natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Generalni sekretariat je obvestil, da „je zdaj na sredini notranje revizije sredstev, dodeljenih med glavne generalne direktorate za obravnavo vseh vidikov uporabe prava Skupnosti“; seveda je težko razumeti, zakaj je to vaši pripravljavki mnenja onemogočilo pridobiti podatke o SEDANJIH razmerah, vendar jih je za končno različico poročila odločna pravočasno dobiti.
The Secretariat General informed that "it is currently in the middle of an internal review of resources allocated among the main directorates General to dealing with all aspects of the application of Community law"; of course it is difficult to understand why this prevented the rapporteur from obtaining data on the CURRENT situation, but is confident to get them on time for the final version of the report.
Odbor meni, da mora Parlament prejeti poseben podroben načrt o tem, kako je načrtovana porazdelitev sredstev znotraj generalnega sekretariata in pristojnimi generalnimi direktorati, ki bo Parlamentu jasneje razložil namero Komisije za prednostno podpiranje izvajanja politike.
It is the Committee's opinion that the Parliament should receive a specific detailed plan on how the resources are planned to be distributed within the Secretarial General and the competent directorates general, which will give the Parliament a clearer idea on how the Commission intend to give priority to the implementation policy.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo zanimivo oceniti stroške in koristi, ki jih pri razreševanju prinaša delo odgovornih ljudi za vodenje primerov kršitev ali pravilnih primerov slabe uporabe prava Skupnosti.
It would be interesting in this context to make an evaluation of the cost and benefits that the work of the people responsible of handling the infringement cases brings in solving or correct cases of bad application of Community law.
Komisija v skladu s svojimi notranjimi pravili organizira štiri letna srečanja za odločanje o postopkih za ugotavljanje primerov kršitev.
According to its internal rules, the Commission organizes four yearly meetings to decide on infringements procedures cases.
V tem smislu vse odločitve, od prvega uradnega opomina, namenjenega pridobivanju informacij od države članice, do odločitve, da se obrnejo na Sodišče, sprejme kolegij komisarjev.
In this context, all decisions, from the first letter of formal notice, aimed at getting information from MS, to the decision to go to Court are taken by the College of Commissioners.
Odbor za pravne zadeve predlaga, da se notranji postopek skrajša s pooblaščanjem vsakega člana Komisije, odgovornega za zadevno področje, da državam članicam neposredno pošlje uradne opomine, kadar v svojo nacionalno zakonodajo niso pravilno prenesle prava Skupnosti.
It is the Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal to partially shorten the time of the internal procedure, by empowering each Member of the Commission responsible for the field concerned, to directly send letters of formal notice to the Member States when they have not correctly transposed Community law into their national legislation.
Uporaba člena 228 Pogodbe ES
Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty
Maastrichtska pogodba o spremembi nekdanjega člena 171, zdaj člena 228 Pogodbe ES, je uvedla možnost nalaganja finančnih kazni za državo članico, ki ni izvršila sodbe glede kršitve.
The possibility of imposing financial sanctions on a Member State that has failed to implement a judgment establishing an infringement was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, amending former Article 171, now Article 228 of the EC Treaty.
Od začetka veljavnosti Maastrichtske pogodbe je postopek iz člena 228 vodil k razsodbam SES le v treh primerih (zadeva C-387/97 Komisija proti Grčiji z dne 4. julija 2000; zadeva C-278/01 Komisija proti Španiji z dne 25. novembra 2003; zadeva C-304/02 Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005).
Since the entry force of the Maastricht Treaty, the article 228 procedure led to judgements by the ECJ only in three cases (Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece of 4 July 2000; Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain of 25 November 2003; Case C-304/02 Commission v France of 12 July 2005).
Čeprav je „denar sveta vladar“ in čeprav je perspektiva plačila kazni lahko resnično močno sredstvo pritiska na države članice, dokazi kažejo, da se člen 228 PES povsem ne uporablja; postopek ostaja dolgotrajen in oviralen.
Even if “money makes the world go round” and although the perspective of paying a sanction could represent indeed a powerful means of pressure on Member States, evidence shows that Art. 228 TEC is not used to its full potential; the procedure remains long and cumbersome.
Prvi primer (grški) na primer nazorno prikazuje, da sistem dejansko ne deluje.
As an example, the very first case (the Greek one) is very indicative of how the system is not really able to deliver.
Minilo je trinajst let, preden se je celoten cikel postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev končal s plačilom kazni.
