natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OPE TSI (Section 4.2.2.5 Train composition) establishes that the RU defines the rules and procedures for train formation and constraints upon this process (e.g. loading gauge of open freight wagons, placing of dangerous goods in a certain position, ensuring enough traction and braking power).
VUP TSI (oddelek 4.2.2.5 Sestava vlaka) navaja, da PŽP določa pravila in postopke za sestavo vlaka ter omejitve v zvezi s tem postopkom (npr. nakladalni profil odprtih tovornih vagonov, postavitev nevarnega blaga v določen položaj, zagotovitev zadostne vlečne sile in zaviranja).
Processes to conform to these rules are covered by the SMS of the RU.
Postopke izvajanja teh predpisov pokriva SVU PŽP.
The SMS of the RU covers the procedures to ensure the compatibility of the train with the route (e.g. maximum length, type of electrification, minimum radius curves).
SVU PŽP zajema postopke za zagotovitev združljivosti vlaka s progo (npr. največja dolžina, vrsta elektrifikacije, minimalni polmer krivin).
The SMS of the RU will need to take account of the provisions/conditions relating to train operation covered in the OPE TSI [15] and national rules.Before the RU procures access to the network for the train from the IM, they should first know the nature of the access that the IM has offered for sale.
SVU PŽP bo moral upoštevati določbe/pogoje v zvezi z upravljanjem vlaka, ki so zajeti v VUP TSI [15] in nacionalnih predpisih.Preden PŽP kupi od UI dostop vlaka do omrežja, mora najprej poznati vrsto dostopa, ki ga je UI ponudil za prodajo.
The RU needs to be sure that the route to which they intend to purchase access is capable of supporting the vehicles and the trains they intend to run.
PŽP mora biti prepričan, da proga, za katero hoče kupiti dostop, lahko podpira vozila in vlake, ki jih želi upravljati.
Within the register of infrastructure the RUs should find the information on the nature of the infrastructure that they need in order to establish whether the train they intend to run are compatible with the specific route.
PŽP morajo biti v registru železniške infrastrukture zagotovljene informacije o vrsti infrastrukture, ki jih potrebujejo za ugotovitev, ali je vlak, ki ga želijo upravljati, združljiv z določeno progo.
For each parameter the IM should describe in the register the limit values of the interface parameters to which the route section is maintained.
UI mora v registru za vsak parameter opisati mejne vrednosti parametrov vmesnika, v skladu s katerimi se vzdržuje odsek proge.
The register should also cover the case of conformity when the TSI presents a number of choices or leaves the IM free to use national rules.
Register mora zajemati tudi primer skladnosti, če TSI zagotavlja več možnosti ali omogoča UI, da prosto uporablja nacionalne predpise.
The RUs rely upon the integrity of this information to ensure the safe operation of their trains.
PŽP se zanašajo na neoporečnost teh informacij za zagotovitev varnega obratovanja vlakov.
The obligation of IM to make public the nature of infrastructure already exists today (Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [16] as far as network access is concerned; Directive 2004/49/EC, 2008/57/EC and OPE TSI as far as operation is concerned).
Že zdaj velja obveznost UI, da objavi vrsto infrastrukture (Direktiva 2001/14/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [16] za dostop do omrežja ter direktivi 2004/49/ES in 2008/57/ES ter VUP TSI za obratovanje).
Until the register of infrastructure is in force, exhaustive and operational, the IM should publish this information in another form.
Dokler ne začne veljati register železniške infrastrukture ter dokler ta ni zaključen in pripravljen na izvajanje, mora UI te informacije objaviti v drugi obliki.
This does not empower the IM to impose a sort of second authorisation to the vehicles/trains of the RU.
To ne pomeni, da lahko UI uvedejo vrsto drugega dovoljenja za vozila/vlake PŽP.
