natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the meantime, where possible, Switzerland shall implement the act or measure in question on a provisional basis.
In the meantime, where possible, Switzerland shall implement the act or measure in question on a provisional basis.
However, if Switzerland failed to implement the new act or measure on a provisional basis, then, under certain conditions, it may lead to "proportionate, appropriate measures against Switzerland to ensure that Schengen cooperation operates smoothly."
However, if Switzerland failed to implement the new act or measure on a provisional basis, then, under certain conditions, it may lead to "proportionate, appropriate measures against Switzerland to ensure that Schengen cooperation operates smoothly."
Article 7.2b)2nd subparagraph of the Agreement
Article 7.2b)2nd subparagraph of the Agreement
The Agreement also establishes a Mixed Committee composed of representatives of the Swiss Government, all members of the Council of the EU, and of the Commission.
The Agreement also establishes a Mixed Committee composed of representatives of the Swiss Government, all members of the Council of the EU, and of the Commission.
The Mixed Committee is conceived as a forum for discussion on the legal instruments that will develop the Schengen acquis, which will ensure that any concern of Switzerland is duly considered.
The Mixed Committee is conceived as a forum for discussion on the legal instruments that will develop the Schengen acquis, which will ensure that any concern of Switzerland is duly considered.
It also provides for discussion on practical difficulties related to the Schengen acquis and cooperation between the contracting parties and is charged to ensure the effective functioning of the Agreement.
It also provides for discussion on practical difficulties related to the Schengen acquis and cooperation between the contracting parties and is charged to ensure the effective functioning of the Agreement.
The Mixed Committee has the discretionary power to maintain the Agreement even if Switzerland does not implement a development of the Schengen acquis.
The Mixed Committee has the discretionary power to maintain the Agreement even if Switzerland does not implement a development of the Schengen acquis.
It also has the power to regulate any situations of conflict which could arise within the Agreement.
It also has the power to regulate any situations of conflict which could arise within the Agreement.
The Agreement will be implemented only after the Council, following a Schengen evaluation, decides that Switzerland fulfils all the conditions in order to participate in the cooperation set up by the Schengen mechanism.
The Agreement will be implemented only after the Council, following a Schengen evaluation, decides that Switzerland fulfils all the conditions in order to participate in the cooperation set up by the Schengen mechanism.
Agreement on Dublin/Eurodac acquis
Agreement on Dublin/ Eurodac acquis
In this second Agreement Switzerland will be linked to the Dublin acquis as well as the Eurodac legislation.
In this second Agreement Switzerland will be linked to the Dublin acquis as well as the Eurodac legislation.
Switzerland will have to accept, implement and apply the current and future Dublin/Eurodac acquis with no exception, as well as the relevant provisions of the data protection directive.
Switzerland will have to accept, implement and apply the current and future Dublin/Eurodac acquis with no exception, as well as the relevant provisions of the data protection directive.
This Agreement has in the most part adopted the same structure as that of the Agreement on the Schengen acquis.
This Agreement has in the most part adopted the same structure as that of the Agreement on the Schengen acquis.
The participation of Switzerland in the Dublin/Eurodac area is restricted to decision-shaping.
The participation of Switzerland in the Dublin/Eurodac area is restricted to decision-shaping.
The adoption process of the future Dublin/Eurodac acquis by Switzerland is subject to the same procedure and conditions.
The adoption process of the future Dublin/Eurodac acquis by Switzerland is subject to the same procedure and conditions.
However, the form of the institutional association of Switzerland is different; it will take place within the framework of a Mixed Committee, composed by representatives of the European Community, represented by the Commission, and by Switzerland.
However, the form of the institutional association of Switzerland is different; it will take place within the framework of a Mixed Committee, composed by representatives of the European Community, represented by the Commission, and by Switzerland.
As far as the maintenance and termination of the Agreement is concerned, the Mixed Committee has basically the same functions as those set up within the Agreement on the Schengen acquis.
As far as the maintenance and termination of the Agreement is concerned, the Mixed Committee has basically the same functions as those set up within the Agreement on the Schengen acquis.
Attached to both Agreements are the Final Acts comprising unilateral and common declarations of the contractual parties with regard to the Agreements, as well as the legislative financial statements which foresee Switzerland's contribution to the financing of the implementation of the Agreements.
Attached to both Agreements are the Final Acts comprising unilateral and common declarations of the contractual parties with regard to the Agreements, as well as the legislative financial statements which foresee Switzerland's contribution to the financing of the implementation of the Agreements.
The Agreements also establish a financial contribution by Switzerland to the development of the Schengen acquis and in particular of SIS II and regarding the Eurodac central unit.
The Agreements also establish a financial contribution by Switzerland to the development of the Schengen acquis and in particular of SIS II and regarding the Eurodac central unit.
The debate in Switzerland
The debate in Switzerland
Of the nine dossiers approved by the Swiss Parliament on 17 December 2004, Switzerland’s signature of the Schengen/Dublin Association Agreements was the most controversial issue.
Of the nine dossiers approved by the Swiss Parliament on 17 December 2004, Switzerland’s signature of the Schengen/Dublin Association Agreements was the most controversial issue.
Supporters consider that Schengen will strengthen Switzerland’s efforts against international crime and will improve the tourist industry.
Supporters consider that Schengen will strengthen Switzerland’s efforts against international crime and will improve the tourist industry.
Opponents believe that without border controls Switzerland will become unsafe and that the country will be transferring sovereignty to a supranational community
Opponents believe that without border controls Switzerland will become unsafe and that the country will be transferring sovereignty to a supranational community
EU negotiation package in the bag , Swiss Review No.1, p.9, February 2005. .
EU negotiation package in the bag , Swiss Review No.1, p.9, February 2005. .
Moreover, the Swiss People's Party is arguing that the Agreements are an attempt to push Switzerland closer to EU membership.
Moreover, the Swiss People's Party is arguing that the Agreements are an attempt to push Switzerland closer to EU membership.
A referendum has been proposed against the Schengen/Dublin Agreements by the Swiss People’s Party who presented the government on 31 March 2005 with a petition bearing 86.000 signatures, well over the 50.000 needed for a referendum.
A referendum has been proposed against the Schengen/Dublin Agreements by the Swiss People’s Party who presented the government on 31 March 2005 with a petition bearing 86.000 signatures, well over the 50.000 needed for a referendum.
The voters will decide on 5 June 2005 whether Switzerland will sign up to the Agreements.
The voters will decide on 5 June 2005 whether Switzerland will sign up to the Agreements.
According to a poll conducted by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation in February 2005, 59% of voters support the Schengen/Dublin Agreements.
According to a poll conducted by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation in February 2005, 59% of voters support the Schengen/Dublin Agreements.
This poll shows that support amongst Swiss citizens has fallen since October 2004 when 69% of those polled said they would vote in favour.
This poll shows that support amongst Swiss citizens has fallen since October 2004 when 69% of those polled said they would vote in favour.
The GfS Bern polling and research institute considered that this vote will likely reflect the Swiss people's choice between national sovereignty and security
The GfS Bern polling and research institute considered that this vote will likely reflect the Swiss people's choice between national sovereignty and security
The legal basis of the Proposals
The legal basis of the Proposals
Although a single text was negotiated with Switzerland, the Commission proposes to adopt the Agreement on the Schengen acquis by two separate acts (one in the first pillar and one in the third pillar
Although a single text was negotiated with Switzerland, the Commission proposes to adopt the Agreement on the Schengen acquis by two separate acts (one in the first pillar and one in the third pillar
According to Articles 24 and 38 TEU the European Parliament is not consulted on the third pillar instrument. ).
According to Articles 24 and 38 TEU the European Parliament is not consulted on the third pillar instrument. ).
The Dublin/Eurodac Agreement, however, is only in the first pillar.
The Dublin/Eurodac Agreement, however, is only in the first pillar.
For the two first pillar instruments the Commission has chosen the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) TEC as a legal base which provides for the simple consultation of Parliament.
For the two first pillar instruments the Commission has chosen the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) TEC as a legal base which provides for the simple consultation of Parliament.
By letter of 27.01.2005 the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs requested, pursuant to rule 35.2 an opinion from the Legal Affairs Committee on the legal basis proposed.
By letter of 27.01.2005 the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs requested, pursuant to rule 35.2 an opinion from the Legal Affairs Committee on the legal basis proposed.
On 31.03.2005, the Legal Affairs Committee decided that the Mixed Committees created within the Agreements, due their competencies, could be considered a specific institutional framework in the sense of the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC.
On 31.03.2005, the Legal Affairs Committee decided that the Mixed Committees created within the Agreements, due their competencies, could be considered a specific institutional framework in the sense of the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC.
By consequence, the Commission should have indicated the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC as the legal basis of the proposals (which implies the assent procedure).
By consequence, the Commission should have indicated the second subparagraph of Article 300 (3) TEC as the legal basis of the proposals (which implies the assent procedure).
The evaluation of the Proposals
The evaluation of the Proposals
With these Agreements, Switzerland will become the third State after Iceland and Norway which participates in the Schengen and Dublin/Eurodac acquis, but remains outside the EU.
With these Agreements, Switzerland will become the third State after Iceland and Norway which participates in the Schengen and Dublin/Eurodac acquis, but remains outside the EU.
In the particular case of Switzerland this association can be justified by its geographical position in the middle of the EU Member States.
In the particular case of Switzerland this association can be justified by its geographical position in the middle of the EU Member States.
These Agreements may result in several positive consequences.
These Agreements may result in several positive consequences.
Switzerland's participation in the Schengen acquis will eliminate certain obstacles to the free movement of persons for citizens as well as for third-country nationals
Switzerland's participation in the Schengen acquis will eliminate certain obstacles to the free movement of persons for citizens as well as for third-country nationals
Those third-country nationals living in Switzerland, for example, will not need to apply for visas any longer to travel to the other Schengen states. and will strengthen cooperation in the fields of the Schengen acquis.
Those third-country nationals living in Switzerland, for example, will not need to apply for visas any longer to travel to the other Schengen states. and will strengthen cooperation in the fields of the Schengen acquis.
Nevertheless, some critical points need to be mentioned:
Nevertheless, some critical points need to be mentioned:
Firstly, Switzerland's association with the Schengen/Dublin acquis could bring additional complications within a zone already submitted to "variable geometry".
Firstly, Switzerland's association with the Schengen/Dublin acquis could bring additional complications within a zone already submitted to "variable geometry".
In this sense, Switzerland will have to sign and implement Agreements with Norway and Iceland on the one hand and Denmark on the other hand.
In this sense, Switzerland will have to sign and implement Agreements with Norway and Iceland on the one hand and Denmark on the other hand.
This could lead to an even more complex situation both in political and legal areas.
This could lead to an even more complex situation both in political and legal areas.
Secondly, on the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of persons, it is a fact that Switzerland is not a member of the customs union and it will continue to conduct border checks on goods.
Secondly, on the elimination of obstacles to the free movement of persons, it is a fact that Switzerland is not a member of the customs union and it will continue to conduct border checks on goods.
This could allow it in certain circumstances also to check individuals.
This could allow it in certain circumstances also to check individuals.
In this context, Switzerland must respect the principle of abolition of border controls on persons.
In this context, Switzerland must respect the principle of abolition of border controls on persons.
Thirdly, Switzerland has been granted the possibility to decide in a sovereign way whether or not to accept the new acts or measures, and a two year period has been established in case a referendum is required.
Thirdly, Switzerland has been granted the possibility to decide in a sovereign way whether or not to accept the new acts or measures, and a two year period has been established in case a referendum is required.
In this way, the Agreements took into consideration the specific constitutional requirements of Switzerland.
In this way, the Agreements took into consideration the specific constitutional requirements of Switzerland.
