natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ker so poleg tega ocene Komisije pogosto močno odvisne od informacij, ki jih pridobi od nacionalnih oblasti, so preiskave Odbora za peticije, ki jih v skladu s členom 192(3) poslovnika izvajajo posebne misije za ugotavljanje dejstev, še posebej uporabne, saj gre za dodatne informacije, ki pogosto izpostavijo morebitno kršenje prava EU, ki ga je Komisija spregledala (glej spodaj).
Moreover, as the Commission's assessments often rely heavily on information provided by the national authorities, the Committee's own investigations, through the conduct of fact finding missions, under Rule 192, paragraph 3, for example, prove particularly relevant as complementary data is revealed often pointing out to potential breaches of EC law which the Commission had not uncovered. (see below) The Committee, because of this, has also encouraged the European Commission to demand independent investigations as they may produce further evidence allowing a more balanced approach to certain issues.
Novi okvirni sporazum o sodelovanju med Evropskim parlamentom in Komisijo poudarja potrebo po večjem dialogu med institucijama, kar je še posebej pomembno za delo Odbora za peticije, saj se večina primerov nanaša na področja politike, ki neposredno vplivajo na vsakodnevno življenje evropskih državljanov.
The new framework agreement on the relations between the European Parliament and the Commission emphasizes the need for a strengthened dialogue between the two institutions, and this is particularly important for the work on the Committee on Petitions as the majority of cases relate to policy areas having a direct impact on the daily lives of EU citizens.
Še vedno pa je potreben napredek pri prepoznavanju pomena peticij za delo Komisije pri izvajanju nadzora nad zakonodajo EU (glej mnenje in delovni dokument Diane Wallis v imenu Odbora za peticije).
Progress is still needed in respect to the recognition of the importance of petitions for the work of the Commission in the monitoring the implementation of EU law.
Komisija namreč v svojem letnem poročilu o izvajanju zakonodaje EU znova ne priznava vloge, ki jo imajo peticije pri ugotavljanju kršitev.
(See Opinion and Working Document by Diana Wallis on behalf of the Committee) Thus, in its Annual Report on the application of EU law, the Commission has still failed to properly acknowledge the role of petitions in detecting infringements.
Podatki v letnem poročilu kažejo, da so peticije, naslovljene pa Evropski parlament, manj pomembne od pritožb, naslovljenih na Evropsko komisijo.
The data included in the Annual Reports suggests that petitions addressed to the European Parliament are of minor importance when compared to complaints to the European Commission.
Statistika namreč postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev, ki so odkrite s pomočjo parlamentarnih vprašanj in peticij, neprestano obravnava kot primere, ki naj bi jih Komisija obravnavala na lastno pobudo, kar zmanjšuje pomembno vlogo, ki jo imajo peticije v postopku izvajanja nadzora nad uporabo zakonodaje EU.
The statistics provided have constantly counted infringements opened due to parliamentary questions and petitions as own-initiative cases by the Commission, thus diminishing the contribution of petitions in the process of monitoring the application of EC law.
Soobstoj postopkov, ki so vezani na pritožbe, in tistih, ki so vezani na peticije, sproža vrsto dodatnih vprašanj, na katere se neposredno sklicuje osnutek resolucije.
The parallel existence of complaints and petitions procedures, respectively, raises a number of additional issues which are referred to directly in the draft resolution.
Kot se omenja v resoluciji Evropskega parlamenta s 5. junija 2003 (T5-0274/2003), se razmere še bolj zapletejo v primeru, da državljan istočasno naslovi pritožbo in peticijo o isti vsebini na Komisijo oziroma Parlament.
As pointed out in the European Parliament's resolution of 5 June 2003 (T5-0274/2003), the situation becomes complicated when a citizen simultaneously lodges a complaint with the Commission and a petition with Parliament concerning the same grievance.
Upravljanje takih primerov je torej treba še bolj uskladiti.
An injection of greater coherence is required in the management of such cases.
Vse pomembnejše postaja tudi to, da mora Komisija svoje odločitve o primerih kršitev sprejemati na preglednejši način ter vlagatelje pritožb in peticij (prek Odbora za peticije) bolje informirati.
It is also becoming increasingly important that the Commission takes its decisions on infringement cases in a more transparent way and keeps complainants and petitioners (via the Committee on Petitions) better informed.
Postopkovne pravice vlagateljev pritožb in peticij trenutno niso zadostne, saj Komisija načrtno zavrača razkritje uradnih obvestil, utemeljenih mnenj, odgovorov zadevnih držav članic in druge korespondence v predpravdnem postopku, čeprav je v okvirnih sporazumih predvideno, da imajo poslanci teoretično dostop do posebej občutljivih dokumentov.
The procedural rights of complainants and petitioners are presently not sufficient, since the Commission systematically refuses to disclose letters of formal notice, reasoned opinions, replies of the Member States concerned and other correspondence exchanged during the pre-litigation procedure even though procedures theoretically exist for members to have access to sensitive documents under the Framework Agreements.
Odbor pogosto ne pozna dejstev, na podlagi katerih se sprejemajo odločitve o zaustavitvi primera ugotavljanja kršitev, za katerega se obravnava peticije še ni zaključila.
If it is often not known by the Committee, on what basis the decisions are taken, for instance, to close an infringement case for which a petition is open.
Komisija vztraja, da je take odločitve nemogoče nadzorovati.
The Commission insists that these decisions cannot be made subject to scrutiny.
Ta pomanjkljivi dostop do dokumentov lahko vodi do špekulacij o tem, da naj bi bilo reševanje nekaterih primerov pravzaprav bolj rezultat prekupčevanja in pogajanj kot pa odločnega vztrajanja Komisije, da morajo države članice delovati v skladu z zakonodajo.
This lack of openness can give rise to speculation as to how far the settling of cases might, in some instances, have been the result of horse-trading and negotiations, rather than the Commission's rigorous insistence on full compliance by Member States with the letter of European law.
Glede na to, da je s tem ogroženo zaupanje javnosti v institucije EU, bi bilo treba okrepiti ustrezni pravni okvir
Since this potentially undermines public confidence and trust in the EU institutions, the relevant legal framework
Uredba 1049/2001 o dostopu do dokumentov. in pri tem upoštevati dejstvo, da mora Parlament nadzorovati delovanje Komisije.
Regulation 1049/2001 on Access to documents. should be strengthened and the Parliament has a duty to exercise control over the Commission's activities.
Treba je dodati, da so razmere vedno slabše zaradi vse večjega števila tako imenovanih "vodoravnih postopkov ugotavljanja kršitev", na podlagi katerih Komisija na diskrecijski način odloči, da bo hkrati dokončno odločala o več podobnih primerih.
It should be added that this situation is made worse by the increasing number of so-called "horizontal infringement proceedings" where the Commission decides, in a discretionary way, to finally take action on a whole raft of similar cases.
Tako na primer ostajajo odprte peticije, ki so jih leta 1998 in 200 vložili Irci in se nanašajo na zelo posebne primere kršitev prava EU glede čiste pitne vode v okrožjih Kilkenny in Galway, kljub temu, čeprav je Evropsko sodišče obsodilo Irsko zaradi kršenja direktive EU o pitni vodi.
For example, petitions received from petitioners in Ireland concerning very specific examples of the violation of EU law related to clean drinking water, in Kilkenny and also in Galway, tabled in 1998 and 2000, remain open though Ireland has been condemned by the European Court of Justice for infringement of the EU Drinking Water Directive.
Vlagateljem peticij ni mogoče dati jasnih informacij in pristojne lokalne oblasti ne ukrepajo.
No clear information can be given to petitioners and there are no signs of action by local authorities concerned.
Tako vlagatelji peticij še naprej zaman nudijo najnovejše informacije o slabi kakovosti pitne vode.
The petitioners for their part continue to provide updated information on the poor drinking water quality to no avail.
Prizadeti državljani zato upravičeno ne odobravajo postopkov vlaganja peticij, odziva Komisije in irskih oblasti.
This brings the petitions process, the Commission and the Irish authorities into disrepute in the eyes of the affected citizens, and rightly so.
Sodelovanje s Svetom EU in državami članicami
Relations with Council and the Member States .
Odnos med odborom in državami članicami je najverjetneje konflikten že zaradi narave pritožb, ki so predmet peticij, prejetih v odboru.
It is probably true to say that relations between the Committee and Member States are potentially conflictual by the very nature of the complaints made in the petitions received by the Committee.
Zgornji primer je jasen.
The above example is clear.
Predstavniki Sveta in držav članic (iz nekaterih držav več kot iz drugih) se udeležujejo sej odbora, vendar bi se to sodelovanje moralo še okrepiti.
Council and Member State representatives (from some Member States more than others) do attend Committee meetings, but cooperation could and should be further reinforced as a matter of principle.
Peticije se pogosto nanašajo na občutljiva politična vprašanja o izvajanju zakonodaje EU in vloga Sveta je lahko zelo pomembna, s tem da podpre rešitve, ki so predlagane za peticije o različnih področjih delovanja EU.
Petitions, as we have seen, often deal with sensitive political issues deriving from the way EU legislation is implemented and the Council can play a significant role in ensuring support for recommended solutions to petitions concerning many sectors of EU activity.
Človek bi pomislil, da je to v interesu predstavnikov Sveta.
Indeed one would have thought it was in their interest to do so.
Reševanje posameznih primerov bi se lahko bistveno izboljšalo z dogovorom o strožjih rokih, ki bi jih nacionalne oblasti imele na voljo pri odgovoru na prošnje Odbora za peticije za pomoč pri obravnavi posameznih primerov.
An agreement on stricter deadlines for national authorities to provide answers to the Committee on Petitions demands for assistance in addressing individual cases could greatly contribute to their effective solution.
Pri določanju rokov bi se seveda upoštevala zapletenost sproženega vprašanja.
Such deadlines would need to bear some relation to the complexity of the issue raised of course.
Instituciji bi prav tako morali tesneje sodelovati, da bi ugotovili, kako najbolje vključiti pravice državljanov v vsakdanje delo javne uprave na evropski, nacionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni.
It is equally important that the two bodies enhance their cooperation in order to identify the best ways for public administrations at the European, national, regional and local levels take full account of citizens’ rights in their everyday work.
Politično spodbujanje Sveta za takojšen in učinkovit prenos zakonodaje EU ostaja bistvenega pomena, saj izvajanje zakonodaje EU ostaja v veliki meri v pristojnosti uprav držav članic.
As the implementation of EU law remains largely the responsibility of administrations in the Member States, the Council's political impetus for effective and prompt transposition remains highly important.
Kljub vsemu se zdi, da imata Evropski parlament in Odbor za peticije pri nadzoru dejavnosti izvršilnega organa omejena sredstva.
However, the European Parliament and its Committee on Petitions seem to have only limited means to control the performance of the executive.
Nedavni medinstitucionalni sporazum Parlamentu ne ponuja boljših instrumentov v zvezi s tem, zato je za ustrezno rešitev položaja potreben večji trud.
Furthermore, the recent inter-institutional agreement falls short of providing Parliament with improved instruments in this respect.
Posodabljanje dela Odbora za peticije
Updating the work of the Committee on Petitions
Treba je dodati, da so mediji v obravnavanem obdobju delu Odbora za peticije posvečali vedno več pozornosti, kar kaže na to, da tisk, tako nacionalni kot lokalni, radio in televizijo zanima odziv Parlamenta na bojazni državljanov.
The media, it should be added, in the period under review, has paid more and more attention to the work of the Committee demonstrating that when the Parliament is seen to respond to people's preoccupations both national and local press, radio and television are interested.
V primerjavi z drugimi odbori Evropskega parlamenta ima Odbor za peticije glede na naravo svojega dela posebno vlogo, ki se jo včasih narobe razume.
Due to the nature of its activity, the Committee on Petitions has a special role, sometimes misunderstood, in relation to the other committees of the European Parliament.
Odbora skuša v celoti odgovoriti na posebna vprašanja vlagateljev peticij, pri čemer pogosto preseže strogo pravno mnenje Komisije, pri izpolnjevanju svojih nalog pa mora pogosto vključiti ali obvestiti druge pristojne parlamentarne odbore.
The Committee tries to provide comprehensive answers to specific issues raised by petitioners, often going beyond the strict legal assessment proposed by the Commission, and to fulfil this role it often needs to involve or inform other competent parliamentary committees.
Pri tem nikoli ne dvomi o usposobljenosti drugih odborov in si ne prilašča v njihovih pristojnosti, temveč le želi njihovo sodelovanje.
In so doing it never seeks to question the competence of other committees, nor to usurp their competence, it merely seeks their cooperation.
Po drugi strani mora Odbor za peticije najti rešitev, kako pospešiti postopek obravnave peticij in izboljšati preglednost ter hitrost teh postopkov.
On the other hand, the Committee must focus on finding the best ways to expedite the process of consideration of petitions, to increase the transparency and rapidity of its proceedings.
Širjenje informacij znotraj Evropskega parlamenta v zvezi s peticijami se je z uporabo programskega orodja e-peticije znatno pospešilo.
The circulation of petition-related information within the European Parliament has also been considerably facilitated by the launching of the e-Petition application.
Gre namreč za prvi sistem Evropskega parlamenta, ki temelji na poteku dela in novi (in zelo zapleteni) bazi podatkov (Documentum).
The e-Petition system is the first workflow based system in the European Parliament based on the new (and overcomplicated) Documentum base.
Shranjuje dosjeje peticij, ki vsebujejo glavne podatke o posameznih primerih, in jih hrani skupaj z dokumenti, ki jih je odbor zbral med obravnavo.
It stores the petition dossiers containing the main data about individual cases, filing it as well as all the petition-related documents generated during its consideration by the Committee.
«Poleg tega sistem omogoča vodenje dosjejev in dokumentov, nudi podporo poteku delovnega procesa peticij ter vsebuje iskalnik, ki je namenjen izključno članom odbora in omogoča hitro iskanje dosjejev ali določenih dokumentov s pomočjo različnih kriterijev iskanja.
Furthermore, it manages the petition dossiers and documents; supports the workflow of the petitions and also includes a search tool specifically for members of the committee, providing the possibility to rapidly find a dossier or particular documents by different parameters.
Poslanci Evropskega parlamenta imajo tako večji pregled in boljši dostop do informacij, ki jih potrebujejo pri svojem delu v Odboru za peticije.
The system therefore provides Members of the European Parliament with much greater transparency and access to information which they require for their work in the Petitions Committee.
V sistem e-peticij so se prenesli vsi osnovni podatki iz starega sistema Repere , ki se je uporabljal od leta 1989, čeprav imajo drugačno obliko in so manj izčrpni od novejših podatkov.
All basic data from the previous system called Repere , which dates back to 1989 has been migrated into e-Petition - though its format and content is less comprehensive than the new data.
Vse osnovne informacije o preteklih peticijah so torej trenutno na voljo prek tega sistema.
As a result, basic information on all past petitions is currently available through e-Petition.
Prednost imajo dokumenti, ki so na dnevnem redu sej, kar poslancem omogoča preprost dostop do zgodovine in vseh podatkov o posameznih primerih.
Priority has been given to items scheduled for meeting agendas, thus ensuring easy access of the Members to the history and all the data concerning individual cases.
Nove peticije se postopno prenašajo v računalniško obliko in se vnašajo v sistem skupaj z ostalimi podatki, kot so: ime vlagatelja peticije, datum vložitve, sprejemljivo/nesprejemljivo, odprto/arhivirano, zadevna država in dodatna dokumentacija.
On a progressive basis, all new petitions are scanned and entered into the system along with other information such as name of petitioner, date of registration, admissible/inadmissible, open/closed, concerned country, and supplementary documentation.
Do povzetkov, priporočil in obvestil članom bo mogoče dostopati v sistemu takoj, ko so pripravljena in prevedena.
Summaries, recommendations and notices to members are accessible in e-Petition as soon as they are completed and translated.
Obiski za odkrivanje dejstev
Fact-finding visits:
Odbor za peticije ima dovoljenje, enako kot vsi ostali odbori, da organizira obiske delegacij izven običajnih sedežev Evropskega parlamenta.
The Petitions Committee is authorised - as is the case for all committees - to organise delegation visits outside the normal working places of the European Parliament.
Obstaja namreč določilo v členu 192, ki odboru omogoča, da preiskave peticij vodi na kraju samem.
It has, however, a specific rule in Rule 192, which allows it to conduct investigations of petitions 'in situ'.
Tako se poleg rednega letnega dela, ki ga določi predsedstvo, občasno vodijo tudi misije največ treh članov za odkrivanje dejstev, ki preverjajo bojazni vlagateljev peticij na kraju samem.
So, while working within the annual parameters allowed by the Bureau, fact-finding visits involving a maximum of three members, are occasionally organised to look into the concerns raised by petitioners on the spot.
Delegacija lahko prične delo šele, ko Odbor za peticije zadevo ustrezno obravnava in jasno določi cilje obiska.
They only take place when once the issue has been properly debated in Committee and their objectives clearly defined.
S pomočjo takih obiskov lahko odbor veliko lažje najde rešitev za zapletene težave, saj sodeluje z vsemi zainteresiranimi stranmi.
Such visits substantially enhance the committee's ability to seek solutions to complex problems in cooperation with all interested parties.
Kljub temu, da lahko "nacionalni" poslanci po uradni dolžnosti sodelujejo na večini sej, odbor meni, da evropski poslanci, ki so državljani obiskane države, ne bi smeli biti člani tovrstnih delegacij.
For these visits the Committee considers that the members of delegations should not be MEPs from the country visited, although 'national' MEPs are able to participate in most meetings in an ex-officio capacity.
Namen tega pristopa je zmanjšanje vpliva lokalne pripadnosti pri rešitvi težave, odgovornost za poročila o takih obiskih pa imajo uradni člani delegacije.
This approach is intended to minimise local partisan influence in problem resolution, and reports of such visits are the responsibility of the official members of the delegation.
Navadno taka poročila, ki vsebujejo priporočila, potrdi odbor v polni sestavi po razpravi.
Normally such reports, which include recommendations, are approved by the full committee following a debate.
Najpomembnejše vprašanje, ki je bilo obravnavano v odboru in za katerega sta bila določena dva obiska delegacij za odkrivanje dejstev, se nanaša na hudo kršitev pravic posameznih lastnikov zemljišč zaradi nenadzorovane urbanizacije v španski avtonomni pokrajini Valencii, ki so jo spodbujali lokalni župani in brezobzirni razvojni gradbeniki.
The most important issue investigated by the Committee, and the subject of two fact-finding visits, concerns the serious abuse of the rights of individual property owners as a result of unbridled urbanisation in the Valencian autonomous region of Spain - spurred on by local mayors and unscrupulous property developers.
Zaključki prve misije za odkrivanje dejstev, ki je potekala od 25. do 29. maja 2004 v Španiji in jo je odobril Odbor julija 2004, kažejo, da je izvajanje zakonodaje pripeljalo do hude kršitve temeljnih pravic več tisoč evropskih državljanov.
The first fact-finding mission conducted in Spain (25-29 of May 2004 and adopted by the Committee in July 2004)) concluded that the application of the law has led to a serious abuse of the most elementary rights of many thousands of European citizens.
Gre za zakon, imenovan LRAU, ki ga lokalne oblasti neenakomerno izvajajo in na podlagi katerega naj bi se na vsakem zemljišču, ki ga lokalne oblasti označijo za zazidljivo, gradilo v sodelovanju z "zainteresiranimi" gradbenimi podjetji (če uporabimo evfemizem).
The law, known as the LRAU, creates an obligation, unevenly enforced by local authorities, to develop any land which has been classified as "urbanisable" by local authorities, acting in cooperation (to put it politely) with self-interested developers.
Od lastnikov zemljišč se zahteva, da brez kakršnega koli nadomestila 10 % zemljišča odstopijo kot prispevek za zagotavljanje storitev in prostora v okviru katerega koli razvojnega projekta.
Owners are forced to cede 10% of their land without any compensation as a contribution to the provision of utilities and open space in any development project.
Od njih se tudi zahteva, da v zemlji ali denarju prispevajo znesek do 65 % vrednosti, ki se oceni kot strošek za izgradnjo vse infrastrukture za celotno razvojno območje.
They are also under an obligation to contribute either in land or in cash up to 65% of the value which is assessed as being the cost of building the entire infrastructure for the whole of the development area.
V zvezi s tem je Evropski parlament decembra 2005 s prepričljivo večino sprejel poročilo odbora, ki je bilo zelo kritično do teh razmer.
In December 2005 the European Parliament approved by an overwhelming majority the report tabled by the Committee on this subject which was strongly critical of the situation.
Odbor je omogočil, da je Komisija proti Španiji sprožila postopek ugotavljanja kršitev, ker ni izvajala direktive EU o javnih naročilih.
The work of the Committee contributed to the launching of infringement proceedings by the Commission against Spain due to the non-application of the EU Directive on Public Procurement.
Izpostavil je tudi druge ključne vidike, ki se nanašajo na splošnejši okoljski vpliv takih urbanističnih načrtov na občutljiv ekosistem in problematično oskrbo z vodo.
Other key facts raised by the Committee concern the more general environmental impact of such urban development plans on a fragile eco-system and problematic water supply.
Peticije v zvezi s tem je podpisalo več kot 15 000 evropskih državljanov.
Original petitions on the subject were subscribed to by, in the end, over 15,000 European citizens.
Uveden je bil nov zakon, imenovan LUV, ki kljub vsemu ne uresničuje zakonitih pričakovanj državljanov in ne obravnava vrsto pomembnih dejavnikov, ki so vplivali na tako široko zlorabo pravic.
A new law has nevertheless been introduced, known as the LUV, yet it fails to meet citizens' legitimate expectations and fails to address a number of important factors which have led to such widespread rights abuse.