natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, since the date of the amendments made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 by Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2219, France has notified the Commission of further outbreaks of avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in holdings outside the areas currently listed in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 where poultry are kept and it has taken the necessary measures required in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks.
Od datuma sprememb Izvedbenega sklepa (EU) 2016/2122 z Izvedbenim sklepom (EU) 2016/2219 je Francija obvestila Komisijo o nadaljnjih izbruhih aviarne influence podtipa H5N8 na gospodarstvih zunaj območij, že navedenih v Prilogi k Izvedbenemu sklepu (EU) 2016/2122, kjer se nahajajo perutnina ali druge ptice v ujetništvu, ter sprejela potrebne ukrepe v skladu z Direktivo 2005/94/ES, vključno z vzpostavitvijo okuženih in ogroženih območij okoli navedenih izbruhov.
Furthermore, since the date of the amendments made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 by Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2219, Hungary has also notified the Commission of further outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 on its territory.
Poleg tega je od datuma sprememb Izvedbenega sklepa (EU) 2016/2122 z Izvedbenim sklepom (EU) 2016/2219 tudi Madžarska obvestila Komisijo o nadaljnjih izbruhih visokopatogene aviarne influence podtipa H5N8 na svojem ozemlju.
Taking into account further development of the epidemiological situation in Hungary, it is necessary to extend the areas that that Member State has currently established as protection and surveillance zones in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC.
Glede na nadaljnji razvoj epidemioloških razmer na Madžarskem je treba razširiti območja, ki jih je navedena država članica že vzpostavila kot okužena in ogrožena območja v skladu z Direktivo 2005/94/ES.
In all cases, the Commission has examined the measures taken by the Germany, France and Hungary in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC and has satisfied itself that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones, established by the competent authorities of those Member States, are at a sufficient distance to any holding where an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 has been confirmed.
Komisija je v vseh primerih v skladu z Direktivo 2005/94/ES proučila ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele Nemčija, Francija in Madžarska, ter presodila, da so meje okuženih in ogroženih območij, ki so jih vzpostavili pristojni organi navedenih držav članic, dovolj oddaljene od vsakega gospodarstva, na katerem je bil potrjen izbruh visokopatogene aviarne influence podtipa H5N8.
In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Germany, France and Hungary, the new protection and surveillance zones established in those Member States in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC.
Da bi preprečili kakršne koli nepotrebne motnje za trgovino v Uniji in se izognili tveganju, da tretje države sprejmejo neupravičene omejitve trgovanja, je treba na ravni Unije v sodelovanju z Nemčijo, Francijo in Madžarsko takoj opredeliti nova okužena in ogrožena območja, vzpostavljena v navedenih državah članicah v skladu z Direktivo 2005/94/ES.
Therefore, the areas currently listed for those Member States in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 should be amended.
Zato bi bilo treba za navedene države članice spremeniti območja, ki so že navedena v Prilogi k Izvedbenemu sklepu (EU) 2016/2122.
OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p.
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2016/2122 z dne 2. decembra 2016 o zaščitnih ukrepih zaradi izbruhov visokopatogene aviarne influence podtipa H5N8 v nekaterih državah članicah (UL L 329, 3.12.2016, str.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 of 2 December 2016 on protective measures in relation to outbreaks of the highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in certain Member States (OJ L 329, 3.12.2016, p.
Direktiva Sveta 2005/94/ES z dne 20. decembra 2005 o ukrepih Skupnosti za obvladovanje aviarne influence in razveljavitvi Direktive 92/40/EGS (UL L 10, 14.1.2006, str. 16).
75).
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2016/2219 z dne 8. decembra 2016 o spremembi Priloge k Izvedbenemu sklepu (EU) 2016/2122 o zaščitnih ukrepih zaradi izbruhov visokopatogene aviarne influence podtipa H5N8 v nekaterih državah članicah (UL L 334, 9.12.2016, str.
Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (OJ L 10, 14.1.2006, p.
52)
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2219 of 8 December 2016 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 on protective measures in relation to outbreaks of the highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in certain Member States (OJ L 334, 9.12.2016, p.
Priloga k Izvedbenemu sklepu (EU) 2016/2122 se spremeni:
52).
V delu A se vnosi za Nemčijo, Francijo in Madžarsko nadomestijo z naslednjim:
ANNEX
„Država članica: Nemčija
The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2122 is amended as follows:
Območje zajema:
In Part A, the entries for Germany, France and Hungary are replaced by the following:
Datum konca izvajanja v skladu s členom 29(1) Direktive 2005/94/ES
‘Member State: Germany
Država članica: Francija
Area comprising:
Država članica: Madžarska
13.12.2016 to 21.12.2016
Datum konca izvajanja v skladu s členom 31 Direktive 2005/94/ES
11.12.2016 to 20.12.2016
Békés megye Orosházi, Mezőkovácsházi, Békéscsabai, Békési és Gyulai járásának a védőkörzet vonatkozásában meghatározott részén kívüli, az N46.599129 és az E21.02752, az N46.595641 és az E21.028533, az N46.54682222 és az E20.8927, valamint az N46.654794 és az E20.948188 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pontok körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső részei, valamint az alábbiak által határolt terület: 44-es út- 445-ös út-4432-es út- 4434-es út-4428-as út—Munkácsy sor- 4418-as út – Békés-Csongrád megye határa – 4642-es út
13.12.2016 to 22.12.2016
Csongrád megye Szegedi, Hódmezővásárhelyi és Makói járásának a védőkörzet vonatkozásában meghatározott részén kívüli, az N46.306591 és az E20.268039 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső részei, valamint délen a 43-as út által határolt terület Deszkig, Deszk teljes belterülete, illetve az alábbiak által határolt terület: M43-as út – 5-ös út – Balástya közigazgatási határa – Ópusztaszer közigazgatási határa – 4519-es út – 4519-es úton 6 km-re Ópusztaszer határától kiindulva keletre az Atkai holtágig – Sándorfalva közigazgatási határa
11.12.2016 to 22.12.2016
Békés megye Orosházi és Békéscsabai járásának, valamint Csongrád megye Szentesi és Hódmezővásárhelyi járásának a védőkörzet vonatkozásában meghatározott részén kívüli, az N46.5953 és az E20.62686 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső részei, Nagyszénás település belterülete, valamint az alábbiak által határolt terület: Csongrád-Békés megye határa – 4418-as út – 4419-es út – 47-es út – 4405-ös út – Szentesi-Hódmezővásárhelyi járás határa
20.12.2016 to 29.12.2016
Csongrád megye Szegedi és Makói járásának a védőkörzet vonatkozásában meghatározott részén kívüli, az N46.151747 és az E20.290045 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső részei, Deszk, Ferencszállás, Klárafalva, Újszentiván, Tiszasziget települések teljes közigazgatási területe, Szeged település közigazgatási területének a Tisza folyó – Herke utca – 43-as főút – Újszőreg – Szőreg által határolt része, valamint Kiszombor település belterületének a Rokkant köz – Pollner Kálmán utca – Farkas utca – Kiss Menyhért utca – Dózsa György u. – Délvidéki utca – Kör utca – Óbébai utca északi része – a 884/1 és 05398 hrsz. telkek – 05397 hrsz. út – 05402 hrsz. csatorna északi része által határolt része
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2295
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2016/2295
of 16 December 2016
z dne 16. decembra 2016
amending Decisions 2000/518/EC, 2002/2/EC, 2003/490/EC, 2003/821/EC, 2004/411/EC, 2008/393/EC, 2010/146/EU, 2010/625/EU, 2011/61/EU and Implementing Decisions 2012/484/EU, 2013/65/EU on the adequate protection of personal data by certain countries, pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
o spremembi odločb 2000/518/ES, 2002/2/ES, 2003/490/ES, 2003/821/ES, 2004/411/ES in 2008/393/ES ter sklepov 2010/146/EU, 2010/625/EU, 2011/61/EU in izvedbenih sklepov 2012/484/EU in 2013/65/EU o ustreznem varstvu osebnih podatkov, ki ga zagotavljajo nekatere države v skladu s členom 25(6) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 95/46/ES
(notified under document C(2016) 8353)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2016) 8353)
In its judgment of 6 October 2015 in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner [2] the Court of Justice of the European Union found that, in adopting Article 3 of Decision 2000/520/EC [3], the Commission exceeded the power which is conferred upon it in Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC, read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and declared Article 3 of that Decision invalid.
V sodbi z dne 6. oktobra 2015 v zadevi C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems proti Data Protection Commissioner [2], je Sodišče Evropske unije ugotovilo, da je Komisija s sprejetjem člena 3 Odločbe 2000/520/ES [3] prekoračila pooblastilo, ki ji je podeljeno s členom 25(6) Direktive 95/46/ES, razlagane ob upoštevanju Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, in člen 3 navedene odločbe razglasilo za neveljavnega.
Article 3(1) first subparagraph of Decision 2000/520/EC laid down restrictive conditions under which national supervisory authorities could decide to suspend data flows to a U.S. self-certified company, notwithstanding the Commission's adequacy finding.
V prvem pododstavku člena 3(1) Odločbe 2000/520/ES so določeni strogi pogoji, pod katerimi se lahko nacionalni nadzorni organi odločijo za prekinitev prenosa podatkov samocertificiranemu podjetju iz ZDA, ne glede na ugotovitev Komisije glede ustreznosti.
In its Schrems judgment, the Court of Justice clarified that national supervisory authorities remain competent to oversee the transfer of personal data to a third country which has been the subject of a Commission adequacy decision and that the Commission has no competence to restrict their powers under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC.
V sodbi v zadevi Schrems je Sodišče pojasnilo, da so nacionalni nadzorni organi še naprej pristojni za nadzor nad prenosom osebnih podatkov v tretjo državo, ki je predmet sklepa Komisije o ustreznosti, in da Komisija nima pristojnosti za zožitev njihovih pooblastil v skladu s členom 28 Direktive 95/46/ES.
Pursuant to this Article, those authorities possess, in particular, investigative powers, such as the power to collect all the information necessary for the performance of their supervisory duties, effective powers of intervention, such as that of imposing a temporary or definitive ban on the processing of data, and the power to engage in legal proceedings [4].
Na podlagi tega člena imajo navedeni organi zlasti preiskovalna pooblastila, kakršna so pooblastila za zbiranje vseh informacij, ki so potrebne za izvajanje njihovih nadzornih nalog, učinkovita pooblastila za posredovanje, kakršno je naložitev začasne ali dokončne prepovedi obdelave podatkov, ter pooblastila za sodelovanje v sodnih postopkih [4].
The Court of Justice recalled in the Schrems judgment that, in line with the second subparagraph of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC, Member States and their organs must take the measures necessary to comply with acts of the Union institutions, as the latter are in principle presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment, or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.
Sodišče je v zadevi Schrems opozorilo, da morajo države članice in njihovi organi v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 25(6) Direktive 95/46/ES sprejeti ukrepe, ki so potrebni za skladnost z ukrepi institucij Unije, saj se za slednje načeloma šteje, da so zakoniti in da ustvarjajo pravne učinke, dokler niso ukinjeni, razveljavljeni v tožbi za razveljavitev ali razglašeni za neveljavne na podlagi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ali ugovora nezakonitosti.
Consequently, a Commission adequacy decision adopted pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC is binding on all organs of the Member States to which it is addressed, including their independent supervisory authorities, in so far as it has the effect of authorising transfers of personal data from the respective Member State to the third country covered by it [5].
Zato je sklep Komisije o ustreznosti, sprejet v skladu s členom 25(6) Direktive 95/46/ES, zavezujoč za vse organe držav članic, na katere je naslovljen, vključno z njihovimi neodvisnimi nadzornimi organi, v delu, v katerem dovoljuje prenose osebnih podatkov iz zadevne države članice v tretjo državo, na katero se nanaša [5].
It follows that national supervisory authorities cannot adopt measures contrary to a Commission adequacy decision, such as acts declaring that decision invalid or which are intended to determine with binding effect that the third country covered by it does not ensure an adequate level of protection.
Iz tega sledi, da nacionalni nadzorni organi ne morejo sprejeti ukrepov, ki so v nasprotju s sklepom Komisije o ustreznosti varstva, kot so akti o razglasitvi neveljavnosti navedenega sklepa ali akti, ki so namenjeni temu, da se sprejme ugotovitev z zavezujočim učinkom, da tretja država, na katero se sklep nanaša, ne zagotavlja ustrezne ravni varstva.
As clarified by the Schrems judgment, this does not prevent a national supervisory authority from examining the claim of an individual concerning the level of protection of personal data ensured in a third country subject to a Commission adequacy decision and, where it considers it well founded, to engage in legal proceedings before the national courts, in order for them, if they share the doubts as to the validity of the Commission decision, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of examination of the decision's validity [6].
Kakor je pojasnjeno v sodbi v zadevi Schrems, to nacionalnemu nadzornemu organu ne preprečuje, da preuči zahtevo posameznika v zvezi z ravnjo varstva osebnih podatkov, zagotovljeno v tretji državi, ki je predmet sklepa Komisije o ustreznosti varstva, in, kadar meni, da je zahteva utemeljena, da sodeluje v sodnih postopkih pred nacionalnimi sodišči, da bi ta, če bi prav tako kot ta organ dvomila o veljavnosti sklepa Komisije, sprožila postopek predhodnega odločanja za preizkus veljavnosti navedenega sklepa [6].
Commission Decisions 2000/518/EC [7], 2002/2/EC [8], 2003/490/EC [9], 2003/821/EC [10], 2004/411/EC [11], 2008/393/EC [12], 2010/146/EU [13], 2010/625/EU [14] and 2011/61/EU [15] and Commission Implementing Decisions 2012/484/EU [16] and 2013/65/EU [17], which are adequacy decisions, contain a limitation on the powers of the national supervisory authorities that is comparable to Article 3(1) first subparagraph of Decision 2000/520/EC, which the Court of Justice considered invalid.
Odločbe Komisije 2000/518/ES [7], 2002/2/ES [8], 2003/490/ES [9], 2003/821/ES [10], 2004/411/ES [11], 2008/393/ES [12], sklepi Komisije 2010/146/EU [13], 2010/625/EU [14] in 2011/61/EU [15] ter izvedbena sklepa Komisije 2012/484/EU [16] in 2013/65/EU [17], ki so sklepi o ustreznosti varstva, vsebujejo omejitev pooblastil nacionalnih nadzornih organov, ki je primerljiva s prvim pododstavkom člena 3(1) Odločbe Komisije 2000/520/ES, za katerega je sodišče menilo, da je neveljaven.
In the light of the Schrems judgment and pursuant to Article 266 of the Treaty, the provisions in those Decisions limiting the powers of national supervisory authorities should therefore be replaced.
Na podlagi sodbe v zadevi Schrems in v skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe bi bilo zato treba nadomestiti določbe o omejitvi pooblastil nacionalnih nadzornih organov v teh odločbah in sklepih.
In the Schrems judgment, the Court of Justice further clarified that, as the level of protection ensured by a third country may be liable to change, it is incumbent on the Commission, after it has adopted a decision pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC, to check periodically whether the finding relating to the adequacy of the level of protection ensured by the third country in question is still factually and legally justified [18].
V sodbi v zadevi Schrems je Sodišče tudi pojasnilo, da mora Komisija, ker se raven varstva, ki jo zagotavlja tretja država, lahko spremeni, po sprejetju sklepa na podlagi člena 25(6) Direktive 95/46/ES redno preverjati, ali je ugotovitev v zvezi z ustrezno ravnjo varstva, ki ga zagotavlja zadevna tretja država, še zmeraj dejansko in pravno utemeljena [18].
In the light of the findings in that judgment as regards access to personal data by public authorities, the rules and practice governing such access should also be monitored.
Ob upoštevanju ugotovitev iz navedene sodbe v zvezi z dostopom javnih organov do osebnih podatkov, bi bilo treba spremljati tudi pravila in prakso, ki urejajo takšen dostop.
Therefore, for those countries for which it has adopted an adequacy decision, the Commission will, on an ongoing basis, monitor developments, both in law and in practice, that could affect the functioning of such decisions, including developments concerning access to personal data by public authorities.
Zato bo Komisija za tiste države, za katere je sprejela sklep o ustreznosti varstva, stalno spremljala dogajanja, tako v zakonodaji kot v praksi, ki bi lahko vplivala na izvajanje takšnih sklepov, vključno z dogajanji v zvezi z dostopom javnih organov do osebnih podatkov.
In order to facilitate the effective monitoring of the functioning of the adequacy decisions currently in force, the Commission should be informed by Member States about relevant action undertaken by national supervisory authorities.
Za olajšanje učinkovitega spremljanja delovanja trenutno veljavnih sklepov o ustreznosti varstva bi morale države članice Komisijo obveščati o relevantnih ukrepih nacionalnih nadzornih organov.
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 an opinion, which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision.
Delovna skupina za varstvo posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov, ustanovljena na podlagi člena 29 Direktive 95/46/ES, je izdala mnenje, ki se je upoštevalo pri pripravi tega sklepa.
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 v tem sklepu so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega na podlagi člena 31(1) Direktive 95/46/ES.
Decisions 2000/518/EC, 2002/2/EC, 2003/490/EC, 2003/821/EC, 2004/411/EC, 2008/393/EC, 2010/146/EU, 2010/625/EU and 2011/61/EU and Implementing Decisions 2012/484/EU and 2013/65/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,
Odločbe 2000/518/ES, 2002/2/ES, 2003/490/ES, 2003/821/ES, 2004/411/ES in 2008/393/ES, sklepe 2010/146/EU, 2010/625/EU in 2011/61/EU ter izvedbena sklepa 2012/484/EU in 2013/65/EU bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
Decision 2000/518/EC is amended as follows:
Odločba Komisije 2000/518/ES se spremeni:
Whenever the competent authorities in Member States exercise their powers pursuant to Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC leading to the suspension or definitive ban of data flows to Switzerland in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data, the Member State concerned shall, without delay, inform the Commission which will forward the information to the other Member States.’;
Kadar pristojni organi v državah članicah izvajajo svoja pooblastila v skladu s členom 28(3) Direktive 95/46/ES, na podlagi česar pride do začasne ustavitve ali dokončne prepovedi prenosa podatkov v Švico, da se zaščitijo posamezniki pri obdelavi njihovih osebnih podatkov, zadevna država članica nemudoma obvesti Komisijo, ta pa informacije posreduje drugim državam članicam.“;
The Commission shall, on an ongoing basis, monitor developments in the Swiss legal order that could affect the functioning of this Decision, including developments concerning access to personal data by public authorities, with a view to assessing whether Switzerland continues to ensure an adequate level of protection of personal data.
Komisija stalno spremlja dogajanja na področju švicarskega pravnega reda, ki bi lahko vplivala na izvajanje tega sklepa, vključno z dogajanji glede dostopa javnih organov do osebnih podatkov, da se oceni, ali Švica še naprej zagotavlja ustrezno raven varstva osebnih podatkov.
The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where the action of bodies responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard of protection in Switzerland fails to secure such compliance.
Države članice in Komisija se medsebojno obvestijo o primerih, kadar ukrepi organov, pristojnih za zagotavljanje skladnosti s standardom varstva v Švici, ne zagotavljajo take skladnosti.
The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of any indications that interferences by Swiss public authorities responsible for national security, law enforcement or other public interests with the right of individuals to the protection of their personal data go beyond what is strictly necessary, or that there is no effective legal protection against such interferences.
Države članice in Komisija se medsebojno obveščajo o kakršnih koli znakih, da posegi švicarskih javnih organov, pristojnih za nacionalno varnost, kazenski pregon ali druge javne interese, v pravico posameznikov do varstva osebnih podatkov presegajo tisto, kar je nujno potrebno, ali da ni učinkovitega pravnega varstva pred takimi posegi.
Where evidence shows that an adequate level of protection is no longer ensured, including in situations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, the Commission shall inform the competent Swiss authority and, if necessary, propose 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.’.
Kadar je na podlagi dokazov razvidno, da ustrezna raven varstva ni več zagotovljena, vključno s primeri iz odstavkov 2 in 3 tega člena, Komisija obvesti pristojni švicarski organ in, če je potrebno, predstavi osnutek ukrepov v skladu s postopkom iz člena 31(2) Direktive 95/46/ES z namenom razveljavitve ali zadržanja izvajanja tega sklepa oz. omejitve obsega njegove uporabe.“
Decision 2002/2/EC is amended as follows:
Odločba 2002/2/ES se spremeni:
Whenever the competent authorities in Member States exercise their powers pursuant to Article 28(3) of Directive 95/46/EC leading to the suspension or definitive ban of data flows to a recipient in Canada whose activities fall under the scope of the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data, the Member State concerned shall, without delay, inform the Commission which will forward the information to the other Member States.’;
Kadar pristojni organi v državah članicah izvajajo svoja pooblastila v skladu s členom 28(3) Direktive 95/46/ES, na podlagi česar pride do začasne ustavitve ali dokončne prepovedi prenosa podatkov prejemniku v Kanadi, katerega dejavnosti spadajo na področje uporabe kanadskega Zakona o varstvu osebnih podatkov in elektronskih dokumentih, da se zaščitijo posamezniki pri obdelavi njihovih osebnih podatkov, zadevna država članica nemudoma obvesti Komisijo, ta pa informacije posreduje drugim državam članicam.“;