natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lahter 4:
Box 4:
Laiuskraad 37°45N, pikkuskraad 009°00W
Latitude 37°45N, longitude 009°00W
Laiuskraad 38°10N, pikkuskraad 009°00W
Latitude 38°10N, longitude 009°00W
Laiuskraad 38°10N, pikkuskraad 009°15W
Latitude 38°10N, longitude 009°15W
Laiuskraad 37°45N, pikkuskraad 009°20W
Latitude 37°45N, longitude 009°20W
Lahter 5:
Box 5:
Laiuskraad 36°05N, pikkuskraad 007°00W
Latitude 36°05N, longitude 007°00W
Laiuskraad 36°35N, pikkuskraad 007°00W
Latitude 36°35N, longitude 007°00W
Laiuskraad 36°45N, pikkuskraad 007°18W
Latitude 36°45N, longitude 007°18W
Laiuskraad 36°50N, pikkuskraad 007°50W
Latitude 36°50N, longitude 007°50W
Laiuskraad 36°25N, pikkuskraad 007°50W”
Latitude 36°25N, longitude 007°50W”
Artikkel 22 a
ARTICLE 22 A (new)
Aruanne taastamiskava kohta
Report on the recovery plan
Euroopa Komisjon esitab Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule aruande, milles esitatakse järeldused merluusi ja norra salehomaari varude taastamiskava kohaldamise kohta, kaasa arvatud kavaga seotud sotsiaalmajanduslikud andmed.
The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council setting out the conclusions relating to the application of the recovery plan for hake and Norway lobster, including socio-economic data linked to the plan.
Nimetatud aruanne esitatakse kaks aastat pärast käesoleva määruse jõustumist.
This report shall be submitted two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Käesolev lisa on kustutatud.
This annex is deleted.
The Commission itself acknowledges that the calculation of fishing effort set out in the proposal is obsolete.
The Commission itself acknowledges that the calculation of fishing effort set out in the proposal is obsolete.
The entire chapter on fishing effort limitation under the conditions proposed by the Commission has been deleted in this report, the aim being for the Commission to update the calculation of the corresponding limit under the terms proposed in the report.
The entire chapter on fishing effort limitation under the conditions proposed by the Commission has been deleted in this report, the aim being for the Commission to update the calculation of the corresponding limit under the terms proposed in the report.
This draft report makes significant changes to the Commission proposal establishing measures for the recovery of Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and the waters of the Western Iberian peninsula.
This draft report makes significant changes to the Commission proposal establishing measures for the recovery of Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and the waters of the Western Iberian peninsula.
Before analysing the draft regulation, it should be pointed out that the Commission’s proposal is exclusively based on aspects relating to the conservation of resources and makes no mention at all of the socio-economic impact of its application.
Before analysing the draft regulation, it should be pointed out that the Commission’s proposal is exclusively based on aspects relating to the conservation of resources and makes no mention at all of the socio-economic impact of its application.
Consequently, your rapporteur considers it desirable to insert a reference to the economic measures which will need to be adopted to deal with the damage to the fishing industry as a result of the probable reduction in fishing possibilities available to the fleet traditionally operating in this sector.
Consequently, your rapporteur considers it desirable to insert a reference to the economic measures which will need to be adopted to deal with the damage to the fishing industry as a result of the probable reduction in fishing possibilities available to the fleet traditionally operating in this sector.
The Commission proposal is geared to a stock-recovery objective which takes fishing mortality as its reference point.
The Commission proposal is geared to a stock-recovery objective which takes fishing mortality as its reference point.
In contrast, the model used in the rapporteur’s proposal is based on biomass recovery scales over a ten-year period, which will enable the industry to adapt more gradually and more flexibly, ensuring greater stability for fishing without diminishing the ultimate objective of ensuring the recovery of stocks to sufficient levels for their sustainable management.
