natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na podlagi pozitivnih ugotovitev delovne skupine za schengensko evalvacijo je Svet 9. junija 2011 sklenil, da Romunija in Bolgarija izpolnjujeta vse pogoje, ki jih določa schengenski pravni red.
Following the positive conclusions of the SCH-EVAL Working Group, the Council decided on 9 June 2011 that Romania and Bulgaria meet all the conditions provided by the Schengen acquis.
Tudi Parlament je v svoji resoluciji z dne 8. junija, ki jo je sprejela velika večina, potrdil, da sta državi pripravljeni na vstop v schengensko območje.
Parliament also certified, through a resolution adopted on 8 June 2011 by a large majority, that the two States are ready to enter the Schengen area.
Kljub temu je Svet za Pravosodje in notranje zadeve 22. junija sklenil, da bo sklep o pristopu Romunije in Bolgarije v schengensko območje prestavil na neznani datum zaradi nasprotovanja dveh držav članic, ki trdita, da bi državi kandidatki morali izpolniti dodatna merila, ki jih schengenski pravni red ne predvideva.
In spite of all this, the JHA Council of 22 June 2011 decided to postpone to an unknown date the decision regarding Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to Schengen, due to the opposition of two Member States which claim that the two candidate countries need to fulfil additional criteria which are not mentioned in the Schengen acquis.
Ali Svet meni, da je pošteno in razumno uporabiti dodatna merila, ki od začetka niso bila predvidena, in ki za prejšnje pristope niso veljala?
Does the Council believe it is fair and judicious to apply extra criteria which were not foreseen from the beginning and which were not applied to the earlier accessions?
Ali lahko Svet navede, katera so dodatna merila, ki jih morata izpolniti Romunija in Bolgarija, in kaj je pravna podlaga zanje?
Can the Council indicate what further criteria have to be met by Romania and Bulgaria and what would be the legal basis for these criteria?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000224/2011
Question for oral answer O-000224/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Pridružitev Bolgarije in Romunije k schengenskemu območju
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen
Vzpostavitev schengenskega območja in vključitev schengenskega pravnega reda v okvir EU je eden največjih dosežkov evropskega integracijskega procesa, ki neposredno zadeva državljane.
The creation of the Schengen area and the integration of the Schengen acquis into the EU framework is one of the greatest achievements of the European integration process that directly affects the European citizen.
V zadnjih letih sta se Romunija in Bolgarija zelo prizadevali za pridružitev shengenskemu območju, in po poročilih strokovnjakov uspešno zaključili postopek schengenske evalvacije.
In recent years Romania and Bulgaria have made a huge effort to join the Schengen area and, according to the experts’ reports, they have successfully concluded the Schengen evaluation process.
Tako Parlament v svoji resoluciji z dne 8. junija 2011 kot tudi Svet v svojih sklepih z dne 9. junija 2011 sta potrdila pripravljenost obeh držav na pridružitev k schengenskemu območju.
Parliament in its resolution of 8 June 11 and the Council Conclusions of 9 June 11 certified the preparedness of both countries to join the Schengen area.
Nato pa sta se dve državi članici med zasedanjem Sveta za Pravosodje in notranje zadeve 22. septembra 2011 odločili zaustaviti ta prizadevanja in sprejem odločitve je bil odložen za nedoločen čas.
Then, during the last JHA Council of 22 September 11, two Member States decided to block these aspirations and the decision was indefinitely postponed.
Ali Svet meni, da je pošteno uporabiti dodatna merila, ki od začetka niso bila predvidena?
Does the Council believe it is fair to apply extra criteria that were not foreseen from the beginning?
Zlasti, če upoštevamo, da se ta nova merila razlikujejo od meril, ki so veljala za prejšnje pristope?
Especially if we take into account that these new criteria are different from the criteria which were applied to earlier accessions?
Ali Svet meni, da je spoštoval svoje zakonske obveznosti glede odločitve o pridružitvi dveh držav kandidatk takoj, ko bosta ti izpolnili merila?
Does the Council consider that it has respected its legal obligation to decide on the accession of the two candidate countries as soon as they meet the criteria?
Kateri bodo naslednji koraki Sveta?
What are the next steps that the Council intends to take?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000225/2011
Question for oral answer O-000225/2011
Tako Parlament v svoji resoluciji z dne 8. junija 2011 kot tudi Svet v svojih sklepih z dne 9. junija 2011 sta potrdila pripravljenost obeh držav na pridružitev k schengenskemu območju.
