natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- svojo globoko zaskrbljenost zaradi sistematičnega dostopa javnih organov do podatkov, kot so številka kreditne kartice, elektronski naslov, povezanost z določenimi skupinami in podatki o stalnih potnikih, ki so vezani na vedenje običajnih potnikov (to je oseb, ki v državi sprejemnici niso zabeležene kot nevarne ali zločinske), zato da se le s teoretičnim vzorcem preveri, ali tak potnik lahko predstavlja možno nevarnost za let, svojo ciljno državo ali državo, skozi katero bo potoval/a;
- its deep concerns about the systematic access by the public authorities to data, such as the credit card number, the e-mail address, any affiliation to a particular group, frequent-flyer information, linked to the behaviour of ordinary passengers (i.e. people not recorded in the receiving country as dangerous or criminal) in order to check only against a theoretical pattern whether such a passenger might constitute a potential threat to the flight, to his or her country of destination or to a country through which he or she will transit;
B. ob zavedanju, da sistematični dostop do "vedenjskih" podatkov, čeprav v EU ni sprejemljiv, trenutno zahtevajo nekatere države, med drugimi ZDA, Kanada in Avstralija, za zaščito svoje notranje varnosti, vendar poudarja, da:
B. being aware that systematic access to “behaviour” data, even if not acceptable in the EU, is currently required by countries including the USA, Canada and Australia for the protection of their internal security, but pointing out that:
- v primeru Kanade in Avstralije domača zakonodaja predvideva vsebinsko, časovno in količinsko omejen dostop do podatkov, ta dostop pa je pod nadzorom sodnega organa, zaradi česar so Parlament in nacionalni organi za varstvo podatkov v EU presodili, da so ti sistemi ustrezni,
- in the case of Canada and Australia, domestic legislation provides for access to data, which is limited in scope and time and as regards the amount of data covered and is under the control of a judicial authority, on account of which those systems have been considered adequate by Parliament and by the national data protection authorities in the EU,
- v primeru ZDA, tudi po dolgotrajnih pogajanjih s Komisijo in kljub dobri volji, izraženi v "zavezah", še vedno ni pravne zaščite podatkov na področju letalskega prometa; torej je možen dostop do vseh podatkov PNR, z izjemo "občutljivih" podatkov, in jih je možno obdržati leta potem, ko je bila varnostna kontrola opravljena; poleg tega za osebe, ki niso državljani ZDA, ni sodnega varstva,
- in the case of the US, even after long negotiations with the Commission and some goodwill stated in the “undertakings”, there is still no legal US data protection in the field of air transport; therefore, all PNR data can be accessed, with the sole exception of “sensitive” data, and the data can be retained for years after the security check has been carried out; furthermore, there is no judicial protection for non-US citizens,
C. ob upoštevanju, da se je po grozodejstvih 11. septembra 2001 po vsem svetu uvedlo številne ločene varnostne ukrepe, ki pogosto vključujejo sistematično zbiranje in spremljanje osebnih podatkov državljanov, zlasti glede prenosov denarja, telekomunikacij in podatkov o potnikih; ob upoštevanju, da se ob odsotnosti skladne varnostne politike EU tvega spodkopavanje položaja posameznega državljana v odnosu do države,
C. considering that since the atrocities of 9 September 2001, a host of single security measures has been introduced worldwide, which often involve the systematic collection and monitoring of personal data of all citizens, notably data on money transfers and telecommunication and passenger data; considering that, in the absence of a coherent EU security policy, the position of the individual citizen vis à vis the state risks being undermined;
D. ob ponovnem opozorilu, da je Parlament pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti sprožil postopek za ugotovitev ničnosti sklepa Sveta 2004/496/ES
D. recalling that Parliament brought proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities seeking the annulment of Council Decision 2004/496/EC
UL L 183, 20.5.2004, str.
OJ L 183, 20.5.2004, p.
83. o sklenitvi sporazuma z ZDA, sprejetem na podlagi odločbe Komisije 2004/535/ES
83. on the conclusion of an agreement with the USA, negotiated on the basis of Commission Decision 2004/535/EC
UL L 235, 6.7.2004, str.
OJ L 235, 6.7.2004, p.
