natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Od leta 1972 sem kot sodnik na Italijanskem računskem sodišču opravljal različne naloge, vključujoč nadzor pravilnosti, nadzor upravljanja in poročanje Parlamentu.
Since 1972, as a judge at the Italian Court of Auditors, I have carried out various tasks involving the monitoring of legitimacy, the monitoring of management and reporting to Parliament.
V obdobju od 1993 do 2002 sem bil sodnik na Ustavnem sodišču in njegov podpredsednik od januarja 2001 do julija 2002.
I was a judge in the Constitutional Court from 1993 to 2002 and Vice-President from January 2001 to July 2002.
Med svojim delom na Ustavnem sodišču sem bil, poleg opravljanja nalog sodnika, član Sodniškega odbora za odnose z upravnim osebjem, kar je vključevalo pravno pomoč osebju Ustavnega sodišča.
During my work in the Constitutional Court, as well as carrying out the duties of a judge, I was also a member of the Judges' Committee for relations with administrative staff, which included dealing with the granting social assistance to the Court's staff.
Ukvarjal sem se z odnosi z ustavnimi in vrhovnimi sodišči evropskih in drugih držav ter nadzoroval organizacijske vidike rednih srečanj z drugimi sodišči.
I was also responsible for relations with the constitutional and supreme courts of European and non-European countries, supervising the organisational aspects of the periodic meetings with other courts.
Trenutno sem predsednik oddelka Računskega sodišča s funkcijami koordinatorja pokrajinskih oddelkov, ki izvajajo nadzor finančnega upravljanja teritorialnih teles, in član kolegija združenih oddelkov za presojanje splošnih zaključnih računov države, dežel in pokrajin s posebnim statutom ter poročil Parlamentu.
At present I am a Section President of the Italian Court of Auditors, with responsibility for coordinating the regional sections that audit the financial management of territorial bodies, and a member of the College of Joint Sections for judgments on the general accounts of the State and special-status regions and provinces, and for various reports to Parliament.
Če ste že bili član Evropskega računskega sodišča, opišite svoj prispevek k izboljšanju upravljanja financ Evropske unije v času opravljanja svoje funkcije.
If you have already served as a Member of the European Court of Auditors, please describe the contribution that you have made to improving management of the European Union’s finances during your time as Member of the European Court of Auditors.
Nikoli nisem opravljal funkcije člana Evropskega računskega sodišča.
I have never served as a member of the European Court of Auditors.
Ali bi umaknili svojo kandidaturo, če bi bilo mnenje Parlamenta o vašem imenovanju za člana Računskega sodišča negativno?
Would you withdraw your candidacy if Parliament’s opinion on your appointment as Member of the Court were unfavourable?
Menim, da je odnos zaupanja, ki mora obstajati med člani Računskega sodišča in Parlamentom bistvenega pomena.
I consider the relationship of trust that must exist between Members of the Court of Auditors and Parliament to be of fundamental importance.
V primeru, da bi Parlament izrazil negativno mnenje, sem pripravljen umakniti svojo kandidaturo.
I would therefore withdraw my candidacy if the European Parliament's opinion were unfavourable.
Imenovanje Massima Varija za člana Računskega sodišča
Nomination of Massimo Vari as a Member of the Court of Auditors
o odnosih z Rusko federacijo in Kitajsko na področju zračnega prevoza
on relations with the Russian Federation and China in the field of air transport
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za promet in turizem ( A6‑0375/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ( A6‑0375/2005 ),
3. se strinja, da bi z izpogajanjem tovrstnega sporazuma utrdili položaj EU, kar bi zainteresiranim stranem in potrošnikom koristilo bolj kot niz revidiranih dvostranskih sporazumov, ki obravnavajo predvsem prometne pravice;
Accepts that the negotiation of such an agreement would strengthen the EU's position and would be more beneficial to stakeholders and consumers than a series of revised bilateral agreements essentially concerned with traffic rights;
6. vztraja, da se določbe uravnoteženih sklepov pogajanj s Kitajsko o letalskem tovoru izvajajo čim prej in po potrebi še pred zaključkom pogajanj o potniškem prometu;
Insists that the provisions of a balanced conclusion to negotiations with China on air cargo should be implemented without delay and if necessary before completion of negotiations on passenger traffic.
