natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zadeva: Pravna podlaga pobude Kraljevine Belgije za sprejetje okvirnega sklepa Sveta o priznavanju in izvrševanju prepovedi, ki so posledica obsodb za spolne delikte nad otroki, v Evropski uniji (14207/2004 – C6‑0244/2004 – 2004/0818(CNS) )
Subject: Legal basis of the Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption by the Council of a framework decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children (14207/2004 – C6‑0244/2004 – 2004/0818(CNS) )
Še ni objavljeno v UL.
Not yet published in the OJ.
Spoštovani gospod predsednik,
Dear Chairman,
v pismu z dne 6. oktobra 2005 ste v skladu s členom 35(2) Poslovnika Odbor za pravne zadeve zaprosili za mnenje o točnosti in primernosti pravne podlage zgoraj omenjenega predloga Komisije.
By letter of 6 October 2005 you asked the Committee on Legal Affairs pursuant to Rule 35(2) to consider whether the legal basis of the above Commission proposal was valid and appropriate.
Zgoraj omenjeno vprašanje je odbor obravnaval na seji dne 22. novembra 2005.
The Committee considered the above question at its meeting of 22 November 2005.
Glede na to, da je trenutna pravna podlaga člen 31(1)(a)
Whereas the present legal basis is Article 31(1)(a)
Vsi akti Skupnosti morajo temeljiti na pravni podlagi, določeni v Pogodbi (oziroma v drugem pravnem aktu, ki naj se z njimi izvaja).
All Community acts must be founded upon a legal basis laid down in the Treaty (or in another legal act which they are intended to implement).
Ta pravna podlaga opredeli tako pristojnost Skupnosti ratione materiae kot tudi način izvajanja te pristojnosti, namreč kateri zakonodajni instrument se lahko uporabi, in pa postopek sprejemanja odločitev.
The legal basis defines the Community's competence ratione materiae and specifies how that competence is to be exercised, namely the legislative instrument(s) which may be used and the decision-making procedure.
Poleg tega bi moral biti odločilni dejavnik glavni cilj ukrepa.
Furthermore, the decisive factor should be the main object of a measure.
Glede na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti splošni člen Pogodbe predstavlja ustrezno pravno podlago, čeprav obravnavani ukrep skuša na podrejen način doseči tudi cilj, ki si ga prizadeva doseči specifični člen Pogodbe.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a general Treaty article constitutes a sufficient legal basis even though the measure in question also seeks, in a subordinate manner, to attain an aim sought by a specific Treaty article
Primer C-377/98, Nizozemska / Evropski parlament in Svet, [2001] ECR I-7079, odstavka 27-28; Primer C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, odstavka 93-94.
Case C-377/98 Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, paras 27-28; Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paras 93-94. .
Vendar pa mora ukrep, kadar ima več sočasnih ciljev, neločljivo povezanih med seboj, pri čemer nobeden ni drugotnega pomena in posredne narave glede na ostale, temeljiti na raznih ustreznih določbah Pogodbe
However, where a measure has several contemporaneous objectives which are indissolubly linked with each other without one being secondary and indirect in respect to the others, the measure must be based on the various relevant Treaty provisions
Primer C-165/87 , Komisija / Svet [1988] ECR 5545, odstavek 11. , razen če to ni mogoče zaradi medsebojne nezdružljivosti postopkov odločanja, predpisanih z določbami
Case 165/87 Commission v. Council [1988] ECR 5545, para.
Glej npr.
11. unless this is impossible on account of the mutual incompatibility of the decision-making procedures laid down by the provisions
Ustrezne določbe iz Pogodbe EU
The relevant provisions of the EU Treaty
Skupni ukrepi na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah vključujejo:
Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) olajševanje in pospeševanje sodelovanja pri postopkih in izvrševanju odločitev med pristojnimi ministrstvi in sodnimi ali drugimi primerljivimi organi držav članic, kjer je to primerno, pa tudi s sodelovanjem prek Eurojusta;
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(c) zagotavljanje skladnosti predpisov, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah, kolikor je to potrebno za izboljšanje takšnega sodelovanja;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation ;
Svet sprejema ukrepe in spodbuja sodelovanje z uporabo ustrezne oblike in ustreznih postopkov iz tega naslova, s čimer prispeva k doseganju ciljev Unije.
