natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Health information domain
V skupnem postopku usklajevanja bi bilo treba upoštevati tudi druge profile „Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise“, ki so trenutno v preizkusni fazi, ali druge standarde ali specifikacije, potrebne za obravnavo zahtev za varno izmenjavo zdravstvenih podatkov ter drugih vrst vzorcev za izmenjavo sporočil.
Laboratory results
Cilj je posredovati prave podatke ob pravem času – za državljane in izvajalce zdravstvenih dejavnosti – in tako omogočiti varen dostop, skupno uporabo in izmenjavo elektronskih zdravstvenih zapisov.
Enable cross-border exchange according to the clinical information structure currently used by the sender electronic health record system, while common clinical information structures for cross-border exchange are developed and agreed.
Delo v smeri celovite čezmejne izmenjave elektronskih zdravstvenih zapisov v hitro spreminjajočem se in povezanem okolju zahteva redno pregledovanje najnovejših tehnoloških in metodoloških inovacij za upravljanje podatkov, tudi tistih, povezanih z dostopom in koriščenjem naprednih tehnoloških infrastruktur.
For laboratory results, medical imaging reports and hospital discharge reports
Podrobnejša opredelitev oblike izmenjave bi morala upoštevati možnost, ki jo nudijo informacijski modeli, temelječi na virih (kot so na primer Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR©)).
Level 3 or Level 1 (PDF/A)
Za nadaljnji napredek bi bilo treba pregledati nove pristope k specifikacijam interoperabilnosti, kot so ustrezni vmesniki za aplikacijsko programiranje („API“) in razvoj v digitalnih tehnologijah, kot so umetna inteligenca, računalništvo v oblaku, interakcijske tehnologije, visokozmogljivostno računalništvo in rešitve kibernetske varnosti.
For medical imaging
Evolucija na področjih drugih tehnologij, kot so tehnologije razpršenih evidenc, lahko prispeva k vzpostavljanju zaupanja med državljani in organizacijami zdravstvenega varstva, pri čemer morajo biti tehnologije skladne s predpisi s področja varstva osebnih podatkov.
Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)
Navedene tehnologije bi bilo treba upoštevati pri podpiranju inovacij na področju izvajanja storitev zdravstvenega varstva in nudenju novih možnosti za obravnavo vprašanj, kot sta izvor zdravstvenih podatkov in avtomatizirano zagotavljanje celovitosti.
Medical imaging and reports
Kot je opredeljeno v členu 4(2) Splošne uredbe o varstvu podatkov.
Hospital discharge reports
To je način, kako se lahko izvajajo standardi za izpolnjevanje specifičnih kliničnih potreb.
Cross-border exchange profiles
Prenosna oblika dokumenta.
The use of relevant ‘Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise’ profiles listed in the Annex to Decision (EU) 2015/1302 should be duly considered to facilitate the exchange of healthcare information domains across borders.
Prenosna oblika dokumenta.
Those ‘Integrating the Healthcare Entreprise’ profiles could be used, inter alia, for patient identification, document exchange, audit trails and identity claims.
To dokazuje poraba za zdravstvo, ki je v letu 2017 znašala 9,6 % bruto domačega proizvoda v Uniji kot celoti, kar je več kot 8,8 % leta 2008.
The joint coordination process should also consider other ‘Integrating the Healthcare Entreprise’ profiles currently at trial stage, or any other standards or specifications needed to address the requirements for secure health data exchange, as well as other types of message exchange patterns.
Podobno podatki iz različnih držav kažejo, da je do 20 % porabe za zdravstveno varstvo potratne, ker so pacienti na primer deležni nepotrebnih preiskav ali zdravljenj ali zaradi hospitalizacij, ki bi se jim bilo mogoče izogniti.
The aim is to deliver the right data, at the right time — for citizens and healthcare providers — and allow for the secure access, sharing and exchange of electronic health records.
Sporočilo za zdravstveni sektor prilagaja cilje, določene v Sporočilu „Strategija za enotni digitalni trg za Evropo“, sprejetem 6. maja 2015, in v Sporočilu „Evropski akcijski načrt za e-upravo: pospešitev digitalne preobrazbe uprave“, sprejetem 19. aprila 2016.
As such, working towards comprehensive cross-border exchange of electronic health records in a fast changing, connected environment requires regular review of the latest technological and methodological innovations to managing data, including those related to accessing and leveraging of advanced technological infrastructures.
