natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The time frame should be as follows:
The time frame should be as follows:
a) The decisions relating to the definition of this service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2007 (Article 4, paragraph 5a new); b) Operators and or issuers should offer the service to their customers according to the following timetable (Article 3, paragraph 3): - for all vehicles exceeding 3,5 tonnes and for all vehicles which are allowed to carry more than nine passengers (driver + 8), at the latest two years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken; - for all other types of vehicle, at the latest five years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken.
a) The decisions relating to the definition of this service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2007 (Article 4, paragraph 5a new); b) Operators and or issuers should offer the service to their customers according to the following timetable (Article 3, paragraph 3): - for all vehicles exceeding 3,5 tonnes and for all vehicles which are allowed to carry more than nine passengers (driver + 8), at the latest two years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken; - for all other types of vehicle, at the latest five years after the decisions on the definition of the service have been taken.
Parliament defined the "European toll service" as a contractual set of rules allowing all operators and/or issuers to provide the service, a set of technical standards and requirements and a single subscription contract between the clients and the operators offering the service (Article 3, paragraph 1)
Parliament defined the "European toll service" as a contractual set of rules allowing all operators and/or issuers to provide the service, a set of technical standards and requirements and a single subscription contract between the clients and the operators offering the service (Article 3, paragraph 1)
The Parliament made clear that the Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States to lay down rules governing road infrastructure charging and taxation matters (recital 2a new).
The Parliament made clear that the Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States to lay down rules governing road infrastructure charging and taxation matters (recital 2a new).
In order to avoid superfluous costs, the Parliament underlined that the Directive does not apply a) to road toll systems for which no electronic means of toll collection exists, and provided moreover that the Directive does not apply b) to electronic road toll systems which do not need the installation of equipment on board vehicles, and c) to small, strictly local road toll systems for which the costs of compliance with the requirements of the Directive would be disproportionate to the benefits (Article 1, paragraph 1a new).
In order to avoid superfluous costs, the Parliament underlined that the Directive does not apply a) to road toll systems for which no electronic means of toll collection exists, and provided moreover that the Directive does not apply b) to electronic road toll systems which do not need the installation of equipment on board vehicles, and c) to small, strictly local road toll systems for which the costs of compliance with the requirements of the Directive would be disproportionate to the benefits (Article 1, paragraph 1a new).
Member States which have toll systems should take the necessary measures to increase the use of electronic toll systems, but provided that Member States only need to endeavour to ensure that by 1 January 2007 at the latest, at least 50% of traffic flow in each toll station can use electronic toll systems (Article 2, paragraph 7)
Member States which have toll systems should take the necessary measures to increase the use of electronic toll systems, but provided that Member States only need to endeavour to ensure that by 1 January 2007 at the latest, at least 50% of traffic flow in each toll station can use electronic toll systems (Article 2, paragraph 7)
As regards the definition of the European electronic toll service, the Parliament provided not only that the decisions relating thereto should be taken by the Commission at the latest by 1 January 2007, but also that such decisions should only be taken if all the conditions, evaluated on the basis of appropriate studies, are in place to enable interoperability to work from all points of view, including the technical, legal and commercial points of view (Article 4, paragraph 5a new)
As regards the definition of the European electronic toll service, the Parliament provided not only that the decisions relating thereto should be taken by the Commission at the latest by 1 January 2007, but also that such decisions should only be taken if all the conditions, evaluated on the basis of appropriate studies, are in place to enable interoperability to work from all points of view, including the technical, legal and commercial points of view (Article 4, paragraph 5a new)
The Parliament also asked that the concerned parties (toll service operators, infrastructure managers, electronics and motor industries and users) should be consulted by the Commission on technical and contractual aspects of the European toll service.(Recital 13 a new)
The Parliament also asked that the concerned parties (toll service operators, infrastructure managers, electronics and motor industries and users) should be consulted by the Commission on technical and contractual aspects of the European toll service.(Recital 13 a new)
Finally the Plenary asked the participation of NGOs in the regulatory committee (Art 5, paragraph 1).
Finally the Plenary asked the participation of NGOs in the regulatory committee (Art 5, paragraph 1).
The Council was ready to accept, after negociations your rapporteur had with the Irish Presidency, to the letter or in substance, the following amendments of Parliament's first reading (unless otherwise indicated, the articles referred to are those of the common position):
The Council was ready to accept, after negociations your rapporteur had with the Irish Presidency, to the letter or in substance, the following amendments of Parliament's first reading (unless otherwise indicated, the articles referred to are those of the common position):
No 1 – see the modification to the title of the Directive;
No 1 – see the modification to the title of the Directive;
No 2 – see the modifications to recital 2;
No 2 – see the modifications to recital 2;
No 3 – see the new recital 23;
No 3 – see the new recital 23;
No 4 – see the modifications to recital 3;
No 4 – see the modifications to recital 3;
No 5 – see the modifications to recital 5;
No 5 – see the modifications to recital 5;
No 6 – see the new recital 7;
No 6 – see the new recital 7;
No 7 – see the modifications to recital 8 (recital 6 in the Commission proposal);
No 7 – see the modifications to recital 8 (recital 6 in the Commission proposal);
No 8 – see the modifications to recital 9 (recital 7 in the Commission proposal);
No 8 – see the modifications to recital 9 (recital 7 in the Commission proposal);
No 9 – see the modifications to recital 10 (recital 8 in the Commission proposal);
No 9 – see the modifications to recital 10 (recital 8 in the Commission proposal);
No 10 – see the modifications to recital 11 (recital 9 in the Commission proposal);
No 10 – see the modifications to recital 11 (recital 9 in the Commission proposal);
No 11 – see the new recital 12;
No 11 – see the new recital 12;
No 12 – see the new recital 22;
No 12 – see the new recital 22;
No 13 – see the new recital 18;
No 13 – see the new recital 18;
No 14 – see the new recital 19;
No 14 – see the new recital 19;
No 15 – see the new recital 21;
No 15 – see the new recital 21;
No 16 – see the modifications to Article 1, paragraph 1;
No 16 – see the modifications to Article 1, paragraph 1;
No 17 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 1, introductory part;
No 17 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 1, introductory part;
No 18 – see the new recital 6;
No 18 – see the new recital 6;
No 19 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 2;
No 19 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 2;
No 20 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 4 (Article 2, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 20 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 4 (Article 2, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 21 – Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 21 – Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 22 – Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 22 – Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Commission proposal has been deleted;
No 25 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 5 (Article 2, paragraph 7, in the Commission proposal);
No 25 – see the modifications to Article 2, paragraph 5 (Article 2, paragraph 7, in the Commission proposal);
No 27 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 2;
No 27 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 2;
No 28 – see the new Article 3, paragraph 3;
No 28 – see the new Article 3, paragraph 3;
No 29 – the amendment could not be accepted, but the words ‘and/or issuers’ have been inserted, see Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 29 – the amendment could not be accepted, but the words ‘and/or issuers’ have been inserted, see Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal);
No 32 – see the reformulation of item (i) in the Annex to the Directive (Article 4, paragraph 1, point (f) in the Commission proposal);
No 32 – see the reformulation of item (i) in the Annex to the Directive (Article 4, paragraph 1, point (f) in the Commission proposal);
No 33 – see new item (m) in the Annex to the Directive;
No 33 – see new item (m) in the Annex to the Directive;
No 34 – see the modifications to Article 4, paragraph 3 (Article 4, paragraph 2, in the Commission proposal)
No 34 – see the modifications to Article 4, paragraph 3 (Article 4, paragraph 2, in the Commission proposal)
No 36 – the date has been postponed in line with the amendment of Parliament, but the Council decided to adopt the general rule of 18 months after the entry into force or the Directive, see Article 6, first paragraph;
No 36 – the date has been postponed in line with the amendment of Parliament, but the Council decided to adopt the general rule of 18 months after the entry into force or the Directive, see Article 6, first paragraph;
No 39 – the amendment has been taken into account by the new wording in recital 21;
No 39 – the amendment has been taken into account by the new wording in recital 21;
Nos 41 and 45 – see the modifications in Article 1, paragraph 3 (Article 1, second paragraph in the Commission proposal);
Nos 41 and 45 – see the modifications in Article 1, paragraph 3 (Article 1, second paragraph in the Commission proposal);
No 44 – see the new Article 1, paragraph 2;
No 44 – see the new Article 1, paragraph 2;
No 46 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 6;
No 46 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 6;
No 47 – see the new recital 13;
No 47 – see the new recital 13;
No 48 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 3;
No 48 – see the new Article 2, paragraph 3;
No 49 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 1;
No 49 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 1;
No 50 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal); in line with the amendment of Parliament, the Council replaced the fixed dates by which the European electronic toll service should be offered to customers with dates that are calculated by adding certain time periods (three years, five years) to the moment by which the decisions on the definition of the service are taken; by applying three years in respect of lorries, the Council took a slightly different view from Parliament, which had suggested two years, but with the five years in respect of all other vehicles the Council and the Parliament are exactly on the same line.
