natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Direktiva posega na področje politike priseljevanja EU in se veže na občutljiva vprašanja človekovih pravic, kot je pravica do zasebnega in družinskega življenja in pravica sklepanja zakonske zveze in ustvarjanja družine (člena 7 in 9 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah).
The Directive falls under EU immigration policy and relates to sensitive human rights issues such as the right to private and family life and the right to marry and found a family (Articles 7 and 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
- Ali Komisija meni, da so jamstva v direktivi dovolj velika, da zagotavljajo zaščito omenjenih pravic?
- Does the Commission consider that the safeguards enshrined in the Directive are sufficient to ensure protection of the above rights?
- Kako Komisija ocenjuje postopke nekaterih držav članic glede uporabe določbe, po kateri sta zakonec ali izvenzakonski partner in otrok, ki je dosegel polnoletnost, do nevezanega dovoljenja za prebivanje upravičena najkasneje po petih letih bivanja?
- What is the Commission's assessment of the procedures of some Member States as regards the maximum five-year period before granting an independent residence permit to a spouse or unmarried partner or a child who has reached the age of majority?
Nekatere države članice so sprejele omejevalne ukrepe, ena od njih pa je zahtevala spremembo direktive, češ da so spremembe potrebne zaradi preprečevanja njene zlorabe.
Some Member States have introduced restrictive measures, and one has called for the modification of the Directive, claiming that changes are necessary in order to tackle abuse of the Directive.
Ker bi vsaka takšna omejitev še bolj vplivala na pravico do družinskega življenja, kot jo priznavajo mednarodni instrumenti o človekovih pravicah, ali ima Komisija podatke o tej točki oziroma ali ji je katera od držav članic posredovala podatke, ki bi utemeljevali tovrstne pomisleke?
Considering that any such restrictions would further limit the right to family life as recognised in the international human rights instruments, does the Commission possess data on the matter, or has any Member State provided data to substantiate these concerns?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000016/2012
Question for oral answer O-000016/2012
v imenu Odbora za ribištvo Zadeva: Ukrepi iz uredbe o letnem celotnem dovoljenem ulovu (TAC) in kvotah za leto 2012, ki presegajo področje uporabe 43(3) PDEU
on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries Subject: Measures in the TAC and Quotas Regulation for 2012 exceeding the scope of Article 43(3) TFEU
16. decembra 2011 je Svet dosegel političen sporazum o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za naslednje leto – tretja uredba “TAC in kvote’, ki bo sprejeta po začetku veljavnosti PDEU na podlagi člena 43(3) te uredbe.
On 16 December 2011, the Council reached a political agreement on the fixing of fishing opportunities for the following year – the third ‘TAC and quotas’ Reg. to be adopted since the entry into force of the TFEU, on the basis of Art. 43(3) thereof.
Postopek iz tega člena, v katerega ni vključen Parlament, se lahko uporablja le za “določanje in dodeljevanje možnosti ribolova”, pri tem so izključeni vsi drugi ukrepi, namenjeni doseganju ciljev skupne ribiške politike, ki morajo biti sprejeti po rednem zakonodajnem postopku iz člena 43(2).
The procedure provided for in this art., which does not involve Parliament, can only be applied to the mere ‘fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities’ to the exclusion of all other measures aimed at the pursuit of the objectives of the CFP, which must be adopted in accordance with the OLP as specified in Art. 43(2).
Vendar se je Komisija že tretje zaporedno leto odločila, da bo predlagala, Svet pa se je odločil, da bo sprejel, v okviru uredbe o TAC in kvotah, ukrepe, ki očitno presegajo področje tistih ukrepov, ki jih je mogoče sprejeti na podlagi člena 43(3) PDEU, vključno s pomembnimi tehničnimi ukrepi, kot so prepoved ali omejitev območij in obdobij, omejene ribolovne globine in posebne zahteve v zvezi z ribolovnim orodjem.
However, for the third consecutive year, the Commission has chosen to propose, and the Council has chosen to adopt, in the framework of the TAC and quotas Reg., measures which clearly exceed the scope of those which it is possible to adopt on the basis of Art. 43(3), including important technical measures, such as prohibition or restriction zones and periods, restricted fishing depths, and specific requirements related to fishing gears.
Ker je člen 43(2) PDEU, ki določa redni zakonodajni postopek, pravna podlaga za doseganje ciljev skupne ribiške politike, je člen 43(3) izjema in bi ga zato bilo treba razlagati strogo.
As Article 43(2) TFEU providing for the ordinary legislative procedure is the legal basis for all measures pursuing the objectives of the CFP, Article 43(3) remains an exception and should thus be interpreted strictly.
Kako lahko Svet utemelji širšo razlago člena 43(3), na podlagi katere so vključene točke, ki presegajo golo določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti, zlasti ukrepi, ki so bili prej v kategoriji tehničnih ukrepov v smislu člena 4(2)(1)(g) uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2371/2002?
How can the Council justify a broad interpretation of Article 43(3) that extends it to cover items other than the mere fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities, in particular measures previously categorised as technical measures within the meaning of Article 4(2)(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002?
Na podlagi katere določbe/katerih določb v PDEU lahko Svet utemelji vključitev sklicevanja na “nekatere pogoje, ki so funkcionalno s tem povezani (določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti)” v uvodno izjavo 3 uredbe o TAC in kvotah?
On the basis of which provision(s) in the TFEU can the Council justify the insertion in Recital 3 of the TAC and Quotas Regulation of a reference to ‘certain conditions functionally linked (...) to (the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities)’?
Ali Svet namerava ohraniti vključevanje ukrepov, ki presegajo golo “določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti” v prihodnje uredbe o TAC in kvotah, sprejete na podlagi člena 43(3)?
Is it the Council’s intention to keep including measures going beyond the mere ‘fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities’ in future TAC and quotas regulations adopted on the basis of Article 43(3)?
Ali se Svet resnično zavzema, da bi zagotovil, da bo kljub katerim koli novim postopkom, ki bi lahko bili uvedeni v okviru tekoče reforme skupne ribiške politike, sprejemanje tovrstnih tehničnih ukrepov popolnoma v skladu s PDEU ob spoštovanju pristojnosti Parlamenta?
Is the Council genuinely committed to ensuring that whichever new procedures might be put into place in the framework of the ongoing CFP reform, the adoption of this type of technical measures will be fully in line with the TFEU and respect the prerogatives of Parliament?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000017/2012
Question for oral answer O-000017/2012
Kako lahko Svet utemelji širšo razlago člena 43(3), na podlagi katere so vključene točke, ki presegajo golo določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti, zlasti ukrepi, ki so bili prej v kategoriji tehničnih ukrepov v smislu člena 4(2)(1)(g) uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2371/2002?
How can the Commission justify a broad interpretation of Article 43(3) that extends it to cover items other than the mere fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities, in particular measures previously categorised as technical measures within the meaning of Article 4(2)(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002?
Na podlagi katere določbe/katerih določb v PDEU lahko Komisija utemelji vključitev sklicevanja na “nekatere pogoje, ki so funkcionalno s tem povezani (določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti)” v uvodno izjavo 3 uredbe o TAC in kvotah?
On the basis of which provision(s) in the TFEU can the Commission justify the insertion in Recital 3 of the TAC and quotas Regulation of a reference to ‘certain conditions functionally linked (...) to (the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities)’?
Ali Komisija namerava ohraniti vključevanje ukrepov, ki presegajo golo “določanje in dodeljevanje ribolovnih možnosti” v prihodnje uredbe o TAC in kvotah, sprejete na podlagi člena 43(3)?
Is it the Commission’s intention to keep including measures going beyond the mere ‘fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities’ in future TAC and quotas regulations adopted on the basis of Article 43(3)?
Ali se Komisija resnično zavzema, da bi zagotovil, da bo kljub katerim koli novim postopkom, ki bi lahko bili uvedeni v okviru tekoče reforme skupne ribiške politike, sprejemanje tovrstnih tehničnih ukrepov popolnoma v skladu s PDEU ob spoštovanju pristojnosti Parlamenta?
Is the Commission genuinely committed to ensuring that whichever new procedures might be put into place in the framework of the ongoing CFP reform, the adoption of this type of technical measures will be fully in line with the TFEU and respect the prerogatives of Parliament?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000018/2012
Question for oral answer O-000018/2012
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Preprečevanje morebitnega navzkrižja interesov pri zaposlitvi uradnikov EU zunaj institucij EU
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Preventing potential conflicts of interest when EU officials are taking up jobs outside the EU institutions
Novembra 2011 je organizacija ALTER-EU (Zveza za preglednost in etično regulacijo lobiranja) objavila študijo o morebitnem navzkrižju interesov pri zaposlitvi uradnikov EU zunaj institucij EU.