Parliament in its resolution of 8 June 2011 and the Council Conclusions of 9 June 11 certified the preparedness of both countries to join the Schengen area.
Ali Komisija meni, da je pošteno uporabiti dodatna merila, ki od začetka niso bila predvidena?
Does the Commission believe it is fair to apply extra criteria that were not foreseen from the beginning?
Ali Komisija meni, da je spoštovala svoje zakonske obveznosti glede odločitve o pridružitvi dveh držav kandidatk takoj, ko bosta ti izpolnili merila?
Does the Commission consider that the legal obligation to decide on the accession of the two candidate countries as soon as they meet the criteria has been respected?
Kateri bodo naslednji koraki Komisije?
What are the next steps that the Commission intends to take?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000226/2011
Question for oral answer O-000226/2011
Zadeva: Posodobitev zakonodaje o DDV za okrepitev enotnega digitalnega trga
Subject: Modernisation of the VAT legislation in order to boost the digital single market
Enotni digitalni trg je še vedno razdrobljen, deloma zaradi davkov na potrošnjo, ki se uporabljajo za izdelke in storitve.
The digital single market remains fragmented, partly due to the consumption taxes applying to goods and services.
Komisija trenutno razpravlja o prihodnosti DDV, pri čemer bi morala upoštevati cilje strategije EU 2020.
The Commission is currently reflecting on the future of VAT, and the goals set out in the EU 2020 Strategy should be taken into account.
Besedilo Priloge 3 k Direktivi 2006/112/ES ovira razvoj novih digitalnih storitev.
The current wording of Annex 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC is a barrier to the development of new digital services.
Med najbolj presenetljive primere spada davčna stopnja za knjige.
The rules applying to books are one of the most striking examples.
Po sedanji zakonodaji lahko države članice uporabljajo znižane davčne stopnje za dobavo knjig v vseh fizičnih oblikah, za e-knjige pa lahko velja standardna stopnja DDV, ki znaša najmanj 15 odstotkov.
Under the current legal framework, Member States may apply reduced rates for the supply of books on all physical means, while e-books might be subject to a standard VAT rate of at least 15 percent.
Evropska unija bi lahko državam članicam dovolila, da za elektronske storitve s kulturno vsebino začasno uporabljajo zmanjšano stopnjo DDV, s čimer bi omogočila razvoj dejanskega enotnega digitalnega trga.
For the development of a genuine digital single market, the European Union could allow Member States to apply, on a temporary basis, a reduced VAT rate for electronically supplied services of cultural content.
Ta nova kategorija, ki bi jo vključili v Prilogo 3 Direktive 2006/112/ES, bi vsebovala določbo o dobavi spletnih storitev (na primer televizija, glasba, knjige ali tisk) s strani izvajalcev s sedežem v EU osebam, ki niso davčni zavezanci in imajo prav tako sedež v EU.
This new category, which would be included in Annex 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC, could cover the provision of online services such as TV, music, books or press, by a supplier established within the EU to any non-taxable person also established within the EU.
Neodvisna študija, ki jo je naročil GD TAXUD, to zamisel podpira, saj izkazuje pomen razširitve uporabe zmanjšanih stopenj DDV na kulturne dobrine in sektorje, v katerih je potrošnja manjša.
An independent study commissioned by DG TAXUD supports this idea as it demonstrated the importance of extending reduced VAT rates to cultural goods and sectors that are under-consumed.
Ali namerava Komisija predlagati revizijo Priloge 3 Direktive 2006/112/ES, da bi uskladila dobavo blaga in elektronskih storitev in pri tem posebno pozornost namenila knjigam, s čimer bi preprečila razlikovanje med spletnim in nespletnim razširjanjem del?
Does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Annex 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC to align the supply of goods and the supply of electronic services, paying particular attention to books, in order to avoid any discrimination between offline and online dissemination of works?
Ali namerava predlagati revizijo Direktive 2008/8/ES v zvezi s krajem dobave storitev, da bi upoštevala načela, sprejeta v okviru OECD, pred 1. januarjem 2015?
Does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Directive 2008/8/EC as regards the place of supply of services, in order to comply with the principles agreed within the framework of the OECD before 1 January 2015?
Ali namerava predlagati revizijo Priloge 3 k Direktivi 2006/112/ES, da bi uvedla novo kategorijo elektronsko opravljenih storitev s kulturno vsebino, kar je nujni korak za uresničitev ciljev strategije EU 2020?
Does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Annex 3 of Directive 2006/112/EC in order to introduce a new category of electronically supplied services of cultural content, which is a necessary step towards the achievement of the EU 2020 Strategy goals?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000227/2011
Question for oral answer O-000227/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Dosežki in rezultati dialoga med EU in Rusijo o človekovih pravicah
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Achievements and results of the EU-Russia Human Rights Dialogue
Prvi krog dialoga med EU in Rusijo o človekovih pravicah je potekal že leta 2005, ta posvetovanja pa so postala del odnosov EU z Rusko federacijo.
The first round of the EU-Russia Human Rights dialogue took place in 2005 and these consultations have become a part of the EU’s relations with the Russian Federation.
Od leta 2005 EU in Rusija uresničujeta številne pobude za ponovno vzpostavitev in spodbujanje njunih odnosov, pogajanja o novem sporazumu o sodelovanju pa kljub temu le počasi napredujejo.
Since 2005 the EU and Russia have embarked on a number of initiatives to relaunch and boost their relations, although the negotiations for a new cooperation agreement advance slowly.
Evropski parlament je večkrat pozval k okrepitvi dialoga med EU in Rusijo o človekovih pravicah in da se ta proces dejansko odpre za prispevke Evropskega parlamenta in ruske dume s sodelovanjem ustreznih generalnih direktoratov in ministrstev za pravosodje ter notranje in zunanje zadeve v Bruslju in Moskvi.
The European Parliament has repeatedly called for reinforcement of the EU-Russia Human Rights Dialogue and for this process to be opened to effective input from the European Parliament, the State Duma, and the involvement of the respective directorates-general and ministries responsible for justice, internal affairs and foreign affairs in both Brussels and Moscow.
Evropski parlament je tudi pozval k večji vključenosti civilne družbe, nevladnih organizacij in organizacij za človekove pravice v dialog o človekovih pravicah.
The European Parliament has equally demanded that civil society, NGOs and human rights organisations should be more involved in the Human Rights Dialogue.
Poleg tega je Evropski parlament lani sprejel proračunski pilotni projekt za ustanovitev foruma civilne družbe v zvezi z vrhunskimi srečanji med EU in Rusijo, ki potekajo dvakrat na leto.
In addition, the European Parliament last year adopted a budgetary pilot project in favour of setting up a civil society forum in connection with the biannual EU-Russia Summits.
Katere ukrepe je sprejela visoka predstavnica/podpredsednica Komisije, da bi okrepila in odprla dialog med EU in Rusijo o človekovih pravicah za vse zainteresirane strani, zlasti za organizacije civilne družbe?
What measures has the HR/VP taken to reinforce and open up the EU-Russia Human Rights Dialogue to all stakeholders, in particular civil society organisations?
Kakšne konkretne rezultate je dialog o človekovih pravicah doslej obrodil ter kaj Evropska služba za zunanje delovanje in visoka predstavnica pričakujeta od njega?
What concrete results has the Human Rights Dialogue yielded so far and what expectations do the EEAS and the HR have on this dialogue?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000228/2011
Question for oral answer O-000228/2011
Države članice EU so pomembne izvoznice orožja..
EU Member States are significant arms exporters.
Med desetimi največjimi izvozniki orožja na svetu jih kar sedem prihaja iz EU.
Seven of the ten biggest arms exporters in the world come from the EU.
Zadnja leta so številne države EU izvažale orožje in oborožitveno tehnologijo v Severno Afriko in na Bližnji vzhod (vključno z Libijo, Egiptom, Tunizijo, Jemnom in Bahrajnom); Italija in Francija pa sta orožje v Libijo izvažali vse do leta 2010.
In recent years numerous EU countries have exported arms and arms technologies to North Africa and to the Middle East (including Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain), and Italy and France exported arms to Libya as late as 2010.
OZN, ki pripravlja svetovno pogodbo o prodaji orožja, bo leta 2012 organiziral konferenco o tej pogodbi.
The UN is in the process of preparing a global arms trade treaty and will hold a conference on the treaty in 2012.
Do sedaj se je sestala dvakrat, naslednje srečanje pa bo potekalo julija letos.
The working group has now met twice and will meet again in July this year.
Skupno stališče EU o nadzoru izvoza vojaške tehnologije in opreme iz leta 2008 ne vsebuje členov o korupciji.
The EU Common Position on Control of Exports of Military Technology and Equipment (2008) does not include any articles on corruption.
Katere so prednostne naloge EU glede svetovne pogodbe o prodaji orožja?
What are the EU’s priorities for the global arms trade treaty?
Kako namerava EU v svetovni pogodbi o prodaji orožja zagotoviti zadostna merila o korupciji?