No 50 – see the modifications to Article 3, paragraph 4 (Article 3, paragraph 3, in the Commission proposal); in line with the amendment of Parliament, the Council replaced the fixed dates by which the European electronic toll service should be offered to customers with dates that are calculated by adding certain time periods (three years, five years) to the moment by which the decisions on the definition of the service are taken; by applying three years in respect of lorries, the Council took a slightly different view from Parliament, which had suggested two years, but with the five years in respect of all other vehicles the Council and the Parliament are exactly on the same line.
No 51 – see the new Article 4, paragraph 4; while the Council in its general approach stated that the decisions on the definition of the European electronic toll service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2006, it finally decided to set this date at 1 July 2006, in order to take account of the amendment of Parliament which requested 1 January 2007.
No 51 – see the new Article 4, paragraph 4; while the Council in its general approach stated that the decisions on the definition of the European electronic toll service should be taken at the latest by 1 January 2006, it finally decided to set this date at 1 July 2006, in order to take account of the amendment of Parliament which requested 1 January 2007.
Finally is has been noted that the Council transferred the items whereupon the European electronic toll service should be based, from Article 4 of the Commission's proposal to a new Annex.
Finally is has been noted that the Council transferred the items whereupon the European electronic toll service should be based, from Article 4 of the Commission's proposal to a new Annex.
Your rapporteur is persuaded that the text of the common position is appropriate and balanced and corresponds to Partliament's desiderata.
Your rapporteur is persuaded that the text of the common position is appropriate and balanced and corresponds to Partliament's desiderata.
With respect to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading your rapporteur observes that almost all amendments have been integrated – to the letter or in spirit, partially or in full into the common position.
With respect to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in first reading your rapporteur observes that almost all amendments have been integrated – to the letter or in spirit, partially or in full into the common position.
Despite some minor differences, especially with regard to the timetable of the introduction of the European toll service, your rapporteur recommends the adoption of the common position without any modifications.
Despite some minor differences, especially with regard to the timetable of the introduction of the European toll service, your rapporteur recommends the adoption of the common position without any modifications.
A European toll service and user-friendly interoperability of the different toll systems is supported by our citizens and the leading performers in the European transport sector.
A European toll service and user-friendly interoperability of the different toll systems is supported by our citizens and the leading performers in the European transport sector.
Consequently it should be introduced without any unnecessary delays.
Consequently it should be introduced without any unnecessary delays.
7. huhtikuuta 2004 LOPULLINEN A5-0247/2004 ***I
7 April 2004 FINAL A5-0247/2004 ***I
ehdotuksesta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätökseksi yhteisistä tutkinto- ja pätevyysvaatimuksia selkeyttävistä puitteista (Europass)
on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass)
, työllisyys- ja sosiaalivaliokunta (*) Valiokuntien tehostettu yhteistyö – 162 a artikla PR_COD_1am 334.063
, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (*) Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 162a 334.063
Komissio välitti 17. joulukuuta 2003 päivätyllä kirjeellä Euroopan parlamentille EY:n perustamissopimuksen 251 artiklan 2 kohdan, 149 artiklan ja 150 artiklan mukaisesti ehdotuksen Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätökseksi yhteisistä tutkinto- ja pätevyysvaatimuksia selkeyttävistä puitteista (Europass) ( KOM(2003) 796 – 2003/0307(COD)).
