
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 esimest lõiku, vastavalt millele nõukogu konsulteeris parlamendiga ( C6-0009/2005 );
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0009/2005 ),
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artiklit 51, artikli 83 lõiget 7 ja artiklit 43;
– having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43 of its Rules of Procedure,
– võttes arvesse tööstuse, teadusuuringute ja energeetikakomisjoni raportit ( A6‑0081/2004 );
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0081/2004 ),
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, mis käsitleb teadusliku ja tehnoloogilise koostöö lepingu sõlmimist Euroopa Ühenduse ja Brasiilia Liitvabariigi vahel
Proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil
EÜ asutamisleping, art 170 lg 2, art 300 lg 2 esimese lõigu esimene lause, art 300 lg 3 esimene lõik
Article 170(2), 300(2), first sentence of first subparagraph, 300(3), first subparagraph, EC
Richard James Ashworth, Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giles Chichester, Garrelt Duin, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, Umberto Guidoni, Andr?s Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, J?n Hudack?, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
Richard James Ashworth, Ivo Belet, Šarūnas Birutis, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giles Chichester, Garrelt Duin, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Adam Gierek, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto
Bulgaaria Vabariigi Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlus
on the application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI ÕIGUSLOOMEGA SEOTUD RESOLUTSIOONI PROJEKT.....5
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION...............................................5
– võttes arvesse Bulgaaria Vabariigi Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlust;
– having regard to the application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union,
– võttes arvesse nõukogu esitatud nõusoleku saamise taotlust vastavalt ELi lepingu artiklile 49 ( C6–0085/2005 );
– having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 49 of the EU Treaty ( C6‑0085/2005 ),
– võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni arvamust (KOM(2005) 0055);
– having regard to the opinion of the Commission ( COM(2005)0055 ),
– võttes arvesse Bulgaaria Vabariigi Euroopa Liiduga ühinemise lepingu projekti;
– having regard to the draft treaty for the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union,
– võttes arvesse kodukorra artiklit 75 ja artikli 82 lõiget 6;
– having regard to Rules 75 and 82(6) of its Rules of Procedure,
– võttes arvesse välisasjade komisjoni soovitust ( A6–0082/2005 );
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( A6‑0082/2005 ),
A. arvestades, et kandidaatriikide vastuvõtmistingimused ja muutused, mis kandidaatriikide ühinemisega kaasnevad, on sätestatud ühinemislepingus, ja arvestades vajadust konsulteerida parlamendiga lepingusse tehtud mis tahes põhjaliku muudatuse osas;
A. whereas the conditions for the admission of the applicant countries and the modifications which their accession entails are set in the accession treaty and whereas Parliament should be consulted on any substantial modifications to this treaty,
B. arvestades, et nõukogu ja Euroopa Komisjon peavad kaasama Euroopa Parlamendi täiel määral Bulgaaria Vabariigi ühinemisprotsessi edasisse käiku ja otsuse tegemisse, juhul kui Bulgaaria Vabariigi ühinemisel peaks rakendatama ühinemislepingus sisalduvaid kaitseklausleid;
B. whereas the Council and the Commission must fully involve the European Parliament in the follow-up to the process of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria, and in decision-making should the safeguard clauses contained in the accession treaty be activated in connection with the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria,
C. arvestades, et käesolevale nõusolekule eelnes mõlema eelarvepädeva institutsiooni ühine kokkulepe ühinemislepingus sisalduva finantspaketi kohta ning deklaratsiooni vastuvõtmine selle eelarveliste ja institutsionaalsete tagajärgede kohta;
C. whereas this assent has been preceded by a joint agreement of the two arms of the budgetary authority on the financial package to be included in the accession treaty and the adoption of a declaration on the budgetary and institutional consequences thereof,
Bulgaaria Vabariigi Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlus
Application by the Republic of Bulgaria to become a member of the European Union
EÜ art 49
Article 49 EU
art 75 ja art 82 lg 6
Rules 75 and 82(6)
EP nõusoleku taotluse kuupäev
