natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Za zagotovitev učinkovitosti evropskega naloga za prijetje poročevalec predlaga tudi, da države članice začnejo prevajati evropski nalog za prijetje v druge jezike.
To ensure the efficiency of the EAW the rapporteur also proposes that Member States should introduce translations of the EAW in other languages.
V zvezi z razpisi ukrepov glede pogrešanih oseb (poglavje V) skuša poročevalec pojasniti besedilo z jasnejšim opisom sedanje prakse.
As regards the alerts on missing persons (chapter V) the rapporteur tries to clarify the text by describing in clearer language what the current practice is.
Kadar besedilo govori o „omogočanju začasne policijske zaščite osebi“, to dejansko pomeni odpeljati osebo v psihiatrično ustanovo.
When the text speaks about 'placing a person under temporary police protection' what is meant in reality is to commit the person to a psychiatric institution.
Za izognitev dvoumnosti na terenu je treba to natančno določiti.
To avoid any ambiguity on the ground it is necessary to stipulate this clearly.
Za zagotovitev ustrezne obravnave policije od prvega stika (in ne le po izmenjavi dopolnilnih podatkov, ki lahko traja več ur) predlaga, da se kot dopolnilni podatki v SIS II vnesejo vse posebne informacije, ki so potrebne z zdravniškega stališča.
To ensure an appropriate treatment by the police from the moment of the first contact (and not only after the exchange of supplementary information which might take several hours) he proposes to insert as additional data in the SIS II any specific information necessary from a medical point of view.
V zvezi z zelo občutljivimi vprašanji pogrešanih mladoletnikov predlaga dodaten vnos opisa okoliščin primera, če je to mogoče.
As regards the very sensitive issue of missing minors the rapporteur proposes to add, if available, a description of the circumstances of the case.
Obstajajo velike razlike glede ukrepov, ki jih mora policija sprejeti v primeru ugrabitve s strani staršev, kaznivega dejanja ugrabitve ali le bega mladoletnika.
There is for example a huge difference in action to be taken by the police between a case of parental abduction, a case of criminal abduction or simply a minor who ran away.
V zvezi z „ razpisi ukrepov glede oseb, iskanih za sodni postopek“ (poglavje VI) poročevalec predlaga spremembo naslova v „razpisi ukrepov glede oseb, iskanih za pomoč v sodnem postopku“, da izraža dejstvo, da iskane osebe v večini primerov niso „iskani“ storilci kaznivih dejanj.
As regards the 'alerts on persons wanted for judicial procedure' (chapter VI) the rapporteur proposes to change the title to 'alerts on persons who are sought so as to be able to assist with a judicial procedure' to reflect the fact that the persons concerned are in most cases not 'wanted' criminals.
Zato predlaga tudi, da se ukrepi razpišejo z natančno navedbo, v katero kategorijo oseb, kot jo zajema zadevni tip razpisa ukrepa, spada oseba.
For this reason he also proposes that the alerts should be entered by indicating precisely into which category of persons as covered by this type of alert the person falls.
V zvezi z „razpisi ukrepov glede oseb in stvari zaradi prikritega evidentiranja ali namenske kontrole“ (poglavje VII) poročevalec predlaga tudi spremembo uporabljenih besed, da se bolje opiše razpis ukrepa in ukrep, ki ga je treba sprejeti po zadetku.
As regards the 'alerts on persons and objects for discreet surveillance or specific checks' (chapter VII) the rapporteur also proposes a modification of the words used to better describe the alert and the action to be taken following a hit.
Predlaga, da se ti razpisi poimenujejo „razpisi ukrepov glede oseb in stvari zaradi kontrol ali iskanj“.
He proposes to call them 'alerts on persons and objects for checks or searches'.
Izraz „kontrola“ mora zamenjati izraz „prikrito evidentiranje“, ki je zavajajoč: opisani položaj ni prikrito dolgotrajno opazovanje osebe.
The word 'check' should replace 'discreet surveillance' which is misleading: the situation described is not the discreet observation of a person for a prolonged period.
To je položaj, v katerem se oseba preveri, informacije, pridobljene med kontrolo, pa se posredujejo organu, ki je razpisal ukrep.
It is rather the situation in which a person is checked and information obtained during the check transmitted to the authority issuing the alert.
Za razlikovanje med izrazoma „kontrola“ in „namenska kontrola“ se predlaga uporaba izraza „iskanja“, ker gre dejansko za iskanja.