By letter of 17 December 2003 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Articles 251(2), 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) ( COM(2003) 796 – 2003/0307(COD)).
Parlamentin puhemies ilmoitti istunnossa 28. tammikuuta 2004 lähettäneensä kyseisen ehdotuksen asiasta vastaavaan kulttuuri-, nuoriso-, koulutus-, tiedonvälitys- ja urheiluvaliokuntaan sekä lausuntoa varten työllisyys- ja sosiaalivaliokuntaan ja budjettivaliokuntaan (C5‑0648/2003).
At the sitting of 28 January 2004 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal to the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport as the committee responsible and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Budgets for their opinions (C5‑0648/2003).
Puhemies ilmoitti istunnossa 11. maaliskuuta 2004, että työllisyys- ja sosiaalivaliokunta, jolta on pyydetty lausuntoa, osallistuu mietinnön laatimiseen 162 a artiklan mukaisesti.
At the sitting of 11 March 2004 the President announced that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which had been asked for its opinion, would be involved in drawing up the report under Rule 162a.
Kulttuuri-, nuoriso-, koulutus-, tiedonvälitys- ja urheiluvaliokunta oli nimittänyt kokouksessaan 27. tammikuuta 2004 esittelijäksi Sabine Zissenerin.
The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport had appointed Sabine Zissener rapporteur at its meeting of 27 January 2004.
Valiokunta käsitteli komission ehdotusta ja mietintöluonnosta kokouksissaan 15.–16. maaliskuuta ja 6. huhtikuuta 2004.
The committee considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 15‑16 March and 6 April 2004.
Viimeksi mainitussa kokouksessa valiokunta hyväksyi luonnoksen lainsäädäntöpäätöslauselmaksi äänin 15 puolesta, 1 vastaan ja 0 tyhjää.
At the meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 15 votes to 1, with no abstentions.
Äänestyksessä olivat läsnä seuraavat jäsenet: Michel Rocard (puheenjohtaja), Vasco Graça Moura (varapuheenjohtaja), Theresa Zabell (varapuheenjohtaja), Sabine Zissener (esittelijä), Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (Alexandros Alavanosin puolesta), Pedro Aparicio Sánchez, Juan José Bayona de Perogordo (Francis Decourrièren puolesta), Säid El Khadraoui (Renzo Imbenin puolesta), Lissy Gröner, Ruth Hieronymi, Ulpu Iivari, Lucio Manisco, Antonio Mussa, Doris Pack, Roy Perry ja Christa Prets.
The following were present for the vote: Michel Rocard (chairman), Vasco Graça Moura (vice-chairman), Theresa Zabell (vice-chairwoman), Sabine Zissener (rapporteur), Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (for Alexandros Alavanos), Pedro Aparicio Sánchez, Juan José Bayona de Perogordo (for Francis Decourrière), Säid El Khadraoui (for Renzo Imbeni), Lissy Gröner, Ruth Hieronymi, Ulpu Iivari, Lucio Manisco, Antonio Mussa, Doris Pack, Roy Perry and Christa Prets.
Budjettivaliokunta päätti 18. helmikuuta 2004 olla antamatta lausuntoa.
The Committee on Budgets decided on 18 February 2004 not to deliver and opinion.
