natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kako bo Komisija dosegla, da bodo v sporazumu določeni zavezujoči emisijski cilji, ki naj bi do leta 2020 privedli do skupnega zmanjšanja emisij v industrijskih državah za največ 25–40 % v primerjavi z letom 1990, kot je bilo priporočeno v četrtem ocenjevalnem poročilu medvladnega odbora o podnebnih spremembah?
What will the Commission do to guarantee that this agreement imposes binding emission targets which would lead to global emission reductions in the industrialised countries at the high end of the 25-40% range for 2020 compared to 1990, as recommended by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Kakšen je obseg sredstev, s katerimi namerava Komisija podpreti blažitev posledic in prilagajanje nanje ter omejitev krčenja gozdov v državah v razvoju, da bi omogočila sklenitev čim obsežnejšega sporazuma v Københavnu in izpolnila svoje obveznosti do držav razvoju?
Which levels of finance does the Commission plan to commit to, to support mitigation and adaptation and reduce deforestation in developing countries, in order to facilitate a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen and to live up to its responsibility to the developing world?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0100/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0100/09
Zadeva: Problem omejene dostopnosti nekaterih cepiv za države v razvoju
Subject: Problem of limited access of developing countries to some vaccines
Cepivo proti gripi A (H1N1) ni dostopno trem četrtinam človeštva.
Three quarters of the world’s population have no access to the vaccine against the influenza A(H1N1) virus (‘swine flu’).
Ob nevarnosti pandemije prašičje gripe (virusa A(H1N1) se je ponovno pojavilo vprašanje enake dostopnosti napredka v medicini.
The problem of fair access to the most modern medicine has again reared its head in the context of the risk of a swine flu pandemic.
Na splošno se ti virusi pojavljajo na zapostavljenih območjih, kjer nevarnost pandemije seveda najprej ogroža lokalno prebivalstvo.
Such viruses generally appear in deprived regions where the local populations are, of course, the first to be affected by the risk of pandemics.
Tako južne države vsako leto severnim državam priskrbijo vzorce virusov gripe, da je mogoče izdelati ustrezno cepivo proti sezonski gripi.
Each year, the countries of the southern hemisphere provide those of the north with influenza virus samples to update seasonal influenza vaccines.
Indonezija je pred več kot dvema letoma Svetovni zdravstveni organizaciji sporočila, da brez ustreznega povračila ne bo več delila vzorcev virusa gripe A/H5N1, izoliranih na njenem ozemlju.
More than two years ago, Indonesia informed the WHO that it was no longer willing to share, free of change, samples of the A/H5N1 influenza virus isolated on its territory.
S tem je želela opozoriti mednarodno skupnost, da morajo imeti države v razvoju korist od izmenjave vzorcev virusa in predvsem, da jim mora biti kakovostno cepivo proti pandemični gripi dostopno po sprejemljivih cenah.
In this way, Indonesia intended to alert the international community to the need for developing countries to benefit from the exchange of virus samples and, in particular, from access to high-quality vaccines against pandemic strains of influenza at affordable prices.
Nezaslišano je, da za delitev vzorcev ni ustreznega povračila, medtem ko bi morala biti kakovostna cepiva proti pandemijam praviloma dostopna po sprejemljivih cenah.
The fact that these samples are shared without payment is shocking, whereas the availability of high-quality vaccines against pandemic illnesses at reasonable prices should be the norm.
Ali lahko Komisija navede, kaj ovira splošno dostopnost cepiv za države v razvoju?
Can the Commission tell us what obstacles stand in the way of generalised access to vaccines for developing countries?
Ali se Komisija strinja, da ni moralno sprejemljivo države v razvoju prepričevati, naj priskrbijo seve virusov, potrebne za razvoj cepiva, hkrati pa jih kategorično zavračati, ko upravičeno zahtevajo varovanje zdravja svojega prebivalstva?
Does the Commission share the view that it is morally indefensible to persuade developing countries to provide the strains necessary for the development of a vaccine while the justified calls of these countries to protect the health of their populations are met with flat refusal?
Katere pobude načrtuje Komisija, da bi bilo cepivo proti gripi A(H1N1) dostopnejše za države v razvoju?
What measures does the Commission intend to take to increase the access of developing countries to vaccines against the influenza A(H1N1) virus?
Ali je Komisija poleg teh specifičnih ukrepov pri sedanji pandemiji pripravljena ukrepati tako, da bi bila cepiva trajno dostopna državam v razvoju?
