natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Odstavek 6 se črta, da se prepreči, da posamezna država članica uveljavlja odstopanja od minimalnih predpisov, ki jih določa ta direktiva.
Paragraph 6 is deleted in view of the need not to allow each individual Member State to make derogations from the minimum rules laid down in this Directive.
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, v roku [24 mesecev po dnevu njenega sprejetja].
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after the date of its adoption].
Kar zadeva člen 13, države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, v roku [36 mesecev po dnevu njenega sprejetja].
Concerning Article 13, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [36 months after the date of its adoption].
O tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo.
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, v roku (24 mesecev po dnevu njenega sprejetja).
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after the date of its adoption].
Člen 13 mora biti sprejet na enaki podlagi kot preostanek direktive, da je zagotovljeno izpolnjevanje nevračanja.
Article 13 be adopted on equal footing with the rest of the Directive, to ensure non-refoulement is adhered to.
Priloga B k Prilogi I, odstavek 1
Annex B to the Annex I, paragraph 1
Država velja za varno izvorno državo, kadar se na podlagi pravnega stanja, uporaba prava znotraj demokratičnega sistema in splošnih političnih okoliščin lahko pokaže, da tam na splošno in dosledno ni nikakršnega preganjanja, kakor je opredeljeno v členu 9 Direktive Sveta 2004/83/ES; ni mučenja ali nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja; in ni ogroženosti zaradi vsesplošnega nasilja v okoliščinah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada.
A country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC ; no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.
Država velja za varno izvorno državo, kadar se na podlagi pravnega stanja, uporaba prava znotraj demokratičnega sistema in splošnih političnih okoliščin lahko pokaže, da tam na splošno in dosledno ni nikakršnega preganjanja, kakor je opredeljeno v členu 9 Direktive Sveta 2004/83/ES; ni mučenja ali nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja ali kaznovanja; in ni ogroženosti zaradi vsesplošnega nasilja v okoliščinah mednarodnega ali notranjega oboroženega spopada ; ter ni znakov diskriminacije zaradi rase, etnične pripadnosti, vere, državljanstva, pripadnosti določeni družbeni skupini ali političnega prepričanja .
A country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC; no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict ; and no evidence of discrimination against individuals on account of race, ethnic background, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion .
To je v skladu s členom 27 in Konvencijo iz leta 1951.
This is in keeping in line with Article 27, and the 1951 Convention.
Priloga B k Prilogi I, odstavek 2, točka (d a) (novo)
Annex B to the Annex I, paragraph 2, point (d a) (new)
(da) dostopnimi in posodobljenimi poročili UNHCR in drugih organizacij, ki delajo na področju človekovih pravic in varstva posameznih pravic.
(da) available and up-to-date reports by the UNHCR and other organisations working in the field of human rights and the protection of individual rights.
Če naj bi bil seznam varnih držav jedrnat, je za točno oceno potrebna jasna slika prakse države pri izvajanju ustreznih zakonov in predpisov.
If the list of safe countries of origin is to be concise, a clear picture of the country's practice of implementing the relevant laws and regulations is necessary for an accurate assessment.
Z uveljavljanjem skupne notranje politike na področju azila in migracij zaradi sporazuma iz Tampereja in nadaljnjih sporazumov se Evropska unija srečuje z velikimi izzivi.
Realising a common domestic policy in the field of asylum and migration due to the agreement of Tampere and the following up agreements, the European Union faces big challenges.
Evropska Komisija je v okviru te politike do najmanjših standardov razvila predloge glede postopkov za priznanje in odvzem statusa begunca, ki so bili predloženi v oceno Svetu in Parlamentu.
The European Commission has developed proposals in the framework of this policy to the minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which were presented for evaluation to the Council as well as to the Parliament.
Nadaljnji postopek predvideva, da bo v okviru postopka posvetovanja sodeloval Evropski parlament.
The further proceeding foresees that in the framework of the consultation process, the European Parliament will participate.
Vseeno sporazumi iz Tampereja in izvajanje Haaškega programa predvidevajo uvedbo soodločanja za Evropski parlament na področju politik azila in migracij.
However, the agreements of Tampere and the implementation of the Hague programme have foreseen the introduction of codecision for the European Parliament in the field of asylum and migration policies.