Date of request for Parliament's assent
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Carlos Carnero Gonz?lez, Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Michl Ebner, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Georg Jarzembowski, Jaromír Kohlícek, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Pasqualina Napoletano, Doris Pack, Athanasios Pafilis, Rihards Piks, Aloyzas Sakalas, Anders Samuelsen, Pierre Schapira, Inger Segelström, Alexander Stubb, Csaba S?ndor Tabajdi
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Carlos Carnero González, Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Michl Ebner, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Georg Jarzembowski, Jaromír Kohlíček, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Pasqualina Napoletano, Doris Pack, Athanasios Pafilis, Rihards Pīks, Aloyzas Sakalas, Anders Samuelsen, Pierre Schapira, Inger Segelström, Alexander Stubb, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
Rumeenia Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlus
on the application by Romania to become a member of the European Union
Rumeenia Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotluse kohta
on the application by Romania to become a member of the European Union
– võttes arvesse Rumeenia Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlust;
– having regard to the application by Romania to become a member of the European Union,
– võttes arvesse nõukogu esitatud nõusoleku saamise taotlust vastavalt ELi lepingu artiklile 49 ( C6‑0086/2005 );
– having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 49 of the EU Treaty ( C6‑0086/2005 ),
– võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni arvamust ( KOM(2005)0055 );
– having regard to the opinion of the Commission ( COM(2005)0055 ),
– võttes arvesse Rumeenia Euroopa Liiduga ühinemise lepingu projekti;
– having regard to the draft treaty for the accession to the European Union of Romania,
– võttes arvesse välisasjade komisjoni soovitust ( A6‑0083/2005 );
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( A6‑0083/2005 ),
A. arvestades, et kandidaatriikide vastuvõtmistingimused ja muutused, mis kandidaatriikide ühinemisega kaasnevad, on sätestatud ühinemislepingus, ja arvestades vajadust konsulteerida parlamendiga lepingusse tehtud mis tahes põhjaliku muudatuse osas;
A. whereas the conditions for the admission of the applicant countries and the modifications which their accession entails are set out in the accession treaty and whereas Parliament should be consulted on any substantial modifications to this treaty,
B. arvestades, et nõukogu ja Euroopa Komisjon peavad kaasama Euroopa Parlamendi täiel määral Rumeenia ühinemisprotsessi edasisse käiku ja otsuse tegemisse, juhul kui Rumeenia ühinemisel peaks rakendatama ühinemislepingus sisalduvaid kaitseklausleid;
B. whereas the Council and the Commission must fully involve the European Parliament in the follow-up to the process of accession of Romania, and in decision-making should the safeguard clauses contained in the accession treaty be activated in connection with the accession of Romania,
Rumeenia Euroopa Liidu liikmeks saamise taotlus
Application by Romania to become a member of the European Union
EÜ art 49
Article 49 EC
Raportile lisatud resolutsiooni ettepaneku(d)
Motion(s) for resolution(s) included in the report
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Carlos Carnero Gonz?lez, Alexandra Dobolyi, ?rpád Duka-Zólyomi, Michl Ebner, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Georg Jarzembowski, Jaromír Kohlícek, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Pasqualina Napoletano, Doris Pack, Athanasios Pafilis, Anders Samuelsen, Pierre Schapira, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Carlos Carnero González, Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Michl Ebner, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Georg Jarzembowski, Jaromír Kohlíček, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Pasqualina Napoletano, Doris Pack, Athanasios Pafilis, Anders Samuelsen, Pierre Schapira, Inger Segelström, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
Nõukogu ühine seisukoht eesmärgiga võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus, millega muudetakse ühispiiridel kontrolli järkjärgulise kaotamise kohta 14. juunil 1985. aastal sõlmitud Schengeni lepingu rakenduskonventsiooni osas, mis käsitleb liikmesriikides sõidukite registreerimistunnistuste väljaandmise eest vastutavate teenistuste juurdepääsu Schengeni infosüsteemile
on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders as regards access to the Schengen Information System by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles