natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Viimeksi mainitussa kokouksessa se hyväksyi jäljempänä esitetyt tarkistukset äänin 10 puolesta ja 6 vastaan.
At the last meeting it adopted the following suggestions by 10 votes to 6.
Äänestyksessä olivat läsnä seuraavat jäsenet: Giorgio Napolitano (puheenjohtaja), Jo Leinen (varapuheenjohtaja), Johannes Voggenhuber (valmistelija), Georges Berthu, Jens-Peter Bonde, Giorgio Calò, Richard Corbett, Jean-Maurice Dehousse, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Andrew Nicholas Duff, José María Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Hans-Peter Martin, Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Ana Miranda de Lage (Enrique Barón Crespon puolesta) ja Françoise Veyrinas (Teresa Almeida Garrettin puolesta).
The following were present for the vote: Giorgio Napolitano (chairman), Jo Leinen (vice-chairman), Johannes Voggenhuber (draftsman), Georges Berthu, Jens-Peter Bonde, Giorgio Calò, Richard Corbett, Jean-Maurice Dehousse, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Andrew Nicholas Duff, José María Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Hans-Peter Martin, Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, Ana Miranda de Lage (for Enrique Barón Crespo) and Françoise Veyrinas (for Teresa Almeida Garrett).
Maastrichtin sopimuksen jälkeen sekä Amsterdamin ja Nizzan sopimusten myötä perusoikeuksien suojelu on nyt yksi sekä unionin että yhteisön peruselementeistä ja ensisijaisista painopistealueista.
Since the Maastricht Treaty and through the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties the protection of fundamental rights is now one of the defining elements and priority objectives of both the Union and the Community.
KANSANVALLAN PERIAATE
PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY
Kansanvallan periaate liittyy Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaan vapauden ja tasa-arvon perusarvojen toteutumiseen luovuttamalla lainsäädännän perustoiminto kansalle.
The principle of democracy, as stated in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty, relates to the realisation of the basic values of freedom and equality by attributing the key function of law-making to the people.
Euroopan unionin jäsenyyttä ei enää pidetä maan oman demokraattisuuden automaattisena takuuna.
European Union membership is no longer conceived as an automatic warranty of domestic democracy.
Sen vuoksi on äärimmäisen tärkeää todeta, että vapaat ja riippumattomat tiedotusvälineet ovat yhteiskunnan demokraattisuuden kypsyyden keskeinen indikaattori.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to state that the free and independent media are an essential indicator of the democratic maturity of a society.
Oikeus sananvapauteen ja tiedonvälityksen vapauteen on luontaisesti sidoksissa kansalaisten oikeuteen saada tietoa, joka on tietoon pohjautuvien päätösten edellytys.
The right to freedom of expression and information is intrinsically linked to the citizens’ right to know, which is a prerequisite for making well-informed decisions.
Mahdollisuus ilmaista vapaasti ajatuksia ja mielipiteitä parantaa julkista vuoropuhelua ja näin ollen edistää yhteiskunnan demokratisoitumisprosessia.
The possibility to express freely ideas and opinions enhances public dialogue and therefore stimulates the development of the democratic process in society.
Seurauksena on, että mitä runsaampia ja moninaisempia tiedonlähteet ovat, sitä paremmin perusteltuja kansan tahdon ilmaisut ovat, ennen kaikkea äänestystilanteessa – olipa kyseessä paikallinen, alueellinen, kansallinen tai, kuten nyt, EU:n taso.
It follows that the fuller and more diverse are the available sources of information, the more the expression of the will of the people will be solidly grounded, above all at the moment of voting - be it at local, regional, national, or, today, European level.
Tältä pohjalta on selvä, että monimuotoisuuden suojelu on elintärkeä ehto EU:lle, kun on kyse Euroopan kansalaisuuden ja Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kohdan kansanvaltaperiaatteen vahvistamisesta.
On this basis it is clear that the protection of pluralism is a vital criterion for the EU, in the context of reinforcing the idea of European citizenship and the democracy principle set out in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty.
Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 7 artiklan perusteella voidaan määrittää, rikkooko jokin jäsenvaltio vakavasti ja jatkuvasti "periaatteita", eli sopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa vahvistettuja yhteisiä periaatteita.
The Treaty on European Union in Article 7 allows for a determination of the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a member State "of principles", i.e. of the common principles enshrined in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty.
Määräyksen sanamuodon ulkopuolelle jää, että on rikottava kaikkia periaatteita, jotta neuvosto voi todeta rikkomuksen.
What can be immediately excluded from the wording of the provision is that all principles have to be breached in order to justify a determination by the Council.
Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 7 artiklan selkeänä tavoitteena on vahvistaa joukko Euroopan unionin kiistämättömiä perusteita.
The clear purpose of Article 7 of the EU Treaty is to ensure a set of inalienable foundations of the Union.
Näin ollen yhdenkin näistä neljästä periaatteesta rikkominen on perusteltu syy rikkomuksen toteamiseen sopimuksen 7 artiklan 1 ja 2 kohdan mukaisesti.
Consequently, a breach of one of the four principles alone justifies a determination under Article 7(1) or 7(2) of the EU Treaty.
Nizzan hallitustenvälisessä konferenssissa (HVK) päätettiin, että perusoikeuskirjasta ei vielä tule oikeudellisesti sitova, mutta kaikki jäsenvaltiot sekä Euroopan parlamentti, neuvosto ja komissio hyväksyivät asiakirjan poliittisella tasolla.
The Nice Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) decided not to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding yet, but all Member States plus the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accepted the document at political level.
Perusoikeuskirja on sen vuoksi poliittisesti sitova sen soveltamisalan suhteen.
The charter is therefore politically binding in terms of its scope.
Euroopan tulevaisuutta käsittelevä valmistelukunta sisällytti perusoikeuskirjan perustuslakiluonnokseen; asiaa kannatettiin laajalti.
The Convention on the Future of Europe incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the draft Constitution; there was very wide agreement to do so.
Vaikka HVK ei ole vielä päässyt yleiseen sopimukseen, sisällyttämistä ei ole toistaiseksi kyseenalaistettu.
Although the IGC has not yet been able to reach an overall agreement, incorporation has not been questioned so far.
6 artiklan 1 kohdassa mainittujen periaatteiden vakavan rikkomisen mahdollista vaaraa on siten arvioitava myös perusoikeuskirjan pohjalta.
Any assessment of a possible risk of a serious breach of principles referred to in Article 6(1) must therefore also be made on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
II-11 artiklassa, Sananvapaus ja tiedonvälityksen vapaus , todetaan valmistelukunnan ehdottamassa muodossa seuraavaa:
Article II-11, Freedom of expression and information , as proposed by the Convention states that:
Jokaisella on oikeus sananvapauteen.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
Tiedotusvälineiden vapautta ja moniarvoisuutta kunnioitetaan.
The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Perustuslakiluonnoksen II-52 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaan tämän oikeuden merkitys ja kattavuus vastaavat ihmisoikeuksien ja perusvapauksien suojaamista koskevassa eurooppalaisessa yleissopimuksessa taattuja oikeuksia.
Pursuant to Article II- 52(3) of the draft Constitutional Treaty, the meaning and scope of this right are the same as those guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
Johtopäätöksenä kaikesta edellä mainitusta voidaan todeta, että sananvapaus ja tiedonvälityksen vapaus ovat yksi kansanvallan edellytyksistä, ja niitä suojellaan Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa.
It could be concluded from all above mentioned that freedom of expression and information constitutes one of democracy requirements, and it is protected by Article 6(1) of the TEU.
Tämän vuoksi jäsenvaltioiden oikeudelliset toimet tai kyvyttömyys toimia, joka estää tiedotusvälineiden moniarvoisuuden sekä sananvapauden ja tiedonvälityksen vapauden tai voi haitata sitä, voi siten muodostaa ennakkoehdon 7 artiklan 1 tai 2 kohdan soveltamiselle sen toteamiseksi, että '[on olemassa selkeä vaara, että] jokin jäsenvaltio rikkoo vakavasti 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa mainittuja periaatteita'.
Subsequently, Member States' legal actions or failure to act, which decline or could restrict media pluralism and freedom of expression and information, thereby could form a precondition for to apply Article 7(1) or 7(2) in order to determine whether 'there is [a clear risk of] a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)' of the EU Treaty.
Perussopimus-, työjärjestys- ja toimielinasioiden valiokunta pyytää asiasta vastaavaa kansalaisvapauksien ja -oikeuksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokuntaa sisällyttämään seuraavat ehdotukset päätöslauselmaesitykseen, jonka se myöhemmin hyväksyy:
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs calls on the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
6. huhtikuuta 2004 LOPULLINEN A5-0233/2004 *
6 April 2004 FINAL A5-0233/2004 *
ehdotuksesta neuvoston direktiiviksi direktiivin 77/388/ETY muuttamisesta palvelujen suorituspaikan osalta
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the place of supply of services
Neuvosto kuuli 13. tammikuuta 2004 päivätyllä kirjeellä Euroopan parlamenttia EY:n perustamissopimuksen 93 artiklan mukaisesti ehdotuksesta neuvoston direktiiviksi direktiivin 77/388/ETY muuttamisesta palvelujen suorituspaikan osalta ( KOM(2003) 822 – 2003/0329(CNS)).
By letter of 13 January 2004 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the place of supply of services ( COM(2003) 822 – 2003/0329(CNS)).
Parlamentin puhemies ilmoitti istunnossa 15. tammikuuta 2004 lähettäneensä kyseisen ehdotuksen asiasta vastaavaan talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokuntaan sekä lausuntoa varten oikeudellisten ja sisämarkkina-asioiden valiokuntaan (C5‑0026/2004).
At the sitting of 15 January 2004 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs as the committee responsible and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for its opinion (C5‑0026/2004).
Talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunta nimitti kokouksessaan 11. helmikuuta 2004 esittelijäksi Othmar Karasin.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs appointed Othmar Karas rapporteur at its meeting of 11 February 2004.
Valiokunta käsitteli komission ehdotusta ja mietintöluonnosta kokouksissaan 16. maaliskuuta ja 6. huhtikuuta 2004.
The committee considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 16 March and 6 April 2004.
Äänestyksessä olivat läsnä seuraavat jäsenet: Christa Randzio-Plath (puheenjohtaja), Philippe A.R. Herzog (varapuheenjohtaja), John Purvis (varapuheenjohtaja), Othmar Karas (esittelijä), Hans Udo Bullmann, Robert Goebbels, Astrid Lulling, Hans-Peter Mayer, Fernando Pérez Royo, Mónica Ridruejo, Olle Schmidt ja Mikko Pesälä (Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhmin puolesta).
The following were present for the vote: Christa Randzio-Plath (chairwoman), Philippe A.R. Herzog (vice-chairman), John Purvis (vice-chairman), Othmar Karas (rapporteur), Hans Udo Bullmann, Robert Goebbels, Astrid Lulling, Hans-Peter Mayer, Fernando Pérez Royo, Mónica Ridruejo, Olle Schmidt, Mikko Pesälä (for Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm).
Oikeudellisten ja sisämarkkina-asioiden valiokunta päätti 22. tammikuuta 2004 olla antamatta lausuntoa.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market decided on 22 January 2004 not to deliver and opinion.
Mietintö jätettiin käsiteltäväksi 6. huhtikuuta 2004.
The report was tabled on 6 April 2004.
LUONNOS EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN LAINSÄÄDÄNTÖPÄÄTÖSLAUSELMAKSI ehdotuksesta neuvoston direktiiviksi direktiivin 77/388/ETY muuttamisesta palvelujen suorituspaikan osalta ( KOM(2003) 822 – C5‑0026/2004 – 2003/0329(CNS))
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the place of supply of services ( COM(2003) 822 – C5‑0026/2004 – 2003/0329(CNS))
– ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen neuvostolle ( KOM(2003) 822 ) Ei vielä julkaistu EUVL:ssä. ,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2003) 822 ) Not yet published in OJ. ,
– ottaa huomioon EY:n perustamissopimuksen 93 artiklan, jonka mukaisesti neuvosto on kuullut parlamenttia (C5‑0026/2004),
– having regard to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C5‑0026/2004),
– ottaa huomioon talous- ja raha-asioiden valiokunnan mietinnön (A5‑0233/2004),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A5‑0233/2004),
Introduction: Objective and scope
Introduction: Objective and scope
The Commission proposal is part of the Commission's new VAT strategy set out in July 2000.
The Commission proposal is part of the Commission's new VAT strategy set out in July 2000.
It aims at amending the Sixth VAT Directive with regard to the place of supply – and therefore of taxation – of services provided by one taxable legal person to another.
It aims at amending the Sixth VAT Directive with regard to the place of supply - and therefore of taxation - of services provided by one taxable legal person to another.
Its application is thus strictly limited to business-to-business transactions ("B2B"), thereby forming the first part of the reform of the place of supply rules for services.
Its application is thus strictly limited to business-to-business transactions ("B2B"), thereby forming the first part of the reform of the place of supply rules for services.
The second part, covering the taxation of services supplied to non-taxable persons, i.e. consumers ("B2C"), is to be addressed later, in a subsequent proposal.
The second part, covering the taxation of services supplied to non-taxable persons, i.e. consumers ("B2C"), is to be addressed later, in a subsequent proposal.
It raises far more fundamental issues both of administrative practicalities (establishing a clearing house mechanism for cross-border supplies of services) and of fiscal policy (likely shift in at least some Member States' revenue patterns).
It raises far more fundamental issues both of administrative practicalities (establishing a clearing house mechanism for cross-border supplies of services) and of fiscal policy (likely shift in at least some Member States' revenue patterns).
Problems with the current legislation
Problems with the current legislation
VAT being a consumption tax, there is general agreement that it should be levied at the place of consumption.
VAT being a consumption tax, there is general agreement that it should be levied at the place of consumption.
That was also the basic concept for the EU's VAT system from the outset.
That was also the basic concept for the EU's VAT system from the outset.
However, in drafting the Sixth VAT Directive it appeared that a rigid application of this principle to services would give rise to a series of practical problems, which could be circumvented by defining the place of supply as the place of taxation.
However, in drafting the Sixth VAT Directive it appeared that a rigid application of this principle to services would give rise to a series of practical problems, which could be circumvented by defining the place of supply as the place of taxation.
Taxation at the place of supply (i.e. levied by the supplier) therefore became the rule, with a finite list of exceptions for which taxation at the place of consumption (usually through self-assessment of the client) would apply.
Taxation at the place of supply (i.e. levied by the supplier) therefore became the rule, with a finite list of exceptions for which taxation at the place of consumption (usually through self-assessment of the client) would apply.
Under the realities of 1977, the potential distortion resulting from this departure from the basic concept could be considered minimal, services being generally consumed in the country where they were supplied.
Under the realities of 1977, the potential distortion resulting from this departure from the basic concept could be considered minimal, services being generally consumed in the country where they were supplied.
With the completion of the Internal Market, simultaneous advances in technology and a considerable growth in the service industry combined, the picture has changed dramatically: Services of various types can be and are increasingly supplied over greater distances and across Member States' borders.
With the completion of the Internal Market, simultaneous advances in technology and a considerable growth in the service industry combined, the picture has changed dramatically: Services of various types can be and are increasingly supplied over greater distances and across Member States' borders.
The exceptions are therefore liable to overtake the rule – but the limited list of exceptions defined in 1977, though modified later, does not lend itself well to amending and updating.
The exceptions are therefore liable to overtake the rule - but the limited list of exceptions defined in 1977, though modified later, does not lend itself well to amending and updating.
One particular difficulty, resulting from the nature of the service, lies in determining the place of supply of means of transport (vehicle hire and lease).
One particular difficulty, resulting from the nature of the service, lies in determining the place of supply of means of transport (vehicle hire and lease).
The only viable solution under the existing rules, taxation at the seat of the supplier, has led to involuntary tax incentives for cross-border leasing of company vehicles, due to different rules on the deduction of VAT for vehicles in the various Member States.
The only viable solution under the existing rules, taxation at the seat of the supplier, has led to involuntary tax incentives for cross-border leasing of company vehicles, due to different rules on the deduction of VAT for vehicles in the various Member States.
It appears from the above that the rules on the place of supply urgently need, not only to be updated so as to reflect the realities of current business-to-business transactions, but to be put on a new, forward-looking basis and rephrased so as to accommodate future service innovations in our fast-changing economies and societies.
It appears from the above that the rules on the place of supply urgently need, not only to be updated so as to reflect the realities of current business-to-business transactions, but to be put on a new, forward-looking basis and rephrased so as to accommodate future service innovations in our fast-changing economies and societies.
Proposed new principle
Proposed new principle
Rather than tinkering with the existing rules, the Commission's draft proposes to remedy this unsatisfactory situation by turning the main principle around and defining the place of supply for services between taxable persons as the place where the customer is established.
Rather than tinkering with the existing rules, the Commission's draft proposes to remedy this unsatisfactory situation by turning the main principle around and defining the place of supply for services between taxable persons as the place where the customer is established.
(Article 9(1) of the amended Directive).
(Article 9(1) of the amended Directive).
With taxation through self-assessment by the client company thus becoming the rule, the problem of the finite list disappears, as will a number of difficulties resulting from the current exception regime.
With taxation through self-assessment by the client company thus becoming the rule, the problem of the finite list disappears, as will a number of difficulties resulting from the current exception regime.
The result should be a major simplification of the administrative aspects of cross-border service transactions for both the supplier (who need no longer contemplate multiple registration) and the client (no longer subject to cumbersome refunding procedures).
The result should be a major simplification of the administrative aspects of cross-border service transactions for both the supplier (who need no longer contemplate multiple registration) and the client (no longer subject to cumbersome refunding procedures).
As for services providing means of transport, long-term hire or lease (for more than 30 days, cf.
As for services providing means of transport, long-term hire or lease (for more than 30 days, cf.
Article 9(d) of the amended directive) will fall under the general rule, with local VAT rates and deduction regimes applying, thus removing the potential tax incentive for hiring abroad.
Article 9(d) of the amended directive) will fall under the general rule, with local VAT rates and deduction regimes applying, thus removing the potential tax incentive for hiring abroad.
Short-term hire or lease remains taxable at the place of supply, reflecting the likely place/country of use of the vehicle as well as the practical difficulty of distinguishing between company and private users for those contracts.
Short-term hire or lease remains taxable at the place of supply, reflecting the likely place/country of use of the vehicle as well as the practical difficulty of distinguishing between company and private users for those contracts.
By reverting to the original VAT concept of taxation at the place of consumption, the Commission proposal both restores the structural balance of a general rule and limited, specific exceptions, and introduces a system basic and flexible enough to integrate future innovations.
By reverting to the original VAT concept of taxation at the place of consumption, the Commission proposal both restores the structural balance of a general rule and limited, specific exceptions, and introduces a system basic and flexible enough to integrate future innovations.
A few exceptions will indeed remain under the new system, mostly due to the nature of the respective type of service:
A few exceptions will indeed remain under the new system, mostly due to the nature of the respective type of service:
– services connected with immovable property would reasonably continue to be taxed where that property is located (Article 9a of the amended directive, merely transcribing the current rules);
- services connected with immovable property would reasonably continue to be taxed where that property is located (Article 9a of the amended directive, merely transcribing the current rules);
– passenger transportation services, being especially difficult to separate according to taxable or non-taxable persons, are exempt from this proposal (Article 9b) and will be addressed in the context of the forthcoming proposal on B2C services;
- passenger transportation services, being especially difficult to separate according to taxable or non-taxable persons, are exempt from this proposal (Article 9b) and will be addressed in the context of the forthcoming proposal on B2C services;
– cultural, sporting and entertainment activities, with any ancillary services, are to be taxable where they actually take place, as per the existing rules, although the relevant Article 9(c) of the amended directive will no longer cover scientific and educational services, which would therefore benefit from a self-assessment regime rather than the current refunding procedure;
- cultural, sporting and entertainment activities, with any ancillary services, are to be taxable where they actually take place, as per the existing rules, although the relevant Article 9(c) of the amended directive will no longer cover scientific and educational services, which would therefore benefit from a self-assessment regime rather than the current refunding procedure;