natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Države članice morajo poskrbeti, da so pravice obrambe ustrezno varovane ter da so ohranjene določbe o izvajanju dokazov na področju kazenskega prava.
Member States must ensure that the rights of the defence are protected adequately and the requisite standards of evidence and proof in criminal prosecutions are upheld.
Med preiskavo in sodnim postopkom se v celoti spoštuje člen 8 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, ki zadeva varovanje osebnih podatkov, in direktivo 95/46/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in prostem pretoku takšnih podatkov 1 .
(1b) Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the protection of personal data, and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data 1 shall be fully respected in the course of investigations and judicial proceedings.
Člen 8 listine določa, da ima "vsakdo [ima] pravico do varstva osebnih podatkov, ki se nanašajo nanj" in da se morajo "osebni podatki [se morajo] obdelovati pošteno, za natančno določene namene in na podlagi privolitve prizadete osebe ali na drugi legitimni podlagi, določeni z zakonom.
Article 8 of the Charter declares that 'Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her', and 'Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.
Vsakdo ima pravico dostopa do podatkov, zbranih o njem, in pravico zahtevati, da se ti podatki popravijo."
Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.'
Namen direktive je zaščititi pravice in svoboščine ljudi, kar zadeva obdelavo osebnih podatkov, tako, da postavi smernice, ki bodo določale, kdaj je taka obdelava zakonita.
The directive aims to protect the rights and freedoms of persons with respect to the processing of personal data by laying down guidelines determining when this processing is lawful.
Pravica do obveščanja s strani policije
Right to receive information from law enforcement authorities
Države članice poskrbijo, da v primeru zaplembe blaga, ki krši avtorsko pravico ali če pridobi druge dokaze o kršitvah, policija predloži te dokaze v civilnih postopki, ki so ali še bodo v teku v breme domnevnega kršitelja, ki bo moral odgovarjati pred sodiščem, ki je pristojno na območju Evropske unije, in da, če je to primerno, policija imetnika pravice ali njegovega pooblaščenca obvesti, da ima v posesti tako zaplenjeno blago ali dokaz.
Member States shall provide that, where law enforcement authorities seize infringing items or obtain other evidence of infringement, the authorities make such evidence available for use in pending or contemplated civil proceedings against the alleged infringer brought by the right-holder in a jurisdiction within the European Union, and, where practicable, that those authorities inform the relevant right-holder or his representative of such seizure or evidence.
Države članice imajo pravico, da odločijo, da so ti dokazi dani na razpolago imetniku pravic, ob nekaterih razumnih pogojih, ki zadevajo dostopnost, varnost ali kaj drugega, da se tak zagotovi njihovo neokrnjenost in da se ne ogroža kazenski postopek, ki lahko iz tega izhaja.
Member States may require that any such provision of evidence to the right-holder be made subject to reasonable access, security or other requirements to ensure the integrity of the evidence and to avoid prejudice to any criminal proceedings that may ensue.
Treba bi bilo spodbujati sodelovanje med javnim in zasebnim sektorjem na ravni EU.
Cooperation at EU level between the public and private sectors should be encouraged.
Državni organi, vključno z organi pregona, bi morali imeti možnost, da s privatnim sektorjem delijo informacije in dokaze, da se zagotovi, da se proti ponarejevalcem in piratom učinkovito in sorazmerno vodi tako civilne kot tudi kazenske postopke, ki temeljijo na trdnih dokazih.
Public authorities including law enforcement authorities should be given the ability to share information and evidence with the private sector in order to ensure that legal actions, both civil and criminal, can be taken effectively and proportionately based on sound factual evidence against counterfeiters and pirates.
To je popolnoma v skladu s predpisi o varstvu podatkov, zlasti z direktivo 95/46/ES o varstvu osebnih podatkov.
This fully respects data protection law, in particular Directive 95/46/EC on data protection.
Uvod: predlog z dne 12. julija 2005
I. Introduction: the proposals of 12 July 2005
12. julija 2005 je Komisija Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu posredovala predlog direktive o kazenskih ukrepih za zagotavljanje uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine ( 2005/0127(COD) ); istočasno je Svetu posredovala predlog okvirnega sklepa Sveta o okrepitvi kazenskega okvira za preprečevanje kršitev intelektualne lastnine ( 2005/0128(CNS) ).
