natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Italijansko sodišče je 4. novembra 2009 v odsotnosti obsodilo 23 ameriških državljanov in dva člana italijanske obveščevalne službe zaradi sodelovanja pri ugrabitvi Abu Omarja, ki so ga ugrabili decembra 2003 v Milanu in ga v tajnosti izročili Egiptu, kjer so ga nato po njegovih besedah mučili in trpinčili.
On 4 November 2009 an Italian court convicted 23 US nationals in absentia and two Italian intelligence officials for their involvement in the kidnapping of Abu Omar in Milan in December 2003, secretly rendered to Egypt where he claimed he was tortured and ill-treated; successive governments invoked ‘state secrets’ to avoid disclosure of important evidence ; one of the convicted CIA agents admitted to the media that they ‘broke the law’ and that decisions were taken in Washington, while the US Administration declared that they were ‘disappointed’ by the Italian Court judgment .
Kako namerava Komisija v svoji vlogi varuha pogodb pri kršitvah temeljnih pravic, do katerih je prišlo na ozemlju EU, poiskati resnico in zadostiti pravici ter zagotoviti, da se te kršitve ne bodo ponovile?
What steps does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, intend to take to ensure that truth and justice are brought to bear in relation to fundamental rights violations that took place on EU soil, and that such abuses do not happen in the future?
Ali lahko Komisija poda podrobne informacije o tem, kaj je doslej storila, da bi pojasnila obtožbe, in ali lahko Evropskemu parlamentu posreduje svojo korespondenco z državami članicami?
Can the Commission provide a detailed account of what it has done so far in response to these serious allegations and share with the European Parliament its correspondence with Member States?
Ali je Komisija seznanjena z Natovim sporazumom z dne 4. oktobra 2001 in s katerimi ukrepi namerava zagotoviti, da se EU v boju proti terorizmu in pri sodelovanju s tretjimi državami, predvsem z ZDA, ne bo odpovedala demokraciji in temeljnim pravicam?
Is the Commission aware of the NATO agreement of 4 October 2001 and what will it do to ensure that the EU does not sacrifice democracy and fundamental rights in the fight against terrorism and in its cooperation with third States, notably the US?
Ali bo Komisija skupaj z državami članicami in ZDA obravnavala ta vprašanja ter zahtevala hitre, pregledne in nepristranske preiskave domnevnega mučenja?
Will the Commission raise these issues with Member States to request prompt, transparent and impartial inquiries into allegations of torture, as well as with the US?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0044/10
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0044/10
Zadeva: Zagotavljanje interesov potrošnikov v predpisih o konkurenci za sektor motornih vozil na notranjem trgu
Subject: Ensuring consumer interests in competition rules for the motor vehicle sector in the Internal Market
Nakup in lastništvo avtomobila je pogosto drugi največji strošek (po nakupu hiše ali stanovanja) gospodinjstev v EU.
After housing, purchasing and owning a car is often the biggest expenditure of households in the EU.
Namen uredbe (ES) št. 1400/2002 je bil povečati konkurenčnost v sektorju motornih vozil, da bi od tega evropski potrošniki imeli dejanske koristi.
Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (MBVER) was designed to increase competition in the motor vehicle sector in order to bring tangible benefits to European consumers.
Ta uredba preneha veljati 31. maja 2010.
This Regulation expires on 31 May 2010.
Komisija sedaj predlaga odstranitev veljavne izjeme za prodajo novih avtomobilov; čez tri leta bo pričela veljati skupinska splošna izjema.
The Commission now proposes to remove the current exemption for the sale of new cars; in three years’ time the general block exemption regime will apply.
Nova posebna izjema se uvaja le za vertikalne sporazume na trgu nadomestnih delov (popravila, storitve vzdrževanja in dobava nadomestnih delov), skupaj s smernicami.
Only for the aftermarket (repair and maintenance services and the supply of spare parts) is a new specific exemption for vertical agreements being introduced, along with guidelines.
Predlagane spremembe določb o konkurenci EU bodo imele pomembne posledice za potrošnike.
These proposed changes in EU competition rules will have important implications for consumers.
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da ne bo svoboda izbire evropskih potrošnikov brez skupinskih posebnih izjem za prodajni trg omejena, zlasti ob upoštevanju prevlade velikih proizvajalcev avtomobilov?
How will the Commission ensure that European consumers are not hampered in their freedom of choice without specific block exemption rules for the sales market, and especially taking into account the dominance of the large car manufacturers?
