natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ob pomanjkanju sodnega preskusa, nezadostnem kontekstu v zvezi z vsemi vidiki izvajanja prava EU in omejenih sredstvih Komisije je razumno premisliti o tem, kako razviti bolj pregleden pristop in bolj strukturiran dostop Evropskega parlamenta do odločitev Komisije brez tega, da bi posegali v diskrecijske pravice Komisije o odločanju o načinu ukvarjanja s posebnimi primeri kršitev.
In the absence of judicial review, in an unsatisfactory context in terms of all aspects of implementation of EU law and of limited resources of the Commission, it is worth considering how to develop a more transparent approach and a more structured access for the European Parliament to the Commission's decisions, without interfering into the discretionary power the Commission has in deciding how to deal with specific infringement cases.
EP že ima vlogo v postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev, ker so tudi postopki, ki jih vložijo državljani, pogosto predmet parlamentarnih vprašanj; razen tega je odbor ENVI med prejšnjim mandatom uvedel redno sejo o izvajanju, ki mu omogoča pozorno spremljanje določenega števila konkretnih primerov.
The EP already plays a role in the infringement procedure because often procedures brought by citizens are also the object of Parliamentary questions; moreover, the ENVI committee introduced in the course of the past legislature a regular session on implementation, which allows it to follow closely a certain number of concrete cases.
Drugi odbori razmišljajo, da bi storili enako.
Other committees are considering doing the same.
Vendar je to največ, kar lahko storimo.
Yet this is as far as we can go.
Če pravni red Skupnosti določa, da je člen 226 ES predvsem politični postopek, ki Komisiji podeljuje pristojnosti in ne pravne obveznosti, potem mora politični nadzor nad „varuhom Pogodbe“ v imenu državljanov Evrope izvajati Parlament (ali pristojni poslanci Evropskega parlamenta ali pristojni odbor ali posebni instrumenti medinstitucionalnega dialoga, ki ga je treba vzpostaviti) ali same zainteresirane strani.
If it is decided in the Community legal order that Article 226 EC is essentially a political procedure- granting powers but not legal obligations to the Commission, then political control over the ‘guardian of the Treaties’ on behalf of Europe’s citizens should be exercised by the Parliament (be it the MEP concerned or the competent committee or specific instruments of inter-institutional dialogue to be established) or by interested parties themselves.
Diskrecija je v sodobni vladi lahko nujno zlo; vseeno pa je absolutna diskrecija, skupaj z absolutnim pomanjkanjem preglednosti, v temeljnem nasprotju s pravno državo.
Discretion may be a necessary evil in modern government; absolute discretion coupled with an absolute lack of transparency, however, is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law .
Odbor za pravne zadeve je prepričan, da več odprtosti in preglednosti ne bi bilo le v interesu državljanov EU, ampak tudi v interesu Komisije in njene verodostojnosti.
The Committee on Legal Affairs is convinced that more openness and transparency would be in the interest not only of EU citizens but also of the Commission and its credibility.
V nedavno sprejetem sporočilu o „Boljšem nadzoru uporabe prava Skupnosti“, kot je objavljeno v beli knjigi o evropskem upravljanju, je Komisija upoštevala svojo obvezo za nadzorovanje in učinkovito sproženje postopkov proti kršitvam ter dejansko, z opredeljevanjem in uporabo prednostnih meril , ki izražajo resnost morebitnega ali znanega neupoštevanja zakonodaje.
In the recently adopted communication on "Better Monitoring of the application of Community law", as announced in its White Paper on Governance, the Commission respected its commitment to conduct surveillance and to bring proceedings against infringements effectively and fairly by defining and applying priority criteria reflecting the seriousness of the potential or known failure to comply with the legislation.
Prednostna merila se lahko povzamejo v naslednjih točkah:
The priority criteria can be summarised as follows:
(a) kršitve, ki ogrožajo temelje pravne države
(a) Infringements that undermine the foundations of the rule of law
(a) kršitve, ki ogrožajo nemoteno delovanje pravnega sistema Skupnosti
(b) Infringements that undermine the smooth functioning of the Community legal system
(c) kršitve, ki vključujejo neizveden prenos direktiv ali nepravilen prenos direktiv.
(c) Infringements consisting in the failure to transpose or the incorrect transposition of directives.
Odbor za pravne zadeve obravnava določitev prednostnih meril kot pozitiven poskus Komisije, da pri obravnavi postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev upošteva bolj pregleden pristop.
The Committee considers the identification of the priority criteria a positive attempt of the Commission to follow a more transparent approach when dealing with infringement procedures.
Vseeno kljub dejstvu, da je Komisija izrecno izjavila, da „bo uporaba prednostnih meril ocenjena letno, ko se bo obravnavalo poročilo o nadzoru prava Skupnosti“ , v 21. poročilu ni sklicevanja na nobene posebne ocene Komisije o uporabi teh meril.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Commission has expressly declared that "the application of the priority criteria will be assessed annually, when the report on the monitoring of the application of Community law is discussed", in the 21st report there is no reference to any specific assessments made by the Commission on the application of these criteria.
Odbor prav tako izraža zaskrbljenost, da bi bila določitev prednostnih meril lahko način za pretirano zmanjšanje obsega postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev; pomembno bi bilo, da Komisija oceni, ali preprosto povečanje razpoložljivih sredstev v najbolj izpostavljenih GD ne bi bila primernejša rešitev za izboljšanje zmogljivosti nadaljnjega spremljanja pritožb.
The Committee is also concerned that the identification of priority criteria might be a way to reduce excessively the scope of the infringement procedures; it would be important that the Commission evaluates if a simple strengthening of the available resources in the most exposed DG would not be a preferable solution in order to improve the capability of the complaints' follow-up.
Evropski parlament je treba obveščati o rezultatih takšnih ocenjevanj ter se z njim posvetovati o vsaki morebitni spremembi vsebine prednostnih meril.
The European Parliament should be kept informed on the results of such evaluations and be consulted on any possible change on the content of the priority criteria.
V tem smislu mora Komisija vedno dati prednost temeljem pravne države in izkušnjam državljanov pred izključno gospodarskimi merili in ocenjevanji ter mora previdno nadzorovati upoštevanje temeljnih svoboščin in splošnih načel Pogodbe ter tudi predpisov in okvirnih direktiv.
In this context, the Commission should always place the fundamentals of the rule of law and citizens' experience above purely economic criteria and evaluations and should monitor carefully the respect of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of the Treaty as well as of regulations and framework directives.
Glede na prednostno merilo (c) je odbor prepričan o pomembnosti tega, da preverjanje skladnosti postane pomembno vprašanje, seveda brez vsake uporabe zakonodaje EU za vsak primer posebej.
As for the (c) priority criteria, the Committee is convinced of the importance of making the conformity checking an important issue, without any of course of the case-by-case application of EU legislation.
V tem smislu morajo biti dodatni človeški viri in finančna sredstva na voljo službam Komisije, ki se ukvarjajo s preverjanjem skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje in s slabo uporabo.
In this context, additional human and financial resources should be made available to the Commissions' services dealing both with the checking of conformity of national legislation and bad application .
V tem smislu odbor meni, kot potrjujejo vodilni primeri Evropskega sodišča
In this context, it is the Committee's opinion that, as confirmed by the leading cases of European Court of Justice
Zadeva C-158/96 Kohl1 [1998] ECR I-1931; Zadeva C-120/95 Decher [1998] ECR I-1831; Zadeva C-157/99 Smits in Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473; Zadeva C-368/99 Vanbraekel in drugi [2001] ECR I-5363; Zadeva C-385/99 Müller-Fauré in van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509; Zadeva C-56/01 Inizan [1998] ECR I-12403; Zadeva C-8/02 Leichtle [2004] ECR I-2641.
Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931; Case C-120/95 Decher [1998] ECR I-1831; Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473; Case C-368/99 Vanbraekel and Others [2001] ECR I-5363; Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509; Case C-56/01 Inizan [2003] ECR I-12403; Case C-8/02 Leichtle [2004] ECR I-2641.
Generalni pravobranilec je predložil svoje mnenje o zadevi C-372/04 Watts dne 15. decembra 2005, Sodišče pa mora v prihodnjih tednih izreči sodbo. , da bi morali imeti tudi državljani EU koristi od tega z neposredno uporabo Pogodbe, zlasti v zvezi s temeljnimi svoboščinami.
The Advocate General presented his opinion in Case C-372/04 Watts on 15 December 2005 and the Court should give judgement in the coming weeks. , EU citizens should also derive benefits from the direct application of the Treaty, especially as regards the fundamental freedoms.
Bolj izrecno, Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v sodni odločbi, ki se ukvarja s storitvami zdravstvenega varstva, navedlo, da so lahko bolniki upravičeni do nebolnišničnega zdravljenja v vsaki državi članici EU in jim država članica, kjer je bolnik vključen v sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja, povrne stroške brez predhodno zahtevanega dovoljenja.
More specifically, in its rulings dealing with health-care services, the ECJ has indicated that patients can benefit from non-hospital care in any other Member State of the EU and be reimbursed by their Member State of affiliation without prior authorisation being required.
Povračilo se bo izplačalo na ravni, ki bi bilo določena za enako obravnavo v državi članici, kjer je bolnik vključen v sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
Reimbursement will be made at the level which would have been granted for the same treatment in the Member State of affiliation of the patient.
Več potrošniških združenj zatrjuje, da vsakodnevno prejemajo pritožbe državljanov.
Several consumers' associations claim that they receive complaints from citizens on a daily basis.
V svojem „Poročilu o uporabi pravil na notranjem trgu za zdravstvene storitve“ (SEC (2003) 900) Komisija navaja, da velika večina držav članic ni naklonjena ravnanju v skladu s to sodno prakso.
In its "Report on the application of Internal market rules to health services" (SEC (2003) 900, the Commission indicates that the vast majority of Member States are reluctant to comply with this case-law.
To povzroča popolno pravno negotovost, kar pomeni, da so bolniki prikrajšani za svojo pravico do odškodnine pod pogoji, ki jih določa SES.
This results in complete legal uncertainty, with the result that patients are deprived of their right to reimbursement under the conditions established by the ECJ.
Zdaj mora Komisija kot varuhinja Pogodbe delovati v prid posameznim državljanom EU, zlasti, ker bolniki spadajo med najbolj ranljive državljane.
It is time for the Commission as Guardian of the Treaty to act for the sake of individual EU citizens, in particular as patients are among the most vulnerable of citizens.
Naloga Komisije je, da proti državam članicam sistematično in odločno začne postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev.
It is the Commission's duty to launch infringement proceedings in a systematic and determined way against Member States.
To je odločilno za zagotavljanje, da lahko državljani EU ne glede na državo članico izvora učinkovito uveljavljajo pravice, ki jih je večkrat potrdilo SES.
This is crucial in order to ensure that EU citizens irrespective of their Member State of origin may effectively exercise rights confirmed on many occasions by the ECJ.
Treba je poudariti, da je stopnja obveznosti državljanov do evropskega združevanja neposredno odvisna od njihovih osebnih izkušenj v EU.
It should be remembered that the degree of commitment of citizens to European integration depends directly on their personal experience of the EU.
Kljub potrjenemu obstoju zgoraj omenjenih meril diskrecijska pravica Komisije pri odločanju glede pošiljanja uradnega opomina, nadaljnjega spremljanja obrazložitvenega mnenja in celo predložitve zadeve Sodišču v praksi kot absolutna in pregledna skoraj ne obstaja.
Despite the declared existence of the above mentioned criteria, the Commission's discretion in deciding to send a letter of formal notice, to follow up with a reasoned opinion and even to refer the case to the Court of Justice is in practice absolute and transparency almost inexistent.
Vsak primer, ki se začne kot odgovor na pritožbo , nima nobenega predvidenega časovnega razporeda.
Each case which starts in response to a complaint has no predictable timetable.
Kljub naporom Komisije, da prikaže preglednost v zvezi s pritožnikom, ni nobene zagotovitve časovne razporeditve in učinkovitosti njegove aktivnosti.
Despite the Commission's efforts to show transparency vis-à-vis the complainant, there is no guarantee of the timing and the effectiveness of its activity.
Razen tega Komisija odloča o oprostitvi pomanjkanja sodelovanja držav članic pri reševanju zadeve, spregledanju nepravočasnih predložitev ugotovitev in celo ugoditvi obsežnim prizadevanjem držav članic, da se pristojni odgovorni uradnik sploh ukvarja s to zadevo.
The Commission has, moreover, the discretion to forgive Member States’ lack of cooperation in resolving a case, to shrug off late submissions of observations, and even to indulge Member States’ lengthy quests for a competent responsible official to deal with the matter in the first place.
Čeprav je lahko določena mera diskrecije o vsebini v določenih okoliščinah koristna za olajšanje tekočega delovanja pravnega reda Skupnosti, mora Komisija ustanoviti vsaj trdna pravila o samodejni vložitvi zadeve Sodišču, kjer države članice v predpravdnih stopnjah v predpisanih rokih ne želijo ali niso sposobne začeti pomembne razprave.
Even if some measure of discretion on the substance can be useful in certain circumstances to facilitate the smooth working of the Community legal order, the Commission should at the very least establish firm rules on the automatic referral to the Court of Justice of cases where Member States are unwilling or unable to enter into meaningful discussion within the prescribed deadlines in the pre-litigation phases.
Glede na sporočilo Komisije o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti „ je treba vsako dopisovanje, ki bi ga lahko preiskali kot pritožbo, zapisati v centralni register pritožnikov“, razen pritožb, ki ustrezajo enemu od šestih meril, natančno določenih in navedenih v sporočilu.
According to the Commission communication on the relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, "any correspondence which is likely to be investigated as a complaint shall be recorded in the central registry of complainants" with the only exception of the complaints which responds to one of the 6 criteria precisely defined and listed in the communication.
Kljub obstoju tega ključnega načela so se pojavili nekateri dokazi o izredno zaskrbljujočih zadevah Komisije o neprijavi pritožb , ki so jih poslali državljani ob predvidevanju, da bi se morali državljani sklicevati na pravna sredstva na nacionalni ravni pred vložitvijo svojih zadev Evropski komisiji ali da že obstajajo podobne zadeve, ki se preučujejo.
Despite the existence of this essential principle, some evidence has emerged on the extremely worrying cases of the Commission of non-registration of the complaints sent by citizens with the assumption that citizens should refer to the means of redress at their national level before referring their cases to the European Commission or that there are other similar cases already under examination.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je v zvezi s tem nedavno prejel posebne pritožbe, ki naznanjajo neprijavo pritožb in jih zdaj preučuje.
The European Ombudsman has in this context recently received specific complaints denouncing the non-registration of the complaints and he is currently investigating.
Odbor za pravne zadeve meni, da mora biti EP sposoben oceniti, ali Komisija zgoraj omenjeno načelo pravilno uporablja.
It is the Committee on Legal Affairs'opinion that the EP should be able to account if the above mentioned principle is correctly applied by the Commission.
Prav tako zdaj pritožnik nima nobenega dostopa do izmenjave opominov v zvezi s primeri kršitev med državami članicami in Komisijo.
Equally, at the moment there is no access for the complainant to the exchange of letters concerning infringement cases between member states and the Commission.
Uradni razlog za to je, da je postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev „predsodni“ ter da mora biti zato predviden z določeno zaupnostjo.
The official reason for this is that the infringement procedure is a “pre-judicial” one and therefore should be covered by certain confidentiality.
To niso trajnostne razmere.
This is not a sustainable situation.
Pravzaprav Komisija pogosto nima sredstev ali želje preveriti, ali je to, kar govorijo države članice, resnica, in odklanja posredovanje pri vsebini, pri čemer raje ostaja na stopnji uradne zakonitosti državnega ukrepa in zaupa v to, kar govori.
Indeed, the Commission often does not have the means or the will to check if what Member States say is really true and refuses to intervene on the substance, preferring to stay on the level of the formal legality of the action of the state by trusting what it says.
Namesto tega bi po potrditvi v skladu z jasnimi merili, da je posebna pritožba upravičena, boljši dostop do vsebine rezultata pogajanj med državami članicami in Komisijo (ki delno premagujejo omejitve, ki jih določa Uredba 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001) zagotovo povečal učinkovitost in preglednost postopka in bi bil močna spodbuda za države članice, da upoštevajo pravila.
Instead, once confirmed according to clear criteria that a specific complaint is justified, better access for the complainant to the substance of the result of negotiations between Member States and the Commission (overcoming in part the limits imposed by Regulation 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001) would certainly increase the efficiency and the transparency of the procedure and would represent a powerful motivation for the Member State to respect the rules of the game.
Če postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev ostaja skriven in dejanski razlogi odločitev niso javno objavljeni, razen pogosto zelo splošnega opomina, je precej več možnosti za nepotrebno obremenjevanje Komisije s strani nacionalnih organov ali drugih interesnih skupin.
If the infringement procedure remains secretive and the real reasons for the decisions are not made public, apart from an often very generic letter, there is much more space for undue pressures on the Commission by national authorities or other interest groups.
Seveda je sprejemljivo in celo zaželeno, da Komisija in države članice začnejo pogajanja, da se sporna zadeva razreši, preden pride pred Sodišče.
It is of course acceptable and even desirable that Commission and Member States enter into negotiations in order to resolve a contentious matter before it goes to Court.
Vendar pogoji takšnih pogajanj pogosto ostajajo dvomljivi in je njihovo izvajanje težko preveriti.
But often the terms of such negotiations remain dubious and their implementation difficult to check.
Vemo, da je to zelo sporno vprašanje in je mogoče, da Svet v zvezi s tem nikoli ne bo upošteval nobene preglednosti.
We know that this is a very controversial issue and it is possible that Council will never accept any transparency in this matter.
Vseeno obstaja veliko „srednjih“ ukrepov, ki jih je mogoče predvideti.
But there are a lot of “middle-way” measures that could be envisaged.
Na primer, kadar Komisija pritožniku pošlje dopis, v katerem najavlja odločitev za vložitev pritožbe, ker jo je država članica prepričala o zakonitosti svojega ukrepa, bi bilo pomembno, da so razlogi bolj jasni in nedvoumni.
For example, when the Commission sends a complainant a letter announcing the decision to file the complaint because the Member State was able to convince it of the legality of its action, it would be important that the reasons are made much more clear and explicit.
V nekaterih primerih lahko pritožnik ali ministrski predsednik, ki je vključen v primer prek parlamentarnega vprašanja, že predstavita nadaljnje ugotovitve; vendar je to precej težko, če se on/ona ne zaveda tega, kaj točno se je država članica s Komisijo dogovorila.
In some cases it is already possible for the complainant or the MP involved in the case through a parliamentary question, to present further observations; but this is quite difficult if he/she is not aware of what precisely the Member State agreed with the Commission.
Seveda je ta položaj včasih posledica dejstva, da zakonodaja, ki jo je treba uporabiti, pušča veliko „vrzeli“ in velik prostor za razlago.
Of course, this situation is sometimes due to the fact that the legislation to be applied leaves many “holes” and a large space for interpretation.
Zato bi bilo morda zanimivo, da nam Komisija sporoči dele zakonodaje, ki se najpogosteje kršijo in katerih izvajanje je najtežje za določitev vrste seznama zakonodaje, ki jo je treba pregledati in obrazložiti.
Therefore, it would be perhaps interesting if the Commission tells us the pieces of legislation which are most often violated and whose implementation is most difficult in order to establish a sort of list of legislation to be reviewed and clarified.
Odbor je prepričan, da mora biti politika za ugotavljanje kršitev politična prednostna naloga in morajo biti potem dodatni človeški viri in finančna sredstva na voljo službam Komisije, ki se ukvarjajo s kršitvami, zlasti na notranjem trgu in v okoljskih sektorjih, kjer je zabeleženo največje število pritožb.
It is the Committee's conviction that if the infringement policy should be made a political priority, then additional human and financial resources should be made available to the Commissions' services dealing with infringement, especially in the internal market and environmental sectors, where the highest number of complaints are registered.
Seveda se vsi generalni direktorati ne ukvarjajo s kršitvijo na enak način, kar je razumljivo in dobrodošlo.
Of course, not all Directorates General deal with infringement in the same way and this is both understandable and welcome.
Obstaja na primer ločena enota za ugotavljanje kršitev znotraj Generalnega direktorata ENVI, ki ima bistveno vlogo pri centralizaciji in usklajevanju celotnega izvajanja politike v okoljskem sektorju, ker se v enem postopku zelo pogosto obravnavajo različne direktive, medtem ko na notranjem trgu ni ločene enote, ki se ukvarja s kršitvijo.
As an example, there is a separate Infringement Unit within the ENVI Directorate General that plays an essential role of centralisation and coordination of the whole implementation policy in the environmental sector, since very often different directives are concerned in a single procedure, whereas in the Internal Market there is no separate Unit dealing with infringement.
Čeprav se je v obeh primerih treba bolj prizadevati za krepitev sposobnosti za odgovor na pritožbo.
In both cases though, more effort should be put into strengthening the capability to answer complaints.
Na primer, težko je razumeti, da sta za 10 novih držav članic v Enoti za ugotavljanje kršitev v DG za okolje le dva člana osebja.
For example, it is difficult to understand how for the 10 new Member States there is only a total of 2 staff members in the DG Environment infringement unit.
Poročevalka odbora je izrecno zahtevala informacije in podatke o sredstvih, dodeljenih za izvajanje politike.
The Committee's rapporteur has specifically asked for information and data on the resources allocated for the implementation policy.