natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na podlagi člena 27 uredbe o prevozu živali (ES) št. 1/2005 morajo pristojni organi držav članic preverjati, ali so izpolnjene zahteve uredbe, tako da opravljajo nediskriminacijske preglede živali, prevoznih sredstev in spremnih dokumentov.
Article 27 of Animal Transport Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires the competent authority in the Member States to ensure compliance with the legislation and to carry out non-discriminatory inspections of animals, means of transport and accompanying documents.
Preglede je treba opraviti na ustreznem deležu živali, ki se letno prepeljejo v vsaki državi članici.
The inspections must be performed on an adequate proportion of the animals transported each year within each Member State.
Prav tako morajo države članice vsako leto do 30. junija Komisiji predložiti letno poročilo o izvajanju uredbe, ki mu mora biti priložena analiza večjih odkritih pomanjkljivosti in akcijski načrt za njihovo odpravljanje.
Member States are also required to submit to the Commission by 30 June each year an annual report on the state of enforcement to be accompanied by an analysis of the major deficiencies detected and an action plan to address them.
Ali Komisija lahko poroča, katere države članice so predložile poročila?
Can the Commission state which Member States have forwarded their report?
Ali je Komisija že izvedla predhodno analizo poročil, v skladu s katero bi lahko predstavila nekaj pomanjkljivosti in težav, pa tudi večjih dosežkov pri izvajanju uredbe?
Has the Commission already carried out a preliminary analysis of the reports which would allow giving some statements on the shortcomings and difficulties but also on the major achievements in the enforcement of the legislation?
Ali bo Komisija pripravila poročilo o poteku izvajanja uredbe v državah članicah?
Will the Commission consequently prepare a report on the Regulation's enforcement process in the Member States?
Takšna analiza bo glede na načrtovano revizijo uredbe o prevozu živali nujna.
Such an analysis will be essential in the context of the planned revision of the Animal Transport Regulation.
UL L 3, 5.1.2005, str.
OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0135/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0135/08
Zadeva: Sredozemska prehrana
Subject: Mediterranean diet
Na Svetu ministrov v Bruslju 16. julija 2007 je Evropska komisija izrazila polno podporo uvrstitvi sredozemske prehrane na seznam nematerialne kulturne dediščine pri Unescu.
On the occasion of the Council of Ministers meeting held in Brussels on 16 July 2007, the Commission reiterated its full support for the nomination of the Mediterranean Diet as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO.
Pristojni odbor pri Unescu bo predlog obravnaval leta 2009.
This nomination will be examined in 2009 by the responsible UNESCO Committee.
Ali Evropska komisija načrtuje posebno in usklajeno strategijo za podporo temu predlogu?
Is the Commission planning to set up a specific and coordinated strategy to support this nomination?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0136/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0136/08
Zadeva: Posledice primera S. in Marper proti Združenemu kraljestvu v zvezi z varstvom zasebnosti v boju proti terorizmu
Subject: Implications of the S. and Marper v. UK case in relation to the protection of privacy in the fight against terrorism
Evropski parlament je vse od prejšnjega zakonodajnega obdobja s primeroma Echelon in evidenca imen letalskih potnikov večkrat izpostavil, med drugim pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, vprašanje neskladja med načeli demokratične družbe in členom 8 evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah ter nacionalnimi predpisi in predpisi EU, ki dopuščajo: posredovanje osebnih podatkov, zbranih za komercialne namene ali potrebe javnih služb, organom pregona za namene splošne varnosti; sistematsko in vsesplošno prestrezanje in hranjenje podatkov o osebah, ki niso storile nobenega zločina ali ki realno ali neposredno ne ogrožajo javne varnosti.
Since the previous legislature with the Echelon and PNR issues, the EP has repeatedly raised, including before the Court of Justice, the incompatibility with the principles of a democratic society, as well as Article 8 of the ECHR, of national and EU rules allowing: the diversion to law enforcement agencies for generic security purposes of personal data collected for commercial or public service purposes; the systematic and generalised interception and retention of data of persons who have not committed any crime, or who do not present a real or current threat to public security.
Na to neskladje je opozorilo tudi Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice v prelomni sodbi z dne 4. decembra 2008 v primeru S. in Marper proti Združenemu kraljestvu.
Such incompatibility has been reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights in its landmark judgment of 4 December 2008 in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da je zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva kršila člen 8 evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (pravica do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja), saj, kot navaja v razsodbi, vsesplošna in neselektivna narava pristojnosti za hranjenje prstnih odtisov, celičnih vzorcev in DNK profilov oseb, osumljenih in ne obsojenih za kazniva dejanja ... ni v skladu s pravičnim ravnovesjem med nasprotujočimi si javnimi in zasebnimi interesi ter da zadevno hranjenje pomeni nesorazmerno poseganje v pravico tožnikov do spoštovanja zasebnega življenja in v demokratični družbi ne more veljati kot nujno potrebno.
The Court ruled that there had been a violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by UK law, since 'the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences... failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests' and that accordingly 'the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'.
Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da je Združeno kraljestvo edina država, ki dovoljuje trajno hranjenje teh podatkov o vsaki osebi katerekoli starosti, ki je osumljena za katerokoli kaznivo dejanje in ki oproščenim osebam ne omogoča izbrisa ali uničenja podatkov.
The Court also noted the fact that the UK was the only country to allow the indefinite retention of these data "of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence" and the absence of possibilities for an acquitted person to have the data removed or destroyed.
V sodbi opozarja tudi, da so podatki dostopni na evropski ravni preko podatkovne baze SIS.
The judgment also recalled that data is shared at European level via the SIS database.
Evropski komisar za človekove pravice je izrazil zaskrbljenost v zvezi z erozijo zasebnosti v boju proti terorizmu ter opozoril na gradnjo družbe nadzora, vse večjo uporabo profiliranja in nevarnost diskriminacije in odtujevanja.
The European Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed his concern in relation to the erosion of privacy in the fight against terrorism, calling attention to the building of a ‘surveillance society’, the increased use of profiling and the risk of discrimination and alienation.
Glede na zgornje navedbe in zahtevo, da mora biti zakonodaja EU skladna z evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah (člen 6.2 PES), ter glede na to, da so države članice za kršitev člena 8 evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah neposredno odgovorne sodišču v Strasbourgu, tudi pri prenosu zakonodaje EU v nacionalno zakonodajo (glej sodbo Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v zadevi Bosphorus proti Irski z dne 30. junija 2005):
In view of the above and the requirement that EU legislation be consistent with the ECHR (Art. 6.2 TEU) and that Member States be directly accountable before the Strasbourg Court for violation of Art. 8 ECHR, including when transposing EU legislation (see European Court of Human Rights judgment in Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland, 30 June 2005):
Ali bo Svet ob upoštevanju člena 29 bele knjige ter po posvetovanju z Agencijo za temeljne pravice in Evropskim nadzornikom za varstvo podatkov raziskal morebiten obstoj podobnih praks, kjer je to mogoče, in na podlagi načel, podanih v sodbi v zadevi Marper, ponovno preučil zakonitost teh praks v smislu sorazmernosti in nujnosti ter zakonitost različnih instrumentov in projektov za zakonsko in upravno zbiranje in posredovanje podatkov in profiliranje, tako na ravni EU kot nacionalni ravni, kakršni so Prüm, SIS, VIS, CIS, vstop-izstop, program za registracijo potnikov, PNR, Eurodac, Europol, Eurojust, direktiva o hrambi podatkov idr.?
Will the Council, after consulting the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Art. 29 WP and the European Data Protection Supervisor, examine whether possible similar practices exist and re-evaluate on the basis of the principles outlined in the Marper judgement their legality in terms of e.g. proportionality and necessity, as well as that of the various EU and national legislative and administrative data collection, data-sharing and profiling instruments and projects, such as Prüm, SIS, VIS, CIS, entry-exit, registered traveller programme, PNR, Eurodac, Europol, Eurojust, data retention Directive, etc?
Ali bo podal izjavo, v kateri bo pojasnil, da je obdelava in uporaba podatkov strogo omejena na namen, za katerega so bili prvotno zbrani?
Will it issue a declaration by which it will clarify that data processing and use is strictly limited to the purpose for which it was originally collected?
Ali se Svet strinja, da bi se morali EU in druge države članice ogniti uporabi biometričnih podatkov, ki jih zberejo ali prejmejo od Združenega kraljestva (ali katerekoli države članice) v okviru sodelovanja EU, ter izbrisati ali uničiti podatke, ki niso skladni s sodbo Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice?
Does the Council agree that the EU and other Member States should now refrain from using biometric data collected by and received from the UK (or any other Member State) in the context of EU cooperation, or removing or destroying that data that is not in conformity with the ECHR judgment?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0137/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0137/08
Evropski parlament je vse od prejšnjega zakonodajnega obdobja s primeroma Echelon in evidenca imen letalskih potnikov večkrat izpostavil, med drugim pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, vprašanje neskladja med načeli demokratične družbe in členom 8 evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah ter nacionalnimi predpisi in predpisi EU, ki dopuščajo: posredovanje osebnih podatkov, zbranih za komercialne namene ali potrebe javnih služb, organom pregona za namene splošne varnosti; sistematsko in vsesplošno prestrezanje in hramba podatkov o osebah, ki niso storile nobenega zločina ali ki realno ali neposredno ne ogrožajo javne varnosti.
Since the previous legislature with the Echelon and PNR issues, the EP has repeatedly raised, including before the Court of Justice, the incompatibility with the principles of a democratic society, as well as Article 8 of the ECHR, of national and EU rules allowing: the diversion to law enforcement agencies for generic security purposes of personal data collected for commercial or public service purposes; the systematic and generalised interception and retention of data of persons who have not committed any crime, or who do not present a real or current threat to public security.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da je zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva kršila člen 8 evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (pravica do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja), saj, kot navaja v razsodbi, vsesplošna in neselektivna narava pristojnosti za hrambo prstnih odtisov, celičnih vzorcev in DNK profilov oseb, osumljenih in ne obsojenih za kazniva dejanja ... ni v skladu s pravičnim ravnovesjem med nasprotujočimi si javnimi in zasebnimi interesi ter da zadevna hramba pomeni nesorazmerno poseganje v pravico tožnikov do spoštovanja zasebnega življenja in v demokratični družbi ne more veljati kot nujno potrebna.
The Court ruled that there had been a violation of ECHR Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by UK law, since 'the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences... failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests' and that accordingly 'the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'.
Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da je Združeno kraljestvo edina država, ki dovoljuje trajno hrambo teh podatkov o vsaki osebi katerekoli starosti, ki je osumljena za katerokoli kaznivo dejanje in ki oproščenim osebam ne omogoča izbrisa ali uničenja teh podatkov.
The Court also noted the fact that the UK was the only country to allow the indefinite retention of these data "of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence" and the absence of possibilities for an acquitted person to have the data removed or destroyed.
Evropski komisar za človekove pravice je izrazil zaskrbljenost v zvezi z erozijo zasebnosti v boju proti terorizmu ter opozoril na ustvarjanje družbe nadzora, vse večjo uporabo profiliranja in nevarnost diskriminacije in odtujitve.
The European Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed his concern in relation to the erosion of privacy in the fight against terrorism, calling attention to the building of a ‘surveillance society’, the increased use of profiling and the risk of discrimination and alienation.
Ali bo Komisija ob upoštevanju člena 29 bele knjige ter po posvetovanju z Agencijo za temeljne pravice in Evropskim nadzornikom za varstvo podatkov raziskala morebiten obstoj podobnih praks, kjer je to mogoče, in na podlagi načel, podanih v sodbi v zadevi Marper, ponovno preučila zakonitost teh praks v smislu sorazmernosti in nujnosti ter zakonitost različnih instrumentov in projektov za zakonsko in upravno zbiranje in posredovanje podatkov in profiliranje, tako na ravni EU kot nacionalni ravni, kakršni so Prüm, SIS, VIS, CIS, vstop-izstop, program „preverjeni potnik“ (registered traveller programme), PNR, Eurodac, Europol, Eurojust, direktiva o hrambi podatkov idr.?
Will the Commission, after consulting the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Art. 29 WP and the European Data Protection Supervisor, examine whether possible similar practices exist and re-evaluate on the basis of the principles outlined in the Marper judgment their legality in terms of e.g. proportionality and necessity, as well as that of the various EU and national legislative and administrative data collection, data-sharing and profiling instruments and projects, such as Prüm, SIS, VIS, CIS, entry-exit, registered traveller programme, PNR, Eurodac, Europol, Eurojust, data retention Directive, etc?
Ali bo podala izjavo, v kateri bo pojasnila, da je obdelava in uporaba podatkov strogo omejena na namen, za katerega so bili prvotno zbrani?
Will it issue a declaration by which it will clarify that data processing and use is strictly limited to the purpose for which it was originally collected?
Ali se Komisija strinja, da bi se morali EU in druge države članice ogniti uporabi biometričnih podatkov, ki jih zberejo ali prejmejo od Združenega kraljestva (ali katerekoli države članice) v okviru sodelovanja EU, ter izbrisati ali uničiti podatke, ki niso skladni s sodbo Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice?
Does the Commission agree that the EU and other Member States should now refrain from using biometric data collected by and received from the UK (or any other Member State) in the context of EU cooperation, or removing or destroying that data that is not in conformity with the ECHR judgment?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0138/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0138/08
Zadeva: Francoska pobuda v OZN za dekriminalizacijo homoseksualnosti
Subject: French-sponsored UN initiative to decriminalise homosexuality
V deklaraciji je navedeno, da žaljenje, preganjanje, mučenje, nečloveško, kruto in ponižujoče ravnanje, aretacija in samovoljno zapiranje, usmrtitve in diskriminacija na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti in na splošno identitete predstavljajo kršenje človekovih pravic, ter se zahteva zakonske in upravne ukrepe za zagotavljanje, da spolna usmerjenost in identiteta na splošno ne bosta temelj za kazenske sankcije, zlasti usmrtitve, aretacije in zapor.
The declaration states that violations, persecution, torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, arrest and arbitrary detention, execution, and discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity fly in the face of human rights, and it calls for legislative or administrative measures to prevent sexual orientation and gender identity giving rise to criminal punishments, in particular execution, arrest, and detention.
Na primer države, ki ne priznavajo zveze med osebami istega spola kot zakonske zveze, bodo izpostavljene posmehu in pritiskom".
For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ”matrimony” will be pilloried and pressured’.
Kakšne pobude je sprejela ali namerava sprejeti Evropska komisija, da zagotovi francoski deklaraciji čim večjo podporo držav članic OZN?
What steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, to ensure that the French declaration is supported as broadly as possible among the UN member countries?
S katerimi neevropskimi državami je s tem namenom navezala stike?
Which non-European countries has it approached in that connection?
Kaj namerava storiti Komisija, da prepreči diplomatsko dejavnost Vatikana in 91 totalitarnih ali integralističnih držav v svetu, v katerih so za istospolno usmerjene osebe predvidene kazni, mučenje in celo smrtna kazen (v desetih islamskih državah)?
What will it do to thwart the diplomatic action of the Vatican and the 91 totalitarian or fundamentalist states in the world where homosexuals can be punished, tortured, sentenced to terms of imprisonment, or even executed (in ten Islamic countries)?
Ali Komisija ne meni, da je treba to vprašanje nujno sprožiti v okviru mednarodnih odnosov in tako imenovanega medkulturnega in medverskega dialoga, ki ga ima Evropska unija z Vatikanom in s "predstavniki" katoliške vere, ter temu primerno sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe, kot bi to storila z drugimi državami?
Does the Commission not believe that it needs, as a matter of urgency, to raise this issue when conducting international relations and the EU’s inter-religious intercultural dialogue with the Vatican and representatives of the Catholic faith, and that it should take the necessary measures, as it is apparently doing where non-EU countries are concerned?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0139/08/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0139/08/rev.1
Zadeva: Evropska vest in totalitarizem
Subject: European conscience and totalitarianism
S katerim ukrepom se namerava Svet odzvati na pisno izjavo 0044/2008 - P6_TA(2008)0439 , ki jo je Parlament sprejel 9. septembra 2008 in v kateri je 23. avgust razglašen za evropski dan spomina na žrtve stalinizma in nacizma?
What action does the Council propose to take in response to Written Declaration 0044/2008 - P6_TA(2008)0439 adopted by the Parliament on 9 September 2008, which proclaims 23 August as the European Day of Remembrance for the victims of Stalinism and Nazism?
Kakšen je njegov odziv na praško deklaracijo z naslovom Evropska vest in komunizem, ki je bila sprejeta 3. junija 2008 na konferenci v Pragi?
What response does the Council have to the Prague Declaration, adopted at the Prague Conference, 'European Conscience and Communism' on 3 June 2008?
Ali Svet podpira predlog praške deklaracije za ustanovitev inštituta za evropski spomin in vest kot evropskega raziskovalnega inštituta za študij totalitarizma in kot vseevropskega muzeja/spomenika za vse žrtve totalitarnih režimov, kjer bi bila prikazana primerjava zločinov, ki so jih proti človeštvu zagrešili totalitarni komunistični in nacistični režimi?
Does the Council support the Prague Declaration's proposal that an Institute of European Memory and Conscience be established, as a European research institute for studies on totalitarianism and as a pan-European museum/memorial for all the victims of totalitarian regimes, providing a comparison of crimes committed against humanity by totalitarian Communist and Nazi regimes?
Število žrtev totalitarnih komunističnih režimov od začetka 19. stoletja do danes znaša več kot sto milijonov.
There have been more than 100 million victims of totalitarian Communist regimes since the beginning of the 19th century.
Številne države niso javno izrazile odklonilnega stališča do zločinov totalitarnih komunističnih režimov niti jih niso obsodile, čeprav komunistične stranke v njih niso na oblasti.
In many countries, even though Communist parties are not in power, they have not distanced themselves publicly from the crimes of totalitarian Communist regimes nor condemned them.
Ali namerava Svet te zločine opredeliti kot zločine proti človeštvu?
Is the Council planning to identify those crimes as crimes against humanity?
Komisija je sprejela ukrepe za organizacijo vrste obravnav glede žrtev totalitarnih režimov, da bi pozvali k pripravi sporočila Komisije.
The Commission has taken steps to arrange a series of hearings regarding victims of totalitarian regimes, with the purpose of calling for a Commission Communication.
Zato pozivamo Svet, naj zagotovi, da bo Komisija končala obravnave in da bodo sklepi obravnav objavljeni in na voljo javnosti.
We therefore urge the Council to ensure that the Commission completes the hearings, and that the hearing conclusions are published and made available to the public.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0140/08/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0140/08/rev.1
S katerim ukrepom se namerava Komisija odzvati na pisno izjavo 0044/2008 - P6_TA(2008)0439 , ki jo je Parlament sprejel 9. septembra 2008 in v kateri je 23. avgust razglašen za evropski dan spomina na žrtve stalinizma in nacizma?
What action does the Commission propose to take in response to Written Declaration 0044/2008 - P6_TA(2008)0439 adopted by the Parliament on 9 September 2008, which proclaims 23 August as European Day of Remembrance for the victims of Stalinism and Nazism?
Kakšen je njen odziv na praško deklaracijo z naslovom Evropska vest in komunizem, ki je bila sprejeta 3. junija 2008 na konferenci v Pragi?
What response does the Commission have to the Prague Declaration, adopted at the Prague Conference, ‘European Conscience and Communism’ on 3 June 2008?
Ali Komisija podpira predlog praške deklaracije za ustanovitev inštituta za evropski spomin in vest kot evropskega raziskovalnega inštituta za študij totalitarizma in kot vseevropskega muzeja/spomenika za vse žrtve totalitarnih režimov, kjer bi bila prikazana primerjava zločinov, ki so jih proti človeštvu zagrešili totalitarni komunistični in nacistični režimi?
Does the Commission support the Prague Declaration's proposal that an Institute of European Memory and Conscience be established, as a European research institute for studies on totalitarianism and as a pan-European museum/memorial for all the victims of totalitarian regimes, providing a comparison of crimes committed against humanity by totalitarian Communist and Nazi regimes?
Številne države niso javno izrazile odklonilnega stališča do zločinov totalitarnih komunističnih režimov niti jih niso obsodile, čeprav komunistične stranke v njih niso na oblasti.
In many countries, even though the Communist parties are not in power, they have not distanced themselves publicly from the crimes of totalitarian Communist regimes nor condemned them.
Ali namerava Komisija te zločine opredeliti kot zločine proti človeštvu?
Is the Commission planning to identify those crimes as crimes against humanity?
Evropska komisija je sprejela ukrepe za organizacijo vrste obravnav glede žrtev totalitarnih režimov, da bi pozvali k pripravi sporočila Komisije.
The European Commission has taken steps to arrange a series of hearings regarding victims of totalitarian regimes, with the purpose of calling for a Commission Communication.