natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Litovski parlament je 12. novembra 2010 z glasovanjem sklenil, da bo nadaljeval obravnavo spremembe upravnega zakonika, ki uvaja nov prekršek, ki se kaznuje z globo , in sicer „javno promocijo homoseksualnih odnosov“ , ter se zavzemal za izvajanje zakona o zaščiti mladoletnikov pred škodljivimi učinki javnega obveščanja, sprejetega 14. julija 2009, ki – čeprav je bil dvakrat deležen predsedniškega veta, pa tudi kritike Evropskega parlamenta ter obsodbe nevladnih organizacij, ki se zavzemajo za človekove pravice, in organizacij, ki zastopajo lezbijke, geje, biseksualce in transseksualce – prepoveduje „informacije, ki bi spodbujale spolne odnose ali druge koncepte zakonske zveze oziroma ustvarjanja družine v drugačni obliki, kot določa ustava oziroma civilni zakonik“.
On 12 November 2010 the Lithuanian Parliament voted to proceed with the examination of an amendment to the Administrative Code establishing a new offence punishable by a fine for the ‘public promotion of homosexual relations’ and seeking to implement the ‘Law on the Protection of Minors Against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information’ adopted on 14 July 2009, which bans – despite having been vetoed twice by Lithuanian Presidents, criticised by the European Parliament , and condemned by NGOs defending human rights and LGBT organisations – ‘information that would promote sexual relations or other conceptions of concluding a marriage or creating a family other than established in the Constitution or the Civil Code’.
V nedavnem pismu je potrdila, da „Komisija odločno zavrača vse oblike homofobije, ki so v nasprotju z vrednotami, na kateri temelji EU“, ter da bo njen „oddelek analiziral osnutek zakonodajnega besedila“ in odločil, ali „je potrebno nadaljnje ukrepanje“.
In a recent letter, the Commissioner confirmed that ‘the Commission firmly rejects any form of homophobia, which is incompatible with the values on which the EU is founded’, and that her ‘department will be analysing the draft legislative text’ and decide ‘whether further action is appropriate’.
Ali Komisija meni, da sta predlog spremembe, če bo sprejet, in zakon o oglaševanju skladna z vrednotami iz člena 2 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji in temeljnimi svoboščinami, ki jih zagotavljata Listina EU o temeljnih svoboščinah in Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, zlasti s svobodo izražanja in obveščanja ter svobodo zbiranja, pa tudi s prepovedjo diskriminacije na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti?
Does the Commission think that the draft amendment, if approved, and the advertising law are compatible with the values listed in Article 2 of the TEU and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the CFR and the ECHR, notably freedom of expression and information and freedom of assembly and with the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0208/2010
Question for oral answer O-0208/2010
v imenu skupine S&D Zadeva: Kriza z odpadki v Kampaniji (Italija)
on behalf of the S&D Group Subject: Waste crisis in Campania, Italy
23. oktobra 2010 je bila objavljena izjava komisarja Potočnika o razmerah glede odpadkov v Kampaniji, v kateri komisar ugotavlja, da se od krize z odpadki leta 2007 in postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Italiji, ki je sledil, ni veliko spremenilo.
On 23 October 2010, Commissioner Potočnik released a statement on the waste situation in Campania, observing that not much had changed since the waste crisis in 2007 and the ensuing infringement proceedings against Italy.
Evropsko sodišče je 4. marca 2010 Italijo obsodilo, ker v Kampaniji ni vzpostavila omrežja obratov, ki bi zadostovalo za odstranjevanje komunalnih odpadkov na način, ki ne ogroža zdravja ljudi in okolja.
The ECJ ruling of 4 March 2010 denounced Italy for failing to set up a network of installations sufficient to ensure the disposal of urban waste in a manner that did not endanger human health and the environment.
Komisija je 1. decembra 2010 na seji parlamentarnega odbora ENVI v delu o izvajanju zakonodaje izjavila, da direktiva o odlagališčih ne določa natančno, da odlagališča ne smejo biti na območju nacionalnih parkov, temveč določa, da morajo biti vsi ukrepi za ravnanje z odpadki skladni z zadevno okoljsko zakonodajo.
During the implementation session of Parliament’s ENVI Committee meeting on 1 December 2010, the Commission stated that the landfill directive does not specifically stipulate that landfills cannot be within the perimeter of national parks, but rather that all waste management measures must comply with all relevant environmental legislation.
Skratka, zakona, ki bi prepovedoval odlagališča v nacionalnih parkih, ni.
