natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Po drugi strani lokalni oblikovalci politike v evropskih mestih in regijah pri pripravi lokalnih kulturnih politik nosijo odgovornost tudi na evropski ravni.
On the other hand, local policy-makers in European cities and regions also bear Europe-wide responsibility when preparing local cultural policies.
Ker so kulturni projekti, ki temeljijo na zavzetosti in ustvarjalnosti javnosti, posebej učinkoviti na regionalni in lokalni ravni ob hkratni krepitvi tega potenciala, ali bi nas Komisija lahko informirala o naslednjem:
Since culture projects based on engagement of the public and its creativity appear to be particularly effective at regional and local level, while at the same time strengthening its potential, could the Commission say:
Kdaj bo Komisija predstavila zeleno knjigo, v kateri bodo navedene možne kulturne dejavnosti, katerih namen bo krepitev razvoja evropskih regij?
when it is going to present the Green Paper with a possible range of actions for cultural activities aimed at strengthening development in European regions?
Ali in kako bo Komisija podprla regionalne konference skupaj z regionalnimi organi in lokalno civilno družbo?
whether and, if so, how it is going to support regional conferences, together with regional authorities and the local civil society?
Katere konkretne ukrepe Komisija načrtuje za vključitev civilne družbe v pripravo in izvajanje kulturnih projektov?
what concrete measures it is planning so as to engage civil society actors in preparation for and implementation of cultural projects?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0065/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0065/09
Zadeva: Šestmesečna ocena dialoga med EU in Belorusijo
Subject: Six-month evaluation of EU-Belarus dialogue
Kakšen napredek je vlada Belorusije dosegla na naslednjih področjih:
What is the progress achieved by the government of Belarus in the following areas:
– reforma beloruske volilne zakonodaje, da se zagotovi zajamčeno zastopstvo pripadnikov opozicije v volilnih komisijah na vseh ravneh ter da se zagotovi preglednost in odgovornost pri štetju glasov;
– reform of Belarus´ electoral legislation to provide guaranteed representation of opposition members on election commissions at all levels and to ensure the transparency and accountability of the vote count;
– zagotavljanje enakih pravic za vse medijske hiše z odpravo prepovedi razširjanja neodvisnih tiskanih medijev prek distribucijskih omrežij Sajuzdruk (mreža kioskov) in državne poštne službe Belpošta, ki sta v lasti države; razveljavitev členov 367, 368, 369, 369-1 kazenskega zakonika, ki se pogosto zlorabljajo za preganjanje novinarjev zaradi njihove poklicne dejavnosti;
– providing equal rights to all media outlets by lifting the ban on dissemination of independent print media through the state-owned distribution networks of ”Sayuzdruk” (system of kiosks) and the Belarusian state postal service ”Belposhta”; repealing Articles 367, 368, 369, and 369(1) of the Criminal Code, which are often misused to persecute journalists for their professional activity;
– zagotavljanje svobode združevanja in zbiranja z razveljavitvijo člena 193-1 kazenskega zakonika, ki predvideva kazensko odgovornost za dejavnosti v imenu neregistriranih javnih združenj, političnih strank in ustanov;
– guaranteeing freedom of association and assembly by repealing Article 193(1) of the Criminal Code on criminal liability in respect of activity on behalf of unregistered public associations, political parties, and foundations;
– zagotavljanje političnih pravic in svoboščin s prenehanjem politično motiviranega odpuščanja z delovnih mest in univerz; prenehanje preganjanja zaradi izogibanja služenju vojaškega roka proti študentom, ki so bili izključeni z univerz zaradi svojih državljanskih stališč?
– guaranteeing political rights and freedoms by discontinuing the practice of politically motivated dismissals from jobs and universities and stopping persecution for avoiding military service against students expelled from universities for their civic stance?
Svet je sprejel odločitev, da pred koncem devetmesečnega obdobja nadaljnje prekinitve sankcij prepovedi izdajanja vizumov izvede poglobljen pregled omejevalnih ukrepov, in je – pod pogojem, da v Belorusiji pride do dodatnega napredka – pripravljen preučiti možnost odprave teh ukrepov.
The Council has decided to conduct an in-depth review of the restrictive measures by the end of the nine-month period of further suspension of the visa-ban sanctions, and, provided there are further positive developments in Belarus, is ready to consider the possibility of lifting the restrictive measures.
Kakšna so konkretna merila in referenčne vrednosti, ki jih mora spoštovati beloruska stran pri liberalizaciji političnega in družbenega življenja v državi, da bi Svet razmislil o odpravi omejevalnih ukrepov?
