natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To manage changes in equipment, procedures, organisation, staffing or interfaces, the entities in charge of maintenance should have in place risk assessment procedures.
Za obvladovanje sprememb opreme, postopkov, organizacije, kadrovske strukture ali vmesnikov, bi morali subjekti, zadolženi za vzdrževanje, imeti vzpostavljene postopke za oceno tveganja.
That requirement for the system of maintenance is also covered by this Regulation.
Navedena zahteva za sistem vzdrževanja je prav tako zajeta v tej uredbi.
As a consequence of the application of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways [3] and of Article 9(2) of Directive 2004/49/EC, particular attention should be paid to risk management at the interfaces between the actors which are involved in the application of this Regulation.
Zaradi uporabe Direktive Sveta 91/440/EGS z dne 29. julija 1991 o razvoju železnic Skupnosti [3] in člena 9(2) Direktive 2004/49/ES bi bilo treba nameniti posebno pozornost upravljanju s tveganji pri vmesnikih med udeleženci, za katere se uporablja ta direktiva.
Article 15 of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community [4] requires Member States to take all appropriate steps to ensure that the structural subsystems constituting the rail system may be placed in service only if they are designed, constructed and installed in such a way as to meet the essential requirements concerning them when integrated into the rail system.
Člen 15 Direktive 2008/57/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. junija 2008 o interoperabilnosti železniškega sistema v Skupnosti [4] državam članicam nalaga, naj izvedejo vse primerne ukrepe, da zagotovijo začetek obratovanja strukturnih podsistemov, ki so del železniškega sistema, samo, če so zasnovani, zgrajeni in vgrajeni tako, da ob vključitvi v železniški sistem izpolnjujejo ustrezne bistvene zahteve.
In particular, the Member States must check the technical compatibility of these subsystems with the railway system into which they are being integrated and the safe integration of these subsystems in accordance with the scope of this Regulation.
Države članice morajo preveriti zlasti tehnično združljivost teh podsistemov z železniškim sistemom, v katerega se vključujejo, ter varno vključitev teh podsistemov v skladu s področjem uporabe te uredbe.
The absence of a common approach for specifying and demonstrating compliance with safety levels and requirements of the railway system among the Member States has proved to be one of the obstacles to liberalisation of the railway market.
Nesprejetje skupnega pristopa za določanje in dokazovanje skladnosti s stopnjami varnosti in varnostnimi zahtevami železniškega sistema med državami članicami je ena od ovir pri liberalizaciji železniškega trga.
Such a common approach should be established through this Regulation.
Takšen skupni pristop bi bilo treba določiti s to uredbo.
To facilitate mutual recognition between Member States, the methods used for identifying and managing risks and the methods for demonstrating that the railway system in the territory of the Union conforms to safety requirements should be harmonised among the actors involved in the development and operation of the railway system.
Da bi omogočili vzajemno priznavanje med državami članicami, bi morale biti metode za ugotavljanje tveganj in upravljanje z njimi ter metode dokazovanja, da železniški sistemi na ozemlju Unije izpolnjujejo varnostne zahteve, usklajene med akterji, ki sodelujejo pri razvoju in delovanju železniškega sistema.
As a first step, it is necessary to harmonise the procedures and methods for carrying out risk evaluation and implementing control measures whenever a change in operating conditions or new material imposes new risks on the infrastructure or on operations, as referred to in point (2)(d) of Annex III to Directive 2004/49/EC.
Najprej je treba uskladiti postopke in metode za ovrednotenje tveganja in izvajanje nadzornih ukrepov, kadar koli sprememba obratovalnih pogojev ali novi material pomenita novo tveganje za infrastrukturo ali obratovanje, kot je določeno v točki 2(d) Priloge III k Direktivi 2004/49/ES.
If there is no existing notified national rule for defining whether or not a change is significant for the safety in a Member State, the company or organisation in charge of implementing the change (the ‘proposer’) should initially consider the potential impact of the change in question on the safety of the railway system.
Če ne obstaja nikakršen priglašen nacionalni predpis, ki bi določal, ali je sprememba pomembna za varnost v državi članici, bi moralo podjetje ali organizacija, odgovorna za uvedbo spremembe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: predlagatelj), na začetku pretehtati morebitni učinek zadevne spremembe na varnost železniškega sistema.
If the proposed change has an impact on safety, the proposer should assess, by expert judgement, the significance of the change based on a set of criteria that should be set out in this Regulation.