9. priznava odlično delo Komisije z ruskimi partnerji, vendar obžaluje, da Evropski parlament ni imel dostopa do pogajalskega mandata, ki ga želi Komisija sedaj pridobiti od Sveta glede Rusije; vztraja, da mora biti Parlament bolj vključen v pogajalski proces o sporazumu in upa, da bo to vprašanje rešeno, saj bo to v korist vsem stranem;
Acknowledges the excellent work the Commission is carrying out with its Russian partners, but regrets that the European Parliament has not had access to the terms of the negotiating mandate the Commission now seeks from the Council in respect of Russia; insists that the Parliament be better integrated in the process of negotiating the agreement and hopes that this issue will be resolved, as this will benefit all parties;
Kitajska in Rusija
China and Russia
Odnosi z Rusko federacijo in Kitajsko na področju zračnega prevoza
Relations with the Russian Federation and China in the field of air transport
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Bruna Gollnischa
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luca Romagnolija za zaščito poslanske imunitete Bruna Gollnischa v pismu z dne 7. aprila 2005, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 14. aprila 2005,
– having regard to the request by Luca Romagnoli for defence of the immunity of Bruno Gollnisch, by letter of 7 April 2005, announced in plenary sitting on 14 April 2005,
– ob upoštevanju zagovora Bruna Gollnischa, izvedenega v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Bruno Gollnisch in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
Primer 101/63: Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krierju [1964] PSES 195, in primer 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju in drugiji [1986] PSES 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 26 francoske ustave,
– having regard to Article 26 of the French Constitution,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6(3) in člena 7 Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0376/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0376/2005 ),
Na zasedanju 14. aprila 2005 je predsednik Evropskega parlamenta sporočil, da je prejel zahtevo za zaščito poslanske imunitete poslanca Evropskega parlamenta Bruna Gollnischa.
At the sitting of 14 April 2005, the President of the European Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Bruno Gollnisch, MEP.
V pismu s 25. aprila je Luca Romagnoli svojo zahtevo ponovil in zaprosil za nujne ukrepe za uveljavitev imunitete poslanca Gollnischa.
By letter of 25 April, Mr Romagnoli reiterated this request and asked for measures of urgency to assert the immunity of the Member concerned.
Bruno Gollnisch je svoje strinjanje v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika sporočil po e-pošti 13. aprila 2005.
Mr Gollnisch signified his agreement in accordance with Rule 6 (3) of the Rules of Procedure by e-mail of 13 April 2005.
Glede na člen 26 odstavek 2 francoske ustave francoske oblasti niso zahtevale odvzema imunitete poslanca Gollnischa.
Referring to Article 26 paragraph 2 of the French Constitution, the French authorities did not request the waiver of Mr. Gollnisch's immunity so far.
Zahteva se nanaša na kazenski postopek, ki poteka proti Brunu Gollnischu zaradi komentarjev, ki jih je izrekel na tiskovni konferenci 11. oktobra 2004 v Lyonu.
The request relates to criminal proceedings brought against Mr Gollnisch for remarks he made at a press conference in Lyon on 11 October 2004.
Če povzamemo poslančevo izjavo z 20. junija 2005, je na tiskovni konferenci govoril o različnih temah, med njimi o poročilu Rousso, ki ga je naročil francoski minister za šolstvo in ki obravnava politična stališča profesorjev na univerzi Lyon III, kjer je Gollnisch profesor za japonski jezik in kulturo.
At this press conference Mr Gollnisch discussed - according to his own statement of 20 June 2005 - topics including the so-called "Rousso report", a report commissioned by the French Minister of Education concerning the political views of the academics of Lyon III University, where Mr Gollnisch is Professor of Japanese language and civilisation.
Po Gollnischevih besedah je predstavil svoje stališče o poročilu in izrekel nekaj zelo kritičnih pripomb o političnem vmešavanju v poročilu, s čimer je izzval dodatna vprašanja na to temo.
Mr Gollnisch, according to information which he provided, expressed his views on this report and made some highly critical remarks about political interference in the report and was thus questioned on the matter.
V odgovoru na zastavljena vprašanja se je - če se sklicujemo na podatke, ki nam jih je posredoval poslanec - "zavzel za raziskovalno svobodo in to v točki, ko je pojasnjeval, da se je uradno videnje zgodovine druge svetovne vojne spremenilo in da danes bolje razumemo stalinistične zločine, katerih nurnberški proces ni omenjal".
In response to these questions, Mr Gollnisch - again according to information which he provided - "called for freedom of research, while explaining that certain aspects of the official history of the Second World War had evolved and that today we have a better understanding of the Stalinist crimes which had not been mentioned at the Nuremberg trials".
V tem kontekstu je izrazil svoje mnenj o pokolu v katinskem gozdu.
In this context he expressed his judgement of the Katyn massacre.
Mimogrede velja omeniti, da praktično nobeno tiskovno poročilo, objavljeno v času tiskovne konference, ne navaja, da bi bil Bruno Gollnisch poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
It is worth noting in passing that virtually none of the contemporaneous press reports of Mr Gollnisch's press conference refer to his being a Member of the European Parliament.
Izjave, ki jih je podal na tiskovni konferenci, so bile interpretirane, kot da izražajo dvome o zločinih proti človeštvu, ki jih je zagrešil nacistični režim.
His comments made in the context of the above-mentioned press conference were interpreted as calling in question the crimes against humanity committed by the National Socialist regime.
15. oktobra 2004 je francoski pravosodni minister Perben, ki je skupaj z Gollnischem nastopal na kandidatni listi za občinske volitve v Lyonu, izdal nalog za policijsko preiskavo primera Gollnisch.
On 15 October 2004 the French Minister of Justice, Mr Perben, who, in common with Mr Gollnisch, was standing as a candidate in the Lyon municipal elections, gave the order for a police inquiry to be held into Mr Gollnisch.
V pismu 29. novembra 2004 je glavni tožilec prizivnega sodišča v Lyonu državnega tožilca pooblastil za sodni pregon Bruna Gollnischa zaradi njegovih stališč glede zločinov proti človeštvu.
By letter of 29 November 2004 the chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Lyon instructed the Public Prosecutor of Lyon to prosecute Mr Gollnisch for calling in question crimes against humanity.
Tožilec mesta Lyon je kazenski postopek proti Brunu Gollnischu zasnoval na členu 24(a) zakona o svobodi tiska, znanega pod imenom " Loi Gayssot" , ki je bil leta 1990 dodan zakonu z dne 29. julija 1881 in po katerem so za javno izražanje mnenja, s katerim določena oseba zanika obstoj zločinov proti človeštvu, predvideni kazenski ukrepi.
The Lyon prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against Mr Gollnisch under Article 24a of the so-called "Loi Gayssot", which had been added in 1990 to the Law of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press, and prohibits the expression in public of an opinion denying crimes against humanity on pain of criminal sanctions.
V pismu z 9. junija 2005 je Odbor za pravne zadeve francoske organe zaprosil, da mu posredujejo dodatne podatke v zvezi z zadevo.
By letter of 9 June 2005 the Committee on Legal Affairs asked the competent national authorities to provide the committee with additional information about the case.
V pismu z 18. julija, ki ga je poročevalka prejela 22. julija, je francoski pravosodni minister Pascal Clement potrdil, da je državni tožilec višjega sodišča v Lyonu pričel preiskavo na osnovi člena 24(a) zakona z dne 29. julija 1881 zaradi naslednje izjave, ki jo je Gollnisch podal v javnosti:
By letter of 18 July, which was transmitted to the rapporteur on 22 July, the French Minister of Justice, Pascal Clement, confirmed that inquiries had been started by the Prosecutor of the Republic at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lyon under Article 24a of the Law of 29 July 1881 for having stated the following in public:
"Noben resen zgodovinar se popolnoma ne strinja z zaključki nurnberškega procesa.
"No serious historian completely endorses the findings of the Nuremberg trials.
Menim, da je prav, da o tragediji koncentracijskih taborišč razprava ostane svobodna.
I think that the tragedy of the concentration camps should continue to be discussed freely.
Zgodovinarji morajo imeti pravico, da razpravljajo o številu mrtvih in o tem, kako so ljudje tedaj umirali."
Historians are entitled to discuss the number of people killed and how they died."
"Noben resen zgodovinar se popolnoma ne strinja z zaključki nurnberškega procesa.
"There is no longer a single serious historian who completely endorses the findings of the Nuremberg trials.
Seveda to moje stališče še ne pomeni, da zagovarjam nesporne zločine, ki jih je zagrešil nacionalsocializem med 2. svetovno vojno, režim, kateremu ne jaz ne moji prijatelji nikakor nismo naklonjeni.
That does not make me an apologist for the undoubted crimes committed by National Socialism during the Second World War; neither I nor my friends have ever had the least sympathy for the Nazi regime.
O dejanskih številkah umrlih naj razpravljajo zgodovinarji".
Historians can discuss how many actually died."
"Pod vprašaj ne postavljam obstoja koncentracijskih taborišč.
"I am not disputing the existence of concentration camps.
Ljudje so bili deportirani iz povsem rasnih razlogov in nedvomno jih je umrlo na tisoče, na milijone.
People were deported on racial grounds and there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were exterminated.
O dejanskih številkah umrlih bi 50 let po zagrešenih dejstvih zgodovinarji lahko razpravljali.
Fifty years on from these events, historians could discuss the actual number of people killed.
Ne želim zanikati morilskih plinskih celic, a pustiti moramo odprte možnosti za razpravo".
I am not denying the gas chambers, but discussion must continue to be free".
"O obstoju plinskih celic naj razpravljajo zgodovinarji."
"It is up to historians to discuss whether the gas chambers existed".
Bruno Gollnisch je zatrdil, da ni dvomil o zločinih proti človeštvu, ki jih je zagrešil nacionalsocialistični režim, ampak da je zgolj izjavil, naj o tovrstnih zadevah razpravljajo zgodovinarji, in da gre za zlonamerno interpretacijo njegovih izjav, vzetih izven konteksta.
Mr Gollnisch declared that he did not call into question the crimes against humanity committed by the National Socialist regime as he only stated that it was up to historians to debate such matters and that it was a malicious interpretation of his remarks, taken out of context.
Skladno s pismom z 18. julija je bilo za 26. april 2005 napovedano zaslišanje gospoda Gollnischa, vendar je bilo pozneje odloženo.
According to the letter of 18 July, a hearing of Mr Gollnisch had been scheduled for 26 April 2005, but subsequently adjourned.
Bruno Gollnisch bi na zaslišanje lahko poslal zastopnika ali zaprosil za odložitev.
Mr Gollnisch could be represented by a counsel at the hearing or apply for it to be adjourned.
V okviru sodne preiskave Gollnisch ni pod kakršnim koli nadzorom, prav tako proti njemu niso bili sprejeti nobeni varnostni ukrepi.
In the framework of the judicial inquiry, Mr Gollnisch is not under observation or surveillance and no measures of security have been taken against him.
Zadeva Gollnisch je bila potem uvrščena na dnevni red 6. septembra 2005.
It subsequently appeared that Mr Gollnisch's case was scheduled to come up for hearing on 6 September 2005.
Predsednik Parlamenta je na prošnjo predsednika Odbora za pravne zadeve 13. julija pisal francoskemu pravosodnemu ministru, če bi bilo mogoče zadevo odložiti in s tem Parlamentu dati čas, da sprejme sklep o poslanski imuniteti Bruna Gollnischa.
The President of Parliament, acting at the request of the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee, wrote to the French Ministry of Justice on 13 July to ask whether the proceedings could be stayed in order to allow Parliament time to take its decision on the question of Mr Gollnisch's immunity.
Pravosodni minister je odgovor podal v pismu 29. julija.
The Minister of Justice replied by letter of 29 July.
Zapisal je, da v skladu z neodvisnostjo sodstva ne more vplivati na odločitev sodišča v Lyonu glede določenega datuma zaslišanja.
In that letter, he stated that, in view of the independence of the judiciary, he could not call in question the decision of the Lyon criminal court fixing the date of hearing.
Vseeno je v duhu dobrega sodelovanja z evropskimi institucijami dodal, da bo urad državnega tožilca v Lyonu zaprosil, da sodišče obvesti o težavah Parlamenta glede dneva zaslišanja in ga zaprosil za odlog zaslišanja, predvidenega za 6. september.