On 12 July 2005 the Commission sent the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights ( 2005/0127(COD) ); at the same time, it sent the Council a proposal for a Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences ( 2005/0128(CNS) ).
Predlog direktive je od držav članic zahteval, da zagotovijo, da opredelijo kot kaznivo dejanje katero koli namerno kršitev pravice intelektualne lastnine, storjeno v trgovinsko pomembnem obsegu, pa tudi poskus take kršitve, pomoč oziroma podporo in spodbujanje k taki kršitvi.
The proposal for a directive required Member States to ensure that all intentional infringements of intellectual property rights on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, were treated as criminal offences.
Predvidel je vrsto kazni, v razponu od zaplembe ponarejenega blaga do kazni odvzema prostosti za storilce.
It provided for a series of penalties ranging from confiscation of the counterfeit goods to custodial sentences for culprits.
Predvidel je tudi različne dodatne kazni, vključno z zaprtjem obratov, ki so bili uporabljeni za ponarejanje, prepovedjo opravljanja komercialne dejavnosti in objavo sodbe sodišča.
It also made provision for various additional penalties, including closure of establishments used for counterfeiting purposes, a ban on engaging in commercial activities and publication of the judicial verdict.
Predlog direktive je od držav članic le zahteval, da preganjajo in kaznujejo nekatera dejanja, ne da bi podrobneje določala stopnjo kazni, ki naj bo izrečena
However, the proposal for a directive simply required Member States to prosecute and punish certain actions, without specifying the level of the penalty to be imposed
To pomeni, da lahko pravo Skupnosti določa, da bi bilo treba nekatere vrste ravnanja obravnavati kot kazniva dejanja, vendar ne sme posegati v pristojnosti držav članic, da določajo in izvršujejo kazni v praksi. .
This means that Community law may establish that certain types of conduct should be regarded as a criminal offence, but must not encroach on the Member States' competence with regard to prescribing and applying penalties in practice. .
Namen predloga okvirnega sklepa pa je bil okrepitev kazenskih ukrepov, da se približa nacionalne zakonodaje o kršenju pravic intelektualne lastnine in da se olajša sodelovanje med državami članicami za preprečitev teh kaznivih dejanj.
Meanwhile, the proposal for a framework decision sought to strengthen the criminal law measures to approximate national legislation on infringements of intellectual property rights and to facilitate cooperation between Member States to repress the offences in question.
Namen predloga okvirnega sklepa je bil zlasti določiti najnižje kazni za zadevna kazniva dejanja (da se tako dopolni spremljajoči predlog direktive): najvišja kazen najmanj štirih let zapora, če so kazniva dejanja storjena v okviru kriminalne združbe v smislu bodočega okvirnega sklepa o boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu ( 2005/0003(CNS) ), ali če taka kazniva dejanja pomenijo tveganje za zdravje ali varnost ljudi, skupaj z globo do največ 330.000 EUR.
In particular, to supplement the accompanying proposal for a directive, the proposal for a framework decision sought to set minimum penalties for the offences in question: a maximum of at least four years' imprisonment in the case of offences committed under the aegis of a criminal organisation within the meaning of the future framework decision on the fight against organised crime ( 2005/0003(CNS) ) or where such offences involved a health or safety risk, together with a fine up to a maximum of at least EUR 300 000.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 13. septembra 2005 in stališče Komisije
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005 and the Commission's position
Medtem, ko je potekal postopek za sprejetje zgoraj omenjenih predlogov, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti 12. septembra 2005 izdalo sodbo v zadevi C-176/03, Komisija proti Svetu, v kateri, ob tem, da ugotavlja, da kazenska zakonodaja sicer načeloma ne sodi v pristojnost Skupnosti, navaja, da „ta zadnja ugotovitev kljub temu ne bi smela ovirati zakonodajalca Skupnosti, če učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne kazenske sankcije, ki jih uporabljajo pristojni nacionalni organi, pomenijo potreben ukrep za boj proti hudim okoljskim kršitvam, da sprejme ukrepe v povezavi s kazenskim pravom držav članic, za katere meni, da so potrebni za zagotavljanje polne učinkovitosti norm, ki jih določa na področju varstva okolja“ (točka 49).