Thirteen years passed before the whole cycle of the infringement procedure ended with a penalty payment.
Leta 1987 je Komisija od več občin prejela pritožbo o nenadzorovanem odlaganju odpadkov v reko Kouroupitos.
In 1987 the Commission received a complaint from several municipalities about uncontrolled waste disposal in the river Kouroupitos.
Pet let pozneje je Sodišče v prvi sodbi odločilo, da je Grčija kršila dva zakona EU, ker se ni ukvarjala s strupenimi in nevarnimi odpadki.
Five years later, the Court of Justice held in a first judgment that Greece was contravening two EU laws by failing to deal with the toxic and dangerous waste.
Komisija je Grčijo opozorila, da mora ravnati v skladu s sodno odločbo iz leta 1993, in je na koncu leta 1995 začela nov postopek, vendar Grčija še vedno ni storila ničesar.
The Commission reminded Greece to comply with the judgment in 1993, and initiated a fresh procedure at the end of 1995, yet Greece continued to do nothing.
Leta 1997 se je Komisija obrnila na Sodišče za nalog, ki od Grčije zahteva plačilo v višini 24 600 EUR za vsak dan zamude od izdaje nove sodbe.
In 1997 the Commission applied to the Court for an order requiring Greece to pay 24,600 euros per day of delay from the delivery of the new judgment.
Trinajst let po prvotni pritožbi je Sodišče julija 2000 ugotovilo, da se odpadki še vedno nenadzorovano odlagajo v reko, in je končno obsodila Grčijo z denarno kaznijo v višini 20 000 EUR za vsak dan zamude v skladu s sodbo iz leta 1992.
Thirteen years after the original complaint, the Court found in July 2000 that waste is still thrown in an uncontrolled manner in the river and finally condemned Greece with a penalty payment of 20.000 euros for each day of delay in complying with the 1992 judgment.
To vsekakor ni edini primer.
This is certainly not an isolated case.
Evropska komisija je decembra 2005 prvič sprejela odločitev, da ne naloži denarne kazni Španiji, ki jo je Evropsko sodišče že predvidelo zaradi kršitve pravil kopalne vode EU, z obrazložitvijo, da je Španija delno „izboljšala“ stopnjo svoje skladnosti z neobveznimi standardi kakovosti vode.
In December 2005, and for the first time, the European Commission has even decided not to impose a fine on Spain that had already been authorized by the European Court of Justice for breaches of the EU Bathing Water, the reason being that Spain simply partially "improved" its compliance rates with the mandatory water quality standards.
Komisija je začela postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev tega posebnega primera v letu 1988.
The Commission started the infringement procedure on this specific case in 1988.
Evropsko sodišče je leta 1998 spoznalo Španijo za krivo kršitve standardov kakovosti vode iz Direktive o kopalnih vodah na celinskih plažah.
The European Court of Justice in 1998 found Spain guilty of violating the water quality standards of the Bathing Water Directive at inland beaches.
Ker Španija teh voda ni prilagodila standardom EU, jo je Komisija ponovno privedla pred Sodišče in je bila druga sodna odločba v novembru 2003 v njeno korist.
When Spain failed to act to bring these waters up to the EU standards, the Commission took it to Court again and won a second judgment in November 2003.
Tokrat je Sodišče uporabilo pooblastila, da Španiji naloži denarno kazen, ker ni posvečala pozornosti prvi sodni odločbi.
This time the Court used its powers to impose a fine on Spain for failing to heed its first judgement.
Sodišče je odločilo, da je treba kazen letno obračunati za vsak 1 % obalnih španskih kopalnih območij, za katere je ugotovljeno, da niso v skladu s standardi čistoče iz direktive.
The Court ruled that the penalty should be levied annually for each 1% of inshore Spanish bathing areas found not to comply with the directive’s purity standards.
Sodišče je odredilo, da mora denarna kazen veljati od kopalne sezone leta 2004, pa dokler Španija ne bo izpolnila njene sodne odločitve.
The Court directed that the fine should apply from the 2004 bathing season until Spain complied with its judgement.
Da se v prihodnosti omejijo druge podobne nesprejemljive odločitve Komisije za izrekanje denarnih kazni, ki jih je Sodišče že odobrilo, je odbor zadovoljen z nedavnim sporočilom Komisije o „Uporabi člena 228 Pogodbe ES“
In order to limit in the future other similar unacceptable decisions by the Commission to suspend fines already authorized by the Court, the Committee on Legal Affairs is pleased with the recent Commission’s Communication on the “Application of article 228 of the EC Treaty”
SEC(2005)1658 . z dne 14. decembra 2005, ki pojasnjuje in razvija politiko Komisije, medtem ko od Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti zahteva, da naloži periodična plačila in pavšalni znesek državi članici, ki ne ravna v skladu s sodno odločitvijo SES.
SEC (2005)1658 of 14 December 2005, which clarifies and develops the policy of the Commission in asking the European Court of Justice to impose a periodic payment and a lump sum on a Member State which fails to comply with a judgment of the ECJ.
Ta pojasnitev se je zahtevala po sodbi SES dne 12. julija 2005 v primeru C-304/02, Komisija proti Francoski republiki.
This clarification was required after the ruling of the ECJ on 12 July 2005 in case C-304/02, Commission vs French Republic.
Prva posledica novega pristopa, navedenega v tem sporočilu v zvezi s plačilom pavšalnega zneska, je, da „v primerih, kadar država članica spremeni kršitev po predložitvi Sodišču in pred sodno odločbo iz člena 228, Komisija zgolj zaradi tega ne bo več umaknila tožbe.
The very first consequence of the new approach stated in this Communication concerning the lump sum payment is that “in cases where a Member State rectifies the infringement after the Court is seized and before the judgment delivered under Article 228, the Commission will no longer withdraw its action for that reason alone.
Sodišče, ki ne more sprejeti odločbe za naložitev denarne kazni, ker je takšna odločba postala brezpredmetna, lahko kljub temu naloži plačilo pavšalnega zneska kot kazen za trajanje kršitve vse do spremembe razmer, ker je ta vidik primera postal brezpredmeten.
The Court of Justice, which cannot take a decision to impose a penalty payment because such decision has lost its purpose, can nevertheless impose a lump sum payment penalising the duration of the infringement up to the time the situation was rectified, because this aspect of the case has not lost its purpose.
Komisija si bo prizadevala, da Sodišče pravočasno obvesti, kadar koli država članica preneha kršitev na kateri koli stopnji sodnega postopka.
The Commission will endeavour to inform the Court without delay whenever a Member State terminates an infringement, at whatever stage in the judicial process.
Enako bo storila, kadar država članica po sodni odločbi iz člena 228 spremeni razmere in obveznost plačila kazni in se s tem obveznost plačila kazni tako konča“.
It will do the same when, following a judgment delivered under Article 228, a Member State rectifies the situation and the obligation to pay a penalty thus comes to an end”.
Odbor za pravne zadeve želi imeti potrditev Komisije, da bodo vsi primeri, za katere že veljajo uradni opomini in obrazložitvena mnenja iz člena 228, ter primeri, za katere zdaj veljajo postopki iz člena 228, predmet nove politike, pojasnjene v zgoraj omenjenem sporočilu (če niso rešeni pred predložitvijo Sodišču).
The Committee on Legal Affairs would like to have confirmation from the Commission that all cases already subject to letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions under Article 228, and cases currently subject to Article 226 proceedings, will be subject to the new policy exposed in the above mentioned Communication (if not solved before referral to the Court).
o 21. in 22. letnem poročilu Komisije o nadzoru uporabe prava Skupnosti (2003 in 2004)
on the Commission's 21st and 22nd annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law (2003 and 2004)
Odbor za peticije poziva Odbor za pravne zadeve, kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
A. ker je učinkovitost politik EU v veliki meri določena z izvajanjem teh na nacionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni; ker je treba skladnost z zakonodajo Skupnosti s strani držav članic strogo spremljati in nadzorovati, da bi zagotovili želene pozitivne učinke v vsakdanjem življenju državljanov,
A. whereas the effectiveness of EU policies is largely determined by their implementation at national, regional and local levels; whereas compliance with Community legislation by the Member States must be rigorously controlled and monitored in order to ensure that it has the desired positive effects on the daily lives of citizens,
B. ker zadnje letno poročilo vsebuje pregled dela Komisije v zvezi s tem in poroča o trenutni skladnosti z zakonodajo Skupnosti v različnih državah članicah in na različnih področjih politike, pri čemer kaže na znatno povečanje števila primerov kršitev, ki jih je predložila Komisija v letu 2003, v primerjavi s prejšnjimi leti; ker se velika večina teh primerov nanaša na okoljsko zakonodajo, sledi pa ji zakonodaja o notranjem trgu,
B. whereas the latest annual report provides an overview of the Commission's work in this respect and gives an account of the current state of compliance with Community law in different Member States and policy sectors, indicating a significant increase in the number of infringement cases brought by the Commission in 2003 compared to previous years; whereas the vast majority of those cases concern the area of environmental law, followed by internal market legislation,
C. ker so določeni deli zakonodaje, kot denimo direktive o delavcih migrantih, priznavanje diplom, presoja vplivov na okolje in varstvo narave, še posebej povzročili ponavljajoče se težave z izvajanjem, kar je razvidno iz velikega števila peticij na to temo,
C. whereas certain pieces of legislation such as the directives on migrant workers, recognition of diplomas, environmental impact assessment and nature protection have, in particular, given rise to recurring implementation problems, as the substantial number of petitions on those subjects illustrates,
D. ker se državljani EU pogosto poslužujejo pravice do peticije, predložene Parlamentu, zapisane v Pogodbi, in pri tem institucije opozarjajo na domnevne kršitve zakonodaje Skupnosti; ker so vlagatelji peticij dragocen vir informacij o dejanskem delovanju zakonodaje Skupnosti; ker lahko dejstva in dokazi, ki jih med obravnavo peticij zbere Odbor za peticije, veliko pripomorejo k odkrivanju kršitev,
D. whereas EU citizens make extensive use of their right enshrined in the Treaty to petition Parliament, drawing alleged infringements of Community legislation to the attention of the institutions; whereas petitioners constitute a valuable source of information on how Community legislation works in reality; whereas the facts and evidence gathered by the Committee on Petitions in the course of its examination of petitions can be of particular relevance for detecting infringements,
E. ker istočasni obstoj pritožb in peticij, kakor tudi vpletenost dveh institucij v omenjenem postopku, povzročata določene težave pri zagotavljanju dejstva, da so postopkovne pravice vlagateljev peticij v celoti upoštevane,
E. whereas the parallel existence of complaints and petitions as well as the involvement of two institutions in the latter procedure gives rise to certain problems with regard to ensuring that the petitioners' procedural rights are fully respected,
F. ker ima Komisija diskrecijsko pravico pri ocenjevanju pritožb in peticij in pri odločanju o tem, ali naj sproži postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev ter zadevo predloži Evropskemu sodišču, medtem ko je dolžnost Parlamenta, da nadzoruje delovanje Komisije in zagotavlja izpolnjevanje njenih obveznosti v funkciji varuha Pogodbe ES v skladu s členom 211,
F. whereas the Commission enjoys discretionary powers in assessing complaints and petitions and in deciding whether or not to commence infringement proceedings and to refer a case to the Court of Justice, whilst Parliament has the duty to exercise control over the Commission's activities so as to ensure that it fulfils its obligations as guardian of the EC Treaty under Article 211 thereof,
G. ker je varuh človekovih pravic že v svojem sklepu o pritožbi 995/98/OV omenil, da za diskrecijske pravice Komisije v zvezi s postopkom za ugotavljanje kršitev veljajo "pravne meje, ki jih je vzpostavila sodna praksa Sodišča, ki na primer zahteva, da upravni organi delujejo dosledno in v dobri veri, se izogibajo diskriminaciji, izpolnjujejo načela sorazmernosti, enakosti in legitimnih pričakovanj in spoštujejo človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine",
G. whereas the European Ombudsman has considered (in the Decision on complaint 995/98/OV) that the Commission's discretionary powers in respect to the conduct of infringement procedures are "subject to legal limits as established by the case law of the Court of Justice which requires, for example, that administrative authorities should act consistently and in good faith, avoid discrimination, comply with the principles of proportionality, equality and legitimate expectations and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms",
H. ker mora pravni red EU, če so državljani EU upravičeni do popolnega varstva svojih pravic in svoboščin iz zakonodaje Skupnosti, zagotoviti popoln sistem učinkovitih pravnih sredstev za domnevne kršitve teh pravic,
H. whereas, if citizens are to enjoy full protection of their rights and freedoms conferred by Community law, the EU legal order must provide for a complete system of effective legal remedies for potential violations of those rights,
1. pozdravlja poročilo Komisije za leto 2003 o spremljanju uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti, a obžaluje dejstvo, da do decembra 2005 Komisija še ni objavila poročila za leto 2004;
Welcomes the Commission's 2003 report on monitoring the application of Community law but regrets the fact that, as at December 2005, the Commission had still not published a report covering the year 2004;
4. poziva k vključitvi Pobude za evropske državljane v Pogodbo kot proaktivne protiuteži, v osnovi reaktivni, pravici do peticije, zaradi česar bi bil evropski pravni red bolj sprejemljiv za državljane in bi se ga s tem verjetno bolje izvajalo in spoštovalo;
