natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
v skladu s členom 202 poslovnika,
pursuant to Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure
ki ga vlaga Joseph Daul
by Joseph Daul
Sprememba členov 46 in 47
Amendment of Rules 46 and 47
Člen 46, odstavek 1
Rule 46, paragraph 1
Če se želi odbor, kateremu je bila zadeva najprej dodeljena, seznaniti z mnenjem drugega odbora ali če nek drug odbor želi izraziti svoje mnenje o poročilu odbora, kateremu je bila zadeva najprej dodeljena, lahko omenjena odbora v štirih tednih od razglasitve predložitve zadeve na plenarnem zasedanju prosita predsednika Parlamenta, da v skladu s členom 179(3) enega izmed njiju imenuje za pristojni odbor, drugega pa za odbor, zaprošen za mnenje.
Should the committee to which a question was first referred wish to hear the views of another committee, or should another committee wish to make known its views on the report of the committee to which a question was first referred, such committees may ask the President , within four weeks of the announcement of the referral in plenary, that, in accordance with Rule 179(3), one committee be named as the committee responsible and the other as the committee asked for an opinion.
Odbor bi moral imeti po razglasitvi predložitve zadeve na plenarnem zasedanju štiri tedne časa za vložitev zahteve za okrepljeno sodelovanje.
A committee should have four weeks after the announcement of the referral in plenary to submit a request for enhanced cooperation.
S tem bi se izognili primerom, kjer se iz povsem praktičnih razlogov, zlasti ker pristojni odbor medtem opravi že veliko dela, člen 47 ne more uporabiti.
This would prevent cases where purely for practical reasons, in particular the advanced stage of the work in the committee responsible, the Rule 47 procedure cannot be applied.
Člen 47, odstavek -1 (novo)
Rule 47, paragraph -1 (new)
En ali dva odbora lahko zahtevata, da v okviru okrepljenega sodelovanja sodelujeta pri pripravi poročila, dodeljenega pristojnemu odboru, kadar menita, da je vsaj eden od bistvenih delov obravnavanega vprašanja v njuni pristojnosti.
One or two committees may ask to be involved, through enhanced cooperation, in the drafting of a report by the committee responsible in cases where they take the view that one or more essential aspects of the issue being considered fall within their specific areas of competence.
Te zahteve morajo biti utemeljene v skladu s prilogo VI Poslovnika.
Such requests shall be justified pursuant to Annex VI of the Rules of Procedure.
Izkušnje kažejo, da je lahko v nekaterih primerih predlog v pristojnosti več kot dveh odborov.
Practice has shown that in some cases a proposal falls within the area of competence of more than two committees.
Po drugi strani je zelo redko, da je vprašanje povezano z več kot tremi odbori, poleg tega pa mora biti število vključenih odborov omejeno, sicer sodelovanje ne bo plodno.
On the other hand, it is very rare for more than three committees to be concerned, and the need for effective cooperation also limits the number of committees which can be involved.
Zaradi teh novih določb morajo odbori utemeljiti svoje zahteve za okrepljeno sodelovanje v skladu s prilogo VI.
This new paragraph obliges committees to justify their requests for enhanced cooperation pursuant to Annex VI.
Člen 47, odstavek -1 a (novo)
Rule 47, paragraph -1 a (new)
Vprašanje se predloži konferenci predsednikov, ki sprejme končno odločitev v šestih tednih od datuma predložitve.
The matter shall be referred to the Conference of Presidents for a final decision, which shall be taken within six weeks of the date of referral.
O tem se obvesti konferenco predsednikov odborov, ki lahko da priporočilo konferenci predsednikov.
The Conference of Committee Chairmen shall be notified, and may make a recommendation to the Conference of Presidents.
Ta novi pododstavek določa mehanizem in urnik za sprejetje odločitve.
This new paragraph provides a decision-making mechanism and timetable.
Po ustaljeni navadi mora pristojni odbor odločiti, ali bo odbor, zaprošen za mnenje, vključen v okrepljeno sodelovanje ali ne.
As things stand, it is for the committee responsible to decide whether or not to involve the committee asked for an opinion in enhanced cooperation.
Konferenca predsednikov odloča samo, če eden od zadevnih odborov to izrecno zahteva.