However, it is important to bear in mind that due to the links between the Schengen and the Dublin acquis, their developments must be accepted and applied simultaneously by all the participating States.
However, it is important to bear in mind that due to the links between the Schengen and the Dublin acquis, their developments must be accepted and applied simultaneously by all the participating States.
In order not to undermine this principle, it is important that Switzerland tries to limit this period and act in good faith.
In order not to undermine this principle, it is important that Switzerland tries to limit this period and act in good faith.
Finally, the Rapporteur considers that the European Parliament should in future be more closely informed about ongoing international negotiations in order to be able to exercise its competencies.
Finally, the Rapporteur considers that the European Parliament should in future be more closely informed about ongoing international negotiations in order to be able to exercise its competencies.
In conclusion, given all the considerations mentioned, the Rapporteur supports the Agreements and recommends giving assent to them.
In conclusion, given all the considerations mentioned, the Rapporteur supports the Agreements and recommends giving assent to them.
ÕIGUSKOMISJONI ARVAMUS ESITATUD ÕIGUSLIKU ALUSE KOHTA
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE PROPOSED LEGAL BASIS
Õiguskomisjoni kiri
Letter of the Committee on Legal Affairs
Teema: Ettepanek võtta vastu nõukogu otsus Euroopa Ühenduse nimel Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi vahelist lepingut liikmesriigis või Šveitsis esitatud varjupaigataotluse läbivaatamist korraldava vastutava riigi määramise kriteeriumide ja mehhanismide kohta (13049/2004 - KOM(2004)0593 – 2004/0200(CNS) )
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (13049/2004 - COM(2004)0593 – C6-0240/2004 - 2004/0200(CNS) - )
ELTs seni avaldamata. – ettepaneku õiguslik alus
Not yet published in the OJ. .
Austatud esimees,
Dear Mr Chairman,
Oma 27. jaanuari 2005. aasta kirjaga pöördus Teie eelkäija Jean-Louis Bourlanges õiguskomisjoni poole vastavalt kodukorra artikli 35 lõikele 2, et komisjon kontrolliks eespool nimetatud komisjoni ettepaneku õigusliku aluse õigsust ja sobivust.
By letter of 27 January 2005 your predecessor - Mr Jean-Louis Bourlanges - called upon the Committee on Legal Affairs (pursuant to Rule 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure) to consider the validity and the relevance of the legal basis selected for the above Commission proposal.
Komisjon arutas eespool nimetatud küsimust 3. veebruari ja 31. märtsi koosolekutel.
The committee considered the above matter at its meetings of 3 February and 31 March 2005.
Kõnesolev leping käsitleb kriteeriume ja mehhanisme, mis võimaldavad määrata kindlaks, missugune riik vastutab liikmesriigis või Šveitsis esitatud varjupaigataotluse läbivaatamise eest.
The Agreement in question concerns the criteria and the mechanisms for determining which State is responsible for considering an asylum application submitted in a Member State or in Switzerland.
Leping loob Šveitsile kohustuse aktsepteerida ja kohaldada Dublini ja Eurodaci määrusi ning loob segakomitee, mis koosneb lepinguosaliste (Euroopa Ühendus ja Šveits) esindajatest, kellel on teatud valdkondades otsustamisõigus.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Switzerland is required to accept and apply the Dublin and Eurodac rules and a Mixed Committee [sic] comprising representatives from the two parties (the European Community and Switzerland) is set up and is invested with decision-making powers in certain areas.
Tekib küsimus, kas selline segakomitee peab või ei pea looma “koostöömenetluse korraldamisega teatud spetsiifilise institutsioonilise raamistiku” EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 teise lõigu tähenduses, mis näeb ette Euroopa Parlamendi nõusoleku.
The question which arises is that of deciding whether the Mixed Committee should or should not be deemed to constitute ‘a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament’s assent is required.
Euroopa Kohtu (CJEC) praktikast selgub, et õigusliku alus ei jää ühenduse seadusandja otsustada, vaid lähtuma peab objektiivsetest asjaoludest, mida kohus saab kontrollida.