In November 2011 the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) published a study about the potential conflicts of interest when EU officials take up jobs outside the EU institutions.
Organizacija ALTER-EU v tej študiji navaja številne primere, ko so se uradniki EU zaposlili kot lobisti, kar bi lahko vodilo v navzkrižje interesov.
In the study ALTER-EU cites a number of examples of EU officials taking up lobbying jobs, which could lead to a risk of conflicts of interest.
Vendar v skladu s študijo nobenemu od teh uradnikov EU ni bilo preprečeno, da to delo sprejme po določenem času, t.j. po „obdobju mirovanja“.
However, according to the study, none of the EU officials mentioned was prevented from accepting such a post after a certain period of time, i.e. a ‘cooling-off period’.
Po tej študiji ima več kot 50% osebja na visokih položajih in/ali lobistov, ki so zaposleni v štirih največjih lobističnih svetovalnih družbah v Bruslju, predhodne izkušnje v institucijah EU.
According to the study, more than 50% of the senior and/or lobby staff working at four of the biggest lobbying consultancies in Brussels have previous experience inside EU institutions.
Če upoštevamo primere iz omenjene študije, ali se Komisija strinja, da je na tem področju potrebna večja regulacija, na primer z uvedbo obdobja mirovanja, med katerim nekdanjim uradnikom EU ne bi bilo dovoljeno, da sprejmejo lobistične službe, ki vključujejo institucijo, v kateri so bili zaposleni?
With the examples from the above-mentioned study in mind, does the Commission agree that more regulation in this area is needed, e.g. by installing a cooling-off period in which former EU officials will not be allowed to take up lobbying jobs involving their former institution?
Če zlasti upoštevamo pripombe komisarja Šefčoviča na predstavitvi ob svoji potrditvi v odboru AFCO leta 2010, kako je Komisija napredovala v boju proti morebitnim navzkrižjem interesov pri zaposlitvi uradnikov EU zunaj institucij EU?
With particular reference to the comments of Commissioner Šefčovič at the AFCO confirmation hearing in 2010, what progress has the Commission made in tackling the potential conflicts of interest when EU officials take up jobs outside the EU institutions?
Kako Komisija zagotavlja, da se zaupni podatki in izkušnje, pridobljeni v institucijah EU, ne uporabijo za zasebno korist?
How does the Commission ensure that confidential information and experience gained within the EU Institutions is not used for private gain?
Nazadnje, ali bo Komisija sledila vzoru vlade Združenega kraljestva, ki na svoji spletni strani objavlja posodobljene sezname primerov izmenjave položajev med zakonodajo vejo oblasti in lobisti, vsaj tiste v zvezi z visokimi uradniki?
Finally, will the Commission follow the example of the UK government, which publishes an up-to-date list of revolving door cases, or at least those involving top officials, on its website?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000019/2012
Question for oral answer O-000019/2012
v imenu Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane Zadeva: Pobuda "Evropski zeleni pas"
on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Subject: Green Belt initiative
Kako Komisija podpira pobudo »Evropski zeleni pas«?
How is the Commission supporting the Green Belt initiative?
Ali Komisija namerava financirati čezmejne projekte in dejavnosti, tudi v sodelovanju z državami, ki niso članice EU, namenjene ohranjanju, zaščiti in razvoju »Evropskega zelenega pasu«?
Does the Commission plan to finance transboundary projects and activities, also in cooperation with non-EU countries, aimed at the conservation, protection and development of the European Green Belt?
Katere pobude izvaja ali načrtuje Komisija, da bi povečala ozaveščenost javnosti o pobudi »Evropski zeleni pas« na obeh straneh nekdanje »železne zavese«?
What initiatives is the Commission undertaking or planning to raise public awareness of the Green Belt initiative on the two sides of the former Iron Curtain?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000020/2012
Question for oral answer O-000020/2012
v imenu Odbora za pravne zadeve Zadeva: Predlog direktive o kolektivnem upravljanju pravic
on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs Subject: Proposal for a directive on collective rights management
Komisija že od sredine devetdesetih let opravlja posvetovanja o upravljanju pravic in je objavila vrsto dokumentov, sporočil in študij o tem vprašanju, ki so jim sledila javna posvetovanja (med drugim v letih 2004, 2007, 2009 in 2011).
The Commission has consulted on the question of rights management since the mid-nineties and has published a series of documents, communications and papers addressing this issue, followed by public consultations (inter alia in 2004, 2007, 2009 and 2011).
Parlament je že pozval k oblikovanju okvira Skupnosti za družbe za kolektivno upravljanje na področju avtorske in sorodnih pravic v resoluciji z dne 15. januarja 2004 ter nato še v resoluciji z dne 13. marca 2007 o priporočilu Komisije z dne 18. oktobra 2005 o kolektivnem čezmejnem upravljanju z avtorskimi in sorodnimi pravicami za zakonite spletne storitve v glasbi in v resoluciji z dne 25. septembra 2008 o kolektivnem čezmejnem upravljanju z avtorskimi in sorodnimi pravicami za zakonite spletne storitve v glasbi.
Parliament already called for a Community framework for collective management societies in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights in its resolution of 15 January 2004, then in its resolutions of 13 March 2007 on the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services and of 25 September 2008 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services.
V sedanjem zakonodajnem obdobju je Parlament ponovil svoje pozive, med drugim v resolucijah z dne 12. maja 2011 o sproščanju potenciala kulturnih in ustvarjalnih sektorjev ter z dne 22. septembra 2010 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine na notranjem trgu.
In this term the Parliament repeated its calls, inter alia, in its resolutions of 12 May 2011 on unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries and of 22 September 2010 on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market.
Komisija je večkrat v svojih dokumentih in delovnem programu napovedala, da bo kot strateško pobudo sprejela predlogo vzpostavitvi pravnega okvira za kolektivno upravljanje avtorske pravice, ki bo omogočil podeljevanje licenc v več državah in po vsej Evropi.
The Commission has repeatedly announced in its documents and work programme that it will adopt, as a strategic initiative, a proposal to create a legal framework for the collective management of copyright to enable multi-territorial and pan-European licensing.
V svoji strategiji za pravice intelektualne lastnine za leto 2011 je Komisija zagotovila, da bo pripravila predloge v letu 2011.
In its 2011 IPR Strategy the Commission promised to submit proposals in 2011.
Nazadnje je v svojem sporočilu o pregledu letne rasti za leto 2012 najavila, da bo prihodnji predlog za hitro sprejetje pripravljen v prvem četrtletju leta 2012, Parlament in Svet pa naj bi se o njem sporazumela do konca leta.
Most recently it announced, in the Communication on Annual Growth Survey 2012, that a ‘fast-track future proposal’ was to be made in the first quarter of 2012, with agreement being reached by Parliament and the Council by the end of 2012.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je večkrat razpravljal o potrebi po predlogu o kolektivnem upravljanju pravic, tudi v okviru strukturnega dialoga s Komisijo ter znotraj svoje delovne skupine o avtorski pravici.
The Committee on Legal Affairs has debated the need for a proposal on collective rights management on a number of occasions, including in the context of the structural dialogue with the Commission and in the framework of its Working Group on Copyright.
Kdaj natančno bo Komisija predložila zakonodajni predlog o kolektivnem upravljanju pravic in kakšno bo njegovo področje uporabe?
What date is envisaged for the Commission’s submission of the legislative proposal on collective rights management and what will be its scope?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000021/2012
Question for oral answer O-000021/2012
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Nezakonite stave in organizirani kriminal - sporazumi o poslovnem in pravosodnem sodelovanju s tretjimi državami
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Illegal betting and organised crime - commercial and judicial cooperation agreements with third countries
Uporaba nedovoljenih poživil in nezakonite športne stave sta problema, ki v državah članicah in po vsem svetu zaskrbljujoče hitro naraščata in bi lahko resno ogrozila letošnje poletne olimpijske igre v Londonu ter evropsko nogometno prvenstvo na Poljskem in v Ukrajini.
The success of this year’s Summer Olympic Games in London and European Football Championship in Poland and Ukraine could be seriously compromised both by cases of doping and by illegal sport betting, a problem which is growing at an alarming rate in the Member States and across the globe.
V tem sektorju je po ocenah na svetu sklenjenih za 385 milijard EUR poslov letno, kar je ogromen trg, ustvarjen za bogatenje nadnacionalnih kriminalnih združb, ki v mnogih primerih prirejajo spletne stave v zvezi z vnaprej dogovorjenimi športnimi dogodki, in to prek spletišč, ki nimajo določenih najvišjih možnih stav za posamezna tekmovanja.
Global business in this sector has been estimated at EUR 385 billion per year; this represents an enormous market created to enrich transnational criminal organisations which, in many cases, collect online bets on fixed sporting events through websites that do not set gambling limits for each competition.
Organi EU so sprejeli ustrezen sistem dovoljenj za igre na srečo, prek katerega opravljajo nadzor in spremljajo sumljive tekme.
EU authorities are taking adequate steps to control and monitor suspicious matches by adopting an appropriate system of gambling licences.
Zakonodaja drugih držav na tem področju (zlasti na Daljnem vzhodu) pa je očitno še vedno neustrezna, saj je med svetovnim nogometnim prvenstvom leta 2010 Interpol v Singapurju, Maleziji, na Kitajskem, v Hongkongu in na Tajskem opravil več kot 5000 aretacij zaradi nezakonitega prirejanja iger na srečo.
However, other countries’ legislation in this area (particularly in the Far East) still appears to be unsatisfactory, as evidenced by the fact that during the 2010 World Cup Interpol made more than 5 000 arrests for illegal gambling in Singapore, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong and Thailand.
Ali lahko Komisija v zvezi s tem pojasni:
In the light of this situation, could the Commission clarify:
1. katere ukrepe so na področju policijskega sodelovanja v zvezi z nezakonitimi stavami sprejele tiste tretje države, ki se z EU pogajajo o sklenitvi prostotrgovinskih sporazumov?
1. what measures third countries negotiating free trade agreements with the EU have undertaken in the field of police cooperation in relation to illegal bets?
2. ali sporazumi s tretjimi državami opredeljujejo minimalne standarde za spletne storitve, ki so neposredno povezane z igrami na srečo?
2. whether agreements with third countries lay down minimum standards for online services specifically related to gambling?
3. ali meni, da bi ustanovitev projektne skupine nacionalnih strokovnjakov v EU, ki bi delovala skupaj s prireditelji in oblastmi, omogočila preiskovanje stav v zvezi s športnimi dogodki, stalen nadzor (v smislu modela preprečevalnega alarma UEFA) in iskanje nezakonitih spletnih in drugih prirediteljev po svetu ter tako zagotovila učinkovito podporo organov pregona in pravosodnih organov v boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu, pranju denarja in nezakonitim igram na srečo?
3. whether it believes that the creation of an EU task force of national experts – working in conjunction with operators and authorities – would make it possible to investigate bets on sporting events, undertake ongoing monitoring (along the lines of the UEFA Preventive Alarm model) and identify illegal online and offline agencies around the world, so as to provide effective support for law enforcement and judicial authorities in the fight against organised crime, money laundering and illegal gambling?
4. katere pobude so bile ali bodo sprejete za zagotovitev poštenosti v športu, za zaščito potrošnikov EU prek zakonitih stav in odgovornega igranja iger na srečo ter za nadaljnje uspehe v boju proti nezakonitim stavam?
4. what initiatives have been, or will be, undertaken in order to guarantee integrity in sport, protect EU consumers through legal betting and responsible gaming, and continue to make serious inroads in the fight against illegal betting?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000022/2012
Question for oral answer O-000022/2012
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Ekstrateritorialni učinek zakonodaje tretjih držav in zakonodaja EU o varstvu podatkov
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws
Zakonodaja tretjih držav ima lahko ekstrateritorialni učinek ter neposredno vpliva na podjetja in državljane v EU.
Third-country legislation may have an extra-territorial impact directly affecting companies and citizens within the EU.
Takšna zakonodaja je lahko v nasprotju z zakonodajo EU, na primer na področju varstva podatkov, kjer zakon o zdravstvenem varstvu ( Medicare Act ), zakon o izpolnjevanju davčnih obveznosti ameriških državljanov, ki so imetniki bančnih računov v tujini ( FATCA ), zakon o nadzoru sodelovanja posameznikov s tujimi obveščevalnimi službami ( FISA ) in zakon o boju proti terorizmu ( Patriot Act ) zahtevajo posredovanje osebnih podatkov, shranjenih v Evropi, organom ZDA.
Such legislation may clash with EU legislation, for example in the field of data protection where 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 navedeni primeri zakonodaje ZDA, dejansko prevlada nad ustrezno zakonodajo EU o varstvu podatkov ter nad pravicami in jamstvi, ki jih ta zagotavlja 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 and businesses?