Evropska Komisija je prvi predlog Direktive o najmanjših standardih v postopkih v državah članicah za pridobitev ali prenehanje statusa begunca predstavila že septembra 2000.
The European Commission presented its first proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status already on September 2000.
20. septembra 2001 je Evropski parlament sprejel poročilo Watsonove, s katerim je bil potrjen predlog Komisije s 106 predlogi sprememb.
On 20 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted the Watson report, approving the Commission proposal with 106 amendments.
Pogajanja v Svetu niso prinesla dogovora o osnutku in decembra leta 2001 je Evropski svet v Laekenski izjavi zahteval, da Komisija predloži spremenjen predlog.
The negotiations in the Council did not produce an agreement on that draft and in December 2001 the European Council, in the Laeken declaration, requested the Commission to bring forward a modified proposal.
Nov osnutek direktive je bil izdan 18. junija 2002.
The new draft directive was issued on 18 June 2002.
Po skoraj dveh letih pogajanj se je Svet 29. aprila 2004 dogovoril o „splošnem pristopu“, v zvezi s katerim se je odločil, da se bo ponovno posvetoval s Parlamentom (19. november 2004).
After almost two years of negotiations, on 29 April 2004 the Council agreed on a "general approach", on which,, it decided to consult again the Parliament (19 November 2004).
Dejstvo, da je Svet dosegel politični sporazum, preden je prejel mnenje Parlamenta, je v nasprotju z duhom evropskih pogodb kot tudi s sporazumi o predloženih dokumentih.
The fact that the Council reached a political agreement before receiving the opinion of the Parliament contradicts the spirit of the European Treaties as well as it contradicts the agreements of the presented documents.
Zaradi tega Parlament ni bil naprošen, da izvaja vsa svoja pooblastila.
So the Parliament has not been asked to exercise its full powers.
Zato poročevalec meni, da Svet ni spoštoval načela zanesljivega sodelovanja med ustanovami.
Therefore the Rapporteur thinks that the Council failed to respect the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions.
Razen tega poročevalec meni, da dolgotrajna pogajanja v Svetu niso dosegla zadovoljivega zaključka.
Moreover, the rapporteur is of the opinion that the time-consuming negotiations in the Council have not produced a satisfactory conclusion.
Poročevalec verjame, da bi sodelovanje Evropskega parlamenta v tem postopku privedlo do veliko boljšega rezultata.
The rapporteur believes that the participation of the European Parliament in this process would have led to a much better result.
Poročevalec je zaskrbljen predvsem zaradi dejstva, da bo verjetno imel postopek za posledico razvrednotenje standardov v zvezi z opredelitvami, določenimi v mednarodnih konvencijah, kot so Ženevska konvencija o pravicah beguncev, Konvencija ZN o otrokovih pravicah in drugi temeljni kodeksi.
The rapporteur is primarily concerned by the fact that the procedure apparently will result in the undermining of standards with regard to definitions laid down in international conventions, such as the Geneva Convention concerning the rights of refugees, the UN-convention on children's rights and other fundamental codices.
Poročevalec je tudi zaskrbljen zaradi dejstva, da je načrtovani prvi korak k usklajevanju azilnega postopka v predloženi obliki nezadovoljiv in celo neustrezen, ker je Parlament že leta 2001 ob oceni prvega predloga Komisije sklenil naslednje:
Additionally the rapporteur is concerned by the fact that the planned first step in the harmonisation of the asylum procedure in the presented form is not satisfactory and even inappropriate, as the Parliament had already concluded back in 2001 when evaluating the first proposal of the Commission:
· Direktiva ne dosega pomembnega napredka pri usklajevanju.
· The directive does not achieve significant progress in harmonisation.
· Presoja o tem, ali bodo ohranile svoje nacionalne zakonodaje, s številnimi določbami, ki vsebujejo „lahko“, izjemami in klavzulami o odlogu, je prepuščena državam članicam.
· Discretion is left to Member States to retain their national laws, through the many "may" provisions, exceptions and stand still clauses.
· Cilj zgraditi enostavno, jasno in lahko dostopno pravno strukturo se ni dosegel.
· The aim to build a simple, clear and easy-to-access legal structure has been failed.