While the procedure for the adoption of the above-mentioned proposals was in progress, the Court of Justice issued a judgment on 13 September 2005, in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council , which, while finding that, as a general rule, criminal matters did not fall within the Community's competence, stated that that finding did not 'prevent the Community legislature, when the application of effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national authorities is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences, from taking measures which relate to the criminal law of the Member States which it considers necessary in order to ensure that the rules which it lays down on environmental protection are fully effective' (point 49).
Nadalje je Sodišče ocenilo, da je treba za ugotavljanje, ali je bila izbrana prava pravna podlaga za akt Skupnosti, upoštevati cilj in vsebino samega akta.
Furthermore, the Court considered that, for the purpose of establishing whether the correct legal basis had been selected for a Community act, the aim and content of the act itself had to be taken into account.
Posledično, glede na to, da je bilo varovanje okolja glavni cilj in vsebina okvirnega sklepa v obravnavani zadevi
Consequently, as the principal aim and content of the framework decision at issue in the case in question
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2003/80/PNZ z dne 27. januarja 2003 o kazenskopravnem varstvu okolja. , bi moral sklep temeljiti na členu 175 PES (prvi steber) in ne na naslovu VI PEU (tretji steber) (točka 51).
Council framework decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. was environmental protection, it should have been based on Article 175 of the ECT (first pillar) and not on Title VI TEU (third pillar) (point 51).
Komisija je zato sprejela sporočilo
The Commission therefore adopted a Communication
Sporočilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o posledicah sodbe sodišča z dne 13. septembra 2005, KOM(2005)0583 . , ki ugotovitve Sodišča privede do logičnega zaključka, in sicer, da ni omejitev pri sprejemanju predpisov v zvezi s kazenskimi zadevami v okviru prvega stebra, na katerem koli potencialno pomembnem področju, ki je v pristojnosti Skupnosti.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implications of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005, COM(2005)0583 . which carries the Court of Justice's finding to its logical conclusion, namely that there are no restrictions on adopting provisions relating to criminal matters under the first pillar in any potentially relevant area of Community competence.
Po mnenju Komisije bi morale biti pristojnosti porazdeljene med prvim in tretjim stebrom, kot sledi: določbe kazenskega prava, ki so potrebne za učinkovito izvrševanje prava Skupnosti, spadajo v prvi steber, medtem ko horizontalne določbe kazenskega prava (policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje, ukrepi v zvezi s harmonizacijo kazenskega prava v povezavi z območjem svobode, varnosti in pravice) pa spadajo v tretji steber.
In the Commission's opinion, powers should be distributed between the first and third pillar as follows: the provisions of criminal law required for the effective implementation of Community law come under the first pillar, while horizontal criminal law provisions (police and judicial cooperation, measures on the harmonisation of criminal law in connection with the area of freedom, security and justice) belong to the third pillar.
Glede na to je Komisija začela s potrebnimi spremembami vseh zakonodajnih predlogov še v postopku.
This being so, the Commission undertook to make the necessary changes to any legislative proposals still pending.
Predlog z dne 26. aprila 2006
The proposal of 26 April 2006
Glej člen 250(2) Pogodbe EGS: "Dokler Svet ne ukrepa, lahko Komisija svoj predlog spremeni kadar koli med postopkom za sprejetje akta Skupnosti."
Article 250(2) of the ECT: 'as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of the Community Act.'
Menimo, da pooblastilo spremeniti predlog vključuje tudi možnost umika predloga; glej poročilo Odbora za pravne zadeve z dne 22. marca 2006 o „rezultatih pregleda zakonodajnih predlogov v obravnavi pred zakonodajnim telesom“ (2005/ 2214(INI)). .
We consider that this power to alter proposals includes the power to withdraw them; cf. the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 22 March 2006 on the outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the legislature ( 2005/2214(INI) ). .
Posledično je 26. aprila 2006 Komisija posredovala nov predlog direktive o kazenskih ukrepih za zagotavljanje uveljavljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine, ki vključuje, posodablja in združuje določbe prejšnjih dveh pobud.
Consequently, on 26 April 2006 the Commission forwarded a new proposal for a directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights which incorporates, updates and amalgamates the provisions of the two previous initiatives.
Zlasti predlogi, ki zadevajo stopnjo kazni in obširne možnosti za zaseg, ki jih je prej vseboval predlog okvirnega sklepa, so bili vključeni v nov predlog direktive (glej zlasti člene 5 do 8).
