natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ob upoštevanju prispevka EU k strateškemu cilju Svetovne banke o postopnem ukinjanju posojil za projekte v zvezi s fosilnimi gorivi, kakšne zakonodajne instrumente ima Komisija v mislih, da bo Evropska investicijska banka upoštevala posledice podnebnih sprememb svojih posojil na projekte v ekstraktivnih panogah?
In view of the EU’s contribution to the WB strategic goal of phasing out lending in fossil fuel projects, what legislative instruments has the Commission in mind so that the European Investment Bank takes account of the climate change implications of its lending to extractive projects?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000021/2011
Question for oral answer O-000021/2011
v imenu skupine EFD Zadeva: Uporaba evropskega naloga za prijetje v primeru Juliana Assangeja
on behalf of the EFD Group Subject: Use of the EAW (European Arrest Warrant) in the Julian Assange case
Ali Komisija meni, da primer zoper Juliana Assangeja dokazuje možnost zlorabe evropskega naloga za prijetje v politične namene?
Does the Commission feel that the case against Mr Julian Assange demonstrates the possible abuse of the EAW for political purposes?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000022/2011
Question for oral answer O-000022/2011
v imenu skupine ALDE Zadeva: Kršitev Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah v Grčiji in Belgiji
on behalf of the ALDE Group Subject: Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by Greece and Belgium
Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je 21. januarja 2011 obsodilo Belgijo in Grčijo, ker sta kršili dva člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, ki navajata prepoved nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja ter pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
On 21 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights condemned Belgium and Greece for having violated two Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and with the right to an effective remedy.
Predvsem Belgija je bila obsojena, ker je afganistanskega iskalca azila izpostavila tveganjem, povezanim s pomanjkljivostmi azilskega postopka v Grčiji, ter pridržanju in življenjskim pogojem, ki niso v skladu s to konvencijo.
Belgium in particular was condemned for having exposed an Afghan asylum-seeker to risks linked to deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece, and to detention and living conditions that were in breach of the Convention.
Ob upoštevanju te obsodbe in stališča Parlamenta iz leta 2009 o začasnem mehanizmu za odložitev predaj, ko se država članica sooča z izjemno težkim bremenom v svojem azilskem sistemu, ter sporočila delegacije Evropskega parlamenta v Grčijo, poslanega decembra 2010:
Bearing in mind this judgement, as well as Parliament's position in 2009 on a temporary mechanism for the suspension of transfers when a Member State is faced with an extremely heavy burden on its asylum system, and the message sent by the EP Delegation to Greece in December 2010:
Ali se Svet (zlasti madžarsko predsedstvo) lahko zaveže k začetku procesa pogajanj z Evropskim parlamentom glede pregleda uredbe Dublin II?
Can the Council (in particular the Hungarian Presidency) commit itself to starting the negotiation process with the European Parliament on the revision of the Dublin II Regulation?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000023/2011
Question for oral answer O-000023/2011
Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je 21. januarja 2011 obsodilo Belgijo in Grčijo, ker sta kršili dva člena Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, ki navajata prepoved nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja ter pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
On 21 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights condemned Belgium and Greece for having violated two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and with the right to an effective remedy.
Predvsem Belgija je bila obsojena, ker je afganistanskega iskalca azila izpostavila tveganjem, povezanim s pomanjkljivostmi grškega azilskega postopka, ter pridržanju in življenjskim pogojem, ki niso v skladu s to konvencijo.
Belgium in particular was condemned for having exposed an Afghan asylum-seeker to risks arising from deficiencies in Greece’s asylum procedure and to detention and living conditions that were in breach of the Convention.
Ali lahko Komisija pojasni, katere ocene je izvedla, da bi preverila skladnost Grčije s pravnim redom EU na področju azila, in opredeli poglavja tega pravnega reda, pri katerih Grčija zaostaja?
Can the Commission explain what evaluations it has carried out in respect of Greece’s compliance with the asylum acquis , and specify the areas of that acquis in which Greece falls short?
Glede na to, da zgoraj omenjena sodba državam članicam dejansko prepoveduje, da bi prosilce za azil izročile Grčiji, ali lahko Komisija navede, kateri postopek bi morale države članice upoštevati pri obravnavi zahtevkov mednarodne zaščite tistih, ki bi bili drugače predani Grčiji, ob upoštevanju zakonodaje EU?
Given that the aforementioned judgement de facto bars Member States from expelling asylum seekers to Greece, can the Commission indicate which procedure the Member States should follow in order to process the international protection claims of those who would otherwise be transferred to Greece, while complying with EU legislation?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000024/2011
Question for oral answer O-000024/2011
Veliki senat Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice je 21. januarja 2011 razglasil dolgo pričakovano sodbo v primeru M.S.S. proti Belgiji in Grčiji (vloga št. 30696/09).
On 21 January 2011 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no.
V skladu s sodbo Sodišča država članica, v tem primeru Belgija, krši (med drugim) člena 3 in 13 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, če prosilce za azil izpostavlja azilnemu postopku v Grčiji.
According to the Court’s ruling, a Member State (in this case Belgium) violates Articles 3 and 13 (inter alia) of the ECHR if it exposes asylum-seekers to an asylum procedure in Greece.
Ali ta sodba z drugimi besedami ne kaže, da je treba sprejeti sveženj o azilu v celoti, ne pa z umetnim razdrobljenim pristopom?
In other words, does this judgement not show that it is essential to adopt the asylum package as a whole, rather than taking an artificial, piecemeal approach?
Ali meni, da je treba na podlagi te sodbe ponovno oceniti temeljna načela uredbe Dublin II?
Is it of the opinion that, on the merits of this judgment, a reassessment of the cornerstone principles of the Dublin II Regulation is called for?
Ali namerava v kratkem izvesti tovrstno ponovno ocenjevanje ter o postopku in izidu obvestiti Parlament?
Does it intend to undertake such a reassessment exercise promptly, and to inform Parliament of its progress and outcome?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000025/2011
Question for oral answer O-000025/2011
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000026/2011
Question for oral answer O-000026/2011
21. januarja 2011 je veliki senat Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice razsodil, da vračanje prosilcev za azil v Grčiji po uredbi Dublin krši Evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah, saj jih izpostavlja nečloveškemu in ponižujočemu ravnanju (kršitev člena 3 te konvencije) in jim odvzema pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva (člen 13 te konvencije).
On 21 January 2011 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that returning asylum-seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation violates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by exposing them to inhuman and degrading treatment (in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR) and depriving them of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the ECHR).
Ali se Svet strinja s tem, da sodba Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice kaže na to, da uredba Dublin poleg tega, da napačno predpostavlja, da so nacionalni azilni sistemu v EU podobni, presenetljivo nalaga težko breme mejnim državam kot je Grčija, kjer kljub močnim prizadevanjem nove vlade za reformo azilnega sistema večina ljudi, ki potrebujejo zaščito, nima niti možnosti za to, da bi kdo obravnaval njihove prošnje za azil, prenaša izjemno težke razmere pripora in/ali življenjske pogoje, in kjer tisti maloštevilni, ki jim uspe zaprositi za azil, praktično nimajo nobene možnosti, da bi jih priznali za begunce?
Does the Council agree that the ECtHR judgment demonstrates that the Dublin regulation not only falsely presumes that national asylum systems are similar within the EU, but also paradoxically places heavy burdens on border states such as Greece where, despite important efforts undertaken by the new Government to reform its asylum system, most people in need of protection do not even have the opportunity to have their asylum claims heard, face extremely harsh detention and/or living conditions and the few who manage to apply for asylum have practically no chance of being recognised as a refugee?
Ali lahko Svet jasno določi, da morajo države članice po sodbi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice in preden se v Grčiji vzpostavi ustrezni azilni sistem, izvajati “klavzulo o suverenosti” (člen 3(2) uredbe Dublin II), v skladu s katero se lahko država članica odloči, da bo preučila prošnjo za azil, kljub temu, da po merilih iz uredbe tega ni dolžna storiti?
Can the Council clearly stipulate that following the ECtHR judgment and before a proper asylum system is in place in Greece, Member States should exercise the ‘sovereignty clause’ (Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation), according to which a Member State may always decide to examine an asylum application, even if it is not responsible according to the criteria of the Regulation?
Ali se Svet strinja s tem, da bi morala biti kakršna koli revizija sistema Dublin II skladna s pravicami prosilcev za azil in beguncev ter vsebovati pomembna postopkovna jamstva, kot jasno navaja sodba Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice?
Does the Council agree that any revision of the Dublin II system should be consistent with the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees and include important procedural safeguards, as clearly indicated in the ECtHR judgment?
Ali lahko Svet natančno navede, katere spremembe v sodbi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice so povezane s prenovo uredbe Dublin, zlasti glede osebnega pogovora, učinkovitega pravnega sredstva in ranljivosti, povezane s položajem prosilcev za azil?
Can the Council indicate precisely which modifications the ECtHR judgment entails regarding the recast of the Dublin regulation, especially on personal interview, effective remedy and the concept of vulnerability inherent in the situation of asylum-seekers?
Ali se Svet glede na zgoraj omenjeno sodbo lahko zaveže k spodbujanju poštenega evropskega azilnega sistema, ki bo zagotavljal spoštovanje pravic prosilcev za azil in beguncev v dobri veri, vključno s spoštovanjem načel, na katerih temelji mednarodni sistem zaščite, torej humanitarnost in delitev odgovornosti?
Taking into account the above-mentioned judgment, can the Council commit itself to promoting a fair European asylum system which ensures respect for the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees in good faith, including respect for the principles at the core of the international protection system, namely humanitarianism and responsibility-sharing?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000027/2011
Question for oral answer O-000027/2011
Ali se Komisija strinja s tem, da sodba Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice kaže na to, da uredba Dublin poleg tega, da napačno predpostavlja, da so nacionalni azilni sistemu v EU podobni, presenetljivo nalaga težko breme mejnim državam kot je Grčija, kjer kljub močnim prizadevanjem nove vlade za reformo azilnega sistema večina ljudi, ki potrebujejo zaščito, nima niti možnosti za to, da bi kdo obravnaval njihove prošnje za azil, prenaša izjemno težke razmere pripora in/ali življenjske pogoje in kjer tisti maloštevilni, ki jim uspe zaprositi za azil, praktično nimajo nobene možnosti, da bi jih priznali za begunce?
Does the Commission agree that the ECtHR judgment demonstrates that the Dublin regulation not only falsely presumes that national asylum systems are similar within the EU, but also paradoxically places heavy burdens on border states such as Greece where, despite important efforts undertaken by the new Government to reform its asylum system, most people in need of protection do not even have the opportunity to have their asylum claims heard, face extremely harsh detention and/or living conditions and the few who manage to apply for asylum have practically no chance of being recognised as a refugee?
Ali lahko Komisija jasno določi, da morajo države članice po sodbi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice in preden se v Grčiji vzpostavi ustrezni azilni sistem, izvajati “klavzulo o suverenosti” (člen 3(2) uredbe Dublin II), v skladu s katero se lahko država članica odloči, da bo preučila prošnjo za azil, kljub temu, da po merilih iz uredbe tega ni dolžna storiti?
Can the Commission clearly stipulate that following the ECtHR judgment and before a proper asylum system is in place in Greece, Member States should exercise the ‘sovereignty clause’ (Article 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation), according to which a Member State may always decide to examine an asylum application, even if it is not responsible according to the criteria of the Regulation?
Ali se Komisija strinja s tem, da bi morala biti kakršna koli revizija sistema Dublin II skladna s pravicami prosilcev za azil in beguncev ter vsebovati pomembna postopkovna jamstva, kot jasno navaja sodba Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice?
Does the Commission agree that any revision of the Dublin II system should be consistent with the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees and include important procedural safeguards, as clearly indicated in the ECtHR judgment?
Ali lahko Komisija natančno navede, katere so spremembe v sodbi Sodišča za človekove pravice, povezane s prenovo uredbe Dublin, zlasti glede osebnega pogovora, učinkovitega pravnega sredstva in ranljivosti, povezane s položajem prosilcev za azil?
Can the Commission indicate precisely which modifications the ECtHR judgment entails regarding the recast of the Dublin regulation, especially on personal interview, effective remedy and the concept of vulnerability inherent in the situation of asylum-seekers?
Ali se Komisija glede na zgoraj omenjeno sodbo lahko zaveže k spodbujanju poštenega evropskega azilnega sistema, ki bo zagotavljal spoštovanje pravic prosilcev za azil in beguncev v dobri veri, vključno s spoštovanjem načel, na katerih temelji mednarodni sistem zaščite, torej humanitarnost in delitev odgovornosti?
Taking into account the above-mentioned judgment, can the Commission commit itself to promoting a fair European asylum system which ensures respect for the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees in good faith, including respect for the principles at the core of the international protection system, namely humanitarianism and responsibility-sharing?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000028/2011
Question for oral answer O-000028/2011
v imenu skupine S&D Zadeva: Kršitve človekovih pravic in prava o zasebnosti v Bolgariji
on behalf of the S&D Group Subject: Breaches of human rights and privacy law in Bulgaria
Iz najnovejših poročil o zlorabi državnega prisluškovanja v Bolgariji je razvidno, da se je število primerov prisluškovanja v letu 2010 povečalo na okrog 20.000, kar je dvakrat več kot leta 2009.
The latest reports concerning the misuse of State wiretapping in Bulgaria show that instances of wiretapping increased to around 20 000 in 2010, double the figure for 2009.
Zaradi sklepa bolgarske vlade, da zapre Neodvisni urad za nadzor nad posebnimi obveščevalnimi okrepi, v Bolgariji ni več legitimnega nadzora nad prisluškovalnimi dejavnostmi bolgarske tajne službe.
The decision by the Bulgarian Parliament to close the Independent Bureau for the Control of Special Intelligence Measures means that in Bulgaria there is no longer any legitimate supervision of the use of wiretapping by the Bulgarian Secret Service.
Posledično se kot dokazno gradivo na sodiščih uporabita le dva odstotka vsega posnetega materiala, ostali posnetki pa se hranijo dalj, kot je z zakonom dovoljeno, in se izrabljajo za politične namene.
As a result, only 2% of the tapes containing recorded material are used as evidence in court, while the rest are kept for longer than legally permitted and exploited for political purposes.
Pred nedavnim se je pripetilo več podobnih primerov, v katerih je bila pod vprašajem pravica do varstva osebnih podatkov tudi v drugih državah članicah EU, zlasti v povezavi s policijskim in pravosodnim sodelovanjem v kazenskih zadevah.
There have been other recent cases in which the right to protection of personal data has been at stake in other EU Member States, particularly in connection with police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Ob upoštevanju člena 8 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, člena 16 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, Konvencije 108 Sveta Evrope in Direktive 95/46/ES o varstvu osebnih podatkov, ali namerava Komisija
Having regard to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe Convention 108 and Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data, does the Commission intend:
- sprejeti ukrepe, s katerimi bi zahtevala vse potrebne podatke o prisluškovalnih dejavnostih, ki jih izvaja bolgarska vlada, da bi preverila njihovo zakonitost in upoštevanje nacionalnega prava in prava EU o varstvu podatkov, vključno z Listino o temeljnih pravicah in Direktivo 95/46/ES?
- to take steps to request all necessary information on the wiretapping activities conducted by the Bulgarian Government in order to verify their legality and compliance with national and EU law on data protection, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Directive 95/46/EC?
- pripraviti novo, učinkovitejšo zakonodajo na področju varstva podatkov, ki bo temeljila na Direktivi 95/46/ES in ki bo izboljšala raven varstva osebnih podatkov, ki so ga deležni državljani EU, tudi pri policijskem in pravosodnem sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah, da bi vzpostavili stroge skupne evropske standarde za varstvo podatkov in preprečili nadaljnje zlorabe pooblastil in kršitve človekovih pravic?
- to draw up new, more effective data protection legislation, based on Directive 95/46/EC, to improve the level of protection of personal data afforded to EU citizens, including in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, in an effort to establish stringent common European standards for data protection and prevent future misuses of power and breaches of human rights?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000029/2011
Question for oral answer O-000029/2011
v imenu skupine ECR Zadeva: Izvajanje strategije EU za Podonavje
on behalf of the ECR Group Subject: Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region
Evropski svet je na zasedanju 18. in 19. junija 2009 pozval Komisijo, naj do konca leta 2010 pripravi evropsko strategijo za Podonavje.
