natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The substances and the product-types indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall not be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.
Snovi in vrste pripravkov, navedene v Prilogi k tej odločbi, se ne vključijo v prilogo I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES.
For the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, this Decision shall apply from 1 March 2009.
Ta odločba se za namene člena 4(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1451/2007 uporablja od 1. marca 2009.
Substances and product-types not to be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC
Snovi in vrste pripravkov, ki se ne vključijo v prilogo I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES
EC number
Št. ES
Council Decision 2009/323/JHA
Sklep Sveta 2009/323/PNZ
adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff
o uskladitvi osnovnih plač in dodatkov za osebje Europola
Having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees [1], (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Akta Sveta z dne 3. decembra 1998 o sprejetju kadrovskih predpisov za zaposlene v Europolu [1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Kadrovski predpisi“) in zlasti člena 44 Kadrovskih predpisov,
Having regard to the review of remuneration of officials of Europol by the Management Board of Europol,
ob upoštevanju pregleda osebnih prejemkov uradnikov Europola, ki ga je opravil upravni odbor Europola,
In the review of remuneration of officials of Europol, the Management Board took account of the changes in the cost of living in the Netherlands, as well as of the changes in salaries in the public service in the Member States.
Upravni odbor je v pregledu osebnih prejemkov uradnikov Europola upošteval spremembe v življenjskih stroških na Nizozemskem, kakor tudi spremembe plač v javnem sektorju v državah članicah.
The review period from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 justifies an increase of 1,7 % of remuneration for the period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.
Obdobje pregleda od 1. julija 2006 do 30. junija 2007 upravičuje povečanje osebnih prejemkov za 1,7 % za obdobje od 1. julija 2007 do 30. junija 2008.
It is for the Council, acting unanimously, to adjust the basic salaries and allowances of officials of Europol, on the basis of the review,
Svet na podlagi pregleda soglasno prilagodi osnovne plače in dodatke uradnikov Europola –
The Staff Regulations are hereby amended as follows:
Kadrovski predpisi se spremenijo:
With effect from 1 July 2007:
z učinkom od 1. julija 2007:
in Article 45, the table of basic monthly salaries shall be replaced by the following:
se tabela osnovnih mesečnih plač v členu 45 nadomesti z naslednjim:
in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 1019,43’ shall be replaced by ‘EUR 1036,76’;
v členu 59(3) se znesek „1019,43 EUR“ nadomesti s „1036,76 EUR“;
in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 2038,85’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2073,51’;
v členu 59(3) se znesek „2038,85 EUR“ nadomesti z „2073,51 EUR“;
in Article 60(1), the amount ‘EUR 271,86’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 276,48’;
v členu 60(1) se znesek „271,86 EUR“ nadomesti z „276,48 EUR“;
in Article 2(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 284,20’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 289,03’;
v členu 2(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „284,20 EUR“ nadomesti z „289,03 EUR“;
in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 12356,67’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 12566,73’;
v členu 3(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „12356,67 EUR“ nadomesti z „12566,73 EUR“;
in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2780,26’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2827,52’;
v členu 3(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „2780,26 EUR“ nadomesti z „2827,52 EUR“;
in Article 3(2) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 16681,50’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 16965,09’;
v členu 3(2) Dodatka 5 se znesek „16681,50 EUR“ nadomesti s „16965,09 EUR“;
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1235,67’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1256,68’;
v členu 4(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „1235,67 EUR“ nadomesti s „1256,68 EUR“;
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 926,77’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 942,53’;
v členu 4(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „926,77 EUR“ nadomesti z „942,53 EUR“;
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 617,83’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 628,33’;
v členu 4(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „617,83 EUR“ nadomesti s „628,33 EUR“;
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 494,26’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 502,66’;
v členu 4(1) Dodatka 5 se znesek „494,26 EUR“ nadomesti s „502,66 EUR“;
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1743,78’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1773,42’;
v členu 5(3) Dodatka 5 se znesek „1743,78 EUR“ nadomesti s „1773,42 EUR“;
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2325,04’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2364,57’;
v členu 5(3) Dodatka 5 se znesek „2325,04 EUR“ nadomesti z „2364,57 EUR“;
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2906,29’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2955,70’.
v členu 5(3) Dodatka 5 se znesek „2906,29 EUR“ nadomesti z „2955,70 EUR“.
This Decision shall take effect on the day following its adoption.
Ta sklep začne učinkovati na dan po sprejetju.
of 14 April 2009
z dne 14. aprila 2009
concerning the non-inclusion of certain substances in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
o nevključitvi določenih snovi v priloge I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dajanju biocidnih pripravkov v promet
(notified under document number C(2009) 2566)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2009) 2566)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market [2] establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1451/2007 z dne 4. decembra 2007 o drugi fazi 10-letnega delovnega programa iz člena 16(2) Direktive 98/8/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dajanju biocidnih pripravkov v promet [2] določa seznam aktivnih snovi, ki jih je treba oceniti zaradi njihove možne vključitve v priloge I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/EC.
For a number of substance/product type combinations included in that list, the original participants discontinued their participation in the review programme.
Za mnoge kombinacije snovi/vrst pripravkov, vključene v navedeni seznam, so se prvotni udeleženci umaknili iz programa pregledovanja.
Consequently, and pursuant to Articles 11(2), 12(1) and 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the Commission informed the Member States thereof.
Zato je Komisija v skladu s členi 11(2), 12(1) in 13(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1451/2007 o tem obvestila države članice.
That information was also made public by electronic means on 14 June 2006.
Navedeno obvestilo je bilo objavljeno v elektronski obliki 14. junija 2006.
Within the period of three months from that publication, other persons indicated an interest in taking over the role of participant for some substance/product type combinations.
Tri mesece po objavi so druge osebe izrazile zanimanje za prevzem vloge udeleženca za nekatere kombinacije snovi/vrst pripravkov.
Commission Decision 2007/794/EC [3] fixed the new deadline for the submission of a complete dossier to 30 April 2008 for these substance/product type combinations.
Odločba Komisije 2007/794/ES [3] je določila nov rok za predložitev popolne dokumentacije do 30. aprila 2008 za kombinacije snovi/vrst pripravkov.
No complete dossiers were however received within this time period for certain of these substance/product type combinations.
Do predpisanega roka nihče ni predložil popolne dokumentacije za določene kombinacije snovi/vrst pripravkov.
Pursuant to Articles 12(4) and 12(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, the substances should therefore not be included for the product-types concerned in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.
Na podlagi členov 12(4) in 12(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1451/2007 se zato snovi ne vključijo za vrste pripravkov iz prilog I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES.
The substances indicated in the Annex to this Decision shall not be included for the product-types concerned in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC.
Snovi, navedene v Prilogi k tej odločbi, se ne vključijo za vrste pripravkov iz prilog I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES.
For the purposes of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007, this Decision shall apply from 1 June 2009.
Ta odločba se za namene člena 4(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1451/2007 uporablja od 1. junija 2009.
Done at Brussels, 14 April 2009.
V Bruslju, 14. aprila 2009
Substances not to be included in Annexes I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC with regard to certain product-types
Snovi, ki se ne vključijo v priloge I, IA ali IB k Direktivi 98/8/ES za določene vrste pripravkov
Product-type
Vrsta pripravka
on State aid C 3/08 (ex NN 102/05) — Czech Republic concerning public service compensations for Southern Moravia Bus Companies
o državni pomoči C 3/08 (ex NN 102/05) – Češka republika glede nadomestil za izvajanje javne službe za avtobusna podjetja Južne Moravske
(notified under document number C(2008) 7032)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 7032)
Having called on interested third parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [2],
po pozivu zainteresiranim tretjim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi določbami [2],
By letter dated 28 June 2005 the Commission received a complaint from the Czech company ČAS — SERVICE a.s.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 28. junija 2005 prejela pritožbo češke družbe ČAS – SERVICE a.s.
(the Complainant).
(„pritožnik“).
The complaint concerned State aid allegedly granted to various competitors of the Complainant by regional authorities between 2003 and 2005.
Pritožba se je nanašala na državno pomoč, domnevno dodeljeno s strani regionalnih organov različnim konkurentom pritožnika med letoma 2003 in 2005.
By letters of 20 July 2005, 14 March 2006 and 7 December 2006, the Commission requested from the Czech authorities further information with regard to issues raised by the Complainant.
Komisija je z dopisi z dne 20. julija 2005, 14. marca 2006 in 7. decembra 2006 od čeških organov zahtevala dodatne informacije v zvezi z vprašanji, ki jih je zastavil pritožnik.
The Czech authorities replied on 14 September 2005, 2 June 2006, 6 February 2007 and 18 October 2007.
