natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na seji odbora LIBE dne 5. novembra 2009 so med prvo izmenjavo mnenj o predlogih Komisije o omejevalnih ukrepih predstavniki Komisije in švedskega predsedstva izjavili, da bodo imeli po uveljavitvi Lizbonske pogodbe ti predlogi dokumentov podlago v členu 215 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske Unije (PDEU) (predviden pod naslovom IV „Omejevalni ukrepi“ petega dela „Zunanje delovanje Unije“).
During the LIBE Committee meeting of 5 November in the context of the first exchange of views on the Commission proposals dealing with restrictive measures , the Commission and the Swedish Presidency representatives declared that after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty these proposals will be based on Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (foreseen under Title IV "Restrictive measures" of Part Five "External Action by the Union").
Poudariti je treba, da bodo ukrepi, ki vplivajo na pravice posameznikov, po uveljavitvi Lizbonske pogodbe preučeni, ne da bi Evropski parlament pri tem sodeloval (člen 215 PDEU) ali bil udeležen pri soodločanju (člen 75 PDEU).
It should be pointed out that following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty measures affecting the rights of individuals will be examined without involving the European Parliament (Article 215 TFEU) or associating it in co-decision (Article 75 TFEU).
Ta razlika v obravnavanju je zelo presenetljiva, saj bi bil lahko Evropski parlament izključen iz sprejemanja zavezujočih protiterorističnih ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo na ozemlju Evropske unije (tudi če ne izvirajo iz EU), kljub temu, da je pristojen za kazenske zadeve, zlasti za preprečevanje terorističnih kaznivih dejanj in boju proti njim.
This different treatment is very striking as, although competent for penal matters and particularly for preventing and combating terrorist offences, the European Parliament may be excluded from the adoption of some binding anti-terrorism measures that are applicable on EU territory (even if these originate outside the EU).
Ali lahko Svet glede na navedeno, sedanje določbe pogodb ter določbe Lizbonske pogodbe odgovori na naslednja vprašanja:
In the light of the above and given both the current Treaty provisions and those of the Lisbon Treaty, could the Council elaborate on the following:
Ali bi bilo mogoče predvideti dvojno pravno podlago (člena 215 in 75 PDEU), ko gre za posamezne pravice in politiko boja proti terorizmu, s čimer bi postopek odločanja postal bolj demokratičen?
Could a double legal basis (Articles 215 and 75 TFEU) be envisaged when individual rights and anti-terrorism policies are at stake, thereby making this a more democratic decision-making process?
Ali bi bilo mogoče za predloge o Zimbabveju in Somaliji, kjer posvetovanje z Evropskim parlamentom po členu 215 PDEU ni obvezno, predvideti vsaj izbirno posvetovanje (v skladu s stuttgartsko izjavo Evropskega sveta o Evropski uniji z 19. junija 1983, ki predvideva izbirno posvetovanje s parlamentom v mednarodnih zadevah, čeprav pogodbe tega ne določajo)?
For the proposals concerning Zimbabwe and Somalia where consultation of the European Parliament is not mandatory under Article 215 TFEU, could optional consultation of the Parliament not at least be envisaged (in accordance with the European Council "Stuttgart Declaration on the European Union" of 19 June 1983 where such optional consultation of the Parliament was foreseen in international matters even when not set out in the Treaties)?
KOM(2009)0395, KOM(2009)0393, KOM(2009)0187 in dokument Sveta 12883/2009.
COM(2009)0395, COM(2009)0393, COM(2009)0187 and Council Document 12883/2009.
Evropski parlament in Svet bosta zaprošena, da določita okvir za upravne ukrepe o pretoku kapitala in plačilnem prometu, na primer o zamrznitvi sredstev, finančnih sredstev ali ekonomskih koristi, ki pripadajo fizičnim ali pravnim osebam, skupinam ali nedržavnim subjektov, so njihova last ali z njimi razpolagajo.
The European Parliament and the Council will be called upon to define a framework for administrative measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0136/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0136/09
Ali lahko Komisija glede na navedeno, sedanje določbe pogodb ter določbe Lizbonske pogodbe odgovori na naslednja vprašanja:
In the light of the above and given both the current Treaty provisions and those of the Lisbon Treaty, could the Commission elaborate on the following:
Ali lahko Komisija zagotovi natančnejše podatke o izboljšanju dela sankcijskih odborov ZN glede spoštovanja temeljnih pravic?
Could the Commission provide more detailed information on the improvements, as far as fundamental rights are concerned, in the work of the UN Sanctions Committees?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0137/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0137/09
Zadeva: Uvoz mesa iz držav izven Skupnosti
Subject: Meat imports from non-Community countries
V zadnjih dveh letih je Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo Evropske unije opravil več inšpekcijskih pregledov v različnih državah, od koder Evropska unija uvaža izdelke iz govejega mesa.
In the last two years, the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) has carried out several inspections in various countries from which the EU imports beef products.
Po vsaki misiji je bilo objavljeno končno ocenjevalno poročilo, kjer so ocenjeni varnost hrane, obstoječi sistemi za nadzor javnega zdravja ter postopki certificiranja pri izvozu govejega mesa.
After each of those missions, a final assessment report has been published which evaluates food safety and public health control systems in place, as well as certification procedures in relation to exported beef meat.
Kako je glede na ugotovitve inšpekcijskih pregledov potrošnikom v Evropski uniji mogoče zagotoviti, da vse meso, uvoženo iz teh držav, ustreza zahtevam Evropske unije za varnost hrane, zlasti glede sistema sledljivosti za identifikacijo živali in shranjevanja podatkov?
In the light of the inspection results, what guarantees can EU consumers be given that all meat import from those countries meet EU food safety requirements, especially with regard to the traceability system for animal identification and database storage?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0138/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0138/09
Zadeva: Iskanje politične rešitve za Somalijo
Subject: A political solution in Somalia
Kljub temu, da se primeri piratstva še vedno pojavljajo, pa operacija Evropske unije za boj proti piratstvu Atalanta tako za države članice in sodelujoče tretje države, kot za zadevne države v regiji in mednarodno pomorsko skupnost soglasno velja za uspeh.
Although acts of piracy are still happening unfortunately, those Member States and non-EU countries taking part, the countries affected in the region and the international maritime community have all unanimously hailed the EU's anti-piracy operation Atalanta as a success.
Vendar pa se vsi akterji enako zavedajo dejstva, da je trajnostna rešitev pojava piratstva mogoča le, če se rešijo vzroki zanj, ki obstajajo na kopnem.
However, all parties concerned are also well aware that the root causes of the phenomenon of piracy, which lie on land, need to be tackled if lasting success is to be achieved.
Generalni sekretar/visoki predstavnik za skupno zunanjo in varnostno politiko Javier Solana je maja letos državam članicam napisal pismo v prid integriranemu pristopu Evropske unije, kateremu je sledil dokument z različnimi možnostmi.
The SG/HR Javier Solana wrote to the Member States last May advocating an integrated approach by the European Union and following this up with an options paper.
Kako se je na splošno Svet odzval na skupni dokument z dne 3. julija 2009?
What action has the Council taken, in general terms, in response to the joint paper of 3 July 2009?
Prednost je bila dana dvema možnostma: na eni strani je šlo za okrepitev regionalnih (Džibuti, Jemen, Somalija, vključno s Puntlandom in Somalilandom) zmožnosti za boj proti piratstvu, na drugi strani pa za bolj usmerjene ukrepe za stabilizacijo razmer v Somaliji, zlasti z usposabljanjem somalskih varnostnih sil.
Two lines of action were favoured there: building up regional (Djibouti, Yemen, Somalia, including Puntland and Somaliland) capabilities in combating piracy and a greater focus on stabilising Somalia, notably by training the Somali security forces.
Ali so države članice pripravljene vložiti v usposabljanje teh sil, v katerega bi bilo vključenih več kot prvih 500 izurjenih vojakov?
Are the Member States ready to move beyond the initial 500 soldiers trained and really engage in training the security forces?
Kakšen napredek je bil dosežen pri vzpostavljanju centra za usposabljanje obalne straže?
What progress has been made in setting up a coastguard training centre?
Ali se predvideva sodelovanje več držav članic in uporabo več sredstev?
Are there plans to involve more Member States and provide more resources?
Ali bi se lahko področje delovanja operacije razširilo?
Would the EU be prepared to expand the field of operations?
Na kakšen način namerava Unija, glede na nestabilno zvezno vlado Somalije, iskati podporo Somalilanda in predvsem Puntlanda (kjer se zdi, da je nova oblast naklonjena reševanju problematike piratstva) za stabiliziranje razmer v državi?
Given the fragility of the Somali Federal Government, how does the EU intend to urge Somaliland, and especially Puntland (where the new authorities seem prepared to tackle the problem of piracy), to stabilise the country?
Na kakšen način namerava Svet še bolj vključiti države v regiji?
What plans does the Council have to involve governments in the region more?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0139/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0139/09
Mednarodni odziv na pomorsko piratstvo v Adenskem zalivu je osvetlil pomanjkanje dogovarjanja med Svetom Evropske unije in Komisijo.
The international response to piracy in the Gulf of Aden has shown up the lack of consultation between the Council of the European Union and the Commission.
Kako se je na splošno Komisija odzvala na skupni dokument z dne 3. julija 2009?
What action has the Commission taken, in general terms, in response to the joint paper of 3 July 2009?
Kateri so potekajoči skupni projekti, ki imajo za namen izboljšati doslednost in učinkovitost zunanjega ukrepanja?
What joint projects to strengthen the consistency and effectiveness of external action are currently underway?
Koliko znaša, ob upoštevanju vseh virov financiranja, razvojna pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena Somaliji?
In total, taking all sources of funding into account, how much money has been allocated to Somalia in development aid?
Na kakšen način se ta sredstva v tej fazi uporabljajo za oblikovanje integriranega pristopa Unije?
How are these funds being used at this stage to implement an integrated EU approach?
Kako lahko ta znesek povežemo s pobudami, ki se že izvajajo v regiji, zlasti usposabljanje somalske obalne straže in vzpostavljaje centra za usposabljanje v Džibutiju?
How can this sum of money be reconciled with the initiatives already implemented in the region, notably the training of Somali coastguards and the creation of a training centre in Djibouti?
Ali bi Komisija lahko predvidela najprej razširitev področja uporabe operacije in uporabo več sredstev, in ali meni, da je realistično razmišljati o sodelovanju več držav članic?
In the Commission’s view, would it be possible to expand the field of operations and commit more resources, and is it realistic to consider involving more Member States?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0140/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0140/09
Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo izvaja inšpekcijske preglede v državah članicah EU in v državah, od koder Evropska unija uvaža mesne izdelke.
The EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is carrying out inspections in various EU member countries and also countries from which the EU imports meat products.
Urad v končnih poročilih, ki jih objavi po inšpekcijskih pregledih, oceni, ali sistemi za nadzor javnega zdravja in certifikacijski organi izpolnjujejo zahteve, potrebne za zagotavljanje varnosti hrane.
The final reports that the FVO is publishing after the inspections evaluate whether the public health control systems and certification bodies meet the standards required to guarantee food safety.
Ali je po objavi poročil o inšpekcijskih pregledih za tretje države in glede na ugotovitve in priporočila v njih potrošnikom Evropske unije mogoče zagotoviti, da vse meso, uvoženo iz teh držav, ustreza zahtevam Evropske unije za varnost hrane ter da v sistemih za identifikacijo živali in bazah podatkov ni pomanjkljivosti?
After publication of the inspection reports for third countries and in the light of the conclusions and the recommendations included, what guarantees can EU consumers be given that all meat imports from these countries meet EU food safety requirements and that there are no deficiencies in the animal identification systems and databases?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0141/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0141/09
Zadeva: Spletne igre na srečo in nedavne sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti
Subject: Online gambling in relation to recent ECJ rulings
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v svoji sodbi C-42/07 potrdilo, da lahko vsaka država članica sama določi cilje politike na področju iger na srečo in opredeli želeno raven zaščite.
The European Court of Justice confirms in its ruling C-42/07 that each Member State is free to set the objectives of its policy on betting and gambling and to define the level of protection sought.
Zato lahko države članice na svojem ozemlju upravljavcem prepovejo ponujanje iger na srečo prek spleta, čeprav imajo upravljavci sedež v drugi državi članici, v kateri lahko podobne storitve ponujajo legalno.
