natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Obveščevalne službe in spodleteli poskus umora savdskega veleposlanika v ZDA
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Intelligence and the foiled plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US
Oblasti ZDA so razkrile načrt in preprečile poskus umora savdskega veleposlanika v ZDA z eksplozivnimi sredstvi, ki so ga domnevno načrtovali člani iranske vlade, medtem ko je bil veleposlanik v ZDA.
US authorities have foiled a plot, allegedly masterminded by elements of the Iranian government, to blow up the Saudi Ambassador to the United States while he was in that country.
Uspeh načrta bi povzročil številne žrtve, tudi s smrtnim izidom.
Should this plot have succeeded, it would have resulted in considerable casualties and loss of life.
Državni tožilec ZDA Eric Holder je ugotovil, da je bilo s skrbnimi in usklajenimi prizadevanji organov pregona in obveščevalnih služb mogoče ta načrt preprečiti, preden bi bil kdo poškodovan.
US Attorney-General Eric Holder noted that through the diligent and coordinated efforts of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, it was possible to prevent this plot before anyone was harmed.
Direktor FBI Robert Mueller je ugotovil tudi, da preiskava, ki je pripeljala do teh obtožb, razkriva izzive in kompleksnost mednarodnih groženj ter da je danes vse lažje združiti obveščevalne službe in organe pregona, ki so potrebni za boljše odkrivanje in preprečevanje takšnih groženj, ne glede na njihov izvor.
FBI Director Robert Mueller also noted that the investigation leading to these charges illustrates both the challenges and complexities of international threats, and the fact that today it has become easier to bring together the intelligence and law enforcement resources necessary to better identify and prevent such threats, regardless of their origin.
Glede na pomembno vlogo, ki jo je imelo zbiranje in usklajevanje podatkov obveščevalnih služb pri razkrivanju tega načrta in reševanju življenj, ali Komisija lahko
In view of the important role that intelligence gathering and coordination have played in foiling this plot and saving lives, can the Commission:
- pregleda možnost izmenjave najboljših praks pri uporabi podatkov obveščevalnih služb in usklajevanju v tem primeru z namenom boja proti terorizmu in reševanja življenj?
- look into exchanging best practices as to how intelligence and coordination were used in this case in order to fight terrorism and save lives?
- ugotovi, ali je te najboljše prakse mogoče uporabiti za okrepitev in izboljšanje instrumentov EU za boj proti terorizmu?
- see whether those best practices can be applied in order to enhance and improve EU instruments in the fight against terrorism?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000315/2011
Question for oral answer O-000315/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Zunajozemeljski učinek zakonodaje tretjih držav in zakonodaja EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws
Zakonodaja tretje države ima lahko neposreden zunajozemeljski učinek na podjetja in državljane na ozemlju EU.
Third-country legislation may have extra-territorial impact directly affecting companies and citizens within EU territory.
Taka zakonodaja je lahko v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU, na primer o varstvu osebnih podatkov.
Such legislation may clash with EU legislation, for example on data protection.
Ameriški zakoni o zdravstvenem varstvu (Medicare Act), izpolnjevanju davčnih obveznosti (FATCA), nadzoru s strani tujih obveščevalnih služb (FISA) in domovinski varnosti (Patriot Act), zahtevajo predložitev osebnih podatkov, ki so shranjeni v Evropi, organom ZDA.
Thus, the Medicare Act, FATCA, FISA and the Patriot Act require the submission of personal data stored in Europe to the US authorities:
Ali Komisija meni, da lahko zakonodaja tretje države, kot so ti primeri ameriške zakonodaje, dejansko prevlada nad ustrezno zakonodajo EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov ter pravicami in jamstvi, ki jih ta jamči državljanom in podjetjem?
Does the Commission consider that third-country legislation, like these examples of US legislation, can effectively overrule relevant EU data protection legislation and the rights and guarantees it provides for citizens and businesses?
Ali je Komisija seznanjena s kakšnimi drugimi primeri zakonodaj tretjih držav z zunajozemeljskim učinkom, ki je v nasprotju z ustrezno zakonodajo EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov in sorodnimi pravicami?
Is the Commission aware of any other examples of third-country legislation with extra-territorial impact that conflicts with relevant EU data protection legislation and related rights?
Ali Komisija meni, da prenos osebnih podatkov v tretje države, kot zahtevajo zgoraj navedeni primeri ameriške zakonodaje, pomeni kršitev ustrezne zakonodaje EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov?
Does the Commission consider that transferring personal data to third countries, as required in the above-mentioned examples of US legislation, constitutes a violation of relevant EU data protection legislation?
