natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgija je marca 2007 sprejela nacionalni zakon o prepovedi izdelave, uporabe, hrambe, prodaje, nakupa, dobave in tranzita orožja, ki vsebuje uran.
In March 2007 Belgium adopted its national law to forbid the manufacture, use, storage, sale, acquisition, supply and transit of uranium weapons.
Evropski parlament je maja 2007 razstavil slike in pričevanja žrtev orožja, ki vsebuje uran, iz Iraka (70 % Iraka je prekritih z osiromašenim uranom v prahu).
In May 2007 the European Parliament exhibited the pictures and testimonies of victims of uranium weapons in Iraq (70% of Iraq is covered with DU dust).
Italijanski minister za obrambo je oktobra 2007 razkril, da je med letoma 1996 in 2006 na misijah v Iraku in na Balkanu 37 italijanskih vojakov najverjetneje umrlo zaradi izpostavljenosti orožju, ki vsebuje uran.
In October 2007 the Italian Defence Minister disclosed that between 1996 and 2006, 37 Italian soldiers most probably died because of exposure to uranium weapons on their missions to Iraq and the Balkans.
Podobni primeri so se zgodili tudi v nekaterih drugih državah, kjer je prizadetih na stotine veteranov.
In several other countries similar cases occurred, affecting hundreds of veterans.
Zaradi čedalje večje zaskrbljenosti glede učinkov osiromašenega urana na zdravje so v Veliki Britaniji in ZDA uvedli testne postopke za vojake, ki so se vrnili.
In the UK and the United States increasing concern over DU’s health effects has led to the implementation of testing regimes for returning soldiers.
Generalna skupščina ZN je decembra 2007 z ogromno večino sprejela resolucijo, s katero je izpostavila zaskrbljenost zaradi vojaške uporabe urana.
In December 2007 the UN General Assembly passed, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution highlighting concerns over the military use of uranium.
Resolucija z naslovom „Učinki uporabe orožja in streliva, ki vsebuje osiromašen uran“ poziva države članice ZN, da preučijo zdravstvene grožnje, ki jih predstavlja uporaba orožja, ki vsebuje uran.
The resolution, entitled ‘Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium’, urges UN member states to re-examine the health hazards posed by the use of uranium weapons.
Čedalje več dokazov o kemični strupenosti in morebitni rakotvorni naravi urana podpira uporabo previdnostnega načela v skladu s pravom EU.
Growing evidence of uranium’s chemical toxicity and potentially carcinogenic nature dictates the application of the Precautionary Principle in line with EU law.
Kaj je oziroma kaj bo Svet ukrenil v odgovor na to resolucijo Parlamenta?
What steps is the Council taking or planning to take to follow up this European Parliament resolution?
Kako bo Svet vprašanje orožja, ki vsebuje uran, vključil v sprejeto evropsko varnostno strategijo in strategijo o orožju za množično uničevanje?
How will the Council integrate the issue of uranium weapons into the European Security Strategy and Strategy on Weapons of Mass Destruction it has adopted?
Kako – z namenom upoštevanja previdnostnega načela in kot presojo osiromašenega urana v vsaki misiji – lahko Svet zagotovi, da se bodo misije EVOP, v imenu ali pod okriljem EU ter v sodelovanju z Natom in ZDA, izognile uporabi orožja, ki vsebuje uran?
What guarantees can the Council provide – in line with the precautionary principle and in the form of DU assessment in the context of each mission – that the use of uranium weapons will be avoided in ESDP missions, both on behalf, or under the auspices, of the EU and in cooperation with NATO and the US?
Kako lahko Svet zagotovi, da osebje EVOP ne bo prišlo v stik s predmeti, kontaminiranimi z osiromašenim uranom, ali vstopilo v prostore ali na območja, kontaminirana z osiromašenim uranom?
What measures can the Council take to ensure that ESDP personnel do not make contact with DU-contaminated objects or enter DU-contaminated quarters or areas?