Češki organi so odgovorili 14. septembra 2005, 2. junija 2006, 6. februarja 2007 in 18. oktobra 2007.
By letter dated 15 January 2008, the Commission informed the Czech authorities of the decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 15. januarja 2008 češke organe obvestila o odločitvi, da bo sprožila postopek v zvezi s pomočjo v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Czech authorities provided their comments on the aid by letter dated 18 February 2008.
Češki organi so predložili pripombe o pomoči z dopisom z dne 18. februarja 2008.
On 14 March 2008, the Commission received comments from the Complainant as third party.
Komisija je 14. marca 2008 prejela pripombe pritožnika kot tretje stranke.
On 17 April 2008, these comments were transmitted to the Czech authorities, which were invited to comment on the standpoints of the third party.
Te pripombe so bile 17. aprila 2008 posredovane češkim organom, ki so bili pozvani, da predložijo pripombe o stališčih tretje stranke.
On 13 May 2008, the Czech authorities requested an extension of the deadline for submitting their comments, on which the Commission agreed.
Češki organi so 13. maja 2008 zahtevali podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb, s čimer se je Komisija strinjala.
On 17 June 2008, the Czech authorities submitted their observations on the third-party comments.
Češki organi so 17. junija 2008 predložili svoje ugotovitve v zvezi s pripombami tretje stranke.
The Complainant is a joint-stock company active in the field of regular bus transport, chartered transport, city bus transport in Znojmo territory and international transport.
Pritožnik je delniška družba, ki se ukvarja z rednim avtobusnim prevozom, čarterskim prevozom, mestnim avtobusnim prevozom na območju Znojma in mednarodnim prevozom.
Until September 2004, operation of the regional public bus transport in Southern Moravia was the core activity of the Complainant, particularly on the basis of contracts concluded with the regional authorities.
Izvajanje regionalnega javnega avtobusnega prevoza v Južni Moravski je bilo do septembra 2004 glavna dejavnost pritožnika, zlasti na podlagi pogodb, sklenjenih z regionalnimi organi.
The services were provided in the Southern Moravia Region (Znojmo and Moravsky Krumlov Districts).
Storitve so se izvajale v regiji Južna Moravska (okraja Znojmo in Moravsky Krumlov).
The Complainant alleges that the Southern Moravia authorities granted, in the period between 2003 and 2005, illegal State aid to Bítešská Dopravní Společnost s.r.o.
Pritožnik trdi, da so organi Južne Moravske v obdobju 2003–2005 odobrili nezakonito državno pomoč podjetjem Bítešská Dopravní Společnost s.r.o.
(Bítešská), BK Bus s.r.o.
(„Bítešská“), BK Bus s.r.o.
(BK Bus), Břežanská dopravní společnost s.r.o.
(„BK Bus“), Břežanská dopravní společnost s.r.o.
(Břežanská společnost), Znojemská dopravnì společnost — PSOTA s.r.o.
(„Břežanská společnost“), Znojemská dopravnì společnost – PSOTA s.r.o.
(PSOTA), Tredos, spol. s.r.o.
(„PSOTA“), TREDOS, spol. s.r.o.
(Tredos).
(„TREDOS“).
This would be the consequence of a grant of licences that would be neither transparent nor objective.
To naj bi bila posledica odobritve licenc, ki naj ne bi bila pregledna in nepristranska.
According to the Czech authorities the licence constitutes a permit granted by the authorities to operate a regular public transport service.
Po trditvah čeških organov licenca pomeni dovoljenje, ki ga odobrijo organi za opravljanje storitve rednega javnega prevoza.
The aim of the licence is to guarantee that bus transport will be conducted only by carriers who meet certain quality requirements.
Namen licence je zagotovitev, da bodo avtobusni prevoz izvajali le prevozniki, ki izpolnjujejo nekatere zahteve glede kakovosti.
In this respect, according to Paragraph 18 of Law No 111/1994 Coll. on the road transport (the Road Transport Law) [4] these requirements comprise in particular the obligation to provide services in accordance with the approved timetable, to ensure a certain level of safety for passengers and to publish timetables and mark buses with the names of the lines.
V tem smislu te zahteve v skladu z odstavkom 18 Zakona št. 111/1994 Sb. o prevozih v cestnem prometu („Zakon o prevozih v cestnem prometu“) [4] vključujejo zlasti obveznost izvajanja storitev v skladu s sprejetim voznim redom, zagotavljanja določene stopnje varnosti za potnike in objave voznih redov ter označevanja avtobusov z imeni prog.
The provision of Paragraph 19 of the Road Transport Law stipulates that the public service obligation is understood as ‘the obligation by the carrier in the public interest which the carrier would otherwise not accept at all or partially due to its economic disadvantage.
Določba iz odstavka 19 Zakona o prevozih v cestnem prometu določa, da se obveznost javne službe razume kot „obveznost prevoznika v javnem interesu, ki je prevoznik drugače v celoti ali delno ne bi prevzel zaradi gospodarske izgube.
The public service obligation is agreed by the government with the carrier and the government shall also settle the provable loss to the carrier arisen by its fulfilment.
O obveznosti javne službe se vlada dogovori s prevoznikom, pri čemer vlada poravna prevozniku tudi dokazljivo izgubo, ki nastane z izpolnjevanjem te obveznosti.
The public service obligation consists in the obligation to operate (…), the obligation of the transport (…), the tariff obligation (…).
Obveznost javne službe obsega obveznost izvajanja […], obveznost prevoza […] in tarifne obveznosti […].
The public service obligation in the public line transport arises on the basis of a written contract’ (concluded between the relevant authorities and the operator) [5].
Obveznost javne službe v javnem prevozu nastane na podlagi pisne pogodbe“ (sklenjene med zadevnimi organi in izvajalcem) [5].
(…) If the carrier also provides transport services other than the public service obligations or other activities, he shall keep separate accounts for the public service obligations’.
[…] Če prevoznik poleg obveznosti javne službe opravlja tudi druge prevozne storitve ali druge dejavnosti, vodi ločene račune za obveznosti javne službe“.
The adequate profit is understood in the Regulation as ‘the sum which — after taxation (…) — does not exceed 1/8 of the price of the buses used usually for the public line passenger transport providing the traffic services by fulfilment of the public service obligation reduced by the sum of the total real depreciation of these buses and the sum spent for investments related to operation of the public line passenger transport, provided that the relevant authority expressed its approval for the investment for purpose of its incorporation into the calculation of the provable loss’.
Ustrezen dobiček se v Uredbi razume kot „vsota, ki po obdavčitvi […] ne preseže 1/8 cene avtobusov, ki se običajno uporabljajo za javni potniški prevoz, s katerim se opravljajo prevozne storitve z izpolnjevanem obveznosti javne službe, zmanjšana za znesek celotne realne amortizacije zadevnih avtobusov in znesek, uporabljen za naložbe, povezane z izvajanjem javnega potniškega prevoza, če je zadevni organ odobril naložbe za namene vključitve v izračun dokazljive izgube“.
With effect from 1 January 2003 the regional authorities, including Southern Moravia authorities, became responsible in the Czech Republic for concluding contracts with transport operators for providing public transport services.
Regionalni organi, vključno z organi Južne Moravske, so od 1. januarja 2003 v Češki republiki odgovorni za sklepanje pogodb s prevozniki za opravljanje storitev javnega prevoza.
The Southern Moravia authorities compared the costs of providing public transport incurred by the Complainant with the average cost for bus transport operation in the Czech Republic obtained from statistical survey.
Organi Južne Moravske so primerjali stroške zagotavljanja javnega prevoza, ki jih je imel pritožnik, s povprečnimi stroški avtobusnega prevoza v Češki republiki, pridobljenimi iz statistične raziskave.
They concluded that the Complainant’s costs were higher than the average cost.
Ugotovili so, da so stroški pritožnika višji od povprečnih stroškov.
On 24 March 2003, given the abovementioned assessment and after unsuccessful negotiations with the Complainant, the authorities of the Southern Moravia Region decided to conduct negotiations for providing transport services with other operators.
Z upoštevanjem navedene ocene in po neuspešnih pogajanjih s pritožnikom so se 24. marca 2003 organi regije Južne Moravske odločili za pogajanja o zagotavljanju prevoznih storitev z drugimi izvajalci.
They approached the known carriers operating in the Southern Moravia Region with a request to submit tenders for providing public transport services in Znojmo territory.
Znane prevoznike, ki opravljajo prevozne storitve v regiji Južna Moravska, so pozvali k predložitvi ponudb za zagotavljanje storitev javnega prevoza na območju Znojmo.
The invitation to submit tenders was sent to 41 carriers, including the Complainant.
Razpis za zbiranje ponudb je bil poslan 41 prevoznikom, vključno s pritožnikom.
It envisaged that the regional authorities were willing to pay to the operators a price of not more than CZK 26 per km for providing the service.
V njem je bilo določeno, da so za zagotavljanje storitve regionalni organi izvajalcem pripravljeni plačati največ 26 CZK na kilometer.
Additionally, it envisaged a requirement that the operators must have an electronic processing system and be in a good standing with the administration.
Poleg tega je bila predvidena zahteva, da morajo imeti izvajalci sistem za elektronsko obdelavo in urejene upravne zadeve.
The regional authorities received answers from 9 carriers who subsequently were invited to a meeting with the regional authority.
Regionalni organi so prejeli odgovore devetih prevoznikov, ki so jih pozneje povabili na sestanek z regionalnim organom.
A selection committee appointed by the Southern Moravia Regional Council assessed and rated the tenders.
Izbirni odbor, ki ga je imenoval regionalni svet Južne Moravske, je preučil in ocenil ponudbe.
It recommended that the contracts for providing transport services were concluded with 6 carriers, including the Complainant, namely: Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, Tredos and the Complainant (ČAS-Service a.s.).
Priporočil je, da se pogodbe za zagotavljanje prevoznih storitev sklenejo s šestimi prevozniki, vključno s pritožnikom, tj: družbami Bítešská, BK Bus, Břežanská společnost, PSOTA, TREDOS in pritožnikom (ČAS-Service a.s.).
The criteria taken into account by the selection committee in assessing the tenders were clarity and completeness.
Merili, ki jih je upošteval izbirni odbor pri oceni ponudb, sta bili jasnost in popolnost.
Additionally, the Southern Moravia authorities took into account among others, the criterion of minimising the number of technical operational kilometres and cohesiveness of selected territory.
Poleg tega so organi Južne Moravske med drugim upoštevali tudi merilo zmanjševanja števila tehničnih operativnih kilometrov in povezanost zadevnega območja.
According to the Czech authorities, the Complainant was considered to meet the selection criteria only conditionally, since it did not specify clearly the price of its transport operation.
Po trditvah čeških organov je pritožnik izpolnjeval merila za izbiro le pogojno, ker ni jasno določil cene svojega prevoza.
During subsequent meetings, the Complainant then expressed that it could not accept compensation at the rate proposed by the Southern Moravia authorities in the invitation to submit tenders.
Na naslednjih srečanjih je pritožnik izjavil, da ne more sprejeti višine nadomestila, ki so ga predlagali organi Južne Moravske v razpisu za zbiranje ponudb.
As a consequence, the regional authorities established that the Complainant did not fulfil the conditions of the selection procedure and that contract for providing public transport services could not be concluded with it.
Zato so regionalni organi ugotovili, da pritožnik ne izpolnjuje pogojev postopka izbire ter da z njim ni mogoče skleniti pogodbe za zagotavljanje storitev javnega prevoza.
Contracts were concluded with these operators who accepted that the maximum price to be paid for providing public transport would amount to CZK 26 per km.
Pogodbe so bile sklenjene s tistimi izvajalci, ki so se strinjali, da najvišja cena za zagotavljanje javnega prevoza znaša 26 CZK na kilometer.
According to the Czech authorities this meant that a well-managed and well-equipped company with costs of CZK 23959 per km would have received a profit amounting to CZK 2041 per km.
Po trditvah čeških organov je to pomenilo, da bi dobro vodena in dobro opremljena družba s stroški 23959 CZK na kilometer imela dobiček, ki bi znašal 2041 CZK na kilometer.
The cost of CZK 23959 per km was obtained from statistical surveys conducted pursuant to Act No 89/1995 Coll. on the State Statistical Service.
Strošek 23959 CZK na kilometer je bil izračunan na podlagi statističnih raziskav, izvedenih v skladu z Zakonom št. 89/1995 Sb. o državnem statističnem uradu.
These surveys referred to providing public bus services on the territory of the Czech Republic for the period of 2002.
Te raziskave so zadevale zagotavljanje javnih avtobusnih storitev na ozemlju Češke republike za leto 2002.
The estimated price per km (not exceeding CZK 26 per km) was specified in the contract with each operator.
Ocenjena cena na kilometer (ne presega 26 CZK na kilometer) je bila določena v pogodbi z vsakim izvajalcem.