The European Council of 18 and 19 June 2009 called on the Commission to draw up an EU Strategy for the Danube Region by the end of 2010.
Komisija je 8. decembra objavila sporočilo z naslovom Strategija Evropske unije za Podonavje (KOM(2010)0715) in spremljevalni akcijski načrt, v katerem predlaga štiri stebre, ki bodo usmerjeni v enajst prednostnih področij.
On 8 December the Commission published the Communication ‘European Union Strategy for Danube Region’ (COM(2010)0715) and the accompanying Action Plan, which proposes four pillars that will focus on 11 Priority Areas.
Med pripravo strategije EU za Podonavje je bil Evropski parlament ves čas prisoten in zaupanja vreden partner in tako bo tudi med izvajanjem te strategije.
During the development of the EU Danube Strategy the European Parliament was a constant and trustful partner and it will continue to be during implementation of the strategy.
Podonavje je pomembno stičišče med programi kohezijske politike EU, programi za države v okviru evropske sosedske politike in potencialnimi kandidatkami za pristop.
The Danube region is an important crossover point between the EU’s Cohesion Policy programmes, programmes for countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy and potential candidates for accession.
Gre torej za območje, kjer je mogoče doseči večje sinergije med različnimi politikami EU: kohezijsko, prometno, turistično, kmetijsko, ribiško, ekonomsko in socialno, energetsko, okoljsko, širitveno in sosedsko politiko.
It therefore represents an area where enhanced synergies between different EU policies can be developed: cohesion, transport, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, economic and social development, energy, environment, enlargement and neighbourhood policy.
Donava je najdaljša reka v EU in druga najdaljša v Evropi, na svoji 2.857 km dolgi poti od Schwarzwalda do Črnega morja pa teče skozi deset držav.
The Danube is the longest river in the EU and the second longest in Europe, crossing ten countries over its 2 857 km from the Black Forest to the Black Sea.
Vseevropska plovna pot Ren-Donava (VII. vseevropski prometni koridor) neposredno povezuje Severno morje in Črno morje (Rotterdam–Sulina, 3.500 km).
The Rhine–Danube trans-European waterway (Pan-European transport corridor VII) provides a direct link between the North Sea and the Black Sea (Rotterdam–Sulina, 3 500 km).
V porečju Donave živi več kot 160 milijonov ljudi, od tega okoli 75 milijonov v regijah, ki ležijo neposredno ob reki.
Over 160 million people live in the Danube basin and around 75 million live in the regions directly alongside the river.
Poleg tega je delta Donave (s površino 6.000 km 2 ) od leta 1991 na Unescovem seznamu svetovne dediščine, saj v njej prebiva 70 % svetovne populacije belih pelikanov, belug in jesetrov.
Also, the Danube delta (6 000 km 2 ) has been a Unesco world heritage site since 1991 – home to 70 % of the world’s population of white pelicans, belugas and sturgeons.
Glede na pomen Podonavja je treba omenjeno strategijo zdaj uresničiti ter zagotoviti trajnostni razvoj, delovna mesta in varnost na tem območju, kar bi prineslo blaginjo in koristi za vse državljane.
In view of the importance of the Danube region, it is necessary that the Strategy should now be implemented and, in order to bring prosperity, deliver sustainable development, job creation and security in the area, enabling all citizens to benefit from it.
Ali lahko Komisija glede na pomen strategije EU za Podonavje podrobno razloži, kako bo zagotovila njeno izvajanje in kateri model upravljanja bo za to uporabila?
In view of the importance of this strategy, would the Commission detail how it will ensure the implementation of the EU Danube Strategy and what will be the governance model for its implementation?
Kako bo strategija za Podonavje vplivala na druga področja politike, kot je širitvena in sosedska politika EU?
What impact will the Danube Strategy have on other policy areas, such as the EU Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000030/2011
Question for oral answer O-000030/2011
Zadeva: Uradno stališče Sveta o izgonu Romov iz Francije
Subject: Official position of the Council regarding the expulsion of Roma from France