natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Močan, ekonomsko neodvisen in dobro upravljan ribiški sektor lahko vsestransko in pomembno prispeva k evropski družbi in gospodarstvu in ima vplivno vlogo v strategiji Evropa 2020.
A vibrant, economically independent, well managed fishery sector could make wide-ranging, significant contributions to European society and the economy and thus play an important role in the Europe 2020 Strategy.
Kako namerava Komisija vključiti evropsko ribištvo v strategijo Evropa 2020?
How does the Commission intend to integrate European fisheries into the Europe 2020 Strategy?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000278/2011
Question for oral answer O-000278/2011
v imenu skupine ECR Zadeva: Prispevek skupne ribiške politike k ustvarjanju javnih dobrin
on behalf of the ECR Group Subject: The contribution of the CFP to the production of public goods
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000279/2011
Question for oral answer O-000279/2011
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE Zadeva: Novi romunski civilni zakonik ter prosto gibanje lezbijk, gejev, biseksualnih in transseksualnih oseb
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Subject: New Romanian Civil Code and free movement of LGBT persons
Člen 277 novega romunskega civilnega zakonika, ki je začel veljati 1. oktobra 2011, obravnava prepoved zunajzakonske skupnosti in njene enakopravnosti z zakonsko zvezo .
Article 277 of the new Civil Code of Romania (RCC), which entered into force on 1 October 2011, deals with the ‘Prohibition of forms of cohabitation and of their equivalence with marriage’ .
- Ali se Svet strinja, da je izrecna prepoved istospolnih zakonskih zvez (člen 277(1) romunskega civilnega zakonika) ali partnerskih skupnosti oziroma njihovo nepriznavanje, če so bile sklenjene v tujini (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika), v civilnem zakoniku ali ustavi usmerjena proti istospolnim parom in osebam na podlagi njihove spolne usmerjenosti ter utrjuje tovrstno diskriminacijo v temeljni zakonodaji države?
- Does the Council agree that the explicit prohibition of same-sex marriage (Article 277(1) RCC) or partnership or of their recognition when contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) RCC) in civil codes or constitutions, targets same-sex couples and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and cements such discrimination in the fundamental laws of the State?
- Ali se Svet strinja, da je izrecna prepoved priznavanja istospolnih zakonskih zvez in civilnih partnerskih skupnosti med osebami nasprotnega ali istega spola, sklenjenih v tujini (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika), čeprav so omenjene določbe o prostem gibanju (člen 277(4) romunskega civilnega zakonika), v nasprotju s temeljno pravico državljanov EU iz člena 2(2) Direktive 2004/38/EC o prostem gibanju državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov, da svoj civilni status prenesejo, če se preselijo iz države članice A v državo članico B?
- Does the Council agree that the explicit prohibition of the recognition of same-sex marriages and of civil partnerships, both of the opposite sex or the same sex, contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) 277 RCC), regardless of references to the free movement provisions (Article 277(4) RCC), runs counter to EU citizens’ fundamental right to carry their civil status with them when moving from Member State A to Member state B under Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement of EU citizens and their family members?
- Ali se Svet strinja, da novi civilni zakonik ustvarja pravno negotovost in navzkrižje med odstavki (1), (2) in (3) člena 277 na eni strani ter odstavkom (4) tega člena na drugi strani, saj bi se lahko izničila uporaba člena 2 Direktive 2004/38/ES, v katerem so opredeljeni družinski člani (med katere sodi tudi zakonec), in člena 3 te direktive glede obveznosti, da se olajša vstop in prebivanje, ali pa bi se lahko ta člena uporabila tako, da se istospolni zakonci ali partnerji in partnerji nasprotnega spola ne bi mogli prosto gibati?
- Does the Council agree that the new Civil Code creates a situation of legal uncertainty and contradiction between Article 277(1), (2) and (3) RCC on the one hand and Article 277(4) RCC on the other, as the application of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC defining family members (which includes ‘spouse’) and of Article 3 on the duty of facilitation of entry and residence could be nullified or applied in such a way as to deny free movement of same-sex spouses and partners and of opposite-sex partners, on the basis of the recognition prohibition?
- Kako namerava Svet zagotoviti, da določbe iz člena 277 novega romunskega zakonika ne bodo v nasprotju z vrednotami in duhom ustanovnih pogodb ter načeloma enakosti in nediskriminacije?
- How will the Council guarantee that the provisions of Article 277 of the new Civil Code of Romania are not contrary to the values and spirit of the Treaties and of the principles of equality and non-discrimination?
- Kako namerava zagotoviti, da se bodo spoštovale pravice državljanov Unije in njihovih družin ter da se ne bo ustvarilo nestrpno in homofobno vzdušje ter povečala napetost in negativen vpliv na pravico do prostega gibanja državljanov EU, tudi Romunov, v Evropski uniji?
- How will the Council guarantee that the rights of EU citizens and their families are respected and not risk creating an intolerant and homophobic climate, as well as further tensions on, and repercussions for, the right to free movement of EU citizens, including Romanians, in the EU?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000280/2011
Question for oral answer O-000280/2011
- Ali je po mnenju Komisije izrecna prepoved istospolnih zakonskih zvez (člen 277(1) romunskega civilnega zakonika) ali partnerskih skupnosti oziroma njihovega priznavanja, če so sklenjene v tujini, (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika) v civilnem zakoniku ali ustavi skladna s temeljno pravico državljanov EU iz člena 2(2) Direktive 2004/38/EC o prostem gibanju državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov, da svoj civilni status prenesejo, če se preselijo iz države članice A v državo članico B?
- Does the Commission think that the explicit prohibition of same-marriage (Article 277(1) RCC) or partnership or of their recognition when contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) RCC) in civil codes or constitutions is in line with the fundamental right of EU citizens’ to carry their civil status with them when moving from Member State A to Member State B, under Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement of EU citizens and there family members?
- Ali se strinja, da so določbe člena 277 romunskega civilnega zakonika usmerjene proti istospolnim parom in osebam na podlagi njihove spolne usmerjenosti ter utrjujejo tovrstno diskriminacijo v temeljni zakonodaji države?
- Does the Commission agree that the provision in Article 277 of the Civil Code of Romanian targets same-sex couples and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and cements discrimination in the fundamental laws of the State?
- Ali se strinja, da izrecna prepoved priznavanja istospolnih zakonskih zvez in civilnih partnerskih skupnosti med osebami nasprotnega ali istega spola, sklenjenih v tujini (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika), čeprav so omenjene določbe o prostem gibanju (člen 277(4) romunskega civilnega zakonika), ustvarja pravno negotovost in navzkrižje med odstavki (1), (2) in (3) člena 277 romunskega civilnega zakonika na eni strani ter odstavkom (4) tega člena na drugi strani, saj bi se lahko izničila uporaba člena 2 Direktive 2004/38/ES, v katerem so opredeljeni družinski člani (med katere sodi tudi zakonec) ali pa bi se člen 3 te direktive glede obveznosti, da se olajša vstop in prebivanje, lahko uporabil tako, da se istospolni zakonci ali partnerji in partnerji nasprotnega spola ne bi mogli prosto gibati zaradi prepovedi priznavanja?
- Does the Commission agree that the explicit prohibition of the recognition of same-sex marriages and of civil partnerships, both of the opposite sex or same sex, contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) 277 RCC), regardless of references to the free movement provisions (Article 277(4) RCC), creates a situation of legal uncertainty and contradiction between Article 277(1), (2) and (3) RCC on the one hand and Article 277(4) RCC on the other, as the application of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC defining family members (which includes ‘spouse’) and of Article 3 on the duty of facilitation of entry and residence could be nullified or applied in such a way as to deny free movement of same-sex spouses and partners and of opposite-sex partners, on the basis of the recognition prohibition?
- Ali po mnenju Komisije te določbe spoštujejo vrednote in duha ustanovnih pogodb ter načel enakosti in nediskriminacije?
- Does the Commission find that these provisions respect the values and spirit of the Treaties and of the principles of equality and non-discrimination?
- Ali se strinja, da člen 277 romunskega civilnega zakonika utegne ustvariti nestrpno in homofobno vzdušje ter povečati napetost in negativen vpliv na pravico do prostega gibanja državljanov EU, tudi Romunov, v Evropski uniji?
- Does the Commission agree that Article 277 of the Civil Code of Romania risks creating an intolerant and homophobic climate, as well as further tensions on, and repercussions for, the right to free movement of EU citizens, including Romanians, in the EU?
- Ali bo Komisija sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Romuniji, da bi zagotovila spoštovanje direktive v celoti, njeno izvajanje brez diskriminacije zaradi spolne usmerjenosti ter dosledno spoštovanje temeljnih pravic državljanov?
- Will the Commission consider opening an infringement proceeding against Romania to ensure that the Directive is fully respected and applied without discriminations based on sexual orientation and that citizens’ fundamental rights are fully respected?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000281/2011
Question for oral answer O-000281/2011
v imenu skupine S&D Zadeva: Prispevek skupne ribiške politike k ustvarjanju javnih dobrin
on behalf of the S&D Group Subject: The contribution of the CFP to the production of public goods
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000282/2011
Question for oral answer O-000282/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Evropsko ribogojstvo
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: European aquaculture
90 % evropskih ribolovnih virov je preobremenjenih z ribolovom, zato je evropska poraba rib zelo odvisna od uvoza iz tretjih držav ter od ribiških sporazumov z njimi.
European fish resources are up to 90 % overfished, therefore European fish consumption is highly dependent on import from, and fisheries agreements with, third countries.
Pomembna rešitev je širitev ribogojstva v Evropski uniji in zunaj nje.
One important solution has been the expansion of aquaculture, within as well as outside the European Union.
Danes skoraj petina rib, namenjenih za prehrano, prihaja iz ribogojnic.
Today, nearly one in five fish eaten in Europe is raised in aquaculture.
V svojem predlogu za reformo skupne ribiške politike z dne 13. julija 2011 Komisija opozarja, da je eden največjih problemov sedanje skupne ribiške politike nezadostna razvitost ribogojstva v Uniji, ter meni, da ribogojstvo prispeva k zanesljivi preskrbi s hrano in zaposlovanju.
In its proposal for a Reform of the CFP from 13 July 2011, the Commission points to the insufficient development of aquaculture in the Union as one of the main problems of the current CFP, and qualifies aquaculture as a contribution to food security and employment.
Vendar v istem predlogu Komisija ne omenja potrebe po kakovostnih merilih za ribogojstvo.
Nonetheless, in the same proposal the Commission does not provide any mention of the necessity of qualitative criteria with regard to aquaculture.
Ker obstaja soglasnost o pomenu ribogojstva, ali bo Komisija zagotovila zadostna in lahko dostopna sredstva za razvoj trajnostnega ribogojstva?
As general unanimity exists with regard to the importance of aquaculture, will the Commission guarantee sufficient and easy-to-access funds to enable the development of sustainable aquaculture?
Če upoštevamo, da:
Taking into account that:
– je ribogojstvo v skupni pristojnosti držav članic in Unije ter
- aquaculture is of shared competence between the Member States and the EU, and
– da bodo nezavezujoče strateške smernice Unije temelj za večletne nacionalne strateške načrte,
- non-binding Union strategic guidelines will form the foundation for multiannual national strategic plans,
kako se bodo v vsej Uniji zagotovila kakovostna merila, ki bodo upoštevala socialni in ekološki vpliv kot na primer onesnaževanje podtalnice?
how can general qualitative criteria, which take into account the social and ecological impact such as contamination of ground water, be ensured throughout the Union?
Kako lahko Komisija zagotovi, da bodo države članice dosegale merila Unije?
How can the Commission ensure that Member States do not fall short of Union standards?
Evropski parlament sicer pozdravlja ustanovitev svetovalnih odborov za ribogojstvo, vendar kako bo lahko vplival na postopek ustanavljanja?
While welcoming the proposal on the establishment of Advisory Councils for Aquaculture, how is the European Parliament enabled to influence the process?
Večina rib iz ribogojnic spada med mesojedke.
The majority of fish raised in aquaculture belong to carnivorous species.
Katere ukrepe je treba sprejeti kot zagotovilo, da je njihovo hranjene ustrezno in da ne škodljivo vpliva na prostoživeče ribe, zlasti na njihovo razmnoževanje?
What measures could be employed to guarantee that their feeding is appropriate and does not have a detrimental impact on wild fish, especially concerning their breeding habits?
Ali Komisija ve, da se mesojede ribe čedalje bolj pitajo s kulturnimi rastlinami, ki ne ustrezajo njihovim naravnim prehrambnim navadam?
Is the Commission aware of the fact that carnivorous fish are increasingly being fed crop plants foreign to their natural diets?
Ali Komisija meni, da ima to lahko nevarne posledice za zdravje rib in/ali potrošnikov?
Does the Commission anticipate any health risks as a result of this for the fish and/or the consumer?
Ribe iz ribogojstva se uvažajo tudi iz držav, kjer se evropska merila, na primer ekološka merila ali merila v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, ne vedno ali učinkovito izvajajo.
Fish from aquaculture is also imported from countries where European standards, i.e. ecological standards or animal well-being, do not necessarily or effectively apply.
Kateri ukrepi so bili sprejeti, da se evropskim potrošnikom zagotovi, da so ribe za njihovo prehrano gojene v sprejemljivih pogojih?
What measures are being taken to assure European consumers that their fish are farmed in acceptable circumstances?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000283/2011
Question for oral answer O-000283/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Pogoji izvrševanja pripora in zaporne kazni v EU
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Detention conditions in the EU
Priporni pogoji in upravljanje zaporov je sicer v pristojnosti držav članic, vendar se Evropski parlament zanima za to vprašanje zaradi bistvenega pomena, ki ga ima načelo vzajemnega priznavanja odločitev sodišč na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice.
Whilst detention conditions and prison management are the responsibility of Member States, the European Parliament is interested in this issue because of the central importance that the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions has in the area of freedom, security and justice.
Že več let Parlament poziva Svet, naj sprejme ukrepe v zvezi z različnimi vprašanji, povezanimi s priporom.
For several years Parliament has been urging the Council to take action on various issues relating to detention.
V svoji resoluciji o stockholmskem programu je Parlament pozval k vzpostavitvi kazenskopravnega območja EU, ki naj bi se med drugim razvilo na podlagi minimalnih zapornih in pripornih standardov ter skupnega nabora pravic zapornikov v EU.
In its Resolution on the Stockholm Programme, Parliament calls for the establishment of an EU criminal justice area to be developed through, inter alia, minimum standards for prison and detention conditions and a common set of prisoners' rights in the EU.
Komisija je 14. junija 2011 objavila zeleno knjigo o uporabi kazenskopravne zakonodaje EU na področju pripora ter začela odprta posvetovanja z zainteresiranimi stranmi o ukrepih EU za izboljšanje pripornih pogojev, tudi za zagotovitev medsebojnega zaupanja v pravosodno sodelovanje.
On 14 June 2011 the Commission issued a Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention, launching an open consultation for stakeholders on EU measures for the improvement of detention conditions, also to ensure mutual trust in judicial cooperation.
Zelena knjiga poudarja interakcijo med pripornimi pogoji in vzajemnim priznavanjem instrumentov, kot je evropski nalog za prijetje in pripor pred sojenjem.
The Green Paper underlines the interplay between detention conditions and mutual recognition instruments such as the European Arrest Warrant as well as pre-trial detention.
Sporočilo Komisije vsebuje prilogo, v kateri je opisano zelo različno in pogosto skrb zbujajoče stanje v državah članicah, zlasti kar zadeva število oseb v priporu pred sojenjem, stopnjo zasedenosti zaporov in njihovo prenapolnjenost, delež zapornikov ter delež zapornikov, ki niso državljani zadevne države.
The Commission Communication contains an annex illustrating that the situation in the Member States is very varied and often worrying, notably in relation to the number of pre-trial detainees, the occupancy level and overcrowding, the prison population rate and the rate of non-nationals detained.
Kaj namerava na ravni EU storiti Svet za izboljšanje pripornih pogojev v državah članicah?
What will the Council do at EU level to ensure that detention conditions are improved in Member States?
Kaj namerava storiti Svet za spodbujanje minimalnih standardov v zvezi z zapornimi in pripornimi pogoji in skupnim naborom pravic zapornikov v EU, vključno z ustreznimi predpisi o odškodninah za osebe, ki so bile priprte ali obsojene po krivici?
What will the Council do to promote minimum standards for prison and detention conditions and a common set of prisoners' rights in the EU, including appropriate compensation rules for persons unjustly detained or convicted?
Kaj namerava storiti Svet za zagotovitev podpore pri gradnji novih pripornih zmogljivosti – v skladu z regionalnimi varnostnimi načrti – v državah članicah, ki se soočajo s prenapolnjenostjo zaporov in pri izvajanju programov resocializacije?
What will the Council do to provide assistance in both the construction – in accordance with regional security plans – of new detention facilities in Member States affected by prison overcrowding and the implementation of social resettlement programmes?
Kaj namerava storiti Svet za spodbujanje izboljšanja zapornih zmogljivosti v državah članicah, za njihovo tehnično opremljenost in razširitev ter njihovo funkcionalno ustreznost, da bi se izboljšali življenjski pogoji pripornikov ter hkrati zagotovila visoka raven varnosti?
What will the Council do to promote the improvement of prison facilities in Member States, in order to equip them technically and extend them, to make them functionally suitable with a view to improving the living conditions of detainees whilst at the same time ensuring a high level of security?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000284/2011
Question for oral answer O-000284/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Priporni pogoji v EU
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Detention conditions in the EU
Že več let Parlament poziva Komisijo, naj sprejme ukrepe v zvezi z različnimi vprašanji, povezanimi s priporom.
For several years Parliament has been urging the Commission to take action on various issues relating to detention.
Kaj namerava na ravni EU storiti Komisija za izboljšanje pripornih pogojev v državah članicah?
What will the Commission do at EU level to ensure that detention conditions are improved in Member States?
Kaj namerava storiti Komisija za spodbujanje minimalnih standardov v zvezi z zapornimi in pripornimi pogoji in skupnim naborom pravic zapornikov v EU, vključno z ustreznimi predpisi o odškodninah za osebe, ki so bile priprte ali obsojene po krivici?
What will the Commission do to promote minimum standards for prison and detention conditions and a common set of prisoners' rights in the EU, including appropriate compensation rules for persons unjustly detained or convicted?
Kaj namerava storiti Komisija za zagotovitev podpore pri gradnji novih pripornih zmogljivosti – v skladu z regionalnimi varnostnimi načrti – v državah članicah, ki se soočajo s prenapolnjenostjo zaporov in pri izvajanju programov resocializacije?
What will the Commission do to provide assistance in both the construction – in accordance with regional security plans – of new detention facilities in Member States affected by prison overcrowding and the implementation of social resettlement programmes?
Kaj namerava storiti Komisija za spodbujanje izboljšanja zapornih zmogljivosti v državah članicah, za njihovo tehnično opremljenost in razširitev ter njihovo funkcionalno ustreznost, da bi se izboljšali življenjski pogoji pripornikov ter hkrati zagotovila visoka raven varnosti?
What will the Commission do to promote the improvement of prison facilities in Member States, in order to equip them technically and extend them, to make them functionally suitable with a view to improving the living conditions of detainees whilst at the same time ensuring a high level of security?
Ali bo Komisija preverila vpliv zakonodaje na priporne pogoje in pripravila priporočila v zvezi s temi vprašanji?
Will the Commission examine the impact of laws on detention conditions and make recommendations in relation to these issues?
Kateri ukrep bo s strani Komisije sledil njenemu sporočilu?
What will the Commission do as a follow-up to the Communication?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000285/2011
Question for oral answer O-000285/2011
v imenu Odbora za peticije Zadeva: Svoboda nezdruževanja (peticija 0901/2008)
on behalf of the Committee on Petitions Subject: Freedom of non-association (Petition 0901/2008)
Leta 2008 je skupina švedskih lastnikov podjetij vložila peticijo (0901/2008), v kateri je navedla, da so njenim članom grozili in jih ustrahovali, ker se niso želeli pridružiti kolektivnim pogodbam, ki so jih sklenili švedski sindikati.
In 2008 a group of Swedish business owners submitted a petition (0901/2008) in which it indicated that its members had been threatened and intimidated because they declined to subscribe to collective agreements concluded by Swedish trade unions.
Vlagatelji peticije so poudarili, da zadevna podjetja izpolnjujejo vse pravne zahteve in da ponujajo enake, če ne celo boljše, delovne pogoje kot druga podjetja.
The petitioners pointed out that the businesses in question complied with all legal requirements and offered working conditions which were as good as, or better than, elsewhere.
Poleg tega avtorji peticije trdijo, da so švedski sindikati v tej zadevi nesorazmerno strogi in da je svoboda nezdruževanja pravica posameznika, ki je povsem enakovredna svobodi združevanja.
The petitioners argue that trade unions in Sweden are taking a disproportionately hard line and that freedom of non-association is an individual right equal in weight to the freedom of association.
V tem primeru gre za spoštovanje svobode posameznikov, da se ne pridružijo kolektivnim združenjem ali kolektivnim pogodbam (negativna svoboda združevanja).
The right at stake is the one of respect for freedom not to join collective associations or collective agreements (negative freedom of association).
Vlagatelji peticije menijo, da je negativna svoboda združevanja absolutna pravica in da jo je zato treba zaščititi.
The petitioners consider that the negative freedom of association is an absolute one and needs protecting.
- Ali se Komisija strinja, da je negativna svoboda združevanja temeljna in absolutna pravica v okviru pogodb ter drugih ustreznih konvencij in sporazumov, ki so obvezujoči za države članice EU?
- Does the Commission agree that the negative freedom of association is a fundamental and absolute right under the Treaties and other relevant conventions and agreements that are binding upon EU Member States?