11. , ker sklep ne premore ne pravne podlage ne pravne jasnosti in ker je bilo zbiranje osebnih podatkov, ki ga je dovoljeval sporazum, pretirano v primerjavi s potrebo po boju proti organiziranemu kriminalu in terorizmu,
11. , on the grounds that the decision lacked both legal basis and legal clarity and because the collection of personal data authorised under the agreement was excessive when weighed against the need to combat organised crime and terrorism,
E. ob pozdravljanju ugotovitve ničnosti sklepa Sveta 2004/496/ES in odločbe Komisije 2004/535/ES
E. welcoming the annulment by the Court of Justice of Council Decision 2004/496/EC and Commission Decision 2004/535/EC
Sodba z dne 30. maja 2006 v združenih zadevah C-317/04 in 318/04. s strani Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti,
Judgment of 30 May 2006 in Joined Cases C-317/04 and 318/04. ,
F. ob obžalovanju, da Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti se ni odzvalo na skrbi Parlamenta o pravni zgradbi sporazuma in o skladnosti njegove vsebine z načeli varovanja osebnih podatkov, zapisanimi v členu 8 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (EKČP),
F. regretting that the Court of Justice did not respond to Parliament's concerns about the legal structure of the agreement and the congruency of its content with the data protection principles laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR);
G. ob upoštevanju stališča Sodišča, da sklep Sveta 2004/496/ES ne more biti veljavno sprejet na osnovi člena 95 Pogodbe ES v povezavi z direktivo 95/46/EGS
G. taking into account the fact that the Court of Justice held that Council Decision 2004/496/EC could not be adopted validly on the basis of Article 95 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Directive 95/46/EEC
H. ob upoštevanju pripravljenosti Komisije in Sveta za tesno sodelovanje s Parlamentom, da se zagotovi popolno upoštevanje sodbe Sodišča,
H. taking into account the willingness of the Commission and the Council to cooperate closely with the Parliament in order to ensure full compliance with the Court's judgment;
I. ob strinjanju z mnenjem delovne skupine iz člena 29 z dne 14. junija 2006 o potrebnem spremljanju izvajanja sodbe Sodišča
I. sharing the opinion adopted on 14 June 2006 by the Article 29 Working Party on the necessary follow-up to Court 's judgment
J. ob upoštevanju, da je to vprašanje tako pomembno, da bi EU v vsakem primeru morala doseči dogovor z ZDA o primernem mednarodnem sporazumu, ki bi, z ustreznim spoštovanjem temeljnih pravic, določal:
J. considering the importance of the issue to be such that the EU should, in any event, come to an arrangement with the USA on a proper international agreement which, with due respect for fundamental rights, lays down:
kateri podatki so potrebni za ugotavljanje istovetnosti in bi morali biti sistematično preneseni na avtomatiziran način (APIS) in katere podatke v zvezi z "vedenjem" potnikov bi se lahko preneslo le v določenih primerih, glede ljudi, ki so v "opazovalnih listah" javne varnosti zavedeni kot "nevarni" zaradi kriminalne ali teroristične dejavnosti,
which data are necessary for identification purposes and should be transferred systematically in an automated way (APIS) and which data relating to passenger “behaviour” could be transferred on a case-by-case basis in respect of people recorded on public security “watch lists” as “dangerous” on account of criminal or terrorist activity,
seznam hudih kaznivih dejanj, zaradi katerih bi se lahko vložilo dodatne zahteve,
the list of serious crimes in respect of which any additional request could be made,
seznam organov in agencij, ki bi si lahko izmenjevale podatke in pogoje za varovanje podatkov, ki jih je treba spoštovati,
the list of authorities and agencies that could share the data and the data-protection conditions to be respected,
obdobje hranjenja za obe vrsti podatkov, pri čemer je jasno, da je treba podatke v zvezi s preprečevanjem hudih kaznivih dejanj izmenjati v skladu s sporazumom med EU in ZDA o pravosodnem sodelovanju in izročitvah,
the data-retention period for the two kinds of data, it being clear that data relating to the prevention of serious crimes must be exchanged in accordance with the EU-US agreement on judicial cooperation and extradition,
vlogo, ki naj jo imajo letalski prevozniki, raziskovalna služba kongresa ZDA (Congressional Research Service, CRS) ali zasebne organizacije (kot denimo SITA in AMADEUS) pri prenosu podatkov potnikov in predvidena sredstva (APIS, PNR itd.) za namene javne varnosti,
the role to be played by airlines, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) or private organisations (such as the SITA and AMADEUS) in transferring passengers' data and the means envisaged (APIS, PNR, etc.) for public-security purposes,
jamstva potnikom, da se jim omogoči popravljati podatke, ki jih zadevajo, ali da nudijo obrazložitev v primeru neskladja med podatki o kontaktnem potniku in podatki iz osebnih dokumentov, viz, potnih listov in drugih uradnih dokumentov,
the guarantees to be afforded to passengers in order to enable them to correct the data relating to them or to provide an explanation in the event of a discrepancy between the data relating to a travel contract and the data shown in identity documents, visas, passports and other official documents,
odgovornosti letalskih družb v odnosu do potnikov in javnih organov v primeru napak pri vpisovanju ali prepisovanju in glede zaščite obdelanih podatkov,
the airlines' responsibilities as regards passengers and public authorities in the event of transcription or encoding errors and as regards protection of the data processed,
pravico do pritožbe na neodvisen organ in pravna sredstva v primeru kršenja pravic potnikov;
the right to appeal to an independent authority and redress mechanisms in the event of infringements of passengers' rights;
a) da se izognemo pravnim prazninam na evropski ravni od 1. oktobra 2006 dalje za prenos podatkov potnikov in da se zagotovi, da bodo pravice in svoboščine potnikov varovane celo še bolj kot sedaj, na podlagi enostranskih zavez, ki jih je predložila administracija ZDA,
(a) to avoid a legal lacuna at European level from 1 October 2006 for the transfer of passenger data and to ensure that the rights and freedoms of passengers are protected to an even greater extent than they are at present under the unilateral undertakings submitted by the US administration,
b) da se vsak nov sporazum na tem področju utemelji na načelih ES o varstvu podatkov, kot to izhaja iz člena 8 EKČP,
(b) to base any new agreements in this field on the EC principles on data protection as drawn from Article 8 ECHR
Kar zadeva postopek pogajanja:
As regards the negotiation procedure:
c) da se, ob upoštevanju kratkih rokov, doseže dogovor o:
(c) to negotiate, subject to calendar constraints,
- novem kratkoročnem mednarodnem sporazumu, ki bo pokrival obdobje med 1. oktobrom 2006 in novembrom 2007 (obdobje, ki ga je prvotno pokrival sporazum med ZDA in ES, ki ga je Sodišče razglasilo za nično),
- a new short-term international agreement to cover the period between 1 October 2006 and November 2007 (the period originally covered by the US/EC agreement that was annulled by the Court),
- na srednji in dolgi rok, o bolj skladnem pristopu na ravni Mednarodne organizacije civilnega letalstva (ICAO) k izmenjavi podatkov o potnikih, da se zagotovi tako varnost zračnega prometa kot tudi spoštovanje človekovih pravic na svetovni ravni;
- for the medium to long term, a more coherent approach at International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) level towards the exchange of passenger data in order to ensure both air traffic security and respect of human rights at global level;
d) da se pooblasti predsedstvo, da s podporo Komisije obvešča Parlament o pogajanjih o sporazumu in da vključi predstavnike ustreznega odbora kot opazovalce v pogovore z administracijo ZDA;
(d) to mandate the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, to inform the Parliament of the negotiations on the agreement and to involve representatives of the relevant committee as observers in the dialogue with the US administration;
Kar zadeva vsebino kratkoročnega sporazuma:
As regards the content of the short-term agreement
e) da se premaga pomanjkljivosti, opisane v prvem skupnem pregledu sporazuma (EU in ZDA)
(e) to overcome, in the first instance, the shortcomings outlined in the first joint EU/US review of the agreement
Joint Review of the implementation by the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Undertakings set out in Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 (Redacted version of 12.12.2005). in da se upošteva priporočila evropskega varuha osebnih podatkov in delovne skupine iz člena 29
Joint Review of the implementation by the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Undertakings set out in Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 (Redacted version of 12.12.2005). and to take into account the recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Article 29 Working Party
f) da se vsebino zavez vključi v besedilo sporazuma, da lahko postanejo pravno zavezujoče, zaradi česar bosta morali obe strani vzpostaviti novo ali spremeniti obstoječo zakonodajo, sodstvo pa bo moralo zaščititi osebe, ki jih zadeva sporazum;
(f) to include the content of the undertakings in the body of the agreement so that they may become legally binding, as a result of which it will be necessary for the two parties to establish or modify any existing legislation and for the judiciary to protect persons covered by the agreement;
g) da se kot dokaz dobre vere na strani administracije ZDA nemudoma v nov sporazum vključi naslednje zaveze, ki se jih po dveh letih od začetka veljavnosti sporazuma še vedno v celoti ne izvaja:
(g) to incorporate immediately, as proof of good faith on the part of the US administration, into the new agreement the commitments, which are still not fully implemented over two years after the entry into force of the agreement, as follows:
- strogo omejitev namena, kot je to določala zaveza 3, zato da vedenjskih podatkov ni možno uporabiti za preverjanje finančnih kaznivih dejanj ali za preprečitev ptičje gripe; to omejitev bi bilo treba določiti tudi za nadaljnji prenos teh podatkov;
- the strict purpose limitation, as formerly provided for in Undertaking 3, so that behaviour data may not be used for checking financial crimes or to prevent avian flu; such a limitation should also be laid down for the onward transfer of such data;
- prehod na sistem "PUSH" (kot to določa zaveza 13), kot v primerih sporazumov ES s Kanado in Avstralijo, saj so vse tehnične zahteve izpolnjene in se to že izvaja, npr. s strani SITE;
- the shift to a PUSH system (as provided for in Undertaking 13), as in the case of EC agreements with Canada and Australia, since all the technical requirements are in place and this is already done, for instance by SITA;
- seznanjanje potnikov o pravilih PNR in uvedba ustreznih sodnih postopkov za pritožbo, kot to določajo zaveze 36-42 in sporazumi o PNR s Kanado in Avstralijo;
- provision of information to passengers on the PNR rules, and the introduction of proper judicial complaint procedures, as provided for in Undertakings 36-42 and by the PNR agreements with Canada and Australia;
- potrebo po ustreznih navodilih in ustreznemu usposabljanja osebja, ki obravnava podatke, in potrebo po zavarovanju informacijskih tehnoloških sistemov;
- the need to ensure adequate instructions and training of the staff who handle the data, and the need to secure the IT systems;
- letni skupni pregled, kot je predviden v zavezi 43; ta se mora zares opraviti vsako leto, v sodelovanju z nacionalnimi oblastmi za varstvo podatkov in biti mora objavljen v celoti, v njem pa mora biti podana ocena, ne le o izvrševanju zavez, temveč tudi o rezultatih sporazuma v smislu odpravljanja terorizma in kriminala;
- the annual joint review, as provided for in Undertaking 43, should indeed take place annually, be conducted in cooperation with the national data protection authorities and be published in full and must assess not only the implementation of the undertakings, but also the results of the agreement in terms of eliminating terrorism and crime;
Kar zadeva vsebino srednjeročnega sporazuma:
As regards the content of the medium term agreement
h) da se Evropski uniji zagotovi jasen pravni okvir, zlasti tako, da se nemudoma sprejme osnutek okvirnega sklepa o varovanju podatkov,
(h) to provide the EU with a clear legal framework, namely by adopting, as a matter of urgency, the Draft Data Protection Framework Decision,
i) da se izognemo umetnemu ločevanju med "stebri" tako, da se vzpostavi trden "medstebrski" okvir za varovanje podatkov v Uniji in sicer z aktiviranjem premostitvene klavzule po členu 12 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, da se s tem zagotovi, da bo nov sporazum sprejet s sodelovanjem Parlamenta in da ga bo nadzorovalo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti,
(i) to avoid an artificial division between the "pillars" by creating a consistent cross-pillar data protection framework in the Union by activating the passarelle clause under Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union in order to ensure that the new agreement is concluded in association with Parliament and is subject to the scrutiny of the Court of Justice,
j) da se omeji količina podatkov, ki se jih lahko zahteva in da se že pri viru filtrira občutljive podatke, kot to zahteva člen 8 direktive 95/46/ES; ugotavlja, da so prevozniki dolžni posredovati le podatke, ki so jim na voljo, tako da Urad za carino in zaščito meja (CBP) redkokdaj dobi vseh 34 kategorij zahtevanih podatkov; zaključuje, da bi za namen sporazuma, to je boj proti terorizmu in mednarodnemu kriminalu, vključno z organiziranim kriminalom, ter njihovo preprečevanje, zadostovali že podatki APIS; poziva predsedstvo Sveta in Komisijo, da med pogajanji načneta to vprašanje;
(j) to limit the amount of data that may be requested and to filter at source sensitive data as required by Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC; notes that carriers are required to submit only the data available to them, so that, in practice, the CBP rarely receives all 34 categories of data requested; concludes that for the purposes of the agreement, namely to prevent and combat terrorism and transnational crime, including organised crime, even APIS data would be sufficient; calls on the Council Presidency and the Commission to raise this matter in the negotiations;
5. odločno priporoča, da Parlament v zvezi s tem organizira skupno sejo s kongresom ZDA, da v vlogi demokratičnih predstavniških institucij prizadetih državljanov začneta dialog o boju proti terorizmu in njegovih posledicah za državljanske svoboščine in človekove pravice;
Strongly recommends that the Parliament organise a joint session in this respect with the US Congress, being the democratic representative institutions of the citizens concerned, to start a dialogue on the fight against terrorism and its consequences for civil liberties and human rights;
Po sodbi sodišča: nov sporazum med EU in ZDA?
After the Court's judgment: A new EU/USA Agreement?
Še vedno je bolje imeti en evropski sporazum kot petindvajset dvostranskih sporazumov (predvsem pa je to v interesu evropskih državljanov, kar je tisto, kar mora biti naše vodilo).
It is still preferable to have a European Agreement rather than 25 bilateral agreements (it is, moreover, in the interests of European citizens, which is what we ought to be concerned for).
Če je EU združena, je jasno, da ima večjo "težo" kot posamezne države članice.
If the EU is united, it obviously has more "weight" than the Member States have individually.
O tem pričajo že primeri iz preteklosti (glej nekdanji sporazum med EU in ZDA o izročitvah in pravosodnem sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah) in drugi, o katerih zdaj tečejo pogajanja, kot pričajo pogajanja o vzajemnem obravnavanju vizumov (glej program za oprostitev potrebe po vizumih).
There are already examples of this from the past (see the former EU/US agreement on extradition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) and others which are currently being negotiated, as witness the negotiations on reciprocal treatment of Visas (see the VISA waiver programme).
Vseeno pa mora biti evropski sporazum pristen mednarodni sporazum in ne "ovojnica", ki vsebuje enostranske, neobvezujoče zaveze, kot je to v primeru sporazuma, ki je bil ravnokar razglašen za ničnega.
Any European agreement, however, must be a genuine international agreement and not merely an "envelope" containing unilateral, non-binding undertakings, as in the case of the agreement which has just been annulled.
S tega stališča je le sklicevanje na zaveze nezadostno, saj dopušča dvom o njihovi naravi zavezujočih, pravno veljavnih aktov (opomba: zaveze izključno upravne narave s strani ZDA ne bi zadostovale pogoju "zakonodajnih" ukrepov, ki jih določa člen 8 EKČP, ki ga morajo države članice in institucije EU spoštovati tako v domači zakonodaji kot pri mednarodnih sporazumih).
From this point of view, a mere reference to undertakings is unsatisfactory because it leaves doubts as to their character of binding, judiciable acts (N.B.: undertakings of a purely administrative nature on the part of the USA would not satisfy the requirement for "legislative" measures prescribed by Article 8 of the ECHR, which the Member States - and the EU institutions - have to respect both in domestic legislation and in international agreements.
Glede na to, da bi šlo za mednarodni sporazum, ki bi vplival na področje v pristojnosti držav članic in bi zadeval temeljne pravice, bi ga morali ratificirati nacionalni parlamenti.
Since it would be international agreement affecting an area falling within the competence of the Member States and dealing with fundamental rights, it would have to be ratified by the national Parliaments.
Tehnično bi nacionalni parlamenti sami morali sprožiti to zahtevo pri vladah in sicer z aktiviranjem deklaracije iz člena 24(5) Pogodbe o EU.
Technically, that requirement would have to be raised with their governments by the national Parliaments themselves by activating the declaration provided for in Article 24(5) of the EU Treaty.
Treba bi bilo izpeljati pravno oceno o tem, ali bi v primeru, da sporazum ratificirajo le nekatere države članice, slednjega lahko začasno izvrševali.
It would be necessary to effect a legal evaluation as to whether, in the event of ratification only by some Member States, the agreement could be applied provisionally.
Situacija, ki bo nastala, bo enaka tisti s sporazumom med ZDA in EU o izročitvah in pravosodnem sodelovanju v kazenskih zadevah.
The situation which is going to come about will the same as the situation obtaining with the EU/US agreement on extradition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Osnutek pooblastila Komisije in vlad določa, da mora sporazum, o katerem bodo tekla pogajanja, zagotavljati vsaj enako raven zaščite kot sporazum, ki je bil ravnokar razglašen za ničnega.
The draft mandate of the CEC and the Governments have provided that the agreement to be negotiated must assure at least the same level of protection as the agreement which has just been annulled.
Tako politično kot logično ta predlog ne vzdrži.
Both politically and logically, that proposition does not stand up.
Po dveh letih izvajanja tako Komisija kot administracija ZDA priznavata, da bi se sporazum dalo izboljšati.
After two years' application, both the Community and the US administration recognise that the agreement could be improved.
Skupina iz člena 29 se sklicuje na to, da mora prihodnji sporazum zagotavljati najmanj enako raven zaščite, na katero se formalno sklicuje sporazum, ki je bil ravnokar razglašen za ničnega.
The Article 29 Group refers to the fact that the future agreement must provide at least the level of data protection formally referred to in the agreement which has just been annulled.