Kako bo nova posebna ureditev v primerjavi z veljavno skupinsko izjemo zagotovila ustrezen dostop do tehničnih podatkov in nadomestnih delov za vse udeležene, da bodo potrošniki lahko dejansko izbirali prodajalca ali avtomobilski servis?
How will the new specific regime (by comparison with the current block exemption) ensure proper access to technical information and to spare parts for all operators in order to give consumers a real choice as to which dealer or garage they prefer to use?
V kakšni meri je ta pristop skladen z uredbo (ES) št. 715/2007 ?
To what extent is this approach consistent with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 ?
Kako bo nova ureditev rešila obstoječo težavo restriktivnih pogodbenih določb in garancijskih pogojev, ki potrošnike nepotrebno vežejo na določene znamke in pooblaščene servise?
How will the new regime solve the current problem of restrictive contract clauses and warranty conditions, which needlessly tie consumers to specific brands and authorised operators?
Kakšne dodatne ukrepe predlaga Komisija za prodajni trg med triletnim prehodnim obdobjem, da bo dejavno spremljala praktične posledice za potrošnike v zvezi z raznolikostjo izbire, kakovostjo in ceno?
What additional action is the Commission proposing during the three-year transition period for the sales market to actively monitor the practical consequences for consumers in terms of variety of choice, quality and price?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0045/10
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0045/10
Zadeva: Varovanje pravne varnosti, svobode izražanja in tiska
Subject: Protection of legal certainty, freedom of expression and of the press
Pri razvoju skupnega pravosodnega območja vzajemnega priznavanja lahko razlike med pravnimi sistemi držav članic vodijo v velike pritiske na temeljne pravice in svoboščine državljanov.
In developing a common judicial area of mutual recognition existing differences in Member States' legal systems can lead to situations in which citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms are put under pressure.
Tak primer so tožbe, kjer tožniki vložijo tožbe zaradi razžalitve dobrega imena in časti v državi, kjer pričakujejo najugodnejši izid.
This is the situation with 'libel tourism'.
Razlike med nacionalnimi zakoni o razžalitvi dobrega imena in časti ter pravili o posebnih pristojnostih v primerih odškodnin in deliktov lahko vodijo k izbiranju najugodnejšega sodišča, ko tožnik vloži tožbo zaradi razžalitve dobrega imena in časti v državi članici, kjer sta zakonodaja ali sodna praksa v zvezi z obrekovanjem najostrejši, še zlasti v državah, kjer velja obrnjeno dokazno breme.
Differences between national libel laws and the special jurisdiction rules in tort and delict cases lead to 'forum shopping' where plaintiffs are able to file their libel suits in the Member State with the most stringent defamation law or case-law, notably in countries with a reversed burden of proof.
Ali lahko Komisija predstavi svoje stališče o odnosu med vzajemnim priznavanjem, izbiri najugodnejše države za vložitev tožbe zaradi razžalitve dobrega imena in časti ter varovanju svobode izražanja in medijev?
Could the Commission explain its position on the relation between mutual recognition, 'libel tourism' and the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the media?
Ali Komisija meni, da je sprejemljivo in smotrno, da so proti tožencem, kot so na primer novinarji, založniki, znanstveniki in drugi, vložene tožbe v drugi državi članici kot v tisti, v kateri so objavili svoja dela, preprosto zato, ker je objavljeno delo dostopno na spletu ali se ga lahko naroči prek spleta v tožnikovi državi stalnega prebivališča?
Does the Commission find it an acceptable and sustainable situation in which defendants, i.e. journalists, publishers, scientists etc., are faced with lawsuits in other Member States than the Member State where they published their work, simply because the publication is also accessible on the Internet or can be ordered online in the plaintiff's country of residence?
Ali bo Komisija pripravila nov predlog, ki bo zapolnil to vrzel v uredbi Rim II?
Will the Commission commit to bringing forward a new proposal to fill the gap on this issue in the Rome II Regulation?
Ali je Komisija pripravljena preučiti možne zakonodajne ukrepe za zagotovitev varovanja pravne varnosti državljanov Evropske unije, kar bi pomenilo, da bi se pri pregonu oseb zaradi razžalitve dobrega imena in časti zaradi podanih izjav kot pravno podlago lahko uporabilo samo zakonodajo države, v kateri je bilo delo prvotno objavljeno, ob spoštovanju zakonite pravice tožene stranke do spoštovanja ugleda?