In order to distinguish 'checks' from 'specific checks' it is proposed to use the wording 'searches' because de facto they are searches.
Doda se posebno poglavje o prikritem evidentiranju.
A specific chapter on discreet surveillance is added.
II.2 Obdobja hrambe podatkov
II.2 The data retention periods
Obdobja hrambe sedanjega SIC so povzročila številne nesporazume.
The retention periods of the current SIC have led to numerous misunderstandings.
Člen 112 določa pregled razpisov ukrepov za osebe na vsaka tri leta, ne da bi za te primere določil najdaljše obdobje hrambe.
Art. 112 provides for a review of alerts on persons every three years without fixing for those cases a maximum retention period.
Komisija je poskušala razjasniti to vprašanje s predlaganjem najdaljših obdobij za hrambo podatkov.
The Commission attempted to clarify this issue by proposing maximum data retention periods.
Za večino razpisov ukrepov je Komisija predlagala 10 let.
For most alerts the Commission proposed 10 years.
Obdobja hrambe podatkov je treba obravnavati skupaj z obdobji pregleda, ker je cilj obeh zagotoviti, da sistem vključuje le najpomembnejše in posodobljene podatke.
The data retention periods have to be seen together with the review periods as both have the objective to ensure that the system only contains the most relevant and up-to-date data.
Komisija predlaga pregled razpisov ukrepov po enem letu.
The Commission proposed to review the alerts after one year.
Organi za varstvo podatkov so kritizirali obdobja hrambe podatkov.
Data protection authorities have criticised the data retention periods.
JSA meni, da je obdobje 10 let „predolga“ doba (str.
The 10 year period is considered 'excessive' by the JSA (p.
EDPS „želi videti resno obrazložitev za to podaljšanje rokov hrambe podatkov“.
The EDPS 'would like to see serious justification for this extension of data retention periods.'
Če obrazložitev ni, predlaga skrajšanje obdobja na sedanje obdobje.
In the absence of these he suggests to reduce them to their current duration.
Enak argument je pripravila delovna skupina iz člena 29 (str.
The same line of argument is developed by the Art. 29 Working Party (p.
Osnovna utemeljitev poročevalca je bila podaljšati obdobje za pregled na dve leti, da se izognemo prekomernemu birokratskemu bremenu in hkrati skrajšamo obdobje hrambe večine razpisov ukrepov na pet let.
The underlying rationale of the rapporteur was to increase to two years the period for review to avoid an overly bureaucratic burden and at the same time to decrease the retention period for most alerts to five years.
Če so takrat pogoji za razpis ukrepa še vedno izpolnjeni, je treba razpisati nov ukrep.
Should the conditions for the alerts still be fulfilled at that time a new alert should be entered.
Poročevalec meni, da je to uravnotežen in jasen kompromis.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that this would constitute a balanced and clear compromise.
III.3 Dostop do razpisov ukrepa
III.3 Access to the alerts
Komisija je brez večjih sprememb vključila pravila v zvezi z dostopom različnih organov do SIS (členi 101, 101A in 101B SIC).
The Commission has included without major modifications the rules regarding the access of the various authorities to SIS (Art. 101, 101A and 101B SIC).
Sprejetih je bilo nekaj pojasnil, ki jih poročevalec pozdravlja (npr. črtanje organov, ki so odgovorni za „usklajevanje“ drugih policijskih in carinskih kontrol znotraj države, kjer ni bilo jasno, kdo so ti organi).
A few clarifications were made which are welcomed by the rapporteur (e.g. the deletion of the authorities responsible for the 'coordination' of other police and customs checks within the country where it was very unclear which authorities these are).
Poročevalec predlaga več predlogov sprememb v zvezi z dostopom za Europol in Eurojust.
The rapporteur proposes several amendments concerning the access for Europol and Eurojust.
Ti temeljijo na tradicionalnem stališču Parlamenta in mnenjih, ki so jih prejeli organi za varstvo podatkov.
They are based on Parliament's traditional position and the opinions received by the data protection authorities.
V zvezi z Europolom poročevalec ponavlja stališče Parlamenta, da mora Europol preiti pod okrilje Skupnosti in se financirati iz proračuna EU.
As regards Europol the rapporteur reiterates Parliament's position that Europol should be communitarised and financed out of the EU budget.
To je odločitev, ki jo je mogoče sprejeti brez začetka veljavnosti Ustave (kot v primeru Cerpola).
This is a decision which could be taken without the entry into force of the Constitution (like was the case with Cepol).
III.4 Pravila o varstvu podatkov
III.4 The data protection rules
Zdajšnji predlog se še vedno sklicuje na Konvencijo Sveta Evrope iz leta 1981, ker so njena pravila veljala v času predstavitve predloga (06/2005).
The present proposal still refers to the Council of Europe Convention of 1981 because those were the rules applicable at the time of the presentation of the proposal itself (06/2005).
Tudi če to uradno še vedno velja, je Komisija nedavno predložila nov obsežen pravni okvir za varstvo podatkov v tretjem stebru (KOM(2005)475), ki bo v državah članicah EU nadomestil standarde Konvencije Sveta Evrope iz leta 1981.
Even if formally this is still the case, the Commission has recently submitted a new comprehensive legal framework for data protection in the third pillar (COM(2005)475) which will replace for the EU Member States the 1981 Council of Europe Convention standards.
To drugo besedilo v uvodni izjavi 22 izrecno določa, da morajo njegovi standardi veljati za SIS II.
This second text foresees in recital 22 explicitly that its standards should apply to SIS II.
Poročevalec uvaja serijo predlogov sprememb, ki so podobne spremembam, predstavljenim v prvem stebru Uredbe.
The rapporteur introduces a series of amendments similar to the ones presented in the first pillar Regulation.
Pisal je tudi komisarju Frattiniju in zahteval, da Komisija posodobi pravila o varstvu podatkov v sedanjem sklepu o SIS II, da zagotovi skladnost z Okvirnim sklepom o varstvu podatkov.
He also wrote to Commissioner Frattini asking the Commission to update the data protection rules in the present SIS II Decision to ensure consistency with the Framework Decision on Data Protection.
Zelo pomembno je, da novi standardi veljajo za SIS II.
It is very important that the new standards apply to SIS II.
Za Parlament je sprejetje Okvirnega sklepa o varstvu podatkov s strani Sveta strateško pomembno.
For Parliament the adoption of the Framework Decision on Data Protection by the Council is of strategic importance.
III.5 Posredovanje podatkov tretjim strankam
III.5 Transfer of data to third parties
Komisija v členu 48 predlaga oblikovanje pravne podlage za posredovanje podatkov SIS II tretjim državam ali mednarodnim organizacijam brez opredelitve, kdo so te tretje stranke.
The Commission in Art. 48 proposes to create a legal basis for the transfer of SIS II data to third countries or international organisations without specifying what these third parties are.
Poročevalec predlaga serijo sprememb tega člena.
The rapporteur proposes a series of amendments to this Article.
Najprej želi poudariti, da podatkov praviloma ni mogoče posredovati.
Firstly, he would like to stress that as a rule data may not be transferred.
Pod posebnimi pogoji mora biti to dovoljeno kot izjema.
Secondly, as an exception this should, however, be possible under specific conditions.
Poročevalec predlaga uporabo zadevnih pravil Okvirnega sklepa o varstvu podatkov.
The rapporteur proposes that the relevant rules of the Framework Decision on Data Protection should be applied.
Vztraja tudi pri pravni podlagi, glede katere se je Parlament nazadnje posvetoval.
He also insists on a legal basis about which Parliament was at least consulted.
Razen tega se lahko posredujejo le podatki o stvareh iz poglavja VIII, ker so bili predloženi argumenti le za izmenjavo podatkov na dokumentih.
In addition, only data on objects as referred to in chapter VIII should be transferred because arguments were brought forward only for the exchange of data on documents.
Če ti podatki vključujejo osebne podatke (kot v primeru ukradenega potnega lista), morajo veljati pravkar opisana pravila.
In case this data contains personal data (like in the case of a stolen passport) the rules as just described should apply.
V vseh ostalih primerih je treba uporabljati obstoječe pravne instrumente (npr. za pravosodno sodelovanje ali Interpol).
For all other cases existing legal instruments (e.g. on judicial cooperation or Interpol) should be used.
S pismom z dne 2. junija 2006 je LIBE zahteval mnenje pravne službe Parlamenta v zvezi z uporabo komitologije v tretjem stebru.
By letter of 2.6.2006 the LIBE committee has asked Parliament's legal service for an opinion concerning the use of comitology in the third pillar.
Pravna služba dejansko izključuje uporabo postopkov komitologije.
The legal service basically excludes the use of comitology procedures.
Vseeno kot izjemo dopušča možnost uporabe komitologije v primerih, ko je schengenski pravni red razdeljen med prvi in tretji steber.
As an exception, it leaves, however, the possibility to make use of comitology as far as the Schengen acquis split between the first and third pillar is concerned.
Funkcionalne potrebe, enotnost postopka in tehnična neločljivost so utemeljitev tega argumenta.
Functional needs, unity of the procedure and technical indivisibility are given as a justification for this line of argument.
Za uporabo tega argumenta je „neločljivo vez“ treba šteti za odločilen element.
For the application of this line of argument the 'indissoluble link' is to be considered the decisive element.
Zato v zvezi z zdajšnjim sklepom poročevalec predlaga ohranitev postopka komitologije za priročnik SIRENE.
As regards the present Decision the rapporteur therefore proposes to keep the comitology procedure for the SIRENE Manual.
Vseeno predlaga spremembo postopkov, ki se uporabljajo, da dobi Parlament vlogo, ki je primerljiva z vlogo Sveta.
He proposes, however, the modification of the applicable procedures to give Parliament a comparable role to the one of Council.
Ti predlogi sprememb so logična posledica potrebe po ohranjanju skladnosti med prvim in tretjim stebrom.
These amendments are a logical consequence of the need to keep the coherence between the first and third pillar.
Hkrati poročevalec vztraja pri pravilih iz Pogodbe EU v vseh primerih, v katerih je treba sprejeti sklepe, ki spadajo izključno v tretji steber in ne na področje uporabe priročnika SIRENE.
At the same time the rapporteur insists on the rules of the EU Treaty in all cases where decisions have to be taken which fall exclusively in the third pillar and not in the scope of the SIRENE Manual.
To zadeva pravila glede združljivosti razpisov ukrepov in označevanja.
This concerns the rules on the compatibility of alerts and flagging.
Eden od razlogov za pravno zapletenost dokumentacije SIS II je obstoj dveh stebrov.
One of the reasons for the legal complexity of the SIS II dossier is the existence of the two pillars.
Ta primer ponazarja potrebo po premostitvi tega umetnega razlikovanja.
The present case exemplifies the need to overcome this artificial distinction.
Zato poročevalec poziva Svet, da nujno uporablja določbo „passerelle“ iz člena 42 TEU.
The rapporteur therefore urges the Council to make use of the passerelle provided for in Art. 42 TEU urgently.
Predlog Sklepa Sveta o vzpostavitvi, delovanju in uporabi druge generacije schengenskega informacijskega sistema (SIS II)
Proposal for a Council decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II)
o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dostopu služb držav članic, pristojnih za izdajo potrdil o registraciji vozil, do druge generacije schengenskega informacijskega sistema (SIS II)
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2005)0237 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2005)0237 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 71 Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0175/2005 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0175/2005 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0354/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0354/2006 ),
UREDBE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA IN SVETA
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
o dostopu služb držav članic, pristojnih za izdajo potrdil o registraciji vozil, do druge generacije schengenskega informacijskega sistema (SIS II)
regarding the access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti člena 71 Pogodbe,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71 thereof,
ob upoštevanju mnenja Evropskega ekonomsko-socialnega odbora
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
ob upoštevanju mnenja Odbora regij
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions
(1) Člen 9 Direktive Sveta 1999/37/ES z dne 29. aprila 1999 o dokumentih za registracijo vozil
(1) Article 9 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles
UL L 138, 1.6.1999, str.
OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p.
Takšno preverjanje lahko vključuje uporabo elektronskega omrežja.
Such checking may involve the use of an electronic network.
(2) Uredba XX/2006/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
(2) Regulation XX/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
UL L… in Sklep Sveta 2006/XX/PNZ
OJ L… and Council Decision 2006/XX/JHA
UL L… o vzpostavitvi, delovanju in uporabi druge generacije schengenskega informacijskega sistema (v nadaljnjem besedilu "SIS II") predstavljata pravno podlago, ki ureja SIS II, skupno bazo podatkov držav članic, ki med drugim vsebuje podatke o motornih vozilih z delovno prostornino nad 50 cm 3 (...) , podatke o priklopnikih z lastno težo nad 750 kg in stanovanjskih prikolicah (...) ter podatke o ukradenih, protipravno odvzetih, izgubljenih ali razveljavljenih potrdilih o registraciji vozil in registrskih tablicah vozil.
OJ L… on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (hereinafter "SIS II") constitute the legislative basis for governing the SIS II, which constitutes a shared database between Member States containing, inter alia, data on motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity exceeding 50 cc (…), data on trailers with an unladen weight exceeding 750 kg and caravans (…) and data on vehicle registration certificates and vehicle number plates which have been stolen, misappropriated, lost or invalidated.
(3) Uredba XX/2006/ES in Sklep 2006/XX/PNZ sta nadomestila člene 92 do 119 Konvencije z dne 19. junija 1990 o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma z dne 14. junija 1985 med vladami držav Gospodarske unije Beneluks, Zvezne republike Nemčije in Francoske republike o postopni odpravi kontrol na skupnih mejah
(3) Regulation XX/2006/EC and Decision 2006/XX/JHA replaced Articles 92 to 119 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the States of the Benelux economic union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders on the gradual abolition of checks at common borders
Konvencija, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 871/2004 (UL L 162, 30.4.2004, str.
Convention as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 871/2004 (OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p.
29) in Sklepom 2005/211/PNZ (UL L 68, 15.3.2005, str.
29) and Decision 2005/211/JHA (OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p.
44). (v nadaljnjem besedilu "Schengenska konvencija"), razen člena 102a Konvencije.
44). (hereinafter referred to as “the Schengen Convention”) with the exception of Articles 102a thereof.
Navedeni člen določa dostop organov in služb držav članic, pristojnih za izdajo potrdil o registraciji vozil, do schengenskega informacijskega sistema.
That article concerns access to the Schengen Information System by the authorities and services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles.
(4) Sedaj je treba sprejeti tretji instrument, ki temelji na naslovu V Pogodbe ES ter dopolnjuje Uredbo XX/2006/ES in Sklep 2006/XX/PNZ, da se službam držav članic, pristojnim za izdajo potrdil o registraciji vozil, zagotovi dostop do SIS II in nadomesti člen 102a Schengenske konvencije.
(4) It is now necessary to adopt a third instrument, based on Title V of the EC Treaty and complementing Regulation XX/2006/EC and Decision 2006/XX/JHA in order to allow access to the SIS II by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing registration certificates for vehicles, and to replace Article 102a of the Schengen Convention.
(5) Razpisi ukrepov glede stvari, ki vključujejo motorna vozila, so v skladu s Sklepom 2006/XX/PNZ vneseni v SIS II zaradi zasega ali za zagotovitev dokazov v kazenskih postopkih.
(5) Alerts on objects including motor vehicles are entered in the SIS II for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings, pursuant to Decision 2006/XX/JHA.
(6) V skladu s Sklepom 2006/XX/PNZ je dostop do razpisov ukrepov o stvareh, vnesenih v SIS II, dovoljen izključno policijskim, obmejnim in carinskim organom ter pravosodnim organom in Europolu.
(6) According to Decision 2006/XX/JHA, access to alerts on objects entered in the SIS II is reserved exclusively to the authorities responsible for police, border and custom authorities, as well as judicial authorities and Europol.
(7) Vladne ali nevladne službe, ki so v državah članicah jasno določene in pristojne za izdajo potrdil o registraciji vozil, morajo imeti dostop do podatkov v SIS II o ukradenih, protipravno odvzetih ali drugače odtujenih motornih vozilih z delovno prostornino nad 50 cm 3 , priklopnikih z lastno težo nad 750 kg, (...) stanovanjskih prikolicah ter do podatkov o ukradenih, protipravno odvzetih, izgubljenih ali razveljavljenih potrdilih o registraciji vozil in registrskih tablicah, s čimer se tem službam omogoči, da preverijo, ali so bila vozila, ki jih je treba registrirati, ukradena, protipravno odvzeta ali drugače odtujena.
(7) Government or non-government services clearly identified for this purpose and responsible in the Member States for issuing registration certificates for vehicles should have access to data included in the SIS II concerning motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity exceeding 50cc, trailers with an unladen weight exceeding 750 kg, (…) caravans and vehicle registration certificates and vehicle number plates which have been stolen, misappropriated, lost or invalidated in order to enable them to check whether the vehicles presented to them for registration have been stolen misappropriated or lost.
(8) Zato je treba tem službam zagotoviti dostop do takšnih podatkov in jim dovoliti njihovo uporabo v upravne namene pravilne izdaje potrdil o registraciji vozil.
(8) To that end it is necessary to grant those services access to that data, and to allow them to use the data for the administrative purposes of properly issuing vehicle registration certificates.