In short, there is no law prohibiting landfills in national parks.
Katere ukrepe je Komisija sprejela ali namerava sprejeti, da bi preprečila morebitna okoljska in zdravstvena tveganja zaradi krize ravnanja z odpadki, zagotovila učinkovit nadzor nad ustreznim zbiranjem in predelavo odpadkov ter od ustreznih regionalnih organov zahtevala, naj predstavijo uresničljiv načrt ravnanja z odpadki?
What measures has the Commission undertaken, or will it undertake, to prevent the possibility of environmental and health risks arising from waste management crises, to ensure effective monitoring of the proper collection and treatment of waste, and to require the relevant regional authorities to present a feasible waste management plan?
Kako Komisija ocenjuje sedanji načrt ravnanja z odpadki deželne vlade?
What is the Commission’s assessment of the regional government’s current waste management plan?
Kakšne roke je Komisija določila za začetek veljavnosti načrta, skladnega s predpisi EU?
What deadlines has the Commission set for the entry into force of a plan that complies with EU regulations?
Kdaj bo Komisija začela postopek iz člena 260 proti Italiji, ki bo državi nalagal kazni, vse dokler njeno ravnanje ne bo skladno s sodbo Sodišča?
When will the Commission start proceedings against Italy, under Article 260, seeking penalties as long as Italy is not in compliance with the ECJ judgment?
Katere druge instrumente politik bo Komisija uporabila za posredovanje v sedanji krizi z odpadki v Kampaniji, razen ponovnega zagona postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev?
What other policy instruments will the Commission use to intervene in the current waste crisis in Campania, besides (re-)launching infringement proceedings?
Ali Komisija lahko potrdi, da zakonodaja EU ne prepoveduje odprtja odlagališč odpadkov v nacionalnih parkih/na območjih nacionalne dediščine/na območjih Natura 2000?
Can the Commission confirm that EU legislation does not prohibit the establishment of landfills in national parks/ national heritage sites/ Natura 2000 areas?
Ali bo Komisija, če to drži, ukrepala in to pravno vrzel zapolnila?
If so, will the Commission take action to close this gap in the law?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0209/2010
Question for oral answer O-0209/2010
v imenu skupine EFD Zadeva: Izredno stanje zaradi odpadkov v Neaplju in deželi Kampaniji ter uporaba evropskih sredstev
on behalf of the EFD Group Subject: Waste disposal crisis in Naples and the Campania Region and use of EU funding
Ali lahko Komisija, med drugim tudi na podlagi nedavnih pregledov na kraju samem, s katerimi je neposredno preverjala stanje, poroča o evropskih sredstvih, ki so bila v zadnjih 20 letih dodeljena Italiji in deželi Kampaniji za ravnanje s komunalnimi odpadki in njihovo odlaganje?
Following recent on-the-spot inspections carried out with a view to ascertaining the situation at first hand, can the Commission give details concerning Community funding earmarked for urban waste management and disposal in Italy, and in particular the Campania Region, over the last 20 years?
Ali so se dodeljena sredstva na podlagi podatkov, s katerimi razpolaga Komisija, uporabila koristno in skladno z načrti, ki so jih predstavili regionalni in lokalni organi?
Does the information available to the Commission indicate that the funding has been put to good use and in accordance with the plans submitted by the regional and local authorities?
Ali je Komisija kdaj preverila, če lokalni organi sredstva uporabljajo učinkovito?
Has the Commission ever carried out checks to verify whether the local authorities have used the funds efficiently?
Ali namerava Komisija, glede na dejstvo, da upravljanje zbiranja in odlaganja odpadkov ni prineslo trajne rešitve krize, sprejeti finančne ukrepe, če regionalni organi ne bodo predstavili načrta ravnanja z odpadki, ki bi dokončno rešil ta problem?
In view of the fact that waste collection and disposal strategies to date have failed to resolve the waste management crisis definitively, will the Commission take measures of a financial nature if the regional authorities fail to submit a waste management plan equal to the task?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0210/2010
Question for oral answer O-0210/2010
v imenu skupine Verts/ALE Zadeva: Stanje direktive o postopkih
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group Subject: State of play regarding the Procedures Directive
Poročilo Komisije za Parlament in Svet o izvajanju direktive z dne 1. decembra 2005 o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah (KOM(2010)0465) je bilo predloženo 8. septembra 2010.
The Commission report to Parliament and the Council on implementation of the Directive of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status in Member States (COM(2010)0465) was presented on 8 September 2010.