In contrast, the model used in the rapporteur’s proposal is based on biomass recovery scales over a ten-year period, which will enable the industry to adapt more gradually and more flexibly, ensuring greater stability for fishing without diminishing the ultimate objective of ensuring the recovery of stocks to sufficient levels for their sustainable management.
The parameters contained in the amendments to the Commission proposal as regards fishing mortality in the hake fishery and the possibilities for annual variations in the TACs are in keeping with the scientific data provided by experts at the meeting held by our committee with scientists and stakeholders in September 2004.
The parameters contained in the amendments to the Commission proposal as regards fishing mortality in the hake fishery and the possibilities for annual variations in the TACs are in keeping with the scientific data provided by experts at the meeting held by our committee with scientists and stakeholders in September 2004.
Your rapporteur considers that the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Commission proposal on the calculation of the fishing effort limit are incorrect and proposes that they be replaced by a more appropriate system based on a calculation of total allowable catches complemented by a fishing effort limitation scheme based on geographical areas and categories of fishing gear.
Your rapporteur considers that the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Commission proposal on the calculation of the fishing effort limit are incorrect and proposes that they be replaced by a more appropriate system based on a calculation of total allowable catches complemented by a fishing effort limitation scheme based on geographical areas and categories of fishing gear.
Your rapporteur also takes the view that the quantities laid down in the Commission proposal in relation to the mandatory weighing of hake (50 kg), where strict control obligations are imposed, are very small.
Your rapporteur also takes the view that the quantities laid down in the Commission proposal in relation to the mandatory weighing of hake (50 kg), where strict control obligations are imposed, are very small.
The application of this decision would entail a series of very costly obligations for stakeholders, which are disproportionate to the possible benefits to be gained from this measure in relation to the recovery of stocks.
The application of this decision would entail a series of very costly obligations for stakeholders, which are disproportionate to the possible benefits to be gained from this measure in relation to the recovery of stocks.
With regard to the Norway lobster fishery, your rapporteur considers that the estimates contained in the Commission proposal are not accurate because they take no account of actual fishing conditions.
With regard to the Norway lobster fishery, your rapporteur considers that the estimates contained in the Commission proposal are not accurate because they take no account of actual fishing conditions.
Fishing in the areas covered by the proposal is generally multi-species.
Fishing in the areas covered by the proposal is generally multi-species.
Catches of lobster in these multi-species fisheries represent approximately 1% of total catches.
Catches of lobster in these multi-species fisheries represent approximately 1% of total catches.
Bearing in mind that other areas are already closed, the system of closed areas proposed in the Commission’s plan would make trawling in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula all but impossible.
Bearing in mind that other areas are already closed, the system of closed areas proposed in the Commission’s plan would make trawling in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula all but impossible.
With regard to the Gulf of Cadiz, there are at present no reliable scientific data on the actual state of stocks of hake and Norway lobster in this area, which means that, for the moment, it is preferable to exclude it from the regulations until we have sufficient scientific data to adopt appropriate measures.
With regard to the Gulf of Cadiz, there are at present no reliable scientific data on the actual state of stocks of hake and Norway lobster in this area, which means that, for the moment, it is preferable to exclude it from the regulations until we have sufficient scientific data to adopt appropriate measures.
Meetmete võtmine uusmeremaa merluusi ja norra salehomaari varude taastamiseks Kantaabria meres ja Pürenee poolsaare lääneosas ning määruse (EÜ) nr 850/98 muutmine
Proposal for a Council regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the Southern hake and Norway lobster stocks in the Cantabrian Sea and Western Iberian peninsula and amending Regulation (EC) No 850/98
art 37
Article 37
art 51
Article 51
Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Zdzislaw Kazimierz Chmielewski, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Alfred Gomolka, Heinz Kindermann, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Albert Jan Maat, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Bernard Poignant, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna
Elspeth Attwooll, Marie-Hélène Aubert, Niels Busk, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, David Casa, Zdzisław Kazimierz Chmielewski, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Ioannis Gklavakis, Alfred Gomolka, Heinz Kindermann, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Albert Jan Maat, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Bernard Poignant, Dirk Sterckx, Struan Stevenson, Catherine Stihler, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, millega kiidetakse heaks Euroopa Ühenduse ühinemine rahvusvahelise uute taimesortide kaitse konventsiooniga, mida on viimati muudetud Genfis 19. märtsil 1991. aastal
on the proposal for a Council decision approving the accession of the European Community to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, as revised at Geneva on 19 March 1991
(lihtsustatud menetlus, kodukorra artikli 43 lõige 1)
(Simplified procedure – Rule 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
– võttes arvesse nõukogu otsuse ettepanekut ( KOM(2004)0798 )
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision ( COM(2004)0798 )
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artiklit 37 seoses artikli 300 lõike 2 teise lõiguga;
– having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 300(2), second subparagraph thereof,
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 esimest lõiku, mille alusel nõukogu konsulteeris parlamendiga ( C6-0010/2005 );
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0010/2005 ),
– võttes arvesse põllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu komisjoni raportit ( A6‑0052/2005 );
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development ( A6‑0052/2005 ),
Nõukogu otsuse ettepanek, millega kiidetakse heaks Euroopa Ühenduse ühinemine rahvusvahelise uute taimesortide kaitse konventsiooniga, mida on viimati muudetud Genfis 19. märtsil 1991. aastal
Proposal for a Council decision approving the accession of the European Community to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, as revised at Geneva on 19 March 1991
Mootorsõidukite esikaitsesüsteemide kasutamist käsitleva Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivi ettepanek, millega muudetakse nõukogu direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC
EUROOPA PARLAMENDI ÕIGUSLOOMEGA SEOTUD RESOLUTSIOONI PROJEKT.....4
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION..........................................5
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................13
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT...................................................................................................16
SISETURU- JA TARBIJAKAITSEKOMISJONI ARVAMUS.................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 21
– võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule ( KOM(2003)0586 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2003)0586 )
– võttes arvesse EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 251 lõiget 2 ja artiklit 95, vastavalt millele Euroopa Komisjon parlamendile ettepaneku esitas ( C5-0473/2003 );
– having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C5‑0473/2003 ),
– võttes arvesse oma kodukorra artiklit 51;
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– võttes arvesse transpordi- ja turismikomisjoni raportit ning siseturu- ja tarbijakaitsekomisjoni arvamust ( A6‑0053/2005 );
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection ( A6‑0053/2005 ),
2. palub Euroopa Komisjonil see uuesti parlamenti saata, kui ta kavatseb ettepanekut oluliselt muuta või seda teise tekstiga asendada;
Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3) Tuleb kehtestada katse-, konstruktsiooni- ja paigaldusnõuded, millele peavad vastama kõik nii originaalvarustusena sõidukile paigaldatud kui eraldi seadmestikuna turule viidud esikaitsesüsteemid.
(3) It is necessary to establish the test, construction and installation requirements to be complied with by any frontal protection system either supplied as original equipment fitted to a vehicle or placed on the market as a separate technical unit.
3) Tuleb kontrollida esikaitsesüsteemide kasutamist ning kehtestada katse-, konstruktsiooni- ja paigaldusnõuded, millele peavad vastama kõik nii originaalvarustusena sõidukile paigaldatud kui eraldi seadmestikuna turule viidud esikaitsesüsteemid.
(3) It is necessary to control the use of frontal protection systems and to establish the test, construction and installation requirements to be complied with by any frontal protection system either supplied as original equipment fitted to a vehicle or placed on the market as a separate technical unit.
Katsed peaksid nõudma, et esikaitsesüsteemid konstrueeritakse viisil, mis suurendab jalakäijate ohutust ja vähendab vigastuste arvu.
Tests should require that frontal protection systems are designed in a way that improves pedestrian safety and reduces the number of injuries.
