natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ali lahko oceni rezultate uporabe načel iz Akta za mala podjetja od leta 2008, ko je bil uveden?
Can it assess the outcome of the implementation of the principles of the Small Business Act (SBA), starting from 2008 when it was first introduced?
Kolikšni viri so bili dejansko dodeljeni?
How much funding has actually been disbursed?
Ali meni, da Preskus za mala in srednja podjetja – ki bi moral ovrednotiti vpliv zakonodaje Skupnosti na mala podjetja – ustrezno upošteva različno uporabo direktiv Skupnosti v 27 državah članicah?
Does the Commission believe that the 'SME test', which is supposed to assess the impact of EU legislation on small businesses, properly takes into account the different ways in which EU directives are implemented in the 27 Member States?
Glede na srečanja, ki so potekala to poletje v Bruslju in državah članicah, ali lahko Akt za mala podjetja še vedno obravnavamo kot učinkovit instrument, ki bo malim in srednjim podjetjem pomagal iz krize?
In the light of the meetings that were held this summer in Brussels and in the Member States, can the SBA still be considered an efficient instrument with which to help SMEs recover from the crisis?
Ali se ji zdi potrebno pospešiti izvajanje njegovih načel, kar zadeva odstranitev birokratskih ovir in financiranje internacionalizacije?
Does it not agree that the application of its principles needs to be stepped up as regards the removal of red tape and funding for internationalisation?
Ali meni, da je mogoče predlagati konkretno alternativno možnost, ki bo učinkovitejša in resnično inovativna?
Does it think it might be feasible to propose a concrete alternative that is more effective and truly innovative?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000189/2011
Question for oral answer O-000189/2011
Zadeva: Kršenje pravic avtohtonih narodnih manjšin v Republiki Litvi
Subject: Infringement of national indigenous minority rights in Lithuania
Republika Litva je večetnična država, v nekaterih regijah pa pripadniki avtohtonih manjšin predstavljajo celo večinsko prebivalstvo.
Lithuania is a multi-ethnic state, in some regions of which indigenous minorities form the majority of the population.
V Litvi je prepovedano zapisovati imena in priimke v izvirni manjšinski obliki ali uporabljati kateri koli jezik razen litovščine v uradnem sporazumevanju, za kršitelje pa je zagrožena globa.
Lithuania does not allow forenames and surnames to be written in the minority-language form (the original-language form) on official documents or any language other than Lithuanian to be used in administrative matters, with non-compliance punishable by a fine.
Litovski jezikovni inšpektorat že nekaj let denarno kaznuje vse fizične osebe, podjetnike in politike, ki uporabljajo dvojezične informativne napise na območjih, na katerih so pripadniki avtohtone poljske manjšine v večini, tudi tam, kjer Poljaki predstavljajo do 80 % prebivalstva.
For some years the Lithuanian State Language Inspectorate has been imposing fines on individuals, companies and local authorities for using bilingual signs in places where the indigenous Polish minority accounts for the majority of the population – up to 80% in some areas.
Ti ukrepi so diskriminacijski in neskladni s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije (člen 10) Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije (členov 21 in 22) in Okvirne konvencije Sveta Evrope za varstvo narodnih manjšin (členi 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 in 22) ter popolnoma v nasprotju z Evropsko listino o regionalnih ali manjšinskih jezikih.
These are instances of discrimination, in contravention of Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 21 and 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 22 of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and in flagrant breach of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Kaj namerava Komisija na podlagi pooblastil iz člena 258 PDEU kot „varuhinja pogodb“ storiti v zvezi s tem vprašanjem?
What action does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, plan to take, in accordance with the powers assigned to it in Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000190/2011
Question for oral answer O-000190/2011
v imenu skupine ECR Zadeva: Protikorupcijski ukrepi
on behalf of the ECR Group Subject: Anti-corruption measures
Komisija je opisala svoj pristop k boju proti korupciji z nizom ukrepov, sprejetih 6. junija 2011.
The Commission outlined its approach to fighting corruption with a series of measures adopted on 6 June 2011.
Glede na negativen vpliv, ki ga ima korupcija na gospodarstvo, je sveženj ukrepov obnovljena izjava o nameri.
Given the negative impact that corruption has on the economy, the package is a renewed statement of intent.
Svet mora temu slediti z odločno zavezanostjo za spoprijem s to nadlogo, zlasti na področjih porabe, ko gre za evropski denar.
The Council must follow this with a firm commitment to tackling this scourge, especially in the areas of spending where European monies are involved.
Kako bo Svet v državah članicah zagotovil potrebno politično zavezanost boju proti korupciji in izvajanju ukrepov Komisije glede na to, da v nekaterih državah članicah te zavezanosti sedaj ni?
How will the Council ensure that there is the necessary political commitment in each Member State to combating corruption and implementing the Commission’s measures, given that this is currently lacking in some Member States?
Kako bo Svet zagotovil izkoreninjenje korupcije, povezane z uporabo evropskih finančnih sredstev?
How will the Council ensure that corruption connected to the use of European funding is stamped out?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000191/2011
Question for oral answer O-000191/2011
Komisija je 6. junija 2011 sprejela protikorupcijski zakonodajni sveženj, ki vsebuje sporočilo o boju proti korupciji v EU, sklep o uvedbi mehanizma poročanja EU o boju proti korupciji, poročilo o izvajanju Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2003/568/PNZ o boju proti korupciji v zasebnem sektorju in poročilo o načinih sodelovanja Evropske unije v Skupini držav proti korupciji (GRECO) pri Svetu Evrope.
On 6 June 2011 the Commission adopted an anticorruption package, which includes a communication on fighting corruption in the EU, a decision establishing an EU anticorruption reporting mechanism, a report on the implementation of the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector, and a report on the modalities of EU participation in the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
Parlament pozdravlja ta protikorupcijski sveženj, ki upošteva visoke stroške korupcije (ocenjene na 120 milijard EUR letno), njeno izkrivljanje gospodarstva, konkurence in notranjega trga, ter trdno prepričanje državljanov, da mora EU začeti boj proti korupciji (78 %, anketa Eurobarometer iz decembra 2009).
The European Parliament welcomes the anticorruption package, taking into account the high costs of corruption (estimated €120 billion annually), its distorting impact on the economy, competition and the internal market, and the firm expectation of citizens for EU action to combat corruption (78%, Eurobarometer, December 2009).
Kako bo Komisija v svojem mehanizmu poročanja preverjala, ocenjevala in obravnavala glavno vprašanje, t.j. uspešno izvajanje protikorupcijske zakonodaje, vključno z izvajanjem odvračalnih sankcij, glede na to, da takšne zakonodaje trenutno ni ali pa se izvaja neenakomerno?
In its reporting mechanism, how will the Commission verify, assess and address the key concern about effective implementation of anticorruption laws, including as regards dissuasive sanctions, considering the current lack of or uneven implementation of such legislation?
Ali bo Komisija na podlagi člena 83(1) PDEU sprejela minimalna pravila o opredelitvi korupcije in kaznih zanjo, glede na čezmejne posledice korupcije in posledice za notranji trg?
Will the Commission act on the basis of Art. 83(1) of the TFEU to adopt minimum rules on the definition of and sanctions for corruption, given the cross-border and internal market consequences?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000192/2011
Question for oral answer O-000192/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Direktiva o hrambi podatkov
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Data Retention Directive
Komisija je 18. aprila 2011 predložila svoje ocenjevalno poročilo o direktivi o hrambi podatkov (Direktiva 2006/24/ES).
The Commission presented its evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) on 18 April 2011.
V poročilu je navedla, da:
According to the report:
– so v zakonodaji za prenos na področju omejitve namena, dostopa do podatkov, obdobij hrambe, varovanja in varnosti podatkov in statistike velike razlike;
– there are significant differences between transposing legislation in the areas of purpose limitation, access to data, periods of retention, data protection and data security and statistics;
– tri države članice kršijo direktivo, ker so zakonodajo za prenos razveljavila njihova ustavna sodišča;
– three Member States have been in breach of the directive since their transposing legislation was annulled by their respective constitutional courts;
– je proti trem državam, ki kršijo direktivo, uveden ali jim grozi sodni postopek, podoben postopek pa ni bil predlagan za države, za katere je Komisija ugotovila, da so jo prenesle slabo, tako da državljanom ni zagotovljeno ustrezno varstvo temeljnih pravic;
– while the three countries in breach of the directive are the subject of, or have been threatened with, legal action, no similar action has been proposed regarding countries that are identified by the Commission as having badly transposed in ways which fail to give adequate protection to citizens fundamental rights;
– direktiva ni popolnoma uskladila pristopa na področju hrambe podatkov in ni ustvarila enotnih pogojev delovanja za ponudnike.
– the directive has not fully harmonised the approach to data retention and has not created a level-playing field for operators.
Po mnenju evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov je direktiva o hrambi podatkov v nasprotju s temeljno pravico do zasebnosti in varstva podatkov ter bi bila lahko oblikovana tako, da bi manj posegala v zasebnost.
According to the EDPS, the Data Retention Directive runs counter to fundamental rights to privacy and data protection and could have been regulated in a less privacy-intrusive way.
Na kakšni osnovi Komisija meni, da ni pravno obvezana, da direktivo razveljavi, ko pa v ocenjevalnem poročilu ni mogla dokazati, da je potrebna?
On what basis does the Commission believe that it is not currently under a legal obligation to repeal the directive, as the evaluation report could not prove its necessity?
Na kakšni osnovi Komisija v ocenjevalnem poročilu zavrača koncept ohranitve podatkov („hitra zamrznitev“)?
On what basis did the Commission reject the concept of data preservation (‘quick freeze’) in the evaluation report?
Zakaj Komisija še vedno namerava proti nekaterim državam članicam začeti postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, če meni, da je treba direktivo revidirati, posledično pa tudi nacionalne zakonodaje za prenos?
Why does the Commission still intend to initiate infringement proceedings against certain Member States, if the Commission itself sees the necessity to revise the directive and consequently of any national transposing legislation?
Irsko vrhovno sodišče je dovolilo, da se zakon o hrambi podatkov izpodbija pred Evropskim sodiščem: kdaj Komisija pričakuje, da bo slednje odločilo, ali je direktiva o hrambi podatkov zakonita ali ne?
After the Irish High Court allowed the data retention law to be challenged at the ECJ, when does the Commission expect the ECJ to decide whether the Data Retention Directive is lawful or not?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000193/2011
Question for oral answer O-000193/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Zmanjševanje razkoraka med protikorupcijsko zakonodajo in realnostjo
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Closing the gap between anti-corruption law and reality
Komisija je 6. junija 2011 sprejela sveženj ukrepov za boj proti korupciji v EU, ki po ocenah znaša kar okrog 1 % BDP EU (120 milijard EUR letno) ter zelo negativno in škodljivo vpliva na gospodarstvo in finance EU ter držav članic, na konkurenco in notranji trg ter na zaupanje v demokratične institucije in politično vodstvo.
On 6 June 2011 the Commission adopted a package of measures to fight corruption in the EU, which amounts to an estimated 1% of the EU GDP (EUR 120 billion annually) and has serious negative and distorting effects on the EU’s and Member States’ economies and finances, competition and the internal market, trust in the democratic institutions and in the political leadership.
Ta protikorupcijski zakonodajni sveženj vsebuje: (1) sporočilo o boju proti korupciji v EU, ki navaja, da je izvajanje pravnega okvira za boj proti korupciji neuravnoteženo in nezadovoljivo, da je izvrševanje nezadostno in da ni dovolj trdne politične zaveze za boj proti korupciji; predlog o oblikovanju novega mehanizma za spremljanje, v okviru katerega bi bila Komisija zadolžena za pripravo polletnega poročila o boju proti korupciji v EU, ter večji poudarek na boju proti korupciji v vseh ustreznih politikah EU; (2) sklep o ustanovitvi mehanizma EU za poročanje o boju proti korupciji, prvo poročilo o tem pa naj bi bilo objavljeno v letu 2013, nato pa dvakrat letno; (3) poročilo o izvajanju Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2003/568/PNZ o boju proti korupciji v zasebnem sektorju, ki razkriva, da je prenos v državah članicah še vedno nezadovoljiv; (4) poročilo o podrobnostih sodelovanja EU v skupini držav proti korupciji Sveta Evrope (GRECO).
The anti-corruption package includes: (1) a communication on fighting corruption in the EU, which states that the implementation of the anti-corruption legal framework is uneven and unsatisfactory, that enforcement is insufficient and that there is a lack of firm political commitment to combat corruption; it proposes the creation of a new monitoring mechanism, the biannual EU Anti-Corruption report to be drafted by the Commission and a stronger focus on corruption in all relevant EU policies; (2) a decision establishing an EU anti-corruption reporting mechanism, with the first report to be published in 2013 and then biannually; (3) a report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector, which reveals that transposition by Member States is still unsatisfactory; (4) a report on the modalities of EU participation in the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
- Kako bo Svet zagotovil, da se že veljavna evropska in mednarodna zakonodaja v celoti in pravilno izvaja v državah članicah in se po potrebi tudi okrepi?
