natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Priloga, člen 11, odstavek 6
Annex, article 11, paragraph 6
Upravni odbor predlaga Komisiji višino in osnovo za črpanje pristojbin na zračnih poteh iz odstavka 1.
The Administrative Board shall propose to the Commission the level and the cost-base of the levy on the air navigation charges referred to in paragraph 1.
Predlog uredbe Sveta o ustanovitvi skupnega podjetja za uresničitev nove generacije evropskega sistema upravljanja zračnega prometa (SESAR)
Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR)
Predlog Uredbe Sveta o ustanovitvi skupnega podjetja za uresničitev nove generacije evropskega sistema upravljanja zračnega prometa (SESAR)
Proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR)
BUDG 17.1.2006
TRAN 17.1.2006
BUDG 17.1.2006
JURI 17.1.2006
[John Attard-Montalto, Jan Březina, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Norbert Glante, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Pia Elda Locatelli, Eluned Morgan, Reino Paasilinna, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Dominique Vlasto
John Attard-Montalto, Jan Březina, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Norbert Glante, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Pia Elda Locatelli, Eluned Morgan, Reino Paasilinna, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Dominique Vlasto
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Gabriela Albertinija za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom pred okrožnim sodiščem v Milanu, ki jo je poslanec vložil 28. aprila 2006, na plenarnem zasedanju pa je bila razglašena 15. maja 2006,
– having regard to the request by Gabriele Albertini for defence of his immunity in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against him before the District Court of Milan, made on 28 April 2006, announced in plenary sitting on 15 May 2006,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krieru [1964] Zbornik sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (ECR) 195 in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju in drugim [1986] ECR 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 68 Ustave Italijanske republike,
– having regard to article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6–0383/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0383/2006 ),
A. ker je Gabriele Albertini poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, v katerega je bil izvoljen na šestih neposrednih volitvah, ki so potekale med 10. in 13. junijem 2004, in ker je Parlament veljavnost njegovega mandata preveril 14. decembra 2004
A. whereas Gabriele Albertini is a Member of the European Parliament who was elected in the sixth direct elections of 10 to 13 June 2004 and whereas his credentials were verified by Parliament on 14 December 2004
Sklep Evropskega parlamenta o preverjanju veljavnosti mandatov poslancev (UL C 226 E, 15.9.2005, str.
European Parliament Decision on the verification of credentials (OJ C 226 E, 15.9.2005, p.
B. ker poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države, in ker se na imuniteto ni mogoče sklicevati, kadar se poslanca zaloti pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja; ker to Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje, da bi uveljavljal pravico do nepriznanja imunitete kateremu izmed svojih poslancev
B. whereas during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament and whereas immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is caught in the act of committing an offence; whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members
Člen 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965. ,
Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965. ,
C. ker je določba, ki se jo uporablja v zadevnem primeru, člen 68, 2. pododstavek italijanske ustave, ki dovoljuje uvedbo kazenskih postopkov proti poslancem parlamenta brez kakšnih posebnih formalnosti, saj določa, da se brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter da se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je v primeru flagrante delicto predpisana obvezna aretacija,
C. whereas the provision applicable to the case in question is Article 68, second subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution, which allows criminal proceedings to be brought against Members of Parliament without any special formalities, given that it provides that, without the leave of the Chamber to which the Member belongs, a search may not be carried out on either the person or the domicile of a Member of Parliament and a Member may not be arrested or otherwise deprived of his or her personal freedom or kept in detention, except to enforce a final conviction or where the Member is caught in the act of committing a crime for which arrest is mandatory in case of flagrante delicto ,
D. ker je urad javnega tožilca pri okrožnem sodišču v Milanu proti Gabrielu Albertiniju vložil obtožnico v zvezi z vlaganjem predlogov sprememb brez vsebine v proračunskem postopku v milanskem mestnem svetu z namenom, da bi vsebino vnesli kasneje glede na predloge opozicije, da bi se tako izognili vložitvi predlogov sprememb po roku za vložitev, kar bi bilo nesprejemljivo,
D. whereas the charges brought against Gabriele Albertini by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the District Court of Milan relate to the tabling of blank amendments under the budgetary procedure of the Milan City Council with a view to filling them in later in the light of the amendments tabled by the opposition, so as to avoid tabling amendments after the deadline, which would be inadmissible,
E. ker se vlaganje predlogov sprememb brez vsebine lahko obravnava kot del politike in političnega življenja in so predlogi sprememb, vse dokler ni sprejetega končnega zakona, na katerega se nanašajo, le del notranjega postopka brez zunanjih učinkov, zlasti in predvsem s stališča kazenske zakonodaje, se omenjeno dejanje obravnava kot nemogoče ali vsaj neobstoječe kaznivo dejanje,
E. whereas tabling blank amendments may be regarded as being an aspect of politics and political life and whereas, so long as the final act to which they refer has not been adopted, such amendments are simply acts of internal procedure with no external effect, in particular and above all from the point of view of criminal law, since the tabling of such amendments amounts to an impossible crime and in any case to a nonexistent crime,
F. ker je milansko okrožno sodišče v drugem sodnem postopku (zadeva št. 9384/03 R.G.N.R.), v katerem je preučevalo obtožbe, podobne tistim proti Gabrielu Albertiniju, ki pa jih je vložil sam Albertini proti svojim političnim nasprotnikom, odločilo, da je primer brezpredmeten in ga je zavrglo,
F. whereas, in other proceedings (Case No 9384/03 R.G.N.R.), the same District Court of Milan, called upon to consider allegations similar to those made against Gabriele Albertini but then made by Gabriele Albertini himself against his political opponents, held that there was no case to answer and dismissed the case,
H. ker je zadeva izredno občutljiva, njene posledice pa so za pristojnosti Evropskega parlamenta nedopustne, saj je neenakopravna obravnava Gabriela Albertinija neopravičljiva, kar postavlja vprašanje, ali gre za „fumus persecutionis”,
H. whereas the issue at stake is extremely delicate and its consequences for the prerogatives of the European Parliament are unacceptable, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of Gabriele Albertini, which raises the question of a "fumus persecutionis",
I. ker je vsak primer političnega preganjanja poslancev Evropskega parlamenta napad na integriteto politične ustanove, ki so jo na demokratičen način izvolili evropski narodi, in kaže na zaničevanje Parlamenta,
I. whereas any case of political persecution of one of its Members is an attack on the integrity of the European Parliament as a political institution democratically elected by the peoples of Europe, and amounts to a contempt of Parliament,
J. ker neenakopraven odnos italijanskega sodišča škodi Gabrielu Albertiniju,
J. whereas the discriminatory attitude of the Italian court is damaging to Gabriele Albertini;
K. ker bi postopek proti Gabrielu Albertiniju lahko prekinili, če bi že veljal Statut poslancev Evropskega Parlamenta, ki pa še ni stopil v veljavo, čeprav ga je Evropski parlament dvakrat potrdil, in sicer v resolucijah z dne 5. decembra 2002
K. whereas, if the Statute for Members of the European Parliament had already entered into force, which it has not yet, although the European Parliament has endorsed it twice, in its resolutions of 5 December 2002
139. in 17. decembra 2003
139. and 17 December 2003
2. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj ta sklep in poročilo pristojnega odbora nemudoma posreduje uradu javnega tožilca pri milanskem okrožnem sodišču v zvezi s kazensko zadevo št. 8629/05 R.G.
Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of the committee responsible, immediately to the Public Prosecutor's Office at the District Court of Milan in connection with criminal case No 8629/05 R.G.
Do spornih dogodkov je prišlo v Milanu 13. marca 2003, zadevali pa so sprejetje osnutka proračuna milanske mestne občine za leto 2003.
The events in question all took place in Milan on 13 March 2003, in connection with the adoption of the draft budget of the municipality of Milan for the year 2003.
Povzeto na kratko je bil Albertini obtožen, da je sodeloval pri vlaganju lažnih predlogov sprememb za v obravnavo v mestnemu svetu, ki so jih podpisali pripadniki večinske koalicije in s katerimi so poskušali preprečiti razprave o čim večjem številu predlogov sprememb, vloženih s strani opozicije.
In short, Mr Albertini was accused of assisting in tabling false amendments for consideration by the municipal council, signed by members of the political majority and unlawfully intended to prevent discussion of as many as possible of the amendments tabled by the opposition.
Da bi dosegli svoj cilj, je bilo treba poznati vsebino predlogov sprememb, ki jih je vložila opozicija.
To achieve this end it was necessary to know the content of the amendments tabled by the opposition.
Slednje je bilo treba najprej preučiti, da bi se lahko ustrezno spremenilo proračunske predloge v lastnih predlogih sprememb.
Only once the minority's amendments had been examined would it have been possible for the majority to introduce targeted changes to the budget proposals in their own amendments.
Da bi zaobšli mehanizem, ki ga določa 59. člen poslovnika mestnega sveta, so (pravočasno) vložili predloge sprememb brez vsebine, besedilo pa so vnesli šele potem, ko je bila znana vsebina predlogov sprememb opozicije in je rok za vložitev predlogov sprememb že potekel.
A variation was therefore devised to sidestep the mechanism provided for by Rule 59 of the Council's Rules of Procedure: blank amendments were tabled (on time) to be filled in subsequently by representatives of the majority once the contents of the opposition's amendments were known, and thus after the expiry of the deadline for tabling amendments.
Vse to je bilo storjeno z namenom, da bi bilo čim več predlogov sprememb, ki jih je vložila manjšina, brezpredmetnih.
All this was discussed to ensure that the amendments tabled by the minority would fall en masse .
Dogodki, zaradi katerih je bila vložena kazenska obtožba proti Albertiniju, pa so enaki tistim iz prijave kaznivega dejanja, ki jo pri javnem tožilcu milanskega sodišča proti opoziciji vložil sam Albertini, takrat v vlogi mestnega župana.
The same events in respect of which the criminal charges have been brought against Mr Albertini were the subject of a different crime notification relating to the political opposition and forwarded to the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Milan by Mr Albertini himself in his capacity of Mayor of that city.
Slednji primer pa je bil ovržen z utemeljitvijo, da „ se predlagani predlog spremembe k osnutku proračuna regionalne oblasti s pravnega stališča nanaša in je zagotovo del upravnega postopka, ki ureja voljo svetovalnega organa te oblasti, v tem primeru odločitev o odobritvi proračuna za leto 2003.
However, this case was dismissed on the grounds that " the proposed amendment to the draft budget of a regional public authority, from a legal point of view, relates to -and certainly forms part of - the administrative procedure which regulates the determination of the will of the advisory body of that authority, in this case the taking of the decision to approve the 2003 budget.
Osnutek predloga spremembe je tako del internega postopka, ki je sicer pomemben z informativnega stališča, vendar nima zunanjih učinkov.
The draft amendment is therefore an act of internal procedure of relevance in terms of information, but without external effect.
Jasno je, da ni povezan z vlogo odločanja, ki jo igra organ, ki mora v skladu z zakonom odražati voljo oblasti, kar ima zunanje učinke ” .
However, it is clearly an act unrelated to the decision-making role of the body which is a body required by law to express the will of the authority with external effect ".
Albertini je Odbor za pravne zadeve opozoril na precej sumljiv način, na katerega je bilo njegovo ime povezano z zgoraj omenjenimi dogodki, saj je bil prvi med obtoženimi (domnevno odgovoren da je osebno pripravil predloge sprememb brez vsebine), ki je o zadevi spregovoril tožilcem, vendar pa je bilo to potem, ko je bil podvržen daljšemu psihološkemu pritisku med zelo ostrim policijskim zaslišanjem.
Mr Albertini informed the Committee on Legal Affairs that the way his name was associated to the above-mentioned events was quite suspicious, as it was the first accused (deemed responsible of having personally prepared the blank amendments) who revealed it to Prosecutors, but only after undergoing prolonged psychological pressure during a very harsh police interrogation.
Slednje dejstvo se lahko obravnava kot dodatni dokaz za trditev, da je šlo za „fumus persecutionis” zoper Gabriela Albertinija.
This fact may be regarded as a further evidence of 'fumus persecutionis' towards Mr Albertini.
Poleg predhodne obravnave je preiskovalni sodnik 4. maja 2005 sprejel sklep o določitvi datuma za začetek sodnega postopka na milanskem sodišču 12. januarja 2006.
Further to the preliminary hearing, the examining judge issued a decree on 4 May 2005 fixing the date for the opening of proceedings before the Court of Milan at 12 January 2006.
Postopek se je nadaljeval z zaslišanjem 16. marca, ko so je obravnavalo predhodna vprašanja v zvezi s postopkom vlaganja tožbe s strani civilne stranke, nadaljevanje primera pa je bilo preloženo na 2. maj 2006.
The proceedings then continued at a hearing on 16 March when preliminary questions were dealt with relating to the procedure for bringing suit as a civil party and the case was adjourned until 2 May 2006.
ZAKONODAJA IN SPLOŠNA OBRAVNAVA IMUNITETE
LAW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF
POSLANCEV EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Ker je predsednik Parlamenta menil, da je Gabriele Albertini začel postopek zaščite svoje imunitete, je bila v skladu z zgoraj omenjenimi členi zahteva razglašena v Parlamentu.
As the President of Parliament considered that Mr Gabriele Albertini had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
Formalne zahteve, da se zadeva pošlje Odboru za pravne zadeve, so bile torej izpolnjene.
The formal requirements have therefore been met for the matter to be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Razsodba v primeru o odgovornosti uradnih predstavnikov Skupnosti glede davkov na premoženje je jasno opredelila, da kršitev določil PPI predstavlja kršitev obveznosti iz pogodb (sodba z dne 24. februarja 1988, Komisija proti Belgiji, primer 260/86, ECR).
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium , Case 260/86, ECR.
Glede veljavnosti člena 9 je treba opozoriti, da se obtožnica proti Albertiniju ne nanaša na mnenja, ki so bila izražena, ali glasove, ki so bili oddani, pri opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, in sicer iz preprostega razloga, da se predloga spremembe brez vsebine, ki pač ne vsebuje nobenih izrazov, ne more enačiti z „mnenjem”.
As for the applicability of Article 9, it must be remarked that the charges brought against Mr Albertini do not refer to the opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a member of the European Parliament for the simple reason that a blank amendment - as it ultimately contains no expressions - cannot be equated with an "opinion".
Kar zadeva člen 10, pa je – glede na dejstvo, da se obtožnica proti Albertiniju nanaša na dejanja, storjena v Italiji, katere državljanstvo je imel takrat – veljavni le sledeči del: „ Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njeni poslanci uživajo a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države” .
As for Article 10, given that the charges brought against Mr Albertini refer to facts committed in Italy, whose citizenship he enjoyed at that moment, the only applicable part is the one pursuant to which " during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ".
Obseg poslanske imunitete v Italiji je zelo podoben tistemu, ki zagotavlja delovanje EP in temelji na PPI.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in Italy is very similar to the one that serves the functioning of the EP, based on the PPI.
Drugi pododstavek člena 68 italijanske ustave se glasi:
Article 68, second subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution reads as follows:
68. člen, drugi pododstavek
Article 68, second subparagraph
Na podlagi omenjenih elementov in dostopnih dokumentov je treba zaključiti, da se Albertinijev primer s pravnega stališča ne more obravnavati kot primer zaščite imunitete s strani Evropskega parlamenta.
On the grounds of the above-mentioned elements and of the available documents, it has to be concluded that, from a legal point of view, Mr Albertini's case cannot be regarded as a case of immunity to be defended by the European Parliament.
O diskriminaciji se govori na podlagi dejstva, da je, kot kažejo dokazi, ki jih je Albertini predložil Odboru za pravne zadeve, isto milansko okrožno sodišče v sodnem postopku (zadeva št. 9384/03 R.G.N.R.), v katerem je preučevalo obtožbe, podobne tistim proti Albertiniju, ki pa jih je vložil Albertini proti svojim političnim nasprotnikom, odločilo, da je primer brezpredmeten in ga je zavrglo.
The discrimination would consist of the fact that, according to the evidence submitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs by Mr Albertini, in other proceedings (Case No 9384/03 R.G.N.R.), the same District Court of Milan, called upon to consider allegations similar to those made against Mr Albertini but then made by Mr Albertini himself against his political opponents, held that there was no case to answer and dismissed the case.
Dejstvo, da je isto sodišče v dveh vsebinsko primerih sprejelo popolnoma nasprotujoči si stališči, kaže na nerazumljivo in neenakopravno obravnavo.
The fact that the self-same court has consequently adopted a diametrically opposed attitude in two similar cases amounts to unreasonable unequal treatment.
Ker zanjo ni objektivnega opravičila, se postavlja vprašanje, ali gre za „fumus persecutionis” .
Given that it is hard to find an objective justification for its action, this raises the question of a "fumus persecutionis" .
Po drugi strani je treba opomniti, da točka a člena 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah v sedanji obliki, ki prepušča zaščito poslancev nacionalnim zakonodajam, Evropskemu parlamentu v zadevnem primeru ne omogoča zavezujočega ukrepanja za zaščito Albertinija.
On the other hand, it must be recalled that, as it stands, Article 10, letter a), of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities, by letting members' protection depend on their own national legislation, does not afford the European Parliament with the means of taking binding action in order to protect Mr Albertini in the above case.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je ob upoštevanju navedenega, potem ko je zaslišal Gabriela Albertinija in preučil razloge za in proti zaščiti njegove imunitete, z obžalovanjem ocenil, da Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 v sedanji obliki Evropskemu parlamentu ne omogoča sprejetja zavezujočih ukrepov za zaščito Gabriela Albertinija.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having heard Mr Albertini and having examined the reasons for and against defending his immunity, considers regretfully that, as it stands, the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not afford the European Parliament with the means of taking binding action in order to protect Gabriele Albertini.
Okrožno sodišče v Milanu 28.4.2006 15.5.2006
District Court of Milan 28.4.2006 15.5.2006
o času za višjo prestavo – ustvarjanje Evrope podjetništva in rasti
on Time to move up a gear – Creating a Europe of entrepreneurship and growth
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom Izvajanje lizbonskega programa Skupnosti:moderna politika malih in srednje velikih podjetjih za rast in zaposlovanje ( KOM(2005)0551 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: modern SME policy for growth and employment" ( COM(2005)0551 ),
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom Čas za višjo prestavo – Novo partnerstvo za rast in delovna mesta ( KOM(2006)0030 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Time to move up a gear – The new partnership for growth and jobs" ( COM(2006)0030 ),
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z naslovom Izvajanje lizbonskega programa Skupnosti za rast in delovna mesta: Prenos podjetij – nadaljevanje skozi nov začetek ( KOM(2006)0117 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Implementing the Lisbon Community Programme for Growth and Jobs: Transfer of Businesses – Continuity through a new beginning" ( COM(2006)0117 ),
– ob upoštevanju sklepov predsedstva z zasedanja Evropskega sveta v Lizboni 23. in 24. marca 2000, Stockholmu 23. in 24. marca 2001, Barceloni 15. in 16. marca 2002 in Bruslju 22. in 23. marca 2005, 15. in 16. decembra 2005 ter 23. in 24. marca 2006,
– having regard to the Presidency conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001, the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002, and the Brussels European Councils of 22 and 23 March 2005, 15 and 16 December 2005, and 23 and 24 March 2006,