The Conference of Presidents takes a decision only if one of the committees involved explicitly requests it.
Nasprotno pa mora končno odločitev sprejeti konferenca predsednikov, in ne pristojni odbor.
Instead, the final decision should be left to the Conference of Presidents, not to the committee responsible.
Člen 47, odstavek 1
Rule 47, paragraph 1
Kadar po mnenju konference predsednikov vprašanje sodi skoraj v enaki meri v pristojnost dveh odborov ali kadar različni deli vprašanja sodijo v pristojnost dveh različnih odborov , se uporablja člen 46 z naslednjimi dodatnimi določbami:
Where in the opinion of the Conference of Presidents a question falls almost equally within the competence of two different committees, or where different parts of the question fall under the competence of two different committees, Rule 46 shall apply with the following additional provisions:
Kadar odločitev o okrepljenem sodelovanju sprejme konferenca predsednikov, se uporablja člen 46 z naslednjimi dodatnimi določbami:
Where a decision to authorise enhanced cooperation has been taken by the Conference of Presidents, Rule 46 shall apply with the following additional provisions:
- oba odbora se skupaj sporazumeta o časovnem razporedu;
- the timetable shall be jointly agreed by the two committees concerned;
- zadevni odbori se skupaj sporazumejo o časovnem razporedu;
- the timetable shall be jointly agreed by the committees concerned;
poročevalec in pridruženi poročevalci se v celoti obveščajo o besedilih, ki jih predlagajo svojim odborom , in o stališču glede predlogov sprememb;
- the rapporteur and the associated rapporteur(s) shall keep each other fully informed of the texts they propose to their committees and on their position regarding amendments;
po glasovanju lahko pridruženi odbori in pristojni odbor na priporočilo poročevalca in pridruženih poročevalcev odločijo, da bodo na plenarnem zasedanju vložili skupne sporazumne predloge sprememb;
- once the associated committees and the committee responsible have voted, they may, on the recommendation of the rapporteur and associated rapporteur(s), decide to table joint compromise amendments in plenary;
če postopek iz četrte alineje ni bil uporabljen ali če odbori ne dosežejo soglasja, lahko pridruženi odbor, z odstopanjem od člena 150(1), na plenarnem zasedanju vloži predloge sprememb v svoji pristojnosti, ki jih je že predložil pristojnemu odboru, vendar jih je ta zavrnil.
- where the procedure in the fourth indent above has not been followed, or where there is continuing disagreement between the committees concerned, an associated committee may, by derogation from the provisions of Rule 150(1), table, in plenary, the amendments falling within its competence, which it tabled in the committee responsible but which were rejected.
Uvodni stavek: to besedilo konferenci predsednikov omogoča, da sprejme odločitev o okrepljenem sodelovanju, kot rešitev spora glede pristojnosti.
(Introduction) This wording reflects the possibility for the Conference of Presidents to impose enhanced cooperation as a solution to a dispute as to powers and responsibilities.
Alineja ‑1 novo: to besedilo spodbuja odbore, da opredelijo svoje sodelovanje, in jim omogoča, da se dogovorijo o načinih povzemanja predlogov sprememb, ki so jih predložili pridruženi odbori (tudi če pristojni odbor o njih ne glasuje).
(Indent -1 new) This wording encourages committees to define their cooperation and allows them to agree on the arrangements for taking over the amendments tabled by the associated committees (possibly without a vote by the committee responsible).
Alineja 2: bolje oblikovano in bolj realistično besedilo predpisuje izmenjavo vseh ustreznih informacij med zadevnimi odbori, da se zagotovi resnično sodelovanje.
(Indent 2) This better and more realistic wording of the paragraph requires full exchange of relevant information between the committees concerned, so as to make for genuine cooperation.
Alineja 3a novo: prednost te spremembe je, da zagotavlja močnejši položaj pridruženega odbora med postopkom in s tem ustvarja obojestranski interes za resnično sodelovanje.
(Indent 3a (new) The advantage of this change is that the position of the associated committee would be strengthened throughout the procedure, creating a mutual interest in genuine cooperation.
Pristojnemu odboru omogoča, da glasuje o vseh predlogih sprememb, in ga ne obvezuje, da brez glasovanja vključi vse predloge sprememb pridruženega odbora.
It enables the committee responsible to vote on all amendments, and leaves it under no obligation to incorporate any amendments from the associated committee without a vote, but offers the latter the option of tabling in plenary the amendments falling within its competence rejected by the committee responsible.
Ta pa ima zato možnost, da na plenarnem zasedanju predloži svoje predloge sprememb, ki so v njegovi pristojnosti in jih je pristojni odbor zavrnil.
Both committees would have an interest in reaching agreement at an early stage in order to prevent the possibility of a decision in plenary, which would be outside their control.
Alineja 3b novo: ta rešitev bi kljub temu omogočila, da bi se na plenarnem zasedanju odločalo med dvema spornima stališčema, če soglasje ne bi bilo doseženo že prej.
(Indent 3b new) This solution would nevertheless offer the plenary a real choice between two conflicting positions in those cases where disagreement persists.
Vložitev sporazumnih predlogov sprememb na plenarnem zasedanju je v primeru, ko so bila vsa druga sredstva neuspešna, zadnja možnost, da odbori dosežejo sporazum, preden se o zadevi odloči na plenarnem zasedanju.
The possibility of tabling compromise amendments in plenary provides, if all else fails, a last opportunity for the committees to reach agreement before the plenary gives its verdict.
Opomba: Spremeniti bo treba druge člene poslovnika (zlasti člena 150 in 155), da bodo usklajeni z novimi določbami.
NB: Other rules (in particular Rules 150 and 155) will have to be amended to bring them into line with the new provisions.
Sprememba člena 47 poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta, „Okrepljeno sodelovanje med odbori“
Amendment of Rule 47 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure "Enhanced Cooperation between Committees"
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Vuralu Ögerju
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Vural Öger
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Vuralu Ögerju, ki jo je dne 11. maja 2006 posredovalo prizivno sodišče v Bruslju in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 6. julija 2006,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Vural Öger, forwarded by the representative of the Public Prosecutor at the Brussels Court of Appeal on 11 May 2006, and announced in plenary sitting on 6 July 2006,
– po zagovoru Vurala Ögerja v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Vural Öger in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krierju [1964] Zbirka 383, in Zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju in drugim [1986] Zbirka 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964], ECR 195, and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6(2) in člena 7 poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0140/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0140/2006 ),
A. ker je bil Vural Öger izvoljen v Evropski parlament na šestih evropskih volitvah, ki so potekale od 10. do 13. junija 2004, in ker je Evropski parlament 14. decembra 2004 preveril njegov mandat,
A. whereas Vural Öger was elected to the European Parliament at the sixth European election held from 10 to 13 June 2004, and whereas his credentials were verified by Parliament on 14 December 2004,
B. ker Vural Öger na ozemlju držav članic, ki niso njegova izvorna država, na podlagi člena 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 uživa imuniteto pred kakršnim koli priporom in sodnim pregonom,
B. whereas, by virtue of Article 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Vural Öger is immune from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings on the territory of Member States other than the Member State of which he is a national,
Med zasedanjem 6. julija 2006 je predsednik Evropskega parlamenta sporočil, da je prejel pismo državnega tožilca pri prizivnem sodišču v Bruslju z zahtevo za odvzem imunitete Vuralu Ögerju, nemškemu evropskemu poslancu.
At the session of 6 July 2006, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a letter from the public prosecutor of the Brussels Court of Appeal requesting waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Vural Öger, a German Member of the European Parliament.
V skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika je predsednik to zahtevo posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
Pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the President referred this request to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Zahtevo za odvzem imunitete je poslal državni tožilec pri prizivnem sodišču v Bruslju.
The request for waiver of immunity came from the public prosecutor of the Brussels Court of Appeal.
30. junija 2006 je stalni predstavnik Belgije pri Evropski uniji v pismu poudaril, da dejstvo, da zahteva za odvzem parlamentarne imunitete ni bila posredovana preko ministrstva za zunanje zadeve, ne pomeni, da je zadeva nična, in da bo morebitni odgovor posredovan upravi ministrstva za zunanje zadeve Kraljevine Belgije, ki je v smislu člena 7(7) poslovnika pristojna oblast.
