natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Eastern Republic of Uruguay is also party to the American Convention of Human Rights (‘Pact of San José de Costa Rica) of 22 November 1969, and in force since 18 July 1978 [3]. Article 11 of this Convention lays down the right to privacy and Article 30 sets out that restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognised by the Convention may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established (Article 30). Moreover the Eastern Republic of Uruguay has accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Furthermore at the 1118th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe held on 6 July 2011, the Deputies invited the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to accede the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No 108) and to its Additional Protocol (ETS No 118), after a favourable opinion of the relevant Consultative Committee [4].
Vzhodna republika Urugvaj je tudi podpisnica Ameriške konvencije o človekovih pravicah (Pakt iz San Joséja v Kostariki) z dne 22. novembra 1969 in velja od 18. julija 1978 [3]. Člen 11 te konvencije določa pravico do zasebnosti, člen 30 pa, da se sme omejitve, s katerimi se v skladu s to konvencijo lahko omeji uresničevanje ali izvajanje teh pravic ali svoboščin, priznanih z navedeno konvencijo, uporabiti le v skladu z zakoni, sprejetimi zaradi varstva splošnih interesov in v skladu z namenom, za katerega so bile take omejitve določene (člen 30). Poleg tega je Vzhodna republika Urugvaj sprejela pristojnost Medameriškega sodišča za človekove pravice. Ministrski namestniki Sveta Evrope so na 1118. seji 6. julija 2011 tudi pozvali Vzhodno republiko Urugvaj, naj pristopi h Konvenciji o varstvu posameznikov glede na avtomatsko obdelavo osebnih podatkov (ETS št. 108) in njenemu dodatnemu protokolu (ETS št. 118) po podanem pozitivnem mnenju ustreznega posvetovalnega odbora [4].
The Eastern Republic of Uruguay should therefore be regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data as referred to in Directive 95/46/EC.
Za Vzhodno republiko Urugvaj bi bilo treba torej šteti, da zagotavlja ustrezno raven varstva osebnih podatkov iz Direktive 95/46/ES.
In the interest of transparency and in order to safeguard the ability of the competent authorities in the Member States to ensure the protection of individuals as regards the processing of their personal data, it is necessary to specify the exceptional circumstances in which the suspension of specific data flows may be justified, notwithstanding the finding of adequate protection.
Zaradi preglednosti in zaščite zmožnosti pristojnih organov držav članic, da zagotovijo varstvo posameznikov v zvezi z obdelavo njihovih osebnih podatkov, je treba določiti izjemne okoliščine, v katerih se lahko upraviči začasna ustavitev prenosa nekaterih podatkov, ne glede na ugotovljeno ustrezno varstvo.
The Commission should monitor the functioning of the Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC.
Komisija spremlja učinkovanje tega sklepa in odboru, ustanovljenemu v skladu s členom 31 Direktive 95/46/ES, poroča o vseh zadevnih ugotovitvah.
Such monitoring should cover, inter alia, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay’s regime applicable to transfers in the framework of international treaties.
Takšno spremljanje, med drugim, zajema sklop določb Vzhodne republike Urugvaj, ki se v okviru mednarodnih pogodb uporablja za prenose.
The Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered a favourable opinion on the level of adequacy as regards protection of personal data which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision [5].
Delovna skupina za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov, ustanovljena v skladu s členom 29 Direktive 95/46/ES, je dala pozitivno mnenje o ravni ustreznosti glede varstva osebnih podatkov, ki je bilo upoštevano pri pripravi tega sklepa [5].
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31(1) of Directive 95/46/EC,
Ukrepi, določeni s tem sklepom, so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega na podlagi člena 31(1) Direktive 95/46/ES –
For the purposes of Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is considered as ensuring an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the European Union.
Za namene člena 25(2) Direktive 95/46/ES se za Vzhodno republiko Urugvaj šteje, da zagotavlja ustrezno raven varstva osebnih podatkov, prenesenih iz Evropske unije.
The competent supervisory authority of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay for the application of the legal data protection standards in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Pristojni nadzorni organ za področje uporabe pravnih standardov varstva podatkov v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj je naveden v Prilogi k temu sklepu.
Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to provisions other than Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in Member States may exercise their existing powers to suspend data flows to a recipient in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in the following cases:
Brez vpliva na pooblastila za ukrepanje za zagotavljanje skladnosti z nacionalnimi zakoni, sprejetimi v skladu z določbami, razen s tistimi iz člena 25 Direktive 95/46/ES, lahko pristojni organi v državah članicah izvajajo svoja obstoječa pooblastila, da začasno ustavijo prenos podatkov prejemniku v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj z namenom zavarovanja posameznikov v zvezi z obdelavo njihovih osebnih podatkov v naslednjih primerih:
where a competent Uruguayan authority has determined that the recipient is in breach of the applicable standards of protection; or
če pristojni urugvajski organ ugotovi, da prejemnik krši veljavne standarde varstva, ali
where there is a substantial likelihood that the standards of protection are being infringed, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the competent Uruguayan authority is not taking or will not take adequate and timely steps to settle the case at issue, the continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to data subjects and the competent authorities in the Member State have made reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide the party responsible for processing established in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay with notice and an opportunity to respond.
če obstaja precejšnja verjetnost, da so standardi varstva kršeni, če obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi za prepričanje, da pristojni urugvajski organ ne ukrepa ali ne bo ukrepal primerno in pravočasno za rešitev zadevnega vprašanja, če bi neprekinjeni prenos povzročil neposredno tveganje hudega škodovanja posameznikom, na katere se nanašajo osebni podatki, in če so si pristojni organi v državi članici v teh okoliščinah ustrezno prizadevali obvestiti organ, pristojen za obdelavo in s sedežem v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj, ter mu dati priložnost za odziv.
Member States shall inform the Commission without delay when measures are adopted on the basis of Article 2.
Države članice obvestijo Komisijo takoj, ko so sprejeti ukrepi na podlagi člena 2.
The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay fails to secure such compliance.
Države članice in Komisija se medsebojno obvestijo o primerih, kadar ukrepi organov, odgovornih za zagotavljanje skladnosti s standardi varstva v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj, ne zagotavljajo take skladnosti.
Where the information collected under Article 2 and under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article provides evidence that any body responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards of protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is not effectively fulfilling its role, the Commission shall inform the competent Uruguayan authority and, if necessary, present draft measures in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31(2) of Directive 95/46/EC with a view to repealing or suspending this Decision or limiting its scope.
Če informacije, zbrane v skladu s členom 2 ter odstavkoma 1 in 2 tega člena, dokazujejo, da organ, odgovoren za zagotavljanje skladnosti s standardi varstva v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj, svoje vloge ne izpolnjuje učinkovito, Komisija obvesti pristojni urugvajski organ in po potrebi predloži osnutke ukrepov v skladu s postopkom iz člena 31(2) Direktive 95/46/ES z namenom razveljavitve ali začasnega prenehanja izvajanja tega sklepa ali omejitve njegovega področja uporabe.
The Commission shall monitor the functioning of this Decision and report any pertinent findings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, including any evidence that could affect the finding in Article 1 of this Decision, that protection in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is adequate within the meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and any evidence that this Decision is being implemented in a discriminatory way.
Komisija spremlja učinkovanje tega sklepa in odboru, ustanovljenemu v skladu s členom 31 Direktive 95/46/ES, poroča o morebitnih zadevnih ugotovitvah, vključno s kakršnimi koli dokazi, ki bi lahko vplivali na ugotovitev iz člena 1 tega sklepa, da je varstvo v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj ustrezno v smislu člena 25 Direktive 95/46/ES, in morebitnimi dokazi, da se ta sklep izvaja na diskriminatoren način.
Done at Brussels, 21 August 2012.
V Bruslju, 21. avgusta 2012
Letter of 31 August 2011.
Dopis z dne 31. avgusta 2011.
Organisation of American States; OAS, Treaty Series, No 36, 1144 UNTS 123. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html
Organizacija ameriških držav; O.A.S, Serija pogodb, št. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html
Council of Europe: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec(2011)1118/10.3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864
Svet Evrope: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec(2011)1118/10.3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.
Opinion 6/2010 on the level of protection of personal data in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay.
Mnenje 6/2010 o ravni varstva osebnih podatkov v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj.
Available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp177_en.pdf
Na voljo je na spletni strani http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp177_en.pdf.
Tel. + 598 2901 2929 Int. 1352
Telefon: +598 29012929, interna številka 1352
Contact e-mail: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/contactenos.aspx
Kontaktni e-naslov: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/contactenos.aspx
Online complaints: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/denuncia.aspx
Pritožbe preko spleta: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/denuncia.aspx
Website: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/index.aspx
Spletišče: http://www.datospersonales.gub.uy/sitio/index.aspx
This Decision should concern the adequacy of protection provided in the Eastern Republic of Uruguay with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. It should not affect other conditions or restrictions implementing other provisions of that Directive that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.
Ta sklep zadeva ustreznost varstva, zagotovljenega v Vzhodni republiki Urugvaj, z namenom izpolnjevanja zahtev iz člena 25(1) Direktive 95/46/ES in ne vpliva na druge pogoje ali omejitve, s katerimi se izvajajo druge določbe navedene direktive, ki se nanašajo na obdelavo osebnih podatkov v državah članicah.
of 25 April 2012
z dne 25. aprila 2012
on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg
o državni pomoči št. SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) ki jo je Nemčija odobrila podjetju Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v zveznih deželah Porenje-Pfalz in Posarje ter okrožjih Rheingau-Taunus in Limburg-Weilburg
(notified under document C(2012) 2557)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2012) 2557)
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof [1],
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 108(2) PDEU [1],
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the Article cited above [2] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenim členom [2], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
THE PROCEDURE
POSTOPEK
In a complaint submitted by Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co KG (‘the complainant’) on 23 February 2008, the Commission was informed that Germany grants annual contributions to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung (special-purpose association for animal carcase disposal) in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (‘the ZT’).
Komisija je bila v pritožbi, ki jo je 23. februarja 2008 vložilo podjetje Saria Bio-Industries AG & Co KG, (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pritožba) obveščena, da Nemčija dodeljuje letne prispevke podjetju Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung (združenje s posebnim namenom za odstranjevanje živalskih trupel) v zveznih deželah Porenje-Pfalz in Posarje ter okrožjih Rheingau-Taunus in Limburg-Weilburg (v nadaljnjem besedilu: podjetje ZT).
The Commission informed Germany by letter of 20 July 2010 of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (‘opening decision’).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 20. julija 2010 obvestila Nemčijo o svoji odločitvi, da začne postopek na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU v zvezi z ukrepom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o začetku postopka).
On publishing the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 October 2010, the Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure [3].
Komisija je 26. oktobra 2010 z objavo odločitve o začetku postopka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije zainteresirane strani pozvala k predložitvi pripomb o ukrepu [3].
The Commission therefore informed the ZT in a letter of 18 April 2011 that to take its comments into account in the formal examination procedure would be contrary to the procedural rules and would lead to unjustifiable unequal treatment of the parties to the proceedings.
Zato je Komisija v dopisu z dne 18. aprila 2011 obvestila podjetje ZT, da bi bilo upoštevanje njegovih pripomb v postopku uradne preiskave v nasprotju s postopkovnimi pravili in bi vodilo do neupravičenega neenakega obravnavanja strani v postopku.
Nevertheless it took all the information contained in the comments as a basis for the present decision.
Kljub temu pa je vse informacije iz pripomb uporabila kot podlago za ta sklep.
Parallel to the Commission’s formal examination procedure, the complainant had pursued national legal proceedings in Germany and had brought an action against the ZT before the Verwaltungsgericht Trier (Trier Administrative Court).
Pritožnik je vzporedno s formalnim postopkom preiskave, ki ga vodi Komisija, nadaljeval z nacionalnim sodnim postopkom v Nemčiji in vložil tožbo proti podjetju ZT pri Verwaltungsgericht Trier (upravnem sodišču v Trierju).
On 2 December 2008 the court held that the annual contributions constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Sodišče je 2. decembra 2008 razsodilo, da so letni prispevki pomenili državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
As regards repayment of the unlawful aid, the court decided that the ZT did not have to repay the amount received between 2005 and 2008 since there were special circumstances that made repayment appear disproportionate.
Sodišče je v zvezi z vračilom nezakonite pomoči odločilo, da podjetju ZT ni treba vrniti zneska, prejetega med letoma 2005 in 2008, ker so obstajale posebne okoliščine, zaradi katerih je bilo vračilo nesorazmerno.
Both the complainant and the ZT appealed against the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Trier to the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz (Koblenz Higher Administrative Court).
Tako pritožnik kot podjetje ZT sta se pritožila zoper sodbo upravnega sodišča Verwaltungsgericht Trier pri Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz (višjem upravnem sodišču v Koblenzu).
On 24 November 2009 the Oberverwaltungsgericht upheld the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Trier.
Sodišče Oberverwaltungsgericht je 24. novembra 2009 potrdilo sodbo sodišča Verwaltungsgericht Trier.
The complainant and the ZT then appealed to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (‘the BVerwG’ — Federal Administrative Court) against the ruling given by the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz.
Pritožnik in podjetje ZT sta se pri sodišču Bundesverwaltungsgericht (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodišče BverwG – zvezno upravno sodišče) pritožila zoper sodbo sodišča Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz.
In a judgment of 16 December 2010 [6] the Bundesverwaltungsgericht rejected the complainant’s appeal, amended the decision of the Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz, and rejected the applications as a whole, taking the view that the complaint was inadmissible in respect of the years 2005 to 2009 and that the annual contribution for 2010 did not represent aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Sodišče Bundesverwaltungsgericht je v sodbi z dne 16. decembra 2010 [6] zavrnilo pritožbo pritožnika, spremenilo sodbo sodišča Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz in zavrnilo vloge kot celoto, pri čemer je upoštevalo, da je pritožba nedopustna za obdobje od leta 2005 do leta 2009 in da letni prispevek za leto 2010 ni pomenil pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Legal background
Pravna podlaga
European legislation
2.1.1 Evropska zakonodaja
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) [7] laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 governs the collection, transport, storage, treatment, processing and use or disposal of animal by-products so that these products do not pose a risk to human and animal health.
Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. oktobra 2009 o določitvi zdravstvenih pravil za živalske stranske proizvode in pridobljene proizvode, ki niso namenjeni prehrani ljudi, ter razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1774/2002 (Uredba o živalskih stranskih proizvodih) [7] ureja zbiranje, prevoz, skladiščenje, obdelavo, predelavo in uporabo ali odstranjevanje živalskih stranskih proizvodov, da ti proizvodi ne ogrožajo zdravja ljudi in živali.
The legislation is intended, inter alia, to prevent outbreaks of transmissible spongiform encephalitis (TSE) and other transmissible animal diseases such as classical swine fever (CSF) or foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).
Namen zakonodaje je med drugim preprečiti izbruhe transmisivnega spongiformnega encefalitisa (TSE) in drugih prenosljivih živalskih bolezni, kot so klasična prašičja kuga (KPK) ali slinavka in parkljevka (SIP).
Section 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 makes a distinction between three different categories of animal by-products according to the specific risks to animal and human health:
Oddelek 4 Uredbe (ES) št. 1069/2009 razlikuje med tremi različnimi kategorijami živalskih stranskih proizvodov glede na posebna tveganja za zdravje živali in ljudi:
Category 1 material poses substantial risks associated in particular with TSE and the existence of certain prohibited substances and environmental contaminants.
snovi kategorije 1 predstavljajo resna tveganja, povezana zlasti s TSE ter obstojem določenih prepovedanih snovi in kontaminantov iz okolja.
Material in this category consists, amongst other things, of body parts of animals suspected of being infected by TSE or animals in which the presence of TSE has been confirmed, and mixtures of category 1 material with category 2 or category 3 material.
Snovi iz te kategorije med drugim zajemajo dele telesa živali, za katere obstaja sum, da so okužene z eno od oblik TSE, ali živali, pri katerih je prisotnost TSE potrjena, in mešanice snovi kategorije 1 bodisi s snovmi kategorije 2 ali s snovmi kategorije 3.
Such materials must be disposed of through incineration or processing and must not be incorporated in feed for farmed animals or in technical products.
Take snovi je treba odstraniti s sežiganjem ali predelavo in se ne smejo vključiti v krmo za rejne živali ali v tehnične proizvode;
Category 2 material also poses considerable risks as it consists of fallen stock and other materials that contain certain prohibited substances or contaminants.
tudi snovi kategorije 2 predstavljajo resna tveganja, saj zajemajo poginule živali in druge snovi, ki vsebujejo določene prepovedane snovi ali kontaminante.
This category of material must be disposed of through incineration or processing and must not be incorporated in feed for farmed animals.
Snovi te kategorije je treba odstraniti s sežiganjem ali predelavo in se ne smejo vključiti v krmo za rejne živali.
In some cases, however, it may be used as fertiliser or for technical purposes.
Vendar se v nekaterih primerih lahko uporabijo kot gnojila ali za tehnične proizvode;
Category 3 material comprises, amongst other things, parts of slaughtered animals which, although rejected as unfit for human consumption, are not affected by any signs of diseases communicable to humans or animals and also materials originating from animals that are fit for human consumption but which for economic reasons are used for other purposes, such as feeding stuff for farmed animals.
snovi kategorije 3 med drugim zajemajo dele zaklanih živali, ki kljub temu, da so zavrnjeni kot neprimerni za prehrano ljudi, ne kažejo nobenih znakov bolezni, prenosljivih na ljudi ali živali, in tudi iz živali pridobljene snovi, ki so primerne za prehrano ljudi, vendar se iz gospodarskih razlogov uporabljajo za druge namene, na primer za krmo za rejne živali.
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 is essentially equivalent to its predecessor, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council [8], and includes provisions prohibiting the import and export of category 1 and 2 material and requiring disposal plants to be approved by the competent authorities that are to apply the provisions of the Regulation.
Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009 je v bistvu enaka predhodni uredbi, tj. Uredbi (ES) št. 1774/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [8], in vključuje določbe o prepovedi uvoza in izvoza snovi kategorij 1 in 2 ter zahteva, da pristojni organi za izvajanje določb Uredbe, odobrijo obrate za odstranjevanje.
Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009, then, lays down specific provisions controlling the disposal of category 1 and 2 material.
Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009 nato določa posebne določbe o nadziranju odstranjevanja snovi kategorij 1 in 2.
Beyond that, however, there are no requirements under the Regulation as regards the way in which the disposal of category 1 and 2 material should be organised in economic terms.
Vendar razen tega v okviru navedene uredbe ni nobenih zahtev glede načina, na katerega bi bilo treba organizirati odstranjevanje snovi kategorij 1 in 2 v gospodarskem smislu.
So Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 does not require disposal in a particular area to be performed by a single undertaking alone, as is the case in Germany.
Tako Uredba (ES) št. 1069/2009 ne zahteva, da odstranjevanje na določeni lokaciji izvaja eno samo podjetje, tako kot v Nemčiji.