natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Parlament bi nasprotno moral po postopku v skladu s členom 37 Pogodbe ES dati svoj blagoslov daljnosežnemu predlogu, ki ga je Svet sprejel na skrivaj.
Parliament is being expected to give its blessing under the procedure provided for in Article 37 of the EC Treaty to a far-reaching proposal adopted by the Council in virtual secrecy, hoping to catch people unawares.
Glede na obsežnost predloga bi morala Komisija v skladu z medinstitucionalnim sporazumom o boljši pripravi zakonodaje opraviti presojo vplivov in se posvetovati z zadevnimi skupinami.
In view of the scope of the proposal, the Commission ought, under the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, to have conducted an impact assessment and consulted certain sectors.
K temu se je zavezala pred Parlamentom.
It has given Parliament an undertaking to this effect.
Evropski svet je na zasedanju 15. in 16. decembra 2005 v Bruslju sprejel dokument z naslovom Evropski svet v Bruslju 15. in 16. decembra 2005 – sklepi predsedstva
On 15/16 December 2005 the European Council in Brussels adopted a document named "Brussels European Council 15/16 December 2005 - Presidency Conclusions"
V tem dokumentu so se pod naslovom Razdelek 2 – Ohranjanje in upravljanje naravnih virov države članice dogovorile:
In this document, under "Heading 2 - Preservation and Management of natural Resources", the Member States agreed the following:
Države članice lahko po svoji presoji v okviru te zgornje meje prenesejo dodatne vsote na programe za razvoj podeželja, do največ 20 % od zneskov, ki izhajajo iz odhodkov, povezanih s trgom, in neposrednih plačil.
At their discretion, Member States may transfer additional sums from within this ceiling to rural development programmes up to a maximum of 20% of the amounts that accrue to them from market related expenditure and direct payments.
Evropski svet poziva Svet, naj na osnovi predloga Komisije določi načine takšnih prenosov.
The European Council invites the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, to establish the modalities which will govern such transfers.
Vsote, ki so bile prenesene v pomoč ukrepom za razvoj podeželja, v skladu s takimi načini niso predmet pravil o nacionalnem sofinanciranju in najmanjše porabe po posamezni osi, navedene v uredbi o razvoju podeželja.“
Sums transferred to support rural development measures pursuant to such arrangements shall not be subject to the national co-financing and minimum spending per axes rules set out in the Rural Development Regulation ."
Evropski parlament je izrazil pridržke v zvezi s soglasjem Evropskega sveta
The European Parliament expressed reservations concerning the European Council agreement
„Evropski parlament je seznanjen s sklepi Evropskega sveta iz decembra 2005 o prostovoljni modulaciji iz vsote iz odhodkov, povezanih s trgom, in neposrednih plačil Skupne kmetijske politike v razvoj podeželja do največ 20 % ter o zmanjšanju za tržne odhodke.
"The European Parliament takes note of the conclusions of the European Council of December 2005 concerning voluntary modulation from market-related expenditure and direct payments of the Common Agricultural Policy to rural development up to a maximum of 20% and the reductions for market-related expenditure.
Meni, da bi bilo koristno oceniti vprašanje sofinanciranja kmetijstva v okviru pregleda v letu 2008/2009.“ (Izjava 9 medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 17. maja 2006).
It considers it would be useful to assess the issue of co-financing of agriculture in the context of the 2008-09 review." : (Declaration No 9 of the IIA of 17 May 2006.)
Komisija, ki jo je Evropski svet „pozval“, naj uporabi svojo pravico do pobude v skladu s pogodbami, in predloži predlog, je navedla nekaj neprepričljivih ugovorov proti temu „pozivu“
The Commission, which had been "invited" by the European Council to use its right of initiative according the Treaties and present a proposal, notified some half-hearted objections to this "invitation"
„Komisija je seznanjena s sklepi Evropskega sveta iz decembra 2005 (točka 62), v skladu s katerimi lahko države članice prenesejo dodatne vsote iz odhodkov, povezanih s trgom, in neposrednih plačil Skupne kmetijske politike v razvoj podeželja do največ 20 % zneskov, ki jih bodo dobile iz odhodkov, povezanih s trgom, in neposrednih plačil.
"The Commission takes note of Point 62 of the conclusions of the European Council of December 2005 whereby Member States may transfer additional sums from market-related expenditure and direct payments of the Common Agricultural Policy to Rural Development up to a maximum of 20% of the amounts that accrue to them from market-related expenditure and direct payments.
Pri oblikovanju podrobnih določb te modulacije v ustreznih pravnih aktih si Komisija prizadeva omogočiti prostovoljno modulacijo in hkrati narediti vse, kar lahko, za zagotovitev, da tak mehanizem čim natančneje izraža osnovna pravila, ki urejajo politiko razvoja podeželja.“ .
When laying down the modalities of this modulation in the relevant legal acts, the Commission will endeavour to make voluntary modulation possible whilst making all efforts to ensure that such a mechanism reflects as closely as possible the basic rules governing the rural development policy." .
Vendar je Evropska komisija nato sprejela „poziv“ Evropskega sveta in 24. maja 2005 predložila predlog o pravilih za prostovoljno modulacijo
However, the Commission then accepted the "invitation" by the European Council and, on 24 May 2005, presented a proposal laying down rules for voluntary modulation.
· temelji na členu 37 Pogodbe ES (Evropski parlament je vključen le v posvetovanje)
· is based on Article 37 of the EC Treaty (European Parliament will only be consulted)
· omogoča prerazporeditev do 20 % neposrednih plačil iz prvega stebra SKP za razvoj podeželja (drugi steber) poleg obvezne modulacije, ki je določena v okviru reforme SKP iz leta 2003;
· allows for shifting up to 20% of direct payments from the first pillar of CAP to rural development (2nd pillar) in addition to the compulsory modulation decided in the context of the 2003 CAP reform
· omogoča, da se ta sredstva prosto uporabljajo v skladu z določbami uredbe EKSRP; pravila o najmanjši porabi na os morajo biti izpolnjena;
· enables the funds to be used freely in accordance with the provisions of the EAFRD- Regulation; the rules on minimum expenditure per axis must be complied with
· ima enako osnovo za izračun kot obvezna modulacija, vključno s posebnim ukrepom za majhne kmete (za prvih 5000 EUR za majhne kmete se uporablja znižan odstotek).
· has the same calculation basis as the compulsory modulation, including the specific measure for small farmers (reduced percentage applied to the first EUR 5 000 for small farmers)
· predvideva posebne ukrepe za podeželske kmete prek dodatnega zneska 5000 EUR;
· makes provision for specific measures for rural farmers through an additional amount of EUR 5 000
· predvideva, da sofinanciranje ni obvezno;
· provides that co-financing is not compulsory
· zahteva od držav članic, da v dveh mesecih določijo stopnjo znižanja za celotno obdobje financiranja.
· requires Member States to decide the rate of reduction for the whole financing period within two months.
Pripravljavec mnenja želi poudariti, da ne nasprotuje načelu modulacije kot take, ki pomeni prenos financiranja iz stebra I „tržna podpora in neposredna plačila kmetom“ v steber II „razvoj podeželja“, ker ta izraža duh skupne kmetijske politike.
Your draftsman wants to point out that he is not against the principle of modulation as such, which implies the transfer of funding from pillar I "market support and direct payments to farmers" to pillar II "Rural development", since it reflects the spirit of the Common Agriculture Policy.
Razvoj podeželja je ključno orodje za prestrukturiranje kmetijskega sektorja in spodbujanje raznolikosti podeželskih območij.
Rural development is the key tool for the restructuring of the agriculture sector and to encourage diversification in rural areas.
Vendar je za Parlament nesprejemljivo, kako je Evropski svet ponovno ravnal glede tega vprašanja ter kako je Komisija dejansko izvršila pooblastila predsednikov držav in vlad:
However, Parliament cannot accept the way in which the European Council proceeded, once again, on this issue, and the manner in which the Commission put the mandate of the Heads of State and Government into practice:
Pridržki EP so bili dokončno oblikovani v resoluciji o medinstitucionalnem sporazumu o proračunski disciplini in dobrem finančnem poslovodenju in v izjavi št. 9 o prostovoljni modulaciji, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0210 .
EP's reservation were formalised in its resolution on the IIA on budgetary discipline and sound financial management and in declaration No 9 on voluntary modulation, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0210
Sofinanciranje SKP
Co-financing of the CAP
V nasprotju s pravili, ki se uporabljajo v drugih strukturnih skladih, in v nasprotju s prejšnjimi določbami o modulaciji predlog ne predvideva sofinanciranja.
Unlike the rules applied in all other Structural Funds and unlike previous provisions on modulation, the proposal does not provide for co-financing.
Poleg tega se je Komisija zavezala, kot je zapisano v izjavi 10 medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 17. maja 2006, da bo naredila vse, kar lahko, za zagotovitev, da tak mehanizem čim natančneje izraža osnovna pravila, ki urejajo politiko razvoja podeželja.
Furthermore, the Commission committed itself as expressed in its declaration No 10 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 to make all efforts to ensure that such a mechanism reflects as closely as possible the basic rules governing the rural development policy.
Prostovoljna, nesofinancirana modulacija povzroča resne težave, ker nesofinanciranje krši načeli deljene odgovornosti in dodatnosti skladov EU.
Voluntary, non co-financed modulation causes severe problems, as the non-cofinancing violates the principles of shared responsibility and additionality of the EU funds.
Poleg tega je Parlament v Bögejevem poročilu ( A6-0153/2005 ) predlagal, da se težave pri financiranju SKP lahko rešijo z uvedbo novega mehanizma za sofinanciranje v kmetijsko politiko EU.
Furthermore, Parliament proposed in the Böge report ( A6-0153/2005 ) that the financing problems of the CAP could be solved by introducing a new co-financing mechanism in the EU policy on agriculture.
Modulacija pomeni prenos znotraj razdelka 2 večletnega finančnega okvira 2007–2013 in zato vpliva na klasifikacijo izdatkov.
Modulation implies a transfer within Heading 2 of the MFF 2007-2013 and therefore has a consequence as regards classification of expenditure.
Vendar pa predlog Komisije ne vsebuje natančnih določb o načinu prenosa zneskov znotraj proračuna iz poglavja 05 03 Neposredna plačila v poglavje 05 04 Programi za razvoj podeželja.
However, the Commission proposal does not contain detailed provisions on how the amounts will be moved within the budget, from chapter 05 03, Direct Payments, to chapter 05 04, Rural development programmes.
Evropski parlament želi jasno navesti, da se ta odobrena proračunska sredstva lahko prenašajo le ob upoštevanju načel specifičnosti, enotnosti ter točnosti in preglednosti proračuna v skladu z določbami finančne uredbe.
The European Parliament wishes to state clearly that these appropriations can only be transferred having due regard for the principles of specificity, of unity and of budget accuracy and transparency according to the provisions of the Financial Regulation.
Neupoštevanje Evropskega parlamenta kot veje proračunskega organa (člen 272(9) Pogodbe ES)
Disregard of European Parliament as branch of the Budgetary Authority (Article 272(9) TEC)
V okviru prostovoljne modulacije lahko države članice enostransko in brez sodelovanja Parlamenta povečajo izdatke iz Priloge I k medinstitucionalnemu sporazumu za več milijard EUR.
Under voluntary modulation, the Member States can unilaterally and without the involvement of Parliament increase expenditure provided for in Annex I to the IIA by several billion euros.
Takšna daljnosežna sprememba proračuna za neobvezne izdatke brez predhodnega sodelovanja proračunskega organa je v nasprotju z duhom in črko medinstitucionalnega sporazuma.
Such a far-reaching change in the budget for non-compulsory expenditure without the prior involvement of the Budgetary Authority violates the spirit and the letter of the IIA.
Vpliv na izračun najvišje stopnje povišanja
Impact on the calculation of the MRI
Znižanje obveznih izdatkov in povišanje neobveznih izdatkov v zvezi s prostovoljno modulacijo bo vplivalo na izračun najvišje stopnje povišanja, kar je treba podrobneje oceniti.
The decrease of compulsory expenditure and the increase of non-compulsory expenditure related to voluntary modulation will have an impact on the calculation of the MRI (maximum rate of increase), which has to be assessed in more detail.
Opravljena ni bila nobena predhodna presoja vpliva
No prior impact assessment has been made
Nesprejemljivo in neodgovorno je, da Komisija pred objavo predloga ni naredila ustrezne presoje vpliva, čeprav to zahteva medinstitucionalni sporazum z dne 16. decembra 2003 o boljši pripravi zakonodaje.
It is unacceptable and irresponsible that the Commission did not perform a proper impact assessment prior to the release of its proposal, even though it is required by the IIA of 16 December 2003 on Better Lawmaking.
Poleg tega Komisija ni predložila nobenega celovitega in jasnega finančnega poročila.
Furthermore, no complete and clear financial statement has been provided by the Commission.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno utemeljitev v zvezi s proračunskimi pooblastili Evropskega parlamenta in glede na to, da ni bila narejena presoja vpliva, se Parlament ne more strinjati s tako daljnosežno pobudo.
In the light of the above mentioned argumentation with regard to the budgetary prerogatives of the European Parliament and in the absence of an impact assessment, Parliament cannot agree to such a far-reaching initiative.
Ob upoštevanju izjave 9 Evropskega parlamenta v medinstitucionalnem sporazumu z dne 17. maja 2006 pripravljavec mnenja meni, da bi bilo koristno oceniti vprašanje sofinanciranja kmetijstva v okviru pregleda 2008–09.
With reference to the EP declaration No 9 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 your draftsman considers it would be useful to assess the issue of co-financing of agriculture in the context of the 2008-09 review.
Odbor za proračun poziva Odbor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja kot pristojni odbor, da predlaga zavrnitev predloga Komisije.
The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.
Predlog Uredbe Sveta o pravilih za prostovoljno modulacijo neposrednih plačil, predvidenih v Uredbi (ES) št. 1782/2003 o skupnih pravilih za sheme neposrednih podpor v okviru skupne kmetijske politike in o uvedbi nekaterih shem podpor za kmete ter o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1290/2005
Proposal for a Council regulation on laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC)No 1290/2005
Predlog Uredbe Sveta o pravilih za prostovoljno modulacijo neposrednih plačil, predvidenih v Uredbi (ES) št. 1782/2003 o skupnih pravilih za sheme neposrednih podpor v okviru skupne kmetijske politike in o uvedbi nekaterih shem podpor za kmete ter o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1290/2005
Proposal for a Council regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
o Skupnem stališču Sveta z namenom sprejetja Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uvedbi postopka za evropski plačilni nalog
on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure
– ob upoštevanju skupnega stališča Sveta (7535/3/2006 - C6-0227/2006 ),
– having regard to the Council common position (7535/3/2006 – C6‑0227/2006 ),
Sprejeta besedila, 13.12.2005, P6_TA(2005)0499 predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2004)0173 )
Texts Adopted , 13.12.2005, P6_TA(2005)0499 . on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council ( COM(2004)0173 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) Pogodbe o ES,
– having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Odbora za pravne zadeve za drugo obravnavo ( A6-0316/2006 ),
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0316/2006 ),
V tej uredbi pomeni čezmejna zadeva zadevo, v kateri ima vsaj ena od strank stalno ali običajno prebivališče v državi članici , ki ni država članica, pred katere sodiščem poteka postopek.
For the purposes of this Regulation, a cross-border case is one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised.
V tej uredbi pomeni čezmejna zadeva zadevo, v kateri ima vsaj ena od strank stalno ali običajno prebivališče v državi, ki ni država članica, pred katere sodiščem poteka postopek.
For the purposes of this Regulation, a cross-border case is one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a State other than the Member State of the court seised.
Spremembe prilog
Amendments to the Annexes
Da se zagotovi popolna skladnost z določbami te uredbe, se standardni obrazci iz prilog posodabljajo ali tehnično prilagajajo v skladu s postopkom iz člena 31(2).
The standard forms set out in the Annexes shall be updated or technically adjusted, ensuring full conformity with the provisions of this Regulation, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31(2).
Vsebino obrazcev postopka za evropski plačilni nalog je mogoče urediti le s postopkom soodločanja.
The content of the forms for a European order for payment procedure is a matter which can only be regulated by the codecision procedure.
Tudi parlament mora torej imeti besedo pri posodabljanju in prilagajanju obrazcev, če bo sprejet postopek za evropski plačilni nalog.
Parliament must therefore also have a say in updating and adapting the forms if the future European order for payment procedure is to be accepted.
Ni pomembno le, da deluje učinkovito in tekoče, temveč tudi, da je njegova uporaba za tožečo stranko enostavna.
It is important not only that it should function efficiently and smoothly, but also that it should be easy for the claimants to use.
Iz tega razloga bi Parlament moral zadržati vpliv na razvoj obrazcev, ki so končno odločilni za razvoj postopka za plačilni nalog.
Particularly for the latter reason Parliament should retain its influence on the development of the forms which are ultimately decisive for the development of the order for payment procedure.
Priloga 1, Obrazec A, uvodni del, odstavek 1 a (new)
Annex 1, Form A, introductory part, paragraph 1 a (new)
Treba je zlasti biti pozorni, da je obrazec izpolnjen v jeziku ali enem izmed jezikov, ki jih sprejema sodišču, kateremu bo zadeva predložena.
Please note in particular that this form must be completed in the language or one of the languages accepted by the court to be seised.
Obrazec je na voljo v vseh uradnih jezikih Evropske unije; to je lahko v pomoč pri izpolnjevanju obrazca v ustreznem jeziku.
The form is available in all official languages of the European Union; this may help you fill in the form in the required language.
Jezikovne smernice morajo biti jasno navedene s krepkim tiskom na vrhu strani.
The language guidelines must be stated clearly at the top of the form in large bold letters.
Skupno stališče Sveta je bilo objavljeno na julijskem plenarnem zasedanju.
The Council's common position was announced at the July plenary session.
Četudi je bilo običajno trimesečno obdobje, ki ga ima Parlament na voljo za drugo obravnavo, v skladu s členom 271(7) Pogodbe ES podaljšano na štiri mesece, se mora Parlament do skupnega stališča opredeliti pred 5. novembrom.
Even though Parliament has had the normal three-month period for second reading extended to four months under Article 271(7) of the EC Treaty, Parliament has to take a stand on the common position before 5 November.
Skupno stališče
The Common Position
V prvi obravnavi je Parlament dosegel soglasje s Svetom o normativnem delu predlagane uredbe.
At first reading, Parliament reached agreement with the Council on the enacting terms of the proposed regulation.
Svet je posledično sprejel vse predloge sprememb Parlamenta iz prve obravnave, ki pa se prilagodijo zaradi tehničnih razlogov, kot je podrobno navedeno v utemeljitvi Sveta (doc.
Consequently, the Council has accepted all of Parliament's first-reading amendments, subject to technical changes as detailed in the Statement of the Council's Reasons (doc.
Spomnimo lahko, da se je Parlament v prvi obravnavi ukvarjal s tem, da bi bili obrazci koliko je mogoče uporabniku prijazni, da bi zahtevali kar najmanj prostega besedila in bili primerni za internetno uporabo.
It may be recalled that Parliament's concern at first reading was that the forms should be as user-friendly as possible, require the minimum of free text and be suitable for use on-line.
Skupno stališče Sveta z namenom sprejetja Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uvedbi postopka za evropski plačilni nalog
Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Bogdanu Goliku
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Bogdan Golik
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Bogdanu Goliku, ki jo je posredovalo belgijsko ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve na zahtevo urada tožilca pri Višjem sodišču v Bruslju dne 7. julija 2006, in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 4. septembra 2006,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Bogdan Golik, forwarded by the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the request of the Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Appeal, Brussels on 7 July 2006, and announced in plenary sitting on 4 September 2006,
– po zagovoru Bogdana Golika v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika, ki je predlagal, naj se mu imuniteta odvzame,
– having heard Bogdan Golik in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure, who requested that his immunity be waived,
– ob upoštevanju člena 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965, pa tudi člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Article 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,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmann in Krier [1964], Zbirka 195, in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faure in drugi [1986], Zbirka 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6(2) in člena 7 svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0317/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0317/2006 ),
A. ker je bil Bogdan Golik v Evropski parlament izvoljen na šestih volitvah, ki so potekale med 10. in 13. junijem 2004, in ker je Evropski parlament veljavnost njegovega mandata preveril 14. decembra 2004,
A. whereas Bogdan Golik was elected to the European Parliament in the sixth elections held on 10 to 13 June 2004, and whereas his credentials were verified by Parliament on 14 December 2004,