Calls for the introduction into the Treaty of a European Citizens' Initiative as a proactive counterpart to the essentially reactive right to petition, since this would make EU laws more acceptable to citizens and therefore likely to be better implemented and respected;
Izvajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti in peticij
Implementation of Community law and petitions
6. vztraja pri tem, da mora Komisija v prihodnjih poročilih navesti podatke, ki bodo natančno prikazali pomemben in ločen prispevek peticij k nadzoru nad uporabo zakonodaje Skupnosti, in ponovno poudarja zahtevo iz svoje resolucije z dne 9. marca 2004, da se vključi poglavje, izključno namenjeno peticijam;
Insists that, in its future annual reports, the Commission must present data that accurately reflect the important and distinct contribution made by petitions to the monitoring of the application of Community law and reiterates the request made in its resolution of 9 March 2004 for the inclusion of a chapter devoted exclusively to petitions;
Obravnava primerov kršitev v Komisiji in potreba po parlamentarnem nadzoru
The Commission's handling of infringement cases and the need for parliamentary control
10. je zaskrbljen nad pomanjkanjem strogosti s strani Komisije pri obravnavi morebitnih kršitev direktiv, še posebej tistih, ki zadevajo varstvo narave in presojo vplivov na okolje, ter poziva Komisijo, naj v primeru zadostnih dokazov o kršitvi zakonodaje Skupnosti postopek predloži Evropskemu sodišču;
Is concerned about the lack of rigour on the part of the Commission in pursuing potential infringements of directives, in particular concerning nature protection and environmental impact assessment, and calls on the Commission to bring proceedings before the Court of Justice whenever there is reasonable evidence of a breach of Community law;
15. poziva Komisijo, naj, brez poseganja v avtonomijo nacionalnih zakonov in postopkov, sprejme sporočilo, v katerem naj navede svojo razlago načela državne odgovornosti pri kršitvah zakonodaje Skupnosti, vključno s kršitvami, ki jih je moč pripisati sodni veji oblasti, kar bo državljanom omogočilo boljše sodelovanje pri izvajanju zakonodaje Skupnosti;
Calls on the Commission, without prejudice to national institutional and procedural autonomy, to adopt a communication setting out its interpretation of the principle of State liability for breach of Community law, including infringements attributable to the judicial branch, thus enabling citizens to contribute more effectively to the application of Community law;
17. meni, da je treba najti načine, kako izboljšati postopke med institucijami, da bi evropskim državljanom zagotovili bolj učinkovita nesodna povračila škode, kot dodatka pravici do peticije, navedene v Pogodbi; s tem v zvezi predlaga, da bi bilo dobro razmisliti o uvedbi organizacije, kot je SOLVIT, ki bi v okviru Evropskega parlamenta poslancem pomagala pri pravnih vprašanjih.
Considers it necessary to examine ways of improving procedures at an inter-institutional level in order to provide more effective non-judicial means of redress for European citizens, as a corollary to the right of petition contained in the Treaty; suggests in this regard that consideration might be given to the provision of a "Solvit"-type organisation within the European Parliament whose function it would be to assist members with casework of a legal nature.
21. in 22. letno poročilo Komisije o nadzoru uporabe prava Skupnosti (2003 in 2004)
Monitoring the application of Community law (2003 and 2004) - overall position - 21st and 22nd annual reports
21. in 22. letno poročilo Komisije o nadzoru uporabe prava Skupnosti (2003 in 2004)
The Commission's 21st and 22nd Annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law (2003 and 2004)
o skupnem besedilu, ki ga je odobril Spravni odbor, o sprejetju Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o emisijah iz klimatskih naprav v motornih vozilih in spremembi Direktive Sveta 70/156/EGS
on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to emissions from air conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC
– ob upoštevanju skupnega besedila, ki ga je odobril Spravni odbor (PE-CONS 3605/2006 – C6‑0066/2006 ),
– having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 3605/2006 – C6‑0066/2006 ),
Besedila, sprejeta 26.10.2005, P6_TA(2005)0401 . o skupnem stališču Sveta
Texts Adopted , 26.10.2005, P6_TA(2005)0401 . on the Council common position
– ob upoštevanju poročila delegacije Evropskega parlamenta v Spravnem odboru ( A6‑0090/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee ( A6‑0090/2006 ),