Once an RU has established, by using the register of infrastructure and the technical file of vehicles, and considering the restrictions on the authorisation for placing in service of the vehicle, that the route is compatible with the vehicles it intends to use in the train, it should then refer to the provisions of the OPE TSI (particularly its Sections 4.2.2.5 ‘Train composition’, 4.2.2.6 ‘Train braking’ and 4.2.2.7 ‘Ensuring that the train is in running order’) to ascertain whether there are any train related restrictions inhibiting operation on the route (e.g. speed limits, length limits, power supply limits).
Ko PŽP na podlagi registra železniške infrastrukture in tehnične dokumentacije vozil ter ob upoštevanju omejitev v zvezi z dovoljenjem za začetek obratovanja vozila ugotovi, da je proga združljiva z vozili, ki jih namerava uporabiti v vlaku, mora uporabljati določbe VUP TSI (zlasti oddelke 4.2.2.5 „Sestava vlaka“, 4.2.2.6 „Zavorni sistem vlaka“ in 4.2.2.7 „Zagotovitev voznega stanja vlaka“), da ugotovi, ali obstajajo omejitve, ki prepovedujejo uporabo vlaka na progi (npr. omejitve hitrosti, omejitve dolžine, omejitve električnega napajanja).
Once the RU has established route-train compatibility it is in a position to operate the train.
Ko PŽP ugotovi, da je proga združljiva z vlakom, lahko začne upravljati vlak.
It is important to note that Directive 2004/49/EC makes each of the IM and the RU responsible for their parts of the system.
Poudariti je treba, da Direktiva 2004/49/ES določa, da je vsak UI in vsak PŽP odgovoren za svoje dele sistema.
The RU is solely responsible for safe operation of its trains.
PŽP je odgovoren le za varno upravljanje svojih vlakov.
The IM role is confined to the management of the infrastructure and therefore the IM has no responsibility for the operation of trains other than to issue movement authority.
Vloga UI je omejena na upravljanje infrastrukture, zato ni odgovoren za upravljanje vlakov, razen za izdajo dovoljenja za vožnjo.
Article 5.1 of Directive 2001/14/EC states that, ‘Railway undertakings shall, on a non-discriminatory basis, be entitled to the minimum access package and track access to service facilities that are described in Annex II.
Člen 5.1 Direktive 2001/14/ES navaja naslednje: „Prevozniki v železniškem prometu so brez razlikovanja upravičeni do minimalnega paketa dostopa do infrastrukture in do dostopa po tirih do objektov, potrebnih za izvajanje železniških storitev, ki jih navaja Priloga II.
The supply of services referred to in Annex II, point 2 shall be provided in a non-discriminatory manner and requests by railway undertakings may only be rejected if viable alternatives under market conditions exist.’.
Storitve, navedene v točki 2 Priloge II, se zagotavljajo brez razlikovanja, prošnje prevoznikov v železniškem prometu pa so lahko zavrnjene le, če obstajajo druge sprejemljive možnosti pod tržnimi pogoji.“
Therefore RUs have a right of access; RUs do not have to ask the IM for permission/authorisation/acceptance for access and IMs should not impose a ‘vehicle or train authorisation’ or ‘acceptance’ process (e.g. some form of ‘route acceptance’) as part of the access regime.
PŽP imajo torej pravico do dostopa; PŽP ni treba zaprositi UI za dovoljenje/odobritev/potrditev dostopa, UI pa ne smejo uveljaviti „dovoljenja za vozilo ali vlak“ ali postopka „potrditve“ (npr. vrsto „potrditve proge“) kot del režima dostopa.
All matters relating to safety and technical compatibility are covered by the interoperability and safety directives, only the NSA has the authority to authorise and it is the responsibility of the RU to make sure that it is using vehicles and trains which are compatible with the infrastructure.
Vse zadeve, povezane z varnostjo in tehnično združljivostjo, so zajete v direktivah o interoperabilnosti in varnosti, pri čemer je le NVO pristojen za odobritev dovoljenja, PŽP pa je odgovoren za zagotovitev uporabe vozil in vlakov, ki so združljivi z infrastrukturo.
