natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zato morajo pravila za nadzor ulova temeljiti v enaki meri na previdnostih mnenjih za povprečne pogoje obnovitve in na zadnjih celotnih dovoljenih ulovih, prilagojenih za faktor, ki upošteva zadnje gibanje obsega staleža, merjeno s pomočjo proizvodnje iker.
To this end, the harvest control rule should be based in equal parts on precautionary advice given for average recruitment conditions, and on recent total allowable catches adjusted by a factor that reflects the recent trend in the stock abundance as measured through egg production.
Komisija in Parlament menita, da so za ohranjanje staleža ključnega pomena dolgoročni načrti upravljanja.
Both the Commission and Parliament believe that the establishment of long-term management plans is the key to conservation.
Poleg tega je namen predloga Komisije za reformo skupne ribiške politike usmeritev (kjer je to mogoče) k načrtom na osnovi ribolova, pri katerih se na primer z manj načrti zajame več staležev.
Moreover, the Commission proposal for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy aims to move where possible towards fisheries-based plans, i.e. covering more stocks in fewer plans.
Že od prve obravnave je Parlament pričakoval stališče Sveta.
Since first reading, Parliament has been awaiting the Council’s position.
Komisija ne namerava predlagati novega zakonodajnega besedila na to temo, saj se strinja s stališčem Parlamenta o ustrezni pravni podlagi za uredbo.
The Commission has no intention to propose a new legislative text on this issue, as it agrees with Parliament’s position concerning the correct legal basis for the regulation.
Glede na navidezno medinstitucionalno mrtvo točko Odbor za ribištvo postavlja Svetu naslednja vprašanja:
In view of the apparent interinstitutional deadlock, the Committee on Fisheries puts the following questions to the Council:
Kako daleč so razprave v delovnih skupinah Sveta v zvezi s to zadevo?
What is the state of play regarding this dossier as regards the discussions in the Council’s working group?
Kako bo Svet nadalje ravnal v zvezi s to in sorodnimi zadevami, kot je predlagani dolgoročni načrt za stalež sardona v Biskajskem zalivu in ribištvo, ki izkorišča ta stalež?
How will the Council proceed with this and related files, such as the proposed long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock?
Ali se Svet strinja, da ima trenutno mrtvilo v zvezi s to zadevo dalekosežne posledice za vse druge dolgoročne načrte upravljanja, kot je na primer načrt za baltski losos, saj je upravljanje ribištva prek dolgoročnih načrtov eden od ključnih elementov reforme skupne ribiške politike?
Does the Council agree that the current stalemate on this dossier has wider implications for all other long-term management plans, such as that for the Baltic salmon, given also that the management of fisheries through long-term plans is one of the key elements of the CFP reform?
Kako lahko Svet upraviči dejstvo, da ni tako dolgo zavzel uradnega stališča o tej zadevi in je tako Parlament prikrajšal za morebitno drugo obravnavo?
How can the Council justify the fact that it has for so long refrained from taking a formal position on this dossier and, by doing so, deprived Parliament of a potential second reading?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000309/2011
Question for oral answer O-000309/2011
Zato morajo pravila za nadzor ulova temeljiti v enaki meri na previdnostih mnenjih za povprečne pogoje obnovitve kot na zadnjih celotnih dovoljenih ulovih, prilagojenih za faktor, ki upošteva zadnje gibanje obsega staleža, merjeno s pomočjo proizvodnje iker.
To this end, the harvest control rule should be based in equal parts on precautionary advice given for average recruitment conditions, and on recent total allowable catches adjusted by a factor that reflects the recent trend in the stock abundance as measured through egg production.
Parlament podpira Komisijo pri njenem stališču, da so za ohranjanje staleža ključnega pomena dolgoročni načrti upravljanja ter da bi se morali (kjer je to mogoče) za več staležev usmeriti k načrtom na osnovi ribolova.
Parliament supports the Commission in its view that the establishment of long-term management plans is the key to conservation and that we should move where possible towards fisheries-based plans for more stocks.
Zato Odbor za ribištvo postavlja Komisiji naslednja vprašanja:
The Committee on Fisheries hereby puts the following questions to the Commission:
Kaj namerava Komisija narediti, da bi se zadeva premaknila z navidezne medinstitucionalne mrtve točke?
What does the Commission intend to do in order to unblock the apparent interinstitutional deadlock?
Zakaj so bili njeni dosedanji poskusi, da bi se našel kompromis med sozakonodajalcema, neuspešni?
Why have its earlier attempts to find a compromise between the two co-legislators been unsuccessful?
Ali se Komisija strinja, da ima trenutno mrtvilo v zvezi s to zadevo dalekosežne posledice za vse druge dolgoročne načrte upravljanja, kot je na primer načrt za baltski losos, saj je upravljanje ribištva prek dolgoročnih načrtov eden od ključnih elementov predlagane reforme skupne ribiške politike?
Does the Commission agree that the current stalemate on this dossier has wider implications for all other long-term management plans, such as that for Baltic salmon, given also that the management of fisheries through long-term plans is one of the key elements of the proposed CFP reform?
Zakaj si Komisija ni še naprej prizadevala (razen delavnice v aprilu 2011) za uresničitev svojega prvotnega namena, da s Parlamentom in državami članicami začne razpravo o bodoči strukturi dolgoročnih načrtov, kot je navedeno v njenem odzivu na poročilo o šuru, ki ga je v novembru 2010 sprejel Parlament?
Why has the Commission not followed up, other than by organising a workshop in April 2011, its original intention to launch a joint discussion with Parliament and the Member States on the future architecture of long-term plans, as indicated in its reaction to the adoption of Parliament’s report on horse mackerel of November 2010?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000310/2011
Question for oral answer O-000310/2011
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE Zadeva: Ukrepi EU za zaščito civilne družbe v Izraelu - povračilni napadi izraelskih ekstremistov (napadi price tag) in predloga zakona o nevladnih organizacijah v knesetu
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Subject: EU action to protect civil society in Israel - 'Price tag' attacks and proposed NGO bills in the Knesset
Organizacije za človekove pravice in mirovno gibanje v Izraelu so fizično in pravno vse bolj ogrožene.
Human rights organisations and the peace movement in Israel are increasingly coming under physical and legal threat.
Hagit Ofran, ki je v nevladni organizaciji Peace Now direktorica projekta Settlement Watch, so 7. novembra 2011 ponovno napadli in ji grozili s smrtjo.
On 7 November 2011, Hagit Ofran, the ‘Settlement Watch’ director of the Israeli NGO Peace Now, was once again attacked and threatened with death.
Zdi se, da je napad povezan z nedavnim valom povračilnih napadov price tag na nevladne organizacije, ki se zavzemajo za človekove pravice in spodbujajo mir v Izraelu, na mošeje in arabska pokopališča ter restavracije v Izraelu in na Zahodnem bregu.
This assault seems to be connected to a recent wave of so-called ‘price tag’ attacks against NGOs which defend human rights and promote peace in Israel itself and on mosques and Arab cemeteries and restaurants in Israel and the West Bank.
Kneset obravnava dva predloga zakona, ki bosta v primeru sprejetja organizacije za človekove pravice in druge nevladne organizacije, ki podpirajo mirovni proces (na primer Bt'Selem, Peace Now in Breaking the Silence) hudo ovirala pri izvajanju njihovih dejavnosti.
Two new bills have been tabled in the Knesset which, if they become law, would severely hamper the ability of human rights organisations and other NGOs which support the peace process, such as Bt'Selem, Peace Now and Breaking the Silence, to go about their activities.
Kirschenbaumov zakon predlaga, da se vsa finančna sredstva, ki jih izraelske nevladne organizacije prejmejo od tujih vlad, obdavčijo po 45-odstotni stopnji.
The Kirschenbaum bill proposes that all funding for Israeli NGOs provided by foreign governments should be taxed at 45 %.
Predlog podpirajo številni člani izraelske vlade.
This bill has the support of several members of the Israeli Government.
Akunisov zakon predlaga, da bi se tuja pomoč za izraelske nevladne organizacije omejila na 20 000 izraelskih novih šeklov (4000 EUR) letno.
The Akunis bill proposes that foreign aid to Israeli NGOs should be capped at NIS 20 000 (EUR 4000) per year.
V razlagi, ki spremlja predlog, je jasno zapisano, da je njegov namen omejiti financiranje EU in Organizacije združenih narodov, namenjeno nevladnim organizacijam.
The explanation attached to the bill clearly states that the aim is to limit EU and UN funding for NGOs.
Premier Benjamin Netanjahu ga je sprva podpiral, čeprav je kasneje začasno prekinil parlamentarno obravnavo obeh spornih predlogov.
This bill was initially supported by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, although he has now suspended parliamentary consideration of both these controversial proposals.
Zaradi teh napadov na miroljubno delo, ki ga opravljajo nevladne organizacije na področju človekovih pravic, pravic manjšin, odgovornosti vlade in miru, smo zelo zaskrbljeni.
We are deeply concerned at these attacks on the peaceful work done by NGOs in the areas of human rights, the rights of minorities, government accountability and peace.
Zaskrbljujoče je tudi dejstvo, da Izrael Evropsko unijo in nekatere države članice, kljub posebnemu odnosu, ki ga veže nanjo, obtožuje vmešavanja v izraelske notranje in varnostne zadeve.
We also find it very worrying that Israel, despite its special relationship with the EU, should be accusing the EU and several Member States of interfering in Israeli domestic and security affairs.
Kako namerava visoka predstavnica zagotoviti, da bo v vseh odnosih z izraelsko vlado jasno izraženo stališče EU, da vlada ne sme tolerirati izbruhov nasilja in zastraševanj, imenovanih price tag, temveč se jim mora ostro zoperstaviti, storilce pa pripeljati pred sodišče?
How will the High Representative ensure that in all its dealings with the Israeli Government the EU makes it clear that the ‘price tag’ outbursts of violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated, but must instead be countered resolutely and the perpetrators brought to justice?
S katerimi ukrepi namerava visoka predstavnica doseči, da bo Izrael spoštoval demokratično obveznost varovanja svobode govora, ki je jasno zapisana tudi v pridružitvenem sporazumu EU–Izrael?
What will the High Representative do to make Israel honour its democratic obligations to protect freedom of speech, as stated clearly in the EU-Israel Association Agreement?
Kakšne posledice bo imelo morebitno sprejetje zakonov, povezanih z nevladnimi organizacijami, za partnerstvo med EU in Izraelom?
What will the consequences for the EU-Israel partnership be if the NGO laws are passed?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000311/2011
Question for oral answer O-000311/2011
v imenu Odbora za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja Zadeva: Izvajanje Direktiva 1999/74/ES o kokoših nesnicah
on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Subject: Implementation of Laying Hens Directive 1999/74/EC
Uporaba neizpopolnjenih kletk za baterijsko rejo bo v skladu z Direktivo 1999/74/ES o zaščiti kokoši nesnic s 1. januarjem 2012 prepovedana.
From 1 January 2012, the use of unenriched cages for laying hens will be banned in accordance with Directive 1999/74/EC.
Evropski parlament je v svojem poročilu z dne 5. maja 2010 ( A7-0053/2010 ) pozval k hitremu izvajanju, da bi do roka leta 2012 dosegli zastavljene cilje.
In its report of 5 May 2010 ( A7-0053/2010 ) the European Parliament requested swift implementation to meet the 2012 deadline.
V svoji resoluciji z dne 16. decembra 2010 [ P7_TA-PROV(2010)0493 ] je pozval Komisijo, naj razjasni razmere v državah članicah in najpozneje do 1. marca 2011 razkrije ukrepe, ki jih namerava sprejeti, da bi zagotovila skladnost z direktivo, ter naj poišče rešitev za tiste rejce, ki so sicer začeli postopek prehoda na nove baterijske sisteme ali alternativne sisteme reje, vendar tega postopka ne bodo končali pred 1. januarjem 2012.
In its resolution of 16 December 2010 ( P7_TA-PROV(2010)0493 ), Parliament called upon the Commission to provide clarity concerning the state of play in the Member States and reveal, at the latest by 1 March 2011, the measures it envisaged taking in order to ensure full compliance with the directive, as well as to provide a solution for those producers who have started to change their rearing systems, by introducing new cages or alternative rearing methods, but who will not have completed this process by 1 January 2012.
Komisar Dalli je na seji Odbora za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja 5. oktobra najavil stroge ukrepe, za katere bi moral poiskati pravno podlago: jajca, ki se bodo po 1. januarju 2012 še vedno pridobivala v baterijski reji, se bodo smela uporabljati samo na matičnem ozemlju in zgolj za predelavo.
Commissioner Dalli announced strong measures in COMAGRI on 5 October, measures for which he needed to find a legal basis: eggs that are still produced in battery cages after 1 January 2012 are to be restricted to their own territory and can only be used for processing purposes.
Komisijo sprašujem, ali je bila opredeljena ustrezna pravna podlaga za to?
We would like to ask the Commission whether the legal base for this has been found?
Če je bila, ali so ti ukrepi dokončni?
If so, are these measures definite?
Glede na to, da se rok nezadržno bliža, ali lahko Komisija in države članice pojasnijo, katere ukrepe so sprejele za zagotovitev skladnosti?
Given the approaching deadline for implementation, can the Commission and the Member States explain what actions they have taken to ensure full compliance?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da bo na notranjem trgu zadostna ponudba jajc ter da bodo za jajca, uvožena iz držav zunaj EU, veljali enakovredni standardi kot za evropske rejce?
How will the Commission manage to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of eggs on the internal market on the one hand, while also ensuring that eggs imported from non-EU countries meet standards equivalent to those expected of EU producers?
Ali je Komisija pridobila nove podatke od držav članic, ki do nedavnega še niso posredovale informacij o stanju glede izvajanja, in kaj namerava storiti, da bo odpravila to pomanjkljivost?
Has the Commission obtained new data from those Member States which had not forwarded information on the state of play regarding implementation in their territory up until recently, and what does the Commission intend to do to remedy these data gaps?
Ali lahko Komisija priskrbi ocene o pričakovanih trgovinskih motenj in konkurenčnih razlikah med državami članicami, ko bodo do 1. januarja 2012 dosegle skladnost, v primerjavi s tistimi, ki ne bodo zmogle spoštovati roka, če ne bodo nemudoma ukrepale?
Can the Commission provide estimates of the expected trade distortions and competitiveness gaps between Member States’ producers who will be compliant by 1 January 2012, compared to those who, if swift action is not taken, will not meet the deadline?
Katere lekcije je Komisija pridobila v zvezi z izvajanjem, upoštevaje, da je bila direktiva sprejeta leta 1999 in da so bile države članice seznanjene z rokom 1. januarja 2012?
What lessons has the Commission learned about implementation, given that the directive was approved in 1999 and that Member States were aware of the 1 January 2012 deadline?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000312/2011
Question for oral answer O-000312/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Spopadanje z razmahom sladkorne bolezni v EU
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Addressing the EU diabetes epidemic
Sladkorna bolezen (tipa 1 in 2) naj bi glede na ocene prizadela 32 milijonov državljanov EU, podobno število državljanov pa naj bi trpelo zaradi motenj glukozne tolerance, ki se z veliko verjetnostjo kasneje razvije v klinično očitno sladkorno bolezen.
Diabetes (Type 1 and Type 2) is estimated to affect more than 32 million EU citizens, with a similar number suffering from impaired glucose tolerance and facing a very high probability of progressing to clinically manifest diabetes.
Poleg tega zaradi te bolezni v EU vsako leto umre 325.000 ljudi , kar pomeni, da zaradi sladkorne bolezni in povezanih zapletov vsaki dve minuti umre državljan EU.
Moreover, 325 000 deaths per year in the EU are attributed to diabetes , meaning that on average one EU citizen dies every two minutes of diabetes and related complications.
Število obolelih naj bi se do leta 2030 povečalo za 16 %, in sicer zaradi vse bolj razširjene debelosti, staranja evropskega prebivalstva in drugih dejavnikov, ki jih je treba še ugotoviti in dodatno raziskati.
These figures are expected to increase by 16% by 2030 as a result of the obesity epidemic, the ageing of the European population and other factors yet to be determined on which more research is needed.
Stroški zdravljenja sladkorne bolezni so za zdravstvene sisteme držav članic izjemno visoki, saj predstavljajo več kot 10 % vseh odhodkov za zdravstvo v večini držav članic .
The costs of diabetes for the Member States’ healthcare systems are also extremely high, representing over 10% of the healthcare expenditure in most Member States .
Kljub tem skrb zbujajočim podatkom EU še vedno ni oblikovala strategije za celovit spopad s sladkorno boleznijo.
Despite these alarming figures, there is still no EU-wide strategy to comprehensively address diabetes.
Svet je Komisijo že pozval, naj razmisli o tem, kaj lahko Evropa naredi za zdravljenje kroničnih bolezni do leta 2012 .
Indeed, the Council has called upon the Commission to conduct a reflection process about what Europe can do to address chronic diseases by 2012 .
Povrhu tega je bila sladkorna bolezen priznana kot ena od štirih glavnih nenalezljivih bolezni v nedavno sprejeti politični deklaraciji ZN s srečanja generalne skupščine na visoki ravni o preprečevanju in obvladovanju nenalezljivih bolezni ter v resoluciji Evropskega parlamenta z dne 15. septembra 2011 in nenalezljivih boleznih , v kateri ta „poudarja, da je treba po priporočilu Sveta v sodelovanju z ustreznimi zainteresiranimi stranmi, tudi bolniki in zdravstvenimi delavci, oblikovati strategijo EU o kroničnih nenalezljivih boleznih, ki bo v posameznih razdelkih obravnavala štiri najpogostejše nenalezljive bolezni“.
In addition, diabetes has been recognised as one of the four main non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the recently adopted UN Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of NCDs and the European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2011 on NCDs which ‘stresses the importance of establishing an EU strategy on chronic NCDs, to be followed by a Council recommendation, with individual sections dealing with the four most common NCDs’.
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000313/2011
Question for oral answer O-000313/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Dostop do zdravstvenega varstva za nezakonite migrante
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Access to health care for undocumented migrants
Z Mednarodnim paktom o ekonomskih, socialnih in kulturnih pravicah, ki ga je podpisalo vseh 27 držav članic, je pravica do zdravja vsakomur priznana kot temeljna socialna pravica.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has been signed by all 27 Member States, sets out the right to health as a basic social right for everyone.
Pogodba o delovanju o Evropske unije in Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah odražata to prepričanje.
The TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU echo this conviction.
Vendar pa je nedavna študija, ki jo je v desetih državah članicah opravila Agencija EU za temeljne pravice , pokazala, da se nacionalne prakse močno razlikujejo glede dostopa nezakonitih migrantov do zdravstvenega varstva.
Nonetheless, a recent study of ten Member States by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) has shown that national practices regarding access to healthcare of undocumented migrants differ widely.
V šestih državah članicah, v katerih je potekala študija, nezakoniti migranti nimajo dostopa do brezplačnih storitev javnega zdravstvenega varstva z izjemo nujne zdravstvene pomoči.
In six of the Member States studied, undocumented migrants have no cost-free access to public healthcare services beyond emergency care.
V eni državi članici je zdravstveno varstvo dostopno, vendar pa morajo bolnišnice nezakonite migrante prijaviti državnim organom.
In one of these Member States healthcare is available but hospitals are required to report undocumented migrants to national authorities.
To ravnanje je enakovredno tožarjenju/ovajanju in ni združljivo z medicinsko etiko ali univerzalnim značajem temeljnih pravic.
This practice is tantamount to tattling/denouncement and is not compatible with medical ethics or the universal nature of fundamental rights.
Še več, ker nezakoniti migranti nimajo dostopa do brezplačnega zdravstvenega varstva, je ogroženo zdravje nas vseh.
Furthermore, failure to grant free healthcare access to undocumented migrants puts everyone’s health at risk.
Države članice se bojijo morebitnih stroškov brezplačnega zdravstvenega varstva za nezakonite migrante.
Member States dread the potential costs of free healthcare for undocumented migrants.
Vse pomembnejše študije pa so pokazale, da se z večjim vlaganjem v osnovno zdravstveno varstvo, ki bi bilo brezplačno za vse, znižujejo stroški za drago nujno zdravstveno pomoč, pa tudi stroški za zdravstveno varstvo in tveganje za javno zdravje.
However, all relevant studies have shown that the more one invests in free basic healthcare for all, the smaller the costs for expensive emergency care as well as the costs of healthcare and the risks for public health are.
Pravica do osnovnega zdravstvenega varstva je temeljna pravica, ne glede na status osebe.
The right to basic healthcare is a fundamental right regardless of the person’s status.
To odgovornost mora prevzeti država, ne pa nevladne organizacije in civilna družba, kot je sedaj praksa v več državah članicah, ki ne omogočajo polnega dostopa do osnovnega zdravstvenega varstva.
The state must assume this responsibility instead of NGOs and civil society as is currently the practice in several Member States which do not grant full access to basic healthcare.
Ali lahko Komisija predloži celovito študijo, v kateri bo preučila prakse glede dostopa do zdravstvenega varstva za nezakonite migrante v vseh 27 državah članicah?
Can the Commission present a comprehensive study examining all the 27 Member States’ practices relating to access to healthcare for undocumented migrants?
Ali bi lahko Komisija bolj spodbujala prakse in poročila, ki dokazujejo pozitivne posledice širokega dostopa do osnovnega zdravstvenega varstva, zlasti ko je to v celoti brezplačno, vključno s proračunskim vidikom?
Can the Commission better promote practices and reports demonstrating the positive consequences of wide access to basic healthcare, in particular when it is completely free, including from a budgetary point of view?
Ob koncu, ali lahko Komisija zagotovi informacije o sklepih, ki jih bo sprejela na podlagi študije Agencije EU za temeljne pravice o določbah s področja zdravstvenega varstva, o katerih trenutno potekajo pogajanja v okviru postopkov azilnega svežnja in direktiv o sprejemu?
Finally, can the Commission provide information on the conclusions it will draw from the FRA study on the healthcare provisions currently negotiated in the asylum package’s procedures and reception directives?
Agencija EU za temeljne pravice, Nezakoniti priseljenci: dostop do zdravstvenega varstva v 10 državah članicah Evropske unije, Dunaj 2011.
FRA, Migrants in an irregular situation: access to healthcare in 10 European Union Member States, Vienna 2011.
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000314/2011
Question for oral answer O-000314/2011