natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1. , okvirnega sklepa 2003/577/PNZ Sveta z dne 22. julija 2003 o izvajanju sklepov o zamrznjenju sredstev ali dokaznih gradiv v Evropski uniji
1. , Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence
UL L 196, 02.08.03, str.
OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p.
45. , predloga okvirnega sklepa Sveta o evropskem mandatu za pridobivanje dokazov
45. , the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant
Predlog okvirnega sklepa Sveta o evropskem mandatu za pridobivanje dokazov z namenom zbiranja predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih ( KOM(2003)0688 ). in predloga okvirnega sklepa Sveta o določenih postopkovnih pravicah v kazenskih postopkih v Evropski uniji ( KOM(2004)0328 ),
Proposal for a Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters ( COM(2003)0688 ). and the proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union ( COM(2004)0328 ),
- ob upoštevanju členov pristopne pogodbe, ki predvidevajo možnost prekinitve izvajanja nekaterih določb na področju svoboščin, varnosti in pravosodja (AFSJ) v primeru neupoštevanja nekaterih norm (norme morajo biti vnaprej določene),
– having regard to the relevant articles of the Treaty of Accession providing for the possibility of suspending the application of certain provisions of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) in the event of failure to comply with certain rules (which requires that such rules are defined beforehand),
- ob upoštevanju priporočila o prihodnosti območja svobode, varnosti in pravice ter o pogojih za krepitev njegove legitimnosti in učinkovitosti, ki ga je Evropski parlament sprejel 14. oktobra 2004
– having regard to its recommendation of 14 October 2004 on the future of the area of freedom, security and justice as well as on the measures required to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness thereof
- ob upoštevanju Haaškega programa, ki ga je sprejel Evropski svet 4. in 5. novembra 2004,
– having regard to the Hague Programme adopted by the European Council on 4-5 November 2004,
- ob upoštevanju člena 114(3) in člena 83(5) svojega Poslovnika
– having regard to Rules 114(3) and 83(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
- ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6-0036/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0036/2005 ),
A. ker členi od II-107 do II-110 Pogodbe o Ustavi za Evropo in člena 6 in 13 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin določajo področje 'pravice do sodnega varstva', ki jih morajo Unija in njene države članice v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi zagotavljati evropskim državljanom,
A. whereas Articles II-107 to II-110 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR define the scope of the ‘right to justice’ which the Union and its Member States, each within its jurisdiction, must guarantee EU citizens,
B. ker pravica do sodnega varstva vsebuje še zlasti pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, do nepristranskega sojenja, do pravičnega sojenja, do sojenja v razumnem roku, pravico do pravne pomoči ter vključuje tudi upoštevanju temeljnih pravic osumljenih oseb pred začetkom kazenskega postopka, kot tudi pravico do dostojne in humane obravnave obsojenih oseb ob koncu postopka v skladu z mednarodnimi standardi ZN in standardi Evropske konvencije o preprečevanju mučenja,
B. whereas this right to justice includes, in particular, the right to an effective remedy, the right of access to an impartial tribunal, the right to a fair trial, the right to be tried within a reasonable time and the right to access to legal aid, as well as full respect for the fundamental rights of persons suspected of an offence prior to criminal proceedings and the right to respectful and human treatment, pursuant to the international standards of the UN and of the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture, for convicted persons following such proceedings,
C. ker je zaščita teh pravic še pomembnejša v kazenskih postopkih, ki zadevajo temeljne pravice,
C. whereas protection of these rights is all the more essential in criminal proceedings, in which fundamental freedoms are at stake,
D. ker je to varstvo v prvi vrsti odvisno od pristojnosti vsake države članice, ki ga ta zagotavlja v skladu s svojo ustavno ureditvijo in pravno tradicijo; ker morajo države članice poiskati rešitve za težave, ki obstajajo v njihovih pravnih sistemih, predvsem tiste, na katere je opozorilo Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice; ker resnično evropsko območje svobode, varnosti in pravice po eni strani zahteva, da je treba svojim državljanom zagotoviti podobno obravnavo po vsej Uniji ter po drugi strani krepiti medsebojno zaupanje med državami članicami, da bodo vzajemno priznavale sodbe ter tudi predajale svoje državljane sodiščem druge države,
D. whereas responsibility for protecting these rights lies first and foremost with each Member State, which does so in accordance with its own constitutional set-up and legal traditions; whereas Member States need to deal with the problems existing in their own legal systems, especially those identified by the European Court of Human Rights; whereas, however, a genuine European area of freedom, security and justice must guarantee European citizens comparable treatment throughout the Union and requires greater mutual trust between Member States with a view to mutual recognition of judicial decisions, including even the surrender of their own citizens to the courts of another Member State,
E. ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v Luksemburgu in Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v Strasbourgu in dejstva, da morata biti sodni praksi obeh sodišč skladni;
E having regard to the case law of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the fact that the case law of both courts should be consistent,
F. ker je po sprejemu programa iz Tampereja (odstavek 33) načelo medsebojnega priznavanja sodb sodišč postalo temeljni kamen pravosodnega sodelovanja v Uniji,
F whereas, since the adoption of the Tampere programme (paragraph 33), the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions has become a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the Union,
G. ker Pogodba o Ustavi za Evropo (člen III-260) in Haaški program (še posebej njegov odstavek 3.2) priznavata pomen vzajemnega ocenjevanja med državami članicami za krepitev vzajemnega zaupanja, ki je potrebno za vzajemno priznavanje, kot to velja za sprejetje minimalnih vsebinskih in proceduralnih standardov in postavljanje razumskih časovnih rokov;
G. whereas the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Article III-260) and the Hague Programme (in particular paragraph 3.2 thereof) recognise the importance of mutual evaluation between Member States in order to strengthen mutual trust, which is a precondition for mutual recognition, as is the adoption of minimum substantive and procedural standards and the setting of reasonable time-limits,
H. ker mora ocenjevanje kakovosti sodstva v EU zadevati tudi metode dela sodnikov in različne pravosodne sisteme v državah članicah; s čimer se ne sme spodbijati pojma primernega spoštovanju neodvisnosti pravosodnih oblasti,
H. whereas the evaluation of the quality of justice in the EU should also concern the working methods of the judges and the different systems of administration of justice in the Member States; whereas this does not contradict the notion of due respect for the principle of the independence of the judiciary,
I. ker mora to ocenjevanje temeljiti na skupnem referenčnem okvirju, ki zagotavlja njegovo skladnost in objektivnost,
I. whereas this evaluation needs to be grounded in a common framework of reference which can guarantee its coherence and objectivity,
J. ker je za kakovost kazenskega sodstva Evrope potrebno določiti najustreznejša orodja in postopke takega ocenjevanja in pospeševati izmenjavo informacij ter možnosti usposabljanja,
J. whereas the most appropriate tools and procedures need to be defined for the purposes of this evaluation and in order to step up exchanges of information and training opportunities in support of the quality of criminal justice in Europe,
K. ker so bile v zadnjih letih v EU ustanovljene različne evropske mreže, kot so Združenje državnih svetov in vrhovnih upravnih enot, mreža predsednikov vrhovnih sodišč, mreža vrhovnih sodišč in evropska mreža višjih upravnih sodišč, kar priča o rastočem zavedanju potrebe za skupno delovanje pri izboljšanju kakovosti sodstva, ki je na razpolago državljanom Unije,
K. whereas the creation within the EU in recent years of European networks, such as the Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions, the Network of Supreme Court Presidents, the Network of Supreme Courts and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), testifies to the growing awareness of the need to work together in order to improve the quality of the justice offered to the Union's citizens,
L. ob upoštevanju ključne vloge, ki jo ima pri razvoju skupne pravne kulture in kulture temeljnih pravic v Uniji uposabljanje, predvsem preko delovanja Evropske mreže za pravno usposabljanje,
L. having regard to the key role played by training in developing a common legal culture and a culture of fundamental rights within the Union, in particular via the actions of the European legal training network,
M. ker mora izboljšanje kakovosti kazenskega sodstva na podlagi ocenjevanja po eni strani voditi h krepitvi kakovosti kazenskih in postopkovnih norm ter po drugi strani h krepitvi kakovosti njihove uporabe, s čimer se ne sme spodbijati pojma primernega spoštovanju neodvisnosti pravosodnih oblasti,
M. whereas the improvement of the quality standards of justice and of its efficiency on the basis of the evaluation must enhance both the quality of substantive and procedural criminal provisions and the quality of their implementation, which is not in contradiction with due respect for the principle of the independence of the judiciary,
N. ker je za vzajemno ocenjevanje potrebna specifična metodologija, ki upošteva zapletenost procesa,
N. whereas mutual evaluation requires a specific methodology, taking into account the complexity of the process,
O. ker Haaški program priznava, da je potrebno sprejeti Pogodbo o Ustavi za Evropo kot referenčni okvir in začeti s pripravljalnimi deli, da se bodo v ustanovni pogodbi predvideni ukrepi lahko izvajali, ko bo stopila v veljavo,
O. whereas the Hague Programme acknowledges the need to adopt the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe as a reference framework and to begin the preparatory work to ensure that the measures provided for in the Constitutional Treaty can be implemented as soon as it enters into force,
P. ker upošteva javni seminar, ki ga bo organiziral Odbor za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve dne 18. januarja 2005 z naslovom 'Spodbujanje kakovostnejšega sodstva v Evropi',
P. having regard to the public seminar held by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 18 January 2005 on promoting enhanced quality of justice in Europe,
Q. odobri smernice Haaškega programa za krepitev vzajemnega zaupanja (odstavek 3(2)), predvsem preko izboljšanja kakovosti sodstva, razvoja ocenjevanja ter preko neprecenljivih prispevkov pravosodnih institucij in organizacij;
Q. approving the guidelines of the Hague Programme concerning the strengthening of mutual trust (paragraph 3.2.), especially by improving the quality of justice, by developing evaluation and by means of the invaluable contribution of the networks of legal institutions and organisations,
a) da takoj začneta z akcijo Evropske unije, da bodo evropski državljani ali bivajoči v Uniji ne glede na pravni in ustavni okvir države, v kateri se nahajajo, lahko deležni pravice do sodnega varstva v pogojih, ki so primerljivi in ustrezajo visokim standardom kakovosti, s čimer bi pridobili večje zaupanje v pravosodje;
(a) immediately initiate a European Union action to enable European citizens throughout the Union, whatever the legal and constitutional set-up of the country in which they find themselves, to enjoy the right to justice in both comparable conditions and on the basis of ever-higher quality standards, thus acquiring greater trust in the administration of justice,
b) meni, da je v tem pogledu pomembno, da Evropska unija z državami članicami opredeli 'Listino o kakovosti kazenskega sodstva Evrope' , ki bo predstavljala skupni referenčni okvir za vse države članice in bo zagotavljala skladno in objektivno ocenjevanje; pri pripravi listine bo potrebno upoštevati izkušnje in že opravljeno delo na nacionalni ravni, kot tudi delo Sveta Evrope in Združenih narodov na mednarodni ravni;
(b) define with the Member States a 'Quality Charter for Criminal Justice in Europe' to serve as a common reference framework for all the Member States and ensure consistent and objective evaluation; this Charter should be drawn up taking due account of the experiences acquired and work done at national level, as well as at international level by the Council of Europe and the United Nations,
c) da bi okrepili vzajemno zaupanje med nacionalnimi pravnimi sistemi na podlagi spoštovanja raznolikosti, priporoča vzpostavitev mehanizma stalnega vzajemnega ocenjevanja, katerega referenčni okvir bi bila Listina o kakovosti; mehanizem vzajemnega ocenjevanja bo upošteval izkušnje, pridobljene na drugih področjih, kjer že poteka vzajemno ocenjevanje (Schengen, terorizem, širitev ...), in bo, kolikor bo mogoče, predvidel mehanizem v skladu s členom III-260 ustanovne pogodbe, ter bo izpolnjeval naslednje cilje:
(c) in order to strengthen mutual trust between national legal systems, on a basis of respect for diversity, establish a mechanism for ongoing mutual evaluation, with the Quality Charter as its objective reference framework, taking account of experiences in other areas in which mutual evaluation is already operational (Schengen, terrorism, enlargement, etc), preparing the way, as far as possible, for the mechanism set out in Article III-260 of the Constitutional Treaty and meeting the following objectives:
- vzpostavitev primerljive baze podatkov in statistik,
- establishment of a comparative statistical database,
- izvajanje primerjalnih analiz,
- organisation of benchmarking exercises,
- širjenje najboljše prakse,
- promotion of best practices,
d) formalizira mehanizem vzajemnega ocenjevanja (postopkov, struktur, kazalcev, poročil, ...) v enem ali več sklepih, ki bodo temeljili na členu 31 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, vključujoč načela sodne prakse sodišč v Strasbourgu in v Luxembourgu, kot tudi usmeritve Komisije za učinkovito sodstvo (CEPEJ) Sveta Evrope;
(d) formally set up the mutual evaluation mechanism (procedures, structures, indicators, reports, etc.) on the basis of one or more decisions pursuant to Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union implementing the principles contained in the case law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts and the guidelines laid down by the Council of Europe’s Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ),
e) zagotovi, da se združenja sodnikov in odvetnikov, pravnih strokovnjakov, uporabnikov pravnega sistema in tudi nacionalnih parlamentov vključijo v to ocenjevanje, na primer z ustanovitvijo nadzornega odbora za kakovost sodstva , v duhu člena I-42(2) ustavne pogodbe in v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti; to ocenjevanje lahko poteka skupaj z Evropskim parlamentom in nacionalnimi parlamenti;
(e) involve judges' and lawyers' associations, legal experts, users of the legal system, and the national parliaments in this evaluation, for example by setting up a monitoring committee on the quality of justice, in the spirit of Article I-42(2) of the Constitutional Treaty and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; this evaluation could be conducted jointly by the European Parliament and the national parliaments,
f) meni, da oblikovanje območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, temelječega na vzajemnem zaupanju, ni možno brez minimalne uskladitve nacionalnih zakonodaj; kar zadeva kazensko materialno pravo se Parlament strinja s Svetom, da bi bilo potrebno dati prednost kaznivim dejanjem, izrecno omenjenim v ustavni pogodbi; kar zadeva procesno pravo, meni, da bi morale imeti prednost naslednje teme:
(f) recognise that the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice based on mutual trust is not possible without a minimum of harmonisation of national legislation; with regard to material criminal law, Parliament agrees with the Council that priority should be given to the offences expressly referred to in the Constitutional Treaty; with regard to procedural law, the following subjects should have priority:
- preglednost pravosodja, kot tudi polno upoštevanju temeljnih pravic osumljenih oseb pred začetkom kazenskega postopka, kot tudi pravico do dostojne in humane obravnave obsojenih oseb ob koncu postopka;
- transparency in the administration of justice, as well as full respect for the fundamental rights of persons suspected of an offence prior to criminal proceedings and the right to respectful and human treatment of those convicted following such proceedings,
- uprava in ocenjevanje dokazov,
- the gathering and assessment of evidence,
- pošiljanje zapornikov na prestajanje kazni v državo članico (državo bivališča),
- the transfer of prisoners to enable them to serve their sentences in the Member State of residence,
- prestajanje kazni brez odvzema prostosti v državi članici (državi bivališča)
- the serving of non-custodial sentences in the Member State of residence,
- izvajanje prisilnih ukrepov v državi članici (državi bivališča),
- the execution of enforcement measures in the Member State of residence,
- minimalne pravice zapornikov v vseh državah članicah,
- minimum rights of prisoners in any Member State,
- ponovna obsodba zaradi kršitev dejanj, ki so že predmet usklajevalnih ukrepov,
- further conviction in respect of acts already subject to harmonisation measures,
- sistem za zaščito izjav prič in žrtev;
- the system for protecting the depositions of witnesses and victims;
meni, da bi bilo potrebno ocenjevanje izvesti tudi na podlagi zgoraj naštetih dejavnikov z namenom sprejetja ali nadaljevanja izvajanja pobud s teh področij na ravni Unije;
recognise that the evaluation should also be carried out on the basis of the above elements with a view to taking or continuing initiatives at Union level in these fields,
g) ob upoštevanju, da mora uveljavljanje načela vzajemnega ocenjevanja voditi k vzpodbujanju usposabljanja za vse poklice na področju prava, temelječega na evropskih mrežah pravosodnih organizacij in institucij; zato v luči sprejetja finančnega načrta za obdobje 2007-2013 in v skladu z določbami Haaškega programa (odstavek 3.2, pododstavek 2) ter z namenom izboljšanja kakovosti sodstva poziva k dodelitvi finančne podpore za Evropsko mrežo pravosodnih organizacij in institucij, programe izmenjave med pravosodnimi organi, izhajajoče iz pobud Parlamenta (predvsem iz postavke 18 05 01 03,) in pilotske sheme, ki omogočajo sodelovanje zastopnikov ali organizacij držav članic;
(g) recognise that the corollary of the principle of mutual evaluation must be the promotion of training actions for all legal professionals, based on the European networks of legal organisations and institutions; thus, in the context of the adoption of the financial perspective for 2007-2013 and pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Programme (paragraph 3.2, subparagraph 2), provide for financial support to be given to the European networks of legal organisations and institutions, to the exchange programmes between legal authorities initiated by Parliament (notably under heading 18 05 01 03), and to pilot schemes enabling the cooperation of agents or organisations in the Member States, with the objective of improving the quality of justice,
2. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to priporočilo posreduje Svetu in v vednost Komisiji, vladam in parlamentom držav članic ter Svetu Evrope.
Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the Council of Europe.
PREDLOG PRIPOROČILA EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA SVETU GLEDE KAKOVOSTI KAZENSKEGA SODSTVA EVROPSKE UNIJE B6‑0234/2004
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL ON THE QUALITY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION B6‑0234/2004
– ob upoštevanju člena 114(1) svojega Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rule 114(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju, da členi 47-50 Listine o temeljnih pravicah ter člena 6 in 13 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah določajo področje 'pravice do sodnega varstva', ki jih morajo Unija in njene države članice v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi zagotavljati evropskim državljanom,
– whereas Articles 47 to 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 6 to 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights define the scope of the 'right to justice' which the Union and its Member States, each within its jurisdiction, must guarantee EU citizens,
– ob upoštevanju, da 'pravica do sodnega varstva' vsebuje še zlasti pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, do nepristranskega sojenja, do pravičnega sojenja, do sojenja v razumnem roku, pravico do pravne pomoči ter da je zaščita teh pravic še pomembnejša v kazenskem postopku,
– whereas this 'right to justice' includes, in particular, the right to an effective remedy, the right of access to an impartial tribunal, the right to a fair trial, the right to be tried within a reasonable time and the right of access to legal aid, and whereas protection of these rights is all the more important in respect of criminal proceedings,
– ob prepričanju, da je varstvo v prvi vrsti odvisno od pristojnosti vsake države članice, ki ga ta zagotavlja v skladu s svojo ustavno ureditvijo in pravno tradicijo; pristop k Uniji pa po eni strani pomeni, da je treba svojim državljanom zagotoviti podobno obravnavo kot je v Uniji ter po drugi strani krepiti medsebojno zaupanje med državami članicami, da bodo vzajemno priznavale sodbe ter tudi prepuščale svoje državljane sodnikom druge države članice,
– convinced that responsibility for protecting these rights lies first and foremost with each Member States which does so in accordance with its own constitutional set-up and legal traditions, but that membership of the Union means that European citizens should be guaranteed comparable treatment throughout the Union and that there should be greater trust between Member States with a view to mutual recognition of judicial decisions, including even the surrender of their own citizens to the courts of another Member State,
‑ ob upoštevanju, da osnutek Ustavne pogodbe (člen III-260) in Haški program (odstavek 3.2) službi kazenskega sodišča Evrope priznavata pomen vzajemnega ocenjevanja med državami članicami za krepitev vzajemnega zaupanja, ki zahteva določitev ustreznejših orodij in postopkov vrednotenja in pospeševanja izmenjave informacij ter možnosti usposabljanja,
– recalling that the draft Constitutional Treaty (Article III-260) and the Hague programme (paragraph 3.2) recognise the importance of mutual evaluation between Member States in order to strengthen mutual trust, and that more appropriate tools and procedures need to be defined for the purposes of this evaluation and in order to step up exchanges of information and training opportunities in support of the quality of criminal justice in Europe,