3 a) Neid nõudeid tuleks arvesse võtta ka jalakäijate ja teiste vähem kaitstud liiklejate kaitse kontekstis ning tuginedes Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. novembri 2003 aasta direktiivile 2003/102/EÜ jalakäijate ja teiste vähem kaitstud liiklejate kaitse kohta enne kokkupõrget ja kokkupõrke korral mootorsõidukiga, ning millega muudetakse nõukogu direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ*.
(3a) These requirements should also be regarded in the context of the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users and with reference to Directive 2003/102/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users before and in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC *.
Käesolev direktiiv tuleks üle vaadata edasisi teadusuuringuid ning direktiivi kohaldamise esimese nelja aasta jooksul saadud kogemusi silmas pidades.
This Directive should be reviewed in the light of further research and experience gained during the first four years of its application.
5 a) Euroopa Komisjon peaks jälgima käesoleva direktiivi mõju ja kandma sellest ette nõukogule ja Euroopa Parlamendile.
(5a) The Commission should monitor the impact of this Directive and report back to the Council and the European Parliament.
Kui jalakäijate kaitse osas on vaja teha täiendavaid parandusi, peaks Euroopa Komisjon tegema ettepanekuid käesoleva direktiivi muutmiseks vastavalt tehnilisele arengule.
If deemed necessary to achieve further improvements in pedestrian protection, the Commission should make proposals to amend this Directive in accordance with technical progress.
PÕHJENDUS 6 A (uus)
RECITAL 6 A (new)
6 a) Käesolev direktiiv on osa Euroopa maanteeohutusalasest tegevusprogrammist ja seda võidakse täiendada riiklike meetmetega juba turul olevate esikaitsesüsteemide kasutamise keelustamiseks või piiramiseks enne direktiivi jõustumist.
(6a) This Directive is part of the European road safety action programme and may be supplemented by national measures to prohibit or restrict the use of frontal protection systems already on the market before the Directive's entry into force.
Käesolev direktiiv kehtestab mootorsõidukite tüübikinnituse tehnilised nõuded originaalvarustusena sõidukile paigaldatud või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatavate esikaitsesüsteemide osas.
This Directive lays down technical requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles as regards frontal protection systems supplied as original equipment fitted to vehicles or as separate technical units.
Käesoleva direktiivi eesmärk on parandada jalakäijate ja sõidukiohutust passiivsete meetmete abil.
This Directive is aimed at improving pedestrian and vehicle safety through passive measures.
See kehtestab mootorsõidukite tüübikinnituse tehnilised nõuded originaalvarustusena sõidukile paigaldatud või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatavate esikaitsesüsteemide osas.
It lays down technical requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles as regards frontal protection systems supplied as original equipment fitted to vehicles or as separate technical units.
ARTIKLI 2 PUNKT 2
ARTICLE 2, POINT (2),
2) “eraldi seadmestik” tähendab igasugust direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artiklis 2 määratletud seadet, mis on ette nähtud sõidukitele paigaldamiseks ja neil kasutamiseks.
(2) “separate technical unit” means any device as defined in Article 2 of Directive 70/156/EEC and intended for installation and use on vehicles .
2) “eraldi seadmestik” tähendab igasugust direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artiklis 2 määratletud seadet, mis on ette nähtud ühe või mitme M 1 - või N 1 -kategooria (kuni 3,5 tonni) mootorsõiduki konkreetsele tüübile paigaldamiseks ja neil kasutamiseks.
(2) “separate technical unit” means any device as defined in Article 2 of Directive 70/156/EEC and intended for installation and use on one or more given types of motor vehicle of class M1 or N1 (up to 3.5 tonnes) .
See also Annex 1, last paragraph of 1.1.
See also Annex 1, last paragraph of 1.1.
This amendment clarifies that separate technical unit approvals can be given only in combination with a specified vehicle type or vehicle types.
This amendment clarifies that separate technical unit approvals can be given only in combination with a specified vehicle type or vehicle types.
In order to assess the safety of a Frontal Protection System, it is necessary to understand its relation to a particular vehicle or vehicles.
In order to assess the safety of a Frontal Protection System, it is necessary to understand its relation to a particular vehicle or vehicles.
In this respect, the safety of the Frontal Protection System is dependent on:
In this respect, the safety of the Frontal Protection System is dependent on:
1. the method of mounting the frontal protection system on the vehicle;
1. the method of mounting the frontal protection system on the vehicle;
2. the space between the frontal protection system and the vehicle body.
2. the space between the frontal protection system and the vehicle body.
ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKE 1 SISSEJUHATAV OSA
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH1, INTRODUCTORY PART
Alates 1. oktoobrist 2004 ei tohi liikmesriigid uue sõidukitüübi puhul, millel on I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele vastav esikaitsesüsteem, esikaitsesüsteemidega seotud põhjustel:
With effect from 1 October 2004 , in respect of a new type of vehicle fitted with a frontal protection system which complies with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States may not, on grounds relating to frontal protection systems:
Alates [üheksa kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] ei tohi liikmesriigid uue sõidukitüübi puhul, millel on I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele vastav esikaitsesüsteem, esikaitsesüsteemidega seotud põhjustel:
With effect from [nine months after publication of this Directive], in respect of a new type of vehicle fitted with a frontal protection system which complies with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States may not, on grounds relating to frontal protection systems:
Alates 1. oktoobrist 2004 ei tohi liikmesriigid uut tüüpi esikaitsesüsteemi puhul, mida turustatakse eraldi seadmestikuna ning mis vastab I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele:
With effect from 1 October 2004 , in respect of a new type of frontal protection system, which is made available as a separate technical unit, and which complies with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States may not:
Alates [üheksa kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] ei tohi liikmesriigid uut tüüpi esikaitsesüsteemi puhul, mida turustatakse eraldi seadmestikuna ning mis vastab I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele:
With effect from [nine months after publication of this Directive] , in respect of a new type of frontal protection system, which is made available as a separate technical unit, and which complies with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States may not:
ARTIKLI 3 LÕIGE 3
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 3
Alates 1. juulist 2005 keelduvad liikmesriigid EÜ tüübikinnituse või siseriikliku tüübikinnituse andmisest sõidukitüübile, mis on varustatud esikaitsesüsteemiga, või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatava esikaitsesüsteemi tüübile, mis ei vasta I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele.
With effect from 1 July 2005 , in respect of a type of vehicle fitted with a frontal protection system, or a type of frontal protection system supplied as a separate technical unit, which does not comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States shall refuse to grant EC type-approval or national type‑approval.
Alates [kaksteist kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] keelduvad liikmesriigid EÜ tüübikinnituse või siseriikliku tüübikinnituse andmisest sõidukitüübile, mis on varustatud esikaitsesüsteemiga, või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatava esikaitsesüsteemi tüübile, mis ei vasta I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele.
With effect from [twelve months after publication of this Directive], in respect of a type of vehicle fitted with a frontal protection system, or a type of frontal protection system supplied as a separate technical unit, which does not comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States shall refuse to grant EC type-approval or national type‑approval.
ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKE 4 SISSEJUHATAV OSA
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 4, INTRODUCTORY PART
Alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 käesoleva direktiivi I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele mittevastavate sõidukite puhul esikaitsesüsteemidega seotud põhjustel liikmesriigid:
With effect from 1 January 2006 , in respect of vehicles which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II to this Directive, Member States shall, on grounds relating to frontal protection systems:
Alates [kaheksateist kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] käesoleva direktiivi I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele mittevastavate sõidukite puhul esikaitsesüsteemidega seotud põhjustel liikmesriigid:
With effect from [eighteen months after publication of this Directive], in respect of vehicles which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II to this Directive, Member States shall, on grounds relating to frontal protection systems: