natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pripravljavka mnenja poziva k zavrnitvi/umiku predloga Komisije o dostopu do trga pristaniških storitev.
Your draftswoman calls for the rejection/withdrawal of the Commission’s proposal on market access to port services.
Glavni razlog za to je, da s tem predlogom ni dosežen namen Komisije.
The central argument is that the Commission’s purpose is not achieved with this proposal.
Opaziti je mogoče tudi precej nenavadne okoliščine, ki so nastale v zvezi z nasprotovanjem direktivi o pristaniščih.
A fairly unusual situation has also arisen in terms of the opposition to the ports directive.
Nasprotovanje/dvom je mogoče zaslediti v političnih strankah in med različnimi stranmi, na katere vplivajo pristaniške storitve – od ESPO do IDC in FEPORT
Opposition/scepticism is to be found across the political parties and among the various parties affected by port services - ranging from ESPO to the IDC and FEPORT
ESPO: „European Sea Ports Organisation“ – „Organizacija evropskih morskih pristanišč“, IDC: „International Dockworkers Council“ – „Mednarodni svet pristaniških delavcev“, FEPORT: „Federation of European Private Port Operators“ – „Združenje evropskih zasebnih upravljavcev pristanišč“. .
ESPO: ‘European Sea Ports Organisation’, IDC: ‘International Dockworkers Council’, FEPORT: ‘Federation of European Private Port Operators’. .
Presenetljivo je tudi, da je Komisija predložila nov predlog v tako kratkem času po zavrnitvi prejšnjega.
It is also extremely remarkable that the Commission has returned with a new proposal so quickly after the previous rejection.
Demokratičen postopek je lahko oslabljen, če so ponovno predloženi zavrnjeni predlogi, ki so na videz novi.
There is a risk of tarnishing the democratic process if rejected proposals are resubmitted in a new guise.
Komisija pravi, da je zaznala „potrebo“ v EU in je zato predložila predlog(e) o dostopu do trga pristaniških storitev.
The Commission says it has discerned ‘a need’ within the EU and hence the proposal(s) on market access to port services.
Poudarek na konkurenci
Focus on competition
Eden glavnih argumentov Komisije za direktivo o pristaniščih je, da je treba okrepiti konkurenco v evropskih pristaniščih in med njimi, da bodo s tem potrošniki deležni večjih ugodnosti.
One of the Commission’s main arguments for a ports directive is that competition within and between European ports must be intensified in order to benefit customers to a greater extent.
Kljub temu je treba upoštevati, da so evropska pristanišča med najučinkovitejšimi na svetu
It should be borne in mind, however, that Europe’s ports are among the most efficient in the world
Po podatkih Evropske federacije delavcev v prometu (ETF) je običajna tarifa za raztovarjanje in natovarjanje 40-čeveljskega (približno 12-metrskega) zabojnika na primer:
According to the European Transport Worker’s Federation, the standard tariff for unloading and loading a 40‑foot container for example is:
· 100 USD v evropskih pristaniščih
· US$ 100 in European ports
· 200 USD v severnoameriških pristaniščih
· US$ 200 in North American ports
· 300 USD v azijskih pristaniščih.
· US$ 300 in Asian ports
Razen tega lahko evropske pristaniške družbe pričakujejo precejšnje odškodninske zahtevke, če plovila niso raztovorjena in natovorjena v najkrajšem možnem času, medtem ko so dolge čakalne dobe za plovila v azijskih ali ameriških pristaniščih prej pravilo kot izjema. .
In addition, European port companies can expect substantial claims for damages if vessels are not unloaded and loaded within the shortest conceivable period, whereas long waiting times are more the rule than the exception for vessels docked in Asian or American ports. .
Med posameznimi pristanišči v EU konkurenca že obstaja, zaradi česar se v konkurenčnem okolju obdržijo le tista pristanišča, ki so dovolj učinkovita in je njihova ponudba ugodna.
Competition already takes place between individual ports within the EU with the result that only those ports which are sufficiently efficient and give value for money hold their own in competition.
Zato bi bilo neproduktivno uporabljati skupen niz pravil, če se je že pokazal ugoden vpliv sedanje raznolikosti, kar zadeva donosnost in učinkovitost pristanišč.
It would therefore be counterproductive to apply a common set of rules when the present diversity has already proved to be beneficial in terms of port profitability and efficiency.
Vlagatelji in pristaniške družbe prav tako zavračajo sedanji predlog, ker so prehodna obdobja veliko prekratka.
Investors and port companies also reject the present proposal as the transitional periods are far too short.
Pristaniške družbe ali vlagatelji nikakor ne morejo povsem reorganizirati svojega poslovanja v predlaganem obdobju petih let.
No port company or investor can fully reorganise their business operations within the proposed five-year period.
Prav tako je prekratko tudi obdobje za pogodbe o zakupu.
Likewise, the period for leasing contracts is too short.
Vlagatelji želijo imeti možnost dolgoročnega načrtovanja, da lahko sploh razmišljajo o večjih poslovnih naložbah.
Investors want to be able to take the long-term view in order to consider any major investment in a business.
Prav tako tudi pristanišča.
Ports are no exception.
To naložbeno tveganje ustvari neugodne razmere za vlagatelje, ki bi bile katastrofalne za evropska pristanišča in končno tudi za njihove stranke.
This investment risk creates an unfavourable climate for investors which would be disastrous for European ports and, ultimately, their customers.
Pripravljavka mnenja meni, da konkurenca znotraj pristanišča ni ključno vprašanje, ki določa vlogo pristanišča kot intermodalnega prevoznega centra.
Intra-port competition, in your draftswoman’s view, is not a key issue determining the port’s role as an intermodal transport centre.
Nanjo vpliva dejstvo, s katerimi tokovi blaga manipulira pristanišče in s katerimi vrstami blaga bo manipuliralo.
It is affected by which goods streams the port handles and which types of goods are to be handled.
Na tokove blaga vplivata geografska lega in infrastruktura v obliki vodnih poti, železnic in cest do pristanišča in iz njega.
Goods streams are decided by geographical location and infrastructure in the form of waterways, railways and roads to and from the port.
Infrastruktura znotraj pristanišča je nedvomno izjemno pomembna, ko plovilo pristane, vendar pa notranje prednosti pristanišča niso glavni razlog za izbiro pristanišča.
Intra-port infrastructure obviously plays a major role once the vessel has docked, but the choice of port is not made primarily on the basis of the internal qualities of the port.
To pomeni, da odločilni dejavnik ni konkurenca znotraj pristanišča temveč konkurenca med pristanišči.
This means that the decisive factor is not intra-port competition but inter-port competition.
Člena 13 in 14 je treba podrobneje preučiti v zvezi z deregulacijo in izpostavljenostjo konkurenci, ki jo Komisija želi vzpostaviti za te storitve.
Articles 13 and 14 should be examined in greater detail in relation to the deregulation and exposure to competition to which the Commission wishes to subject those services.
Osnova za ta dva sporna člena sta samoizvajanje in pilotaža.
Underlying these controversial articles are self-handling and pilotage.
Zamisel samoizvajanja v pristaniščih je prevzeta iz direktive o samoizvajanju na letališčih.
The idea of self-handling in ports is taken from the directive on self-handling at airports.
Verjetno je odveč opozoriti, da so morska pristanišča povsem drugačna od letališč, Komisija pa je kljub temu uporabila samoizvajanje, predvideno za letališča, za storitve morskih pristanišč.
It may be considered unnecessary to point out that sea ports are completely different from airports and yet the Commission has still applied self-handling designed for airports to sea-port services.
Samoizvajanje pomeni, da mora imeti vsaka stranka, ki uporablja pristanišče, možnost, da upravlja s svojim blagom.
Self-handling means that every customer using a port should be able to handle his own goods.
Če bi bilo samoizvajanje dovoljeno brez kakršnih koli omejitev, bi bila nevarnost za nastanek zmede pri delovanju zelo velika.
If self-handling were allowed without restriction, there is a high risk that operational chaos would erupt.
Nemogoče je urejati, kdo ima prednost pri uporabi skupnih območij, skupnih žerjavov in pristanov, vlakov za nakladanje itd.
It is impossible to regulate who has priority for using common areas, common cranes and quays, loading trains, etc.
V zvezi s pilotažo je treba opozoriti, da pilotovo poznavanje voda in njegove izkušnje upravljanja različnih vrst plovil prispevajo k vzdrževanju pomorske in okoljske varnosti ter k dostopnosti, ko se plovila dogovarjajo o notranjih/zunanjih vodah/vodnih poteh.
As regards pilotage, the pilot’s knowledge of the waters and experience of manoeuvring many types of vessel contribute towards maintaining marine and environmental safety, and accessibility, when vessels are negotiating inner/outer waters/waterways.
Pilotaža se ne sme obravnavati kot komercialna storitev.
Pilotage should/must not be treated as a commercial service.
Z drugimi besedami, za varnost ne sme veljati konkurenca!
In other words, safety should not be subject to competition!
Skupni pravni okvir
Common legal framework
Brez prepričljive obrazložitve
Absence of a convincing justification
Predstavniki Komisije so večkrat omenili argument za direktivo o pristaniščih, da so pristaniške storitve edine storitve v prevoznem sektorju, ki niso deregulirane.
On a number of occasions, the Commission’s representatives have launched their argument for a ports directive by saying that port services are the only services in the transport sector which are not deregulated.
To pa ni prepričljiv argument glede na zgoraj navedene razmere v zvezi s položajem evropskih pristanišč v primerjavi z neevropskimi pristanišči.
This is not a convincing argument in the light of the situation described above concerning the position of European ports vis-à-vis non-European ports.
Komisija izraža dogmatičen odnos do deregulacije „zaradi nje same“, namesto da bi upoštevala dejanske potrebe.
The Commission displays a dogmatic attitude to deregulation ‘for the sake of it’ instead of taking account of actual needs.
Še vedno ni opravila analize vplivov, h kateri je pozvalo več vpletenih strani.
The Commission has still not carried out the impact analysis that many of the parties involved had called for.
Zato ni na voljo analize, ki bi prikazovala posebne potrebe in težave v pristaniškem sektorju EU.
There is therefore no analysis indicating specific needs and problems within the EU’s port sector to consult.
Niz določb, ki bi ustrezale vsem, bo tudi v nasprotju z načelom subsidiarnosti iz Pogodbe ES.
A set of ‘one size fits all’ provisions will also be contrary to the EC Treaty’s subsidiarity principle.
Komisija mora rešiti morebitne težave v zvezi z dostopom na trg za vsak posamezen primer po posvetovanju z vsemi udeleženci v zadevni gospodarski panogi.
The Commission should resolve any problems with market access on a case by case basis in consultation with all players in the industry.
Prav tako je besedilo Komisije težko razložiti s pravnega vidika ter vsebuje več ohlapnih in povsem razpršenih konceptov, ki bodo pogojevali prihodnje težave pri razlagi in – z razširitvijo – pravne spore.
Likewise, the Commission’s text is difficult to interpret from a legal viewpoint and includes a number of vague and downright diffuse concepts which will create future difficulties of interpretation - and by extension - legal disputes.
V sedanji obliki lahko direktiva o pristaniščih povzroči več pravnih težav, kot jih lahko reši, kar vodi do zaključka, da jo je treba umakniti.
In its present form, there is a risk that the ports directive will create more legal problems than it will solve, which leads to the conclusion that it should be withdrawn.
Najmanjša zahteva je, da se bistveni deli direktive spremenijo/dopolnijo.
A minimum requirement, however, is that substantial parts of the directive should be changed/amended.
Delovno pravo
Labour law
V središču ljudje – ne številke?
People at the centre -not numbers?
Vaša pripravljavka mnenja opozarja, da sedanji predlog direktive – bolj kot prejšnji – poudarja, da ni mogoče zaobiti ali zavreči že sklenjenih kolektivnih pogodb in da je pojmu „socialno varstvo“ namenjena večja pozornost kot prej.
Your draftswoman has noted that the present proposal for a directive - to a greater extent than previously - emphasises that collective agreements already concluded may not be circumvented or set aside and that the term ‘social protection’ has been given a greater prominence than previously.
Vseeno pa so pričakovanja z vidika delovnega prava še vedno velika.
However, there remains much to be desired from a labour law point of view.
Sporni predlog, tj. možnost lastnikov pristanišča, da zaposlijo svoje osebje za nakladanje in iztovarjanje, namesto da uporabijo običajne pristaniške delavce, je vključena tudi v ta predlog, tokrat s širšimi formalnimi standardi.
The controversial proposal for ‘self-handling’, i.e. that port owners can employ their own staff to load and unload instead of using traditional dockworkers, is also included in this proposal, this time with broader terms of reference.
Treba je poudariti, da samoizvajanje ni zaželeno niti z vidika sindikatov niti delodajalcev.
It is important to stress that self-handling is not desirable either from the trade union’s or the employer’s point of view.
Edinstveno je, da so delodajalci in delojemalci zavzeli skupno stališče, tj. da se samoizvajanje odpravi iz predloga, tako kot meni vaša pripravljavka mnenja.
It is a unique situation that employers and employees have taken a common stance, i.e. wish to remove it from the proposal, as does your draftswoman.
Po mnenju sindikata ni bil opravljen socialni dialog, kot je določen v členih 136, 138 in 140 Pogodbe ES.
From the trade union viewpoint, there has been no social dialogue as enshrined in Articles 136, 138 and 140 of the EC Treaty.
Člen 7(6) o dovoljenju navaja, da imajo ponudniki pristaniških storitev pravico, da zaposlijo osebje po svoji izbiri.
Article 7, paragraph 6, concerning authorisation states that providers of port services have the right freely to choose the personnel to be employed.
V zvezi s tem se je treba vprašati – zakaj določati to očitno pravico?
The question arises - why set out this obvious right?
Kaj je namen tega?
What is the underlying purpose?
Sindikati se bojijo, da se s tem nameravajo odvzeti delovna mesta sedanjim pristaniškim delavcem v korist drugih.
The trade unions fear that the purpose is to take jobs away from the present port workforce for the benefit of others.
Komisija mora pojasniti namen člena 7(6).
The Commission should clarify the purpose of Article 7, paragraph 6.
Kot zaključek, vaša pripravljavka mnenja poudarja, da pristanišča lahko tekmujejo, kar zadeva ceno in kakovost, toda izpostavljanje delovnih pogojev za zaposlene, okoljske zakonodaje, državnega financiranja in varnostnih določb konkurenci in deregulaciji nikakor ni sprejemljivo.
In conclusion, your draftswoman stresses that ports may compete in terms of price and quality but subjecting working conditions for employees, environmental legislation, state financing and safety provisions to competition and deregulation is out of the question.
Odbor za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov poziva Odbor za promet in turizem kot pristojni odbor, da zavrne predlog Komisije.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to reject the Commission proposal.
Predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dostopu do trga pristaniških storitev
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services
Predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dostopu do trga pristaniških storitev
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on market access to port services
Glasovanje o zakonodajni resoluciji v odboru TRAN: 26:24.
Vote on the legislative resolution in TRAN Committee: 26:24.
MNENJE Odbora za ustavne zadeve ........................................................................10
OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ................................11
MNENJE Odbora za peticije ..........................................................................................13
OPINION of the Committee on Petitions ...............................................................15
o četrtem poročilu o državljanstvu Unije (1. maj 2001 - 30. april 2004)
on the Commission's Fourth report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2001 – 30 April 2004)
– ob upoštevanju listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije in predvsem poglavja V "Državljanstvo",
– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Chapter V thereof entitled 'Citizens' Rights',
– ob upoštevanju sklepov predsedstva Evropskega sveta dne 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 v Tampereju,
– having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council meeting of 15 and 16 October 1999,
– ob upoštevanju četrtega poročila Komisije o državljanstvu Unije (1. maj 2001 - 30. april 2004) ( KOM(2004)0695 ),
– having regard to the Commission's Fourth Report on Citizenship of the Union (1 May 2001 – 30 April 2004) ( COM(2004)0695 ),
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o priseljevanju, integraciji ter zaposlovanju, v katerem Komisija izraža svoje stališče o naturalizaciji nezakonitih priseljencev ( KOM(2003)0336 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication on immigration, integration and employment, in which the Commission sets out its position on the naturalisation of illegal immigrants ( COM(2003)0336 ),
– ob upoštevanju direktive 2004/38/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic
– having regard to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
– ob upoštevanju konvencije Sveta Evrope o sodelovanju tujcev v javnem življenju na lokalni ravni, ki je začela veljati 1. maja 1997,
– having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level, which entered into force on 1 May 1997,
– ob upoštevanju členov 45 in 112(2) Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rule 45 and Rule 112(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve in mnenja Odbora za ustavne zadeve ter Odbora za peticije ( A6-0411/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions ( A6‑0411/2005 ),
A. ker evropsko državljanstvo označuje pravni položaj, ki izhaja iz pripadnosti posameznika določeni politični in ozemeljski enoti ter je pojem v nastajanju in se bo moral prilagajati spreminjanju politike Evropske unije,
A. whereas EU citizenship denotes the legal status derived from an individual’s belonging to a given political and territorial unit and is an emerging concept which will need to be adjusted to the European Union’s political development,
B. ker je državljanstvo Unije uvedla Maastrichtska pogodba 7. februarja 1992, katere člen 17 pravi, da: "so državljani Unije vse osebe, ki imajo državljanstvo ene od držav članic",
B. whereas Article 17 of the EC Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty on 7 February 1992 and states that 'every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union',
C. ker se dodelitev evropskega državljanstva pogojuje z državljanstvom ene od držav članic Unije in torej ni "samostojen" pojem, temveč to ureja vsaka posamezna država po svoji zakonodaji,
C. whereas the granting of EU citizenship has therefore been made dependent upon being a citizen of an EU Member State and whereas it is therefore not an 'independent' status but is regulated by each Member State on the basis of its own laws,
D. ker imajo zaradi istega razloga Evropska unija in njene institucije legitimen interes pripravljati predloge, ki se nanašajo na pridobivanje državljanstva držav članic (ob ustreznem spoštovanju suverenosti teh držav), saj država članica s dodelitvijo ali nedodelitvijo svojega državljanstva dodeli oziroma odreče dodelitev evropskega državljanstva,
D. whereas for that same reason the European Union and its institutions have a legitimate interest in putting forward proposals concerning the acquisition of nationality from the Member States (with due respect for those States’ sovereignty in the matter), since when a Member State grants or withholds nationality it is granting or withholding EU citizenship,
E. ker ima vsak državljan Evropske unije, ki prebiva v državi članici in nima njenega državljanstva, pravico voliti in biti voljen na občinskih volitvah in volitvah v Evropski parlament v državi, kjer prebiva in pod enakimi pogoji kot državljani tiste države,
E. whereas any EU citizen resident in a Member State of which he or she is not a citizen is entitled to vote and stand for election in local and European Parliament elections in the Member State of which he or she is a resident under the same conditions as citizens of that State,
F. ker ima vsak državljan Unije pravico do naslavljanja peticij na Evropski parlament, v skladu s členom 194 Pogodbe ES, in do vložitve pritožbe pri evropskem varuhu človekovih pravic, v skladu s členom 195 Pogodbe ES,
F. whereas any EU citizen is entitled to address a petition to the European Parliament pursuant to Article 194 of the EC Treaty and to address a complaint to the Ombudsman established pursuant to Article 195 of the EC Treaty,
G. ker Amsterdamska pogodba posebej poudarja podrejeno naravo evropskega državljanstva in določa (člen 17), da "državljanstvo Unije dopolnjuje in ne nadomešča nacionalnega državljanstva",
G. whereas the Treaty of Amsterdam further stressed the complementary nature of EU citizenship by stipulating (Article 17 of the EC Treaty) that 'citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship',
H. ker imajo države članice Unije različne načine priznavanja državljanstva,
H. whereas the EU Member States have different rules governing the granting of citizenship,
I. ker s pravnega vidika se državljanstvo lahko pridobi na podlagi izvora ali na posreden način,
I. whereas, in legal terms, citizenship may be acquired on the basis of one's origin or as a derived right,
J. ker je pridobitev državljanstva na podlagi izvora, tako po načelu krvne zveze ( ius sanguinis ) kot po načelu teritorialnosti ( ius soli ), najpogosteje uporabljen postopek v državah članicah, in ker je v mnogih državah po svetu pridobitev državljanstva na podlagi izvora (po načelu teritorialnosti) izenačena s pridobitvijo na posreden način (naturalizacija),
J. whereas the acquisition of citizenship on the basis of one's origin ( ius sanguinis or ius soli) is the procedure most commonly used by Member States and whereas in many countries of the world citizenship as a derived right (naturalisation) has been introduced alongside citizenship on the basis of origin ( ius soli ),
K. ker se po veljavnih pogodbah nekatere pravice evropskega državljanstva, kot sta pravici do naslavljanja peticij na Evropski parlament in do vložitve pritožbe pri evropskem varuhu človekovih pravic, dodelijo že na osnovi prebivališča, in ker je posledično mogoče razširiti pravico do prostega gibanja in bivanja na ozemlju Unije ter pravico voliti na evropskih in občinskih volitvah na vse bivajoče na ozemlju Unije,
K. whereas under the current Treaties some EU citizenship rights, such as the right to petition the European Parliament and the right to submit a complaint to the European Ombudsman, are already conferred on the basis of residence, and whereas the right of free movement and residence within the European Union and the right to vote in European and local elections could therefore be extended to all residents,