Therefore any Member State is allowed to prohibit operators from offering games of chance via the internet within the territory of that Member State, even when they are established in other Member States in which they lawfully provide similar services.
Vendar morajo omejitve (svobode opravljanja storitev) ustrezati doseganju ciljev, ki jih navede posamezna država članica, in morajo biti sorazmerne ter se uporabljati brez diskriminacije.
However, restrictions (on the freedom to provide services) should be suitable for achieving the objective(s) invoked by the Member State concerned, they must be proportionate and applied without discrimination.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je to zadnjo točko poudarilo v sodbi C-153/08.
The ECJ underlines this latter point in its ruling C-153/08.
S tem v zvezi je nacionalna zakonodaja ustrezna za doseganje cilja zgolj, če se izvaja dosledno in sistematično.
In that regard, national legislation is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued only if it is done in a consistent and systematic manner.
V več državah članicah poteka revizija regulativnega okvira na tem področju.
Meanwhile, several Member States are revising their regulatory framework in this field.
Sklicujoč se na svojo resolucijo o neoporečnosti spletnih iger na srečo z dne 10. marca 2009 ( P6_TA(2009)0097 ), zastavlja Parlament Komisiji naslednja vprašanja:
With reference to its Resolution on the integrity of online gambling of 10 March 2009 ( P6_TA(2009)0097 ), Parliament asks the Commission:
Ali Komisija predvideva skupen regulativni okvir za vse številnejše čezmejne spletne igre na srečo, ki bo zagotavljal odgovoren pristop do iger na srečo, in zlasti zaščitil ranljive potrošnike, preprečeval odvisnost in kompulzivno igranje ter organizirani kriminal?
Does the Commission anticipate a common regulatory framework for the growing number of cross-border online gambling activities, to ensure responsible online gambling, with a view to protecting vulnerable consumers, preventing addictions and compulsiveness and avoiding organised crime?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0142/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0142/09
V zadnjih tednih je več držav članic začelo s prisilnim vračanjem Afganistancev v Afganistan, kjer pa je za nekatera območja dokazano, da je varnost oseb ogrožena.
During recent weeks several Member States have begun forced joint returns of Afghans to Afghanistan where, in some areas, an established risk for an individual’s physical safety exists.
Ali je mogoče Afganistan obravnavati kot varno tretjo državo, glede na to, da so Afganistanci največja begunska skupnost na svetu (z več kot 2,7 milijona begunci, ob 500 000 razseljenih osebah), in glede na splošno neurejenost razmer v državi?
Bearing in mind that Afghans make up the largest community of refugees in the world (more than 2.7 million people, and 500 000 displaced persons) and the situation of general confusion in the country, can Afghanistan be treated as a safe third country?
Če Svet Afganistan obravnava kot tretjo državo, ki ni varna, ali skupni leti predstavljajo kršitev 33. člena Ženevske konvencije o nevračanju?
If the Council considers that Afghanistan is not a safe third country, are the joint flights in violation of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention on non-refoulement?
Ali Svet skupne lete obravnava kot kolektivni izgon?
Does the Council consider that joint flights are a collective expulsion?
Ali Svet lahko zajamči, da se pred vsakim vračanjem natančno preveri, ali je oseba vložila vlogo za mednarodno zaščito, in če je, ali je bil pri obravnavi v celoti upoštevan vsak korak v postopku, in ali varnost teh oseb v državi vrnitve ni ogrožena?
Can the Council guarantee that prior to each return a detailed check will have been carried out to ensure that the person either did not introduce a request for international protection, that every step of the examination of the procedure was fully respected if they did, and that their security is not threatened in the country of return?
Ali Svet lahko naknadno preveri, da je temu tako v primerih prisilne vrnitve?
Is the Council able to verify a posteriori that this is indeed the case in instances of forced return?
Ali Svet meni, da bi afganistanski državljani lahko pridobili subsidiarno zaščito po členu 15c direktive 2004/83/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izpolnjevanju pogojev državljanov tretjih držav, ki opredeljuje "resno in individualno grožnjo za življenje ali osebnost civilista zaradi samovoljnega nasilja v situacijah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada"?
Does the Council consider that Afghan nationals could obtain subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) of the ‘qualification’ Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, which refers to a ‘serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’?
Ali je po mnenju Sveta legitimno vrniti osebo, ki na ozemlju EU biva nezakonito, le zato, ker ni vložila vloge za mednarodno zaščito, kljub dobro znanemu dejstvu, da se zaradi uredbe Dublin II številni prosilci za azila v določeni državi članici ob vstopu na ozemlje EU bojijo vložiti vlogo za azil?
Does the Council regard it as legitimate to return a person residing irregularly on EU territory for the sole reason that he or she has not introduced a request for international protection, despite being fully aware of the fact that, because of the Dublin II regulation, many asylum seekers are afraid to introduce a request for asylum in a Member State when entering EU territory?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0143/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0143/09
V zadnjih tednih je več držav članic začelo s prisilnim vračanjem Afganistancev v Afganistan, kjer pa je za nekatera območja dokazano, da je varnost oseb ogrožena zaradi vojnih razmer, ki vladajo tam.
During recent weeks several Member States have begun forced joint returns of Afghans to Afghanistan where, in some areas, an established risk for an individual’s physical safety exists because of the ongoing war.
Če Komisija Afganistan obravnava kot tretjo državo, ki ni varna, ali skupni leti predstavljajo kršitev 33. člena Ženevske konvencije o nevračanju?
If the Commission considers that Afghanistan is not a safe third country, are the joint flights in violation of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention on non-refoulement?
Ali Komisija skupne lete obravnava kot kolektivni izgon?
Does the Commission consider that joint flights are a collective expulsion?
Ali Komisija lahko zajamči, da se pred vsakim vračanjem natančno preveri, ali je oseba vložila vlogo za mednarodno zaščito, in če je, ali je bil pri obravnavi v celoti upoštevan vsak korak v postopku, in ali varnost teh oseb v državi vrnitve ni ogrožena?
Can the Commission guarantee that prior to each return a detailed check will have been carried out to ensure that the person either did not introduce a request for international protection, that every step of the examination of the procedure was fully respected if they did, and that their security is not threatened in the country of return?
Ali Komisija lahko naknadno preveri, da je temu tako v primerih prisilne vrnitve?
Is the Commission able to verify a posteriori that this is indeed the case in instances of forced return?
Ali Komisija meni, da bi afganistanski državljani lahko pridobili subsidiarno zaščito po členu 15c direktive 2004/83/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izpolnjevanju pogojev državljanov tretjih držav, ki opredeljuje "resno in individualno grožnjo za življenje ali osebnost civilista zaradi samovoljnega nasilja v situacijah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada"?
Does the Commission consider that Afghan nationals could obtain subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) of the ‘qualification’ Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, which refers to a ‘serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’?
Ali je po mnenju Komisije legitimno vrniti osebo, ki na ozemlju EU biva nezakonito, le zato, ker ni vložila vloge za mednarodno zaščito, kljub dobro znanemu dejstvu, da se zaradi uredbe Dublin II številni prosilci za azila v določeni državi članici ob vstopu na ozemlje EU bojijo vložiti vlogo za azil?
Does the Commission regard it as legitimate to return a person residing irregularly on EU territory for the sole reason that he or she has not introduced a request for international protection, despite being fully aware of the fact that, because of the Dublin II regulation, many asylum seekers are afraid to introduce a request for asylum in a Member State when entering EU territory?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0144/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0144/09
Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo je tudi ugotovil, da veliko pošiljk v tranzitu prek Evropske unije ni imelo uradnih potrdil.
The FVO also found that a large number of consignments in transit through the EU did not have official certificates.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0145/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0145/09
Zadeva: Glavni cilji za konferenco pogodbenic konvencije o mednarodni trgovini z ogroženimi prostoživečimi živalskimi in rastlinskimi vrstami (CITES) v Dohi 13.-25. marca 2010
Subject: Key objectives for the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Doha, 13-25 March 2010
Ali lahko Svet predstavi glavne strateške cilje Evropske unije za prihodnjo konferenco pogodbenic konvencije o mednarodni trgovini z ogroženimi prostoživečimi živalskimi in rastlinskimi vrstami (CITES), ki bo v Dohi (Katar) med 13. in 25. marcem 2010?
Can the Council present the key strategic objectives for the European Union at the forthcoming Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that will be held in Doha (Qatar) from 13 to 25 March 2010?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0146/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0146/09