The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation, using the appropriate form and procedures as set out in this title, contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union.
V ta namen lahko Svet na pobudo katere koli države članice ali Komisije soglasno:
To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may:
(b) sprejema okvirne sklepe zaradi približevanja zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic.
(b) adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.
Okvirni sklepi so za vsako državo članico zavezujoči glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, nacionalnim organom pa prepuščajo izbiro oblike in metod.
Framework decisions shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
Sklepi nimajo neposrednega učinka;
They shall not entail direct effect;
Cilj in vsebina predlaganega okvirnega sklepa
Aim and content of the proposed framework decision
Na podlagi pojasnila k pobudi Kraljevine Belgije je cilj tega okvirnega sklepa izboljšanje sodelovanja med državami članicami Evropske unije na področju zaščite otrok pred spolnimi zlorabami in še zlasti zagotovitev dejanskega izvrševanja sankcij izgube pravic, ki se nanašajo na kazenske obsodbe za tovrstno kaznivo obnašanje.
According to the explanatory note to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the purpose of the proposed framework decision is to improve cooperation between Member States in the protection of children from sexual abuse, with the particular aim of ensuring effective application of disqualifications linked to criminal convictions for this type of offence.
Trenutno nič ne zagotavlja, da bo izguba pravic, izrečena v eni državi članici, imela pravne posledice v drugih državah članicah, medtem ko se obsojenec lahko svobodno giblje po ozemlju Evropske unije.
At present, nothing guarantees that a disqualification handed down in one Member State has any legal effect in the other Member States, even though the convicted person has freedom of movement within the territory of the European Union.
Oseba, ki je bila v eni državi članici obsojena zaradi pedofilije in ki ji je v tej državi prepovedano opravljati dejavnosti, pri katerih bi lahko prišla v stik z otroki, se torej lahko izogne tej prepovedi tako, da se nastani v drugi državi članici.
A person who has been convicted for paedophile acts in one Member State and is subject in that State to a prohibition on pursuing activities likely to bring that person into contact with children may therefore evade the prohibition by moving to another Member State.
Predlagani okvirni sklep bi za prepovedi, ki so posledica obsodb v tujini za spolne delikte nad otroki, uporabil načelo medsebojnega priznavanja.
The proposed framework decision would apply the principle of mutual recognition to prohibitions arising from foreign convictions for sexual offences committed against children.
Po mnenju Belgije to rešitev olajšuje dejstvo, da je področje ratione materiae jasno opredeljeno in omejeno na področje, na katerem so bile definicije kršitev usklajene z okvirnim sklepom Sveta 2004/68/PNZ z dne 22. decembra 2003 o boju proti spolnemu izkoriščanju otrok in otroški pornografiji
In Belgium's view, this solution is facilitated by the fact that the scope ratione materiae is clearly defined and limited to a sector in which the definitions of offences were harmonised by Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
Lahko omenimo, da pravno podlago za ta okvirni sklep predstavljajo člen 29, člen 31(1)(c) in člen 34(2)(b) Pogodbe EU.
It may be noted that the legal basis for that framework decision is Article 29, Article 31(1)(c) and Article 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty.
Ta okvirni sklep državam članicam tudi nalaga, da v svojih zakonodajah določijo sankcijo prepovedi, povezano z obsodbami za to vrsto kaznivih dejanj.
The framework decision would also require Member States to provide in their national legislation for a sentence of disqualification associated with convictions for such offences.
Cilj je torej izboljšanje sodelovanja med državami članicami Evropske unije s tem, da se od države članice, v kateri prebiva obsojena oseba, zahteva, da prizna prepoved, izrečeno v tujini, in da jo na svojem ozemlju tudi izvrši.
The aim is therefore to improve cooperation between Member States by obliging the Member State where the convicted person is resident to recognise prohibitions handed down abroad and to enforce them on its territory.
Da bi se zagotovilo dejansko izvajanje načela medsebojnega priznavanja izgub pravic in prepovedi bi predlagani instrument omogočal, da informacij o kazenskih evidencah krožijo po državah članicah in se z njimi lahko seznanijo pristojni organi države, v kateri se giblje obsojena oseba.
In order to ensure that the principle of mutual recognition of disqualifications and prohibitions is effective, the proposed instrument would allow information on criminal records to be circulated among the Member States so that they can be brought to the attention of the competent authorities of the State to which the convicted person moves.
Trenutno imajo države članice samo delen vpogled v obsodbe neke osebe v tujini.
Currently, Member States have only a partial view of a person's foreign convictions.
Samodejno so jim namreč posredovane zgolj obsodbe, izrečene zoper njihove lastne državljane v drugi državi članici, skladno s členom 22 Evropske konvencije o medsebojni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah iz leta 1959
Only convictions handed down against their own nationals in another Member State are automatically brought to their attention, under Article 22 of the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Svet Evrope, STE št. 30. .
Council of Europe, ETS No 30. .
To nepoznavanje je še bolj pereče zaradi dejstva, da precej držav članic ne vpisuje teh tujih obsodb v svoje kazenske evidence.
This lack of knowledge is exacerbated by the fact that several Member States do not record such foreign convictions in their national criminal records.
Ko gre za izgube pravic in prepovedi, povezane s temi obsodbami, je stanje še toliko bolj resno, saj ta vrsta ukrepov ni nujno zabeležena niti v ustrezni tuji kazenski evidenci.
In the case of disqualifications and prohibitions associated with such convictions, the situation is all the more problematic, since such measures may not appear in the foreign criminal records.
Z namenom, da se popravijo te pomanjkljivosti in da se zagotovi dejansko spoštovanje načela medsebojnega priznavanja izgube pravic in prepovedi, predlagani okvirni sklep določa nekatere minimalne obveznosti glede informiranja drugih držav članic Unije.
To remedy this situation and make the principle of mutual recognition of disqualifications and prohibitions genuinely effective, the proposed framework decision provides for a minimum number of obligations regarding information vis-à-vis other Member States of the Union.
Zadnja ugotovljena pomanjkljivost pri sodelovanju na tem področju v okviru Evropske unije je, da v večini primerov to sodelovanje ostaja strogo omejeno na naknadne sodne postopke in zato nima nobenega preventivnega učinka.
One final lacuna identified in cooperation in this area within the European Union is that such cooperation remains for the most part strictly limited to subsequent judicial proceedings and is therefore devoid of any preventive impact.
Vsekakor pa je smisel izgube pravice predvsem v tem, da se preprečijo ponovitve kaznivih dejanj.
Indeed, the very purpose of the disqualification is primarily to prevent the commission of fresh offences.
Bistvenega pomena je torej, da se izgubam pravic, povezanim z obsodbami, izrečenimi v tujini, lahko nemudoma določijo pravne posledice, ne da bi čakali, da pride do storitve novih kaznivih dejanj.
It is thus essential to be able immediately to give legal effect to disqualifications associated with convictions imposed abroad, without waiting for further offences to be committed.
V tem smislu omejevanje dostopa do tuje kazenske evidence v sodne namene ni sprejemljivo, saj pomemben del koristi od tega dostopa sodi v okvir upravnih in preventivnih postopkov.
In this context, it is not acceptable to restrict consultation of the foreign criminal records to judicial purposes, since a major part of the significance of access to such information is administrative and preventive.
Ravno nasprotno – obveznost države članice, da preveri kazensko evidenco države porekla, mora obstajati v vseh primerih, ko se preverja lastna nacionalna kazenska evidenca, tudi takrat, ko se, v mejah področja uporabe okvirnega sklepa, podatki iz kazenske evidence zahtevajo z namenom, da se dovoli izvajanje določene dejavnosti.
There must, on the contrary, be an obligation on a Member State to consult the criminal records of the State of origin in all cases where its own national criminal records are consulted, including where the information taken from the criminal records is required with a view to authorising the pursuit of a given activity, in the context of the scope of the Framework Decision.
Predlagane stvarne določbe
The proposed substantive provisions
Člen 1 tako določa namen okvirnega sklepa, in sicer določiti pravila, na podlagi katerih država članica prizna in na svojem ozemlju izvršuje prepoved, ki je posledica obsodbe iz členov 2, 3 in 4 okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2004/68/PNZ z dne 22. decembra 2003 o boju proti spolni zlorabi otrok in otroški pornografiji
Accordingly, Article 1 sets out the purpose of the framework decision, viz. to establish the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and enforce in its territory prohibitions arising from convictions covered in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
V splošnem so ta kazniva dejanja sledeča:
Broadly, these offences are:
- prisila otrok k prostituciji ali udeležbi v pornografskih predstavah ali druga oblika zlorabe otrok v takšne namene;
- coercing a child into prostitution or into participating in pornographic performances, or profiting from or otherwise exploiting a child for such purposes;
-pridobitev otrok k prostituciji ali udeležbi v pornografskih predstavah;
- recruiting a child into prostitution or into participating in pornographic performances;
- spolno občevanje z otroki, kjer:
- engaging in sexual activities with a child, where
(i) je prisotna uporaba prisile, sile ali groženj;
(i) use is made of coercion, force or threats;
(ii) se otrokova udeležba pri spolnem občevanju plača z denarjem ali drugimi oblikami plačila in pozornosti; ali
(ii) money or other forms of remuneration or consideration is given as payment in exchange for the child engaging in sexual activities; or
(iii) pride do zlorabe zaupnega položaja, avtoritete ali vpliva nad otroki;
(iii) abuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child.
- izdelava otroške pornografije;
- production of child pornography;
- distribucija, razširjanje ali posredovanje otroške pornografije;
- distribution, dissemination or transmission of child pornography;
- dobavljanje ali omogočanje dostopa do otroške pornografije;
- supplying or making available child pornography;
- pridobitev ali posest otroške pornografije;
- acquisition or possession of child pornography,
- spodbujanje, pomoč, napeljevanje in poskusi storitve teh kaznivih dejanj. .
- instigating, aiding, abetting and attempts in relation to those offences. .
Člen 2 vsebuje opredelitve pojmov.
Article 2 sets out a series of definitions.
Člen 3 nalaga vpis vsake prepovedi (začasne ali trajne prepovedi opravljanja poklicnih dejavnosti, povezanih z nadzorom otrok, ki je posledica kaznivega dejanja v smislu členov 2, 3 in 4 okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2004/68/PNZ) v storilčevo kazensko evidenco.
Article 3 makes it obligatory for any prohibition (temporary or permanent ban on exercising professional activities related to the supervision of children arising from an offence within the meaning of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA) to be registered in the offender's criminal record.
Člen 4 predvideva, da kadar država članica, v kateri je bila oseba obsojena, drugi državi članici posreduje podatke o kazenski evidenci v skladu z mednarodnimi predpisi, ki se uporabljajo za medsebojno pravno pomoč v kazenskih zadevah, navede prepoved (in trajanje le-te) v izpisku iz kazenske evidence.
Article 4 provides that when the Member State in which the person concerned was convicted passes on criminal record information to another Member State under the applicable international rules on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, it has to mention the prohibition (and its duration) in the excerpt from the criminal record.
Člen 5 predvideva, da je podatke o kazenski evidenci treba pridobiti od ustreznega nacionalnega centralnega organa.
Article 5 provides that information about criminal records has to be obtained from the relevant national central authority.
Člen 6 obravnava priznavanje in izvrševanje prepovedi pod naslednjimi pogoji:
Article 6 deals with the recognition and enforcement of prohibitions in the following terms:
Pristojni organi države izvršiteljice priznajo vsako prepoved, pri čemer ne zahtevajo nobene druge formalnosti, in jo izvršujejo, razen če se pristojni organi odločijo za sklic na enega izmed razlogov za nepriznavanje ali neizvrševanje iz člena 7.
The competent authorities of the enforcing State shall recognise any prohibition, without any formalities being required, and shall enforce it, unless the competent authorities decide to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition or non-enforcement provided for in Article 7.
Ko je država izvršiteljica obveščena o obstoju prepovedi, to informacijo posreduje pristojnemu organu za namene uporabe prvega odstavka.
When an enforcing State is informed of the existence of a prohibition, it shall forward that information to the competent authority for the purposes of applying paragraph 1.
Pristojni organ poda odločitev v roku tridesetih dni po posredovanju te informacije."
The competent authority shall issue its decision within thirty days of such information being forwarded."