What are the concrete criteria and benchmarks that need to be respected by Belarus regarding liberalisation of political and social life in the country for the Council to consider lifting the restrictive measures?
Svet je še vedno pripravljen poglobiti svoje odnose z Belorusijo, odvisno od njenega napredka v smeri demokracije, človekovih pravic in pravne države.
The Council remains ready to deepen its relations with Belarus, subject to the progress made by Belarus on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Katere spodbude bi bil Svet pripravljen ponuditi beloruski strani, da bi ji pomagal pri izpolnitvi teh ciljev?
What kind of incentives would the Council be willing to offer Belarus in order to help it attain these objectives?
Ali Svet razmišlja o načrtu ukrepov, ki bi pospešili proces ponovne vključitve Belorusije v evropsko družino demokratičnih držav?
Is the Council considering a plan of action that would speed up the process of Belarus' reintegration into the European family of democratic nations?
Ali Svet razmišlja o tem, da bi Belorusijo povabil na majski forum vzhodnega partnerstva?
Is the Council considering inviting Belarus to the Eastern Partnership forum in May?
Kakšni so pogoji za takšno povabilo?
What are the conditions for such an invitation?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0066/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0066/09
Kakšna so konkretna merila in referenčne vrednosti, ki jih mora spoštovati beloruska stran pri liberalizaciji političnega in družbenega življenja v državi, da bi razmislili o odpravi omejevalnih ukrepov?
What are the concrete criteria and benchmarks that need to be respected by Belarus regarding liberalisation of political and social life in the country for consideration of lifting the restrictive measures?
Katere spodbude bi bila Komisija pripravljena ponuditi beloruski strani, da bi pomagala pri njenem napredovanju v smeri demokracije, človekovih pravic in pravne države?
What kind of incentives would the Commission be willing to offer Belarus in order to help progress on democracy, human rights and the rule of law?
Ali Komisija razmišlja o načrtu ukrepov, ki bi pospešili proces ponovne vključitve Belorusije v evropsko družino demokratičnih držav?
Is the Commission considering a plan of action that would speed up the process of Belarus´ reintegration into the European family of democratic nations?
Ali Komisija načrtuje okrepitev svoje delegacije v Belorusiji s povečanjem števila osebja in svoji skupini v Minsku podeliti večjo odgovornost pri izvajanju politik EU do Belorusije?
Is the Commission planning to reinforce the EC delegation in Belarus by increasing the number of staff and to grant the EC Minsk team more responsibility in the implementation of the EU's policies toward Belarus?
Ali Komisija razmišlja, da bi se dejavno vključila v javni dialog in kampanjo obveščanja, s katerima bi se – prek medijev, konferenc za izmenjavo in seminarjev – beloruski javnosti in bistvenim interesnim skupinam pojasnile koristi evropskega povezovanja za Belorusijo?
Is the Commission considering actively engaging in public dialogue and information campaigns, explaining to the Belarus public and to key interest groups, through the media, exchanges, conferences and seminars, the benefits of integration into Europe for Belarus?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0067/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0067/09
Zadeva: Rose vino in dovoljeni enološki postopki
Subject: Rosé wines and permitted oenological practices
Komisija namerava v okviru razprav o predpisih, ki urejajo skupni trg za vino, umakniti besedila o enoloških postopkih, ki veljajo do 31. julija 2009, da bi odpravila prepoved mešanja belega in rdečega vina brez zaščitene označbe porekla ali zaščitene geografske označbe za proizvodnjo rose vina.
In the context of the discussion of the regulations implementing the CMO in wine, the Commission intends to rescind the provisions in force until 31 July 2009 concerning oenological practices so as to lift the ban on blending white wines with red wines without a protected designation of origin (PDI) or protected geographical indication (PGI) to produce rosé wine.
Vinarji iz številnih regij držav članic so si v zadnjih desetletjih zelo prizadevali, da bi proizvedli visokokakovostno rose vino, ki bi bilo priznano kot pristno in prilagojeno naraščajočemu povpraševanju, in so v to tudi veliko vlagali.
In recent decades, wine-growers in many regions in Member States have made considerable efforts, accompanied by substantial investment, to develop high-quality rosé wines which are recognised as such as wines in their own right and which meet a growing demand.
Ta prizadevanja so prispevala k uravnoteženju lokalnega in regionalnega gospodarstva ter prostorskega načrtovanja.
These efforts have helped to achieve balance in local and regional economies and in land use.
Strokovnjaki iz zadevnih regij so med drugim Evropskemu parlamentu prek medskupine za vinarstvo, tradicijo in kakovost izrazili globoko zaskrbljenost nad odločitvijo o dovolitvi proizvodnje poceni rose vina, kar bo imelo hude posledice za gospodarstvo, varstvo okolja in zaposlovanje.
Operators in the industry in the regions concerned have expressed their strong concern, inter alia to Parliament through the Viticulture-Tradition-Quality Intergroup, about the serious economic, ecological and employment impact of a decision which will make it possible to produce cheap rosé wine.
Ta ukrep lahko povzroči zlasti neločevanje med tradicionalnimi rose vini in mešanimi vini ter vodi do nelojalne konkurence, ki lahko onemogoči – tudi kratkoročno – tradicionalno proizvodnjo rose vina.
This measure is liable, in particular, to cause confusion between traditional rosé wines and blended wines and to give rise to unfair competition which, even in the short term, could destroy traditional production of rosé wines.
Ali je Komisija glede na te pomisleke in morebitne usodne posledice take prenagljene odločitve pripravljena:
In view of these concerns and the possible disastrous impact of a hasty decision, will the Commission:
1. to odločitev, ki naj bi bila sprejeta konec aprila, preložiti;
1. postpone the contested decision, which is scheduled for the end of April;
2. na obširno posvetovanje s strokovnjaki na tem področju na osnovi poglobljene študije o morebitnih gospodarskih, socialnih in okoljskih posledicah odprave prepovedi mešanja vin;
2. undertake a broadly-based consultation exercise with the industry on the basis of a thorough study of the possible economic, social and environmental impact of lifting the ban on blending;
3. predlagati možnosti, ki bodo omogočale večjo konkurenčnost evropskega vinogradništva in vinarstva na evropskih trgih in trgih tretjih držav ter obenem ščitile tradicionalna rose vina pred nelojalno konkurenco?
3. propose options which will make European wines more competitive on the European market and in third countries, while safeguarding traditional rosé wines against unfair competition?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0068/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0068/09
2. na obširno posvetovanje s strokovnjaki na tem področju na osnovi poglobljene študije o morebitnih gospodarskih, socialnih in okoljskih posledicah odprave prepovedi mešanja vin, zlasti ker bo takšen ukrep povzročil nelojalno konkurenco med kmetovalci, ki proizvajajo rose vino po tradicionalnih enoloških postopkih, in tistimi, ki uporabljajo druge metode;
2. undertake a broadly-based consultation exercise with the industry on the basis of a thorough study of the possible economic, social and environmental impact of lifting the ban on blending, particularly as such a measure will lead to unfair competition between growers producing rosé wine using traditional methods and those who adopt other methods;
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0069/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0069/09
Zadeva: Praksa Evropskega patentnega urada pri podeljevanju patentov za postopke za pridobivanje rastlin in živali, ki so v bistvu biološki
Subject: European Patent Office's practice with regard to granting patents for essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals
Leta 2002 je Evropski patentni urad britanskemu podjetju Plant Bioscience Ltd podelil patent za metodo za povečanje specifične sestavine v brokoliju sorte Brassica s pomočjo konvencionalnega načina pridelave z markerji (številka patenta EP 1069819).
In 2002 the European Patent Office (EPO) granted a patent to the UK company Plant Bioscience Ltd on a method for increasing a specific compound in the Brassica species broccoli through conventional (marker-assisted) cultivation methods (patent number EP 1069819).
Patent zajema način pridelave, pa tudi semena brokolija in užitne rastline brokolija, pridelane na ta način.
The patent includes the production methods, as well as the broccoli seeds and edible broccoli plants obtained through these production methods.
Zoper patent je bil podan ugovor, zadevo pa sedaj obravnava razširjeni odbor za pritožbe Evropskega patentnega urada.
This patent has been challenged and the case is now pending before the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal.
Člen 4 direktive 98/44/ES o pravnem varstvu biotehnoloških izumov določa, da ni mogoče patentirati postopkov za pridobivanje rastlin ali živali, ki so v bistvu biološki.
Article 4 of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions lays down that essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals are not patentable.
Z oblikovanjem precedensa bi patent pospešil nadaljnjo monopolizacijo trga s semeni, in sicer bi se lahko podjetjem za pridelavo semen onemogočil prost dostop do semen, kot določa uredba EU št. 2100/94 o žlahtniteljskih pravicah v Skupnosti, ter prosta uporaba običajnih načinov pridelave.