Kakšen dialog je sekretariat Sveta vzpostavil s svojimi sogovorniki v ZDA, Euromilom, vojaki in civilisti o tem vprašanju, recimo glede operacij na Balkanu in v Iraku?
What dialogue has the Council secretariat established on this issue with its US counterparts, Euromil, soldiers and civilians, for example in connection with operations in the Balkans and Iraq?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0030/08/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0030/08/rev.1
Evropski parlament je maja 2007 razstavil slike in pričevanja žrtev orožja, ki vsebuje uran, iz Iraka (70% Iraka je prekritih z osiromašenim uranom v prahu).
In May 2007 the European Parliament exhibited the pictures and testimonies of victims of uranium weapons in Iraq (70% of Iraq is covered with DU dust).
Kako namerava Komisija nadalje ukrepati v zvezi s to resolucijo Parlamenta?
How is the Commission planning to follow up this European Parliament resolution?
Katere ukrepe je sprejela Komisija – v skladu s svojimi obveznostmi po previdnostnem načelu – da bi svojemu humanitarnemu osebju preprečila stik z območji, kontaminiranimi z osiromašenim uranom?
What measures is the Commission taking – in line with its obligations under the precautionary principle – to avoid exposure of its humanitarian personnel to DU in contaminated regions?
Ali namerava Komisija začeti dialog z Euromilom, ki podpira prepoved?
Does the Commission plan to open a dialogue with Euromil, which is in favour of a ban?
Kakšna finančna sredstva ima na voljo Komisija za popis in okoljsko preiskavo kontaminiranih območij ter za pomoč pri čiščenju kontaminiranih območij?
What funds does the Commission have available to make an inventory of contaminated areas, carry out an environmental investigation into the contaminated areas and assist in the cleaning up of contaminated areas?
Kakšna finančna sredstva je Komisija pripravljena porabiti za obveščanje civilistov, humanitarnih delavcev in vojaškega osebja?
What funds is the Commission ready to spend on information measures for civilians, aid workers and military personnel?
Kakšna finančna sredstva ima Komisija na voljo za medicinske preiskave in zdravstvene preglede žrtev urana in za plačilo odškodnin tem žrtvam?
What funds does the Commission have available to provide medical investigations and health surveys of uranium victims and compensation for those victims?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0031/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0031/08
Zadeva: Režim nične tolerance za nedovoljene gensko spremenjene organizme in njegove gospodarske posledice
Subject: Zero tolerance regime for unauthorised GMOs and economic consequences thereof
Uredba (ES) št. 1829/2003 je bila sprejeta zaradi ureditve dajanja gensko spremenjenih pridelkov na trg.
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 was adopted to regulate the placing on the market of genetically modified crops.
Zdaj ima Evropska unija opraviti z vse večjim številom primerov naključne prisotnosti sledi gensko spremenjenih pridelkov, ki v EU še niso dovoljeni, vendar so jih njeni najpomembnejši trgovinski partnerji že odobrili.
The European Union is currently facing a rising number of incidents related to the adventitious presence of traces of genetically modified crops that are not yet authorised in the EU, but have already received approval from major trading partners of the EU.
Čeprav si uvozniki in zainteresirane strani močno prizadevajo preprečiti take primere, je zelo verjetno, da se bodo zaradi novega razvoja dogodkov v državah izvoznicah in uporabe režima nične tolerance do nedovoljenih gensko spremenjenih organizmov v izdelkih, uvoženih v EU, ponovili.
Although importers and stakeholders are acting with due diligence to avoid such incidents, they are likely to recur due to the introduction of new events in the exporting countries and the application of a zero tolerance regime for the presence of unauthorised GMOs in imports to the EU.
Razmere se slabšajo in bi lahko potegnile za sabo vse višje cene krmil v EU.
This situation is worsening and is likely to result in ever higher feeding stuff prices in the EU.
