natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Treba počítať aj s osobitne citlivými, zložitými prípadmi, keď totožnosť súdnych úradníkov, ktorí vedú vyšetrovanie, musí v záujme ich vlastnej bezpečnosti zostať utajená.
Provision should be made for particularly delicate, complex investigations in which the identity of the magistrates conducting them needs to be kept confidential in the interests of their safety.
Legislative framework
Legislative framework
Contrary to what might appear at first sight to be the case, the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record constitutes an important, necessary and urgent technical-adjustment measure within the EU's area of freedom, security and justice.
Contrary to what might appear at first sight to be the case, the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record constitutes an important, necessary and urgent technical-adjustment measure within the EU's area of freedom, security and justice.
In each of the 25 Member States there are special registers in which the convictions handed down by the Member States' judicial authorities are recorded, but the legal instrument used by the Member States for the purpose of exchanging important information of this nature dates back to the 1959 Council of Europe Convention
In each of the 25 Member States there are special registers in which the convictions handed down by the Member States' judicial authorities are recorded, but the legal instrument used by the Member States for the purpose of exchanging important information of this nature dates back to the 1959 Council of Europe Convention
Council of Europe, European Treaties series, no.
Council of Europe, European Treaties series, no.
The Commission has taken it upon itself to make improvements of a technical nature to the relevant legislation, following the wave of anger and revulsion which swept across Europe in the wake of the horrific cases of paedophilia which occurred not so long ago in the Ardennes, involving both France and Belgium.
The Commission has taken it upon itself to make improvements of a technical nature to the relevant legislation, following the wave of anger and revulsion which swept across Europe in the wake of the horrific cases of paedophilia which occurred not so long ago in the Ardennes, involving both France and Belgium.
Those cases highlighted not only the investigators' undeniable negligence but also the total lack of communication between two founder Member States.
Those cases highlighted not only the investigators' undeniable negligence but also the total lack of communication between two founder Member States.
Leaving aside that particular (and highly disturbing) case, it is clear that a qualitative improvement in the exchange of information between Member States is urgently needed - not least in view of the fact that the terrorist groups which have carried out attacks in Europe and in other parts of the world are part of a well-established international network which includes perpetrators of serious organised crime who have long been involved in criminal activities (from drugs trafficking to money laundering) which fan out way beyond the borders of individual countries.
Leaving aside that particular (and highly disturbing) case, it is clear that a qualitative improvement in the exchange of information between Member States is urgently needed - not least in view of the fact that the terrorist groups which have carried out attacks in Europe and in other parts of the world are part of a well-established international network which includes perpetrators of serious organised crime who have long been involved in criminal activities (from drugs trafficking to money laundering) which fan out way beyond the borders of individual countries.
The next few years will be crucial in the European-integration process as regards criminal matters - in which connection all the necessary action will be taken in order to ensure that the people of the EU have access to justice in criminal affairs which is genuinely effective, independent and transparent.
The next few years will be crucial in the European-integration process as regards criminal matters - in which connection all the necessary action will be taken in order to ensure that the people of the EU have access to justice in criminal affairs which is genuinely effective, independent and transparent.
The Commission has already announced that, over the next few months, more complex initiatives will be brought forward, such as the White Paper on the exchange of information relating to convictions, prohibition measures and the mutual recognition thereof within the EU (to be published in January 2005), the framework decision on the recognition amongst EU Member States of decisions to convict (due to be submitted at the end of February 2005) and the decision on the computerised system for the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record.
The Commission has already announced that, over the next few months, more complex initiatives will be brought forward, such as the White Paper on the exchange of information relating to convictions, prohibition measures and the mutual recognition thereof within the EU (to be published in January 2005), the framework decision on the recognition amongst EU Member States of decisions to convict (due to be submitted at the end of February 2005) and the decision on the computerised system for the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record.
There are, however, still objective technical and legal difficulties to be overcome before an operational computerised system for the exchange between Member States of information on criminal convictions can be set up and it is unlikely that - even according to the most optimistic forecasts - such a system can be brought into operation before 2008/2010.
There are, however, still objective technical and legal difficulties to be overcome before an operational computerised system for the exchange between Member States of information on criminal convictions can be set up and it is unlikely that - even according to the most optimistic forecasts - such a system can be brought into operation before 2008/2010.
This means that the decision which is currently being examined by Parliament will not have any practical, tangible effects on the people of the EU for at least five years.
This means that the decision which is currently being examined by Parliament will not have any practical, tangible effects on the people of the EU for at least five years.
Analysis of the Commission proposal
Analysis of the Commission proposal
The legal basis for the proposed decision is Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Nice Treaty; it provides for Parliament merely to be consulted.
The legal basis for the proposed decision is Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Nice Treaty; it provides for Parliament merely to be consulted.
The main purpose of the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record is - as indicated - to suggest practical ways of remedying the shortcomings in the current system, and it proposes action in just a few key areas:
The main purpose of the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record is - as indicated - to suggest practical ways of remedying the shortcomings in the current system, and it proposes action in just a few key areas:
(a) it requires the Member States to notify each other straight away regarding any of their nationals who have been convicted of an offence; under the 1959 Convention the Member States are required to do so just once a year;
(a) it requires the Member States to notify each other straight away regarding any of their nationals who have been convicted of an offence; under the 1959 Convention the Member States are required to do so just once a year;
(b) it establishes a five-day time limit for the receipt of a reply from the requested Member State;
(b) it establishes a five-day time limit for the receipt of a reply from the requested Member State;
(c) with an obvious view to simplifying the practical data-transfer procedures, it provides that a request from a requesting Member State and a reply from a requested Member State must be accompanied by a standard form which is identical in all the Member States;
(c) with an obvious view to simplifying the practical data-transfer procedures, it provides that a request from a requesting Member State and a reply from a requested Member State must be accompanied by a standard form which is identical in all the Member States;
(d) it provides definitions of 'criminal record' and 'conviction', since the legal systems in force in the 25 EU Member States do not currently recognise a single concept of 'criminal record', which may contain very different information on individuals, depending on the Member State concerned.
(d) it provides definitions of 'criminal record' and 'conviction', since the legal systems in force in the 25 EU Member States do not currently recognise a single concept of 'criminal record', which may contain very different information on individuals, depending on the Member State concerned.
The rapporteur broadly agrees with the Commission's overall approach and he has merely proposes a few, well-focused amendments designed to enhance the legislative text (which will be a practical tool in the hands of those responsible for operating the judicial system) and making it easier to use.
The rapporteur broadly agrees with the Commission's overall approach and he has merely proposes a few, well-focused amendments designed to enhance the legislative text (which will be a practical tool in the hands of those responsible for operating the judicial system) and making it easier to use.
Amendment 1 - Article 3: Own-initiative information on convictions
Amendment 1 - Article 3: Own-initiative information on convictions
With regard to this basic issue, the rapporteur considers that each central authority should inform the other Member States' central authorities of convictions of nationals of those Member States which are registered in the national criminal record immediately or in any event within three months .
With regard to this basic issue, the rapporteur considers that each central authority should inform the other Member States' central authorities of convictions of nationals of those Member States which are registered in the national criminal record immediately or in any event within three months .
If the legislative text were to retain the vague concept whereby the central authorities will inform the other central authorities without delay , this could lead to unjustified delays in what should be a regular periodic updating of the central authorities' databases.
If the legislative text were to retain the vague concept whereby the central authorities will inform the other central authorities without delay , this could lead to unjustified delays in what should be a regular periodic updating of the central authorities' databases.
Amendments 2 and 3 - Article 4: Request for information on convictions
Amendments 2 and 3 - Article 4: Request for information on convictions
With regard to this aspect the rapporteur considers (in accordance with what has already been agreed by the Council) that a reply from a requested Member State may arrive within 10 working days of the date upon which the request was received (instead of the five working days proposed by the Commission - a time limit which would be difficult to meet), but that in urgent cases a reply should in all cases be received within 48 hours (which in many Member States is the minimum length of time required for it to be confirmed that an individual is or is not being held in custody).
With regard to this aspect the rapporteur considers (in accordance with what has already been agreed by the Council) that a reply from a requested Member State may arrive within 10 working days of the date upon which the request was received (instead of the five working days proposed by the Commission - a time limit which would be difficult to meet), but that in urgent cases a reply should in all cases be received within 48 hours (which in many Member States is the minimum length of time required for it to be confirmed that an individual is or is not being held in custody).
Again in order to make the text more immediately comprehensible to users of the system, the rapporteur considers it useful to specify that the reply form from the requested Member State must be accompanied by a statement of the convictions which appear in the criminal record .
Again in order to make the text more immediately comprehensible to users of the system, the rapporteur considers it useful to specify that the reply form from the requested Member State must be accompanied by a statement of the convictions which appear in the criminal record .
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 - Article 5: Conditions for the use of personal data
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 - Article 5: Conditions for the use of personal data
This article is an extremely delicate one, and the rapporteur is aware that the requirements of investigative activities (where speedy exchange of information is essential) must be balanced against the need to safeguard and protect personal data.
This article is an extremely delicate one, and the rapporteur is aware that the requirements of investigative activities (where speedy exchange of information is essential) must be balanced against the need to safeguard and protect personal data.
However, it is a condition of the mutual trust which must underpin relations between Member States that where personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the information gathered may be used solely and exclusively within the limits specified by the requesting Member State and accepted by the requested Member State .
However, it is a condition of the mutual trust which must underpin relations between Member States that where personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the information gathered may be used solely and exclusively within the limits specified by the requesting Member State and accepted by the requested Member State .
Furthermore, as a further safeguard that there will not be misunderstandings of any kind between Member States, whenever personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the Member State to which such a request is issued must automatically be informed of the use made of it by the requesting Member State.
Furthermore, as a further safeguard that there will not be misunderstandings of any kind between Member States, whenever personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the Member State to which such a request is issued must automatically be informed of the use made of it by the requesting Member State.
Lastly, the rapporteur considers that, pending the advent of a single text which will protect the use of personal data in this third-pillar field, the wording of the text must contain a reference (already present in the recitals) to the rules which protect personal data on the basis of the 28 January 1981 Council of Europe Convention on the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data and Article 23 of the 29 May 2000 Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union.
Lastly, the rapporteur considers that, pending the advent of a single text which will protect the use of personal data in this third-pillar field, the wording of the text must contain a reference (already present in the recitals) to the rules which protect personal data on the basis of the 28 January 1981 Council of Europe Convention on the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data and Article 23 of the 29 May 2000 Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union.
Amendment 7 - Article 8: Implementation
Amendment 7 - Article 8: Implementation
With regard to the timing of this decision (which will be directly applicable in all the Member States), the rapporteur considers that deadlines (which might not be met) should not be laid down in advance; it would be better to wait for a definite timeframe to emerge once the procedure is concluded.
With regard to the timing of this decision (which will be directly applicable in all the Member States), the rapporteur considers that deadlines (which might not be met) should not be laid down in advance; it would be better to wait for a definite timeframe to emerge once the procedure is concluded.
The decision must in any event be implemented by the Member States as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date upon which it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union .
The decision must in any event be implemented by the Member States as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date upon which it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union .
Amendment 8 - Form
Amendment 8 - Form
With reference to the standard forms proposed by the Commission, the rapporteur considers - as the Council has already agreed - that Form A (intended to be used by the requesting Member State in order to issue a request) and Form B (intended to be used by the requested Member State in order to reply to the request) should for practical reasons be combined into one.
With reference to the standard forms proposed by the Commission, the rapporteur considers - as the Council has already agreed - that Form A (intended to be used by the requesting Member State in order to issue a request) and Form B (intended to be used by the requested Member State in order to reply to the request) should for practical reasons be combined into one.
However, he considers it essential that, in the part containing the information relating to the requesting Member State, 'Contact person' be replaced by the more impersonal ' Contact office '.
However, he considers it essential that, in the part containing the information relating to the requesting Member State, 'Contact person' be replaced by the more impersonal 'Contact office'.
Provision should obviously be made for particularly delicate, complex investigations in which the identity of the magistrates conducting them needs to be kept confidential in the interests of their safety.
Provision should obviously be made for particularly delicate, complex investigations in which the identity of the magistrates conducting them needs to be kept confidential in the interests of their safety.
Návrh na rozhodnutie Rady o výmene informácií vypísaných z trestného registra
Proposal for a Council decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record
čl. 39 ods. 1, EÚ
Article 39(1) EU
čl. 93 a čl. 51
Rules 93 and 51
Gestorský výbor dátum pridelenia
Date of consulting Parliament
Dátum schválenia pozmeňujúcich a doplňujúcich návrhov
Date adopted
Dátum predloženia – A6
Date tabled – A[5]
o spoločnej pozícii Rady za účelom prijatia nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 ustanovujúce colné predpisy Spoločenstva
on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
o spoločnej pozícii Rady za účelom prijatia nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 ustanovujúce colné predpisy Spoločenstva
on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
– so zreteľom na spoločnú pozíciu Rady (12060/2/2004 – C6‑0211/2004 ),
– having regard to the Council common position (12060/2/2004 – C6‑0211/2004 ),
Prijaté texty zo dňa 20.4.2004, P6_TA(2004)0281 . k návrhu Komisie pre Parlament a Radu ( KOM(2003)0452 )
Texts Adopted, 20.4.2004, P5_TA(2004)0281 . on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council ( COM(2003)0452 )
– so zreteľom na odporúčanie do druhého čítania Výboru pre vnútorný trh a ochranu spotrebiteľa ( A6‑0021/2005 ),
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection ( A6‑0021/2005 ),
Spoločná pozícia Rady za účelom prijatia nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 ustanovujúce colné predpisy Spoločenstva
Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
čl. 251 ods. 2 a 26, 95, 133, 135 ES
Articles 251(2) and 26, 95, 133, 135 EC
Dátum prvého čítania EP – P[5]
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P[5]
Dátum oznámenia o prijatí spoločnej pozície
Date receipt of common position announced in plenary
k návrhu nariadenia Rady, ktorým sa zriaďuje Agentúra Spoločenstva pre kontrolu rybolovu a mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 2847/93, ktorým sa zriaďuje kontrolný systém spoločnej politiky rybolovu
on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy
DÔVODOVÁ SPRÁVA...........................................................................................................20
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................19
STANOVISKO VÝBORU PRE ROZPOČET..........................................................................21
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS.................................................................20
– so zreteľom na návrh Komisie predložený Rade ( KOM(2004)0289 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2004)0289 )
– so zreteľom na správu Výboru pre rybné hospodárstvo a stanovisko Výboru pre rozpočet ( A6‑0022/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets ( A6‑0022/2005 ),
(2) Aby sa splnili tieto povinnosti, je nutné, aby členské štáty koordinovali svoje riadiace a kontrolné aktivity vo vodách Spoločenstva a medzinárodných vodách so zreteľom na aktivity rybárskych plavidiel Spoločenstva, berúc do úvahy hlavne povinnosti Spoločenstva v rámci regionálnych rybárskych organizácií a podľa dohôd s tretími krajinami.
(2) To fulfil these obligations it is necessary for the Member States to coordinate their control and inspection activities in Community waters and international waters with regard to the activities of Community fishing vessels taking into account, in particular, the obligations of the Community in with the framework of regional fisheries organisations and under agreements with third countries.
(2) Aby sa splnili tieto povinnosti, je nutné, aby členské štáty koordinovali svoje riadiace a kontrolné aktivity vo vodách Spoločenstva a vodách tretích krajín, s ktorými Spoločenstvo uzatvorilo dohodu o rybnom hospodárstve, ktorá zahŕňa vykonávaciu dohodu so zreteľom na aktivity rybárskych plavidiel Spoločenstva, berúc do úvahy hlavne povinnosti Spoločenstva v rámci regionálnych rybárskych organizácií a podľa dohôd s tretími krajinami.
(2) To fulfil these obligations it is necessary for the Member States to coordinate their control and inspection activities in Community waters , international waters and the waters of third countries with which the Community has negotiated a fisheries agreement that includes an enforcement agreement with regard to the activities of Community fishing vessels taking into account, in particular, the obligations of the Community within the framework of regional fisheries organisations and under agreements with third countries.