- How will the Council ensure that European and international legislation already in place is applied fully and correctly by Member States and, if necessary, strengthened?
- Katere nove zakonodajne pobude so potrebne, da bi zagotovili učinkovit boj držav članic proti korupciji z ostrejšimi sankcijami in ukrepi?
- What new legislative initiatives are needed to make sure that corruption is effectively fought by Member States through stronger sanctions and actions?
- Ali je Svet pripravljen na podlagi člena 83(1) PDEU podpreti minimalna pravila o opredelitvi korupcije in o ustreznih kaznih, glede na čezmejne učinke korupcije in njen vpliv na notranji trg?
- Is the Council ready to support minimum rules on the definition of corruption and associated penalties based on Article 83(1) TFEU, given the cross-border impact of corruption and its consequences for the internal market?
- Ali bo Svet sprejel ukrepe za krepitev preglednosti, ki je učinkovito sredstvo za boj proti korupciji?
- Will the Council take measures to strengthen transparency, which is an effective means of fighting corruption?
Če to namerava storiti, ali nam lahko pove tudi, katere ukrepe ima v mislih?,
If so, how?
- Ali bo v svoja prizadevanja vključil tudi Parlament?
- Will the Council involve Parliament in these efforts?
Če to namerava storiti, bi prosil tudi, naj pove, kako bo potekalo to sodelovanje.
If so, how?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000194/2011
Question for oral answer O-000194/2011
Komisija je 6. junija 2011 sprejela sveženj ukrepov za boj proti korupciji v EU, ki po ocenah znaša kar okrog 1 % BDP EU (120 milijard EUR letno) ter zelo negativno in škodljivo vpliva na gospodarstvo in finance EU ter držav članic, na konkurenco in notranji trg ter na zaupanje v demokratične institucije in politično vodstvo.
On 6 June 2011 the Commission adopted a package of measures to fight corruption in the EU, which amounts to an estimated 1% of the EU GDP (EUR 120 billion annually) and has serious negative and distorting effects on the EU and Member States’ economies and finances, competition and the internal market and on trust in the democratic institutions and political leadership.
Ta protikorupcijski zakonodajni sveženj vsebuje: 1. sporočilo o boju proti korupciji v EU, ki navaja, da je izvajanje pravnega okvira za boj proti korupciji neuravnoteženo in nezadovoljivo, da je izvrševanje nezadostno in da ni dovolj trdne politične zaveze za boj proti korupciji; predlog o oblikovanju novega mehanizma za spremljanje, v okviru katerega bi bila Komisija zadolžena za pripravo polletnega poročila o boju proti korupciji v EU, ter večji poudarek na boju proti korupciji v vseh ustreznih politikah EU; 2. sklep o ustanovitvi mehanizma EU za poročanje o boju proti korupciji, prvo poročilo o tem pa naj bi bilo objavljeno v letu 2013, nato pa dvakrat letno; 3. poročilo o izvajanju Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2003/568/PNZ o boju proti korupciji v zasebnem sektorju, ki razkriva, da je prenos v državah članicah še vedno nezadovoljiv; 4. poročilo o podrobnostih sodelovanja EU v skupini držav proti korupciji Sveta Evrope (GRECO).
The anti-corruption package includes: 1. a Communication on fighting corruption in the EU, which states that the implementation of the anti-corruption legal framework is uneven and unsatisfactory, that enforcement is insufficient and that there is a lack of firm political commitment to combat corruption; it proposes the creation of a new monitoring mechanism, the biannual EU Anti-Corruption Report to be drafted by the Commission, and a stronger focus on corruption in all relevant EU policies; 2. a Decision establishing the EU anti-corruption reporting mechanism, with the first report to be published in 2013 and then biannually; 3. a report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector, which reveals that transposition by Member States is still unsatisfactory; 4. a report on the modalities of EU participation in the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
Čeprav pozdravljamo te pobude, ki jasno kažejo namero Komisije, da bo okrepila boj EU proti korupciji, vendar hkrati niso zakonodajne narave, prosimo Komisijo, naj pojasni:
While welcoming such initiatives, which demonstrate the Commission’s intention to strengthen EU action on corruption but are not of legislative nature, can the Commission indicate:
- kako bo zagotovila, da se že veljavna evropska in mednarodna zakonodaja v celoti, pravilno in učinkovito izvaja v državah članicah in se po potrebi tudi okrepi?
