natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Neprijetno je, da mora Komisija še vedno vlagati veliko časa in truda v spodbujanje držav članic, da te preprosto sprejmejo in sporočijo nacionalne ukrepe.
It is embarrassing that a lot of Commission's time and effort still has to go into the business of soliciting Member States to simply adopt and communicate national measures .
Zelo pogosto za rešitev zadeve uradni opomin ne zadostuje in mora v skoraj 10 % odprtih primerov neobveščanja razsoditi Sodišče.
Very often, a basic letter of formal notice is not sufficient to settle the matter: the Court of Justice has to intervene to render judgment in almost 10% of all cases of non-notification that are opened.
Jasno je, da so v tem primeru odgovorne predvsem države članice.
It is clear that Member States carry a large part of the responsibility for this situation.
Tega se ne sme obravnavati kot nepomembno vprašanje ali podrobnost, zlasti ker se po širitvi položaj prav gotovo ne bo izboljšal, če se mu ne bo pripisalo politične prednosti.
This should not be considered a minor question or detail, above all because after enlargement, the situation is certainly not going to improve if no political priority is given to this.
Jasno pa je tudi, da velik porast neobveščanja ogroža celoten sistem in učinkovitost veljavnih kontrol.
It is also clear, however, that the spectacular increase in notification failure questions the whole system and the efficiency of the controls in place.
Če ne dosežemo niti, da bi države članice poslale obvestila v zvezi s svojimi ukrepi za prenos, koliko zaupanja evropskih državljanov v učinkovitost in ohranjanje temeljnih pravic iz prava Skupnosti s strani Komisije, Sveta in EP lahko pričakujemo?
If we cannot even get Member States to send notifications of their transposition measures, how much faith can we expect Europe’s citizens to have in the Commission’s, and also the Council's and EP's, effectiveness in upholding their substantive Community law rights?
2) Obdobje prenosa in preverjanje skladnosti
2) Transposition period and conformity checking
Evropski parlament vedno znova izraža zaskrbljenost v zvezi z nezadovoljivim stanjem v državah članicah glede pravilnega in pravočasnega prenosa direktiv o notranjem trgu.
The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed concern about the poor records of Member States in transposing internal market Directives correctly and on time.
Medinstitucionalni sporazum o boljši zakonodaji, z dne 16. decembra 2003, poudarja tudi potrebo po tem, da države članice ravnajo v skladu s členom 10 Pogodbe
The Inter-institutional Agreement on better law-making of 16 December 2003 also emphasised the need for Member States to comply with Article 10 of the Treaty
Člen 10 Pogodbe od držav članic zahteva, da sprejemajo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splošne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe ali so posledica ukrepov institucij Skupnosti. , ter poziva države članice, da zagotovijo pravilen in pravočasen prenos zakonodaje Skupnosti v nacionalno zakonodajo v okviru določenih skrajnih rokov.
Article 10 of the Treaty requires Member States to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. and called upon Member States to ensure that Community law is properly and promptly transposed into national law within the prescribed deadlines.
Kljub tem pozivom in dejstvu, da je pravočasen in pravilen prenos zakonsko zavezujoč, se obdobje za prenos izteče, preden države članice začnejo sprejemati izvedbene ukrepe.
Despite these calls and the fact that timely and correct transposition is a legal obligation, very often the transposition period expires before Member States start adopting implementation measures.
Preverjanje skladnosti se zdaj pogosto začne izvajati šele dolgo za tem, ko države članice obvestijo Komisijo o prenosu evropske zakonodaje v nacionalno zakonodajo.
Conformity checking is currently often carried out long after the Member States have notified the Commission of the transposing national legislation.
Preverjanje skladnosti mora biti v praksi prednostna naloga.
Conformity checking should be made a priority in practice.
Končati se mora čim prej po prejetju obvestila o nacionalnih ukrepih.
It should be finalised as soon as possible following the receipt of the notification of national measures.
V zvezi s tem je Komisija naročila posebne študije za preverjanje skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje z evropskimi direktivami.
In this context, the Commission has outsourced specific studies in order to check the conformity of national legislation with European directives.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je prepričan, da so te študije pomembne, da lahko evropske institucije objektivno spremljajo stanje prenosa poglavitnih direktiv, in meni, da bo objava teh študij pomenila učinkovito preglednost dela Komisije.
The Committee on Legal Affairs is convinced of the importance of these studies in order for the European institutions to have an objective idea of the state of transposition of crucial directives and thinks that the publication of all these studies will represent a sign of effective transparency from the Commission.
V okviru tega je treba zagotoviti razpoložljivost človeških virov in finančnih sredstev službam Komisije, ki se ukvarjajo s preverjanjem skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje, te pa morajo študije, ki jih je Komisija naročila, uporabiti kot pomemben vir informacij.
In this context, additional human and financial resources should be made available to the Commissions' services dealing with the checking of conformity of national legislation, which should use the studies the Commission has outsourced as an important piece of information.
Ob tem se mora za lažje preverjanje skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje v direktivah od držav članic sistematično zahtevati, da k obvestilu o prenosu zakonodaje priložijo tabelo, v kateri je podrobno navedeno, katere člene direktive je država prenesla in s katerimi določbami nacionalnega zakona je to storila (tabela skladnosti).
Furthermore, in order to facilitate the conformity checking of national legislation, directives should systematically require Member States to provide, accompanying the notification of transposing legislation, a table indicating in detail which articles of the Directive have been transposed and by which provisions of national law ( concordance table).
Medtem morajo evropske institucije pri oblikovanju osnutka in pogajanju o novi direktivi zagotoviti sistematično vključitev tabele skladnosti, skupaj s sporočilom v zvezi z ukrepi o prenosu (na nacionalni in/ali regionalni in lokalni ravni), v vsako novo direktivo.
In the meantime, when drafting and negotiating a new Directive, the European institutions should guarantee the systematic inclusion in each new Directive of the concordance table with the communication of transposition measures (at national and/or regional and local level).
Pogosto se zgodi (zlasti v zvezi z zakonodajo notranjega trga), da države članice pošljejo akt o prenosu brez navodil za iskanje in oceno kakovosti prenosa ter včasih brez vsakega posvetovanja o pravilni razlagi zakona s Komisijo.
It often happens (especially for internal market legislation), that member states simply send their act of transposition, without giving any guide on how to find and evaluate the quality of transposition and sometimes without any consultation with the Commission on the correct interpretation of the law.
Nedavni primer je prenos Direktive o javnih razpisih v Italiji, ki se je prenesla v zakonik z več kot 250 členi brez kakršnega koli posvetovanja s Komisijo.
A recent example is the transposition of the Directive on public tendering in Italy, which has been transposed in a code of more than 250 articles, without any dialogue with the Commission.
Komisija se seveda tega položaja dobro zaveda in je bil v zvezi s tem od leta 2003 že dosežen pomemben napredek.
The Commission is of course well aware of this situation and some important progress has been made in this respect since 2003.
Vseeno še vedno ni ustaljene prakse, da bi se v vseh primerih ob končni zakonodaji sprejemale tudi tabele skladnosti, predvsem pa je potrebno veliko naporov za to, da države članice pripravijo tabelo skladnosti in jo pošljejo Komisiji, zlasti v primeru tistih direktiv in ukrepov, za katere bi bile tabele najbolj koristne.
Still, there is as yet no consistent practice of concordance tables being adopted in final legislation in all cases, and above all there is a lot to do to get Member States to actually prepare a concordance table and send it to the Commission, above all for those directives and measures for which they would be most useful.
V že omenjenem sporočilu Komisije „Boljši nadzor uporabe prava Skupnosti“ je Komisija javno obsodila upravne in organizacijske ovire, s katerimi se še vedno srečuje pri obravnavanju nacionalnih organov.
In the already mentioned Commission Communication "Better monitoring of the application of Community Law", the Commission denounced the administrative and organisational obstacles it still encounters when dealing with national authorities.
Zdi se na primer, da je še vedno zelo težko ugotoviti, kdo je ustrezna kontaktna oseba (ustrezne kontaktne osebe), s katero (katerimi) se je treba pri preverjanju skladnosti ukrepov za prenos povezati.
As an example, it seems that it is still particularly complex to identify the appropriate contact(s) with whom to liaise when checking the conformity of the transposition measures.
Kot je predlagano v sporočilu, bi lahko vzpostavitev ustreznih točk za usklajevanje v vsaki državi članici Komisiji zagotovila eno kontaktno točko za vprašanja v zvezi s prenosom, uporabo prava Skupnosti in usklajevanjem z nacionalnimi ministrstvi ter regionalnimi in lokalnimi organi
As suggested in the Communication, the setting up of appropriate coordination points in each Member State could provide the Commission with a single point of contact for questions concerning transposition, for the application of Community law and for coordination with national ministries and regional or local authorities
V zvezi s tem Komisija v priporočilu z dne 12. julija 2004 o najboljši praksi prenosa, ki naj bi državam članicam pomagala pri prizadevanjih za izboljšanje prenosa, zelo priporoča, da morajo države članice „sprejeti ukrepe, organizacijske ali druge, ki so potrebni za pravočasno in učinkovito obravnavo osnovnih vzrokov za njihovo vztrajno kršenje pravne obveznosti, da pravilno in pravočasno prenašajo direktive o notranjem trgu“. .