How will the EU ensure that sufficient criteria are included in the global arms trade treaty concerning corruption?
Ali bo Evropska služba za zunanje delovanje/Komisija pripravila skupno stališče EU o korupciji pri prodaji orožja in ali take priprave že potekajo?
Will the EEAS / Commission prepare a common EU position on corruption in the arms trade, or are any such preparations under way?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000229/2011
Question for oral answer O-000229/2011
v imenu Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve Zadeva: Združljivost davčnega sporazuma med Nemčijo in Švico ter davčnega sporazuma med Združenim kraljestvom in Švico z direktivo EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov
on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Subject: Compatibility of the German and British Tax Agreements with Switzerland with the EU Savings Tax Directive
Nemčija in Združeno kraljestvo sta nedavno podpisala dvostranska davčna sporazuma s Švico.
Both Germany and the UK recently signed bilateral tax agreements with Switzerland.
V skladu s sporazumom med Nemčijo in Švico se zaračuna končni davčni odtegljaj na prihodke od prihrankov, naložb itn. nemških državljanov s švicarskim računom (člen 18).
Pursuant to the DE-CH agreement, a final withholding tax will be charged on income from savings, investments etc. of German citizens with Swiss accounts (Art. 18).
V sporazumu sta predvidena enkratno plačilo za izgubo dohodkov, ki ga bodo najprej plačale švicarske banke, ter tekoči davek na obresti in donos na kapital.
The agreement provides for both a one-off payment for lost income in the past, paid initially by Swiss banks, and an ongoing tax on interest and return on capital.
Vendar bo davčni odtegljaj vrnjen anonimno zaradi zaščite švicarske bančne tajnosti.
However, the withholding tax will be returned anonymously, thereby protecting Swiss banking secrecy.
Podobne sporazume bodo morda predvidele tudi druge države članice, Francija in Španija o tem že razmišljata.
Other Member States might envisage similar agreements, with France and Spain currently considering it.
Ali Komisija meni, da je davčni sporazum med Nemčijo in Švico, v katerem je predvidena stopnja davčnega odtegljaja 26,375% (člen 18), združljiv z direktivo EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov in Sporazumom med ES in Švicarsko konfederacijo o ukrepih, enakovrednih tistim iz direktive EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov, v katerem je predviden 35-odstotni davčni odtegljaj?
Does the Commission consider the German-Swiss Tax Agreement, which provides for a withholding tax rate of 26.375% (Art.18), as compatible with the EUSTD and the Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in the EUSTD, which provides for a withholding tax of 35%?
Ali je kreditni sistem iz člena 20 sporazuma zadosten tudi v primerjavi s pristopom Združenega kraljestva z 48-odstotnim davčnim odtegljajem?
Is the credit system provided for in Art. 20 of the agreement sufficient, also in comparison to the UK approach of a 48% withholding tax?
Ali je Komisija lahko ocenila pogoje iz sporazuma med Združenim kraljestvom in Švico in če jih je, kako ocenjuje določbe sporazuma?
Has the Commission been able to evaluate the terms of the agreement reached between the UK and Switzerland and, if so, how does it evaluate the provisions of the agreement?
Kako ta sporazum po mnenju Komisije vpliva na tekoča pogajanja o direktivi EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov v Svetu in bolj splošno, kako se ta sporazum sklada z napovedanim ciljem intenzivnejšega davčnega usklajevanja med državami članicami na ravni EU?
How does the Commission see this agreement affecting the ongoing negotiations on the EUSTD in the Council, and more globally, how does this agreement fit into the proclaimed aim of stronger tax coordination between Member States at EU level?
Ali Komisija in druge države članice sporazum razumejo kot oviro za napredek razvoja direktive EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov?
Do the Commission or other Member States regard the agreement as an obstacle to the progress of the EUSTD development?
Kako bo Komisija ukrepala, da bi zaščitila določbe direktive EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov in napredovala pri spremembi te direktive?
What action will the Commission take to defend the provisions of the EUSTD and make progress with its revision?
Ali imajo države članice pristojnost glede pogajanj o takšnih dvostranskih sporazumih, čeprav so v direktivi EU o obdavčitvi dohodka od prihrankov že določena pravila za to zadevo?
Do the Member States have the competence to negotiate such bilateral agreements despite the EUSTD already providing for rules for the same subject matter?
Ali Komisija meni, da bi morala imeti večjo vlogo v predhodni kontroli dvostranskih davčnih sporazumov med državami članicami in tretjimi državami?
Does the Commission consider that it should have a stronger role in the ex ante control of bilateral tax agreements between Member States and third countries?
Ali je Komisija sodelovala pri pogajanjih med Nemčijo/Združenim kraljestvom in Švico in ali je z njo potekalo posvetovanje?
Has the Commission been involved or consulted in the negotiations between Germany/ the UK and Switzerland?
Ali si bo Komisija prizadevala za sodelovanje ali posvetovanje pri prihodnjih pogajanjih s tretjimi državami na to temo?
Will the Commission seek to be involved or consulted in upcoming further negotiations with other third countries in this context?
Kako se sporazum sklada s členom 26 vzorčne konvencije OECD in ali ovira razvoj avtomatske izmenjave podatkov o davčnih zadevah?
How does the agreement relate to Art. 26 OECD Model and does it curb the development of automatic exchange of information in tax matters?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000230/2011
Question for oral answer O-000230/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Uporaba načela subsidiarnosti po Lizbonski pogodbi
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Use of the subsidiarity principle after the Lisbon Treaty
Od 1. decembra 2009 imajo parlamenti držav članic pravico, da predsednika Komisije obvestijo, če po njihovem mnenju določen zakonodajni akt EU ni v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti.
Since 1 December 2009 the parliaments of the Member States have had the right to notify the President of the Commission that, according to their judgment, a certain EU legislative act does not comply with the subsidiarity principle.
Ali je Komisija zadovoljna s skladno kakovostjo odziva?
Is the Commission satisfied of the consistent quality of the response?
Kakšno interno strukturo ima Komisija za utemeljena mnenja?
What internal structures does the Commission have for reasoned opinions?
Kateri (človeški) viri so na voljo Komisiji v tem oziru?
What (human) resources are available to the Commission in this regard?
Kateri institucionalizirani odnosi obstajajo med Komisijo in Odborom regij v zvezi z obravnavo vprašanj subsidiarnosti?
What institutionalised relations exist between the Commission and the Committee of the Regions (CoR) concerning the treatment of subsidiarity questions?
- Kako vidi Komisija vlogo regionalnih nacionalnih organov in Odbora regij pri izvajanju načela subsidiarnosti?
- How does the Commission see the role of the sub-national regional authorities and the CoR in the implementation of the subsidiarity principle?
- Katere možnosti vidi Komisija glede na omrežje za nadzor subsidiarnosti v Odboru regij za sodelovanje z regionalnimi organi, ki imajo zakonodajno pristojnost?
- With regard to the 'subsidiarity monitoring networks' in the CoR, what possibilities does the Commission see for cooperation with the regional authorities that have legislative competence?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000231/2011
Question for oral answer O-000231/2011
Komisija je 15. februarja predložila sporočilo o programu Evropske unije za pavice otrok.
On 15 February the Commission presented a Communication on the European Union’s Programme on children's rights.
V programu je opisanih 11 konkretnih ukrepov, ki jih v naslednjih letih namerava sprejeti Komisija, da bi zagotovila večjo zaščito otrok, spodbudila politike za varovanje njihovega zdravja, olajšala dostop do pravnega varstva, zagotovila jamstva za mladoletnike iz tretjih držav brez spremstva in spodbudila učinkovito udeležbo otrok v zadevah, ki jih neposredno zadevajo, kakor je predvideno v evropski strategiji za otroke.
The programme outlines 11 concrete actions that the Commission intends to adopt in the coming years to ensure greater protection for children, promote policies to protect their health, facilitate access to justice, to provide guarantees for unaccompanied minors from third countries and promote children’s effective involvement in the matters that directly concern them, as provided for in the European Strategy on Children.
Institucije so zavezane spodbujati pravice otrok tudi na podlagi Lizbonske pogodbe, Listine o temeljnih pravicah in strategije Evropa 2020, zato je treba cilje politike čim prej prenesti v konkretne ukrepe.
The commitment of the institutions to promote children's rights is also set out in the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Europe 2020, underlining the need to translate policy objectives into concrete actions as soon as possible.
Ali lahko Komisija na podlagi tega:
Accordingly, could the Commission:
1. navede, ali se v 27 državah članicah zbirajo uradni in primerljivi podatki o otrocih;
1. state whether official and comparable data on children is being collected in the 27 Member States;
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000232/2011
Question for oral answer O-000232/2011
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE Zadeva: Tveganje smrtne kazni v ZDA za žrtve izrednih izročitev in skrivnih zaporov CIE na Poljskem
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Subject: Risk of the death penalty in the US for victims of CIA extraordinary renditions and secret prisons in Poland