In creating a precedent, this patent would drive forward further monopolisation of the seed market by opening the way for plant breeding firms to be denied free access to seed as laid down in EU Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights and the freedom to use common production methods.
Kaj o podelitvi tega patenta meni Komisija kot varuhinja Pogodb?
How does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, view the granting of this patent?
Kako lahko Komisija vpliva na to zadevo?
What ways of influencing this matter are available to the Commission?
Kako bo Komisija ukrepala?
What steps will the Commission take?
Ali je Komisija obveščena o poteku razprav v razširjenem odboru za pritožbe in kako ocenjuje položaj?
Does the Commission know what stage has been reached in the discussions in the Enlarged Board of Appeal, and how does the Commission judge the situation?
Komisija je aprila 2008 prejela pisno vprašanje o isti zadevi ( E-2147/08 ) in nanj odgovorila septembra 2008.
The Commission received a written question about the same issue in April 2008 ( E-2147/08 ) and answered the question in September 2008.
Poslanci z odgovorom na vprašanje niso bili zadovoljni, hkrati pa se zdi razprava o najnovejšem dogajanju v tem postopku primerna, zato bi bilo treba o tem vprašanju razpravljati na plenarnem zasedanju.
As, on the one hand, the answer to this question did not satisfy the MEPs, and on the other hand a debate on the most recent developments in the procedure concerned seems to be appropriate, this question should be discussed in plenary.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0070/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0070/09
Zadeva: Sporazum o prosti trgovini med Republiko Korejo na eni strani ter Evropsko skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami na drugi strani
Subject: Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part
Ali lahko Komisija sporoči:
Can the Commission advise:
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0071/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0071/09
Zadeva: Osnutek uredbe Komisije o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH) v zvezi s prilogo XVII
Subject: Draft Commission Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), as regards Annex XVII
Evropska komisija je Evropskemu parlamentu 11. marca 2009 predložila osnutek uredbe o prilogi XVII k uredbi REACH.
The European Commission submitted to the European Parliament the draft REACH Annex XVII Regulation on 11 March 2009.
Ker azbest še vedno vzrok za precejšnje število bolezni, ki so posledica izpostavljenosti azbestnim vlaknom, bi bilo treba čim prej sprejeti nadaljnje ukrepe.
Since asbestos remains responsible for a large number of diseases related to exposure to asbestos fibres, further action should be taken as soon as possible.
Še vedno ni obsežne strategije za prepoved vseh oblik azbesta in vseh vrst uporab azbestnih vlaken, ki bi vključevala:
There is still no comprehensive strategy for banning all forms of asbestos and all sorts of uses in relation to asbestos fibres, including
evropski seznam izdelkov, ki so izvzeti iz prepovedi v skladu s točko 6.2 priloge XVII k osnutku uredbe Komisije (ES) št. ... z dne ..., ki spreminja uredbo (ES) št. 1907/2006 (REACH), in
– a European list of articles exempted from the ban in accordance with Annex VXII, No 6.2, of the draft Commission Regulation (EC) No .... of .... amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) and
polno izvajanje izvoznih zahtev za azbest.
– full implementation of export requirements related to asbestos.
Prav tako bi morala Komisija predložiti zakonodajni predlog o nadzorovani odstranitvi azbestnih vlaken ter dekontaminaciji ali odstranitvi opreme, ki vsebuje azbestna vlaka, zaradi njihove popolne odprave.
The Commission should also submit a legislative proposal on the controlled disposal of asbestos fibres and the decontamination or disposal of equipment containing asbestos fibres in order to eliminate them completely.
Kako si Komisija prizadeva za odpravo preostalih tveganj v zvezi z uporabo azbesta?
What is the Commission doing to eliminate the remaining risks related to the use of asbestos?
Ali Komisija namerava:
Does the Commission have the intention to
oblikovati obsežno strategijo za prepoved vseh oblik azbesta in vseh vrst uporab azbestnih vlaken in
– establish a comprehensive strategy for banning all forms of asbestos and all sorts of uses in relation to asbestos fibres and
predložiti zakonodajni predlog o nadzorovani odstranitvi azbestnih vlaken ter dekontaminaciji ali odstranitvi opreme, ki vsebuje azbestna vlaka, kakor je to storila za poliklorirane bifenile (PCB)?
– submit a legislative proposal on the controlled disposal of asbestos fibres and the decontamination or disposal of equipment containing asbestos fibres, as it did for PCB?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0072/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0072/09
Zadeva: Politika EU na področju potresov: ukrepi Komisije glede na nedavni uničujoči potres v Italiji
Subject: EU policy on earthquakes: actions taken by the Commission in the wake of the recent catastrophic earthquake in Italy
14. novembra 2007 je Evropski parlament sprejel resolucijo ( P6_TA(2007)0507 ) o integriranem pristopu EU do potresov (preprečevanje, odziv in odpravljanje škode).
On 14 November 2007 the European Parliament adopted Resolution ( P6_TA(2007)0507 ) on an integrated approach to earthquakes by the EU (prevention, response and repairing damage).
V tej resoluciji, ki je prvo besedilo evropske institucije, posvečeno posebej in izključno pojavu potresov, je poziv k sprejetju posebnih ukrepov v zvezi s politiko za varstvo, ojačanje stavb (še posebej stavb zgodovinskega in kulturnega pomena), financiranje, raziskave, obveščanje javnosti itd.
This Resolution, which is the first text by a European institution devoted especially and exclusively to the phenomenon of earthquakes, called for the adoption of specific measures as regards a policy for protection, reinforcing buildings (with special emphasis on buildings of historic and cultural significance), funding, research, public information, etc.
Ker so potresi kompleksen naraven pojav, pri katerem je treba upoštevati veliko parametrov in vidikov, če ga želimo učinkovito obvladovati (posebej okoljski, gradbeni, podjetniški, lokalni, regionalni in izobraževalni vidiki ter potreba po mednarodnem sodelovanju), ali Komisija (zlasti po nedavnem pogubnem potresu v Italiji) meni, da gre za katastrofo evropskih in ne zgolj regionalnih ali nacionalnih razsežnosti, ter da je zato treba objaviti sporočilo, namenjeno posebej in izključno učinkovitemu obvladovanju potresov?
Given that earthquakes are a complex natural phenomenon involving many parameters and aspects which must be taken into account if they are to be managed effectively (in particular environmental, building, entrepreneurial, local, regional and educational aspects and the need for international cooperation), does the Commission believe, especially following the recent deadly earthquake in Italy, that this natural disaster has a European – and not merely a regional or national – dimension, and that it is therefore necessary to publish a communication especially and exclusively devoted to effective earthquake management?
Splošneje, katere ukrepe je doslej sprejela Komisija kot odziv na navedeno resolucijo?
More generally, what action has the Commission taken so far in response to the above Resolution?
Katere pobude bo v bodoče sprejela za izvajanje predlogov za učinkovito obvladovanje potresov, navedenih v resoluciji?
Which initiatives does it intend to take in future to implement the Resolution’s proposals on effective earthquake management?
Kateri protipotresni zaščitni ukrepi se sofinancirajo iz strukturnih skladov in kohezijskega sklada?
Which anti-seismic protection actions are co-funded by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?
Ali Komisija meni, da nedavno sporočilo „Skupnostni pristop k preprečevanju naravnih nesreč in nesreč, ki jih povzroči človek“ (KOM(2009)0082) zadostuje glede na resnost te problematike?
Does the Commission believe that the recent communication ‘A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters’ (COM(2009)0082) matches the seriousness of the problem?
Končno, ali se je nemudoma odzvala na nedavni pogubni potres v Italiji in če, kako?
Finally, did it react immediately to the recent deadly earthquake in Italy, and, if so, how?
Ali se je sprožil mehanizem EU za odziv na naravne nesreče?
Was the EU natural disaster response mechanism activated?
Ali je sprožila ukrepe EU za obnovo na politični in gospodarski ravni?
Has it launched EU rehabilitation measures at political and economic level?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0073/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0073/09
Zadeva: Mednarodno kazensko sodišče za okolje
Subject: International Criminal Court for Environmental Law
V tem smislu je za ustanovitev evropskega in mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča za okolje, kar je predlagala mednarodna akademija za okoljske znanosti v Benetkah, pobuda s široko podporo.
In this regard the proposal for the creation of a European and International Penal Court for Environmental Law, as proposed by the International Academy for Environmental Sciences (Venice), represents a widely supported initiative.
Ali je Komisija seznanjena s tem predlogom?
Is the Commission aware of this proposal?
Ali ga namerava podpreti?
Does it intend to support it?
Če ne, ali lahko to natančno utemelji?
If not, what are the detailed reasons for not doing so?
Pod kakšnimi pogoji bi predlog podprla?
Under what conditions would support be granted?