natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kako se Komisija odziva na kršenje temeljnih pravic Romov v državah članicah, zlasti njihove pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja?
What actions is the Commission taking concerning violations of the fundamental rights of Roma in Member States, especially violations of the right to freedom of movement and of residence?
Kako Komisija državam članicam pomaga pri oblikovanju nacionalnih strategij in kako so se doslej odzvale države članice?
How does the Commission assist Member States in developing their national strategies and what has been the response of the Member States so far?
Kako Komisija spremlja incidente proti Romom, do katerih prihaja po vsej Evropi?
How does the Commission monitor the anti-Roma incidents taking place across Europe?
Kako namerava Komisija povečati ozaveščenost med predstavniki Romov ter jih dejansko vključiti v oblikovanje in izvajanje teh strategij?
How does the Commission plan to raise awareness among the Roma representatives and actually involve them in the development and implementation of these strategies?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000261/2011
Question for oral answer O-000261/2011
v imenu Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov Zadeva: Odprti internet in nevtralnost omrežja v Evropi
on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Subject: The open internet and net neutrality in Europe
Komisija je 19. aprila 2011 sprejela sporočilo o nevtralnosti omrežja (KOM(2011)0222).
On 19 April 2011 the Commission adopted a communication on net neutrality (COM(2011)0222).
V sporočilu je jasno navedeno, da so z varstvom potrošnikov povezane številne teme, kot je preglednost in kakovost storitev ali pravica do zamenjave operaterja.
It is made clear in the communication that many issues are related to consumer protection, such as transparency and quality of service, as well as the right to switch from one operator to another.
Ne smemo pozabiti, da je treba ohraniti odprtost interneta, hkrati pa zagotoviti, da bo še naprej nudil visoko kakovostne storitve v okviru spodbujanja in spoštovanja temeljnih pravic, kot so pravice intelektualne lastnine, svoboda izražanja in svoboda poslovanja.
It is important to remember the need to maintain the openness of the internet, while ensuring that it can continue to provide high-quality services in a framework that promotes and respects fundamental rights such as intellectual property rights, freedom of expression and freedom to conduct business.
Ali namerava Komisija objaviti dodatne smernice o pravici do zamenjave operaterjev, da bi potrošniku omogočila izbiro ponudnika, ki najbolj ustreza njegovim potrebam in željam?
Does the Commission intend to publish further guidance on the right to switch operators in order to allow consumers to choose the provider that can best suit their needs and preferences?
Če je tako, ali se bodo te smernice dotaknile potrebe po zagotavljanju jasnih in smiselnih informacij, ki potrošnikom omogočajo ozaveščeno izbiro, zlasti kar zadeva dejanske hitrosti prenosa, kakovost storitve in vsakršno upravljanje prometa, na primer blokiranje, zaviranje ali druge tržne prakse z enakovrednim učinkom, zlasti pri mobilnem internetu?
If so, will the guidance also address the need to provide clear and meaningful information enabling consumers to make informed choices, especially with regard to the actual delivery speeds, the quality of service and any traffic management, such as practices of blocking, throttling or other commercial practices with equivalent effect in particular on mobile internet?
Ali Komisija meni, da bi morali nacionalni regulatorni organi izkoristiti določbe člena 22(3) direktive o univerzalni storitvi ter določiti ustrezne minimalne zahteve glede kakovosti storitve, kadar obstaja tveganje za poslabšanje storitve, oviranje ali upočasnitev prometa preko omrežij?
Does the Commission consider that national regulatory authorities should avail themselves of the provisions under Article 22(3) of the Universal Service Directive and set appropriate minimum quality of service requirements, where there is a risk of degradation of service, hindering or slowing down of traffic over networks?
Ali v zvezi s tem spremlja, ali se v državah članicah izvajajo „pogoji, ki omejujejo dostop do storitev in aplikacij in/ali njihovo uporabo“, „v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti“, kakor zahteva pravni okvir na področju telekomunikacij?
And in that context, is the Commission monitoring whether ‘conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications’ are implemented ‘in conformity with Community law’ by Member States, as required by the telecoms legal framework?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000262/2011
Question for oral answer O-000262/2011
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Patentiranje osnovnih bioloških postopkov
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Patenting of essential biological processes
V Evropi se povečuje število zahtev pri Evropskem patentnem uradu za podelitev patenta za rastline iz konvencionalne pridelave.
Europe is seeing a growing trend in the number of applications to the European Patent Office (EPO) for patents on plants derived from conventional breeding.
Patentni zadevi, o katerih je tekla razprava pri tej odločitvi, sta bila patenta za brokoli (EP1069819) in paradižnik (EP1211926) iz konvencionalne pridelave.
The patent cases under discussion in this decision were a patent on broccoli (EP1069819) and on tomatoes (EP1211926), both derived from conventional breeding.
Vendar odločitev razširjenega odbora za pritožbe ne rešuje pravnih vprašanj ali osnovnih problemov pri konvencionalni pridelavi.
However, the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal does not solve the legal questions or the underlying problems regarding conventional breeding.
Tako je na primer Evropski patentni urad maja 2011 podelil dodatni patent za melone iz konvencionalne pridelave (EP 1 962 578).
For example, in May 2011, the EPO granted a further patent on melons derived from conventional breeding (EP 1 962 578).
Taka razlaga Direktive 98/44/ES o pravnem varstvu biotehnoloških izumov pomeni, da je mogoče konvencionalno („v bistvu biološko“) pridelavo patentirati, čeprav je bil postopek pridelave izključen.
This interpretation of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions implies that conventional (‘essentially biological’) breeding would be patentable, even if the process for breeding was excluded.
Ali se Komisija strinja, da je odločitev Evropskega patentnega urada EP 1 962 578 (melone) v nasprotju s členom 4(b) Direktive EU št. 98/44/ES?
Does the Commission agree that the EPO’s patent decision EP 1 962 578 (‘melons’) is in contradiction with Article 4(b) of EU Directive 98/44/EC?
Če se Komisija strinja in če tehnični odbori Evropskega patentnega urada sklenejo, da bodo zavrnili pritožbe v zgoraj omenjenih primerih o paradižniku in brokoliju (EP1069819 in EP1211926) ter tako na podlagi Direktive 98/44/ES podelili patente za postopke za pridobivanje rastlin ali živali, ki so v bistvu biološki, ali bo proti odločitvi Evropskega patentnega urada na Sodišču sprožila sodni postopek?
If the Commission agrees, and if the EPO’s Technical Boards of appeal decide to reject the appeals in the above-mentioned cases regarding tomatoes and broccoli (EP1069819 and EP1211926) and therefore grant patents on ‘essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals’ on the basis of Directive 98/44/EC, will the Commission bring legal action before the Court against the EPO’s decision?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000263/2011
Question for oral answer O-000263/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Volilna pravica oseb brez državljanstva na lokalnih volitvah v Latviji
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Voting rights for non-citizens in Latvian local elections
Po latvijske neodvisnosti so državljanstvo dobile le osebe, ki so imele državljanstvo Latvije že pred letom 1940, in njihovi potomci.
Following Latvian independence, only citizens of the pre-1940 Latvia and their descendants had their Latvian citizenship restored.
Ostali lahko državljanstvo dobijo le z naturalizacijo, nekateri pa do tega postopka niso upravičeni.
Others can obtain citizenship only through naturalisation, and some people are not eligible for this procedure.
V obdobju od 1995 do 2011 je z naturalizacijo dobilo državljanstvo le 136 293 oseb.
Over the period from 1995 to 2011 only 136 293 persons were naturalised.
Po 1. januarju 2011 je bilo v Latviji še vedno 326 735 oseb brez državljanstva (14,6 % celotnega prebivalstva).
As of 1 January 2011, 326 735 people in Latvia were still non-citizens (14.6% of the total population).
Osebe brez državljanstva so pretežno pripadniki narodnostnih manjšin (ruske, beloruske, ukrajinske, poljske, litovske in judovske).
Non-citizens are mainly persons belonging to ethnic minorities (ethnic Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians and Jews).
Osebe brez državljanstva, ki predstavljajo 23,7 % prebivalstva Rige, 18,9 % prebivalstva Daugavpilsa, 20,5 % prebivalstva Liepāje, 19,2 % prebivalstva Jūrmale in 18,9 % prebivalstva Ventspilsa, ne morejo sodelovati v lokalni politiki.
Non-citizens, who make up 23.7% of the population in Riga, 18.9% in Daugavpils, 20.5% in Liepaja, 19.2% in Jurmala and 18.9% in Ventspils, cannot participate in local political life.
V nekaterih največjih latvijskih občinah so tako zastopani interesi manj kot polovice prebivalstva.
In some of the biggest Latvian municipalities the interests of less than half the population are represented.
Odbor ZN za človekove pravice, Odbor ZN za odpravo rasne diskriminacije, Parlamentarna skupščina Sveta Evrope, Kongres lokalnih in regionalnih oblasti Sveta Evrope, komisar Sveta Evrope za človekove pravice, Evropska komisija proti rasizmu in nestrpnosti ter Parlamentarna skupščina OVSE so priporočili ukrepe, s katerimi bi osebam brez državljanstva omogočili glasovanje na lokalnih volitvah v Latviji.
The UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have recommended steps to enable non-citizens to vote in Latvian local elections.
Evropski parlament je v svoji resoluciji z dne 11. marca 2004 o izčrpnem poročilu Komisije o spremljanju stanja pripravljenosti Latvije za članstvo v EU predlagal, naj latvijske oblasti preučijo možnost, da se osebam brez državljanstva, ki že dolgo prebivajo v državi, dovoli sodelovati na lokalnih volitvah.
In its resolution of 11 March 2004 on the comprehensive monitoring report of the Commission on Latvia's state of preparedness for EU membership the European Parliament proposed that the Latvian authorities envisage the possibility of allowing non-citizens who are long-time inhabitants of the country to vote in local government elections.
Parlament je v svoji resoluciji z dne 22. aprila 2009 o odločitvah Odbora za peticije v letu 2008 pozval Komisijo, naj skrbno spremlja in spodbuja ureditev statusa oseb brez državljanstva v Latviji.
In its resolution of 22 April 2009 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2008 Parliament urged the Commission to closely monitor and encourage the regularisation of the status of non-citizens in Latvia.
Kako je Komisija obravnavala zadevo, da bi spremljala upoštevanje predlogov Parlamenta?
How did the Commission address the issue in an effort to follow up Parliament's recommendations?
Ali se Komisija strinja, da je treba skrbno spremljati položaj oseb brez državljanstva v Latviji in ga ustrezno predstaviti, še posebej v poročilu o državljanstvu in v poročilu o izvajanju Listine EU o temeljnih pravicah?
Does the Commission agree that the situation of non-citizens in Latvia should be closely monitored and properly reflected, in particular, in the citizenship report and the report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Ali se Komisija strinja, da ta demokratični deficit v Latviji nakazuje očitno tveganje resnega kršenja načel demokracije ter spoštovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin?
Does the Commission agree that the democratic deficit in Latvia points to a clear risk of a serious breach of the principles of democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000264/2011
Question for oral answer O-000264/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Patenti za brokoli, paradižnik in druge pridelke iz konvencionalne pridelave
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Patents on broccoli, tomatoes and other products of conventional plant breeding
9. decembra 2010 je razširjeni pritožbeni senat Evropskega patentnega urada sprejel sklep o zadevah G2/07 in G1/08, ki se nanašata na patenta za brokoli in paradižnik.
On 9 December 2010 the European Patent Office’s (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal took a decision on referrals G2/07 and G1/08, which concern patents on broccoli and tomatoes.
Sklep se ne izvaja, patenta za ta proizvoda pa nista bila preklicana.
This decision has not been enforced and the patents on these items have not been revoked.
Evropski patentni urad je nato podelil patent za melone Monsanto, čeprav tako melone kot zgoraj omenjena proizvoda izhajajo iz konvencionalne pridelave, ki je po mnenju urada samega ni mogoče patentirati.
The EPO subsequently granted a patent on Monsanto melons, despite the fact that they, and the products referred to above, all derive from ‘conventional plant breeding’, which the EPO itself has deemed ‘unpatentable’.
S temi sklepi in neukrepanjem Evropski patentni urad torej zlorablja temeljno patentno zakonodajo in jo nedosledno razlaga.
Through these decisions and its failure to act, therefore, the EPO is abusing basic patent law and being inconsistent in its interpretation of that law.
Kako lahko Komisija zagotovi, da se patentne zakonodaje ne bo še nadalje zlorabljalo na način, ki predstavlja nezakonito prisvajanje osnovnih virov kmetovanja in proizvodnje hrane?
How can the Commission ensure that patent law does not continue to be abused in a way which constitutes a ‘misappropriation of the basic resources of farming and food production’?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da bodo pravice kmetov, rejcev, proizvajalcev hrane in potrošnikov v zvezi z uporabo osnovnih virov zaščitene, saj so te pravice s takim načinom patentiranja kršene?
How will the Commission ensure that the rights of farmers, breeders, food producers and consumers are protected with regard to the use of their basic resources, rights which are being infringed by this form of patenting?
Kaj bo Komisija storila, da bo evropska patentna zakonodaja na področju pridelave rastlin in hrane jasna in pravilno uporabljena?
What will the Commission do to ensure that European patent law in areas relating to plant breeding and food is clear and correctly applied?
Ali bo Komisija pregledala sedanjo zakonodajo, da bo popolnoma jasno, kdaj se ne sme podeliti patenta?
Will the Commission take steps to revise the current legislation in order to make it absolutely clear when a patent should not be granted?
Ali bo Komisija aktivna stranka pri postopku preklica pred Evropskim patentnim uradom?
Will the Commission be an active party in the revocation procedure before the EPO?
Ali bo Komisija sprejela odločilne ukrepe, da rastlin in živali iz konvencionalne pridelave in reje ne bo možno patentirati?
Will the Commission take decisive steps to ensure that plants and animals derived from conventional breeding are not patentable?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000265/2011
Question for oral answer O-000265/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Priporni pogoji v EU
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: Detention conditions in the EU
Komisija je na izrecno zahtevo Sveta nedavno objavila zeleno knjigo o priporu z naslovom „Krepitev medsebojnega zaupanja na evropskem pravosodnem območju – Zelena knjiga o izvajanju kazenskopravne zakonodaje EU na področju pripora.”
In response to an explicit request by the Council, the Commission has recently published a Green Paper on detention entitled: 'Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention'.
V sporočilu:
This communication:
- so osvetljene povezave med pripornimi pogoji in različnimi instrumenti EU, kot je evropski nalog za prijetje;
- highlights the links between detention conditions and various EU instruments, such as the European Arrest Warrant;
- je prikazano, zakaj pripor pred sojenjem, položaj otrok in priporni pogoji sodijo med pristojnosti EU; in
- illustrates how pre-trial detention, the situation of children and detention conditions fall within the remit of EU competences; and
- so začeta odprta posvetovanja z zainteresiranimi stranmi, da bi ugotovili, kako bi lahko z ukrepi EU izboljšali priporne pogoje v državah članicah in tako prispevali h krepitvi medsebojnega zaupanja pri pravosodnem sodelovanju.
- launches an open consultation with stakeholders to identify how EU actions can improve detention conditions in Member States and thereby contribute to the fostering of mutual trust in judicial cooperation.
Poleg tega so v prilogi k sporočilu jasno prikazani različni priporni pogoji v državah članicah, ki so zaskrbljujoči, zlasti v zvezi s številom oseb v priporu pred sojenjem, prenapolnjenostjo zaporov, številom zapornikov ter deležem priprtih oseb, ki niso državljani zadevne države.
Moreover, the annex to the communication clearly illustrates the worryingly varying detention conditions in Member States, especially with regard to the number of pre-trial detainees, overcrowding, the prison population rates and the rates of non-national detainees.
Kakšne konkretne ukrepe namerava po objavi tega sporočila sprejeti Svet na ravni EU, da bi zagotovili spoštovanje temeljnih pravic oseb v priporu in izboljšali priporne pogoje v državah članicah, ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice države članice EU že večkrat obsodilo zaradi pripornih pogojev, dolžine pripora pred sojenjem ter delovanja njihovega pravosodja?
As a follow-up to this communication, and bearing in mind that the European Court of Human Rights has also repeatedly condemned EU Member States over detention conditions and the length of pre-trial detention and the administration of justice, what concrete steps will the Council take at EU level to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons detained in prisons are respected and that detention conditions are improved in Member States?
Kaj bo Svet storil glede zlorab pripora pred sojenjem, prenapolnjenosti in visoke stopnje zasedenosti zaporov ter deleža priprtih oseb, ki niso državljani zadevne države?
What will the Council do in relation to the abuse of pre-trial detention, overcrowding, high prison population rates and rates of non-national detainees?
Ali bo preučil vpliv kazenskih politik in zakonodaj na področju pripornih pogojev ter v zvezi s temi vprašanji podal priporočila, na primer glede uporabe alternativnih ukrepov, kriminalizacije nezakonitih migrantov, izrednih ukrepov za zagotovitev spoštovanja temeljnih pravic itd.?
Will it examine the impact of criminal policies and laws on detention conditions and make recommendations in relation to these issues, such as recourse to alternative measures, criminalisation of irregular migrants, extraordinary measures to ensure that fundamental rights are respected, etc?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000266/2011
Question for oral answer O-000266/2011
- je prikazano, zakaj pripor pred sojenjem, položaj otrok in priporni pogoji sodijo med pristojnosti EU;
- illustrates how pre-trial detention, the situation of children and detention conditions fall within the remit of EU competences; and
Katere konkretne ukrepe namerava po objavi sporočila sprejeti Komisija na ravni EU, da bi zagotovili spoštovanje temeljnih pravic oseb v priporu in izboljšali priporne pogoje v državah članicah, ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice države članice EU že večkrat obsodilo zaradi pripornih pogojev, dolžine pripora pred sojenjem ter delovanja njihovega pravosodja?
As a follow-up to this communication, and bearing in mind that the European Court of Human Rights has also repeatedly condemned EU Member States over detention conditions and the length of pre-trial detention and the administration of justice, what concrete steps will the Commission take at EU level to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons detained in prisons are respected and that detention conditions are improved in Member States?
Kaj bo Komisija storila glede zlorab pripora pred sojenjem, prenapolnjenosti in visoke stopnje zasedenosti zaporov ter deleža zapornikov, ki niso državljani zadevne države?
What will the Commission do in relation to the abuse of pre-trial detention, overcrowding, high prison population rates and rates of non-national detainees?
Ali bo preučila vpliv kazenskih politik in zakonodaj na področju pripornih pogojev ter v zvezi s temi vprašanji podala priporočila, na primer glede uporabe alternativnih ukrepov, kriminalizacije nezakonitih migrantov, izrednih ukrepov za zagotovitev spoštovanja temeljnih pravic itd.?
Will it examine the impact of criminal policies and laws on detention conditions and make recommendations in relation to these issues, such as recourse to alternative measures, criminalisation of irregular migrants, extraordinary measures to ensure that fundamental rights are respected, etc?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-000267/2011
Question for oral answer O-000267/2011
v imenu skupine GUE/NGL Zadeva: Novi romunski civilni zakonik ter prosto gibanje lezbijk, gejev, biseksualnih in transseksualnih oseb
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group Subject: New Romanian Civil Code and free movement of LGBT persons
Člen 277 novega romunskega civilnega zakonika, ki je začel veljati 1. oktobra 2011, obravnava prepoved zunajzakonskih skupnosti ali njihovo enakopravnost z zakonsko zvezo .
Article 277 of the new Civil Code of Romania (RCC), which entered into force on 1 October 2011, deals with the ‘Prohibition or equivalence of forms of cohabitation with marriage’ .
- je izrecna prepoved istospolnih zakonskih zvez (člen 277(1) romunskega civilnega zakonika) ali partnerskih skupnosti oziroma njihovo nepriznavanje, če so bile sklenjene v tujini (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika), v civilnem zakoniku ali ustavi nepotrebna in kontraproduktivna določba, saj zadeva istospolne pare in osebe na podlagi njihove spolne usmerjenosti ter utrjuje tovrstno neposredno in posredno diskriminacijo v temeljni zakonodaji države?
- the explicit prohibition of same-sex marriage (Article 277(1) RCC) or partnership or of their recognition when contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) RCC) in civil codes or constitutions is an unnecessary and counterproductive provision, as it targets same-sex couples and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and cements such discrimination, both direct and indirect, in the fundamental laws of the State?
- je izrecna prepoved priznavanja istospolnih zakonskih zvez in civilnih partnerskih skupnosti med osebami nasprotnega ali istega spola, sklenjenih v tujini (člen 277(2) in (3) romunskega civilnega zakonika), čeprav so omenjene določbe o prostem gibanju (člen 277(4) romunskega civilnega zakonika), v nasprotju s temeljno pravico državljanov EU, da svoj civilni status prenesejo, če se preselijo iz ene države članice v drugo, kot je 7. septembra 2010 dejala komisarka Viviane Reding v svojem govoru v Evropskem parlamentu?
- the explicit prohibition of the recognition of same-sex marriages and of civil partnerships, both of the opposite sex or the same sex, contracted abroad (Article 277(2) and (3) RCC), regardless of references to the free movement provisions (277(4) RCC), runs counter to EU citizens’ fundamental right to carry their civil status with them when moving from one Member State to another, as stated by Commissioner Reding during her speech in the European Parliament on 7 September 2010?