In particular, the proposals relating to the level of penalties and the broad powers of confiscation previously contained in the proposal for a framework decision were now incorporated in the new proposal for a directive (see, in particular, Articles 5 to 8).
To je eden od prvih primerov, v katerem je Komisija uporabila svoj novi pristop h kazenskemu pravu.
This appears to be one of the first cases where the Commission has applied its new approach to criminal law.
Če na kratko povzamemo, člen 1 določa predmet-zadevo in področje uporabe direktive; člen 2 opredeljuje pojem pravne osebe za namene direktive; člen 3 države članice obvezuje, da določene vrste ravnanja obravnavajo kot kazniva dejanja; člena 4 in 5 določata vrsto in strogost kazenskih sankcij; člen 6 obravnava pristojnost za zaplembo; člen 7 predvideva ustanovitev skupnih preiskovalnih enot za boj proti ponarejanju; člen 8 obvezuje države članice, da zagotovijo, da ni treba, da subjekti, ki so jim bile kršene pravice, dajo pobudo za preiskavo in pregon kaznivih dejanj, določenih v direktivi; končno, člena 9 in 10 obravnavata prenos in začetek veljavnosti.
Briefly summarised, Article 1 sets out the subject-matter and scope of the directive; Article 2 defines the concept of a legal person for the purposes of the directive; Article 3 obliges Member States to treat specified types of behaviour as criminal offences; Articles 4 and 5 specify the nature and the level of criminal penalties respectively; Article 6 deals with powers of confiscation; Article 7 provides for joint investigation teams to combat counterfeiting; Article 8 obliges Member States to ensure that investigations and prosecution of the offences defined in the directive do not need to be instigated by the persons whose rights are infringed; finally, Articles 9 and 10 deal with transposal and entry into force respectively.
Če primerjamo nov predlog in oba prejšnja, je jasno, da v nov predlog niso bile vključene le določbe, ki zadevajo pristojnost in usklajevanje postopkov.
If we compare the new proposal with the two previous ones, it is clear that the only provisions that have not been incorporated in the new proposal are those relating to jurisdiction and the coordination of proceedings.
Komisija dejansko namerava na tem področju uporabiti horizontalni pristop v okviru svoje Zelene knjige o navzkrižju pristojnosti in načelu ne bis in idem v kazenskih postopkih, ki je bila sprejeta 23. decembra 2005
The Commission plans to take a horizontal approach to this subject under its Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of 'ne bis in idem' in criminal proceedings, adopted on 23 December 2005
Komisiji se ne zdi nujno, da bi za varstvo intelektualne lastnine določila poseben sistem.
The Commission does not consider it essential to lay down specific arrangements for the protection of intellectual property.
Sporna vprašanja in stališče poročevalca
Problem issues and the rapporteur's position
Iskanje podlage za predloge, ki zadevajo kazenske zadeve, v prvem stebru, je povsem skladno s široko razlago posledic sodbe Sodišča z dne 13. septembra 2005 s strani Komisije.
Looking to the first pillar for the basis of proposals relating to criminal matters is perfectly consistent with the Commission's broad interpretation of the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 September 2005.
Iz tega sledi, da če je ta široka razlaga sprejeta, je pristop Komisije brezhiben.
It follows that, if this broad interpretation is accepted, the Commission's approach is unexceptionable.
Vseeno pa je še nekaj težavnih točk, ki jih spremenjeni predlog Komisije ni uspel rešiti.
However, there are still certain problematic points which the amended Commission proposal does not seem to have succeeded in resolving.
To zadeva zlasti področje uporabe direktive.
This applies, in particular, to the scope of the directive.
Obrazložitveni memorandum navaja, da se predlog direktive, tako kot direktivo 2004/48/ES o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine, uporablja za katero koli kršitev pravic intelektualne lastnine, predvideno v pravu Skupnosti in/ali nacionalnem pravu držav članic.
The explanatory memorandum states that the proposal for a directive applies to any infringement of intellectual property rights provided for by Community law and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned, as does Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Izjava Komisije (2005/292/ES) o členu 2 direktive 2004/48/ES določa seznam zadevnih pravic, da se bolj natančno določi natančno področje uporabe direktive.