Katere ukrepe bo Komisija sprejela brez odloga za reševanje vprašanj z ustreznimi organi ZDA in kaj bo naredila, da zaščiti in zastopa interese državljanov EU in podjetij s sedežem v EU?
What immediate action will the Commission take to address these issues with the relevant US authorities, and what will the Commission do to protect and represent the interests of EU citizens and EU-based companies?
Katere ukrepe Komisija sprejela takoj, da zagotovi učinkovito izvrševanje pravil EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov in da zakonodaja tretje države ne bo prevladala nad zakonodajo EU ter tako izničila pravice in jamstva, ki jih ta zagotavlja?
What immediate action will the Commission take to ensure that EU data protection rules are effectively enforced and that third-country legislation does not take precedence over EU legislation, thereby nullifying the rights and guarantees it provides?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000316/2011
Question for oral answer O-000316/2011
v imenu skupine S&D Zadeva: Novi romunski civilni zakonik ter prosto gibanje lezbijk, gejev, biseksualnih in transseksualnih oseb
on behalf of the S&D 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 ali enakopravnost oblik zunajzakonske skupnosti 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 or equivalence of forms of cohabitation with marriage’.
Poleg tega je v poročilu Agencije za temeljne pravice iz leta 2010 z naslovom "Homofobija, transfobija in diskriminacija na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti in spolne identitete" poudarjeno, da vsaj deset držav članic krši direktivo o prostem gibanju zato, ker iz njenega področja uporabe izključuje istospolne partnerje.
Additionally, the Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2010 report on homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity highlights that as many as 10 Member States probably contravene the Free Movement Directive by excluding same-sex partners from the scope of its application.
- 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 civilnih zakonikih ali ustavah nepotrebna in neproduktivna določba, saj zadeva istospolne pare in osebe na podlagi njihove spolne usmerjenosti ter utrjuje tovrstno diskriminacijo v temeljni zakonodaji države?
- 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 is an unnecessary and counterproductive provision, as it targets same-sex couples and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and cements such discrimination in the fundamental laws of the State?
- 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, da svoj civilni status ohranijo, ko potujejo iz ene države članice v drugo, kot je 7. septembra 2010 dejala komisarka Viviane Reding v svojem govoru v Evropskem parlamentu?
- 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) RCC), regardless of the mentioning of 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, as stated by Commissioner Reding during her speech of 7 September 2010 in the European Parliament?
- novi civilni zakonik ustvarja pravno negotovost in navzkrižje med odstavki (1), (2) in (3) člena 277 romunskega civilnega zakonika na eni strani ter odstavkom (4) istega 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?
- 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 hand, 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 a way that denies free movement of same-sex spouses and partners and to opposite-sex partners, on the basis of the recognition prohibition?
- so te določbe v nasprotju z vrednotami in duhom Pogodb ter načelom enakosti in nediskriminacije, poleg tega pa lahko ustvarijo nestrpno in homofobno vzdušje ter povečajo napetost in negativno vplivajo na pravico do prostega gibanja državljanov EU, tudi Romunov, v Evropski uniji?
- these provisions are contrary to the values and the spirit of the Treaties and of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and risk creating an intolerant and homophobic climate, as well as further tensions with regard to, and repercussions for, the right to free movement of EU citizens, including of Romanians, in the EU?
- bo sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Romuniji in drugim državam članicam, da bi zagotovila popolno spoštovanje direktive o prostem gibanju, njeno izvajanje brez diskriminacije na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti ter dosledno spoštovanje temeljnih pravic državljanov?
- it ought to open infringement proceedings against Romania and other Member States to ensure that the Free Movement Directive is fully respected and applied without discrimination based on sexual orientation and that citizens’ fundamental rights are fully respected?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000317/2011
Question for oral answer O-000317/2011
Člen 277 novega romunskega civilnega zakonika, ki je začel veljati 1. oktobra 2011, obravnava prepoved zunajzakonske skupnosti ali njihovo enakopravnost 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 or equivalence of forms of cohabitation with marriage'.
Ali se Komisija strinja, da:
Does the Commission agree that:
- 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 civilnih zakonikih ali ustavah diskriminatorna določba, saj zadeva istospolne pare in osebe na podlagi njihove spolne usmerjenosti ter utrjuje tovrstno diskriminacijo v temeljni zakonodaji države?
- the explicit prohibition of same-sex marriage (Art. 277(1) RCC) or partnership or of their recognition when contracted abroad (Art. 277(2) and (3) RCC) in civil codes or constitutions is a discriminatory provision, as it targets same-sex couples and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and cements such discrimination in the fundamental laws of the state?
- 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, da svoj civilni status ohranijo, ko potujejo iz ene države članice v drugo, kot je 7. septembra 2010 dejala komisarka Viviane Reding v svojem govoru v Evropskem parlamentu?
- 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 (Art. 277(2) and (3) RCC), regardless of the mentioning of the free movement provisions (Art. 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, as stated by Commissioner Reding during her speech of 7 September 2010 in the European Parliament?
- novi civilni zakonik ustvarja pravno negotovost in navzkrižje med odstavki (1), (2) in (3) člena 277 romunskega civilnega zakonika na eni strani ter odstavkom (4) istega 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?
- the new Civil Code creates a situation of legal uncertainty and contradiction between Art. 277(1), (2) and (3) RCC on the one hand and Art. 277(4) RCC on the other , as the application of Art. 2 of Directive 2004/38/EC defining family members (which includes 'spouse') and of Art. 3 on the duty of facilitation of entry and residence could be nullified or applied in a way that denies free movement to same-sex spouses and partners and to opposite-sex partners, on the basis of the recognition prohibition?
- so te določbe v nasprotju z vrednotami in duhom ustanovnih pogodb ter načelom enakosti in nediskriminacije, ter lahko ustvarijo nestrpno in homofobno vzdušje ter istočasno ovirajo pravico do prostega gibanja državljanov EU v Evropski uniji?
- these provisions are contrary to the values and the spirit of the Treaties and the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and risk creating an intolerant and homophobic climate while at the same time hampering the right to free movement of EU citizens within the EU?
- bo sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Romuniji in drugim državam članicam, da bi zagotovila popolno spoštovanje direktive o prostem gibanju, njeno izvajanje brez diskriminacije na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti ter dosledno spoštovanje temeljnih pravic državljanov?
- it should take out infringement proceedings against Romania and other Member States to ensure that the free movement directive is fully respected and applied without discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that citizens' fundamental rights are fully respected?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000318/2011
Question for oral answer O-000318/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Zunajozemeljski učinek zakonodaje tretjih držav in zakonodaja EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Extra-territorial impact of third country legislation and EU data protection laws
Zakonodaja tretje države ima lahko neposreden zunajozemeljski učinek na podjetja, državljane in rezidente za daljši čas na ozemlju EU.
Third country legislation may have extra-territorial impact directly affecting companies, citizens and long-term residents on EU territory.
Ameriški zakoni o zdravstvenem varstvu (Medicare Act), izpolnjevanju davčnih obveznosti (FATCA), nadzoru s strani tujih obveščevalnih služb (FISA) in domovinski varnosti (Patriot Act), zahtevajo predložitev osebnih podatkov, ki so shranjeni v Evropi, organom ZDA.
Thus, the Medicare Act, FATCA, FISA, and the Patriot Act require the submission of personal data stored in Europe to the US authorities.
Ali Komisija meni, da lahko zakonodaja tretje države, kot so ti primeri ameriške zakonodaje, dejansko prevlada nad ustrezno zakonodajo EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov ter pravicami in jamstvi, ki jih ta jamči državljanom in podjetjem?
Does the Commission consider that third country legislation, such as these examples of US legislation, can effectively overrule relevant EU data protection legislation and the rights and guarantees it provides for citizens, long-term residents and businesses?
Ali je Komisija seznanjena s kakšnimi drugimi primeri zakonodaj tretjih držav z zunajozemeljskim učinkom, ki je v nasprotju z ustrezno zakonodajo EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov in sorodnimi pravicami?
Is the Commission aware of any other examples of third country legislation with extra-territorial impact that conflicts with relevant EU data protection legislation and related rights?
Ali Komisija meni, da prenos osebnih podatkov v tretje države, kot zahtevajo zgoraj navedeni primeri ameriške zakonodaje, pomeni kršitev ustrezne zakonodaje EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov?
Does the Commission consider that transferring personal data to third countries, as required by the above-mentioned examples of US legislation, constitutes a violation of relevant EU data protection legislation?
Katere ukrepe bo Komisija sprejela brez odloga za reševanje vprašanj z ustreznimi organi ZDA in kaj bo naredila, da zaščiti in zastopa interese državljanov EU, rezidentov za daljši čas in podjetij s sedežem v EU?
What immediate action will the Commission take to address these issues with the relevant US authorities, and what will the Commission do to protect and represent the interests of EU citizens, long term residents and EU-based companies?
Katere ukrepe Komisija sprejela takoj, da zagotovi učinkovito izvrševanje pravil EU o varstvu osebnih podatkov in da zakonodaja tretje države ne bo prevladala nad zakonodajo EU ter tako izničila pravice in jamstva, ki jih ta zagotavlja?