Nevertheless, in a spirit of cooperation with the European institutions, he would ask the public prosecutor's office in Lyon to inform the court of Parliament's difficulties with the timing of hearing and to ask it to apply for an adjournment of the case at the hearing on 6 September.
Sodnik je zaslišanje prestavil na 29. november 2005.
The judge adjourned the hearing of 6 September to 29 November 2005.
BESEDILA IN SPLOŠNA DOLOČILA O IMUNITETI POSLANCEV EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
TEXTS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Člena 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 določata:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 read as follows:
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.
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.
Med zasedanjem Skupščine njeni člani uživajo:
During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:
(a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
(b) na ozemlju drugih držav članic imuniteto pred kakršnim koli priporom ali sodnim postopkom.
b. in the territory of other Member States, immunity from any measure or 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."
Člen 26
In this context, Article 26
Člen, spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 95-880 z dne 4. avgusta 1995. francoske ustave pa določa:
Article amended by Constitutional Law No 95-880 of 4 August 1995. of the French Constitution provides as follows:
"Zoper nobenega poslanca se ne sme začeti sodni postopek ali preiskava, poslanec ne sme biti aretiran ali priprt oziroma ne sme utrpeti obsodbe zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
"No Member of Parliament shall be subject to legal proceedings, investigations, arrest, detention or judgment for opinions expressed or votes cast by him while carrying out his duties.
Zaporna kazen, ukrepi za odvzem ali omejitev prostosti ali sodni pregon poslanca se začasno odloži med zasedanjem, če je skupščina, katere član je, to zahtevala.
Detention, measures depriving the Member of his freedom or restricting that freedom or the prosecution of the Member of Parliament shall be suspended during the session if the Assembly of which he is a Member so demands.
Skupščina se po potrebi avtomatično sestane na dodatnih zasedanjih, da omogoči izvedbo določil iz zgornjega odstavka.
The Assembly concerned shall meet automatically for additional sittings to enable, where appropriate, the provisions of the preceding paragraph to be applied."
Postopek v Evropskem parlamentu je določen v členih 6 in 7 Poslovnika.
The procedure in the European Parliament is governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
Določila o vprašanju imunitete predvidevajo:
The relevant provisions read as follows:
"Člen 6 Odvzem imunitete:
"Rule 6 Waiver of immunity:
"Člen 7 Postopki v zvezi z imuniteto:
"Rule 7 Procedure on immunity:
Evropski parlament je od prvega petletnega zakonodajnega obdobja do danes že obravnaval določeno število zahtev za odvzem imunitete.
Since its first five-year legislative period, the European Parliament has ruled on a number of requests for waiver of immunity.
Iz parlamentarne razprave, ki so jo spodbudile tovrstne zahteve, je izšlo nekaj splošnih načel , ki so bila dokončno potrjena v resoluciji, ki jo je Evropski parlament sprejel na zasedanju 10. marca 1987
From Parliament's debates on these requests some general principles have emerged which were given definitive recognition in the resolution adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 10 March 1987
Ta načela so temeljila na poročilu poslanca Donneza o osnutku protokola, ki Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti dopolnjuje glede poslancev Evropskega parlamenta ( A2-121/86 ).
These were based on the report by Mr Donnez on the draft protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities in respect of Members of the European Parliament ( A2-121/86 ).
Zdi se umestno, da na kratko predstavimo načela, ki se nanašajo na naš primer:
It is worth briefly recapitulating some of these principles which are relevant in the present case:
(a) Parlamentarna imuniteta ni privilegij, ki jo za lastno korist uživa posamezni poslanec, ampak zagotavlja neodvisnost Evropskega parlamenta in njegovih poslancev v razmerju do drugih institucij.
(a) Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted for the benefit of an individual member of Parliament, but a guarantee of Parliament's independence and that of its members vis-à-vis other institutions.
(b) Dejstvo, da se člen 10, prvi odstavek, pododstavek (a) Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti nanaša na imunitete, podeljene poslancem nacionalnih parlamentov, še ne pomeni, da Evropski parlament lahko oblikuje lastna pravila glede odvzema poslanske imunitete.
(b) The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, subparagraph (a), of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities refers to the immunities granted to members of national parliaments does not mean that the European Parliament has no power to create its own rules in the matter of the waiver of parliamentary immunity.