The statement by the Commission (2005/292/EC) concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC lists the property rights concerned in order to establish more precisely the exact scope of the directive.
Ta seznam vključuje "patentne pravice, vključno s pravicami, ki izhajajo iz dodatnih varstvenih certifikatov".
The list includes 'patent rights, including rights derived from supplementary protection certificates'.
Vseeno pa se uporaba kazenskih sankcij, določenih na ravni Skupnosti, za kršitve patentnih pravic, ne zdi posebno primerna ali skladna s pristopom, ki ga je zadnja leta imel zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
However, applying criminal penalties laid down at Community level to infringements of patent rights does not seem to be either particularly appropriate in itself, or consistent with the approach followed in recent years by the Community legislator.
Ni dokazov o kakšni nujni potrebi po posredovanju z vsiljevanjem kazenskih sankcij, saj številne države članice že zagotavljajo spoštovanje patentov s pomočjo kazenskih sankcij (to je z globami in s kaznimi odvzema prostosti).
There is no evidence of any urgent need to intervene by imposing criminal penalties, since many Member States already enforce patent protection by means of criminal penalties (i.e. fines and custodial sentences).
To velja denimo za nemško
This applies, for example, to the German
glej člen L 615-14 zakonika o intelektualni lastnini z dne 26. januarja 1990, kakor je bil pozneje spremenjen , madžarsko
Article L. 615-14 of the Intellectual Property Code of 26 January 1990 as subsequently amended. , Hungarian
Posledično, kljub temu, da je treba opozoriti na pomanjkanje vsake zaščite v kazenskem pravu v drugih pravnih sistemih (na primer v angleškem, belgijskem in grškem pravu), bi uvedba tovrstnih določb na ravni Skupnosti podvojila obstoječe določbe, kar bi povzročilo, da bi bil sistem še bolj okoren, razen v primeru, če domnevamo, da bi pravo Skupnosti, bodisi z uvedbo (s pomočjo ustreznega predloga spremembe) izrecne določbe v direktivi s tem namenom, ali kot rezultat "avtomatske prednosti" prava Skupnosti
Consequently, though attention should be drawn to the absence of any protection in criminal law under other legal systems (for example under English, Belgian and Greek law), the introduction of provisions of this kind at Community level would duplicate existing provisions and make the system even more cumbersome, unless we suppose that, either through the insertion (by means of an appropriate amendment) of an explicit provision to that end in the directive or as a result of the 'automatic primacy' of Community law
Poleg tega pa si prizadevati, da se uporabijo kazenske sankcije na področju patentnega prava, očitno krši stališče, ki ga je zavzel Evropski parlament, ko je na plenarnem zasedanju 6. julija 2005 zavrnil predlog direktive o patentabilnosti računalniško izvedenih izumov ( 2002/0047(COD) ), ki ga je vložila Komisija.
Secondly, seeking to apply criminal penalties in the area of patent law seems to be plainly in breach of the position taken by the European Parliament when, at its plenary sitting of 6 July 2005, it rejected the Commission proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions ( 2002/0047(COD) ).
Glede na to, da je velika večina
Given that an overwhelming majority of the European Parliament
648 glasov proti, 14 glasov za in 18 vzdržanih. v Evropskem parlamentu tedaj menila, da je zelo neprimerno, da se sprejme zakonodaja o tej zadevi, bi bil vsak poskus, da se za zaščito patentov (ki sedaj niso urejeni) predvidi kazenske sankcije, omejen in nevaren vdor na zelo zapleteno področje, ki ravno iz tega razloga zahteva ureditveni okvir, ki bo kar se da sistematičen in ki bo imel čim večjo podporo.
648 votes to 14, with 18 abstentions. considered at that time that it was inappropriate to adopt legislation on the subject, any attempt now to provide for criminal penalties to protect patents (which are not currently regulated) would be a limited and dangerous foray into a very complex area which, for that very reason, requires a regulatory framework that it as systematic and widely endorsed as possible.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj omenjenega poročevalec predlaga spremembe k členom 1 in 2 predloga direktive, da se omeji njeno področje uporabe in da se določi ustrezne opredelitve.
In the light of the foregoing, the rapporteur proposes amendments to Articles 1 and 2 of the proposal for a directive in order to demarcate its scope and provide the relevant definitions.