Člen 7 obravnava razloge za nepriznavanje ali neizvrševanje, kot sledi:
Article 7 deals with reasons for non-recognition or non-enforcement as follows:
"Pristojni organi države izvršiteljice lahko priznavanje ali izvrševanje prepovedi zavrnejo le, če je:
"The competent authorities in the enforcing State may refuse to recognise and enforce a prohibition only if:
(a) kazen zastarala po zakonodaji države izvršiteljice in če zadevna kazniva dejanja sodijo v pristojnost te države v skladu z njenim lastnim kazenskim pravom;
(a) the penalty is time-limited under the law of the enforcing State, where the offences concerned are subject to the jurisdiction of that State under its own criminal law;
(b) bila obsodba izrečena v odsotnosti in zadevna oseba ni bila osebno pozvana pred sodišče niti drugače obveščena o času in kraju zaslišanja, ki je privedlo do obsodbe, izrečene v odsotnosti;
(b) the conviction was handed down in default of appearance and the person concerned was not summoned in person nor otherwise informed of the date and location of the hearing that led to the conviction handed down in default of appearance;
(c) bila obsodba za zadevno osebo izrečena za ista kazniva dejanja v državi izvršiteljici."
(c) a conviction was handed down on the person concerned for the same offences in the enforcing State."
Člen 8 predvideva, da pristojnemu organu države izvršiteljice za izvršitev prepovedi ni treba zahtevati drugih formalnosti razen ustreznega obrazca o izmenjavi podatkov, izpisanih iz kazenske evidence.
Article 8 provides that to enforce a prohibition, the competent authority of the issuing State is not to require any formalities other than the relevant form on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record.
Člen 9 predvideva, da morajo države članice izvesti potrebne ukrepe, s katerimi obsojencu zagotovijo nesuspenzivno pravno sredstvo za pritožbo zoper priznavanje in izvrševanje prepovedi, ter da razlogov, ki so privedli do izreka sodbe in kazni, ni mogoče spodbijati pred sodiščem v državi izvršiteljici.
Article 9 provides that Member States have to put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that the convicted person has a non-suspensive legal remedy against the recognition and enforcement of a prohibition and that the substantial reasons for handing down the conviction and the sentence cannot be challenged before a court in the enforcing State.
Člen 10 obravnava naknadne ukrepe, ki vplivajo na prepoved, vključno z revizijo, pomilostitvijo, amnestijo, resocializacijo in izbrisom.
Article 10 deals with subsequent measures affecting prohibitions, including review, pardon, amnesty, rehabilitation and erasure.
Člen 11 obravnava izvajanje, medtem ko je s členom 12 določen začetek veljavnosti.
Articles 10 and 11 deal with implementation and entry into force, respectively.
Ustrezna pravna podlage
The appropriate legal basis
Odbor za državljanske svoboščine je postavil vprašanje o tem, ali bi bilo morda primerno dodati (kot to tudi predlaga njegov poročevalec v prvem predlogu spremembe v svojem osnutku poročila) točko (c) člena 31(1) Pogodbe EU k točki (a) te določbe in členu 34(2)(b).
The Civil Liberties Committee has asked whether it would not be appropriate to add (as their rapporteur is proposing in the first amendment in his draft report) point (c) of Article 31(1) of the EU Treaty, in addition to point (a) of that provision and Article 34(2)(b).
Razlogi, navedeni v osnutku poročila, zaradi katerih se doda ta določba, so:
The grounds given in the draft report for adding this extra provision are as follows:
"Cilj tega instrumenta je dvojen: izboljšati dostop do podatkov o prepovedih (še posebej preko obveznega vpisa prepovedi v kazensko evidenco) in zapovedati njihovo izvajanje.
" As the objective of the instrument is twofold: to improve access to information on prohibitions (in particular through compulsory registration of prohibitions in the criminal record) and to make it compulsory to enforce them.
Ker se kazensko pravo držav članic EU razlikuje, je potrebno pri pravilih o kazenskih obsodbah zagotoviti določeno mero usklajenosti."
Giving the fact that the criminal law varies in the Member States of the EU it is necessary to ensure a certain level of compatibility in rules applicable to criminal convictions."
Naj spomnimo, da se točka (c) člena 31(1) glasi:
As will be recalled, point (c) of Article 31(1) reads as follows:
[Skupni ukrepi na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah vključujejo]
[ Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include]
"(c) zagotavljanje skladnosti predpisov, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah, kolikor je to potrebno za izboljšanje takšnega sodelovanja;"
"(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;"