Spremenjen predlog določa novo strukturo azilnih postopkov v državah članicah in besedilo „splošnega pristopa“ odstopa od številnih najmanjših standardov, ki jih je prvotno predlagala Komisija.
The amended proposal sets out a new structure for asylum procedures in the Member States and the “general approach” text departs from a considerable number of minimum standards originally proposed by the Commission.
Zdajšnje besedilo navaja številne bistvene izjeme in omejitve, ki bi nekaterim državam članicam celo dovolile, da znižajo svoje standarde za postopke. „Enake možnosti“ so zato omejene na seznam nacionalnih praks, vključno z več takšnimi, ki niso v skladu z najboljšimi mednarodnimi praksami.
The current text provides for a great number of substantial exceptions and limitations, which would even allow some Member States to lower their procedural standards.
Iz istega razloga je Evropski parlament že svetoval Komisiji, da umakne in temeljito popravi prvi predlog v poročilu Watsonove iz leta 2001.
The "level playing field" is therefore reduced to a catalogue of national practices, including many which are not in line with international best practices.
Tako, kot že tedaj, je UNHCR tudi danes izrazil globoko zaskrbljenost o številnih omejevalnih in zelo spornih praksah, ki jih nacionalna zakonodaja le ene ali dveh držav članic vsebuje zdaj, vendar bi se lahko uvrstile v zakonodajo vseh 25 držav članic.
Due to the same reasons the European Parliament had already advised the Commission to withdraw and substantially revise the first proposal in the Watson report 2001.As well as the UNHCR back then and today expressed its deep concerns about a number of restrictive and highly controversial practices that are currently only contained in one or two member states national legislation but could be inserted in the legislation of all 25 EU Member States.
Nujni predlog poročevalca
The rapporteur’s urgent suggestion
Čeprav nekatere države članice, kot je Italija, nimajo zakonodaje o azilu, bo predlagana direktiva le obrobno izboljšala stanje v drugih državah članicah; dejansko bi lahko to bil za nekatere od njih korak nazaj!
Though some Member States have no legislation on asylum, like Italy, the proposed Directive will improve only marginally the state of affairs in other Member States; as a matter of fact, it could definitely be a step back for some of them!
Ob upoštevanju vseh prej omenjenih dejstev poročevalec ugotavlja, da Parlament ne sme le sprejeti predlagane direktive pod pogojem, da bo njene predloge sprememb, zlasti v zvezi z naslednjimi točkami, izvajal Svet na predlagan način in v zvezi s prihodnjim privilegijem soodločanja Parlamenta.
Considering all the facts mentioned before, the rapporteur concludes that the Parliament should only adopt the proposed directive under the condition, that its amendments, particularly with regard to the following points, will be implemented by the Council in the suggested way and with regard to the Parliament's future privilege of codecision.
Poročevalec meni, da je pojem tako imenovanih zelo varnih držav neustrezen, in ga načeloma zavrača :
The rapporteur regards the concept of the so-called super safe countries to be inappropriate and rejects it in principle :
To je eden od najbolj zaskrbljujočih vidikov direktive.
This is one of the most alarming aspects of the Directive.
Direktiva predvideva, da je stopnja zaščite, ki je na razpolago v sosednjih državah Evropske unije, enaka standardom v državah članica EU.
The Directive assumes that the level of protection available in countries neighbouring the European Union is equivalent to standards in EU Member States.
Zagotavlja, da lahko države članice zavrnejo dostop do postopka vsem prosilcem azila, ki prihajajo iz teh držav.
It provides that Member States may deny access to the procedure to all asylum seekers who come from these countries.
Te določbe ne zahtevajo posamične ocene in, kot kaže, nasprotujejo načelu nevračanja .
These provisions do not require an individual assessment and appear to be against the non-refoulement principle.
Poročevalec vlaga svojo nujno zahtevo, da se preveri pojem varne tretje države v zvezi z dejansko prakso o možni kršitvi Ženevske konvencije in Evropske konvencije za varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin in da se ga spremeni na ustrezen način.
The rapporteur puts forward his urgent demand to check the safe-third country concept with regard to the actual practice concerning the possible violation of the Geneva Convention and the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental rights to change it in the suggested way.
Po mnenju UNHCR tretjih držav ni mogoče na splošno označiti kot „varne“, ne da bi proučili posamezen primer.
According to the UNHCR, it is not possible to designate third countries generally as "safe", without considering the individual case.
Obstaja velika zaskrbljenost nad učinkovitostjo azilnih postopkov v praksi v državah prehoda na robu Unije, kar zastavlja vprašanja, ali jih je mogoče zakonito obravnavati kot „varne“.
There are significant concerns about the effectiveness in practice of asylum procedures in the countries of transit at the periphery of the Union, which raise questions about whether they can legitimately be considered "safe".
Razen tega direktiva državam članicam dopušča, da prosilce azila premestijo v katero koli državo, ki jih je pripravljena sprejeti, brez upoštevanja vsebine njihovih zahtevkov.
Moreover the Directive allows Member States to remove asylum-seekers to any country willing to accept them, without any consideration of merits of their claims.
Državam članicam dopušča, da svojo odgovornost preložijo na tretje države, ne glede na to, ali bo prosilec zaščiten pred vračanjem in obravnavan posamično .
It allows Member States to shift their responsibilities to third countries, regardless of whether the applicant will be protected against refoulement and treated on a case by case basis .
Pojme učinkovitega pravnega sredstva (člen 38) in pospešenih postopkov (členi 23–25) ter postopkov na mejah (Primeri postopkov na meji ‑ člen 35) je treba temeljito popraviti.
The concepts of effective remedy (article 38) and accelerated procedures (articles 23-25) as well as the procedures on borders (Case of border procedures - article 35) have to be revised substantially.
To in tudi v zvezi s prihodnjim sporazumom o repatriaciji:
This as well with regard to a future repatriation agreement :
Ø Člen o učinkovitem pravnem sredstvu ne zagotavlja, da pritožbeni postopek zadrži izvajanje.
Ø The article about the effective remedy does not guarantee that the appeal process has suspensive effect.
To pomeni, da prosilci azila nimajo izrecne pravice, da ostanejo v državi azila, ko čakajo na rezultat pritožbenega postopka.
It means that there is not an explicit right for all asylum seekers to remain in the asylum country waiting for the outcome of the appeal procedure.
To vprašanje je prepuščeno presoji držav članic.
This question is left to the Member States' discretion.
Takšna določba bi bila v nasprotju z Ženevsko konvencijo in ne zagotavlja spoštovanja načela „nevračanja“ .
Such a provision would appear to be contrary to the Geneva Convention and does not insure the respect for the principle of " non-refoulement "
Ø Direktiva dovoljuje hitre postopke v prevelikem številu primerov.
Ø The Directive allows fast-track procedures in a too wide range of cases.
Pospešeni postopki, postopki o nedopustnosti in posebni postopki vključujejo več izjem iz osnovnih jamstev, zlasti ko prošnja velja za neutemeljeno.
Accelerated, inadmissibility and special procedures include several exceptions from basic safeguards, especially when an application is considered ill founded.
Zaradi izredno široke opredelitve „očitno neutemeljenih zahtevkov“ se organizacija Amnesty International boji, da bo večina prošenj (več kot 80 %) obdelanih v skladu s hitrim postopkom, kar pomeni, da bodo veljala nižja postopkovna jamstva.
Given the extremely broad definition of “manifestly unfounded claims”, Amnesty International fears that most of the applications (more than 80%) will be processed under a fast-track procedure, thus implying that lower procedural safeguards will apply.
Toda begunci morda ne morejo zagotoviti skladnih ali razumljivih odgovorov zaradi hujših osebnih in človeških razlogov, kot je travma (na primer vojna, posttravmatski stres, spolno nasilje itd.).
But refugees might not be able to provide consistent or comprehensive answers for serious personal and human reasons, like trauma (for example war, post-traumatic stress, sexual violence, etc.).
Ø Direktiva državam članicam dopušča, da uporabljajo mejne postopke , ki vključujejo manj kot najmanjša postopkovna jamstva, za ljudi, ki zaprosijo za azil na meji ali na območjih prehoda.
Ø The Directive permit member States to apply border procedures which entail less then minimum procedural safeguards for people requesting asylum at border or transit zones.
To polaga neprimerna pooblastila in odgovornosti v roke mejne straže in zamenjuje cilje nadzora preseljevanja z zaščito beguncev.
This practices place inappropriate powers and responsibilities in the hands of border guards and confuses migration control objectives with protection of refugees.
Poročevalec ima določene dvome v zvezi s predpisi za otroke in mladoletnike v okviru politike o beguncih, določene v sklepu Sveta :
The rapporteur has specific doubts concerning the regulations for children and juveniles in the framework of the refugee policy laid down in the Council's conclusion :
Razen tega dejstvo, da je otrok poročen ali je bil poročen, ne pomeni nujno, da ne potrebuje zastopnika.
Moreover the fact that the child is or has been married does not necessarily indicate that she/he is not in need of a representative.
V nekaterih državah poroka ni povezana z zrelostjo otroka.
Marriage in some countries is not related to the maturity of the child.
Sklep poročevalca
Conclusion of the rapporteur
Poročevalec meni, da le če se odpravi prej omenjene dvome, bo obstajala možnost za skupno azilno politiko v Evropski uniji, ki jo pravno utemeljujejo naši državljani in ki izpolnjuje potrebe beguncev glede zaščite na podoben način.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that only if the doubts mentioned before are met, there will be a possibility for a common asylum policy in the European Union which is legitimised by our citizens and which meets the needs of refugees for protection in like manner.
Parlament je zakonit zastopnik državljanov.
The Parliament is the legitimate representative of the citizens.
Le s preglednim in demokratičnim postopkom, ki ustreza težavnosti zadeve, lahko ohranimo stalno soglasje ljudi.
Only with a transparent and democratic procedure, which corresponds to the difficulty of the subject, can we attain the constant consent of the people.
Zaradi teh težkih zadržkov poročevalec od Sveta pričakuje, da bo pravočasno sporočil svoje mnenje o prej omenjenih glavnih skrbeh in o nadaljnjem ukrepanju.
Due to these severe reservations, the rapporteur expects the Council to give his opinion concerning the major concerns mentioned before and the further proceeding in due time.
o spremenjenem predlogu direktive Sveta o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje in odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah
on the amended proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
Člen 3, odstavek 1, točka (a) (novo)
Article 3, paragraph 1, point (a) (new)
Člen 3, odstavek 1, točka (b) (novo)
Article 3, paragraph 1, point (b) (new)
Države članice zagotovijo, da vsaka oseba, ki želi vložiti prošnjo za azil, nemudoma prejme izčrpne informacije o postopku ter o svojih pravicah in obveznostih v jeziku vlagatelja.
Member States shall ensure that each person who wishes to make an asylum application promptly receives exhaustive information about the procedure and his/her rights and obligations, in his/her own language.
Člen 15, odstavek 2, točka (c)
Article 15, paragraph 2, point (c)
(c) je ali je bil poročen;
(c) is married or has been married.
Dejstva, ali je oziroma ali je bil mladoletnik poročen, se ne da v nobenem primeru obravnavati kot kazalca zrelosti.
The fact that a minor is married or has been married could in no way be considered as a factor of maturity.
To je še posebej pomembno v nekaterih državah v razvoju, kjer je v navadi, da se deklice neprostovoljno poročijo že zelo mlade.
This is especially relevant in some developing countries where forced marriages of girls at a very early age are usual.
Države članice ne pridržijo določene osebe zgolj zaradi tega, ker je ta oseba prosilec za azil.
Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he/she is an applicant for asylum.
Države članice ne pridržijo določene osebe zaradi tega, ker je ta oseba prosilec za azil.
Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the reason that he/she is an applicant for asylum.
Prošnja za azil ne more biti razlog za pridržanje.
An asylum application cannot constitute a reason for holding a person in detention.
Svet lahko na predlog Komisije in po posvetu z Evropskim parlamentom s kvalificirano večino spremeni minimalni skupni seznam tako, da doda ali odstrani tretje države v skladu s Prilogo II.
The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the European Parliament , amend the minimum common list by adding or removing third countries, in accordance with Annex II.
Komisija preuči vsako zahtevo Sveta ali države članice za pripravo predloga za spremembo minimalnega skupnega seznama.
The Commission shall examine any request made by the Council or by a Member State that it submit a proposal to amend the minimum common list.