Kako bi Evropska komisija glede na močno odvisnost EU od uvoza proteinsko bogate krme (npr. sojine moke ali koruznega glutena) ocenila kratkoročne, a tudi dolgoročne posledice režima nične tolerance za konkurenčnost živinoreje EU?
Given the high import dependency of the EU for protein-rich feeding stuffs (e.g. soybean meal, corn gluten feed), how would the European Commission assess the consequences of the zero tolerance policy on the competitiveness of EU livestock production in the short term and in the long run?
Kako lahko Komisija upraviči sedanje razmere, ko je prepovedana celo krma z minimalnimi sledmi nedovoljenih gensko spremenjenih organizmov, medtem ko se lahko v EU prosto uvaža meso živali, ki so bile hranjene s temi nedovoljenimi organizmi, kar v škodo evropskih kmetov močno izkrivlja konkurenco?
How can the Commission justify the current situation in which even feeding stuffs with only small traces of unauthorised GMOs are banned, whereas meat derived from animals that were fed with these unauthorised GMOs can freely enter the EU, thus causing a major distortion of competition to the detriment of European farmers?
Ali Komisija meni, da bi morali namesto sedanjega režima nične tolerance (kot že velja pri označevanju proizvodov z "ne vsebuje GSO", kadar ti naključno vsebujejo sledi dovoljenih gensko spremenjenih organizmov) uporabljati mejno vrednost za naključno prisotnost sledi nedovoljenih gensko spremenjenih organizmov, ki jih je Evropska agencija za varnost hrane že pozitivno ocenila ali katerih tveganje za varnost živil in krme je bilo ocenjeno v skladu s Codexovimi smernicami za gensko spremenjene rastline?
Is the Commission of the opinion that instead of the current zero tolerance regime, a threshold value (as is already the case for the adventitious presence of traces of authorised GMOs for labelling of products as 'GMO free') should be applied for the adventitious presence of traces of unauthorised GMOs that have already obtained a positive assessment from the EFSA or that have undergone a feed and food safety risk assessment in accordance with the CODEX GM plant guideline?
Ali namerava Komisija v ta namen predstaviti konkretne predloge?
Is the Commission planning to come forward with concrete proposals to that end?
Ali Komisija, če se sedanje stanje ne bo spremenilo, pričakuje trgovinske spore s prizadetimi državami izvoznicami, kar bi lahko imelo negativne posledice za izvoz nekaterih evropskih proizvodov?
Does the Commission expect the current situation, if left unchanged, to result in trade disputes with affected exporting countries, which could have negative implications for the export of certain European products?
Če je tako, kako namerava Komisija te spore preprečiti?
If so, how does the Commission intend to avoid these trade disputes?
UL L 268, 18.10.2003, str.
OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p.
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0032/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0032/08
Zadeva: Nedavni potek pogajanj o sporazumu o prosti trgovini med ES in Svetom za sodelovanje v Zalivu (GCC)
Subject: Recent developments in negotiations on the free trade agreement between the EC and the Gulf Cooperation Council
Pogajanja o sklenitvi sporazuma o prosti trgovini med ES in Svetom za sodelovanje v Zalivu (GCC) potekajo že od leta 1988.
The conclusion of a free trade agreement between the EC and the GCC has been under negotiation since 1988.
Okrepila so se šele leta 2002, potem ko je omenjeni svet začel vzpostavljati lastno carinsko unijo, ki je začela veljati leta 2003.
The negotiations were intensified only in 2002 after the GCC started setting up its Customs Union that came into force in 2003.
Na 17. skupnem svetu in ministrskem srečanju EU in GCC, ki je potekal 8. maja 2007 v Riadu, je bilo rečeno, da se pogajalski strani približujeta dokončnemu sporazumu.
The 17th GCC-EU Joint Council and Ministerial meeting that took place in Riyadh on 8 May 2007 concluded that the parties were getting closer to an agreement.
