natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"Države članice v skladu s svojo nacionalno zakonodajo preprečijo dostopnost ali uporabo podatkov AIS in LRIT, ki jih ladje dajo na razpolago, razen za zagotavljanje varnosti ter zaščite in za varstvo okolja.
"Member States shall, in accordance with their national legislation, prevent AIS and LRIT data transmitted by ships from being made available or used for purposes other than safety, security and the protection of the environment.
Vpletenim stranem se zaradi direktive in še posebej njenih določb o sistemih AIS in SafeSeaNet porajajo številni pomisleki glede zaupnosti, saj se bojijo, da podatki, preneseni preko omrežij, niso dovolj zaščiteni pred komercialno zlorabo in vohunstvom.
This directive, and in particular its provisions concerning AIS and SafeSeaNet, give rise to a considerable number of confidentiality issues for those involved, who fear that the information transmitted via networks is not sufficiently protected against commercial abuse and espionage.
Pomembno je, da države članice sprejmejo ukrepe za preprečevanje zlorab.
It is important that the Member States take the necessary measures to tackle abuses.
TOČKA 13 B (novo)
POINT 13 B (new)
Člen 24, odstavek 1 b (novo) (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Article 24, paragraph 1 b (new) (Directive 2002/59/EC)
"V sodelovanju z Agencijo za varnost omrežij in informacij Komisija razišče, kako se boriti s težavami glede varnosti omrežij in informacij, ki so lahko povezane z ukrepi iz te direktive in še posebej iz členov 6, 6a, 14 in 22a.
“In cooperation with the European Network and Information Security Agency, the Commission shall investigate how to tackle the network and information security problems which may be associated with the measures provided for under this Directive, and in particular Articles 6, 6a, 14 and 22a thereof.
Najpozneje v enem letu od uveljavitve te direktive Komisija sprejme potrebne ukrepe za boj proti nepooblaščeni ali komercialni zlorabi izmenjanih podatkov na podlagi te direktive."
No later than one year after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall take the necessary measures to combat the unauthorised use or commercial abuse of data exchanged pursuant to this Directive.”
Direktiva in še posebej predpisi glede sistemov AIS in SafeSeaNet zbujajo številna vprašanja glede zaupnosti vpletenih, ki se bojijo, da podatki, preneseni preko omrežij, niso dovolj zaščiteni pred komercialno zlorabo in vohunstvom.
This directive, and in particular its provisions concerning AIS and SafeSeaNet, give rise to a considerable number of confidentiality issues for those involved, who fear that the information transmitted via these networks is not sufficiently protected against commercial abuse and espionage.
Priloga II, razdelek I, točka 3, alinea -1 (novo) (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Annex II, section I, point 3, indent -1 (new) (Directive 2002/59/EC)
- novo ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina je enaka ali presega 24 metrov: na dan začetka veljavnosti te direktive;
- new fishing vessel of overall length 24 metres and upwards: on the date of entry into force of this Directive;
Časovni razpored, ki ga predlaga Komisija, vsebuje namestitev sistema AIS na obstoječih ribiških plovilih.
The Commission’s proposed timetable covers the installation of AIS on existing fishing vessels.
Poročevalec pa meni, da je razumno zahtevati, da ta zahteva čim prej začne veljati za nova plovila .
For new vessels, however, your rapporteur regards it as reasonable to require rapid entry into force for this requirement.
Priloga II, razdelek I, točka 3, uvodno besedilo (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Annex II, section I, point 3, introductory wording (Directive 2002/59/EC)
Vsako ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina presega 15 metrov , mora izpolnjevati zahtevi glede nosilnosti iz člena 6a v skladu z naslednjim časovnim razporedom:
Any fishing vessel with a length of more than 15 metres overall is subject to the carrying requirement laid down in Article 6a according to the following timetable:
Vsako ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina presega 24 metrov , mora izpolnjevati zahtevi glede nosilnosti iz člena 6a v skladu z naslednjim časovnim razporedom:
Any fishing vessel with a length of more than 24 metres overall is subject to the carrying requirement laid down in Article 6a according to the following timetable:
V členu 6 a je bila skupna dolžina spremenjena s 15 na 24 metrov; zavoljo doslednosti bi bilo treba to storiti tudi v prvem odstavku točke 3 razdelka 1 Priloge II.
As in Article 6 bis the overall length is amended from 15 to 24 metres; this should be done in Annex II, Section 1, point 3, first paragraph as well to be consistent.
POINT 15
ARTICLE 1, POINT 15
Priloga II, razdelek I, točka 3, alinea 1 (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Annex II, section I, point 3, indent 1 (Directive 2002/59/EC)
- ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina je enaka ali presega 24 metrov in manjša od 45 metrov, najpozneje do 1. januarja 2008 ;
- fishing vessel of overall length of 24 metres and upwards but less than 45 metres: not later than 1 January 2008 ;
- ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina je enaka ali presega 24 metrov in manjša od 45 metrov, najpozneje dve leti po začetku veljavnosti te direktive ;
- fishing vessel of overall length of 24 metres and upwards but less than 45 metres: not later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive ;
Že samo glede na čas, ki ga bo predvidoma vzel zakonodajni postopek, je predlagani časovni razpored za vgradnjo varnostnih naprav nerealen.
The proposed timescale for the safety equipment's installation is unrealistic given the time that the legislative process alone is likely to take.
Za zagotovitev enakomerne in pravilne vgradnje te opreme bi bilo smiselno postaviti časovne okvire, ki bi bili povezani z začetkom veljavnosti direktive.
It would be sensible to establish timeframes linked to the entry into force of the Directive, in order to ensure the smooth and correct installation of this equipment.
Priloga II, razdelek I, točka 3, alinea 2 (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Annex II, section I, point 3, indent 2 (Directive 2002/59/EC)
ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina je enaka ali presega 18 metrov in manjša od 24 metrov, najpozneje do 1. januarja 2009;
fishing vessel of overall length 18 metres and upwards but less than 24 metres: not later than 1 January 2009;
V členu 6 a je bila skupna dolžina spremenjena s 15 na 24 metrov, zato je ta alinea zdaj odveč.
As in Article 6 bis the overall length is amended from 15 to 24 metres, this indent is not needed anymore.
Priloga II, razdelek I, točka 3, alinea 3 (Direktiva 2002/59/ES)
Annex II, section I, point 3, indent 3 (Directive 2002/59/EC)
ribiško plovilo, katerega skupna dolžina je enaka ali presega 15 metrov in manjša od 18 metrov, najpozneje do 1. januarja 2010.
fishing vessel of overall length exceeding 15 metres but less than 18 metres: not later than 1 January 2010.
Od leta 1999 je evropska politika s področja pomorske varnosti prednostna naloga na evropskem dnevnem redu.
Since the end of 1999 European policy on safety at sea has been a high priority on the European political agenda.
Zaporedni nesreči tankerjev Erika (1999) in Prestige (2002) sta na boleč način poudarili neprimerno evropsko politiko, in pristopa držav članic, v primeru nesreč na morju.
The successive disasters of the Erika (1999) and the Prestige (2002) painfully highlighted the inadequacy of European policy, and the Member States approach, in the event of a disaster at sea.
Zato so Komisija, Svet in Evropski parlament v zadnjih letih trdo delali, da bi okrepili politiko pomorske varnosti.
Consequently the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have worked hard over the past few years to strengthen policy on safety at sea.
V manj kot treh letih sta bila sprejeta dva sklopa ukrepov.
In less than three years, two packages of measures have been adopted.
23. novembra 2005 je Komisija sprejela tretji sklop sedmih ukrepov.
On 23 November 2005 the Commission approved a third package of seven measures.
Presoja o direktivi o nadzoru je ena od sedmih delov sklopa.
The review of the monitoring directive is one of the seven parts of that package.
Preden se lotimo podrobnosti predloga pa predstavljamo kratek pregled stanja pred trenutnim predlogom spremembe direktive o nadzoru 2002.
Before going into detail on the substance of this proposal, here is a brief summary of what preceded the current proposal for the amendment of the 2002 monitoring directive.
Prva direktiva o nadzoru je nastala kot posledica naplavitve tankerja Erika decembra 1999 na francosko obalo.
The first monitoring directive arose as a consequence of the wreck of the oil tanker Erika in December 1999 off the French coast.
Ker je Erika naletela na težave pri sprejemu v pribežališče, je Komisija odločila, da je potrebno razviti evropsko politiko o pribežališčih.
Given that the Erika had encountered problems with being accommodated in a port of refuge, the Commission decided that a European policy on ports of refuge needed to be developed.
Obenem je hotela Komisija razviti sistem za izboljšanje spremljanja ladij, ki plujejo vzdolž naših obal.
At the same time the Commission wanted to develop a system to improve the monitoring of ships travelling along our coasts.
To je pomembno predvsem za ladje v tranzitu, ki niso namenjene v evropska pristanišča.
This is important in particular for ships which are in transit and are not heading for a European port.
V razpravi o direktivi o nadzoru prometa je vaš poročevalec zagovarjal prvič obvezno zavarovanje ladij, drugič sistem za povračilo stroškov in škode, ki jo v pristanišču povzroči sprejem ladje v stiski.
In the debate on the monitoring directive, your rapporteur argued firstly for compulsory insurance for ships, secondly for a compensation system for the reimbursement of costs and any damage caused to a port accommodating a ship in distress.
Tedaj je bilo prezgodaj predlagati zakonodajne ukrepe na to temo.
At that time it seemed premature to propose legislative measures on this topic.
Kljub temu so se odločili obravnavati oba predloga.
It was decided, however, to consider both proposals.
27. junija 2002, v času španskega predsedovanja, je bila direktiva končno sprejeta.
On 27 June 2002, under the Spanish Presidency, the directive was finally adopted.
Načeloma je predstavljala velik korak naprej v politiki sprejema ladij v stiski.
It represented in principle a major step forward in policy on the accommodation of ships in distress.
Države članice so morale ukrepe prenesti do februarja 2004.
The Member States were required to transpose the measures by February 2004.
Novembra 2002, le šest mesecev po tem, ko je Svet odobril pravni okvir za sprejem ladij v stiski, se je zgodila nesreča Prestiga .
In November 2002, hardly six months after the Council had given its approval to this legal framework for the accommodation of ships in distress, the Prestige disaster occurred.
Kljub pravnemu okviru, ki je bil ravnokar sprejet, so španske oblasti ladjo poslale na odprto morje: 77.000 ton surovega olja se je izlilo in onesnažilo predvsem špansko obalo.
In spite of the legal framework which had just been approved, the Spanish authorities ordered the ship out to sea: 77 000 tonnes of crude oil escaped to pollute mainly Spanish coasts.
Po tej okoljski katastrofi so se države članice odločile postaviti rok za načrte za sprejem ladij v stiski.
As a result of this environmental disaster, the Member States decided to bring forward the submission dates for plans for the accommodation of ships in distress.
Evropski parlament je sprejel dve zaporedni resoluciji in se odločil imenovati začasno komisijo za okrepitev pomorske varnosti (MARE).
The European Parliament adopted two successive resolutions and decided to set up a Temporary Committee on Improving Safety at Sea (MARE).
Poročevalec je bil imenovan za sestavo poročila tega začasnega odbora.
Your rapporteur was appointed to draw up the report of this temporary committee.
V resoluciji z dne 21. aprila 2004, ki je bila rezultat dela začasnega odbora MARE, je Evropski parlament med drugim pozval:
In the resolution of 21 April 2004, which was the result of the work of the MARE temporary committee, the European Parliament called inter alia for:
- k polnem izvajanju obstoječih pravil glede sprejema ladij v stiski v vseh državah članicah;
- the existing rules governing the accommodation of ships in distress to be fully implemented by the Member States;
- naj vse države članice vzpostavijo jasno strukturo odločanja in poveljevanja za ravnanje v primeru pomorskih nesreč in ustanovijo neodvisen organ , ki ima pooblastilo in izkušnje, da prejme vse potrebne odločitve,
- every Member State to establish a clear decision-making and command structure for dealing with maritime emergencies and an independent authority having the powers and expertise to take the necessary decisions, in particular as regards the selection and mandatory assignment of an emergency mooring or port;
- Komisijo, naj čim prej pripravi predloge za finančna nadomestila pribežališčem;
- the Commission to submit proposals as soon as possible for financial compensation for places of refuge;
- Komisijo, naj razišče področje za uvajanje obveznega zavarovanja za plovila v evropskih vodah.
- the Commission to investigate the scope for introducing mandatory insurance for vessels in European waters.
Predlog Komisije, ki spreminja direktivo 2002/59/EC, upošteva pozive Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta, Komisije in raznih zainteresiranih strani v nekaterih točkah:
The Commission proposal amending Directive 2002/59/EC takes account of the calls made by the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the various interested parties on several points:
- poostritev politike o sprejemu ladij v stiski;
- tightening policy on the accommodation of ships in distress;
- določitev neodvisnega pristojnega organa za sprejetje ladij v stiski v državah članicah;
- designation by the Member States of an independent competent authority for the accommodation of ships in distress;
- ukrepanje ob prisotnosti ledu;
- measures to be taken in the presence of ice;
- obravnavanje nezavarovanih ladij;
- treatment of uninsured ships;
- razvoj evropskega sistema za izmenjavo pomorskih informacij SafeSeaNet.
- development of SafeSeaNet, a European system for the exchange of maritime information.
Komisija je podala tudi vrsto novih predlogov:
The Commission also made a number of new proposals:
- obvezna uporaba sistema AIS za ribiška plovila daljša od 15 metrov;
- use of AIS to be made compulsory for fishing vessels longer than 15 metres;
- povečanje obveznosti vkrcevalca, da zagotovi informacije.
- tightening of the shipper’s obligation to provide information.
Predlogi vašega poročevalca
Proposals by your rapporteur
Uporaba sistemov samodejnega prepoznavanja za ribiška plovila
Introduction of automatic identification systems for fishing vessels
Komisija želi, da bi bilo za ribiška plovila obvezno imeti sistem AIS: to bi za največjo kategorijo plovil veljalo od leta 2008 naprej in za najmanjšo (od 15 metrov dalje) od leta 2010.
The Commission wishes fishing vessels to be required to be equipped with AIS: this would apply to the largest vessel category from 2008, and to the smallest (from 15 metres) from 2010.
Na ta način želi Komisija zmanjšati veliko število trkov med velikimi trgovskimi in ribiškimi plovili.
In this way the Commission seeks to reduce the number of collisions between large merchant vessels and fishing vessels.
Poročevalec podpira uvedbo sistema AIS za ribiška plovila, da bi jih velika trgovska plovila lažje opazila: trčenja imajo tragične posledice za njihove posadke.
Your rapporteur considers it a good idea for fishing vessels to be more easily seen by large merchant vessels: a collision can have tragic consequences for their crew.
Kljub temu poročevalec dvomi, da je ta ukrep lahko dosežen v predlaganem časovnem okviru.
However, he doubts whether this measure can be achieved within the time frame proposed.
Namestitev sistema AIS stane 2000 EUR na ladjo.
Installing AIS costs about EUR 2000 per ship.
Ribiči se trenutno soočajo z veliko ekonomsko krizo in nimajo zadostnih sredstev za primerno vzdrževanje svojih ladij.
Fishermen are currently undergoing a major economic crisis, and do not have sufficient means to maintain their ships properly.
Zato ne bo enostavno od njih zahtevati ponovne investicije, katere ekonomski učinek ne bo takoj viden.
Asking them to make yet another investment whose economic benefits they do not immediately see will not be easy.
Obstaja tudi skrb, da bo namestitev sistemov AIS povzročila komercialno vohunstvo.
They also fear that AIS will lead to commercial espionage.
Poročevalec zato predlaga bolj ohlapen časovni razpored, skupaj z ukrepi za preprečitev zlorab sistema AIS.
Your rapporteur therefore proposes a less stringent timetable, together with measures to prevent the misuse of AIS.
Kljub temu predlaga, naj se v tem osnutku direktive upošteva doseženi napredek v okviru IMO glede sistemov dolgega dometa za prepoznavanje (LRIT).
He does, however, propose that account be taken in this draft directive of progress which has been made in the context of the IMO regarding long-range identification systems (LRIT).
Obveza vkrcevalca za posredovanje informacij
Obligation for the shipper to provide information
Komisija od vkrcevalca želi, da poveljnika ali upravljavca plovila oskrbi s podatkovnim listom, ki navaja fizikalno-kemijske lastnosti in viskoznost mineralnih olj, ki jih bo prevažal.
The Commission wants the shipper to provide the master or operator of a vessel with a data sheet setting out the physico-chemical properties and the viscosity of the mineral oils they are carrying.
Posveti z ribiško industrijo kažejo, da so te informacije zelo pomembne za reševalce.
Consultations with the fishing industry show that this information is of high relevance to rescuers.
Poročevalec zato meni, da bi morala tudi plovila, ki prihajajo iz pristanišča zunaj Skupnosti in so namenjena v evropsko pristanišče imeti dostop do teh informacij.
Your rapporteur therefore proposes that ships which are heading for a European port from outside the EU should also have access to this information.
Treba je tudi pojasniti, da upravljavec ali poveljnik ne moreta biti odgovorna, če vkrcevalec priskrbi nenatančne ali zavajajoče informacije o tovoru.
It also needs to be made clear that under no circumstances can the master be held liable for the shipper providing him with incorrect or misleading information.
Določitev neodvisnega pristojnega organa
Designation of an independent competent authority
Z oblikovanjem predloga Komisija odgovarja na bistvene pozive iz resolucije Evropskega parlamenta z dne 21. aprila 2004.
In making this proposal the Commission is responding to an important call by the European Parliament in its resolution of 21 April 2004.
Čas je ključnega pomena za uspeh reševalne operacije.
In order for a rescue operation to succeed, time is of the essence.
Zaporedne in skorajšnje nesreče kažejo, da je bilo pogosto porabljenega preveč časa, ker ni bilo jasno, kdo je za kaj odgovoren, ali ker so pristojni za sprejemanje odločitev morali čakati na pomoč izkušene skupine, ki je bila pogosto ustanovljena ad hoc.
The successive disasters and near-disasters show us that much time was often wasted because it was not clear who was responsible for what, or because those competent to take a decision had to call on the expertise of a team which often had to be set up on an ad hoc basis.
Zato mora obstajati organ ali oseba, ki je edina odgovorna za pomoč v primeru takšnih nesreč in je sposobna sprejemati neodvisne odločitve ob popolnem poznavanju dejstev.
There therefore needs to be an authority or person taking sole responsibility for assistance when such disasters occur, and with the capacity to take completely independent decisions in full knowledge of the facts.
Vloga in pristojnost britanskega predstavnika državnega sekretarja (SOSREP) je še najbližje temu sistemu.
The role and competence of the British Secretary of State Representative (SOSREP) come closest to this system.
Kljub temu pa pooblastila neodvisnega organa presegajo zgolj odločanje glede sprejema ladje v stiski v pribežališče.
However, the task of the independent competent authority goes further than merely deciding on the accommodation of a ship in distress in a place of refuge.
Sposoben mora biti tudi čim hitreje ugotoviti, v kakšnem stanju je plovilo in poklicati ustrezno pomoč.
It also has to be able to ascertain as quickly as possible the actual state of the vessel, and to call upon the necessary assistance as soon as possible.
Pravično obravnavanje kapitanov in posadke v primeru nesreče
Fair treatment of masters and crew in the event of an accident
Naraščajoči trend, da se z ladijsko posadko ravna kot z zločinci, ne vodi k varnosti na morju.
The trend towards treating ships’ crews as criminals is not conducive to safety at sea.
Kapitani ladij pogosto odlašajo s klicem na pomoč zaradi strahu pred aretacijo.
For fear of arrest, masters often postpone calling for help.
Včasih poskušajo pohiteti, da dosežejo vode države članice, ki je s tega vidika bolj "prizanesljiva".
Sometimes they try to press on in order to reach a coastal state which is more ‘lenient’ in that respect, thus wasting valuable time.
Smernice, ki so bile pred kratkim sprejete v IMO, so korak v pravo smer.
The guidelines recently adopted within the IMO are a step in the right direction.
Posledice odsotnosti potrdila o zavarovanju ali finančnega jamstva
Consequences of absence of an insurance certificate or financial guarantee
Prvič, ladje, ki ne predložijo dokazila o finančnem jamstvu, ali nimajo potrdila o zavarovanju ali finančnega jamstva, so obravnavane kot potencialna grožnja pomorskemu prometu po členu 16 in so posledično natančno opazovane.
First of all, vessels which have not given any notification of financial security, or do not possess an insurance certificate or financial guarantee, are regarded as a potential danger to shipping under Article 16 and are consequently to be closely monitored.
Drugič, odsotnost dokazila o finančnem jamstvu je pomembna pri oceni in odločitvi o sprejetju ladje v stiski.
Secondly, the absence of evidence of financial security is to be a factor in the assessment and decision on accommodating a ship in distress.
Poročevalec podpira prvega od teh predlogov.
Your rapporteur supports the first of these proposals.
Ladje brez zavarovanja se obravnavajo kot osumljenec.
Ships without insurance should be regarded as suspect.
Zato bi jih morali strožje pregledati ob sprejemu v pristanišče in jih pozvati, naj se zavarujejo.
They should be subjected to stricter checks when putting into a port and should be strongly urged to take out insurance.
Kljub temu pa ni zaželeno, da bi v pribežališča sprejemali le zavarovana plovila.
However, it is not desirable that only insured vessels should be accommodated in a place of refuge.
Seveda se pojavijo problemi, če se pomoč nudi ladji v stiski, ki ni (polno) zavarovana.
Clearly, there is a problem if assistance is given to a ship in distress which is not (fully) insured.
Vseeno pa zavrnitev takšne ladje ni rešitev, saj so finančne in ekonomske posledice lahko veliko večje.
Nevertheless, refusal to accommodate such a ship is no solution, since the financial and economic consequences could be much greater.
Načrt za povračila pribežališčem in pristaniščem
Compensation scheme for places of refuge and ports
Sprejem ladje v stiski lahko poveča škodo in stroške za zadevno pristanišče.
The accommodation of a ship may give rise to damage and costs for the port in question.
Kot smo videli, je Parlament večkrat v zadnjih letih pozval k sprejemu načrta [za povrnitev stroškov] za pristanišča in pribežališča, ki sprejemajo ladje v stiski.
As we have seen, Parliament has repeatedly called in recent years for a [compensation] scheme to be devised for ports and places of refuge which accommodate a ship in distress.
Komisija v predlogu ne predvideva tovrstnega sistema.
The Commission makes no provision for such a system in this proposal.