In a letter of 30 June 2006, the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the European Union stressed that the fact that the request for waiver of immunity had not gone through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not render the request void and that any reply would be forwarded to the Head of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Belgium, which was the competent authority within the meaning of Rule 7(7) of the Rules of Procedure.
Državni tožilec pri prizivnem sodišču v Bruslju je zahteval odvzem poslanske imunitete Vuralu Ögerju, da bi preiskovalnemu sodniku omogočil njegovo zaslišanje, ki naj bi potrdilo ali ovrglo obtožbe o morebitni vpletenosti Vurala Ögerja v ugrabitev na ozemlju Kraljevine Belgije septembra 2005, ki temeljijo na izjavah in resnih ovadbah v okviru preiskovalnega postopka pri prvostopenjskem sodišču v Bruslju.
The public prosecutor of the Brussels Court of Appeal requested waiver of Mr Vural Öger’s parliamentary immunity so that the investigating judge could interview Mr Öger and weigh up the prosecution and defence arguments, in view of suspicions of Mr Öger’s possible implication, on the basis of statements and serious accusations made during investigation of a case before the Court of First Instance in Brussels concerning a kidnapping which took place in Belgium in September 2005.
Podrobnosti o izjavah proti Vuralu Ögerju so predstavljene v sporočilu članom št. 24/2006, ki je bilo razdeljeno članom Odbora za pravne zadeve.
The details of the accusations against Mr Öger are set out in Notice to members No 24/2006, which has been circulated to the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
V pismu 1. februarja 2007 je Odbor za pravne zadeve zahteval podrobnosti o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Vuralu Ögerju ter dodatne informacije, zlasti o tem, ali mora Vural Öger biti zaslišan kot priča ali kot obdolženec, ter česa je dejansko osumljen in katera konkretna kazniva dejanja so mu očitana.
By letter of 1 February 2007, the Committee on Legal Affairs requested a further explanation concerning the request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Vural Öger and some additional information, to find out in particular whether Mr Öger was due to be heard as a witness or as a defendant, what the actual suspicions against him were and of what crime he was being accused.
Odbor za pravne zadeve še ni dobil odgovora na to vprašanje.
The Committee on Legal Affairs has not yet received a reply to its request.
IMUNITETA POSLANCEV EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA: BESEDILA IN NAČELA
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: TEXTS AND PRINCIPLES
Člen 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti
Article 10 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities
Glej tudi člen 9 tega Protokola: "Zoper člana Skupščine se ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti." , priloženega h Pogodbi o ustanoviti enotnega Sveta in enotne Komisije Evropskih skupnosti
See also Article 9 of the Protocol: ‘Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.’ , annexed to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and Single Commission of the European Communities
Navedena v členu 4(2) Akta o volitvah predstavnikov Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976. , ki vsebuje določbe člena 9 vsakega od protokolov, priloženih k pogodbam o ustanovitvi ESPJ (Evropska skupnost za premog in jeklo), EGS (Evropska gospodarska skupnost) in ESAE (Evropska skupnosti za atomsko energijo), se glasi:
Referred to at Article 4(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage , which contains the provisions of Article 9 of each of the protocols annexed to the Treaties establishing the ECSC, EEC and EAEC, states:
„Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njegovi člani uživajo:
‘During the sessions of the European Parliament, its members shall enjoy:
b) na ozemlju vseh drugih držav članic imuniteto pred kakršnim koli priporom in sodnim postopkom.
(b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Za člane velja imuniteta tudi medtem, ko potujejo do kraja zasedanja Evropskega parlamenta in nazaj.
Immunity shall likewise apply to members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Kadar je član zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, sklicevanje na imuniteto ni mogoče in Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu.“
Immunity cannot be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its members.’
Poslanska imuniteta ni privilegij, ki jo za lastno korist uživa posamezni član Parlamenta, ampak jamstvo za neodvisnost Evropskega parlamenta in njegovih članov v odnosu do drugih institucij.
Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted to any particular Member of Parliament, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members vis à vis other institutions.
S sklepi Parlamenta se je izoblikovalo dosledno pojmovanje imunitete evropskih poslancev, ki je načeloma neodvisno od različnih praks nacionalnih parlamentov.
Parliament's decisions have forged a coherent concept of European Parliamentary immunity, which in principle is autonomous in relation to the various practices of the national parliaments.
Tako se je možno izogniti različni obravnavi poslancev glede na njihovo nacionalnost.
This makes it possible to prevent Members being treated differently according to their nationality.
Iz tega sledi, da čeprav Evropski parlament upošteva, kako je obravnavana imuniteta v posameznih nacionalnih zakonodajah, pri sprejemanju odločitve glede odvzema imunitete določenega poslanca dosledno uporablja lastna načela.
Consequently, although it takes the immunity recognised by the national law into consideration, Parliament applies its own, constant principles to decide whether or not to waive the immunity of one of its Members.
Namen parlamentarne imunitete je zaščiti svobodo izražanja in svobodo do politične razprave poslancev.
Parliamentary immunity is intended to protect Members’ freedom of expression and freedom of political debate.
Pristojni odbor Parlamenta je vedno dosledno izhajal iz temeljnega načela, da imuniteta ne more biti odvzeta v primerih, ko dejanja, očitana poslancu, spadajo na področje njegovega političnega delovanja ali so naj neposredno vezana.
The relevant committee in the European Parliament has always held as a fundamental principle that, in all cases where the actions of which a Member is accused are an integral part of, or directly connected with, his political activity, immunity cannot be waived.
Omenjeno načelo je skupaj z drugimi argumenti podlaga za odvzem oziroma zaščito imunitete, zlasti ob predpostavki, da se s kazenskim pregonom želi škodovati politični dejavnosti poslanca (" fumus persecutionis ").
To this principle must be added other considerations governing the waiver or not of immunity, in particular fumus persecutionis, i.e. the presumption that the legal proceedings are intended to impede the Member's political activity.
Pojem " fumus persecutionis " v bistvu pomeni, da ne pride do odvzema imunitete tedaj, ko obstaja utemeljen sum, da se s pregonom skuša škodovati politični dejavnosti poslanca.
The concept of fumus persecutionis means in effect that immunity is not waived when there is a suspicion that the legal proceedings are motivated by a desire to impede the Member's political activity.
Če denimo postopek sproži politični nasprotnik, potem ob pomanjkanju nasprotnih dokazov imuniteta ne bo odvzeta, ker velja, da se s postopkom skuša škodovati poslancu in ne gre za poskus odprave krivice.
Thus, when a prosecution is initiated by a political adversary, without proof to the contrary, immunity is not waived if there is reason to believe that the prosecution aims to damage the Member concerned and not to obtain reparation for an injury.
Podobno ne pride do odvzema imunitete poslancu, če je sodni postopek sprožen v okoliščinah, ki bi lahko navajale na misel, da je do postopka prišlo z izključnim namenom škodovati poslancu.
Similarly, when a prosecution is initiated in circumstances which suggest that their sole aim is to damage the Member, immunity is not waived.
Postopek, ki se ga mora držati Evropski parlament, je določen v členih 6 in 7 poslovnika.
The procedure that the European Parliament must follow is set out in Rules 6 and 7of its Rules of Procedure.
Določila o vprašanju imunitete predvidevajo:
The relevant provisions of these rules are as follows.
Treba je poudariti, da odvzem imunitete v nobenem primeru ne posega v domnevo nedolžnosti.
It should be noted that waiver of immunity does not in any way affect the presumption of innocence.
V tej zadevi se ni mogoče sklicevati na člen 9 protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah.
Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) clearly does not apply in this case.
Sklicevanje na absolutno imuniteto je možno le v primeru "mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel [poslanec] pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti".
Absolute immunity is only applicable to ‘opinions expressed or votes cast by (members) in the performance of their duties’.
Zato Vural Öger, nemški evropski poslanec, uživa imuniteto kot član Evropskega parlamenta v skladu s členom 10, prvi pododstavek, točka b) protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah.
However, Mr Öger, a German MEP, enjoys immunity as a Member of the European Parliament by virtue of Article 10, first paragraph, point (b) of the PPI.
Sumi se nanašajo na dejanja, ki naj bi jih Vural Öger, nemški evropski poslanec, predvidoma zagrešil na ozemlju Kraljevine Belgije.
The suspicions against Mr Öger, a German MEP, concern matters that are alleged to have occurred on the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium.