natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That Member States perform during the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 monitoring on the presence of arsenic in food.
7(10): 1351.
Council Directive (EU) 2015/121
Direktiva Sveta (EU) 2015/121
Council Directive 2011/96/EU [3] exempts dividends and other profit distributions paid by subsidiary companies to their parent companies from withholding taxes and eliminates double taxation of such income at the level of the parent company.
Direktiva Sveta 2011/96/EU [3] oprošča dividende in druge oblike distribucije dobička, ki ga odvisne družbe izplačujejo svojim matičnim družbam, od davčnega odtegljaja ter odpravlja dvojno obdavčevanje takšnih prihodkov na ravni matične družbe.
It is necessary to ensure that Directive 2011/96/EU is not abused by taxpayers who fall within the scope of its application.
Treba je poskrbeti, da davkoplačevalci, ki se uvrščajo v področje uporabe Direktive 2011/96/EU, le te ne bodo zlorabljali.
Some Member States apply domestic or agreement-based provisions aimed at tackling tax evasion, tax fraud or abusive practices in a general or in a specific way.
Nekatere države članice za splošno ali konkretnejše reševanje problema davčnih utaj, davčnih goljufij ali zlorab uporabljajo notranje ali na sporazumih temelječe določbe.
However, those provisions may have different levels of severity and, in any case, they are designed to reflect the specificities of each Member State's tax system.
Vendar se te določbe po ravneh strogosti lahko razlikujejo, vsekakor pa so zasnovane tako, da odražajo posebnosti davčnih sistemov posameznih držav članic.
Moreover, some Member States do not have any domestic or agreement-based provisions for the prevention of abuse.
Poleg tega nekatere države članice nimajo nikakršnih notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb za preprečevanje zlorab.
Therefore, the inclusion of a common minimum anti-abuse rule in Directive 2011/96/EU would be very helpful to prevent misuse of that Directive and to ensure greater consistency in its application in different Member States.
Zato bi bila vključitev skupnega minimalnega pravila o preprečevanju zlorab v Direktivo 2011/96/EU v veliko pomoč pri preprečevanju nepravilne uporabe navedene direktive in zagotavljanju večje doslednosti pri njeni uporabi v različnih državah članicah.
The application of anti-abuse rules should be proportionate and should serve the specific purpose of tackling an arrangement or a series of arrangements which are not genuine, that is, which do not reflect economic reality.
Uporaba pravil o preprečevanju zlorab bi morala biti sorazmerna in imeti konkretni namen reševati problem sheme ali niza shem, ki niso pristne, torej ki ne odražajo ekonomske stvarnosti.
To that end, when assessing whether an arrangement or a series of arrangements are abusive, Member States' tax administrations should undertake an objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances.
V ta namen bi morale davčne uprave držav članic, ko presojajo, ali ne gre pri shemi ali nizu shem za zlorabo, opraviti objektivno analizo vseh pomembnih dejstev in okoliščin.
While Member States should use the anti-abuse clause to tackle arrangements which are, in their entirety, not genuine, there may also be cases where single steps or parts of an arrangement are, on a stand-alone basis, not genuine.
Čeprav bi morale države članice klavzulo o preprečevanju zlorab uporabljati za reševanje problema shem, ki niso pristne v celoti, pa se utegnejo pojaviti tudi primeri, ko gledano posamično ni pristen le en korak ali del v shemi.
Member States should be able to use the anti-abuse clause also to tackle those specific steps or parts, without prejudice to the remaining genuine steps or parts of the arrangement.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da klavzulo o preprečevanju zlorab uporabijo tudi za reševanje problema teh posameznih korakov ali delov, brez poseganja v ostale pristne korake ali dele v shemi.
That would maximise the effectiveness of the anti-abuse clause while guaranteeing its proportionality.
S tem bi bila klavzula o preprečevanju zlorab kar najbolj učinkovita, obenem pa bi zagotavljala sorazmernost.
The ‘to the extent approach’ can be effective in cases where the entities concerned, as such, are genuine but where, for example, shares from which the profit distribution arises are not genuinely attributed to a taxpayer that is established in a Member State, that is, if the arrangement based on its legal form transfers the ownership of the shares but its features do not reflect economic reality.
„Pristop s kolikor“ je lahko učinkovit v primerih, kadar so zadevni subjekti sami po sebi pristni, deleži, iz katerih izhaja distribucija dobička, pa na primer niso pristno dodeljeni davkoplačevalcu s sedežem v državi članici, torej če shema zaradi svoje pravne oblike omogoča prenos lastništva deležev, njene značilnosti pa ne odražajo ekonomske stvarnosti.
This Directive should not affect in any way Member States' ability to apply their domestic or agreement-based provisions aimed at preventing tax evasion, tax fraud or abuse.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela v ničemer posegati v pristojnost držav članic, da za preprečevanje davčnih utaj, davčnih goljufij ali zlorab uporabljajo notranje ali na sporazumih temelječe določbe.
In Directive 2011/96/EU, Article 1(2) is replaced by the following paragraphs:
V Direktivi 2011/96/EU se člen 1(2) nadomesti z naslednjima odstavkoma:
Member States shall not grant the benefits of this Directive to an arrangement or a series of arrangements which, having been put into place for the main purpose or one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of this Directive, are not genuine having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances.
Države članice ne priznajo nobenih ugodnosti iz te direktive za sheme ali nize shem, ki glede na to, da je bil pri njihovem uresničevanju poglavitni namen ali eden od poglavitnih namenov pridobitev davčne prednosti, ki izničuje cilj ali namen te direktive, niso pristni, če se upoštevajo vsa pomembna dejstva in okoliščine.
An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.
Shema lahko obsega več kakor en korak ali del.
For the purposes of paragraph 2, an arrangement or a series of arrangements shall be regarded as not genuine to the extent that they are not put into place for valid commercial reasons which reflect economic reality.
Za namene odstavka 2 se shema ali niz shem šteje za nepristnega, kolikor se ne uresničuje iz tehtnih komercialnih razlogov, ki odražajo ekonomsko stvarnost.
This Directive shall not preclude the application of domestic or agreement-based provisions required for the prevention of tax evasion, tax fraud or abuse.’
Ta direktiva ne preprečuje uporabe notranjih ali na sporazumih temelječih določb, ki so potrebne za preprečevanje davčnih utaj, davčnih goljufij ali zlorab.“
Article 4
V Bruslju, 27. januarja 2015
Done at Brussels, 27 January 2015.
Predsednik
The President
Mnenje z dne 25. marca 2014 (UL C 226, 16.7.2014, str. 40).
Opinion of 25 March 2014 (OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 40).
Države članice uveljavijo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, najpozneje do 31. decembra 2015.
Directive (EU) 2015/254 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva (EU) 2015/254 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
repealing Council Directive 93/5/EEC on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food
o razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 93/5/EGS o pomoči Komisiji in sodelovanju držav članic pri znanstvenem proučevanju vprašanj v zvezi z živili
In the framework of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), the Commission is committed to achieving a simple, clear, stable and predictable regulatory framework for businesses, workers and citizens.
V okviru programa ustreznosti in uspešnosti predpisov (REFIT) se je Komisija zavezala k doseganju preprostega, jasnega, stabilnega in predvidljivega ureditvenega okvira za podjetja, delavce in državljane.
Council Directive 93/5/EEC [3] aims to ensure the smooth running of the Scientific Committee on Food by promoting the scientific support from the Member States to that Committee and by organising cooperation with the relevant national bodies on scientific issues regarding the safety of foodstuffs.
Cilj Direktive Sveta 93/5/EGS [3] je zagotoviti nemoteno delovanje Znanstvenega odbora za živila s spodbujanjem znanstvene podpore temu odboru s strani držav članic in z organizacijo sodelovanja z ustreznimi nacionalnimi organi o znanstvenih vprašanjih v zvezi z varnostjo živil.
Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council [4], the tasks of the Scientific Committee on Food referred to in Directive 93/5/EEC have been transferred to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and those tasks are currently provided for by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
Na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 178/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [4] so bile naloge Znanstvenega odbora za živila iz Direktive 93/5/EGS prenesene na Evropsko agencijo za varnost hrane (Agencija EFSA), te naloge pa zdaj določa Uredba (ES) št. 178/2002.
Commission Decision 97/579/EC [5] which established the Scientific Committee on Food has been repealed by Commission Decision 2004/210/EC [6].
Sklep Komisije 97/579/ES [5], s katerim je bil ustanovljen Znanstveni odbor za živila, je bil razveljavljen s Sklepom Komisije 2004/210/ES [6].
Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, EFSA has also become the competent body to promote scientific cooperation with the Member States and relevant national bodies operating in the fields falling within EFSA's mission.
Agencija EFSA je na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 178/2002 prav tako postala pristojni organ za spodbujanje znanstvenega sodelovanja z državami članicami in ustreznimi nacionalnimi organi, ki delujejo na področjih poslanstva Agencije EFSA.
In particular, Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 provides that EFSA is to act in close cooperation with the competent bodies in the Member States and that the Member States are to cooperate with EFSA to ensure the accomplishment of its mission.
Zlasti člen 22 Uredbe (ES) št. 178/2002 določa, da mora Agencija EFSA delovati v tesnem sodelovanju s pristojnimi službami v državah članicah in da morajo države članice sodelovati z Agencijo EFSA, da zagotovijo izpolnjevanje njenega poslanstva.
Directive 93/5/EEC has therefore become obsolete and should be repealed,
Direktiva 93/5/EGS je tako postala zastarela in bi jo bilo treba razveljaviti –
Directive 93/5/EEC is repealed.
Direktiva 93/5/EGS se razveljavi.
When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.
Države članice sporočijo Komisiji besedila temeljnih določb predpisov nacionalne zakonodaje, sprejetih na področju, ki ga ureja ta direktiva.
Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Ta direktiva začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Article 4
V Strasbourgu, 11. februarja 2015
Done at Strasbourg, 11 February 2015.
Predsednica
The President
UL C 451, 16.12.2014, str. 157.
For the Council
Stališče Evropskega parlamenta z dne 16. decembra 2014 (še ni objavljeno v Uradnem listu) in odločitev Sveta z dne 27. januarja 2015.
OJ C 451, 16.12.2014, p. 157.
Direktiva Sveta 93/5/EGS z dne 25. februarja 1993 o pomoči Komisiji in sodelovanju držav članic pri znanstvenem proučevanju vprašanj v zvezi z živili (UL L 52, 4.3.1993, str. 18).
Position of the European Parliament of 16 December 2014 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Decision of the Council of 27 January 2015.
Uredba (ES) št. 178/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 28. januarja 2002 o določitvi splošnih načel in zahtevah živilske zakonodaje, ustanovitvi Evropske agencije za varnost hrane in postopkih, ki zadevajo varnost hrane (UL L 31, 1.2.2002, str. 1).
Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food (OJ L 52, 4.3.1993, p. 18).
Sklep Komisije 97/579/ES z dne 23. julija 1997 o ustanovitvi znanstvenih odborov na področju varstva zdravja potrošnikov in varnosti hrane (UL L 237, 28.8.1997, str. 18).
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down the procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).
Sklep Komisije 2004/210/ES z dne 3. marca 2004 o ustanovitvi znanstvenih odborov na področju varstva potrošnikov, javnega zdravja in okolja (UL L 66, 4.3.2004, str. 45).
Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food safety (OJ L 237, 28.8.1997, p. 18).
Države članice uveljavijo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo najpozneje do 29. februarja 2016.
Commission Decision 2004/210/EC of 3 March 2004 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment (OJ L 66, 4.3.2004, p. 45).
O tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo.
Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva (EU) 2015/412 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory
o spremembi Direktive 2001/18/ES glede možnosti držav članic, da omejijo ali prepovejo gojenje gensko spremenjenih organizmov (GSO) na svojem ozemlju
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [4] and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council [5] establish a comprehensive legal framework for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is fully applicable to GMOs to be used for cultivation purposes throughout the Union as seeds or other plant-propagating material (‘GMOs for cultivation’).
Direktiva 2001/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [4] ter Uredba (ES) št. 1829/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [5] vzpostavljata celovit pravni okvir za odobritev gensko spremenjenih organizmov (GSO), ki se v celoti uporablja za GSO, ki se uporabljajo za gojenje po vsej Uniji, in sicer v obliki semen ali drugega razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin (v nadaljnjem besedilu: GSO za gojenje).
Under that legal framework, GMOs for cultivation are to undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC taking into account the direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects, as well as the cumulative long-term effects, on human health and the environment.
V skladu s tem pravnim okvirom se za vsak GSO za gojenje posebej oceni tveganje, preden se odobri za dajanje v promet v Uniji v skladu s Prilogo II k Direktivi 2001/18/ES, pri čemer se upoštevajo neposredni in posredni učinki, takojšni učinki in učinki z zakasnitvijo ter kumulativni dolgoročni učinki na zdravje ljudi in okolje.
That risk assessment provides scientific advice to inform the decision-making process and is followed by a risk management decision.
Ta ocena tveganja vsebuje znanstvena mnenja, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ozaveščeno sprejemanje odločitev, sledi pa ji odločitev o obvladovanju tveganja.
The aim of that authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.
Namen tega postopka odobritve je zagotoviti visoko raven varovanja življenja in zdravja ljudi, zdravja in dobrobiti živali, okolja in interesov potrošnikov ter hkrati učinkovito delovanje notranjega trga.
A uniform high level of protection of health, the environment and consumers should be achieved and maintained throughout the territory of the Union.
Na celotnem ozemlju Unije bi bilo treba doseči in ohranjati enotno visoko raven varovanja zdravja, okolja in potrošnikov.
The precautionary principle should always be taken into account in the framework of Directive 2001/18/EC and its subsequent implementation.
V okviru Direktive 2001/18/ES in pri njenem izvajanju bi bilo treba vedno upoštevati previdnostno načelo.
Pursuant to the conclusions adopted by the Council on 4 December 2008 on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘2008 Council conclusions’), it is necessary to look for improvement of the implementation of the legal framework for the authorisation of GMOs.
V skladu s sklepi Sveta z dne 4. decembra 2008 o gensko spremenjenih organizmih (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sklepi Sveta iz leta 2008) si je treba prizadevati za boljše izvajanje pravnega okvira za odobritev GSO.
In this context, the rules on risk assessment should be, where needed, regularly updated to take account of continuous developments in scientific knowledge and analysis procedures, in particular regarding the long-term environmental effects of genetically modified crops as well as their potential effects on non-target organisms, the characteristics of receiving environments and the geographical areas in which genetically modified crops may be cultivated, and the criteria and requirements for assessing GMOs producing pesticides and herbicide tolerant GMOs.
Pri tem bi bilo treba po potrebi redno posodabljati pravila o oceni tveganja, da bi se upošteval nenehni napredek znanstvenih dognanj in analitičnih postopkov, zlasti glede dolgoročnih okoljskih učinkov gensko spremenjenih pridelkov ter njihovih možnih učinkov na neciljne organizme, značilnosti prejemnih okolij ter geografskih območij, na katerih se lahko gojijo gensko spremenjeni pridelki, ter meril in zahtev za oceno GSO, ki proizvajajo pesticide ter GSO, ki so odporni na herbicide.
Therefore, the Annexes to Directive 2001/18/EC should be amended accordingly.
Zato bi bilo treba priloge k Direktivi 2001/18/ES ustrezno spremeniti.
In addition to the authorisation for placing on the market, genetically modified varieties also need to comply with the requirements of Union law on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, as set out in particular in Council Directives 66/401/EEC [6], 66/402/EEC [7], 68/193/EEC [8], 98/56/EC [9], 1999/105/EC [10], 2002/53/EC [11], 2002/54/EC [12], 2002/55/EC [13], 2002/56/EC [14], 2002/57/EC [15] and 2008/90/EC [16].
Poleg odobritve za dajanje v promet morajo gensko spremenjene sorte izpolnjevati tudi zahteve prava Unije glede trženja semen in razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin, zlasti iz direktiv Sveta 66/401/EGS [6], 66/402/EGS [7], 68/193/EGS [8], 98/56/ES [9], 1999/105/ES [10], 2002/53/ES [11], 2002/54/ES [12], 2002/55/ES [13], 2002/56/ES [14], 2002/57/ES [15] in 2008/90/ES [16].
Among those Directives, Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC contain provisions which allow the Member States to prohibit, under certain well defined conditions, the use of a variety in all or in part of their territory or to lay down appropriate conditions for the cultivation of a variety.
Izmed navedenih direktiv vsebujeta direktivi 2002/53/ES in 2002/55/ES določbe, na podlagi katerih lahko države članice pod nekaterimi natančno opredeljenimi pogoji prepovejo uporabo posamezne sorte na svojem celotnem ozemlju ali njegovem delu oziroma določijo ustrezne pogoje za gojenje posamezne sorte.
Once a GMO is authorised for cultivation purposes in accordance with the Union legal framework on GMOs and complies, as regards the variety that is to be placed on the market, with the requirements of Union law on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, Member States are not authorised to prohibit, restrict, or impede its free circulation within their territory, except under the conditions defined by Union law.
Ko je GSO odobren za gojenje v skladu s pravnim okvirom Unije za GSO in glede sorte, ki se daje v promet, izpolnjuje zahteve prava Unije za trženje semen in razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin, države članice ne smejo prepovedati, omejiti ali ovirati njegovega prostega pretoka na svojem ozemlju, razen pod pogoji, opredeljenimi v pravu Unije.
Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed at Member State level.
Izkušnje so pokazale, da je gojenje GSO vprašanje, ki se ga temeljiteje obravnava na ravni držav članic.
Issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal market.
Vprašanja v zvezi z dajanjem v promet in uvozom GSO bi bilo treba zaradi ohranitve notranjega trga še naprej urejati na ravni Unije.
Cultivation may however require more flexibility in certain instances as it is an issue with strong national, regional and local dimensions, given its link to land use, to local agricultural structures and to the protection or maintenance of habitats, ecosystems and landscapes.
Gojenje pa bo v nekaterih primerih morda treba urediti bolj prožno, saj gre zaradi njegove povezanosti z rabo zemljišč, lokalnimi kmetijskimi strukturami in varovanjem ali ohranjanjem habitatov, ekosistemov in pokrajin za vprašanje velikih nacionalnih, regionalnih in lokalnih razsežnosti.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States are entitled to have the possibility to adopt legally binding acts restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs in their territory after such GMOs have been authorised to be placed on the Union market.
V skladu s členom 2(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) imajo države članice možnost, da sprejmejo pravno zavezujoče akte za omejitev ali prepoved gojenja GSO na svojem ozemlju po tem, ko so bili ti GSO odobreni za dajanje v promet v Uniji.
However, the common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process conducted primarily by the European Food Safety Authority (the ‘Authority’), should not be adversely affected by such flexibility.
Vendar taka prožnost ne bi smela ogrožati skupnega postopka odobritve, zlasti postopka ocene, ki ga izvaja predvsem Evropska agencija za varnost hrane (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija).
In the past, in order to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, some Member States had recourse to the safeguard clauses and emergency measures pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as a result of, depending on the cases, new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment, or of the reassessment of existing information.
V preteklosti so nekatere države članice za prepoved ali omejitev gojenja GSO uporabljale zaščitne klavzule in nujne ukrepe na podlagi člena 23 Direktive 2001/18/ES in člena 34 Uredbe (ES) št. 1829/2003, in sicer, odvisno od primera, na podlagi novih ali dodatnih informacij, ki so postale razpoložljive po datumu odobritve in vplivajo na oceno tveganja za okolje, ali na podlagi ponovne ocene obstoječih informacij.
Other Member States have made use of the notification procedure set out in Article 114(5) and (6) TFEU which requires putting forward new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment.
Druge države članice uporabljajo postopek uradnega obvestila, določen v členu 114(5) in (6) PDEU, v skladu s katerim je treba predložiti nova znanstvena spoznanja o varstvu okolja ali delovnega okolja.
In addition, the decision-making process has proved to be particularly difficult as regards the cultivation of GMOs in the light of the expression of national concerns which do not only relate to issues associated with the safety of GMOs for health or the environment.
Poleg tega se je postopek odločanja glede gojenja GSO izkazal za posebno zahtevnega, saj so posamezne države izrazile pomisleke, ki niso povezani le z vprašanji varnosti GSO za zdravje ali okolje.