LUONNOS EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN LAINSÄÄDÄNTÖPÄÄTÖSLAUSELMAKSI ehdotuksesta Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston päätökseksi yhteisistä tutkinto- ja pätevyysvaatimuksia selkeyttävistä puitteista (Europass) ( KOM(2003) 796 – C5‑0648/2003 – 2003/0307(COD))
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) ( COM(2003) 796 – C5‑0648/2003 – 2003/0307(COD))
– ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle ( KOM(2003) 796 ) Ei vielä julkaistu EUVL:ssä. ,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2003) 796 ) Not yet published in OJ. ,
– ottaa huomioon EY:n perustamissopimuksen 251 artiklan 2 kohdan ja 149 ja 150 artiklan, joiden mukaisesti komissio on antanut ehdotuksen Euroopan parlamentille (C5‑0648/2003),
– having regard to Articles 251(2), 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0648/2003),
– ottaa huomioon kulttuuri-, nuoriso-, koulutus-, tiedonvälitys- ja urheiluvaliokunnan mietinnön ja työllisyys- ja sosiaalivaliokunnan lausunnon (A5‑0247/2004),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A5‑0247/2004),
(3) Ammatillisen koulutuksen tehostetun yhteistyön edistämisestä Euroopassa 19 päivänä joulukuuta 2002 annetussa neuvoston päätöslauselmassa 9 kehotettiin lisäämään ammatillisen koulutuksen avoimuutta käyttämällä ja järkeistämällä viestintävälineitä ja -verkkoja, esimerkiksi yhdistämällä yksiin puitteisiin olemassa olevia välineitä.
(3) Council Resolution of 19 December 2002 on the promotion of enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training called for action to increase transparency in vocational education and training, through the implementation and rationalisation of information tools and networks, including the integration of existing instruments into one single framework.
Puitteitten pitäisi koostua kokoelmasta asiakirjoja, joilla on yhteinen ”tuotenimi” ja logo, johon voidaan myöhemmin lisätä saman tarkoituksen mukaisia asiakirjoja, jonka tukena on riittävän tasoinen tietojärjestelmä ja jota tehdään tunnetuksi pitkäjänteisin toimin Euroopan ja kansallisella tasolla.
This framework should consist in a portfolio of documents with a common brand name and a common logo, open to the future inclusion of other documents consistent with its purpose, supported by adequate information systems and promoted through sustained promotional action at European and national level.
(3) Ammatillisen koulutuksen tehostetun yhteistyön edistämisestä Euroopassa 19 päivänä joulukuuta 2002 annetussa neuvoston päätöslauselmassa 9 kehotettiin lisäämään ammatillisen koulutuksen avoimuutta käyttämällä ja järkeistämällä viestintävälineitä ja -verkkoja, esimerkiksi yhdistämällä yksiin puitteisiin olemassa olevia välineitä.
(3) The Council Resolution of 19 December 2002 on the promotion of enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training called for action to increase transparency in vocational education and training, through the implementation and rationalisation of information tools and networks, including the integration of existing instruments into one single framework.
Puitteitten pitäisi koostua kokoelmasta asiakirjoja, joilla on yhteinen ”tuotenimi” ja logo, jonka tukena on riittävän tasoinen tietojärjestelmä ja jota tehdään tunnetuksi pitkäjänteisin toimin Euroopan ja kansallisella tasolla.
This framework should consist in a portfolio of documents with a common brand name and a common logo, supported by adequate information systems and promoted through sustained promotional action at European and national level.
Johdanto-osan 3 kappaleessa viitataan linjanvetoasiakirjaan, jossa pyydettiin luomaan yhteiset puitteet ja siinä ilmoitetaan, mitä perusominaisuuksia näillä puitteilla olisi oltava.
Recital 3 refers to the policy document which called for a single framework and indicates which basic features this framework should have.
Se luo perustan 1 artiklalle, jolla otetaan käyttöön Europassi.
It lays the ground for Article 1, which establishes the Europass.
(4) Viime vuosina sekä yhteisön että kansainvälisellä tasolla on kehitetty välineitä helpottamaan Euroopan kansalaisten mahdollisuuksia osoittaa tutkintonsa ja pätevyytensä hakiessaan työtä tai opiskelupaikkaa.
(4) A number of instruments have been developed in recent years, both at Community and at international level, to help European citizens to better communicate their qualifications and competences when looking for a job or for admission to a learning scheme.