Ker bo moral Evropski parlament po začetku veljavnosti reformne pogodbe dati soglasje k sporazumom o prosti trgovini, Komisijo poziva, naj stori naslednje:
Given that Parliament needs to give its consent to the FTA after the entry into force of the Reform Treaty, could the Commission:
Predstavi najnovejše dogajanje v pogajanjih o sporazumu o prosti trgovini med ES in GCC, predvideni urnik in medregijski proces.
Set out the latest developments in the negotiations towards an EC/GCC FTA, the expected timetable and the region to region process?
Evropskemu parlamentu utemelji, zakaj mandat ni bil posodobljen.
Provide the European Parliament with information on why the mandate has not been updated?
Pojasni, kakšne ukrepe bo sprejela, da bi izboljšala vzajemen dostop do trga za izvoznike GCC in EU, in sicer na področju tarif in netrgovinskih ovir, zlasti v storitvenem, kemičnem, energetskem, transportnem in živilskem sektorju ter na področju standardizacije?
Explain what steps it is taking to improve the reciprocal market access for GCC and EU exporters, dealing with tariff and NTBs, especially with regard to the services, standardisation, chemicals, energy, transport, and food products sectors?
Pojasni, kakšen napredek je bil dosežen na področju naložb, če sploh.
Explain if and what progress on investment has been achieved?
Pojasni, kako na pogajanjih o sporazumu o prosti trgovini obravnava sporazum o partnerstvu in sodelovanju z GCC, spoštovanje človekovih pravic, pravic delavcev in sezonskih delavcev ter okoljskih in socialnih standardov.
Explain how it addresses the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the GCC and the respect of human rights, workers and migrant workers' rights, and environmental and social standards within the FTA negotiations?
Pojasni, ali namerava posodobiti oceno trajnostnega razvoja in upoštevati rezultat pogajanj.
Clarify whether it envisages updating the Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA) and taking into account the results for the negotiations?
V skladu s členom 19 okvirnega sporazuma med Evropskim parlamentom in Komisijo zagotovi, da bo Parlament pravočasno in jasno obveščen o poteku pogajanj ter da bo imel pogajalski mandat.
Ensure, in accordance with Article 19 of the Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission, that ‘early and clear information’ is provided to Parliament during the conduct of the negotiations and provide the negotiating mandate to the European Parliament?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0033/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0033/08
Zadeva: Spor med Airbusom in Boeingom v STO
Subject: The Airbus/Boeing WTO disputes
Ali lahko Komisija Evropskemu parlamentu poroča o stanju dveh pravdnih postopkov, ki potekata v STO, in sicer EU proti ZDA (Boeing) in ZDA proti EU (Airbus)?
Can the Commission update the European Parliament on the two pending WTO litigation cases - EU against US (Boeing) and US against EU (Airbus)?
Ali bosta omenjena postopka v STO vplivala na možnosti industrijske panoge EU, da se pošteno poteguje na razpisih za oddajo javnih naročil?
Will the pending WTO litigation affect the ability of EU industry to compete fairly in public procurement competitions?
Kako Komisija ocenjuje posledice odločitve ZDA glede programa dokapitalizacije zračnih tankerjev in protest proti tej odločitvi?
How does the Commission evaluate the outcome of and the protest against the US decision with regard to the aerial tanker recapitalisation programme?
Kakšno vlogo ima po mnenju Komisije uravnotežena vladna podpora letalski industriji na obeh straneh Atlantika?
According to Commission, what role does balanced government support of aerospace play on both sides of the Atlantic?
Kaj bodo po mnenju Komisije prinesla nova pravila po domnevnem umiku ZDA iz dvostranskega sporazuma med EU in ZDA o velikih civilnih potniških letalih iz leta 1992?
How does the Commission see the prospects of new rules after the purported withdrawal by the US from the 1992 bilateral agreement between the EU and the US for large civil aircraft?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0034/08/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0034/08/rev.1
Zadeva: Nezakonito priseljevanje, zunanjepolitični ukrepi EU in Frontex
Subject: Illegal immigration, external action of the EU and Frontex
S prihodom pomladi in izboljšanjem vremena se je vnovič povečal pritok nezakonitih priseljencev čez Sredozemlje in Atlantik, zaradi česar se južne države članice spopadajo z nemajhnimi težavami.
With the onset of spring and finer weather, the influx of illegal migration across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic has once again started and is creating a great deal of pressure on southern EU Member States.
Ladje plujejo z afriške strani Atlantika na Kanarske otoke in z juga Sredozemskega morja v Grčijo, na Malto, v Italijo in na jug Španije.
Boats are crossing from the African Atlantic to the Canary Islands and from the south of the Mediterranean Sea to Greece, Malta, Italy and the south of Spain.
Po zanesljivih poročilih na prečkanje čaka ogromno ljudi (zlasti iz Zahodne Sahare, Mavretanije, Senegala, Gvineje-Conakry in Libije), na drugi strani pa so kriminalne združbe pripravljene, da jih izkoristijo.
It is reliably reported that there is a huge concentration of people waiting to cross (mainly from Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Conakry and Libya) and that criminal organisations are there ready to exploit them.
Potencialni priseljenci za prečkanje na majhnih ladjah, ki sploh niso primerne za plovbo, plačajo ogromne zneske, še prevečkrat pa plačajo celo z življenjem.
Prospective immigrants pay a great deal of money to make the crossing in small unseaworthy boats, but all too often many also pay with their lives.
Kljub prizadevanjem Komisije in agencije Frontex ni videti, da bi bilo nezakonito priseljevanje pod nadzorom, zato je Evropski parlament zaskrbljen, da države članice agenciji morda ne nudijo zadostne pomoči, zlasti glede na obljube o centralizirani evidenci razpoložljive tehnične opreme (CRATE).
Despite the many efforts of the Commission and of the EU Frontex agency, it does not appear that the phenomenon of illegal immigration is under control, and the European Parliament is concerned that Member States are not helping the agency sufficiently, notably on commitments made to CRATE.
Pa vendar se s povečanim pritokom priseljencev letos ne srečujemo prvič, zato bi bilo smiselno pričakovati, da bi bile države članice bolje pripravljene kot prejšnja leta.
Yet this is not the first year in which we are facing this influx and one would expect Member States to be better prepared than previous years.
– Ali Svet meni, da so letos države članice pripravljene na izziv nezakonitega priseljevanja?
– Does the Council consider that Member States are sufficiently prepared to face the challenge of illegal immigration this year?
– Ali je Svet prepričan, da letos ne bomo znova priča tragedijam na morju z izgubo mnogih življenj?
– Is the Council confident that this year we shall not see another human tragedy, with the loss of many lives at sea?
– Ali je Svet zadovoljen, da države članice nudijo agenciji Frontex zadostno podporo pri usklajevanju ukrepov za zaščito zunanjih meja Evropske unije?
– Is the Council satisfied that Member States are giving Frontex sufficient support in its task of coordinating their actions on the protection of the EU's external borders?
– Ali namerava Svet razširiti načelo „obvezne solidarnosti“, ki države članice zavezuje, da druga drugi priskočijo na pomoč pri vprašanjih meja, zlasti kar zadeva evidenco CRATE?
– Does the Council envisage extending the principle of 'compulsory solidarity', which obliges Member States to assist each other on border-related issues, notably with regard to CRATE?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0035/08/rev.1
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0035/08/rev.1
– Ali Komisija meni, da so letos države članice pripravljene na izziv nezakonitega priseljevanja?
– Does the Commission consider that Member States are sufficiently prepared to face the challenge of illegal immigration this year?
Katere izredne ukrepe in konkretne stalne postopke je Frontex uporabil do sedaj in katere bo uporabljal še naprej?
