natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Your draftswoman strongly questions this ‘need’, and the arguments on which the views of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection are based will be set out under the following three headings: Deregulation, Common legal framework and Labour law.
Your draftswoman strongly questions this ‘need’, and the arguments on which the views of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection are based will be set out under the following three headings: Deregulation, Common legal framework and Labour law.
Focus on competition
Focus on competition
One of the Commission’s main arguments for a ports directive is that competition within and between European ports must be intensified in order to benefit customers to a greater extent.
One of the Commission’s main arguments for a ports directive is that competition within and between European ports must be intensified in order to benefit customers to a greater extent.
It should be borne in mind, however, that Europe’s ports are among the most efficient in the world
It should be borne in mind, however, that Europe’s ports are among the most efficient in the world
According to the European Transport Worker’s Federation, the standard tariff for unloading and loading a 40‑foot container for example is:
According to the European Transport Worker’s Federation, the standard tariff for unloading and loading a 40‑foot container for example is:
· US$ 100 in European ports
· US$ 100 in European ports
· US$ 200 in North American ports
· US$ 200 in North American ports
· US$ 300 in Asian ports
· US$ 300 in Asian ports
In addition, European port companies can expect substantial claims for damages if vessels are not unloaded and loaded within the shortest conceivable period, whereas long waiting times are more the rule than the exception for vessels docked in Asian or American ports. .
In addition, European port companies can expect substantial claims for damages if vessels are not unloaded and loaded within the shortest conceivable period, whereas long waiting times are more the rule than the exception for vessels docked in Asian or American ports. .
Competition already takes place between individual ports within the EU with the result that only those ports which are sufficiently efficient and give value for money hold their own in competition.
Competition already takes place between individual ports within the EU with the result that only those ports which are sufficiently efficient and give value for money hold their own in competition.
It would therefore be counterproductive to apply a common set of rules when the present diversity has already proved to be beneficial in terms of port profitability and efficiency.
It would therefore be counterproductive to apply a common set of rules when the present diversity has already proved to be beneficial in terms of port profitability and efficiency.
Investors and port companies also reject the present proposal as the transitional periods are far too short.
Investors and port companies also reject the present proposal as the transitional periods are far too short.
No port company or investor can fully reorganise their business operations within the proposed five-year period.
No port company or investor can fully reorganise their business operations within the proposed five-year period.
Likewise, the period for leasing contracts is too short.
Likewise, the period for leasing contracts is too short.
Investors want to be able to take the long-term view in order to consider any major investment in a business.
Investors want to be able to take the long-term view in order to consider any major investment in a business.
Ports are no exception.
Ports are no exception.
This investment risk creates an unfavourable climate for investors which would be disastrous for European ports and, ultimately, their customers.
This investment risk creates an unfavourable climate for investors which would be disastrous for European ports and, ultimately, their customers.
Intra-port competition, in your draftswoman’s view, is not a key issue determining the port’s role as an intermodal transport centre.
Intra-port competition, in your draftswoman’s view, is not a key issue determining the port’s role as an intermodal transport centre.
It is affected by which goods streams the port handles and which types of goods are to be handled.
It is affected by which goods streams the port handles and which types of goods are to be handled.
Goods streams are decided by geographical location and infrastructure in the form of waterways, railways and roads to and from the port.
Goods streams are decided by geographical location and infrastructure in the form of waterways, railways and roads to and from the port.
Intra-port infrastructure obviously plays a major role once the vessel has docked, but the choice of port is not made primarily on the basis of the internal qualities of the port.
Intra-port infrastructure obviously plays a major role once the vessel has docked, but the choice of port is not made primarily on the basis of the internal qualities of the port.
This means that the decisive factor is not intra-port competition but inter-port competition.
This means that the decisive factor is not intra-port competition but inter-port competition.
Articles 13 and 14 should be examined in greater detail in relation to the deregulation and exposure to competition to which the Commission wishes to subject those services.
Articles 13 and 14 should be examined in greater detail in relation to the deregulation and exposure to competition to which the Commission wishes to subject those services.
Underlying these controversial articles are self-handling and pilotage.
Underlying these controversial articles are self-handling and pilotage.
The idea of self-handling in ports is taken from the directive on self-handling at airports.
The idea of self-handling in ports is taken from the directive on self-handling at airports.
It may be considered unnecessary to point out that sea ports are completely different from airports and yet the Commission has still applied self-handling designed for airports to sea-port services.
It may be considered unnecessary to point out that sea ports are completely different from airports and yet the Commission has still applied self-handling designed for airports to sea-port services.
Self-handling means that every customer using a port should be able to handle his own goods.
Self-handling means that every customer using a port should be able to handle his own goods.
If self-handling were allowed without restriction, there is a high risk that operational chaos would erupt.
If self-handling were allowed without restriction, there is a high risk that operational chaos would erupt.
It is impossible to regulate who has priority for using common areas, common cranes and quays, loading trains, etc.
It is impossible to regulate who has priority for using common areas, common cranes and quays, loading trains, etc.
As regards pilotage, the pilot’s knowledge of the waters and experience of manoeuvring many types of vessel contribute towards maintaining marine and environmental safety, and accessibility, when vessels are negotiating inner/outer waters/waterways.
As regards pilotage, the pilot’s knowledge of the waters and experience of manoeuvring many types of vessel contribute towards maintaining marine and environmental safety, and accessibility, when vessels are negotiating inner/outer waters/waterways.
Pilotage should/must not be treated as a commercial service.
Pilotage should/must not be treated as a commercial service.
In other words, safety should not be subject to competition!
In other words, safety should not be subject to competition!
Common legal framework
Common legal framework
Absence of a convincing justification
Absence of a convincing justification
On a number of occasions, the Commission’s representatives have launched their argument for a ports directive by saying that port services are the only services in the transport sector which are not deregulated.
On a number of occasions, the Commission’s representatives have launched their argument for a ports directive by saying that port services are the only services in the transport sector which are not deregulated.
This is not a convincing argument in the light of the situation described above concerning the position of European ports vis-à-vis non-European ports.
This is not a convincing argument in the light of the situation described above concerning the position of European ports vis-à-vis non-European ports.
The Commission displays a dogmatic attitude to deregulation ’for the sake of it’ instead of taking account of actual needs.
The Commission displays a dogmatic attitude to deregulation ‘for the sake of it’ instead of taking account of actual needs.
The Commission has still not carried out the impact analysis that many of the parties involved had called for.
The Commission has still not carried out the impact analysis that many of the parties involved had called for.
There is therefore no analysis indicating specific needs and problems within the EU’s port sector to consult.
There is therefore no analysis indicating specific needs and problems within the EU’s port sector to consult.
A set of ‘one size fits all’ provisions will also be contrary to the EC Treaty’s subsidiarity principle.
A set of ‘one size fits all’ provisions will also be contrary to the EC Treaty’s subsidiarity principle.
The Commission should resolve any problems with market access on a case by case basis in consultation with all players in the industry.
The Commission should resolve any problems with market access on a case by case basis in consultation with all players in the industry.
Likewise, the Commission’s text is difficult to interpret from a legal viewpoint and includes a number of vague and downright diffuse concepts which will create future difficulties of interpretation - and by extension - legal disputes.
Likewise, the Commission’s text is difficult to interpret from a legal viewpoint and includes a number of vague and downright diffuse concepts which will create future difficulties of interpretation - and by extension - legal disputes.
In its present form, there is a risk that the ports directive will create more legal problems than it will solve, which leads to the conclusion that it should be withdrawn.
In its present form, there is a risk that the ports directive will create more legal problems than it will solve, which leads to the conclusion that it should be withdrawn.
A minimum requirement, however, is that substantial parts of the directive should be changed/amended.
A minimum requirement, however, is that substantial parts of the directive should be changed/amended.
Labour law
Labour law
People at the centre -not numbers?
People at the centre -not numbers?
Your draftswoman has noted that the present proposal for a directive - to a greater extent than previously - emphasises that collective agreements already concluded may not be circumvented or set aside and that the term ‘social protection’ has been given a greater prominence than previously.
Your draftswoman has noted that the present proposal for a directive - to a greater extent than previously - emphasises that collective agreements already concluded may not be circumvented or set aside and that the term ‘social protection’ has been given a greater prominence than previously.
However, there remains much to be desired from a labour law point of view.
However, there remains much to be desired from a labour law point of view.
The controversial proposal for ‘self-handling’, i.e. that port owners can employ their own staff to load and unload instead of using traditional dockworkers, is also included in this proposal, this time with broader terms of reference.
The controversial proposal for ‘self-handling’, i.e. that port owners can employ their own staff to load and unload instead of using traditional dockworkers, is also included in this proposal, this time with broader terms of reference.
It is important to stress that self-handling is not desirable either from the trade union’s or the employer’s point of view.
It is important to stress that self-handling is not desirable either from the trade union’s or the employer’s point of view.
It is a unique situation that employers and employees have taken a common stance, i.e. wish to remove it from the proposal, as does your draftswoman.
It is a unique situation that employers and employees have taken a common stance, i.e. wish to remove it from the proposal, as does your draftswoman.
It is worth noting that Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Georg Jarzembowski, at the Transport Committee’s hearing on 14 June said that Article 13 concerning self-handling may be removed from the proposal in its final version.
It is worth noting that Parliament’s rapporteur, Mr Georg Jarzembowski, at the Transport Committee’s hearing on 14 June said that Article 13 concerning self-handling may be removed from the proposal in its final version.
From the trade union viewpoint, there has been no social dialogue as enshrined in Articles 136, 138 and 140 of the EC Treaty.
From the trade union viewpoint, there has been no social dialogue as enshrined in Articles 136, 138 and 140 of the EC Treaty.
The Commission has reportedly not made contact, for example, with the IDC, on this issue at all.
The Commission has reportedly not made contact, for example, with the IDC, on this issue at all.
Article 7, paragraph 6, concerning authorisation states that providers of port services have the right freely to choose the personnel to be employed.
Article 7, paragraph 6, concerning authorisation states that providers of port services have the right freely to choose the personnel to be employed.
The question arises - why set out this obvious right?
The question arises - why set out this obvious right?
What is the underlying purpose?
What is the underlying purpose?
The trade unions fear that the purpose is to take jobs away from the present port workforce for the benefit of others.
The trade unions fear that the purpose is to take jobs away from the present port workforce for the benefit of others.
The Commission should clarify the purpose of Article 7, paragraph 6.
The Commission should clarify the purpose of Article 7, paragraph 6.
In conclusion, your draftswoman stresses that ports may compete in terms of price and quality but subjecting working conditions for employees, environmental legislation, state financing and safety provisions to competition and deregulation is out of the question.
In conclusion, your draftswoman stresses that ports may compete in terms of price and quality but subjecting working conditions for employees, environmental legislation, state financing and safety provisions to competition and deregulation is out of the question.
Iekšējā tirgus un patērētāju aizsardzības komiteja aicina Transporta un tūrisma komiteju kā atbildīgo komiteju noraidīt Komisijas priekšlikumu.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to reject the Commission proposal.
Priekšlikums Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes direktīvai par tirgus pieeju ostas pakalpojumiem
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services
par Ceturto Komisijas ziņojumu par Eiropas Savienības pilsonību (2001. gada 1. maijs — 2004. gada 30. aprīlis)
on the Commission's Fourth report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2001 – 30 April 2004)
Konstitucionālo jautājumu komitejaS ATZINUMS .........................................10
OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ................................11
Lūgumrakstu komitejaS ATZINUMS.........................................................................13
OPINION of the Committee on Petitions ...............................................................15
– ņemot vērā Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartu un it īpaši tās V sadaļu „Pilsoņu tiesības”,
– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Chapter V thereof entitled 'Citizens' Rights',
– ņemot vērā Eiropadomes 1999. gada 15. un 16. oktobra Tamperes sanāksmes prezidentūras secinājumus,
– having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council meeting of 15 and 16 October 1999,
– ņemot vērā Ceturto Komisijas ziņojumu par Eiropas Savienības pilsonību (2001. gada 1. maijs —2004. gada 30. aprīlis)( KOM(2004)0695 ),
– having regard to the Commission's Fourth Report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2001 – 30 April 2004) ( COM(2004)0695 ),
– ņemot vērā Komisijas paziņojumu par imigrāciju, integrāciju un nodarbinātību, kurā tā izsaka savu nostāju par nelegālo imigrantu naturalizāciju KOM(2003)0336 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication on immigration, integration and employment, in which the Commission sets out its position on the naturalisation of illegal immigrants ( COM(2003)0336 ),
– ņemot vērā Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Direktīvu Nr. 2004/38/EK par Eiropas Savienības pilsoņu un viņu ģimenes locekļu tiesībām brīvi pārvietoties un uzturēties dalībvalstu teritorijā
– having regard to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
– ņemot vērā Eiropas Padomes Konvenciju par ārzemnieku piedalīšanos sabiedriskajā dzīvē vietējā līmenī, kas stājās spēkā 1997. gada 1. maijā,
– having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, which entered into force on 1 May 1997,
– ņemot vērā Reglamenta 45. pantu un 112. panta 2. punktu,
– having regard to Rule 45 and Rule 112(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ņemot vērā Pilsoņu brīvību, tieslietu un iekšlietu komitejas ziņojumu, kā arī Konstitucionālo jautājumu komitejas un Lūgumrakstu komitejas atzinumu ( A6‑0411/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions ( A6‑0411/2005 ),
A. tā kā Eiropas Savienības pilsonība apzīmē indivīda juridisko statusu, kas izriet no viņa piederības noteiktai politiskai un teritoriālai vienībai, un ir jauns jēdziens, kuru nāksies pielāgot Eiropas Savienības politiskajai attīstībai;
A. whereas EU citizenship denotes the legal status derived from an individual’s belonging to a given political and territorial unit and is an emerging concept which will need to be adjusted to the European Union’s political development,
B. tā kā EK līguma 17. pants par ES pilsonību tika ar Māstrihtas līgumu ieviests 1992. gada 7. februārī ar šādiem noteikumiem: „Ikviens cilvēks, kam ir kādas dalībvalsts pilsonība, ir Savienības pilsonis”;
B. whereas Article 17 of the EC Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty on 7 February 1992 and states that 'every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union',
C. tā kā no tā izriet, ka Eiropas Savienības pilsonības piešķiršana ir atkarīga no tā, vai indivīdam ir vai nav Eiropas Savienības dalībvalsts pilsonība, un līdz ar to šī pilsonība nav autonoms jēdziens, bet par to lemj katra dalībvalsts saskaņā ar saviem attiecīgajiem tiesību aktiem;
C. whereas the granting of EU citizenship has therefore been made dependent upon being a citizen of an EU Member State and whereas it is therefore not an 'independent' status but is regulated by each Member State on the basis of its own laws,
D. tā kā šī paša iemesla dēļ Eiropas Savienība un tās iestādes likumīgi ir ieinteresētas izvirzīt priekšlikumus par kārtību, kādā iegūstama dalībvalstu pilsonība, pienācīgi ievērojot attiecīgo valstu suverenitāti, jo, piešķirot vai atņemot pilsonību, dalībvalsts piešķir vai atņem Eiropas Savienības pilsonību;
D. whereas for that same reason the European Union and its institutions have a legitimate interest in putting forward proposals concerning the acquisition of nationality from the Member States (with due respect for those States’ sovereignty in the matter), since when a Member State grants or withholds nationality it is granting or withholding EU citizenship,
E. tā kā ikvienam ES pilsonim, kas pastāvīgi dzīvo kādā dalībvalstī, bet nav tās pilsonis, ir tiesības balsot un kandidēt pašvaldību vēlēšanās šajā dzīvesvietas dalībvalstī saskaņā ar tādiem pašiem nosacījumiem kā šīs dalībvalsts pilsoņiem;
E. whereas any EU citizen resident in a Member State of which he or she is not a citizen is entitled to vote and stand for election in local and European Parliament elections in the Member State of which he or she is a resident under the same conditions as citizens of that State,
F. tā kā visiem Eiropas Savienības pilsoņiem ir tiesības iesniegt lūgumrakstu Eiropas Parlamentam saskaņā ar EK līguma 194. panta noteikumiem un vērsties pie Eiropas ombuda, kas iecelts saskaņā ar EK līguma 195. pantu;
F. whereas any EU citizen is entitled to address a petition to the European Parliament pursuant to Article 194 of the EC Treaty and to address a complaint to the Ombudsman established pursuant to Article 195 of the EC Treaty,
G. tā kā vēlāk Amsterdamas līgumā tika uzsvērts tas, ka Eiropas Savienības pilsonība ir pakārtota, EK līguma 17. pantā precizējot, ka "Savienības pilsonība papildina, nevis aizstāj dalībvalsts pilsonību";
G. whereas the Treaty of Amsterdam further stressed the complementary nature of EU citizenship by stipulating (Article 17 of the EC Treaty) that 'citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship',
H. tā kā Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīs ir dažādi pilsonības atzīšanas noteikumi;
H. whereas the EU Member States have different rules governing the granting of citizenship,
I. tā kā no juridiskā viedokļa pilsonību var iegūt pēc izcelsmes vai atvasināti;
I. whereas, in legal terms, citizenship may be acquired on the basis of one's origin or as a derived right,
J. tā kā pilsonības piešķiršana atkarībā no vecāku pilsonības (jus sanguinis) vai atkarībā no valsts, kurā cilvēks piedzimis (jus soli) , ir dalībvalstīs visvairāk izmantotais veids un, konstatējot, ka daudzās pasaules valstīs pilsonības piešķiršana (pēc valsts, kurā cilvēks piedzimis) ir apvienota ar tās iegūšanu atvasināti (naturalizācija);
J. whereas the acquisition of citizenship on the basis of one's origin ( ius sanguinis or ius soli) is the procedure most commonly used by Member States and whereas in many countries of the world citizenship as a derived right (naturalisation) has been introduced alongside citizenship on the basis of origin ( ius soli ),
K. tā kā atbilstīgi spēkā esošajiem līgumiem vairākas ar Eiropas Savienības pilsonību saistītās tiesības jau ir piešķirtas atkarībā no dzīvesvietas, piemēram, tiesības iesniegt lūgumrakstu Eiropas Parlamentam vai tiesības vērsties pie Eiropas ombuda, un tādējādi ir iespējams paplašināt tiesības brīvi pārvietoties un uzturēties Eiropas Savienībā un tiesības balsot Eiropas Parlamenta un pašvaldību vēlēšanās, attiecinot tās uz visiem pastāvīgajiem iedzīvotājiem;
K. whereas under the current Treaties some EU citizenship rights, such as the right to petition the European Parliament and the right to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman, are already conferred on the basis of residence, and whereas the right of free movement and residence within the European Union and the right to vote in European and local elections could therefore be extended to all residents,
L. tā kā 1999. gada Tamperes sanāksmes secinājumos Eiropadome izvirzīja ilgtermiņa mērķi piešķirt visas pastāvīgā iedzīvotāja tiesības tiem trešo valstu valstspiederīgajiem, kuri ilgstoši legāli dzīvo Eiropas Savienībā;
L. whereas, in the conclusions of the 1999 Tampere Summit, the European Council approved the long-term objective of granting full residence rights to third-country nationals who have resided legally in the European Union over a long period of time,