Če predlagana sprememba vpliva na varnost, bi moral predlagatelj strokovno oceniti pomembnost spremembe na podlagi meril, ki bi jih bilo treba določiti v tej uredbi.
In the first situation the change is not considered to be significant and the proposer should implement the change by applying its own safety method.
V prvem primeru sprememba ne velja za pomembno in bi predlagatelj moral uvesti spremembo ob uporabi lastne varnostne metode.
In the second situation the change is considered to be significant and the proposer should implement the change by applying this Regulation, without the need for a specific intervention of the national safety authority.
V drugem primeru sprememba velja za pomembno in bi predlagatelj moral uvesti spremembo ob uporabi te uredbe, pri čemer posebna intervencija nacionalnega varnostnega organa ni potrebna.
In the third situation the change is considered to be significant but there are provisions at the level of the European Union which require a specific intervention of the relevant national safety authority, such as a new authorisation for placing in service of a vehicle or a revision/update of the safety certificate of a railway undertaking or a revision/update of the safety authorisation of an infrastructure manager.
V tretjem primeru sprememba velja za pomembno, vendar obstajajo določbe na ravni Evropske unije, v skladu s katerimi je potrebna posebna intervencija ustreznega nacionalnega varnostnega organa, kot na primer novo dovoljenje za začetek obratovanja vozila ali revizija/posodobitev varnostnega pooblastila prevoznika v železniškem prometu ali revizija/posodobitev varnostnega pooblastila upravljavca železniške infrastrukture.
Whenever the railway system already in use is subject to a change, the significance of the change should also be assessed taking into account all safety-related changes affecting the same part of the system since the entry into force of this Regulation or since the last application of the risk management process set out in this Regulation, whichever is the latest.
Kadar pride do spremembe v železniškem sistemu, ki je že v uporabi, bi bilo treba pomembnost spremembe oceniti tudi ob upoštevanju vseh sprememb, povezanih z varnostjo, ki vplivajo na isti del sistema od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe ali od zadnje uporabe postopka upravljanja s tveganji iz te uredbe, pri čemer se upošteva poznejši datum.
The purpose is to assess whether or not the totality of such changes amounts to a significant change requiring the full application of the CSM for risk evaluation and assessment.
Namen tega je oceniti, ali vse spremembe skupaj pomenijo pomembno spremembo, ki zahteva popolno uporabo SVM za ovrednotenje in oceno tveganja.
The risk acceptability of a significant change should be evaluated by using one or more of the following risk acceptance principles: the application of codes of practice, a comparison with similar parts of the railway system, or an explicit risk estimation.
Sprejemljivost tveganj pomembne spremembe bi bilo treba ovrednotiti z enim ali več od naslednjih načel sprejemanja tveganja: uporabo kodeksa ravnanja, primerjavo s podobnimi deli železniškega sistema ali eksplicitno oceno tveganja.
When a widely recognised code of practice is applied, it should therefore be possible to reduce the impact of applying the CSM, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
Kadar se uporabi splošno priznan kodeks ravnanja, bi moralo biti torej možno zmanjšati vpliv uporabe SVM v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti.
In the same way, where there are provisions at the level of the Union which require specific intervention by the national safety authority, that authority should be allowed to act as the independent assessment body in order to reduce double checking, undue costs to the industry and time to market.
Kadar obstajajo določbe na ravni Unije, ki zahtevajo posebno intervencijo nacionalnega varnostnega organa, bi moralo biti temu organu dovoljeno delovati kot neodvisni ocenjevalni organ, da se preprečijo dvojno preverjanje, neupravičeni stroški za sektor in čas do uvedbe na trgu.
To report to the Commission on the effectiveness and application of this Regulation, and where applicable to make recommendations to improve it, the Agency should be able to gather relevant information from the various actors involved, including from the national safety authorities, from the certification bodies of entities in charge of maintenance of freight wagons and from other entities in charge of maintenance that do not fall within the scope of Commission Regulation (EU) No 445/2011 of 10 May 2011 on a system of certification of entities in charge of maintenance for freight wagons [5].
Če želi Agencija Komisiji poročati o učinkovitosti in uporabi te uredbe ter ji, če je to primerno, svetovati, kako jo izboljšati, bi ji moralo biti omogočeno zbrati ustrezne informacije od različnih udeležencev, vključno z nacionalnimi varnostnimi organi, certifikacijskimi organi, subjekti, zadolženimi za vzdrževanje tovornih vagonov, in drugimi subjekti, zadolženimi za vzdrževanje, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 445/2011 z dne 10. maja 2011 o sistemu podeljevanja spričevala subjekta, zadolženega za vzdrževanje, za tovorne vagone [5].
Accreditation of an assessment body should normally be granted by the national accreditation body which has exclusive competence to assess if the assessment body meets the requirements set by harmonised standards.
Ocenjevalnemu organu akreditacijo običajno dodeli nacionalni akreditacijski organ, ki ima izključno pristojnost, da oceni, ali ocenjevalni organ izpolnjuje zahteve, določene s harmoniziranimi standardi.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products [6] contains detailed provisions on the competence of such national accreditation bodies.
Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 o določitvi zahtev za akreditacijo in nadzor trga v zvezi s trženjem proizvodov [6] vsebuje natančne določbe o pristojnosti teh nacionalnih akreditacijskih organov.
Where harmonised Union legislation provides for the selection of conformity assessment bodies for its implementation, transparent accreditation, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, should be considered by the national public authorities throughout the Union as the preferred means of demonstrating the technical competence of those bodies.
Kadar usklajena zakonodaja Unije za svoje izvajanje določa izbiro organov za ugotavljanje skladnosti, bi morali javni nacionalni organi po vsej Uniji za prednostni način, s katerim organi dokažejo svojo tehnično usposobljenost, šteti pregledno akreditacijo, kakršna je določena v Uredbi (ES) št. 765/2008.
However, national authorities may consider that they possess the appropriate means to carry out this evaluation themselves.
Vendar pa lahko nacionalni organi menijo, da razpolagajo z ustreznimi sredstvi, s katerimi lahko sami opravijo to vrednotenje.
In such cases, the Member State should provide the Commission and the other Member States with all the documentary evidence necessary for verification of the competence of the recognition body it selects for implementation of the Union legislation.
V takih primerih bi morala država članica Komisiji in drugim državam članicam predložiti vsa dokumentarna dokazila, potrebna za preverjanje pristojnosti organa za priznavanje, ki ga izbere za izvajanje zakonodaje Unije.
In order to achieve a similar level of quality and trust as expected through accreditation, the requirements and rules for the evaluation and surveillance of assessment bodies in the case of recognition should be equivalent to those used for accreditation.
Da bi dosegli podobno raven kakovosti in zaupanja, kot je pričakovana z akreditacijo, bi za priznavanje zahteve in predpisi za vrednotenje ter nadzor ocenjevalnih organov morali biti enakovredni tistim, ki se uporabljajo za akreditacijo.
An independent and competent external or internal individual, organisation or entity, a national safety authority, a notified body or a body designated according to Article 17 of Directive 2008/57/EC could act as an assessment body provided it fulfils the criteria required in Annex II.
Neodvisen in pristojen zunanji ali notranji posameznik, organizacija ali subjekt, nacionalni varnostni organ, priglašeni organ ali organ, imenovan v skladu s členom 17 Direktive 2008/57/ES, bi lahko delovali kot ocenjevalni organ, če izpolnjujejo merila iz Priloge II.
Recognition of internal assessment bodies in compliance with this Regulation does not require an immediate revision of already delivered safety certificates to railway undertakings, safety authorisations to infrastructure managers and certificates to entities in charge of maintenance.
Priznanje notranjih ocenjevalnih organov, ki je skladno s to uredbo, ne zahteva takojšnjega pregleda varnostnih spričeval, ki so prevoznikom v železniškem prometu že bila izdana, varnostnih pooblastil, izdanih upravljavcem infrastrukture, niti spričeval, izdanih subjektom, zadolženim za vzdrževanje.
Their revision can be made at the next application for renewal or update of the safety certificate, safety authorisation or certificate of the entity in charge of maintenance.
Zanje se revizija lahko opravi ob naslednji prošnji za obnovitev ali posodobitev varnostnega spričevala, varnostnega pooblastila ali spričevala subjektu, zadolženemu za vzdrževanje.
In existing legislation there are no limits in the number of assessment bodies accredited or recognised in each Member State and there are no obligations to have at least one.
V okviru obstoječe zakonodaje ni nikakršnih omejitev glede števila ocenjevalnih organov, ki se jih akreditira ali prizna v vsaki državi članici, niti ni obveznosti, da mora obstajati vsaj en tak organ.
Where the assessment body is not already designated by existing Union or national legislation, the proposer may appoint any assessment body in the Union or in a third country accredited under equivalent criteria and meeting equivalent requirements to those contained in this regulation.
Če ocenjevalni organ v obstoječi zakonodaji Unije ali nacionalni zakonodaji še ni imenovan, lahko predlagatelj imenuje kateri koli ocenjevalni organ v Uniji ali v tretji državi, ki je akreditiran v skladu z enakovrednimi merili in izpolnjuje zahteve, enakovredne zahtevam iz te uredbe.
The Member State should be able to use accreditation or recognition or any combination of these two options.
Država članica bi morala imeti možnost uporabiti akreditacijo ali priznanje ali katero koli kombinacijo teh dveh možnosti.
Regulation (EC) No 352/2009 has become obsolete and should therefore be replaced by this Regulation.
Uredba (ES) št. 352/2009 je zastarela in jo je zato treba nadomestiti s to uredbo.
In view of the new requirements introduced by the present Regulation in terms of accreditation and recognition of the assessment body, the implementation of this Regulation should be deferred in order to give sufficient time to the actors concerned to put in place and implement this new common approach.
Glede na nove zahteve, uvedene s to uredbo glede akreditacije in priznavanja ocenjevalnega organa, bi moralo biti izvajanje te uredbe odloženo, da bi imeli zadevni udeleženci na razpolago dovolj časa za vzpostavitev in izvajanje tega novega skupnega pristopa.
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established in accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC,
Ukrepi iz te uredbe so usklajeni z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 27(1) Direktive 2004/49/ES –
This Regulation establishes a revised common safety method (CSM) for risk evaluation and assessment as referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Directive 2004/49/EC.
V tej uredbi je določena revidirana skupna varnostna metoda (SVM) za ovrednotenje in oceno tveganja iz člena 6(3)(a) Direktive 2004/49/ES.
This Regulation shall facilitate the access to the market for rail transport services through harmonisation of:
Ta uredba olajšuje dostop do trga storitev v železniškem prometu s harmonizacijo:
the risk management processes used to assess the impact of changes on safety levels and compliance with safety requirements;
postopkov upravljanja s tveganji, ki se uporabljajo za ocenjevanje učinka sprememb na ravni varnosti in skladnost z varnostnimi zahtevami;
the evidence resulting from the application of a risk management process.
rezultatov, zbranih z uporabo postopka upravljanja s tveganji.
This Regulation shall apply to the proposer as defined in Article 3(11) when making any change to the railway system in a Member State.
Ta uredba se uporablja za predlagatelja, kakor je opredeljen v členu 3(11), pri vsaki spremembi železniškega sistema v državi članici.
Such changes may be of a technical, operational or organisational nature.
Take spremembe so lahko tehničnega, operativnega ali organizacijskega značaja.
As regards organisational changes, only those changes which could impact the operational or maintenance processes shall be subjected to consideration under the rules of Article 4.
Kar zadeva organizacijske spremembe, se v skladu s pravili iz člena 4 obravnavajo samo spremembe, ki bi lahko vplivale na operativne ali vzdrževalne postopke.
When, on the basis of an assessment under the criteria set out in Article 4(2)(a) to (f):
Če se na podlagi ocene v skladu z merili iz člena 4(2)(a) do (f):
the change is considered significant, the risk management process set out in Article 5 shall be applied;
sprememba šteje za pomembno, se uporabi postopek upravljanja s tveganji iz člena 5;
the change is considered not significant, keeping adequate documentation to justify the decision shall be sufficient.
sprememba šteje za nepomembno, je dovolj, da se vodi ustrezna dokumentacija, ki vsebuje utemeljitev odločitve.
This Regulation shall apply also to structural sub-systems to which Directive 2008/57/EC applies:
Ta uredba se uporablja tudi za strukturne podsisteme, za katere se uporablja Direktiva 2008/57/ES:
if a risk assessment is required by the relevant technical specification for interoperability (TSI); in this case the TSI shall, where appropriate, specify which parts of this Regulation apply;
če se v ustreznih tehničnih specifikacijah za interoperabilnost (TSI) zahteva ocena tveganja; v tem primeru bo v TSI po potrebi določeno, kateri deli te uredbe se uporabljajo;
if the change is significant as set out in Article 4(2), the risk management process set out in Article 5 shall be applied within the placing in service of structural sub-systems to ensure their safe integration into an existing system, by virtue of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/57/EC.
če je sprememba pomembna, kot je določeno v členu 4(2), se postopek upravljanja s tveganji iz člena 5 uporabi pri začetku obratovanja strukturnih podsistemov, da se zagotovi njihova varna vključitev v obstoječi sistem v skladu s členom 15(1) Direktive 2008/57/ES.
The application of this Regulation in the case referred to in paragraph 3(b) of this Article shall not lead to requirements contradictory to those laid down in the relevant TSIs.
Uporaba te uredbe v primeru iz odstavka 3(b) tega člena ne sme privesti do zahtev, ki bi nasprotovale zahtevam iz ustreznih TSI.
If such contradictions occur, the proposer shall inform the Member State concerned which may then decide to ask for a revision of the TSI in accordance with Article 6(2) or Article 7 of Directive 2008/57/EC or a derogation in accordance with Article 9(2) of that Directive.
Če pride do takih nasprotij, predlagatelj obvesti zadevne države članice, ki se nato lahko odločijo zahtevati revizijo TSI v skladu s členom 6(2) ali členom 7 Direktive 2008/57/ES ali odstopanje v skladu s členom 9(2) navedene direktive.
The railway systems excluded from the scope of Directive 2004/49/EC according to its Article 2(2) are excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
Železniški sistemi, izvzeti iz področja uporabe Direktive 2004/49/ES v skladu z njenim členom 2(2), so izvzeti iz področja uporabe te uredbe.
The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 352/2009 shall continue to apply in relation to projects which are at an advanced stage of development within the meaning of Article 2(t) of Directive 2008/57/EC at the date of application of this Regulation.
Določbe Uredbe (ES) št. 352/2009 se še naprej uporabljajo v zvezi s projekti, ki so na datum uporabe te uredbe v poznejši fazi razvoja v smislu člena 2(t) Direktive 2008/57/ES.
For the purpose of this Regulation the definitions in Article 3 of Directive 2004/49/EC apply.
V tej uredbi se uporablja opredelitev pojmov iz člena 3 Direktive 2004/49/ES.
‘risk’ means the frequency of occurrence of accidents and incidents resulting in harm (caused by a hazard) and the degree of severity of that harm;
„tveganje“ pomeni pogostost pojavnosti nesreč in motenj, pri katerih nastane škoda (zaradi nevarnosti), ter stopnjo resnosti te škode;
‘risk evaluation’ means a procedure based on the risk analysis to determine whether an acceptable level of risk has been achieved;
„ovrednotenje tveganja“ pomeni postopek, ki temelji na analizi tveganja, s katerim se ugotovi, ali je bila dosežena sprejemljiva raven tveganja;
‘safety’ means freedom from unacceptable risk of harm;
„varnost“ pomeni odsotnost nesprejemljivih tveganj škode;
‘interfaces’ means all points of interaction during a system or subsystem life cycle, including operation and maintenance where different actors of the rail sector will work together in order to manage the risks;
„vmesniki“ pomeni vse točke, kjer v življenjskem ciklu sistema ali podsistema prihaja do interakcij, vključno z delovanjem in vzdrževanjem, na katerih različni udeleženci v železniškem sektorju sodelujejo zaradi upravljanja s tveganji;
‘actors’ means all parties which are, directly or through contractual arrangements, involved in the application of this Regulation;
„udeleženci“ pomeni vse strani, ki neposredno ali prek pogodbenih dogovorov sodelujejo pri uporabi te uredbe;
‘safety requirements’ means the safety characteristics (qualitative or quantitative) of a system and its operation (including operational rules) and maintenance necessary in order to meet legal or company safety targets;
„varnostne zahteve“ pomeni varnostne značilnosti (kvalitativne ali kvantitativne) sistema in njegovega delovanja (vključno z operativnimi predpisi) ter vzdrževanje, potrebno za izpolnjevanje pravnih varnostnih ciljev ali varnostnih ciljev družbe;
‘safety measures’ means a set of actions either reducing the frequency of occurrence of a hazard or mitigating its consequences in order to achieve and/or maintain an acceptable level of risk;
„varnostni ukrepi“ pomeni skupino ukrepov za zmanjševanje pogostosti pojavnosti nevarnosti ali blažitev njenih posledic, da se doseže in/ali ohrani sprejemljiva raven tveganja;
‘proposer’ means one of the following:
„predlagatelj“ pomeni eno od naslednjega: