natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Več držav članic Evropske unije, ki mejijo na Baltsko morje, se ne strinja z vnaprej plačano presojo, ki jo je opravila družba „Nord Stream“, saj menijo, da ni zanesljiva, podjetja in vlade pa še vedno ne upoštevajo zahtev Evropskega parlamenta.
Several EU Member States bordering the Baltic Sea disagree with the assessment that was paid for in advance by the ‘Nord Stream’ company and regard it as unreliable while Parliament’s requests remain ignored by business and Governments.
Obžalujemo, da institucije Evropske unije v večini primerov niso sprejele nobenih ukrepov.
We deplore the fact the EU institutions, in most cases, have not taken any measures.
Ali je Svet opravil oziroma poskrbel za temeljito preučitev vprašanja o tem, ali se projekt izvaja v skladu z zakonodajo Evropske unije, zlasti glede presoje vplivov na okolje, in mednarodnim pravom?
Has the Council conducted or ensured the conduct of a thorough assessment of whether the project’s implementation is in keeping with EU legislation especially as regards environmental impact assessments and international law?
Ali je Svet od graditeljev in upravljavcev projekta zahteval, naj prevzamejo vso odgovornost za nadomestilo, če bi na plinovodu prišlo do večje okvare ali če bi pri izgradnji prišlo do premikov velikih količin strupenih usedlin ali razlitja smrtonosnih kemikalij iz bomb in granat, odvrženih po drugi svetovni vojni?
Has the Council required the project constructors and operators to assume full liability for compensation in case of a major failure in the pipeline or if construction work dislodges large amounts of poisonous sediment or discloses deadly chemicals in bombs and shells dumped after the Second World War?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0119/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0119/09
Zadeva: Okolje brez tobačnega dima
Subject: Smoke-free environments
Evropska komisija je 30. junija 2009 sprejela predlog priporočila Sveta o okolju brez tobačnega dima, da bi podprla in spodbujala nacionalna prizadevanja za boljšo zaščito državljanov pred nevarnostmi cigaretnega dima v skladu z okvirno konvencijo Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije za nadzor nad tobakom.
On 30 June 2009, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Recommendation on smoke free environments to assist and encourage national efforts to better protect citizens from the risks of tobacco smoke, in line with international commitments under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Priporočilo bi zagotovilo tudi mehanizme za spremljanje napredka pri vzpostavljanju okolja brez tobačnega dima po vsej EU, poenostavitev izmenjave najboljših praks ter usklajevanje politik med državami članicami.
The Recommendation would also put in place mechanisms to monitor progress towards smoke-free environments throughout the EU and facilitate the exchange of best practices and policy coordination between Member States.
Odbor kljub vsemu poudarja, da je o tem vprašanju potrebna celovita razprava in da mora tudi Parlament izraziti svoje stališče o tem.
The Committee does, however, highlight the need to have a complete debate on this issue and the need for Parliament to express its position.
Ali lahko Svet potrdi, da namerava Svet za zaposlovanje, socialno politiko, zdravje in zaščito potrošnikov sprejeti sklepe o tem vprašanju na svojem zasedanju 1. decembra 2009, kljub urniku Parlamenta?
Can the Council confirm its intention to adopt Council's conclusions on this subject in the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council of 1 December 2009, despite Parliament's timetable?
Zakaj Svet hiti s sprejetjem poročila, ne da bi počakal na mnenje Evropskega parlamenta?
What are the reasons for the Council to rush into adopting the Recommendation without the European Parliament's opinion?
Ali je Svet glede na to, da se je o predlogu Komisije posvetoval s Parlamentom, pripravljen upoštevati mnenje Parlamenta pri pripravi sklepov Sveta?
Since Parliament was consulted on the Commission's proposal, is the Council prepared to take Parliament's view into account when drafting the Council's conclusions?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0120/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0120/09
Zadeva: Selitev podjetij znotraj EU in vloga finančnih instrumentov EU
Subject: Relocation of undertakings in the EU and the role of EU financial instruments
Evropski sklad za prilagoditev globalizaciji je namenjen aktivnim ukrepom na delovnih trgih držav članic v korist delavcev, ki so postali presežni zaradi večjih strukturnih sprememb v svetovnih trgovinskih vzorcih, nastalih zaradi globalizacije, oziroma zaradi finančne in gospodarske krize.
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) supports active labour market measures of the Member States in favour of workers who are made redundant either as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation or as a result of the financial and economic crisis.
Izvrševanje tega sklada kot instrumenta zaposlovalne in socialne politike je prepleteno z načrtom za oživitev gospodarstva, notranjim trgom in evropsko konkurenčnostjo ter industrijsko, kohezijsko in trgovinsko politiko.
The implementation of the EGF as an instrument of employment and social policy is intertwined with the recovery plan, the internal market and the European competition, industrial, cohesion and trade policies.
Glede na povedano so se v nedavni razpravi o pomoči iz tega sklada za presežne delavce družbe Dell na Irskem in o hkratni odobritvi državne pomoči tej družbi na Poljskem za odprtje nove tovarne pojavili pomisleki glede usklajevanja na omenjenih področjih politik.
In this respect, the recent discussion about the assistance of the EGF for redundant workers of the Dell Company in Ireland and the simultaneous approval of Polish state aid to the same company for the creation of a new factory, raised some concerns about the coordination of the respective policy areas.
S katerimi instrumenti Komisija zagotavlja, da se z evropsko finančno pomočjo ne spodbuja prenos proizvodnje znotraj Evropske unije in da se ta pomoč ne uporablja za takšne namene?
What instruments does the Commission have in place to ensure that a transfer of production within the European Union is in no way encouraged by, and cannot benefit from, European financial aid?
Kako se pri odobritvi državne pomoči Komisija prepriča, da zaradi te pomoči niso ogrožena delovna mesta in da ne nastanejo socialne posledice drugod v EU?
When authorising state aid, how does the Commission make sure that job losses and social consequences at other locations in the EU do not result from the state aid in question?
Kako Komisija zagotavlja, da dodelitev državne pomoči ne ovira učinkovitega izvrševanja strukturnih skladov?
How does the Commission ensure that the effective implementation of the Structural Funds is not foiled by the granting of state aid?
S katerimi instrumenti Komisija zagotavlja, da financiranje Skupnosti, zlasti iz socialnega sklada in sklada za regionalni razvoj, v nekem delu Evropske unije ne pripelje do izgube delovnih mest v drugem delu?
What instruments does the Commission have in place to ensure that Community funding in one part of the European Union, in particular through the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund, does not result in a loss of jobs in another part of the Union?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da evropski oziroma nacionalni javni programi za pomoč presežnim delavcem ne bodo privedli do tega, da bodo lahko podjetja na poceni način in brez družbene odgovornosti ustvarjala delovna mesta in nato odpuščala delavce?
How will the Commission ensure that European or national public programmes in place to remedy the consequences of job losses for redundant workers will not lead to situations in which enterprises can effectively create and dispose of jobs without regard to their social responsibility?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0121/09/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0121/09/rev.1
Zadeva: Kohezijska politika po letu 2013
Subject: The cohesion policy after 2013
V okviru predzakonodajne razprave o kohezijski politiki po letu -2013 Odbor za regionalni razvoj zanima trenutno stališče Komisije o:
In the context of the pre-legislative debate on the post-2013 cohesion policy, the committee wishes to know the position of the Commission, at this stage, on:
upravljanju na več ravneh,
multilevel governance,
možni opustitvi cilja 2,
the eventual abandonment of Objective 2,
oslabitvi načela dodatnosti ali ponovne nacionalizacije delov veljavne kohezijske politike EU,
the weakening of the principle of additionality or re-nationalisation of parts of the current EU cohesion policy,
regionalni razsežnosti kohezijske politike po letu 2013,
the regional dimension of cohesion policy after 2013,
sodelovanju regionalne in lokalne uprave pri uresničevanju evropskih ciljev v okviru kohezijske politike po letu 2013,
the involvement of regional and local levels of governance in the pursuit of European objectives within the framework of post-2013 cohesion policy,
upravičenosti vseh evropskih regij,
the eligibility of all European regions,
teritorialni razsežnosti kohezijske politike in v zvezi s tem vprašanje, kdaj namerava Evropska komisija objaviti belo knjigo o teritorialni razsežnosti, kot to zahteva Evropski parlament?
the territorial dimension of cohesion policy and, in this context, when the Commission intends to publish a White Paper on territorial cohesion, as requested by the European Parliament,
vlogi Evropskega socialnega sklada v kohezijski politiki,
the role of the European Social Fund in cohesion policy,
vlogi kohezijske politike v odnosu do drugih politik Evropske unije.
the role of cohesion policy in relation to other EU policies.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0122/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0122/09
Zadeva: Potrebno izboljšanje pravnega okvira o dostopu do dokumentov po začetku veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe, uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001
Subject: Improvement needed in the legal framework for access to documents following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Regulation (EC) 1049/2001
Po glasovanju na plenarnem zasedanju 11. marca 2009, da se odločitev glede predloga Komisije o spremembi veljavnih predpisov o preglednosti preloži na novo parlamentarno obdobje, je bil predlog vrnjen v pristojni odbor.
Following the 11 March 2009 Plenary vote to postpone the new Parliament until the decision on the Commission's proposal to revise the existing rules on transparency, the proposal was referred back to the committee responsible.
Medtem je vseh 27 držav članic ratificiralo Lizbonsko pogodbo, ki bo tako najverjetneje začela veljati 1. decembra 2009.
In the meantime the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by all 27 Member States and will therefore most probably enter into force on 1 December 2009.
Hkrati naj bila predlagana nova Komisija, ki naj bi jo potrdil Evropski parlament.
At the same time the new Commission is about to be nominated and approved by the European Parliament.
Posamezne institucije so to vprašanje sicer obravnavale na ravni odborov in delovnih skupin, vendar od 11. marca 2009 ni bilo medinstitucionalne razprave.
Although the respective institutions have worked on the file at committee and working group level, no interinstitutional discussions have taken place since 11 March 2009.
Z Lizbonsko pogodbo se spreminja pravni in politični okvir te uredbe ter odnosi med Unijo in njenimi državljani v prihodnje.
The Lisbon Treaty changes the legal and political context of the Regulation and the future relationship between the Union and its citizens.
Uvodna izjava 7 te pogodbe odraža željo držav članic "okrepiti demokratično in učinkovito delovanje institucij", odstavka 1 in 2 člena 11 pa določata, da institucije "dajejo državljanom in predstavniškim združenjem na ustrezen način možnost izražanja in javne izmenjave mnenje glede vseh področij delovanja Unije" ter da institucije "vzdržujejo odprt, pregleden in reden dialog s predstavniškimi združenji in civilno družbo".
Recital 7 of the Treaty notes the desire of the Member States 'to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions', Article 11 (1) and (2) require the institutions to 'give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange views in all areas of Union action' and to 'maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative organisations and civil society'.
V tem pogledu je zelo pomemben tudi člen 15 v celoti.
Also Article 15 in its entirety is highly relevant in this context.
Ali lahko Svet glede na opisano stanje in navedene dele ter duh Lizbonske pogodbe odgovori na vprašanje:
In the light of the above situation and the above parts and spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, could the Council elaborate on the following question.
Kako bo ukrepal glede spremembe uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 ?
What measures will the Council take with regard to the revision of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 ?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0123/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0123/09
Ali lahko Komisija glede na opisano stanje in navedene dele ter duh Lizbonske pogodbe odgovori na vprašanje:
In the light of the above situation and the above parts and spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, could the Commission elaborate on the following question.
Kako bo ukrepala glede spremembe uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 ?
What measures will the Commission take with regard to the revision of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 ?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0124/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0124/09
, v imenu skupine S&D
, on behalf of the S&D Group
Zadeva: Skupni leti za vračanje nezakonitih priseljencev
Subject: Joint flights for the return of irregular migrants
V zadnjih tednih je več držav članic začelo s prisilnim in množičnim vračanjem Afganistancev v Afganistan, kjer pa je za nekatera območja dokazano, da je varnost oseb ogrožena.
During recent weeks, several Member States have carried out forced and grouped returns of Afghans to Afghanistan where, in some areas, there is an established risk to physical safety.
Ali je mogoče Afganistan obravnavati kot varno tretjo državo, glede na to, da so Afganistanci največja skupnost beguncev na svetu (več kot 2,7 milijona ljudi in 500 000 razseljenih oseb), in glede na splošno neurejenost razmer v državi?
Bearing in mind both the fact that Afghans make up the largest community of refugees in the world (more than 2.7 million people, and 500 000 displaced persons) and the situation of general confusion in the country, can Afghanistan be treated as a safe third country?
Ali Svet lahko zajamči, da se pred vsakim vračanjem natančno preveri, ali je oseba vložila vlogo za mednarodno zaščito, da je bil v tem primeru v celoti upoštevan vsak korak za preverjanje postopka in da njihova varnost ni ogrožena v državi vrnitve?
Can the Council guarantee that, prior to every return, a detailed check was carried out to ensure that the person did not introduce a request for international protection, that every step of the examination of the procedure was fully respected if they did, and that their security is not threatened in the country of return?
Ali Svet lahko naknadno preveri, da je bilo temu tako?
Was the Council able to verify a posteriori that this was indeed the case on the ground?
Ali Svet meni, da bi afganistanski državljani lahko pridobili subsidiarno zaščito v skladu s členom 15c direktive 2004/83/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izpolnjevanju pogojev (resna in individualna grožnja za življenje ali osebnost civilista zaradi samovoljnega nasilja v situacijah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada)?
Does the Council consider that Afghan nationals could obtain subsidiary protection under Article 15c of the 'qualification' Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict)?
Ali je dovolj utemeljitev, da je legitimno vrniti osebo, ki na ozemlju EU biva nezakonito, le zato, ker ta ni vložila vloge za mednarodno zaščito, kljub popolnemu zavedanju, da se zaradi uredbe Dublin II številni iskalci azila bojijo vložiti vlogo za azil v državi članici pri vstopu na ozemlje EU, zlasti v Grčiji ali na Malti, glede na to, da so njihove možnosti za pridobitev azila minimalne?
Can we regard as sufficient the argument that it would be legitimate to return a person residing irregularly on EU territory for the sole reason that he or she has not introduced a request for international protection, despite being fully aware of the fact that, due to the Dublin II regulation, many asylum seekers are afraid of introducing a request for asylum in a Member State when entering EU territory, especially if the latter is Greece or Malta, given that their chances of being granted asylum are minimal?
Ali naj države članice potrdijo sklep Sveta z dne 29. in 30. oktobra za preučitev možnosti, da bi agencija Frontex redno zakupila lete za skupno vračanje?
Should the Member States confirm the Council decision of 29/30 October to examine 'the possibility of regular chartering by Frontex of joint returns'?
Ali nameravajo države članice hkrati doseči dogovor o evropskem seznamu varnih tretjih držav in sprejeti nujne ukrepe, da na najvišji ravni uskladijo merila za preverjanje, dodeljevanje in uveljavljanje statusa beguncev?
Do they at the same time intend to seek an agreement on a European list of safe third countries, and to take urgent action on the harmonisation at the highest level of the criteria for the examination, granting, and exercise of refugee status?
Nazadnje, zakaj bi obravnavali financiranje preko agencije Frontex, če je bilo skladu za vračanje beguncev 2008–2013 dodeljeno 676 milijonov EUR in je namenjen zlasti podpori skupnim ukrepom za vračanje, ki jih organizira več držav članic?
Finally, why contemplate the use of financing through Frontex in the light of the fact that the refugee fund for return 2008-2013 has been granted a total budget of € 676 million, and aims in particular to support joint return actions organised by several Member States?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0125/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0125/09
Ali Komisija lahko zajamči, da se pred vsakim vračanjem natančno preveri, ali je oseba vložila vlogo za mednarodno zaščito, da je bil v tem primeru v celoti upoštevan vsak korak za preverjanje postopka in da njihova varnost ni ogrožena v državi vrnitve?
Can the Commission guarantee that, prior to every return, a detailed check was carried out to ensure that the person did not introduce a request for international protection, that every step of the examination of the procedure was fully respected if they did, and that their security is not threatened in the country of return?
Ali Komisija lahko naknadno preveri, da je bilo temu tako?
Was the Commission able to verify a posteriori that this was indeed the case on the ground?
Ali Komisija meni, da bi afganistanski državljani lahko pridobili subsidiarno zaščito v skladu s členom 15c direktive 2004/83/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o izpolnjevanju pogojev (resna in individualna grožnja za življenje ali osebnost civilista zaradi samovoljnega nasilja v situacijah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada)?
Does the Commission consider that Afghan nationals could obtain subsidiary protection under Article 15c of the 'qualification' Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict)?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0126/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0126/09
Zadeva: Možnosti za razvojno agendo iz Dohe po sedmi ministrski konferenci STO
Subject: Prospects for the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) following the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference
Ali Komisija lahko poda oceno stanja na glavnih pogajalskih področjih razvojne agende iz Dohe, zlasti na področju kmetijstva, dostopa do nekmetijskega trga in storitev?
Can the Commission provide an assessment of the 'state of play' in the main negotiating areas of the DDA, especially in agriculture, NAMA (non-agricultural market access) and services?
Kateri so glavni dosežki Komisije na sedmi ministrski konferenci STO?
What are the main achievements of the Commission at the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference?
Katera so preostala vprašanja za razpravo in katere zadeve so najbolj občutljive?
Which are the remaining issues to be discussed and which are the most difficult subjects?
Kakšen vpliv bo imela ministrska konferenca STO na sedanji krog pogajanj iz Dohe?
What impacts will the WTO Ministerial Conference have on the ongoing Doha Round negotiations?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da bodo osrednja pogajanja usmerjena na razvoj?
How will the Commission ensure that the core negotiations are focused on development?
Ali lahko oceni verjetnost uspešnega zaključka kroga pogajanj o razvoju iz Dohe do konca naslednjega leta?
Can the Commission provide an evaluation of the likelihood of a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round by the end of next year?
Kako namerava Komisija vključiti poslance Evropskega parlamenta v sedanji krog pogajanj o razvojni agendi iz Dohe in v strukturo STO?
How does the Commission intend to include the Members of the European Parliament in the ongoing Doha Round negotiations and in the WTO structure?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0127/09
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0127/09
Zadeva: Pregled proračuna 2009-2010
Subject: Budget review 2009-2010
Odbor za kmetijstvo in podeželski razvoj se je seznanil z osnutkom sporočila Evropske komisije z naslovom A reform Agenda for a Global Europe – Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe (Program reforme za globalno Evropo – reforma proračuna v spreminjajoči se Evropi).
A draft communication of the Commission entitled ‘A reform Agenda for a Global Europe - Reforming the Budget, Changing Europe’ has been brought to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
Ali Komisija podpira izjavo iz tega osnutka in sicer poglavja 4.3 o kopenskih in morskih virih, da mora bodoča reforma skupne kmetijske politike spodbuditi k nadaljnjemu bistvenemu zmanjšanju skupnega deleža proračuna EU, namenjenega kmetijstvu, s čimer bi se sprostila sredstva za nove prednostne naloge (str.
Is the Commission supporting the formulation in this draft communication, which states in Chapter 4.3 (Land and maritime resources) that the future reform of the CAP ‘must stimulate a further significant reduction in the overall share of the EU budget devoted to agriculture, freeing up spending for new priorities’ (p.
Ali je Komisija naklonjena zamisli iz tega dokumenta, da bi se na države članice prenesla večja odgovornost za sedanje izdatke za skupno kmetijsko politiko, ali da bi se neposredna pomoč sofinancirala z nacionalnimi prispevki (str.
Is the Commission in favour of the idea in the document that ‘a larger responsibility of current CAP spending could be assigned to the Member States, or direct aids could be co-financed by national contributions’ (p.
V odstavku o novih izzivih (str.
Under ‘new challenges’ (p.
18) je v osnutku sporočila zapisano, da si je treba v kmetijstvu bolj prizadevati za ublažitev podnebnih sprememb, hkrati pa ohranjati konkurenčnost in donosnost.
18), the draft communication specifies that ‘agriculture must do more to mitigate climate change while competitiveness and viability must be maintained.
Najpomembnejše pri tem so inovacije in skupne raziskave na področju tehnologij kmetijske proizvodnje, možnosti za ublažitev podnebnih sprememb in novih bolezenskih povzročiteljev ter bolezni.
Innovation and joint research in agricultural production technologies, in climate change mitigation potential and in new pathogens and diseases are key factors in this respect.
Evropsko kmetijstvo bo moralo prispevati tudi k zmanjšanju emisij toplogrednih plinov ter k večji uporabi tal za ponor ogljika.
European agriculture will have to contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to developing the use of land as a carbon sink.