What immediate action will the Commission take to ensure that EU data protection rules are effectively enforced and that third country legislation does not take precedence over EU legislation, thereby nullifying the rights and guarantees provided by it?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000319/2011
Question for oral answer O-000319/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Bodoči protokol o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti in finančnega nadomestila v skladu s sporazumom o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju med Evropsko unijo in Kraljevino Maroko
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Future Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco
V skladu s postopkom odobritve bo Evropski parlament 13. decembra 2011 glasoval o priporočilu odbora PECH v zvezi s protokolom o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti in finančnega nadomestila v skladu s sporazumom o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju s Kraljevino Maroko.
Applying the consent procedure, the European Parliament will have to vote on 13 December 2011 on the PECH recommendation on the Protocol setting out fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco.
Protokol se podaljša za eno leto in bo potekel 27. februarja 2012.
The Protocol is an extension for a period of one year and is foreseen to expire on 27 February 2012.
Do enoletnega podaljšanja je prišlo, ker Komisija ni pokazala dovolj zavzetosti v pogajanjih o bodočem protokolu.
The one-year Protocol extension is the result of the Commission's lack of initiative in the negotiations on the future Protocol.
Kako napredujejo pogajanja Komisije v zvezi z novim protokolom?
How far is the Commission in its negotiation process regarding the new Protocol?
Ali Komisija lahko zagotovi, da bo imel Parlament možnost pravočasno izpeljati postopek odobritve, preden bo začel veljati novi protokol?
Can the Commission confirm that Parliament will be able to exercise the consent procedure in due time before the entry into force of the new Protocol?
Katere ukrepe namerava Komisija sprejeti, da bodo odražali pomisleke Parlamenta ter jamčili, da bo novi protokol z ekonomskega, ekološkega in socialnega vidika koristen za obe strani?
In order to take Parliament's concern into account, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that any new Protocol is economically, ecologically and socially beneficial for both parties?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000320/2011
Question for oral answer O-000320/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Prost pretok delavcev znotraj Evropske unije
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union
V nekaterih država članicah EU trenutno veljajo delovne omejitve za bolgarske in romunske državljane.
Currently, certain EU Member States impose labour restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian citizens.
Konec leta 2011 se za ti dve državi izteče druga faza prehodnega obdobja.
At the end of 2011 the second stage of the transitional period for the two countries expires.
Od leta 2011 naprej morajo države članice odločitev o podaljšanju ukrepov za še dve dodatni leti utemeljiti z dokazi o resnih motnjah delovanja svojega trga dela.
From 2011 onwards, in order for a Member State to decide to extend the measures for two more years, it must provide evidence of severe disturbances in its labour market.
Podatki za edini državi, za kateri še veljajo omejitve prehodnega obdobja, kažejo, da: so konec leta 2010 romunski in bolgarski državljani, ki prebivajo v EU-25, predstavljali 0,6 % celotnega števila prebivalcev EU.
For the only two countries that still face transitional barriers within the EU the data shows that: at the end of 2010, Romanian and Bulgarian nationals residing in the EU-25 represent 0.6% of the EU’s total population.
Med letoma 2004 in 2009 so romunski in bolgarski delavci povečali BNP v Španiji in Italiji za 1,7 % oziroma 1,3 %.
Between 2004 and 2009, Romanian and Bulgarian workers increased the GDP of Spain and Italy by 1.7% and 1.3%.
Ali Komisija lahko pojasni pogoje, pod katerimi lahko posamezna država članica nadalje omejuje dostop do trga dela v tretjo fazo skladno z veljavnimi določbami Pogodbe, pridružitvenimi sporazumi in obstoječimi sodbami Sodišča Evropske unije?
Could the Commission explain the conditions under which a Member State can continue restricting labour market access in the third phase pursuant to the applicable Treaty provisions, accession agreements and existing case law of the Court of Justice?
Ali lahko Komisija oblikuje jasno definicijo “resnih motenj delovanja trga dela”?
Could the Commission provide a clear definition as to what the term ‘severe disturbances in labour markets’ implies?
Ali Komisija lahko pripravi in predloži jasno oceno metodologije, ki jo morajo države članice uporabiti, da bi dokazale, da je resne motnje delovanja trga dela povzročil dotok romunskih in bolgarskih delavcev?
Could the Commission draw up and present a clear evaluation of the methodology that Member States have to use in order to prove that severe disturbances in their labour markets are caused by an influx of Romanian and Bulgarian workers?
Ali Komisija lahko predloži sklop obsežnih kazalcev za oceno zahtev držav članic za podaljšanje ali ponovno uvedbo prehodne ureditve?
Could the Commission propose a set of comprehensible indicators for the assessment of requests with respect to prolonging or reintroducing the transitional arrangements by Member States?