– how it will ensure that European and international legislation already in place is applied fully, correctly and effectively by all Member States and, if necessary, strengthened?
- katere nove zakonodajne pobude so potrebne, da bi zagotovili učinkovit boj držav članic proti korupciji z ostrejšimi sankcijami in ukrepi?
– what new legislatives initiatives it will take to make sure that corruption is effectively fought by all Member States through stronger sanctions and actions?
- ali namerava na podlagi člena 83(1) PDEU predlagati minimalna pravila o opredelitvi korupcije, konflikta interesov in o ustreznih kaznih, glede na čezmejne učinke korupcije in njen vpliv na notranji trg?
– whether it intends to propose, on the basis of Article 83(1) TFEU, minimum rules on the definition of corruption, conflict of interest and associated penalties, given the cross-border impact of corruption and its consequences for the internal market?
- ali predlaga krepitev preglednosti, ki je učinkovito sredstvo za boj proti korupciji, in kako bi bilo po njenem mnenju to mogoče doseči?
– whether it proposes strengthening transparency, which is an effective means of fighting corruption, and how?
- ali namerava v tem procesu sodelovati s Parlamentom in kako bo potekalo morebitno sodelovanje?
– whether it intends to involve Parliament in these efforts, and how?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000195/2011
Question for oral answer O-000195/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Tveganje smrtne kazni v ZDA za žrtve izrednih izročitev in skrivnih zaporov CIE na Poljskem
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Risk of death penalty in the USA for victims of CIA extraordinary renditions and secret prisons in Poland
Abd al-Rahim al-Naširi, ki je že 9 let priprt v ZDA in je trenutno v Guantanamu, se boji, da bi ga lahko ameriško vojaško sodišče obsodilo na smrt.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who has been in US custody for 9 years and is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, fears that he might be sentenced to the death penalty by a US military commission.
Abd al-Rahim al-Naširi je izjavil, da je bil v letih 2002 in 2003 zaprt in mučen v skrivnem zaporu CIE na Poljskem; domneve o obstoju le-tega se pojavljajo tudi v Martyjevem in Favovem poročilu .
He has stated that in 2002/3 he was held and tortured in a secret CIA prison in Poland, the existence of which was also alleged by the Marty and Fava reports .
27. oktobra 2010 je poljski tožilec v poljski preiskavi o skrivnih zaporih CIE uradno priznal al-Naširija kot žrtev, potem ko je 20. januarja 2011 enako storil že za Abu Zubajdo.
On 27 October 2010, the Polish Prosecutor officially recognised al-Nashiri – after doing the same on 20 January 2011 for Abu Zubaydah – as victims in Poland’s CIA secret prison investigation.
10. maja 2011 se je al-Naširi pritožil na Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice in zahteval, naj sodišče naloži poljski vladi, naj posreduje pri oblasteh ZDA, da bi vojaške tožilce pozvali, naj ne zahtevajo smrtne kazni.
On 10 May 2011, al-Nashiri appealed to the ECHR, asking the court to order the Polish Government to intervene with the US authorities to try and stop the military commission prosecution from seeking the death penalty.
24. maja so poljske oblasti tožilcu Jerzyju Mierzewskemu odvzele preiskavo domnevnega mučenja al-Naširija in Abu Zubajde, medtem ko je bil njegov neposredni nadrejeni Robert Majewski odpuščen.
On 24 May the Polish authorities removed prosecutor Jerzy Mierzewski from the investigation into the alleged torture of al-Nashiri and of Abu Zubaydah, while his immediate superior Robert Majewski was dismissed.
Mediji so poročali, da sta razmišljala o tem, da bi prijavila člane tedanje vlade, vključno z nekdanjim predsednikom vlade Leszekom Millerjem in nekdanjim predsednikom države Aleksandrom Kwašniewskim, zaradi kršitve poljske ustave, omogočanja nezakonitega zaprtja številnih ljudi in zaradi sodelovanja v zločinih proti človeštvu.
The media reported that they had been considering bringing charges against members of the government then in power, including former Prime Minister Leszek Miller and former President Aleksander Kwasniewski, for violating Poland’s Constitution, helping to illegally imprison a number of people and participating in crimes against humanity.
3. junija so poljske oblasti začele preiskavo v medijih zaradi razglašanja državnih skrivnosti.
On 3 June the Polish authorities opened an investigation into the media for leaking state secrets.