Sporočilo obravnava vprašanja, izpostavljena v Sporočilu o vmesnem pregledu izvajanja Strategije za enotni digitalni trg, „Povezani enotni digitalni trg za vse“, v povezavi z dejstvom, da je uporaba digitalnih rešitev za zdravje in zdravstveno varstvo še vedno počasna in se bistveno razlikuje po državah članicah in regijah.
The refinement of the exchange format should consider the possibility offered by resource driven information models (such as Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (HL7 FHIR©)).
Komisija je že opredelila specifične profile „Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise“ (IHE), navedene v Prilogi k Sklepu Komisije (EU) 2015/1302, ki lahko prispevajo k povečanju interoperabilnosti storitev e-zdravja in aplikacij v korist državljanov in strokovne zdravstvene skupnosti ter so primerni za sklicevanje pri javnem naročanju.
In order to make further progress, a review of new approaches to interoperability specifications, such as relevant Application Programming Interfaces (‘API's) and developments in digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, interaction technologies, high performance computing and cyber security solutions should be carried out.
Ti profili zagotavljajo podrobne specifikacije za različne ravni interoperabilnosti.
Evolution in other technologies such as distributed ledger technologies may have the potential to build trust amongst citizens and health care organisations provided that they comply with personal data protection rules.
Nekateri od teh profilov se že uporabljajo za obravnavo specifičnih poslovnih zahtev v infrastrukturi za digitalne storitve e-zdravja (eHealth Digital Service Infrastructure oz. „eHDSI“).
The above technologies should be considered with a view to supporting innovation in health care service provision, offering new possibilities to address issues such as health data provenance, and automated integrity assurance.
Health Level Seven (HL7) Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) Release 2 (2. izdaja standarda HL7 CDA)
As defined in Article 4(2) of the General Data Protection Regulation.
https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/display/EHOPERATIONS/eHealth+DSI+Operations+Home.
The way in which standards can be implemented to meet specific clinical needs.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/ev_20151123_co03_en.pdf.
Portable Document Format.
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/.
Portable Document Format
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/ev_20161121_co10_en.pdf.
This is evidenced by health spending amounting to 9,6 % of Gross Domestic Product in the Union as a whole in 2017, up from 8,8 % in 2008.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/ev_20161121_co091_en.pdf.
Similarly, evidence from various countries suggest that up to 20 % of healthcare spending is wasteful, for example because patients receive unnecessary tests or treatments, or as a result of avoidable hospital admissions.
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=7.
That Communication adapts for the health sector, the objectives set out in the Communication ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ adopted on 6 May 2015 and the Communication ‘EU eGovernment Action Plan — Accelerating the Digital Transformation of Government’, adopted on 19 April 2016.
http://hl7.org/fhir/.
Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva (EU) 2019/1 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market
o krepitvi vloge organov držav članic, pristojnih za konkurenco, da bodo učinkoviteje uveljavljali pravila konkurence, in o zagotavljanju pravilnega delovanja notranjega trga
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 103 and 114 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ter zlasti členov 103 in 114 Pogodbe,
Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are a matter of public policy and should be applied effectively throughout the Union to ensure that competition in the internal market is not distorted.
Člena 101 in 102 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) spadata na področje javnega reda in bi ju bilo treba učinkovito uporabljati po vsej Uniji, da se prepreči izkrivljanje konkurence na notranjem trgu.
Effective enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU is necessary to ensure fairer and more open competitive markets in the Union, in which undertakings compete more on their merits and without company-erected barriers to market entry, enabling them to generate wealth and create jobs.
Učinkovito uveljavljanje členov 101 in 102 PDEU je nujno, da se zagotovijo bolj pošteni in bolj odprti konkurenčni trgi v Uniji, na katerih si podjetja v prvi vrsti konkurirajo glede na svojo uspešnost in brez ovir za vstop na trg, ki jih postavljajo podjetja sama, kar jim omogoča ustvarjanje blaginje in delovnih mest.
It protects consumers and undertakings active on the internal market from business practices that keep the prices of goods and services artificially high and enhances their choice of innovative goods and services.
S tem se ščitijo potrošniki in podjetja, ki poslujejo na notranjem trgu, pred poslovnimi praksami, ki ohranjajo umetno visoke cene blaga in storitev, ter se povečuje njihova izbira inovativnega blaga in storitev.
The public enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU is carried out by the national competition authorities (NCAs) of the Member States in parallel to the Commission pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Uveljavljanje členov 101 in 102 PDEU v javnem interesu zagotavljajo nacionalni organi, pristojni za konkurenco (NOK), v državah članicah vzporedno s Komisijo v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003.
Together, the NCAs and the Commission form a network of public authorities that apply the Union competition rules in close cooperation (the ‘European Competition Network’).
NOK in Komisija skupaj sestavljajo mrežo javnih organov, ki v tesnem sodelovanju uporabljajo pravila konkurence Unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Evropska mreža za konkurenco).
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 obliges NCAs and national courts to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to agreements, to decisions by associations of undertakings, to concerted practices or to the abuse of a dominant position which are capable of affecting trade between Member States.
S členom 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 so NOK in nacionalna sodišča obvezani, da uporabijo člena 101 in 102 PDEU za sporazume, sklepe podjetniških združenj, usklajena ravnanja ali zlorabo prevladujočega položaja, ki lahko vplivajo na trgovanje med državami članicami.
In practice, most NCAs apply national competition law in parallel to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
V praksi večina NOK uporablja nacionalno konkurenčno pravo vzporedno s členoma 101 in 102 PDEU.
Therefore, this Directive, the objective of which is to ensure that NCAs have the guarantees of independence, resources, and enforcement and fining powers necessary to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU effectively, inevitably has an impact on national competition law when it is applied in parallel by NCAs.
Zato je neizogibno, da ima ta direktiva, katere cilj je zagotoviti, da bodo imeli NOK jamstva za neodvisno delovanje, vire ter pooblastila za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence in izrek glob, ki so potrebne za učinkovito uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU, vpliv na nacionalno konkurenčno pravo, kadar ga vzporedno uporabljajo NOK.
Furthermore, the application by the NCAs of national competition law to agreements, to decisions by associations of undertakings or to concerted practices, which may affect trade between Member States, should not lead to a different outcome to the one reached by the NCAs under Union law pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Poleg tega nacionalno konkurenčno pravo, ki ga NOK uporabljajo za sporazume, sklepe podjetniških združenj ali usklajena ravnanja, ki lahko vplivajo na trgovanje med državami članicami, ne bi smelo privesti do drugačnega izida, kot je izid, ki ga dosežejo NOK v skladu s pravom Unije na podlagi člena 3(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003.
Therefore, in such cases of parallel application of national competition law and Union law, it is essential that the NCAs have the same guarantees of independence, resources, and enforcement and fining powers necessary to ensure that a different outcome is not reached.
Zato je v takih primerih vzporedne uporabe nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava in prava Unije nujno, da imajo NOK enaka jamstva za neodvisno delovanje, vire ter pooblastila za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence in izrek glob, kot so potrebna za zagotovitev, da ne bo dosežen drugačen izid.
Moreover, providing NCAs with the power to obtain all information related to the undertaking subject to the investigation, including in digital form, irrespective of the medium on which it is stored, would also affect the scope of the NCAs' powers when, at the early stages of their proceedings, they take the relevant investigative measure on the basis of national competition law applied in parallel to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
Poleg tega bi pooblastilo NOK, da lahko v zvezi s podjetjem, ki je predmet preiskave, pridobijo vse informacije, vključno v digitalni obliki, ne glede na nosilec, na katerem so shranjene, vplivalo tudi na obseg pooblastil NOK, kadar v začetnih fazah njihovega postopka sprejmejo zadevni preiskovalni ukrep na podlagi nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava, ki se uporablja vzporedno s členoma 101 in 102 PDEU.
Providing NCAs with inspection powers of a different scope, depending on whether they will ultimately apply only national competition law or also apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in parallel, would hamper the effectiveness of competition law enforcement in the internal market.
Če bi se NOK podelila preiskovalna pooblastila, ki bi se razlikovala v obsegu glede na to, ali bodo v končni fazi uporabljali le nacionalno konkurenčno pravo ali pa bodo vzporedno uporabljali tudi člena 101 in 102 PDEU, bi se oviralo učinkovito uveljavljanje konkurenčnega prava na notranjem trgu.
Accordingly, the scope of the Directive should cover both the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU on a stand-alone basis and the parallel application of national competition law to the same case.
Zato bi moralo področje uporabe te direktive zajemati uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU na samostojni osnovi in vzporedno uporabo nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava v isti zadevi.
As regards the protection of leniency statements and settlement submissions, this Directive should also cover the application of national competition law on a stand-alone basis.
V zvezi z zaščito izjav za prizanesljivost in vlog za poravnavo bi morala ta direktiva zajemati tudi uporabo nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava na samostojni osnovi.
National law prevents many NCAs from having the necessary guarantees of independence, resources, and enforcement and fining powers to be able to enforce Union competition rules effectively.
Nacionalno pravo številnim NOK preprečuje, da bi imeli potrebna jamstva za neodvisno delovanje, vire ter pooblastila za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence in izrek glob, s katerimi bi lahko pravila konkurence Unije učinkovito uveljavljali.
This undermines their ability to effectively apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and to apply national competition law in parallel to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
To slabi njihovo zmožnost za učinkovito uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU ter za uporabo nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava vzporedno s členoma 101 in 102 PDEU.
For example, under national law many NCAs do not have effective tools to find evidence of infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU or to fine undertakings which break the law, or do not have adequate human and financial resources and operational independence to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU effectively.
Na podlagi nacionalnega prava na primer mnogi NOK nimajo učinkovitih orodij za pridobivanje dokazov o kršitvah členov 101 in 102 PDEU ali za izrek glob podjetjem, ki pravo kršijo, ali pa nimajo ustreznih človeških in finančnih virov ter neodvisnosti delovanja, ki bi jih potrebovali za učinkovito uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU.
This is capable of preventing NCAs from taking any action at all or limiting their enforcement actions.
Zaradi tega zadevni organi morda sploh ne morejo ukrepati ali pa so njihovi ukrepi za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence omejeni.
The lack of guarantees of independence, resources, and enforcement and fining powers for many NCAs to be able to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU effectively means that undertakings engaging in anti-competitive practices might face very different outcomes in proceedings, depending on the Member State in which they are active.
Ker veliko NOK nima jamstev za neodvisno delovanje, virov ter pooblastil za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence in izrek glob, da bi lahko učinkovito uporabljali člena 101 in 102 PDEU, so izidi postopkov za podjetja, ki so udeležena pri teh protikonkurenčnih ravnanjih, lahko zelo različni in so odvisni od države članice, v kateri ta podjetja poslujejo.
They might be subject to no enforcement under Article 101 or 102 TFEU or they might only be subject to ineffective enforcement.
Morda se zanje pravila iz členov 101 in 102 PDEU ne bodo uveljavljala ali pa bo uveljavljanje neučinkovito.
For example, in some Member States, undertakings can escape liability for fines simply by restructuring.
V nekaterih državah članicah se lahko podjetja na primer izognejo obveznosti plačila glob zgolj s prestrukturiranjem.
Uneven enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, whether applied on a stand-alone basis or in parallel with national competition law, results in missed opportunities to remove barriers to market entry and to create fairer competitive markets throughout the Union where undertakings compete on their merits.
Posledice neenakega uveljavljanja členov 101 in 102 PDEU, če se uporabljata na samostojni osnovi ali pa vzporedno z nacionalnim konkurenčnim pravom, so neizkoriščene priložnosti za odpravo ovir za vstop na trg in za vzpostavitev bolj poštenih konkurenčnih trgov po vsej Uniji, na katerih podjetja konkurirajo glede na svojo uspešnost.
Undertakings and consumers particularly suffer in those Member States where NCAs are less equipped to be effective enforcers.
To vpliva na podjetja in potrošnike zlasti v tistih državah članicah, kjer so NOK slabše opremljeni za učinkovito uveljavljanje pravil konkurence.
Undertakings cannot compete on the merits if there are safe havens for anti-competitive practices, for example, because evidence of anti-competitive practices cannot be collected or because undertakings are able to escape liability for fines.
Podjetja ne morejo konkurirati glede na svojo uspešnost, če obstajajo varna zatočišča za protikonkurenčna ravnanja, na primer zato, ker ni mogoče pridobiti dokazov za protikonkurenčna ravnanja ali ker se lahko podjetja izognejo obveznosti za plačilo glob.
Undertakings therefore have a disincentive to enter such markets, to exercise their rights of establishment, and to provide goods and services there.
To podjetja odvrača od vstopa na takšne trge, uveljavljanja svojih pravic do ustanavljanja ter zagotavljanja blaga in storitev na teh trgih.
Consumers based in Member States where there is less enforcement miss out on the benefits of effective competition enforcement.
Potrošniki iz držav članic, v katerih je manj uveljavljanja pravil konkurence, niso deležni koristi učinkovitega uveljavljanja pravil konkurence.
Uneven enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, whether applied on a stand-alone basis or in parallel with national competition law, throughout the Union thus distorts competition in the internal market and undermines its proper functioning.
Zaradi neenakega uveljavljanja členov 101 in 102 PDEU, če se uporabljata na samostojni osnovi ali pa vzporedno z nacionalnim konkurenčnim pravom, po vsej Uniji se izkrivlja konkurenca na notranjem trgu in slabi njegovo pravilno delovanje.
Gaps and limitations in the tools and guarantees of NCAs undermine the system of parallel powers for the enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which is designed to work as a cohesive whole based on close cooperation within the European Competition Network.
Vrzeli in omejitve pri orodjih in jamstvih NOK slabijo sistem vzporednih pooblastil za uveljavljanje členov 101 in 102 PDEU, ki po zasnovi deluje kot skladna celota na podlagi tesnega sodelovanja v okviru Evropske mreže za konkurenco.
This system depends on authorities being able to rely on each other to carry out fact-finding measures on each other's behalf in order to foster cooperation and mutual assistance among the Member States.
Ta sistem je odvisen od tega, ali se lahko organi medsebojno zanesejo, da bodo izvedli ukrepe za ugotavljanje dejstev v imenu drug drugega, da bi spodbudili sodelovanje in medsebojno pomoč med državami članicami.
However, it does not work well when there are still NCAs that do not have adequate fact-finding tools.
Vendar to načelo ne deluje najbolje, dokler nekateri NOK še vedno nimajo na voljo ustreznih orodij za ugotavljanje dejstev.
In other key respects, NCAs are not able to provide each other with mutual assistance.
Kar zadeva druge ključne vidike, si NOK ne morejo nuditi medsebojne pomoči.
For example, in the majority of Member States, undertakings that operate across borders are able to evade paying fines simply by not having a legal presence in some of the territories of Member States in which they are active.
V večini držav članic se lahko na primer podjetja, ki poslujejo čezmejno, plačilu glob izognejo preprosto tako, da niso pravno prisotna na nekaterih ozemljih držav članic, v katerih poslujejo.
This reduces incentives to comply with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
To zmanjšuje spodbude za spoštovanje členov 101 in 102 PDEU.
The resulting ineffective enforcement distorts competition for law-abiding undertakings and undermines consumer confidence in the internal market, particularly in the digital environment.
Posledično neučinkovito uveljavljanje pravil konkurence izkrivlja konkurenco za podjetja, ki spoštujejo zakone, in spodkopava zaupanje potrošnikov v notranji trg, zlasti v digitalnem okolju.
In order to ensure a truly common competition enforcement area in the Union that provides a more even level playing field for undertakings operating in the internal market and reduces unequal conditions for consumers, there is a need to put in place fundamental guarantees of independence, adequate financial, human, technical and technological resources and minimum enforcement and fining powers for applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and for applying national competition law in parallel to those Articles so that national administrative competition authorities can be fully effective.
Da se zagotovi resnično skupno območje uveljavljanja pravil konkurence v Uniji, ki zagotavlja bolj enakovredne konkurenčne pogoje za podjetja, ki poslujejo na notranjem trgu, in zmanjšuje neenake pogoje za potrošnike, je treba za uporabo členov 101 in 102 PDEU, ter za uporabo nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava vzporedno z navedenima členoma, vzpostaviti temeljna jamstva za neodvisno delovanje, ustrezne finančne, človeške, tehnične in tehnološke vire ter minimalna pooblastila za uveljavljanje pravil konkurence in izrek glob, da bodo lahko nacionalni upravni organi, pristojni za konkurenco, popolnoma učinkoviti.
It is appropriate to base this Directive on the dual legal basis of Articles 103 and 114 TFEU.
Primerno je, da ta direktiva temelji na dvojni pravni podlagi, in sicer členih 103 in 114 PDEU.