In this context, in its Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on best Transposition Practices to assist Member States in their efforts to improve their transposition, the Commission has strongly recommended that the Member States " take the steps, organisational or otherwise, that are necessary to deal promptly and effectively with the underlying causes of their persistent breaches of their legal obligation to transpose internal market Directives correctly and on time". .
Kot odgovor na predlog Komisije so nekatere države članice na vladni ravni že uspešno oblikovale osrednji organ za nadzor, ki bo usklajeval celotno politiko prenosa.
In response to the Commission's suggestion, some of the Member States have already successfully set up a central monitoring body at governmental level to coordinate for the whole transposition policy.
Tako je na Malti, Poljskem, Portugalskem, Irskem in v Belgiji.
This seems to be the case in Malta, Poland, Portugal, Ireland and Belgium.
Prav tako so Estonija, Slovaška, Češka republika, Malta, Poljska, Madžarska in Francija so imenovale ministrstvo, ki je odgovorno za posamezno direktivo
Estonia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Hungary, and France have also designated a Ministry responsible for each directive
Kot nadaljevanje priporočila z dne 12. julija 2004 je maja 2005 komisar McCreevy države članice pozval, da Komisijo obvestijo o glavnih rezultatih notranjega preverjanja.
As a follow up to the Recommendation of 12 July 2004, in May 2005 Commissioner McCreevy invited Member States to inform the Commission of the main results of their internal screening exercise.
Komisija je prejela 21 odzivov držav članic.
The Commission has received 21 responses from the Member States.
Države članice, ki se niso odzvale, so Italija, Nizozemska, Grčija in Avstrija, dve od njih (Grčija, Italija) sta med tistimi z največjim primanjkljajem prenosa zakonodaje.
Member States which have not replied are Italy, The Netherlands, Greece and Austria, two of them (Greece, Italy) among those with the highest deficit in transposition.
Ta podatek velja za vse odzive, ki jih je prejela Komisija in so bili neformalno sporočeni Parlamentu. .
This information refers to the responses received by the Commission and informally communicated to the Parliament. .
Prizadevanja Komisije za izboljšanje politike izvajanja, pri čemer se osredotoča na potrebo po zagotovitvi usklajevanja med različnimi pristojnimi organi na nacionalni ravni, je prav gotovo treba pozdraviti.
The Commission's efforts to improve its implementation policy by focusing on the need to ensure the coordination among different competent authorities at national level are certainly to be welcomed. .
Vseeno pa poudarek na organizacijskih vprašanjih in pretoku informacij ne sme zakriti dejstva, da veliko primerov nepravilnega izvajanja povzročijo zavestna prizadevanj držav članic za izpodbijanje zakonodaje Skupnosti iz političnih in gospodarskih razlogov .
An emphasis on organizational issues and communication flows should not, however, hide the fact that many instances of incorrect implementation are the result of conscious efforts by Member States to undermine Community legislation for political and economic reasons.
To zlasti velja za področje okolja.
Again, this seems especially true for the environmental field.
Nazoren primer je 11 primerov neskladnosti italijanske zakonodaje o odpadkih in 4 primeri o presoji vplivov, kot je navedeno v 6. letni raziskavi o izvajanju in izvrševanju okoljskega prava Skupnosti
A clear example are the 11 cases of non-conformity of the Italian legislation on waste as well as the 4 on impact assessment, as stated in the latest Sixth Annual Survey on the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law of 2004
To je svojevrsten primer, saj imajo druge države največ eno ali dve težavi z neskladnostjo na tem področju, večina pa jih sploh nima.
This is quite a unique situation, since other member states have at most one or two non-conformity problems in this field and the majority have none.
Problem neskladnosti še bolj kot primeri neobveščanja jasno kaže, da lahko slaba uporaba zakonodaje EU sčasoma privede do prava EU „s spremenljivo geometrijo” in po subjektivnih merilih, kar bi imelo negativne posledice za pravno varnost in, dolgoročno, verodostojnost EU.
Even more clearly than for non-notification cases, the issue of non-conformity is a clear demonstration that bad application of EU legislation could progressively lead to EU law “à géométrie variable” and “à la tête du client” , with negative consequences for the certainty of the law and in the long term for the credibility of the EU.
In znova obstaja jasno protislovje med načeli, ki določajo pravno državo, in nekaterimi primeri popustljivosti in pogajanja s strani Komisije pri uporabi člena 226 ES.
And again, there is a clear contradiction between the principles underlying the rule of law and a certain practice of indulgence and negotiation engendered by the Commission through its use of Article 226 EC.
Ponovno je treba poudariti, da se morajo institucije EU skupaj osredotočiti na to vprašanje in ga preoblikovati v prednostno nalogo v celotnem procesu „sprejemanja boljše zakonodaje“.
Once again, EU institutions need to focus altogether on this question, and to make of it a priority issue in the whole “better lawmaking” exercise.
Z obveščanjem mora imeti Komisija možnost hitrega ukrepanja, medtem ko morajo biti države članice dovolj motivirane, da zadevo uredijo, preden pride pred Sodišče.
As with notification, in the case of non conformity, the Commission should also be able to act quickly and Member States should be sufficiently motivated to adjust the situation before it goes to Court.
Preučili bi lahko več možnosti, od rednega razpravljanja o sramotilnem seznamu v pristojnem odboru EP do rednih posebnih zasedanj s predstavniki držav članic.
Several options could be examined, from a “name and shame list” to be regularly discussed in the competent committee in the EP, to regular special sessions to be held with representatives of the Member States.
Vendar je za dosego tega zelo pomembno, da se Komisija odloči javno spregovoriti o teh vprašanjih ter pospeši postopek preverjanja in odzivanja na države članice, ki ne izpolnjuje svojih obveznosti.
But in order to do all this, it is very important that the Commission decides to go public on these issues and to accelerate both the checking process and the reaction towards Member States who do not fulfil their obligations.
Kot bomo videli v poglavju o izvrševanju prava, je vprašanja skladnosti težko zaslediti, nekatera ostajajo skrita v pisarnah Komisije, dokler „pritožba“ kakšnega državljana Komisije ne prisili k ukrepanju.
As we will also see in the law enforcement chapter, conformity questions are difficult to track, some remain mysteriously hidden in the offices of the Commission before a "complaint" of a citizen obliges the Commission to act.
Izvrševanje prava ES poteka v državah članicah.
The enforcement of EC law is carried out in the Member States.
Vključuje dejansko upoštevanje predpisov s strani zasebnih in javnih subjektov, teles in organov.
It involves the actual respect of the provisions by private and public entities, bodies and authorities.
Člena 226 in 228 Pogodbe določata postopek v primerih, ko Komisija meni, da država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
Article 226 and 228 of the Treaty provide for a procedure in cases where the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law.
Zelo pomembno je omeniti dejstvo, da je možnost neposredne pritožbe pri Komisiji za nešteto državljanov, združenj, lokalnih organov in podjetij nenadomestljiv instrument za oblikovanje zavesti o pripadanju pravni skupnosti, ki presega njihovo državo; pri tem ne gre le za to, da je v nasprotju z večino sodnih postopkov pritožba pri Komisiji brezplačna, ampak tudi za dejstvo, da v številnih primerih ni nobenega načina, s katerim bi se državo članico prisililo, da ravna v skladu s pravom EU.
It is very important to mention the fact that for countless citizens, associations, local authorities and companies the possibility of a direct complaint to the Commission represents an irreplaceable instrument for forming a consciousness of belonging to a community of law that goes beyond their State; not only because - contrary to most judicial cases- a complaint to the Commission does not cost anything, but also because in many cases there is no other way to force a Member State to comply with EU law.
To je še en razlog, zakaj je lahko sposobnost zagotoviti izvajanje pomembnih delov zakonodaje, predvsem v zvezi z notranjim trgom, pravicami potrošnikov, zdravjem in okoljem v trenutku resnega dvoma o zmožnosti EU, da prisluhne svojim državljanom, način za ponovno pridobitev zaupanja državljanov, ki ji morajo institucije EU dati največjo prednost.
This is another reason why, in a moment of serious doubts about the capability of the EU to listen to its citizens, the ability to ensure the implementation of important pieces of legislation, notably concerning internal market, consumer rights, health and environment, could represent a way to regain citizens’ confidence that should be given the utmost priority by EU institutions.
Kot kažejo podatki iz 21. poročila, je dne 31.12.2003 potekalo 3 927 primerov kršitev.
According to the 21st report, 3,927 infringement cases were ongoing on 31.12.2003.
Med temi je bilo: 1 855 primerov, za katere so se začeli postopki, 999 primerov, za katere je bilo poslano obrazložitveno mnenje, 411 primerov, ki so bili predloženi Sodišču, in le 69 primerov, za katere so se začeli postopki iz člena 228.
Among these were: 1,855 cases for which proceedings have commenced, 999 cases for which a reasoned opinion has been sent, 411 cases which have been referred to the Court of Justice and only 69 cases for which Article 228 proceedings have begun .
Od teh 69 primerov jih 40 zadeva okoljski sektor .
Of these 69 cases, 40 concern the environmental sector .
Poročilo med drugim opozarja na 15-odstotno povečanje celotne količine primerov kršitev, ki jih je začela Komisija (od 2 356 v letu 2002 do 2 709 v letu 2003).
The Report refers inter alia to an increase in the total volume of infringement cases initiated by the Commission of 15% (from 2,356 in 2002, to 2709 in 2003).
Število primerov, ki jih je začela Komisija na podlagi lastnih preiskav , je leta 2003 upadlo, s 318 v letu 2002 na 253 v letu 2003, z 20,44-odstotnim zmanjšanjem.
The number of cases initiated by the Commission on the basis of its own investigations decreased in 2003, dropping from 318 in 2002 to 253 in 2003, a decrease of 20.44%.
Pritožbe še vedno oblikujejo večji del primerov kršitev (1 290 v letu 2003) ter so predvsem ponovno zadevale okoljski sektor (493 pritožb) in področje notranjega trga (314 pritožb).
Complaints still form the bulk of infringement procedures (1290 in 2003) and concerned above all once again the environmental sector (493 complaints) and the internal market sector (314 complaints).
Kratka analiza poročila iz leta 2004 kaže, da se sodeč po podatkih za leto 2003 in 2004 položaj bistveno ne razlikuje od prejšnjih let.
A brief analysis of the 2004 Report shows that the figures for 2003 and 2004 reflect a position not substantially different from previous years.
Dne 31.12.2002 je potekal postopek za 3 541 primerov kršitev.
3541 infringement cases were in motion on 31.12.2002.
To je uporabna tabela za primerjavo razmer v preteklih desetih letih.
This is a useful table to compare the situation in the past ten years.
Odkrite kršitve
Infringements detected
Primeri na lastno pobudo
Own initiative cases
Primeri nesporočanja
Non-communication cases
2 155, od tega
2155 of which
1 978, od tega
1978 of which
2 134, od tega
2134 of which
2 270, od tega
2270 of which
2 434, od tega
2434 of which
2 179, od tega
2179 of which
2 356, od tega
2356 of which
2 709, od tega
2709 of which
2 146, od tega
2146 of which
2 993, od tega
2993 of which
V 21. poročilu je omenjeno, da „si je v zadnjih letih Komisija nenehno prizadevala, da razvije predpravdno stopnjo, ki je predhodna predložitvi Sodišču.
The 21st Report mentions the fact that “Over the years the Commission has tried constantly to develop the pre-litigation phase which precedes the referral to the Court of Justice.
Zlasti je Komisija imela veliko vlogo pri posameznih pritožbah pri vzpostavljanju pravne države kot uresničljivega pojma za evropske državljane“.
In particular, the Commission has made a lot of the role of individual complainants in ‘making the rule of law a tangible reality for Europe’s citizens”.
Vseeno te hvalevredne besede ne morejo prikriti dejstva, da postopek iz člena 226 ES državljanom ne daje nobene pravice, razen vložitve pritožbe , ter da daje Komisiji veliko diskrecijo pri odločanju o tem, ali nadaljuje primer ali ne.
That laudable language, however, cannot disguise the fact that the Article 226 EC procedure gives citizens no rights whatsoever beyond lodging the complaint , and gives the Commission a very large discretion in deciding to take the case further or not.
Razen tega je Sodišče s tem, ko je državljanom zavrnilo zagotavljanje sredstev sodnega postopka proti ukrepanju (ali neukrepanju) Komisije, večkrat poudarilo politično naravo postopka.
The Court of Justice has, moreover, emphasised the political nature of the procedure repeatedly, by refusing to grant citizens any means of judicial redress against action (or non-action) by the Commission.