Beyond measures taken in this specific case in the context of the pandemic, is the Commission willing to take action to ensure that developing countries have lasting access to vaccines?
Če je, ali lahko navede ukrepe, potrebne za izboljšanje zdravstvene infrastrukture v državah v razvoju, kar je nujni pogoj za pravičnejšo dostopnost cepiv?
If so, can the Commission outline the measures to be taken to improve health infrastructure in developing countries, an essential precondition for fairer access to vaccines.
In nazadnje, ali lahko Komisija natančneje opredeli, kako namerava pritegniti glavne humanitarne organizacije, tako institucionalne kot organizacije civilne družbe (nevladne organizacije), da bi v čim večji meri zadostili potrebam na tem področju?
Lastly, can the Commission specify how it intends to involve the major humanitarian actors, both from the institutional sphere and civil society (NGOs), in order to ensure that the needs of as many people as possible are met in this regard?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0101/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0101/09
Zadeva: Googlov projekt za digitalizacijo svetovne literarne dediščine
Subject: Google's project to digitise the world's book heritage
Ob upoštevanju:
Bearing in mind the following background:
da je bil sporazum za storitve iskanja knjig Google Book Search sklenjen 28. oktobra 2008.
the Google Book Search agreement was concluded on 28 October 2008.
Namen sporazuma je bil doseči poravnavo v skupinski tožbi, ki so jo proti Googlu vložili avtorji in založniki ZDA, ker naj bi ta z digitaliziranjem knjig in ponujanjem možnosti pregledovanja delov teh besedil s storitvijo Google Book Search kršil njihove avtorske pravice.
The agreement attempts to settle a lawsuit brought, as a class action, by US authors and publishers against Google, claiming that Google infringed their copyright by digitising their books and making parts of them available through Google Book Search.
Poravnavo morajo potrditi še sodišča ZDA, pristojno sodišče pa naj bi izdalo odločbo oktobra 2009;
The settlement awaits the approval of US courts and the relevant court is expected to hand down its decision in October 2009;
da je Komisija novembra 2008 začela projekt Europeana;
in November 2008 the Commission launched the Europeana project;
da je Komisija 28. avgusta začela javno posvetovanje o sodobnem sklopu pravil za spodbujanje digitalizacije knjig v Evropi;
on 28 August 2009 the Commission launched a public consultation on a modern set of rules to encourage the digitisation of books in Europe;
da je Komisija 7. septembra 2009 v Bruslju organizirala predstavitev sporazuma o poravnavi v ZDA za storitev Google Book in številna zasedanja na to temo;
on 7 September 2009 the Commission held a hearing and a series of related meetings in Brussels on the Google Book US Settlement Agreement;
da sta 7. septembra 2009 komisarka za informacijsko družbo in medije Viviane Reding in komisar za notranji trg in storitve Charlie McCreevy podala skupno izjavo, v kateri sta opredelila kulturne in gospodarske posledice digitalizacije knjig v Evropi in poudarila, da je treba evropsko zakonodajo s področja avtorskih pravic prilagoditi digitalni dobi.
on 7 September 2009 Viviane Reding, Commissioner for the Information Society and Media, and Charlie McCreevy, Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, made a joint statement which set out the cultural and economic implications of book digitisation in Europe and highlighted the need to adapt Europe's copyright legislation to the digital age.
Kakšno je stališče Komisije glede projekta Google Book Search ter njegovega vpliva na digitalizacijo knjig v Evropi in na pravice zainteresiranih strani?
What is the Commission's view of the Google Book Search project and its impact on the digitisation of books in Europe and the rights of stakeholders?
Kakšne ukrepe namerava sprejeti v zvezi s tem?
What steps does the Commission intend to take in this respect?
Ali Komisija meni, da je treba prilagoditi zakonodajo Evropske unije s področja avtorskih pravic?
Is the Commission of the opinion that European Union copyright legislation needs to be adapted?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0102/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0102/09
, v imenu skupine S-D,
, on behalf of the S-D Group,
Zadeva: Srednjeročna finančna pomoč za plačilne bilance držav članic in izpolnjevanje socialnih pogojev
Subject: Medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments and social conditionality
Zaradi finančne krize so nekatere države članice morale uporabiti pomoč EU (uredba Sveta (ES) št. 332/2002 z 18. februarja 2002) in mednarodno pomoč (Mednarodni denarni sklad).
Due to the financial crisis some Member States have had to resort to the assistance of the EU (Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002) and international institutions (International Monetary Fund).
Ali se od držav članic zahteva, da v svoja poročila vključijo oceno socialnih vplivov?
Are Member States required to include an evaluation of the social impact in their reports?
Če se, kako ta ocena vpliva na pogoje za prihodnjo pomoč?
If so, how does this evaluation impact on the conditions for future assistance?
UL L 53, 23.2.2002, str.
OJ L 53, 23.2.2002, p.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0103/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0103/09
Zadeva: Utrjevanje miru in sodelovanja v odnosih z Belorusijo in Rusijo
Subject: Peace- and cooperation-building in relations with Belarus and Russia
29. septembra so se blizu meje EU zaključile najobsežnejše rusko-beloruske vojaške vaje v zadnjih letih.
On 29 September, Russian-Belarusian military manoeuvres – the largest in recent years – came to an end near the EU border.
Evropska unija bi se morala nanje odzvati, saj so neposredno povezane z varnostjo držav članic in celovitostjo politik EU do vzhoda.
This calls for a reaction from the European Union, as it is inseparably associated with the security of the Member States and the integrity of the EU’s eastern policies.
Scenariji septembrske vojaške vaje, imenovane „Zahod 2009”, so presenetljivi in jim moramo nasprotovati.
The scenarios for the September training exercises, known as ‘Zapad (West) 2009’, were extremely surprising and call for objections on our part.
Med drugim je vaja temeljila na domnevi, da je bilo belorusko ozemlje napadeno iz smeri ozemlja EU.
Among other things, the manoeuvres were based on the assumption of an attack on Belarusian territory from the direction of EU territory.
Zaskrbljeni smo tudi zaradi prvega dela septembrske vaje v baltskem bazenu, kjer so prvič vadili obrambo plinovoda Severni tok.
We are also concerned about the first part of the September manoeuvres, in the Baltic basin, where a defence of the Nord Stream pipeline was practised for the first time.
Ta scenarij vaje bi lahko razumeli kot uvod v širitev vojaške prisotnosti Ruske federacije v baltski regiji.
This manoeuvre scenario could be seen as a prelude to the expanding militarisation of the Baltic region by the Russian Federation.
To bo gotovo zbudilo dvome o nevtralnosti „nevtralnih vod“ in odprlo varnostna vprašanja v celotni regiji ter prekinilo običajne povezave držav članic EU v baltski regiji.
This will definitely call into question the neutrality of ‘neutral waters’ and raise security issues throughout the region, as well as interrupting normal connections for the EU Member States in the Baltic region.
Politična vloga Belorusije v teh vajah ni jasna.
The Belarusian political role in these manoeuvres is confusing.
Program vzhodnega partnerstva, ki ga je sprejel Minsk, določa razvoj sodelovanja na podlagi obojestranske dobre volje in miroljubnega pristopa.
The Eastern Partnership programme, accepted by Minsk, assumes the development of cooperation, based on mutual good will and a peaceful approach.
Samoumevno se nam zdi, da nas beloruska vlada obravnava kot verodostojne partnerje in ne kot sovražnike.
We take it for granted that we will be treated as credible partners by the Belarusian Government, not as enemies.
Politike Evropske unije so pregledne in predvidljive.
The European Union’s policies are transparent and predictable.
Enako pričakujemo od Belorusije.
We expect the same from Belarus.
Šele tako bo program vzhodnega partnerstva lahko uspešen.
Only then will the Eastern Partnership programme have a chance of succeeding.
Zamisel, da se bo Belorusija pridružila vzhodnemu partnerstvu se ne ujema z dejstvom, da vlada te države izvaja vaje, ki temeljijo na predpostavki obrambe proti napadu z ozemlja EU.
The notion of Belarus joining the Eastern Partnership is inconsistent with the fact of the government of that country carrying out manoeuvres whose underlying assumption is defence against an attack from EU territory.
Velja omeniti, da so vaje potekale v sodelovanju z državo, ki pod pretvezo obrambe napada sosednje države.
It is worth adding that the manoeuvres were carried out in cooperation with a State which uses the pretext of ‘defence’ to attack its neighbours.
V interesu kakovostnega odnosa med Evropsko unijo in Belorusijo, prihodnosti vzhodnega partnerstva ter verodostojnosti in celovitosti politik EU do vzhoda bi se morali v trenutnih razmerah predstavniki EU jasno odzvati beloruski vladi.
In the current situation, in the interests of the quality of the relationship between the European Union and Belarus, the future of the Eastern Partnership and the credibility and integrity of the EU’s eastern policies, the reaction of the EU’s representatives vis-à-vis the Belarusian Government should be obvious.
Ob upoštevanju teh argumentov Svet vljudno prosimo, naj pojasni, če in kako se je Evropska unija odzvala na rusko-beloruske vaje, v katerih sta ena ali dve državi članici EU obravnavani kot napadalki.
Taking the above arguments into consideration, we kindly ask the Council to state whether, and how, the European Union has reacted to Russian-Belarusian manoeuvres in which one or two EU Member States are perceived as aggressors.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0104/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0104/09
Ob upoštevanju teh argumentov Komisijo vljudno prosimo, naj pojasni, če in kako se je Evropska unija odzvala na rusko-beloruske manevre, v katerih so nekatere države članice EU obravnavane kot napadalke.
Taking the above arguments into consideration, we kindly ask the Commission to state whether, and how, the European Union has reacted to Russian-Belarusian manoeuvres in which certain EU Member States are perceived as aggressors.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0105/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0105/09
, v imenu Odbora za pravne zadeve ,
, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs ,
Zadeva: Območje svobode, varnosti in pravice za državljane - stockholmski program
Subject: An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen - Stockholm programme
Kakšne konkretne ukrepe namerava sprejeti Svet pri oblikovanju pristopa k območju svobode, varnosti in pravice v naslednjih petih letih, upoštevaje dejstvo, da bo po začetku veljavnosti lizbonske pogodbe Unija večino primerov reševala z običajnim zakonodajnim postopkom?
What concrete action will the Council take in framing its approach to the area of freedom, security and justice for the next five years, taking account of the fact that upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon the Union will act in the majority of cases under the ordinary legislative procedure?
Kako namerava ukrepati, zlasti da bi posodobil in prilagodil pravni red v skladu z novimi institucionalnimi razmerami?
What course of action does it intend to take in particular in order to update and adapt the acquis in conformity with the new institutional situation?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0106/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0106/09
Ali bo Komisija predlagala takšno uskladitev pravnega reda z lizbonsko pogodbo, ki bo Evropskemu in nacionalnim parlamentom omogočala sodelovanje na podlagi predlogov, pregledanih tako glede postopka kot vsebine?
When the Commission presents its proposals to bring the acquis into line with the Treaty of Lisbon, will they be such as to enable the European Parliament and national parliaments to participate on the basis of proposals which have been revised both as to the procedure and the substance?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0107/09/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0107/09/rev.1
Zadeva: Izvajanje direktive 2006/123/ES
Subject: Implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC
Če se bo direktiva o storitvah na notranjem trgu (2006/123/ES ) izvajala ustrezno, bodo lahko podjetja izkoristila prednosti enotnega trga, potrošniki bodo zaščiteni in uvedeni bodo socialni zaščitni ukrepi.
Proper implementation of the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (Directive 2006/123/EC ) will enable businesses to exploit the advantages of the single market, consumers to be protected and social safeguards to be put in place.
Poenostavljeno bo delovanje nacionalnih uprav, postopki bodo hitrejši in prijaznejši državljanom, konkurenca na enotnem trgu pa bo dobila nove spodbude.
The directive will streamline national administrations, introduce simpler, quicker and more user-friendly procedures and drive competition in the single market.
Najpomembnejša vidika direktive o storitvah sta določba o tem, da morajo države članice pregledati svojo nacionalno zakonodajo, kar med drugim vključuje postopek medsebojnega ocenjevanja, in določba o odprtju točk „vse na enem mestu“ v vseh državah članicah.
Two of the most important aspects provided for in the Services Directive are the screening of national legislation by the Member States, including the mutual evaluation process, and the establishment of points of single contact in all the Member States.
Ali lahko Svet posreduje informacije o naslednjem:
Can the Council indicate:
Ali so države članice že dokončale pregled zakonodaje in v kolikšni meri je to prispevalo k uspešnemu prenosu direktive o storitvah?
Whether the Member States have completed the legislative screening process, and the extent to which this has contributed to the effective transposition of the Services Directive;
Koliko držav članic bo vzpostavilo delujoče točke „vse na enem mestu“ do izteka roka za prenos direktive in ali bodo te točke omogočale učinkovito izvedbo postopkov za ustanovitev podjetij, vključno z informacijami o socialnih in delavskih pravicah in zahtevah?
How many Member States will have an operational point of single contact by the transposition deadline, and whether these points of contact will offer effective access to business start-up procedures, including information about social requirements and workers’ rights.