It is clear from previous European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings that the selection of the legal basis is not left to the Community legislator's discretion but must be based on objective criteria which may be subject to legal review.
Nende asjaolude hulgas on eelkõige õigusakti eesmärk ja sisu
These criteria include in particular the purpose and the substance of the legal act
Seega ei ole nõukogu otsuse ettepaneku õiguslik alus õige; see peaks olema EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 teine lõik, mis näeb ette nõusolekumenetluse, mitte artikli 300 lõike 3 esimese lõik, mis näeb ette ainult parlamendiga konsulteerimise.
Hence the legal basis selected for the proposal for a Council decision in question is not the right one; it should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty (which provides for the assent procedure), rather than the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which Parliament is merely consulted.
Oma 31. märtsi 2005. aasta koosolekul otsustas õiguskomisjon niisiis eespool mainitud kaalutlustest lähtudes ja õiguslike aluste raportööri Manuel Medina Ortega ettepaneku põhjal ühehäälselt
At its meeting of 31 March 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs decided unanimously
Hääletamise ajal olid kohal Andrzej Jan Szejna (esimehe kohusetäitja), Manuel Medina Ortega (arvamuse raportöör ja asetäitja Nicola Zingaretti), Alexander Nuno Alvaro (asetäitja Antonio Di Pietro), Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner (asetäitja Antonio López-Istúriz White), Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Aloyzas Sakalas ja Jaroslav Zvěřina. , et mainitud nõukogu otsuse ettepaneku õiguslik alus peaks viitama EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 300 lõike 3 teisele lõigule ja mitte sama lõike esimesele lõigule.
The following were present for the vote: Andrzej Jan Szejna (acting chairman), Manuel Medina Ortega (draftsman and for Nicola Zingaretti), Alexander Nuno Alvaro (for Antonio Di Pietro), Maria Berger, Marek Aleksander Czarnecki, Bert Doorn, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Kurt Lechner (for Antonio López-Istúriz White), Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Aloyzas Sakalas and Jaroslav Zvěřina. - in the light of the above considerations and on a proposal from the rapporteur on legal bases (Mr Manuel Medina Ortega) - that the legal basis for the proposal for a Council decision in question should be the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) of the EC Treaty and not the first subparagraph.
Järelikult peab õiguskomisjon õigeks, et Euroopa Parlament nõuab endaga uuesti konsulteerimist eespool mainitud lepingu sõlmimise osas.
Hence the Committee on Foreign Affairs considers that Parliament should ask to be consulted again regarding the conclusion of the above-mentioned Agreement.
Teema: Ettepanek võtta vastu nõukogu otsus sõlmida Euroopa Ühenduse nimel Euroopa Liidu, Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni vaheline leping Schengeni aquis ’ rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamise kohta – ettepaneku õiguslik alus (13054/2004 - KOM(2004)0593 – 2004/0199(CNS) )
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen Acquis (13054/2004 - COM(2004)0593 – C6-0241/2004 - 2004/0199(CNS) - )
ELTs seni avaldamata. .
Not yet published in the OJ. .
Kõnesolev leping käsitleb Šveitsi osalemist Schengeni acquis ’ rakendamises, kohaldamises ja arendamises.
The agreement in question concerns Switzerland’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis .
Leping loob Šveitsile kohustuse aktsepteerida ja kohaldada Schengeni acquis ’d, nii praegust kui ka tulevast.
Pursuant to the agreement, Switzerland is required to accept and apply the Schengen acquis , both present and future.
Lepingu artikliga 3 luuakse segakomitee, mis koosneb Šveitsi valitsuse esindajatest, Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu liikmetest ja Euroopa Komisjoni esindajatest, kellel on teatud valdkondades otsustamisõigus.
Pursuant to Article 3 of the Agreement a Mixed Committee [sic] comprising representatives of the Swiss Government and members of the Council of the European Union and the Commission is set up and is invested with decision-making powers in certain areas.