Would the Commission be willing to examine possible legislative action to ensure the protection of legal certainty for EU citizens entailing that the legal basis used for prosecuting people for libel on the basis of statements they have made can only be found in the legislation of the country in which the publication originated whilst respecting the legitimate right of reputation of the defendant?
Kakšno je stališče Komisija o toženih zaradi razžalitve dobrega imena in časti, ki jim grozijo izjemno dragi pravni postopki v državah, kjer velja obrnjeno dokazno breme, kar jih sili k temu, da se opravičijo in sklenejo poravnavo s plačilom odškodnine preprosto zato, ker tožnik trdi, da se čuti „osebno nadlegovan in čustveno prizadet“?
What is the Commission's position on libel defendants, facing the prospect of extremely expensive legal proceedings in countries with a reversed burden of proof, feeling compelled to issue apologies and reach settlements with compensation, simply because the plaintiff claims to feel 'personally harassed and emotionally damaged'?
Kakšne pobude bi bila pripravljena sprejeti Komisija za zagotavljanje svobode izražanja in tiska fizičnih in pravnih oseb v Evropi, obenem z zakonito pravico do spoštovanja ugleda?
What initiatives would the Commission be willing to take to guarantee the freedom of expression and freedom of the press for both natural and legal persons in Europe whilst guaranteeing the legitimate right to reputation?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0046/2010
Question for oral answer O-0046/2010
Člen 115 poslovnika
Rule 115
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
v imenu skupine ALDE
on behalf of the ALDE Group
v imenu skupine S&D
on behalf of the S&D Group
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Osnutek zakona o izraelskih nevladnih organizacijah
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Draft bill on Israeli NGOs
14. februarja 2010 je izraelska vlada glasovala v podporo zakonodajnemu predlogu z naslovom Zakon o obveznosti razkritja za prejemnike podpore od zunanjih političnih teles – 2010.
On 14 February 2010 the Israeli Government voted to support a legislative bill entitled the 'Bill on disclosure requirements for recipients of support from a foreign political entity – 2010'.
Po tem, ko je bil ta predlog zakona potrjen na prehodnem glasovanju na plenarnem zasedanju kneseta 17. februarja 2010, je kmalu predvideno dokončno glasovanje o njem.
After having passed a preliminary vote in the Knesset plenum on 17 February 2010, this bill is scheduled to be brought for a full vote soon.
Organizacije civilne družbe so izrazile resno zaskrbljenost zaradi tega zakona, ki od vseh prejemnikov sredstev iz tujine za namene „politične dejavnosti“ v Izraelu zahteva registracijo v registru političnih strank.
Civil society organisations have expressed their serious concern over this bill which requires registering all recipients receiving foreign funding for the purpose of 'political activity' in Israel under the political parties’ registrar.
V zakonu je navedena nejasna opredelitev „politične dejavnosti“, ki zajema vse dejavnosti s ciljem vplivanja na javno mnenje v Izraelu ali vplivanja na katerega koli akterja v katerem koli vladnem organu glede katerega koli elementa notranje ali zunanje politike države Izrael.
It provides a vague definition of 'political activity' which covers all activities that aim to influence public opinion in Israel or to influence any actor within any governmental authority regarding any of the elements of domestic or external policies of the State of Israel.
Zakon bi, če bi bil sprejet, prizadel širok niz civilnodružbenih organizacij v Izraelu in na zasedenih palestinskih ozemljih, vključno z okoljskimi in mirovnimi skupinami, pa tudi organizacije, ki podpirajo človekove pravice.
The bill, if adopted, would affect a broad range of civil society organisations in Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories, including environmental and peace groups as well as organisations promoting human rights.
Čeprav so te organizacije v veliki večini že registrirane kot združenja in redno ob popolni preglednosti poročajo o vseh sredstvih, ki jih prejemajo, bi jim lahko nova opredelitev njihovega statusa – kot „politične stranke“ – odvzela legitimnost v javnosti, povečala nadzor države nad njihovimi dejavnostmi in ogrozila njihov karitativni status/status oprostitve davkov, zaradi česar lahko tudi za donatorje iz tujine postane nemogoče, da bi nadaljevali s svojim financiranjem.
Although the vast majority of the organisations concerned are already registered as associations and report regularly with full transparency on all funding they receive, the redefinition of their status under 'political parties' may publicly de-legitimise them, increase state monitoring of their activities, and undermine their charity/tax exempts status, which may also render it impossible for foreign donors to continue their funding.
Neupoštevanje zakona lahko privede do denarne ali celo zaporne kazni.
Non-compliance with the bill may result in fines or even imprisonment.
Parlament je v svoji resoluciji z dne 10. marca 2010 ( P7_TA(2010)0054 ) že izrazil zaskrbljenost zaradi pritiska nad nevladnimi organizacijami, ki so prispevale k pripravi Goldstonovega poročila in so bile vključene v nadaljnje preiskave, ter pozval oblasti vseh vpletenih strani, naj se vzdržijo vseh ukrepov, ki omejujejo dejavnosti teh organizacij.
In its resolution of 10 March 2010 ( P7_TA(2010)0054 ), Parliament already expressed its concern about pressure placed on NGOs that had contributed to the elaboration of the Goldstone Report and were involved in follow-up investigations, and called on authorities on all sides to refrain from any measures restricting the activities of these organisations.
Kako se bo visoka predstavnica/podpredsednica Komisije – ob upoštevanju dejstva, da EU zagotavlja neposredno financiranje organizacij za človekove pravice v Izraelu in deluje v skladu s svojimi smernicami o zaščiti zagovornikov človekovih pravic – odzvala na omenjeni predlog zakona?
Taking into account the fact that the EU provides direct funding to human rights organisations in Israel and acts according to its own guidelines on the protection of human rights defenders, how will the High Representative/Vice President of the Commission react to the above-mentioned bill?
Kakšne utegnejo biti posledice te zakonodaje za evropsko financiranje ter za izraelske in palestinske civilnodružbene organizacije?
What might be the consequences of this legislation for European funding and the implications for Israeli and Palestinian civil society organisations?
Kako bo ta zakonodaja vplivala na odnose med EU in Izraelom, še posebej v povezavi s pridružitvenim sporazumom?
How will this legislation affect the relationship between the EU and Israel, within the context of the Association Agreement in particular?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0047/10
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0047/10
Zadeva: Uredba o skupinskih izjemah za motorna vozila
Subject: Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation
Komisija je leta 2002 sprejela uredbo o skupinskih izjemah za motorna vozila (Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1400/2002 ), saj je menila, da sektor motornih vozil na bi smel biti zajet v splošni uredbi o skupinah vertikalnih sporazumov (Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 2790/1999 ).
In 2002 the Commission adopted the MVBER (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 ) because it considered that the motor vehicle sector should not be brought within the general vertical agreements block exemption regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 ).
Menila je namreč, da so potrebne specifične določbe za posamezne težave v zvezi s konkurenco v tem sektorju, natančneje v zvezi z oligopolnim položajem na evropskem trgu vozil.
It considered indeed that specific provisions were needed to address particular competition problems it had identified in this sector, namely an oligopolistic situation in the European car market.
Uredba o skupinskih izjemah za motorna vozila bo prenehala veljati 31. maja 2010.
The MVBER will expire on 31 May 2010.
Komisija namerava 1. junija 2013 na primarnem trgu (tj. trg za kupovanje in prodajo novih vozil) uvesti splošni režim, medtem ko bo za servisne storitve še naprej veljala posebna ureditev.
The Commission intends to bring the primary market (i.e. the market for purchase and sale of new vehicles) into the general regime on 1 June 2013, whereas the after sales market will still have a specific regulation.
Na podlagi katerih izsledkov tržne analize je Komisija sklenila, da je primarni trg zdaj konkurenčen in da so na trgu servisnih storitev še vedno težave?
Which results of market analysis led the Commission to conclude that the primary market is currently competitive and the after sales market is still problematic?
Kako Komisija ocenjuje razmerje moči med proizvajalci avtomobilov in trgovci z avtomobili pod sedanjo uredbo o skupinskih izjemah za motorna vozila in pod predlaganim pravnim okvirom?
How does the Commission evaluate the balance of power between car manufacturers and car dealers under the current MVBER and under the proposed legislative framework?
Ali ima kateri akter posamični ali skupni prevladujoč položaj?
Are there players with a simple or collective dominant position?
Kako namerava Komisija spremljati razvoj tržnih sil na primarnem trgu in trgu servisnih storitev?
How does the Commission intend to monitor the evolution of market power in the primary and after sales markets?
Katere ukrepe predvideva Komisija, če bi se izkazalo, da se je konkurenčnost, zlasti na primarnem trgu, občutno poslabšala?
Which measures does the Commission envisage should it appear that the competitive conditions, in particular in the primary market, have significantly worsened?
Kakšna so pričakovanja glede posledic novega zakonodajnega okvira za potrošnike, zlasti kar zadeva cene in ugodnosti?
What is the expected impact of the new legislative framework on consumers, in particular as regards prices and conditions offered?
Katere pripombe zainteresiranih strani, pridobljene zlasti med posvetovanjem, namerava Komisija vključiti v končni zakonodajni okvir?
Which comments received from stakeholders, particularly during the consultations, does the Commission intend to incorporate in the final legislative framework?
Ali je Komisija pripravljena preučiti možnost, da bi predlagala uskladitev zakonodaje na področju distribucije, na primer s spremembo direktive o trgovskih zastopnikih (Direktiva Sveta 86/653/EGS ), z namenom zagotoviti, da bodo vsi trgovci deležni enako visoke stopnje pogodbenega varstva v vseh državah članicah EU?
Does the Commission agree to consider proposing harmonising legislation in the area of distribution, for instance by amending the Commercial Agency Directive (Council Directive 86/653/EEC ), in order to ensure that all dealers benefit from the same high level of contractual protection in every EU Member State?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0048/10
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0048/10
Zadeva: Širše smernice ekonomske politike in okrepljeno gospodarsko upravljanje (vključno z upravljanjem evra) v strategiji EU 2020
Subject: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and enhanced economic governance (including the governance of the euro) in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy
Komisija je 27. aprila 2010 sprejela priporočilo za priporočilo Sveta o širših smernicah ekonomske politike v državah članicah in Uniji za izvajanje strategije EU 2020, sredi maja 2010 pa naj bi tudi predstavila konkretne predloge za boljše in okrepljeno usklajevanje in nadzor gospodarske politike v Uniji, zlasti v državah članicah, ki so v območju enotne valute.
On 27 April 2010, the Commission adopted a recommendation for a Council Recommendation on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, and it is expected to come forward in mid-May 2010 with concrete proposals on how to improve and strengthen economic policy coordination and surveillance in the Union, in particular among Member States belonging to the single currency area.
Kako namerava Komisija okrepiti zavezanost širšim smernicam ekonomske politike, nadzor nad njimi in njihovo uresničevanje?
How does the Commission intend to strengthen the commitment, monitoring and implementation of the BEPGs?
Kako bo nacionalnim parlamentom in Evropskemu parlamentu zagotovila dejavno vlogo v procesu večstranskega nadzora?
How will it ensure an active role of the national parliaments and the European Parliament in the multilateral surveillance process?
Katere konkretne dodatne instrumente je Komisija predvidela za dopolnitev pakta za stabilnost in rast in oblikovanje stalnega okvira za preprečevanje makroekonomskih kriz?
Which concrete additional instruments is the Commission foreseeing to complement the SGP and to work towards a permanent macro-economic crisis prevention framework?
Katere spremembe instrumentov so po njenem mnenju potrebne, da bi se okrepil okvir večstranskega nadzora?
Which instrument changes is it considering so as to strengthen the multilateral surveillance framework?
Ali je Komisija pripravljena predlagati časovnico za EU in skupna predvidevanja za postopke nacionalnih proračunov?
Is the Commission ready to propose an EU calendar and common forecast assumptions for national budget processes?
Ali je pripravljena predlagati sekundarno zakonodajo za oblikovanje bolj zavezujočega okvira za širši in globlji večstranski nadzor?
Is it ready to propose secondary legislation in order to establish a more binding framework for wider and deeper multilateral surveillance?
Kakšna bi bila pravna narava in zahtevani pogoji okvira za preprečevanje makroekonomskih kriz?
What would be the legal nature and the conditionality requirements of the macro-economic crisis prevention framework?
Katere so glavne razlike med političnimi priporočili, ki so že vključena v sporočilo „Javne finance v EMU v letu 2006 – Prvo leto revidiranega Pakta stabilnosti in rasti“ ter tistimi v sporočilu o uspehih in izzivih 10 let po uvedbi ekonomske in monetarne unije (EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union)?
What would be the main differences to the policy recommendations already included in the Communication on ‘Public Finances in the EMU 2006 - The first year of the revised Stability and Growth Pact’ and in the Communication on ‘EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union’?
Kakšno vlogo naj bi prevzela Komisija in Parlament v delovni skupini, ki jo je Evropski svet ustanovil marca 2010 za izboljšanje gospodarskega upravljanja v Uniji?
What role does the Commission see for the Commission and the Parliament in the task force established by the European Council in March 2010 in order to improve economic governance in the Union?