If, during the process of authorisation an IM or RU has concerns relating to the authorisation for placing in service of a vehicle or fixed equipment of other party, it should bring this to the attention of the other party and if they are still not satisfied, raise the issue with the NSA, which should take account of these comments in the decision to authorise.
Če ima med postopkom izdaje dovoljenja UI ali PŽP dvome v zvezi z dovoljenjem za začetek obratovanja vozila ali opreme druge stranke, mora na to opozoriti drugo stranko; če se še vedno ne moreta sporazumeti, pa mora zadevo predložiti NVO, ki mora te pripombe upoštevati pri odločanju o dovoljenju.
If an IM or RU has concerns relating to the use of a specific vehicle or piece of fixed equipment on a specific line, it should bring this to the attention of the other party in order to find a commonly agreed solution.
Če ima UI ali PŽP dvome v zvezi z uporabo posebnega vozila ali dela opreme na določeni progi, mora na to opozoriti drugo stranko, da najdeta skupno rešitev.
If they cannot find such a solution they should raise the issue with the NSA, which takes decisions in accordance with its powers.
Če ne moreta najti rešitve, morata zadevo predložiti NVO, ki sprejme odločitev v skladu s svojo pristojnostjo.
However whilst the IM has no permissioning role in vehicle authorisation, under Directive 2001/14/EC they are responsible for capacity allocation.
UI ni pristojen za odobritev vozila, vendar je v skladu z Direktivo 2001/14/ES odgovoren za dodelitev zmogljivosti.
The allocation of a train path is in fact the act of allocating rail infrastructure capacity to trains.
Dodelitev vlakovne poti je dejansko postopek dodelitve železniške infrastrukturne zmogljivosti za vlake.
In some cases there may not be enough capacity to accommodate all the applications of all the RUs applying for capacity.
V nekaterih primerih zmogljivost morda ne zadostuje za sprejem vseh aplikacij vseh PŽP, ki so zaprosili za dodelitev zmogljivosti.
In this case the rules of Directive 2001/14/EC apply.
V tem primeru se uporabljajo predpisi iz Direktive 2001/14/ES.
Subsystems shall comply with the TSIs in force at the time of their placing in service, upgrading or renewal (Article 5(2)).
Podsistemi morajo biti v skladu s TSI, ki veljajo ob začetku njihovega obratovanja, v času njihove nadgradnje ali obnove (člen 5(2)).
However, the fact of being upgraded or renewed does not lead automatically to a new authorisation for placing in service of that subsystem.
Vendar nadgradnja ali obnova podsistema ne pomenita samodejno, da je treba izdati novo dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja tega podsistema.
In accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC, the MS taking into account the file submitted by the contracting entity or manufacturer and the implementation strategy of the TSIs, will decide whether the extent of the works means a new authorisation for placing in service.
V skladu s členom 20 Direktive 2008/57/ES DČ ob upoštevanju dokumentacije, ki jo je predložil naročnik ali proizvajalec, ter strategije izvajanja TSI, sprejme odločitev, ali obseg del zahteva izdajo novega dovoljenja za začetek obratovanja.
If the design operating state is not changed then no new authorisation is required.
Če se stanje načrtovanega delovanja ne spremeni, ni potrebno novo dovoljenje.
As far as the EC verification procedure of subsystems is concerned, since the upgrade or renewal may not concern the whole subsystem, the applicant may apply for an ‘intermediate statement verification’ for the part upgraded/renewed and the related certificate issued by the NoBo and declaration issued by the applicant (Annex VI [17]).
Ker se morda nadgradnja ali obnova ne nanaša na celoten podsistem, lahko prosilec v postopku ES-verifikacije podsistemov zaprosi za „vmesno izjavo o verifikaciji“ za nadgrajen/obnovljen del ter za ustrezno potrdilo, ki ga izda PriglO, in izjavo, ki jo izda prosilec (Priloga VI [17]).