To poročilo jasno prikazuje neenakosti med postopki za azil držav članic, kar hkrati dokazuje, da je treba nujno spremeniti direktivo iz leta 2005 (2005/85/ES).
The report clearly shows the disparities between Member States’ asylum procedures, and this in itself confirms the urgent need for a recast of the 2005 directive (No 2005/85/EC).
Hkrati so nekatere države članice izrazile svoje pomisleke glede usklajenega pristopa, kar je povzročilo popolno zamrznitev razprav in pogajanj o tem poročilu ter spodkopalo sam cilj vzpostavitve skupnega azilnega sistema v EU do leta 2012.
At the same time, some Member States have indicated their concerns in relation to a harmonised approach, and this has led to a total freezing of discussions and negotiations on the report, undermining the very goal of establishing a common asylum system in the EU by 2012.
Med srečanji poročevalca, poročevalcev v senci in Komisije je bilo spoznano, da manjkajo pomembne informacije iz precejšnjega števila držav članic, udeleženih v izvajanje direktive iz leta 2005.
During meetings involving the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and the Commission it has been recognised that substantial information from a significant number of Member States involved in implementation of the 2005 directive is missing.
To pa otežuje pomoč Komisije Svetu za reševanje odprtih vprašanj, ki ovirajo pogajanja.
This is making it difficult for the Commission to assist the Council in resolving outstanding issues blocking the negotiations.
Ali lahko Svet opredeli odprta vprašanja, nujna za doseg skupnega stališča o direktivi o postopkih, vključno z dokazi številnih držav članic, da se bodo ponovno začela pogajanja o tem osrednjem delu svežnja o azilu in bo dosežen ciljni datum?
Could the Council outline the outstanding issues involved in reaching a common position on the Procedures Directive, including the arguments of the various Member States, with a view to relaunching the negotiations on this crucial aspect of the asylum package and meeting our target date?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0211/2010
Question for oral answer O-0211/2010
v imenu Odbora za mednarodno trgovino Zadeva: Začasni sporazum o partnerstvu med Evropsko skupnostjo na eni in pacifiškimi državami na drugi strani
on behalf of the Committee on International Trade Subject: Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part
Republika otokov Fidži in Papua Nova Gvineja sta podpisali začasni sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu, ki za ti dve državi predvideva bistveno različna časovna načrta liberalizacije.
The Republic of the Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea have signed an interim economic partnership agreement (IEPA) which provides for significantly differing liberalisation schedules for the two countries.
Kako bodo te zaveze vplivale na njune uvozne in izvozne vzorce?
What impact will these commitments have on their respective import and export patterns?
In kako bodo vplivale na trgovinske odnose z Avstralijo in Novo Zelandijo?
What impact will they have on trade relations with Australia and New Zealand?
Kako si namerava Svet prizadevati, da bi uskladil sklepanje začasnih sporazumov o gospodarskem partnerstvu z državami, ki so za to zainteresirane, na eni strani in regionalno povezovanje na drugi strani?
How does the Council envisage working to reconcile, on the one hand, conclusion of IEPAs with those countries most interested in concluding them and, on the other, regional integration?
Kako bo Svet zagotovil, da ti sporazumi na bodo negativno vplivali na politični interes za gospodarsko povezovanje v Pacifiku in na javno podporo takemu povezovanju?
How will the Council ensure that the IEPA will not negatively affect both the political interest in economic integration in the Pacific and public enthusiasm for it?
Kot trdi STO v pregledu trgovinske politike za Fidži, so stroga pravila EU o poreklu izvoženih rib zelo omejila priložnosti.
According to the WTO’s Trade Policy Review for Fiji, the EU’s strict rules of origin on fish exports have severely restricted opportunities.
Začasni sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu je sprostil ta pravila, saj domačim predelovalcem dovoljuje uporabo proizvodov brez porekla.
The rules have been relaxed under the IEPA, allowing domestic processors to use non-originating products.
Kako namerava Svet poročati Parlamentu o izvajanju posebnih določb o pravilih glede porekla, vključno z vplivom na ribiško industrijo EU, razvoj predelovalne industrije na Papui Novi Gvineji in Fidžiju ter upravljanje pacifiških ribjih staležev?
How does the Council intend to report to Parliament on implementation of the specific provisions on rules of origin, including the impact on the EU fishing industry, the development of the processing industry in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and the management of Pacific fish stocks?
Kako bo Svet nadalje podprl pacifiške države pri razvoju trajnostnega ribiškega sektorja?
How will the Council further support the Pacific states in developing a sustainable fishing sector?
Ali lahko Svet po drugi strani potrdi, da Papua Nova Gvineja in Fidži dovoljujeta dostop do svojih ribolovnih voda drugim trgovinskim partnericam v širši regiji, kot so Tajska, Filipini, Tajvan in Kitajska, ne pa tudi ribiškemu ladjevju EU?
On the other hand, can the Council confirm that Papua New Guinea and Fiji grant access to their fishing waters to other trading partners in the wider region, such as Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan and China, but not to the EU fishing fleet?
Ali ima Svet pripravljene ocene o vplivu omenjenega začasnega sporazuma o gospodarskem partnerstvu na ribiško industrijo EU in zlasti njeno konzervno industrijo?
Does the Council have estimates on how the IEPA will affect the Union’s fishing industry and in particular its canning industry?
Ali obstajajo kakšni indici, kakšen bo vpliv na konzervno industrijo držav AKP in GSP+?
Are there any indications as to how the canning industries of the ACP and GSP+ countries will be affected?
Kako bo Svet zagotovil, da bo morebiten prihodnji celoviti sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu pomagal pri regionalnem povezovanju?
How will the Council ensure that a future comprehensive economic partnership agreement (EPA) will help to foster regional integration?
S katerimi ukrepi bo Svet izboljšal možnosti zaposlovanja v pacifiških državah, zlasti za ženske?
What steps will the Council take to improve employment opportunities, particularly for women, in the Pacific states?
Ali Svet podpira sprostitev finančne pomoči sladkornemu sektorju na Fidžiju – ki je trenutno zamrznjena – v primeru učinkovitega uresničevanja praks dobrega upravljanja?
Does the Council support the release of financial assistance for the sugar sector in Fiji – currently being withheld – if necessary good governance practices are effectively implemented?
Ali se Svet zavezuje, da si bo prizadeval za daljnosežno razvojno poglavje v vsakem prihodnjem sporazumu o gospodarskem partnerstvu?
Is the Council committed to a far-reaching development chapter in any future full EPA?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0212/2010
Question for oral answer O-0212/2010
Fidži in Papua Nova Gvineja sta podpisala začasni sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu, ki prinaša bistvene razlike za njuna urnika liberalizacije.
Fiji and Papua New Guinea signed an Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (IEPA) which contains significant differences in their liberalisation schedules.
Kako bodo te zaveze vplivale na njune uvozno-izvozne vzorce?
What impact will those commitments have on their import and export patterns?
Kako si namerava Komisija v prihodnje prizadevati za uskladitev med sklepanjem začasnih sporazumov o gospodarskem partnerstvu z državami, ki so za to zainteresirane, na eni strani in regionalnim povezovanjem na drugi strani?
How does the Commission envisage working towards a future reconciliation between the conclusion of IEPAs with those countries most interested in concluding such a deal and regional integration?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da začasni sporazum ne bo zmanjšal političnega zanimanja in naklonjenosti javnosti gospodarskemu povezovanju v tihomorski regiji?
How will the Commission ensure that the IEPA will not reduce both political interests and public sentiment towards economic integration in the Pacific?
Z začasnim sporazumom o gospodarskem sodelovanju bodo ta pravila manj stroga, kar bo domačim predelovalcem omogočilo, da uporabljalo proizvode brez porekla.
These have been relaxed under the IEPA by allowing non-originating products to be used by domestic processors.
Kako namerava Komisija poročati Parlamentu o izvajanju posebnih določb glede pravil o poreklu, vključno z vplivom na ribiško industrijo EU, razvoj predelovalne industrije na Papui Novi Gvineji in v Republiki otokov Fidži ter upravljanje ribjih staležev v Pacifiku?
How does the Commission intend to report to Parliament on the implementation of the specific provisions regarding rules of origin including the impact on the EU fishing industry, the development of the processing industry in Papua New Guinea and the Republic of the Fiji Islands and the management of fish stocks in the Pacific?
Kako bo Komisija nadalje podprla pacifiške države pri trajnostnem razvoju ribiškega sektorja?
How will the Commission further support the Pacific States to develop their fishing sector sustainably?
Ali lahko Komisija po drugi strani potrdi, da Papua Nova Gvineja in Fidži dovoljujeta dostop do svojih ribolovnih voda drugim trgovinskim partnericam v širši regiji, kot so Tajska, Filipini, Tajvan in Kitajska, ne pa tudi evropskemu ribiškemu ladjevju?
On the other hand, can the Commission confirm that Papua New Guinea and Fiji grant access to their fishing waters to other trading partners in the wider region such as Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan and China but not to the European fishing fleet?
Ali ima Komisija pripravljene ocene o vplivu omenjenega začasnega sporazuma na ribiško industrijo EU in zlasti njeno konzervno industrijo?
Does the Commission have estimates about how this interim agreement will affect the EU’s fishing industry and in particular its canning industry?
Ali obstajajo kakršne koli navedbe o tem, kako bo to vplivalo na konzervno industrijo držav AKP in GSP+?
Are there any indications about how the canning industries of the ACP and GSP+ countries will be affected?
Kako bo Komisija zagotovila, da bo celovit sporazum o gospodarskem partnerstvu pomagal pri nadaljnjem regionalnemu povezovanju?
How will the Commission ensure that the comprehensive EPA will help to foster regional integration?
S katerimi ukrepi bo Komisija izboljšala možnosti zaposlovanja v pacifiških državah, zlasti za ženske?
What steps will the Commission take to improve employment opportunities, in particular for women, in the Pacific States?
Ali Komisija podpira sprostitev trenutno zamrznjene finančne pomoči za sektor sladkorja na Fidžiju v primeru učinkovitega izvajanja potrebnih praks dobrega upravljanja?
Does the Commission support the release of the currently withheld financial assistance for the sugar sector in Fiji were the necessary good governance practices to be effectively implemented?
Ali se Komisija zavezuje, da si bo prizadevala za daljnosežno razvojno poglavje v vsakem prihodnjem sporazumu o gospodarskem partnerstvu?
Is the Commission committed to a far-reaching development chapter in any future full EPA?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0213/2010
Question for oral answer O-0213/2010
Zadeva: Priznanje EU, da se je med drugo svetovno vojno dogajal genocid Romov
Subject: EU recognition of the Roma genocide during World War II
Pripadniki romske skupnosti po vsej Evropi trpijo zaradi diskriminacije in izključenosti: redno so tarča rasističnih komentarjev in napadov, nadlegovanja policije in odrekanja temeljnih državljanskih pravic.
Members of the Roma community suffer from discrimination and exclusion all over Europe: they are regularly the target of racist comments and attacks, harassment from police forces and the denial of their fundamental citizens' rights.
Diskriminacije so deležni na vseh življenjskih področjih, zlasti na področju izobraževanju, zaposlovanja, stanovanj in zdravstvene oskrbe.
Discrimination against them is prevalent in all walks of life, mainly in the field of education, employment, housing and health care.
Ker večina družbe ne pozna zgodovine Romov, to veliko pripomore k predsodkom, zaradi katerih trpijo, obenem pa ovira njihovo povezovanje v Evropski uniji.
The ignorance of the majority of society concerning Roma history contributes a lot to the prejudice Roma people suffer from, and it also represents an obstacle to their integration within the European Union.
Čeprav je bila usoda Romov od države do države drugačna, so bili v okupirani Evropi preganjani.
In occupied Europe, although the fate of the Roma varied from country to country, they were persecuted.
Nekatere države članice, Nemčija na primer leta 1982, so že priznale genocid Romov med drugo svetovno vojno.
Some Member States of the EU, such as Germany in 1982, have already recognised the genocide of the Roma during World War II.
Če bi tako ravnala tudi Evropska unija, bi bil to za pripadnike romske skupnosti in za Evropo zgodovinski dogodek.
The same act by the European Union would be a historic event for the members of the Roma community and for Europe.
27. januarja 2011 bomo obeležili obletnico osvoboditve taborišča Auschwitz.
On 27 January 2011, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz will be commemorated.
Ta dogodek je zgodovinska priložnost, da se evropske državljane spomni na grozodejstva holokavsta v povezavi z vsemi žrtvami nacističnega sistema.
This event constitutes a historic opportunity to remind European citizens of the horrors of the Holocaust in relation to all the victims of the Nazi system.
Ali imajo po mnenju Sveta Romi pravico, da Evropska unija prizna njihovo skupno težko zgodovino?
Does the Council consider that Roma have the right to see their troubled common history recognised by the European Union?
Kaj namerava Svet narediti, da bi evropski prebivalci bolje razumeli zgodovino, ki jo delijo z Romi?
What is the Council planning to do to build better understanding among the European population of the history they share with Roma?
Vprašanje za ustni odgovor O-0214/2010
Question for oral answer O-0214/2010
v imenu skupine PPE Zadeva: Nadzor nad evropskim zračnim prostorom
on behalf of the PPE Group Subject: Control of European airspace