natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Poslanci so tudi opozorili, da je notranji trg storitev „v celoti operativen kot sestavni del ciljev gospodarske reforme, oblikovane na zasedanju Evropskega sveta v Lizboni“ .
Members also reiterated that ‘ a fully functioning Internal Market for goods and services is an integral part of meeting the economic reform goals established by the Lisbon European Council’.
Januarja 2004 je Evropska komisija ki ji je predsedoval Italijan Romano Prodi, s politično podporo predstavila predlog direktive.
In January 2004, boosted by this political support, the European Commission, then led by the Italian Romano Prodi, presented a proposal for a Directive.
Besedilo so pregledale službe pristojnega komisarja za notranji trg, Nizozemca Fritsa Bolkesteina, od kjer tudi ime „Bolkesteinova direktiva“.
The text was drafted by the services of the Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein of the Netherlands, hence the name ‘Bolkestein Directive’.
Predlog direktive je bil predložen Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ministrov.
The draft was forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
Kot sozakonodajalca morata ti dve instituciji nujno najti soglasje, da lahko besedilo začne veljati.
It is imperative that these two institutions, as co-legislators, find common ground so that the text can enter into force.
Predlog Parlamenta ni očaral
Parliament is not captivated by the draft
Deset parlamentarnih odborov sedaj preučuje predlog direktive Komisije.
Ten parliamentary committees are currently working on the Commission’s proposal for a Directive.
Nekateri so že podali svoja mnenja.
Some have already expressed their opinion.
Odbor za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov je glavni odbor za to zadevo, je „pristojni odbor“ za razliko od drugih, ki le podajo svoja mnenja.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is the lead committee for this dossier – this is the ‘committee responsible’, as opposed to the others which merely express their opinion.
Nemško socialdemokratko Evelyne Gebhardt je Odbor za notranji trg pooblastil, da pripravi poročilo, ki bo temelj za stališče Evropskega parlamenta.
The Committee on the Internal Market has given German Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt responsibility for drafting the report which will serve as the basis for the European Parliament’s position.
Ko bo Odbor za notranji trg sprejel poročilo, bo le-to predloženo v prvo obravnavo, da ga odobrijo evropski poslanci, združeni na plenarnem zasedanju, verjetno na oktobrskem srečanju.
Once adopted by the Committee on the Internal Market, the report will come before the House for approval by the Members of the European Parliament at first reading, probably during the October part-session.
Po prvi obravnavi lahko Evropska komisija vnese spremembe prvotnega predloga na podlagi predlogov poslancev.
After this first reading the European Commission will be able to introduce changes to its initial proposal in line with the amendments proposed by MEPs.
Besedilo se nato predloži Svetu, ki o njem razpravlja.
Following that, the text will be forwarded to the Council and debated.
Države članice lahko sprejmejo „skupno stališče“.
The Member States may then adopt a ‘common position’.
Trenutno je težko predvideti, kakšna bo odločitev Evropskega parlamenta in če bo Svet odobril predloge sprememb, ki naj bi bili sprejeti.
At present it is difficult to foresee what the European Parliament will decide and whether the amendments it may adopt will be accepted by the Council.
Negotov časovni razpored
Uncertain timetable
Komisija je v svojem predlogu predvidela hitrejšo in diferencirano liberalizacijo glede na vrsto storitve.
In its draft the Commission provides for progressive and differentiated liberalisation according to category of service.
V nekaterih primerih se lahko liberalizacija odloži za deset let po začetku veljavnosti direktive.
In certain cases liberalisation might be postponed for ten years after the Directive enters into force.
Toda ob upoštevanju napredovanja dela in obsežnosti razprav je danes praktično nemogoče reči, kdaj bo direktiva začela veljati in v kakšni obliki.
However, taking account of the progress of the work and the breadth of the debate, it is virtually impossible, at this time, to say when the Directive might enter into force and in what form.
Direktiva o storitvah: premik z mrtve točke Prost pretok storitev: velik korak naprej
The End of the Deadlock MEPs take a big step forward
Kaj predlaga Komisija?
What is the Commission proposing?
Komisija najprej predlaga, da se podjetjem za storitve omogoči lažjo uveljavitev v drugi državi članici.
The Commission is first of all proposing to allow service companies to establish themselves more easily in another Member State.
Zato predvideva zlasti poenostavitev upravnih ukrepov, ki bodo manj številni in lažji za izpolnitev.
To this end, it provides in particular for the simplification of administrative steps which would be fewer in number and also easier to complete.
Glavna novost: ponudnik se obrne na „eno samo okence“, namesto da se obrača na več upravnih služb države sprejema.
Main innovation: the service provider would apply to ‘single points of contact’, instead of having to appear before several authorities in the host country.
Predlog direktive želi olajšati začasno in čezmejno izvedbo storitev.
Next, the draft Directive aims to facilitate temporary and cross-border service provision.
Glede na vrsto storitve in stopnjo liberalizacije Komisija predlaga načelo izvorne države (kot temeljno pravilo) ali uskladitev (na splošno kot dopolnilo).
Depending on the type of service and the stages of liberalisation, the Commission is proposing either the country of origin principle (as a basic rule) or harmonisation (generally in a supplementary role).
Načelo izvorne države pomeni, da za ponudnika velja zakonodaja države, kjer ima stalni sedež, in ne zakonodaja države, kjer se storitev zagotavlja.
The country of origin principle means that the service provider is subject to the law of the country in which it is permanently established and not in the State in which the service is provided.
Torej mora izvorna in ne namembna država nadzorovati, ali je izvajana dejavnost podjetja v skladu s pravili.
Hence it is the responsibility of the country of origin and not the country of destination to monitor whether the service provided by the company complies with regulations.
V vseh oblikah besedilo priporoča boljše sodelovanje med nacionalnimi upravami.
Whatever the scenario, the text advocates better cooperation between national authorities.
Slednje poziva, da si izmenjujejo podatke o veljavnih zakonodajah in o zahtevah, ki pogojujejo izvajanje storitev, za prenos potrebnih dokumentov in okrepitev usklajevanja pravil dostopa na trg storitev.
It invites them to exchange information on current legislation and requirements governing the provision of services, to transfer the necessary documents and to strengthen coordination of rules of access to the market in services.
Predlog direktive obsega veliko paleto storitev, vendar so predvidena odstopanja.
The draft covers a very wide range of services, but derogations are provided for.
Uporaba zakonodaje namembne države
Application of the law of the country of destination
Tako za zaposlene, ki jih podjetje napoti v tujino, veljajo socialni zakoni države, v kateri delajo, če tam ostanejo več kot osem dni.
For example, employees sent abroad by their company will be subject to the social security law of the country in which they are working if they stay longer than eight days.
V tem primeru, ki sodi na področje delovnega prava, se torej uporablja direktiva o napotitvi delavcev in ne direktiva o storitvah.
In this particular case, as regards labour law, the Directive concerning the posting of workers applies, and not the Directive on services.
Drugo odstopanje zadeva nekatere kraje, kjer se bo storitev izvajala, če je to upravičeno zaradi vzdrževanja javnega reda, javne varnosti, zaščite javnega zdravja ali okolja.
Another derogation relates to particular places where the service would be provided, if this were justified in order to maintain public order, public safety or protection of public health or the environment.
Prav zaradi teh razlogov lahko država članica prekliče uporabo direktive za neko vrsto storitve.
For the same reasons, which are described as overriding, a Member State may suspend the application of the Directive to a certain type of service.
Katere storitve obsega predlog?
Which services does the draft cover?
Direktiva obsega številne storitve.
The Directive covers a very wide range of services.
V kategoriji storitev, ki se začasno izvajajo v tujini, so storitve, ki se izvajajo v bližini, obravnavane le do določene mere.
In the category of services temporarily provided abroad, proximity services are involved only to a limited extent.
Malo verjetno se zdi, da bo prebivalec Marseilla poklical popravljavca v Prago, če se mu pokvari televizija.
Indeed, it seems unlikely that a resident of Marseille would call in a repairer established in Prague when his television breaks down.
Bolj pogosto je, da ima zobozdravnik iz Saarbrückna občasne stranke z druge strani meje iz okolice Metza.
A more frequent situation, perhaps, would be for a plumber in Saarbrücken to have occasional clients on the other side of the border, around Metz.
Nasprotno so storitve, ki se zagotavljajo na daljavo (prek interneta, telefona ali drugih sredstev sodobne komunikacije), vse bolj številne.
On the other hand, services provided at a distance (by Internet, telephone or other modern means of communication) are becoming increasingly numerous.
Podjetje lahko zagotavlja storitve tudi začasno in čezmejno z začasno napotitvijo zaposlenih.
A company may also provide services temporarily or across borders by the provisional posting of its employees.
Na primer, španski proizvajalec industrijskega stroja, prodanega slovaškemu podjetju, lahko pošlje svoje delavce za namestitev opreme v Bratislavo.
For example, a Spanish manufacturer of an industrial machine sold to a Slovak company may send his workers out to install the equipment in Bratislava.
Projekt direktive ne obsega vseh storitev.
Not all services are covered by the draft Directive.
Še zlasti ne velja za storitve, ki so zaradi svoje narave že predmet posebne zakonodaje.
In particular it would not apply to services which, by their nature, are already governed by specific regulations.
V to kategorijo spadajo na primer storitve in mreža elektronskih komunikacij ali finančnih storitev.
For example, electronic communications services and networks or financial services fall into this category.
Poleg tega so izključene tudi negospodarske storitve splošnega pomena.
In addition, non-economic services of general interest are also excluded.
Čeprav se morda zdi preprosto, v praksi ni lahko določiti pojma „splošni pomen“ in negospodarskega značaja storitve.
Even if this seems simple, it is not easy, in practice, to define the concept ‘of general interest’ and the non-economic nature of a service.
Sodna praksa Evropskega sodišča je uporabna, vendar nezadostna za oblikovanje sprejemljive definicije za vse države članice.
The case law of the European Court of Justice is useful but insufficient to establish a definition acceptable to all Member States.
Nekatere trgovske storitve, pri katerih je javni interes očiten, so prav tako izključene.
Certain commercial services in which public interest is evident are also excluded.
Tak je primer oskrbe z vodo ali energijo.
This is the case for the supply of water and energy.
Kljub temu, da te storitve niso predmet direktive, to ne pomeni, da njihova liberalizacija ne poteka prek drugih zakonodajnih poti.
Nevertheless, the fact that these services are not covered by the Directive does not mean that their liberalisation is not pursued by other legislative routes.
Direktiva tudi ne obravnava izobraževanja, ki ostaja v nacionalni pristojnosti, in javne uprave.
Education, which remains a national responsibility, and public administration are also excluded.
Predlog „Bolkesteinove direktive“ je sprožil pravi javni protest.
The draft ‘Bolkestein Directive’ has met with a chorus of disapproval.
V času razprave, zlasti v Evropskem parlamentu, so se oblikovali trije tabori: na eni strani so tisti, ki podpirajo besedilo Komisije in predvsem uporabo načela izvorne države, za spodbujanje liberalizacije sektorja, na drugi strani pa so tisti, ki temu nasprotujejo.
During the debate, especially in the European Parliament, three camps came into being: at one end of the spectrum there are those who support the Commission’s text and in particular recourse to the country of origin principle to stimulate the liberalisation of the sector, and at the other end there are those who oppose it.
Med tema dvema težnjama nekateri menijo, da je besedilo Komisije v glavnem sprejemljivo, vendar ga je treba pregledati in popraviti, da bi v praksi omogočili delovanje načela izvorne države.
Between these two tendencies, others regard the main lines of the Commission’s text as acceptable, but believe it needs to be reviewed and corrected in order to allow the country of origin principle to operate in practice.
Poleg teh razlik v mnenju je tu še temeljni politični problem: najti ravnovesje med potrebo po odprtju tega sektorja konkurenci ob ohranjanju evropskega socialnega modela.
Behind these divergences there is a fundamental political problem: finding the balance between the need to open this sector up to competition and the need to preserve the European social model.
Razhajanja o tej zapleteni zadevi presegajo običajne politične in nacionalne razkole.
Divisions over this complex issue go beyond the usual political and national rifts.
Podpora načelu izvorne države, ki ga predlaga Komisija za dosego liberalizacije storitev v EU, je predmet obsežne razprave.
The Commission’s proposal to apply the country of origin principle to obtain liberalisation of services in the EU is the subject of intense debate.
Ali je treba liberalizacijo trga storitev povezati s predhodno uskladitvijo (ali približevanjem) pogojev izvajanja poklica?
Should this liberalisation of the market in services be accompanied by prior harmonisation (or approximation) of the conditions for practising a profession?
Druga velika tema razprav je področje uporabe direktive.
The other main subject of debate relates to the scope of the Directive.
Jabolko spora v zvezi s tem predstavlja razlika med storitvami splošnega interesa (ki naj bi bile izključene) in storitvami splošnega gospodarskega interesa (ki jih predlog Komisije vsebuje).
Here the distinction between services of general interest (to be excluded) and services of general economic interest (covered by the Commission’s proposal) constitute the principal bone of contention.
Predvideni sta dve možnosti: zelo široko področje uporabe (50 % gospodarskih dejavnosti EU po mnenju Komisije) s številnimi odstopanji ali ožje področje brez odstopanj.
Two options are envisaged: very wide scope (50% of EU economic activities according to the Commission) with more numerous derogations or more limited scope without derogations.
Druge točke, o katerih se razpravlja, so povezane z merili, po katerih lahko države članice ohranjajo nekatere omejitve prostega pretoka storitev, in z izbiro boljšega pristopa za zagotavljanje pravne jasnosti besedila.
Other points of debate relate to criteria by which certain restrictions on the free movement of services could be maintained by Member States, and the choice of the best approach for ensuring legal clarity of the text.
Uskladitev načela izvorne države ali vzajemno priznavanje? – Zgodovinsko ozadje
Harmonisation, the country of origin principle or mutual recognition? – A background history
Na začetku je bil notranji trg vzpostavljen z uskladitvijo nacionalnih zakonodaj.
At the outset, the internal market was built on the harmonisation of national legislation.
Zadostovalo je, da so se države članice strinjale o standardih, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri proizvodu, da se je le-ta lahko brez ovir gibal znotraj notranjega trga.
Member States had only to reach agreement on the standards with which a product had to comply for it to move freely without hindrance in the internal market.
Zaradi obsega naloge je harmonizacija hitro prišla do omejitev.
Given the breadth of the task, harmonisation rapidly found its limits.
Netarifne ovire so se pomnožile in zajezile liberalizacijo trga.
Non-tariff barriers multiplied, putting a brake on the liberalisation of the market.
Leta 1979 je Evropsko sodišče izdalo znano sodbo v zadevi „Cassis de Dijon“.
In 1979 the European Court of Justice made a famous ruling, in the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ case.
V tem primeru so evropski sodniki ocenili, da se lahko vsak proizvod, ki se zakonito proizvaja in trži v državi članici, proda v kateri koli drugi državi članici.
Here the European judges took the view that any product legally manufactured and marketed in one Member State could be sold in any other Member State.
Kar je dobro za Francoza in kot tako priznano s francosko zakonodajo, ne more škodovati Nemcu.
What was good for a Frenchman and recognised as being so by French law could not harm a German.
Zato mora država članica uvoznica sprejeti proizvode, ki izhajajo iz druge države članice (država izvora) , kljub temu da ti proizvodi niso v skladu z nacionalnimi standardi namembne države .
Consequently, an importing Member State was obliged to accept products from another Member State (country of origin) , even if these products did not conform to national standards in the country of destination .
To je razvoj načela „vzajemnega priznavanja“ ali „nadzora izvorne države“.
This is the genesis of the principle of ‘mutual recognition’ or of ‘country of origin control’.
V isti sodbi je Sodišče priznalo, da lahko država članica vzpostavi omejitve prostega dostopa na svoj trg za proizvod, proizveden v drugi državi članici, če te omejitve utemeljuje javni red in izpolnjujejo vrsto pogojev:
In the same ruling, the Court recognised that a Member State could impose restrictions on free market access to a product manufactured in another Member State if these restrictions were justified by public order and met a series of conditions:
omejitev mora biti sorazmerna iskanemu cilju;
The restriction must be proportionate to the objective pursued;
ta cilj je nemogoče doseči z manj strogimi ukrepi.
It must be impossible to achieve this objective by less restrictive measures.
Sodna praksa, prenesena na storitve, sproža naslednja vprašanja:
Transposed to services, this case law poses the following questions:
V kakšni meri je mogoče uporabiti sodno prakso, ki zadeva prost pretok blaga, za prost pretok storitev?
To what extent is it possible to apply this case law, which related to the free movement of goods, to the free movement of services?
Ali načelo izvorne države, kot ga je definirala Evropska komisija v predlogu direktive o storitvah, morda omogoča več od pogodb v zvezi s prostim pretokom storitev in manj od sodne prakse v zvezi z odobritvijo nekaterih nacionalnih omejitev?
Does not the country of origin principle, as defined by the European Commission in the draft Services Directive, go further than the Treaties as regards the free movement of services but not as far as the case law in terms of the authorisation of certain national restrictions?
Določba o notranjem trgu je podobna načelu nadzora izvorne države.
What is known as the internal market clause is similar to the principle of country of origin control.
Uvedena je bila v več zakonodajah, povezanih z notranjim trgom, še zlasti o elektronskem poslovanju.
It was introduced in various items of legislation linked to the internal market, in particular those on electronic trade.
Ali je utemeljeno uporabiti načelo, ki ureja sektorje posebnih dejavnosti, v okvirni direktivi, ki obsega večino storitev?
Are there grounds for applying a principle which has so far governed individual sectors of activity to a framework Directive which embraces the majority of services?
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta o sporočilu Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu, Ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru in Odboru regij. (v angleščini)
European Parliament Resolution on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060418STO07420 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060418STO07420 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060220STO05373 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060220STO05373 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT TA P5-TA-2003-0058 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT TA P5-TA-2003-0058 0 NOT XML V0//EN
Patentiranje programske opreme: „zgodovinsko glasovanje“ Evropskega parlamenta konča spor
Software patents: the ‘historic vote’ in the European Parliament brings the battle to an end
Raziskave in inovacije
Research and innovation
Evropski parlament se je odločil proti patentiranju programske opreme ter je zavrnil predlog Komisije in Sveta o tej zadevi.
The European Parliament has voted against patenting software, burying the proposal from the Commission and Council.
Z večinsko zavrnitvijo je obema institucijama dal jasno vedeti, da noben zakonodajni osnutek, za katerega je potrebna njegova odobritev, ne more uspeti, če njegovo mnenje ni resno upoštevano.
Parliament’s overwhelming rejection sends a clear message to the other two institutions that no legislative proposal requiring its agreement can succeed unless its opinion is taken seriously.
Toda razprava še ni končana; koliko časa bo trajalo, da pride do novega spora med zagovorniki „proste programske opreme za vse“ in zagovorniki „patentiranja na ameriški način“?
But the debate isn't over: how long will it be before the next bout of arm-wrestling begins between the supporters of ‘free software for all’ and those advocating ‘American-style’ patenting?
Mislite, da je svet računalništva omejen na vaš osebni računalnik?
Did you think the IT world ended at your PC?
Motite se.
You were wrong.
Vaš sesalnik, pralni stroj in mikrovalovna pečica, na stotine naprav v vaši okolici obstaja le zaradi programske opreme.
Your vacuum cleaner, your washing machine and your microwave oven as well as hundreds of appliances all around you only exist thanks to software.
Na desetine milijard mikroprocesorjev je bilo programiranih za omogočanje delovanja teh aparatov.
Tens of billions of microprocessors have been programmed to make those appliances work.
Toda preden so začeli delovati, jih je bilo treba izumiti.
But before being made to work, they had to be invented.
Ne le vaš avto, temveč tudi britvice za enkratno uporabo ali vaš glavnik so bili narejeni z računalnikom.
Not only your car, but also your disposable razor and your comb, too, have without a doubt been designed with the aid of a computer.
Na začetku je vedno zamisel.
In the beginning, there is always an idea.
Nato pride program (algoritem, izvorna koda), ki omogoči delovanje programske opreme.
Next there is a program (algorithm, source code) which makes the software operational.
Cela vrsta zamisli in izumov je potrebnih, da sta na koncu ABS v vašem vozilu ali vaš prenosni telefon uporabna.
A whole series of ideas and inventions are needed to ensure that, at the end of the chain, your car’s ABS and your mobile phone are in working order.
Za vsakogar svoj patentni sistem
To each his own patents system
Tako kot za vsako stvaritev je pravica do lastništva teh izumov lahko zaščitena z zakonom.
Like any creation, property rights to these inventions can be protected by law.
Mogočih je več vrst zaščite intelektualne in industrijske lastnine.
Several types of intellectual and industrial property protection are possible.
Najbolj znana sta patent in avtorska pravica (dobro znan znak © ( copyright ) lahko najdete na ovitkih romanov, ki jih želite prebrati, ali na embalaži vašega novega DVD).
Patents and copyright (the famous © on the cover of the novel you want to read or on the packaging of your new DVD) are the most familiar.