natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 20. aprila 2004 o vplivu zakonodaje Skupnosti in postopku posvetovanja
– having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedure
– ob upoštevanju sklepov Sveta za konkurenčnost z dne 25. in 26. novembra 2004,
– having regard to the Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 25 and 26 November 2004,
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom „Bolje oblikovani predpisi za rast in delovna mesta v Evropski uniji” z dne 16. marca 2005 ( KOM(2005)0097 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 16 March 2005 entitled 'Better regulation for growth and jobs in the European Union' ( COM(2005)0097 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Komisije z naslovom „Boljša priprava zakonodaje 2004” z dne 21. marca 2005 ( KOM(2005)0098 ),
– having regard to the Commission report of 21 March 2005 entitled 'Better lawmaking 2004' ( COM(2005)0098 ),
– ob upoštevanju smernic Evropske komisije za presojo vplivov z dne 15. junija 2005 in prilog ( SEC(2005)0791 ),
– having regard to the European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines of 15 June 2005, and the annexes thereto ( SEC(2005)0791 ),
– ob upoštevanju mnenja Ekonomsko-socialnega odbora o boljšem izvajanju zakonodaje EU in bolje oblikovanih predpisih z dne 28. septembra 2005,
– having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee opinions on better implementation of EU legislation and better regulation of 28 September 2005,
– ob upoštevanju drugega poročila Komisije o izvajanju strategije notranjega trga v obdobju 2003-2006, objavljenega leta 2005,
– having regard to the Commission Second Implementation Report of the Internal Market Strategy 2003-2006, published in 2005,
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom „Izvajanje Lizbonskega programa Skupnosti: Strategija za poenostavitev zakonodajnega okolja” z dne 19. oktobra 2005 ( KOM(2005)0535 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 19th October 2005, entitled 'implementing the Community Lisbon programme: a Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment' ( COM(2005)0535 ),
– ob upoštevanju ponovne sprožitve lizbonske strategije 22. in 23. marca 2005,
– having regard to the re-launching of the Lisbon Strategy on 22 and 23 March 2005,
– ob upoštevanju poročil o dosežkih na področju notranjega trga,
– having regard to the Internal Market scoreboard reports,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov ter mnenje Odbora ekonomske in monetarne zadeve ( A6‑0083/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs ( A6‑0083/2006 ),
A. ker so Parlament, Svet in Komisija v Medinstitucionalnem sporazumu s 16. decembra 2003, prevzeli obvezo za agendo za boljšo pravno ureditev;
A. whereas in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2003 the Parliament, the Council and the Commission gave a commitment to the better regulation agenda,
B. ker je Komisija boljšo pravno ureditev v ponovno sproženem programu lizbonske strategije postavila v središče prizadevanj za delovna mesta in rast v Evropski uniji,
B. whereas in the re-launched Lisbon Agenda the Commission put better regulation at the heart of the drive for jobs and growth in the European Union
C. ker sta deregulacija in zmanjšanje birokracije, ki izvira iz zakonodaje EU, temeljni predpostavki za dosego lizbonskih ciljev,
C. whereas deregulation and reducing the amount of red tape arising from EU legislation are vital preconditions for attaining the Lisbon objectives,
D. ker bi izboljšana priprava evropske zakonodaje morala pripomoči k večji konkurenčnosti v svetovnem gospodarstvu, pravičnim konkurenčnim pogojem med podjetji, spodbujanju rasti in krepitvi socialne kohezije,
D. whereas improved European lawmaking should lead to a more competitive edge in the global economy, fair competitive conditions between companies, the stimulation of growth and the strengthening of social cohesion,
E. ker zasledovanja cilja boljše pravne ureditve ne sme pripeljati do razvrednotenja okoljskih, socialnih ali potrošniških standardov,
E. whereas pursuit of the objective of better regulation must not lead to the undermining of environmental, social or consumer standards,
F. ker bodo državljani in podjetja imeli koristi od dobrih, jasnih in preprostih zakonov notranjega trga, ki bodo olajšali izvajanje in uveljavljanje,
F. whereas citizens and businesses will benefit from good, clear and simple internal market laws, which will facilitate implementation and enforcement,
G. ker so zainteresirane strani izrazile zaskrbljenost glede težav, ki so nastale kot posledica nejasnih ali nepopolnih pojmov, opredelitev ali določb v zakonodaji Skupnosti,
G. whereas stakeholders have raised concerns regarding difficulties experienced as a result of unclear or incomplete concepts, definitions or provisions in Community legislation,
H. ker so težave pri prenosu in izvajanju pogosto posledica slabo osnovanih zakonodajnih besedil; ker imajo evropski zakonodajni organi veliko odgovornost na tem področju in bi se torej pri pogajanjem morali izogibati zapletenim in nejasnim kompromisom,
H. whereas problems of transposition and implementation often result from poorly drafted legislative texts; whereas the European legislative bodies have an important responsibility in this matter and should therefore avoid complicated and unclear compromises in negotiations,
I. ker dvoumnosti v besedilu pri prenosu v nacionalno zakonodajo ustvarijo pravne nejasnosti in neskladnosti, kar lahko privede do izkrivljanja konkurence in drobitve notranjega trga,
I. whereas textual ambiguities generate legal uncertainties and discrepancies when texts are transposed into national law, with the potential for distortion of competition and fragmentation of the internal market,
J. ker zaporedna poročila o dosežkih na področju notranjega trga kažejo, da kljub izboljšavam v nekaterih državah članicah, prenos in izvajanje še vedno predstavljata resno težavo;
J . whereas successive internal market scoreboard reports indicate that, despite improvements in some Member States , transposition and implementation of Community legislation continue to be a problem,
K. ker mora agenda za boljšo pravno ureditev dati prednost izvajanju in prenosu obstoječe zakonodaje, da bi se izognila neskladnostim, ki zmanjšujejo konkurenčnost Evrope, pravice delavcev in potrošnikov ter sposobnost potrošnikov in podjetij, da v celoti izkoristijo notranji trg,
K. whereas the better regulation agenda must prioritise the implementation and transposition of existing legislation in order to avoid discrepancies undermining Europe’s competitiveness, employees’ and consumers’ rights and consumers’ and businesses’ ability to take full advantage of the internal market,
L. ker zaporedna poročila o dosežkih na področju notranjega trga kažejo, da prenos še vedno predstavlja resno težavo v več državah članicah,
L. whereas successive internal market scoreboard reports show that transposition continues to be a serious problem in several Member States,
M. ker boljša pravna ureditev zahteva tako predhodno kot naknadno presojo vplivov, ki bo pokazala, ali je cilje možno doseči oz., ali so že bili doseženi,
M. whereas better regulation requires both ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments to test whether objectives can be or have been achieved,
N. ker so Parlament, Svet in Komisija ugotovili potrebo po uporabi alternativnih mehanizmov pravne ureditve v ustreznih primerih in v primerih, ko Pogodba ES uporabe zakonodajnega instrumenta ne zahteva posebej,
N. whereas Parliament, Council and the Commission have recognised the need to use alternative regulation mechanisms in suitable cases and in cases where the EC Treaty does not specifically require the use of a legal instrument,
O. ker, v skladu z omenjenim medinstitucionalnim sporazumom, takih mehanizmov ni možno uporabljati, ko gre za temeljne pravice ali pomembna politična mnenja, ali v situacijah, ko je treba predpise enotno uporabljati v vseh državah članicah,
O. whereas, under the above-mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement, such mechanisms will not be applicable where fundamental rights or important political options are at stake or in situations where the rules must be applied in a uniform fashion in all Member States,
P. ker ne obstajajo uradni mehanizmi za obveščanje Parlamenta, preden se predlaga uporaba alternative zakonodaji, ali za posvetovanje s Parlamentom o ukrepih, ki jih bo prinesla alternativna zakonodaja, in ker to pomanjkanje preverjanj in usklajenosti ogroža demokratično pristojnost Parlamenta,
P. whereas, no formal mechanism exists to inform Parliament before it is proposed to use alternatives to legislation or to consult Parliament on the measures that will be delivered by alternative regulation; whereas, this absence of checks and balances undermines the democratic prerogative of Parliament,
Q. ker je pomembno, da vse tri institucije vlagajo sredstva in osebje v delovne skupine za oblikovanje „boljše pravne ureditve”,
Q. whereas, it is vital that all three institutions invest resources and staff in establishing 'better regulation' task forces,
Poudarja potrebo po skupnem pristopu do boljše pravne ureditve, osnovanem na temeljnem sklopu ureditvenih načel, in sicer na subsidiarnosti, sorazmernosti, odgovornosti, doslednosti, preglednosti in ciljni usmerjenosti; poudarja, da ta pristop ne more mimo pravice do družbenega posvetovanja in mora spoštovati načela soudeleženske demokracije;
Stresses the need for a common approach to better regulation, based on a core set of regulatory principles, namely subsidiarity, proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting; stresses that this approach cannot bypass the rights of social consultation and must respect the principles of participative democracy;
4. vztraja pri tem, da mora biti vsem predlogom Komisije priložen "kontrolni seznam boljše zakonodaje", ki povzema korake, skozi katere mora iti predlog, ter da je treba ta kontrolni seznam posodobiti po vsaki zaključeni stopnji, z napotitvijo na vse pomembne študije ali presoje vplivov;
Insists that all Commission proposals be accompanied by a ‘Better Regulation Check List’ summarising the steps through which the proposal should proceed, and that this check list should be updated as each stage is completed, with cross-references to any relevant studies or impact assessments;
7. poziva Komisijo, da vzpostavi neodvisni revizijski organ, ki bo sestavljal in zagotavljal kakovost in neodvisnost presoje ekonomskih vplivov zakonodaje EU;
Calls on the Commission to set up an independent audit body to structure and guarantee the quality and independence of economic impact assessments of EU legislation;
o izvajanju, posledicah in vplivu veljavne zakonodaje notranjega trga
on the Implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market legislation in force
Odbor za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve poziva Odbor za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
4. podpira metode posvetovanja generalnega direktorata MARKT s podjetji preko testne skupine evropskih podjetij, ki omogoča lažje odločanje in poenostavlja prenos (z dvostranskimi "sejami o paketih prenosov" in "večstranskimi skupinami strokovnjakov"); spodbuja ocene vplivov teh pobud, da se jih bo lahko uporabilo tudi v drugih generalnih direktoratih; poudarja, da te pobude zagotavljajo udeležbo vseh zainteresiranih strani; zahteva, da se alternative zakonodaji, ki so v skladu z medinstitucionalnim sporazumom o "boljši pripravi zakonodaje", resno upoštevajo in da se boljše izvajanje politike o konkurenčnosti izvede skupaj s klavzulo o pregledu, po kateri bi bila evropska zakonodaja bolj dovzetna za spremembe;
Supports DG MARKT's practice of consulting businesses through the European Business Test Panel, which facilitates decision making and streamlines transposition (with bilateral "Transposition Package meetings" and "Multilateral Experts Groups"); encourages impact assessments of those initiatives with a view to their use by other DGs; stresses that those initiatives secure the participation of all relevant stakeholders; requests that alternatives to enacting legislation according to the Inter-institutional Agreement on 'better law making' be seriously considered and that better use of competition policy be put into practice along with a review clause in order to make European legislation more responsive to change;
6. meni, da mora biti zlasti izvrševanje na nacionalni ravni na področju kazni splošno primerljivo med državami članicami; zakonodaja, ki naj nadomesti zastarelo zakonodajo, se ne bi smela izvajati kot dodatek le-tej; meni tudi, da morajo odbori regulativnih organov sprejeti, da je morda koristneje imeti manj obsežno zakonodajo, ki se sčasoma ne povečuje.
Considers, in particular, that national implementation in the areas of penalties must be broadly comparable across Member States; legislation that is intended to substitute outdated legislation should not be implemented in addition to such legislation; considers also that committees of regulators must take care to accept that less regulation may be more favourable and need not increase over time.
Izvajanje, posledice in vplivi veljavne zakonodaje notranjega trga
Implementation, consequences and impact of the internal market
Poročevalec/-ka Datum imenovanja
Drafts( wo )man Date appointed
Nadomeščeni/-a poročevalec/-ka
Previous drafts( wo )man
Poročilo o izvajanju, posledicah in vplivu veljavne zakonodaje notranjega trga
Report on the Implementation, Consequences and Impact of the Internal Market
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Witolda Tomczaka
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Witold Tomczak
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Witolda Tomczaka za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom pred okrajnim sodiščem v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski na Poljskem z dne 29. aprila 2005 in razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 12. maja 2005,
– having regard to the request by Witold Tomczak for defence of his immunity in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against him before the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland, made on 29 April 2005, announced in plenary sitting on 12 May 2005,
– po zagovoru Witolda Tomczaka ( 13. julija 2005 in 31. januarja 2006 ), v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Witold Tomczak (on 13 July 2005 and 31 January 2006) in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju pisma Witolda Tomczaka z 20. marca 2006, v katerem le-ta izraža željo po umiku svoje zahteve za zaščito imunitete,
– having regard to the letter of Witold Tomczak, signed on 20 March 2006, in which he expressed the desire to withdraw the request for defence of his immunity,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8, 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6(3) in člena 7 svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0084/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0084/2006 ),
A. ker je bil Witold Tomczak 21. septembra 1997 in 23. septembra 2001 izvoljen v poljski parlament (Sejm); ker je po podpisu pristopne pogodbe 16. aprila 2003 postal opazovalec; ker je bil poslanec v Evropskem parlamentu od 1. maja 2004 do 19. julija 2004; ker je bil izvoljen 13. junija 2004 v Evropski parlament in je njegov mandat v poljskem parlamentu potekel 16. junija 2004,
A. whereas Witold Tomczak was elected to the Polish Parliament (Sejm) on 21 September 1997 and on 23 September 2001; whereas after the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003 he became an Observer; whereas he was a Member of the European Parliament from 1 May 2004 until 19 July 2004; whereas he was elected to the European Parliament on 13 June 2004 and his term of office in the Polish Parliament expired on 16 June 2004,
B. ker je Witold Tomczak obtožen razžalitve dveh policistov pri opravljanju njunih nalog v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski dne 26. junija 1999 in s tem kršitve člena 226(1) poljskega kazenskega zakonika; ker je državni tožilec 13. junija 2000 od Sejma zahteval odvzem parlamentarne imunitete Witolda Tomczaka; ker se je Witold Tomczak 4. oktobra 2000 strinjal, da bo v tej zadevi odgovarjal v skladu s členom 105(4) poljske ustave; ker Witold Tomczak nekajkrat ni prišel na obravnavo in je okrajno sodišče v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski 10. januarja 2005 odločilo, da v skladu s členom 377(3) poljskega zakona o kazenskem postopku začne s sojenjem v nenavzočnosti;
B. whereas Witold Tomczak is charged with insulting two police officers in the performance of their duties, in Ostrów Wielkopolski on 26 June 1999, in breach of Article 226(1) of the Polish penal code; whereas the General Prosecutor applied to the Sejm for waiver of Witold Tomczak’s parliamentary immunity on 13 June 2000; whereas Witold Tomczak agreed on 4 October 2000 to be held liable in the matter, in accordance with Article 105(4) of the Polish Constitution; whereas after a number of failures by Witold Tomczak to appear at the hearings, the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski decided on 10 January 2005, in accordance with Article 377(3) of the Polish code of criminal procedure, to proceed with the trial in absentia;
C. ker je Witold Tomczak 30. aprila 2005 sodišče obvestil, da je zaprosil Evropski parlament za zaščito svoje imunitete; ker je sodišče 30. maja 2005 začasno prekinilo kazenski postopek in prosilo okrajnega državnega tožilca v Warszawi Pragi-Północi, naj navede, ali bo vložena prošnja za odvzem imunitete Witolda Tomczaka; ker po mnenju urada državnega tožilca taka prošnja ni potrebna; ker je poljsko ustavno sodišče 28. novembra 2001 odločilo, da zahteva za odvzem imunitete ni potrebna v zvezi z dejanji, ki jih je izvršil, preden je postal poslanec poljskega parlamenta;
C. whereas Witold Tomczak informed the Court on 30 April 2005 that he had requested the European Parliament to defend his immunity; whereas the Court suspended the criminal proceedings on 30 May 2005 and asked the District Prosecutor in Warszawa Praga-Północ to state whether an application for waiver of Witold Tomczak’s immunity would be made; whereas in the opinion of the General Prosecutor's Office such an application is not necessary; whereas the Polish Constitutional Court ruled on 28 November 2001 that a request for waiver of immunity is not necessary in relation to acts committed before becoming a Member of the Polish Parliament,
D. ker Witold Tomczak trdi, da bi moral javni tožilec zaprositi poljski parlament za odvzem njegove imunitete, preden je vložil obtožbo, in da je, ker je bil izvoljen za poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, zaprosil ta organ, in ne Sejm, naj uveljavi njegovo imuniteto;
D. whereas Witold Tomczak claims that the Public Prosecutor should have applied to the Polish Parliament for waiver of his immunity before presenting any charges, and that since he was elected Member of the European Parliament, he asked that body, and not the Sejm, to assert his immunity,
E. ker Witold Tomczak trdi, da je kazenski postopek proti njemu pristranski, da se na pravosodne organe izvaja politični pritisk, da so bili predloženi lažni dokazi in da pri sojenju sodelujejo nezanesljive priče;
E. whereas Witold Tomczak complains that the criminal proceedings against him are biased, that political pressure is being exerted on the judicial authorities, that false evidence is being submitted and that unreliable witnesses are participating in the trial,
F. ker na osnovi pridobljenih informacij Witolda Tomczaka ne ščiti poslanska imuniteta v zvezi z nobenim od zahtevkov, na katere je bil opozorjen predsednik Evropskega parlamenta,
F. whereas, on basis of the information obtained, Witold Tomczak is not protected by parliamentary immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President of the European Parliament,
G. ker je poslanska imuniteta ena izmed pravic Parlamenta in je torej ne more izvrševati ali umakniti eden izmed poslancev, temveč le institucija kot celota,
G. whereas parliamentary immunity constitutes part of the prerogatives of Parliament, and cannot therefore be exercised or withdrawn by an individual Member of Parliament but only by the institution as a whole,
H. ker je ne glede na pismo Witolda Tomczaka, v katerem izraža svojo željo, da umakne zahtevo po zaščiti njegove poslanske imunitete, zelo pomembno, da se zadevo izčrpno preuči, da se zagotovi, da so bile pravice Parlamenta primerno spoštovane,
H. whereas, notwithstanding the letter of Witold Tomczak expressing his desire to withdraw the request for defence of his parliamentary immunity, it is stressed that the case must nevertheless be considered exhaustively in order to ensure that Parliament's prerogatives have been duly respected,
Witold Tomczak je bil izvoljen za poslanca poljskega parlamenta (Sejma) 21. septembra 1997 izmed kandidatov na listi Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność (Akcija Solidarnosti za volitve - AWS) in 23. septembra 2001 izmed kandidatov na listi Liga Polskich Rodzin (Zveza poljskih družin - LPR).
Witold Tomczak was elected Member of the Polish Parliament (Sejm) on 21 September 1997 from the list of Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność (Solidarity Action for Elections - AWS) and on 23 September 2001 from the list of Liga Polskich Rodzin (League of Polish Families - LPR).
Ker je bil izvoljen v Evropski parlament na volitvah, ki so bile na Poljskem 13. junija 2004, je postal poslanec EP in njegov mandat v Sejmu se je končal 16. junija 2004, ko so bili objavljeni rezultati volitev.
As he was elected to the European Parliament in elections taking place in Poland on 13 June 2004, he became a Member of the EP and his term of office in Sejm ended with effect on the 16 June 2004, when the election results were announced.
Nekaj minut po polnoči so se peljali v napačni smeri po enosmerni ulici Gimnazjalna.
A few minutes after midnight, they were driving the wrong way down a one-way Gimnazjalna Street.
Ustavila jih je policijska patrulja v neoznačenem avtomobilu in eden od policistov (Sławomir Marek) je z voznikove strani pristopil k avtomobilu g.
A police patrol in an un-marked car blocked their way and one policeman (Sławomir Marek) approached Mr Tomczak's car from the driver's side.
Tomczak ni hotel pokazati svojih dokumentov, sta ga dva policista (Sławomir Marek in Radosław Gmur) prisilila, da je izstopil iz avtomobila, mu nataknila lisice in ga odpeljala na lokalno policijsko postajo.
As Mr Tomczak refused to present his documents, two policemen (Sławomir Marek and Radosław Gmur) forced him out of the car, handcuffed him and took to the local police station.
Ko so ga pospremili nazaj do njegovega avtomobila, se je sam odpeljal na policijsko postajo v Ostrówter in po telefonu govoril z uradom okrajnega javnega tožilca.
After being taken back to his car, he drove to the police station in Ostrów himself and had a telephone conversation with the district public prosecutor's office.
Preiskavo je dne 30. junija 1999 začel urad okrajnega javnega tožilca v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski.
The investigation was opened on 30 June 1999 by the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Public Prosecutor's Office.