Ali lahko Svet glede na zgornje odgovore pojasni še naslednje:
In light of its answers to the above, can the Council state its views on the following questions:
Ali bodo vse države članice ujele rok za prenos direktive 28. decembra 2009?
Will all the Member States meet the transposition deadline of 28 December 2009?
Kateri so bili največji izzivi za države članice pri prenosu direktive, zlasti kar zadeva socialne storitve?
What have been the biggest challenges faced by the Member States in transposing the Directive, particularly in relation to social services?
Kako so bile udeležene interesne skupine?
How have the interested stakeholders been involved?
UL L 376, 27.12.2006, str.
OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0108/09/rev.2
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0108/09/rev.2
Zadeva: Izvajanje direktive 2005/36/ES
Subject: Implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC
Prosto gibanje strokovnjakov v EU je bistveno za delujoč notranji trg in spodbuja konkurenčnost EU, obenem pa izboljšuje osebni in poklicni profil teh državljanov.
Free movement of EU professionals is essential to a well-functioning internal market, enhancing the EU’s competitiveness as well as the personal and professional experience of the individuals concerned.
Zato bi bilo vzajemno priznavanje poklicnih kvalifikacij, kar ureja direktiva 2005/36/ES , korak naprej na tem področju.
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as regulated by Directive 2005/36/EC , should be a step forward in this respect.
Kljub temu pa nobena država članica te direktive ni prenesla do roka – 20. oktobra 2007.
However, none of the Member States met the deadline of 20 October 2007 for transposing Directive 2005/36/EC.
Po tem datumu vse države članice niso prenesle direktive in vse kršitve še niso odpravljene.
Not all of the Member States have since transposed the directive, and some infringements are still ongoing.
Več kot 20 % pritožb, ki jih je leta 2008 prejela mreža SOLVIT za reševanje težav, se je nanašalo na priznavanje poklicnih kvalifikacij.
More than 20% of the complaints received by the SOLVIT problem-solving network in 2008 concerned the recognition of professional qualifications.
S katerimi težavami se države članice najpogosteje srečujejo pri prenašanju direktive 2005/36/ES?
What are the main problems faced by the Member States in transposing Directive 2005/36/EC?
S katerimi poklici so povezane te težave?
Which are the main professions concerned?
S katerimi največjimi ovirami se srečuje SOLVIT?
What substantial obstacles has SOLVIT identified?
Ali lahko Komisija predstavi časovni načrt glede izvajanja direktive 2005/36/ES ter morebitnih potrebnih prihodnjih reform?
Can the Commission outline its timetable for monitoring the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC and of any future reforms that may be needed?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0109/09/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0109/09/rev.1
, v imenu skupine PPE
, on behalf of the PPE Group
Zadeva: Uvoz mesa iz tretjih držav
Subject: Meat imports from non-Community countries
Ali lahko Evropska komisija glede na nepravilnosti, ki jih je ugotovil Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo, zagotovi, da 1500 brazilskih obratov z dovoljenjem za izvoz v Evropsko unijo izpolnjuje zahteve Skupnosti?
In view of the irregularities found by the FVO, can the Commission guarantee that the 1500 Brazilian holdings authorised to export to the EU meet the Community’s requirements?
Poročilo, ki ga je objavil Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo, razkriva tudi resne pomanjkljivosti v sistemu sledljivosti, ki ga uporabljajo brazilski obrati, zlasti pri identifikaciji živali in bazah podatkov.
The FVO’s report also revealed serious deficiencies in the traceability system run by the Brazilian holdings, especially with regard to animal identification and databases.
Kako se lahko glede na ugotovitve nadzora evropskemu potrošniku zagotovi, da bi vse brazilsko meso ustrezalo zahtevam Evropske unije na področju varnosti hrane?
In light of the inspection results, what guarantees can European consumers be given that all meat from Brazil meets the EU’s food safety requirements?
Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo je tudi ugotovil, da je veliko pošiljk v tranzitu v Evropski uniji brez uradnih potrdil.
The FVO also found that a large number of consignments in transit through the EU did not have official certificates.
Poleg tega meso v teh pošiljkah ni bilo ustrezno zorjeno, petdeset odstotkov teh živali pa je izviralo z območja, ki ga Evropska unija ni odobrila.
Furthermore, the meat in these consignments had not undergone sufficient maturation and 50% of the animals concerned came from an area that was not approved by the EU.
Ali se na mejnih kontrolnih točkah izvaja dejanski nadzor proizvodov iz tretjih držav ali gre le za pregled dokumentov?
Do the border inspection posts actually check products from non-Community countries or do they only check the accompanying documents?