However, where a new authorisation for placing in service is required, an ‘EC’ certificate and declaration of verification procedure is also required for granting authorisation.
Če je potrebno novo dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja, je treba za odobritev dovoljenja vseeno izvesti tudi postopek za ES-potrdilo in izjavo o verifikaciji.
In this case the relevant certificates and declaration indicate the precise reference to TSIs or the parts thereof, which were not examined in terms of their conformity during the ‘EC’ verification procedure.
V tem primeru se morajo ustrezna potrdila in izjava jasno sklicevati na TSI ali njihove dele, ki med postopkom ES-verifikacije niso bili preučeni v smislu njihove skladnosti.
Directive 2008/57/EC does not provide for a hierarchy between Derogations (Article 9), Specific cases (Article 5(5)) and partial application of TSIs in the case of renewal/upgrading (Article 20).
Direktiva 2008/57/ES ne določa hierarhije med odstopanji (člen 9), posebnimi primeri (člen 5(5)) in delno uporabo TSI v primeru obnove/nadgradnje (člen 20).
As regards the choice between future derogations to be requested and specific cases to be written in the TSI, the following principles are recommended to be considered by the relevant parties in order to reduce bureaucracy:
V zvezi z izbiro med prihodnjimi odstopanji, ki bodo zahtevana, in posebnimi primeri, ki bodo navedeni v TSI, je priporočljivo, da zadevne strani za namene zmanjšanja birokracije upoštevajo naslednja načela:
identified permanent non-compliance with the target system specified in Chapter 4 of TSIs should be dealt with through specific cases: this would avoid numerous unnecessary derogation requests (the need for the specific case must be declared by the MS during the TSI drafting, so that these specific cases may be included in the TSI),
Ugotovljena stalna neskladnost s ciljnim sistemom, določenem v poglavju 4 TSI, se mora obravnavati v posebnih primerih: to bi preprečilo veliko nepotrebnih prošenj za odstopanje (potrebo po posebnem primeru mora izraziti DČ pri pripravi TSI, tako da se lahko ti posebni primeri vključijo v TSI).
identified temporary or local/one off cases of non-compliance with a TSI should be dealt with through future derogation requests: this would avoid numerous unnecessary specific cases in the TSI.
Ugotovljeni začasni ali lokalni/enkratni primeri neskladnosti s TSI se morajo obravnavati v prihodnjih prošnjah za odstopanje: to bi preprečilo veliko nepotrebnih posebnih primerov v TSI.
When implementing a project, the following questions should be asked in the following order:
Pri izvajanju projekta je treba odgovoriti na naslednja vprašanja po naslednjem vrstnem redu:
is it possible to implement the target system?
ali se ciljni sistem lahko izvaja?
if not, is there a specific case specified in the TSI?
če ne, ali je v TSI naveden poseben primer?
if not, is this a case for a derogation request?
če ne, ali je morda potrebna prošnja za odstopanje?
if not and if it is an upgrading/renewal project, what part of the target system can be applied?
če ne in če gre za projekt nadgradnje/obnove, kateri del ciljnega sistema je mogoče izvajati?
(In some cases, the implementation strategy of a TSI may have provisions related to this subject.)
(V nekaterih primerih lahko strategija izvajanja TSI vsebuje določbe, povezane s to zadevo.)
In cases (a) and (b) the MS will be able to take decisions without intervention from the Commission or other MS. In cases (c) and (d) the Commission and the other MS will have access to the information and, in some cases, will be able to intervene:
V primerih (a) in (b) bo lahko DČ sprejemala odločitve brez posredovanja Komisije ali druge DČ. V primerih (c) in (d) bodo imele Komisija in druge DČ dostop do informacij in bodo lahko v nekaterih primerih posredovale:
either through a Comitology procedure (Commission and all MS),
bodisi s postopkom komitologije (Komisija in vse DČ),
or through a bilateral discussion (Commission and relevant MS).
bodisi z dvostransko razpravo (Komisija in zadevna DČ).
In cases (c) and (d), the partial application of the TSI is not recommended in the case of infrastructure and track-side equipment, because this may hamper the free movement of trains for a long period.
V primerih (c) in (d) ni priporočljiva delna uporaba TSI, če gre za infrastrukturo in opremo ob progi, saj lahko to dlje časa ovira prosti pretok vlakov.
Partial application of TSI in the case of rolling stock is less onerous as it affects only to the keeper of the vehicle and the RUs using it.
Delna uporaba TSI v primeru tirnih vozil je manj težavna, saj vpliva le na imetnika vozila in PŽP, ki ga uporablja.
Finally, the provision of information requested under Article 20(2) is valuable in determining both the future developments/revisions of the TSIs and the progress of interoperability.
Zagotavljanje informacij, ki so potrebne v skladu s členom 20(2), je koristno pri določanju prihodnjega razvoja/revizij TSI ter napredka interoperabilnosti.
It also allows the Commission to verify the correct application of Directive 2008/57/EC.
Poleg tega omogoča Komisiji, da preveri ustrezno izvajanje Direktive 2008/57/ES.
As a reminder, specific cases and derogations may also exist in the case of new projects.
Opozoriti je treba, da lahko posebni primeri in odstopanja obstajajo tudi pri novih projektih.
Directive 2008/57/EC defines a series of roles and responsibilities for a set of entities.
Direktiva 2008/57/ES opredeljuje več vlog in odgovornosti za niz subjektov.
In some cases an entity may fulfil more than one of these responsibilities.
V nekaterih primerih lahko subjekt izvaja več kot eno od teh odgovornosti.
In some cases these entities may sub-contract particular tasks, but they may not create new requirements, roles or responsibilities.
V nekaterih primerih lahko ti subjekti oddajo nekatere naloge podizvajalcu, vendar ne smejo ustvarjati novih zahtev, vlog ali odgovornosti.
A subcontractor is bound by the same constraints as the responsible entities and must act as the entities.
Za podizvajalca veljajo enake omejitve kot za odgovorne subjekte ter morajo delovati kot subjekti.
The subcontracting entities remain fully responsible.
Podizvajalci so v celoti odgovorni.
The ‘applicant’ is not a single entity; it is the party making the relevant application.
„Prosilec“ ni posamezni subjekt, ampak stranka, ki predloži ustrezni zahtevek.
Directive 2008/57/EC provides for the possibility of applicants submitting applications for the following:
Direktiva 2008/57/ES prosilcem zagotavlja možnost predložitve zahtevkov za naslednje:
Intermediate Statement Verifications,
vmesne izjave o verifikaciji
EC verification,
ES-verifikacijo
verification according to national rules,
verifikacijo v skladu z nacionalnimi predpisi
subsystem authorisation for placing in service,
dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja podsistema
vehicle first authorisation for placing in service,
prvo dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja vozila
vehicle additional authorisation for placing in service,
dodatno dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja vozila
authorisation of a vehicle type.
odobritev tipa vozila
The applicant for the authorisation for placing in service of a subsystem:
Prosilec za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja podsistema:
makes the application for authorisation for placing in service of a subsystem,
predloži zahtevek za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja podsistema
ensures that the subsystem has undergone the verification procedure and provides the NSA with the necessary evidence,
zagotovi, da je bil za podsistem izveden postopek verifikacije, in predloži NVO potrebne dokaze
could be responsible for the following under Article 20
je lahko v skladu s členom 20 odgovoren za naslednje
‘In the event of renewal or upgrading, the contracting entity or the manufacturer shall send the MS concerned a file describing the project’,
„Pri obnovi ali nadgradnji pošlje naročnik ali proizvajalec zadevni DČ dokumentacijo o projektu.“
where appropriate, invites the CSM on RA assessment body to produce the safety assessment report.
če je ustrezno, zaprosi organ za presojo SVM za OT, naj pripravi poročilo o oceni varnosti.
In the same way, the applicant for vehicle authorisation:
Prosilec za odobritev vozila na enak način:
makes the application,
predloži zahtevek
submits a ‘file’ (Article 23 — TSI conform vehicles) or a ‘technical file’ (Article 25 — non-TSI conform vehicles) in the case of additional authorisations.
predloži „dokumentacijo“ (člen 23 – vozila, skladna s TSI) ali „tehnično dokumentacijo“ (člen 25 – vozila, ki niso skladna s TSI) v primeru dodatnih dovoljenj.
Note 1: If an RU or an IM happens to be an applicant for authorisation for placing in service they bear all the responsibilities allocated to the applicant for authorisation for placing in service, but this is independent from their activity as RU or IM. The fact that it is an RU and IM (or even another company) has no impact on its roles and responsibilities as applicant for an authorisation for placing in service.
Opomba 1 če je PŽP ali UI prosilec za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja, nosi vse odgovornosti, ki jih ima prosilec za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja, vendar je to neodvisno od njegove dejavnosti kot PŽP ali UI. Dejstvo, da gre za PŽP ali UI (ali celo drugo podjetje), ne vpliva na njegove vloge in odgovornosti, ki jih ima kot prosilec za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja.
Note 2: the applicant for the authorisation for placing in service is not necessarily the one who arranges for the ‘EC’ verification procedure and the national verification procedure.
Opomba 2 prosilec za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja ni nujno subjekt, ki poskrbi za izvedbo postopkov ES-verifikacije in nacionalnega postopka verifikacije.
E.g. for a vehicle the manufacturer may arrange for a complete verification procedure (select and invite a NoBo(s), establish the ‘EC’ declaration, arrange for the verification of conformity with national rules by the DeBo(s) and arrange for the risk assessment) and then the vehicle owner or keeper may apply for the authorisation for placing in service.
Npr. za vozilo lahko celotni postopek verifikacije izvede proizvajalec (izbere in zaprosi priglašeni organ ali priglašene organe, izda ES-izjavo, uredi verifikacijo skladnosti z nacionalnimi predpisi, ki jo opravi pristojni organ ali pristojni organi ter izvede oceno tveganja), nato pa lahko lastnik ali imetnik vozila predloži zahtevek za dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja.
RUs are one of the entities (along with manufacturers, keepers, etc.) that may act as applicants.
PŽP spadajo med subjekte (poleg proizvajalcev, imetnikov itd.), ki lahko nastopajo kot prosilci.
Article 15(3) of Directive 2008/57/EC makes reference to the obligation placed by Directive 2004/49/EC on SMSs of RUs to ensure that subsystem and vehicles meet the essential requirements.
Člen 15(3) Direktive 2008/57/ES se sklicuje na obveznost, ki jo Direktiva 2004/49/ES nalaga za SVU PŽP, za zagotovitev, da podsistem in vozila izpolnjujejo bistvene zahteve.
It therefore includes the obligation to maintain technical compatibility.
Zato vključuje obveznost ohranjanja tehnične združljivosti.
For technical compatibility to be maintained the SMS of the RU ensures that vehicles it operates are maintained in conformity with the TSIs and national rules defining the requirements for technical compatibility between vehicles and infrastructure.
SVU PŽP za namene ohranjanja tehnične združljivosti zagotavlja, da se vozila, ki jih upravlja, vzdržujejo v skladu s TSI in nacionalnimi predpisi, ki določajo zahteve za tehnično združljivost vozil z infrastrukturo.
This Section only applies to the IM in its capacity as an infrastructure manager only, not as an operator of inspection/maintenance/works trains.
Ta oddelek velja le za UI v vlogi upravljavca infrastrukture, ne pa v vlogi izvajalca inšpekcijskih pregledov/vzdrževanja/del na vlakih.
The IM has a direct responsibility in the context of facilitating the authorisation process.
UI je neposredno odgovoren za olajšanje procesa odobritve.