natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1).
Direktiva 2008/104/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. novembra 2008 o delu prek agencij za zagotavljanje začasnega dela (UL L 327, 5.12.2008, str. 9).
Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) ( OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 11).
Uredba (ES) št. 883/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o koordinaciji sistemov socialne varnosti (UL L 166, 30.4.2004, str. 1).
Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9).
Uredba (ES) št. 987/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. septembra 2009 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za izvajanje Uredbe (ES) št. 883/2004 o koordinaciji sistemov socialne varnosti (UL L 284, 30.10.2009, str. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 91/533/EGS z dne 14. oktobra 1991 o obveznosti delodajalca, da zaposlene obvesti o pogojih, ki se nanašajo na pogodbo o zaposlitvi ali delovno razmerje (UL L 288, 18.10.1991, str. 32).
Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1).
Sklep (EU) 2016/344 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. marca 2016 o vzpostavitvi evropske platforme za okrepitev sodelovanja pri ukrepanju proti neprijavljenemu delu (UL L 65, 11.3.2016, str. 12).
Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32).
Sklep Komisije 2009/17/ES z dne 19. decembra 2008 o ustanovitvi Odbora strokovnjakov za napotitev delavcev na delo (UL L 8, 13.1.2009, str. 26).
Decision (EU) 2016/344 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in tackling undeclared work (OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 12).
UL C 369, 17.12.2011, str. 14.
Commission Decision 2009/17/EC of 19 December 2008 setting up the Committee of Experts on Posting of Workers (OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, p. 26).
Direktiva 2014/67/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. maja 2014 o izvrševanju Direktive 96/71/ES o napotitvi delavcev na delo v okviru opravljanja storitev in spremembi Uredbe (EU) št. 1024/2012 o upravnem sodelovanju prek informacijskega sistema za notranji trg (uredba IMI) (UL L 159, 28.5.2014, str. 11).“;
OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14.
Direktiva 2008/104/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. novembra 2008 o delu prek agencij za zagotavljanje začasnega dela (UL L 327, 5.12.2008, str. 9).“;
Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (“the IMI Regulation”) ( OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 11).’;
Direktiva 2006/22/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. marca 2006 o minimalnih pogojih za izvajanje uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 3820/85 in (EGS) št. 3821/85 o socialni zakonodaji v zvezi z dejavnostmi v cestnem prometu in razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 88/599/EGS (UL L 102, 11.4.2006, str. 35).
Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9).’;
Države članice uporabljajo te predpise od 30. julija 2020.
Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35).
Do navedenega datuma se Direktiva 96/71/ES še naprej uporablja v obliki, ki ne vsebuje sprememb, uvedenih s to direktivo.
Directive (EU) 2018/958 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva (EU) 2018/958 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions
o preskusu sorazmernosti pred sprejetjem nove regulacije poklicev
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 46, Article 53(1) and Article 62 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ter zlasti člena 46, člena 53(1) in člena 62 Pogodbe,
The freedom to choose an occupation is a fundamental right.
Svoboda izbire poklica je temeljna pravica.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) guarantees the freedom to choose an occupation, as well as the freedom to conduct a business.
Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Listina) zagotavlja svobodo izbire poklica in svobodo gospodarske pobude.
The free movement of workers, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services are fundamental principles of the internal market enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Prosti pretok delavcev, svoboda ustanavljanja in svoboda opravljanja storitev so temeljna načela notranjega trga, zapisana v Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU).
National rules organising access to regulated professions should therefore not constitute an unjustified or disproportionate obstacle to the exercise of those fundamental rights.
Nacionalna pravila, ki urejajo dostop do opravljanja reguliranih poklicev, zato ne bi smela neutemeljeno ali nesorazmerno ovirati uresničevanja navedenih temeljnih pravic.
In the absence of specific provisions harmonising the requirements on access to a regulated profession or the pursuit thereof laid down in Union law, it is a Member State competence to decide whether and how to regulate a profession within the limits of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.
Kadar pravo Unije ne vsebuje posebnih določb, ki bi harmonizirale zahteve glede dostopa do reguliranega poklica ali njegovega opravljanja, je v pristojnosti države članice, da odloči, ali in kako bo regulirala poklic ob upoštevanju načel nediskriminacije in sorazmernosti.
The principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Union law.
Načelo sorazmernosti je eno izmed splošnih načel prava Unije.
It follows from case-law that national measures liable to hinder, or to make less attractive, the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the TFEU should fulfil four conditions, namely, they should: be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; be justified by public interest objectives; be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da bi morali nacionalni ukrepi, ki lahko ovirajo izvrševanje temeljnih svoboščin, zagotovljenih s PDEU, ali zmanjšajo njihovo privlačnost, izpolnjevati štiri pogoje, in sicer uporabljati bi jih bilo treba nediskriminatorno, utemeljiti bi jih bilo treba s cilji javnega interesa, morali bi biti primerni za zagotovitev uresničitve zastavljenega cilja in ne bi smeli presegati tistega, kar je nujno za uresničitev navedenega cilja.
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council includes an obligation for Member States to assess the proportionality of their requirements restricting access to, or the pursuit of, regulated professions, and to communicate the results of that assessment to the Commission, launching the ‘mutual evaluation process’.
Direktiva 2005/36/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta vključuje obveznost držav članic, da ocenijo sorazmernost svojih zahtev, ki omejujejo dostop do ali opravljanje reguliranih poklicev, in Komisiji sporočiti rezultate tega ocenjevanja, s čimer so začele postopek medsebojnega ocenjevanja.
That process means that Member States had to carry out a screening of all their legislation on all of the professions that were regulated in their territory.
Ta postopek pomeni, da so države članice morale pregledati vso svojo zakonodajo o vseh poklicih, ki jih regulirajo na svojem ozemlju.
The results of the mutual evaluation process revealed a lack of clarity as regards the criteria to be used by Member States when assessing the proportionality of requirements restricting access to, or the pursuit of, regulated professions, as well as an uneven scrutiny of such requirements at all levels of regulation.
Rezultati postopka medsebojnega ocenjevanja so pokazali, da merila, ki naj bi jih države članice uporabljale pri oceni sorazmernosti zahtev, ki omejujejo dostop do ali opravljanje reguliranih poklicev, niso dovolj jasna in da je nadzor nad takimi zahtevami na vseh ravneh regulacije neenak.
To avoid fragmentation of the internal market and to eliminate barriers to the taking-up and pursuit of certain employed or self-employed activities, there should be a common approach at Union level, preventing disproportionate measures from being adopted.
Da bi se izognili razdrobljenosti notranjega trga in odpravili ovire za začetek opravljanja in opravljanje nekaterih zaposlitvenih ali samozaposlitvenih dejavnosti, bi bilo treba vzpostaviti skupni pristop na ravni Unije, s katerim bi se preprečilo sprejetje nesorazmernih ukrepov.
In its Communication of 28 October 2015 entitled ‘Upgrading the Single market: more opportunities for people and businesses’, the Commission identified the need to adopt an analytical proportionality framework for Member States to use when reviewing existing regulations of professions or when proposing new ones.
Komisija je v svojem sporočilu z dne 28. oktobra 2015 z naslovom „Izpopolnitev enotnega trga: več priložnosti za prebivalstvo in gospodarstvo“ opredelila potrebo po sprejetju analitičnega okvira sorazmernosti, ki ga bodo države članice uporabile ob pregledu obstoječe regulacije poklicev ali ob predlaganju nove.
This Directive aims to establish rules for proportionality assessments to be conducted by Member States before the introduction of new, or the amendment of existing, professional regulations, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, while guaranteeing transparency and a high level of consumer protection.
Namen te direktive je določiti pravila za ocene sorazmernosti, ki jih bodo izvedle države članice pred uvedbo nove ali spremembo obstoječe regulacije poklicev, da se zagotovi pravilno delovanje notranjega trga ter hkrati zajamčita preglednost in visoka raven varstva potrošnikov.
The activities covered by this Directive should concern the regulated professions falling within the scope of Directive 2005/36/EC.
Dejavnosti, zajete v tej direktivi, bi se morale nanašati na regulirane poklice, ki spadajo v področje uporabe Direktive 2005/36/ES.
This Directive should apply to requirements restricting access to, or the pursuit of, existing regulated professions or new professions that Member States are considering whether to regulate.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za zahteve, ki omejujejo dostop do ali opravljanje obstoječih reguliranih poklicev ali novih poklicev, za katere države članice preučujejo, ali bi jih bilo treba regulirati.
This Directive should apply in addition to Directive 2005/36/EC and without prejudice to other provisions laid down in a separate Union act concerning access to, or the pursuit of, a given regulated profession.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati poleg Direktive 2005/36/ES in brez poseganja v druge določbe, ki so določene v ločenem aktu Unije o dostopu do ali opravljanju zadevnega reguliranega poklica.
This Directive is without prejudice to the competence of Member States to define the organisation and the content of their systems of education and professional training, and in particular as regards the possibility for them to delegate to professional organisations the power to organise or supervise professional education and training.
Ta direktiva ne posega v pristojnost držav članic, da opredelijo organizacijo in vsebino svojih sistemov izobraževanja in strokovnega usposabljanja, ter zlasti v zvezi z možnostjo, da na poklicne organizacije prenesejo pristojnost za organizacijo ali nadzor strokovnega izobraževanja in usposabljanja.
Provisions which do not restrict access to, or the pursuit of, regulated professions, including editorial amendments, technical adaptations to the content of training courses or the modernisation of training regulations, should not fall within the scope of this Directive.
V področje uporabe te direktive ne bi smele spadati določbe, s katerimi se ne omejuje dostop do ali opravljanje reguliranih poklicev, vključno z redakcijskimi spremembami, tehničnimi prilagoditvami vsebine tečajev usposabljanja ali posodobitve pravil usposabljanja.
Where professional education or training consists of activities which are remunerated, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services should be guaranteed.
Kadar strokovno izobraževanje ali usposabljanje zajema dejavnosti, ki se opravljajo proti plačilu, bi bilo treba zagotoviti svobodo ustanavljanja in svobodo opravljanja storitev.
Where Member States transpose specific requirements concerning the regulation of a given profession established in a separate Union act which does not leave Member States a choice as to the exact way in which they are to be transposed, the assessment of proportionality, as required by specific provisions of this Directive, should not be applied.
Kadar države članice prenašajo v svoj pravni red posebne zahteve v zvezi z regulacijo določenega poklica, določene v ločenem aktu Unije, ki državam članicam ne prepušča izbire glede točno določenega načina prenosa teh posebnih zahtev, se ocena sorazmernosti, kot je določena v posebnih določbah te direktive, ne bi smela uporabljati.
Member States should be able to rely on a common regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts concerning the different ways to regulate a profession across the Union.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da se oprejo na skupni regulativni okvir, ki temelji na jasno opredeljenih pravnih vidikih v zvezi z različnimi načini za reguliranje poklica v vsej Uniji.
There are several ways to regulate a profession, for instance by reserving access to, or the pursuit of, a particular activity to holders of a professional qualification.
Poklic je mogoče regulirati na več načinov, na primer z rezerviranjem dostopa do ali opravljanja posamezne dejavnosti za imetnike poklicnih kvalifikacij.
Member States may also regulate one of the modes of pursuit of a profession by laying down conditions for the use of professional titles or by imposing qualification requirements only on self-employed, on salaried professionals, or on the managers or legal representatives of undertakings, especially where the activity is pursued by a legal person in the form of a professional company.
Države članice lahko regulirajo tudi enega izmed načinov opravljanja poklica z določitvijo pogojev za uporabo poklicnih nazivov ali pa z zahtevami glede strokovne usposobljenosti samo za samozaposlene delavce, zaposlene strokovnjake, ali za zaposlene na vodstvenih položajih v podjetjih ali pravne zastopnike podjetij, zlasti kadar dejavnost izvaja pravna oseba v obliki strokovnega društva.
Before introducing new, or amending existing, legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions restricting access to, or the pursuit of, regulated professions, Member States should assess the proportionality of such provisions.
Države članice bi morale pred uvedbo novih ali spremembo obstoječih zakonov ali drugih predpisov, ki omejujejo dostop do ali opravljanje reguliranih poklicev, preučiti, ali so ti zakoni ali drugi predpisi sorazmerni.
The extent of the assessment should be proportionate to the nature, the content and the impact of the provision being introduced.
Obseg ocene bi moral biti sorazmeren z naravo, vsebino in učinkom zakona ali drugega predpisa, ki se uvaja.
The burden of proof of justification and proportionality lies with the Member States.
Dokazno breme glede utemeljenosti in sorazmernosti nosijo države članice.
The reasons for regulating invoked by a Member State by way of justification should thus be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the measure adopted by that Member State and by specific evidence substantiating its arguments.
Razloge za regulacijo, ki jo država članica uveljavlja na podlagi utemeljitve, bi zato morali spremljati analiza ustreznosti in sorazmernosti ukrepa, ki ga je sprejela ta država članica, in konkretni dokazi, ki utemeljujejo njene trditve.
Although a Member State does not necessarily have to produce a specific study or a specific form of evidence or materials establishing the proportionality of such a measure prior to its adoption, it should carry out an objective analysis, taking into account the specific circumstances of that Member State, that demonstrates that there are genuine risks for the achievement of public interest objectives.
Čeprav državi članici ni nujno treba predložiti posebne študije ali posebne oblike dokaznega gradiva o sorazmernosti takšnega ukrepa pred njegovim sprejetjem, bi vseeno morala opraviti objektivno analizo, ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin te države članice, s katerimi se dokaže, da obstaja resnična nevarnost, da cilji v javnem interesu ne bi bili doseženi.
Member States should carry out proportionality assessments in an objective and independent manner, including where a profession is regulated indirectly by giving a particular professional body the power to regulate.
Države članice bi morale sorazmernost oceniti objektivno in neodvisno, tudi kadar se poklic regulira posredno s pooblastitvijo posameznega strokovnega združenja za reguliranje poklicev.
Those assessments could include an opinion obtained from an independent body, including existing bodies that are part of the national legislative process, entrusted by the Member States concerned with the task of providing such opinion.
Ta ocena lahko vključuje mnenje neodvisnega organa, tudi obstoječih organov, ki so del nacionalnega zakonodajnega procesa, ki so mu države članice zaupale nalogo, da pripravi to mnenje.
This is particularly important in cases where the assessment is made by local authorities, regulatory bodies or professional organisations, whose greater proximity to local conditions and specialised knowledge could in certain cases make them better placed to identify the best way of meeting the public interest objectives, but whose policy choices could provide benefits to established operators at the expense of new market entrants.
To je zlasti pomembno v primerih, kadar oceno pripravijo lokalni organi, regulativni organi ali poklicne organizacije, ki bi lahko zaradi boljše seznanjenosti z lokalnimi pogoji in s strokovnim znanjem v nekaterih primerih ustrezneje opredelili najboljši način za izpolnitev ciljev javnega interesa, vendar bi odločitve v njihovih politikah lahko zagotovile koristi uveljavljenim akterjem v škodo novim akterjem na trgu.
It is appropriate to monitor the proportionality of new or amended provisions restricting access to, or the pursuit of, regulated professions after their adoption.
Sorazmernost novih ali spremenjenih predpisov, ki omejujejo dostop do ali opravljanje reguliranih poklicev, je treba po njihovem sprejetju spremljati.
A review of the proportionality of a restrictive national measure in the area of regulated professions should be based not only on the objective of that national measure at the time of its adoption, but also on its effects, assessed after its adoption.
Pregled sorazmernosti omejevalnega nacionalnega ukrepa na področju reguliranih poklicev ne bi smel temeljiti le na cilju tega nacionalnega ukrepa v času njegovega sprejetja, ampak tudi na njegovih učinkih, ki se ocenijo po njegovem sprejetju.
The assessment of the proportionality of the national measure should be based on developments found to have occurred in the area of the regulated profession since the measure was adopted.
Ocena sorazmernosti nacionalnega ukrepa bi morala temeljiti na razvoju, za katerega se ugotovi, da je nastal na področju reguliranega poklica po sprejetju ukrepa.
As confirmed by settled case-law, any unjustified restriction resulting from national law restricting the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services is prohibited, including any discrimination on grounds of nationality or residence.
Ustaljena sodna praksa potrjuje, da je prepovedana vsakršna neutemeljena omejitev, ki izhaja iz nacionalnega prava, ki omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja ali svobodo opravljanja storitev, vključno z vsakršno diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva ali prebivališča.
Where the taking-up and the pursuit of employed or self-employed activities are conditional on complying with certain requirements relating to specific professional qualifications, laid down directly or indirectly by the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that such requirements are justified by public interest objectives, such as those within the meaning of the TFEU, namely public policy, public security and public health, or by overriding reasons in the public interest, recognised as such in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Kadar je pogoj za začetek opravljanja in opravljanje zaposlitvenih ali samozaposlitvenih dejavnosti skladnost z nekaterimi zahtevami v zvezi s posebnimi poklicnimi kvalifikacijami, ki jih neposredno ali posredno določijo države članice, je treba zagotoviti, da so take zahteve utemeljene s cilji javnega interesa, kot so tisti v smislu PDEU, namreč javni red, javna varnost in javno zdravje, ali pomembnimi razlogi v javnem interesu, ki jih kot takšne priznava sodna praksa Sodišča.
It is also necessary to clarify that the following are among the overriding reasons in the public interest, recognised by the Court of Justice: preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system; the protection of consumers, of recipients of services, including by guaranteeing the quality of craft work, and of workers; the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice; ensuring the fairness of trade transactions; the combating of fraud and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, and the safeguarding of the effectiveness of fiscal supervision; transport safety; the protection of the environment and the urban environment; the health of animals; intellectual property; the safeguarding and conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage; social policy objectives; and cultural policy objectives.
Treba je pojasniti tudi, da so med pomembnimi razlogi v javnem interesu, ki jih priznava Sodišče, naslednji: ohranjanje finančnega ravnovesja sistemov socialne varnosti; varstvo potrošnikov, varstvo prejemnikov storitev, vključno z zagotavljanjem kakovosti obrtniškega dela, in varstvo delavcev; zaščita poštenega sodnega sistema; zagotavljanje poštenih poslovnih transakcij; boj proti goljufijam ter preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom ter zaščita učinkovitosti fiskalnega nadzora; prometna varnost; varstvo okolja in mestnega okolja; zdravje živali; intelektualna lastnina; zaščita in ohranjanje nacionalne zgodovinske in umetnostne dediščine; uresničevanje ciljev socialne politike in uresničevanje ciljev kulturne politike.