Which emergency tactics and concrete permanent operations has Frontex used so far, and which will it continue to use?
– Ali je Komisija prepričana, da letos ne bomo znova priča tragedijam na morju z izgubo mnogih življenj?
– Is the Commission confident that this year we shall not see another human tragedy, with the loss of many lives at sea?
– Kateri pilotski projekti in druge pobude v zvezi s tem potekajo s tretjimi državami, zlasti tranzitnimi državami?
– What pilot projects and other initiatives are currently underway with third countries, particularly transit countries, in this regard?
Katere misije izvaja ali načrtuje Frontex za to leto in v katerih regijah?
What missions are currently under way or planned by Frontex for this year, and in which regions?
– Ali je Komisija zadovoljna, da države članice nudijo agenciji Frontex zadostno podporo pri usklajevanju ukrepov za zaščito zunanjih meja Evropske unije?
– Is the Commission satisfied that Member States are giving Frontex sufficient support in its task of coordinating their actions on the protection of the EU’s external borders?
– Ali namerava Komisija razširiti načelo „obvezne solidarnosti“, ki države članice zavezuje, da druga drugi priskočijo na pomoč pri vprašanjih meja, zlasti kar zadeva evidenco CRATE?
– Does the Commission envisage extending the principle of ‘compulsory solidarity’, which obliges Member States to assist each other on border-related issues, notably with regard to CRATE?
VPRAŠANJE ZA USTNI ODGOVOR Z RAZPRAVO O-0036/08
ORAL QUESTION WITH DEBATE O-0036/08
Zadeva: Stroški vizuma za beloruske državljane
Subject: Cost of obtaining a visa for Belarusian citizens
– ker se je prožna politika vizumov izkazala za učinkovito orodje pri poglabljanju stikov med ljudmi in pri podpori postopku demokratizacije, tudi v okviru evropske sosedske politike;
A flexible visa policy has proved to be an effective tool for enhancing people-to-people contacts and supporting democratisation processes, including in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
– ker za beloruske državljane pristop novih držav članic v schengensko območje pomeni višje pristojbine za vizum, ki zdaj znašajo 60 EUR za schengenski vizum, tj. dvanajstkrat več kot prej in približno tretjino povprečne mesečne beloruske plače;
Access of new Member States to the Schengen area has meant an increase in visa fees for Belarusian citizens, who now have to pay 60 euros for a Schengen visa, i.e. twelve times as much as before, and approximately one third of the average monthly salary in Belarus.
– ker je Belorusija edina vzhodna soseda EU, katere državljani morajo še vedno plačevati 60 EUR za schengenski vizum za enkratni vstop;
Belarus is the EU’s only remaining eastern neighbouring country whose citizens still have to pay 60 euros for a single-entry Schengen visa.
– ker so Moldavija, Rusija, Ukrajina in države Zahodnega Balkana že podpisale sporazume o vizumskih olajšavah, Belorusije pa takšen sporazum ne zanima;
Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and the Western Balkan have already signed visa facilitation agreements, while Belarus has shown no interest in such an agreement.
sprašuje Komisijo:
In view of the above:
– ali ne meni, da bi bili potrebni nadaljnji koraki za poenostavitev in sprostitev postopkov za pridobitev vizuma za beloruske državljane, da se spodbudi menjava in nadaljuje postopek demokratizacije;
– does the Commission not deem that further steps are needed to facilitate and liberalise visa procedures for Belarusian citizens in order to support exchanges and sustain the democratisation process;
– ali ne meni, da bi bilo koristno pričeti pogajanj z Belorusijo o sporazumu o vizumskih olajšavah, da bi med drugim zmanjšali pristojbine, ki jih beloruski državljani plačujejo za schengenske vizume;
– would the Commission not deem it useful to initiate steps to start negotiations with Belarus for a visa facilitation agreement in order, inter alia, to reduce the fee for Schengen visas for Belarusian citizens;