natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V. ker je Komisija nameravala delovati v skladu s priporočili na drugih področjih, na katerih ima Skupnost pristojnost, tudi na področju ureditve avtorskih pravic in omejevanja odgovornosti revizorja, ali je vsaj razmišljala o tem;
V. whereas the Commission has contemplated or seems to be considering acting by recommendation in other areas in which the Community has legislative competence, including the regulation of copyright levies and caps on auditors' liability,
W. ker ostaja poleg tega projekt pogodbenega prava v okviru mehkega prava;
W. whereas, in addition, the contract law project remains still in the nature of soft law,
X. ker lahko mehko pravo, ko ima Skupnost zakonodajno pristojnost, vendar se zaradi pomanjkanja politične volje ne uvede zakonodaja, obide pristojna zakonodajna telesa, kar lahko povzroči kršitev načel demokratičnosti in pravne države iz člena 6 Pogodbe o EU, ter načeli subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe o ES ter povzroči, da Komisija prekorači svoje pristojnosti;
X. whereas, where the Community has legislative competence but there seems to be a lack of political will to introduce legislation, the use of soft law is liable to circumvent the properly competent legislative bodies, may flout the principles of democracy and the rule of law under Article 6 of the EU Treaty, and also those of subsidiarity and proportionality under Article 5 of the EC Treaty, and may result in the Commission’s acting ultra vires ,
Y. ker mehko pravo tudi ustvarja občutek "nadbirokracije" brez demokratične legitimnosti, ki ni le oddaljena od državljanov, ampak je do njih dejansko sovražna, in ki se je pripravljena prilagoditi močnim lobijem, s katerimi pogajanja niso ne pregledna ne razumljiva državljanom, in ker lahko imajo prizadete tretje stranke (npr. potrošniki) zaradi njega utemeljena pričakovanja, pri čemer se ne morejo pravno braniti pred akti, ki imajo za njih negativne pravne učinke,
Y. whereas soft law also tends to create a public perception of a ‘superbureaucracy’ without democratic legitimacy, not just remote from citizens but actually hostile to them, and willing to reach accommodations with powerful lobbies in which the negotiations are neither transparent nor comprehensible to citizens, and whereas this may raise legitimate expectations on the part of third parties affected (e.g. consumers) who then have no way of defending them at law in the face of acts having adverse legal effects for them,
Z. ker se načrt za boljšo zakonodajo ne bi smel omajati, zato da bi lahko izvršni organi Skupnosti učinkovito sprejemali zakonodajo z instrumenti mehkega prava, s čimer bi potencialno ogrozili pravni red Skupnosti, se izognili vpletenosti demokratično izvoljenega Parlamenta in pravnemu pregledu, ki bi ga izvedlo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, ter prikrajšali državljane za pravna sredstva,
Z. whereas the better-legislation agenda should not be subverted in order to allow the Community executive effectively to legislate by means of soft-law instruments, thereby potentially undermining the Community legal order, avoiding the involvement of the democratically-elected Parliament and legal review by the Court of Justice and depriving citizens of legal remedies,
Za. ker ni določen noben postopek za posvetovanje s Parlamentom glede predlagane uporabe instrumentov mehkega prava, kot so priporočila in razlagalna sporočila;
Za. whereas no procedure is laid down for consulting Parliament on the proposed use of soft-law instruments, such as recommendations and interpretative communications,
5. obžaluje, da uporablja Komisija mehko pravo, kadar predstavlja nadomestek za zakonodajo EU, ki je sama po sebi še vedno nujna, ob upoštevanju načel subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, ali kadar prenaša sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti na neznano območje;
Deplores the use of soft law by the Commission where it is a surrogate for EU legislation that is still necessary per se, having due regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, or where it extrapolates the case-law of the Court of Justice into uncharted territory;
7. poziva Komisijo, naj si še posebej prizadeva za zagotovitev preglednosti, vidnosti in javne odgovornosti v postopku sprejemanja nezavezujočih aktov Skupnosti, ter naj poveča uporabo ocene učinka v postopku odločanja;
Urges the Commission to make a particular effort to guarantee transparency, visibility and public accountability in the process of adopting non-binding Community acts, as well as to increase the use of impact assessment in the decision-making process;
9. v zvezi s sporočili Komisije meni, da iz zelenih in belih knjig ne izhajajo neposredne pravne obveznosti; meni pa, da se ne bi smelo šteti, da iz sprejetih dokumentov posvetovanj in izjav o političnih ciljih izhaja pravna obveznost sprejemanja odgovarjajočih ureditev;
Is of the opinion, as regards Commission communications, that green and white papers do not give rise to any direct legal obligations; takes the view, however, that the adoption of consultation papers and political declarations of intent should not be seen as implying any legal obligation to enact the corresponding regulations;
Zadeva C-57/95 Francija proti Komisiji , [1997] ECR I-1672, str.
Case C-57/95 France v Commission [1997] ECR I-1672, at p.
15. meni, da lahko medinstitucionalni dogovori pravno učinkujejo le na odnose med institucijami EU in zato ne predstavljajo mehkega prava, ki ga opredeljujejo pravni učinki v razmerju do tretjih strank;
Considers that interinstitutional agreements can produce legal effects only on relationships between EU institutions and that they therefore do not constitute soft law defined in terms of a legal effect in relation to third parties;
MNENJE Odbora za ustavne zadeve (*)
OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (*)
o pravnih in institucionalnih vidikih uporabe instrumentov „mehkega prava“
on the institutional and legal implications of the use of 'soft law' instruments
A. ker mora Evropska unija spoštovati načelo sorazmernosti (člen 5(2) PES) in se zato ne sme po nepotrebnem posluževati svoje zakonodajne funkcije,
A. whereas the European Union must respect the principle of proportionality (Article 5.2 TEC) and, therefore, refrain from resorting to legislation unnecessarily,
B. ker je uporaba "mehkega prava" v Evropski uniji že vsestransko preizkušena alternativa zakonodaji ali priprava zanjo,
B. whereas the use of 'soft law' is a widely tried and tested alternative to, or preparation for, legislation in the European Union,
C. ker poleg tega, da spoštuje pravico Komisije do pobude, Parlament podpira tudi svojo pravico, da Komisijo pozove, naj poda zakonodajni predlog (člen 192 PES),
C. whereas, as well as respecting the right of initiative of the Commission, Parliament also upholds its own right to invite the Commission to make a legislative proposal (Article 192 TEC),
D. ker so se instrumenti "mehkega prava", ki sicer niso pravno zavezujoči, vendar imajo lahko vseeno nekatere posredne pravne učinke, izkazali za sposobne učinkovitega urejanja nekaterih področij dejavnosti Skupnosti v zvezi s pogodbami o EU ter pod pogoji, ki so v njih določeni,
D. whereas 'soft law' instruments, which have not been attributed legally binding force as such, but which, nevertheless may have certain - indirect - legal effects, have proved capable of effectively regulating some areas of community activity, in the context of, and under the conditions laid down in, the EU Treaties,
E. ker priporočila, če se jih ne uporablja dovolj pazljivo, imajo lahko za posledico dejstvo, da nekateri akti Komisije presežejo njena pooblastila,
E. whereas it is possible that the recommendations, if used without sufficient care, may result in certain acts of the Commission being ultra vires,
F. ker Parlament trdno podpira Medinstitucionalni sporazum o boljši pripravi zakonodaje iz leta 2003,
F. whereas Parliament strongly supports the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making of 2003,
G. ker trenutno poteka razprava o tem, kako bi se lahko izboljšalo učinkovitost regulativne funkcije Evropske unije, tako kar zadeva "mehko pravo" kot tudi, kar zadeva "trdo pravo",
G. whereas there is currently a dispute as to how to make the regulatory function of the European Union more efficient with regard to both 'soft law' and 'hard law',
H. ker "mehko pravo" ne nudi popolnega sodnega varstva,
H. whereas 'soft law' does not provide full judicial protection,
I. ker bo obsežna uporaba instrumentov "mehkega prava" pomenila premik z edinstvenega modela Skupnosti na bolj tradicionalne modele mednarodnih organizacij,
I. whereas extensive recourse to 'soft law' instruments shall signify a shift from the unique Community model to that of a traditional international organisation,
J. ker je treba instrumente "mehkega prava" uporabiti kot pripravljalne instrumente za zavezujoče zakonodajne akte, ki bodo nadomeščeni, ko bo dosežena ustrezna zakonodajna volja; in ker so v pomoč pri razlagi in uveljavljanju zakonodaje Skupnosti,
J. whereas 'soft law' instruments are to be used as preparatory instruments for binding legislative acts, subject to being replaced when the appropriate legislative will is arrived at; and whereas they assist in the interpretation and enforcement of Community legislation,
K. ker je "mehko pravo" široko sprejeta interaktivna oblika regulativne politike EU, skupaj z usklajevanjem, sodelovanjem, pogajanjem in hierarhijo,
K. whereas as 'soft law' constitutes a widely accepted interactive form of EU regulatory policy along with coordination, cooperation, negotiation and hierarchy,
Pravni in institucionalni vidiki uporabe instrumentov „mehkega prava“
Institutional and legal implications of the use of 'soft law' instruments
Filip Dimitrov Dimitrov 1.3.2007
Philip Dimitrov Dimitrov 1.3.2007
Enrique Barón Crespo, Richard Corbett, Brian Crowley, Filip Dimitrov Dimitrov, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Ingo Friedrich, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Rihards Pīks
Enrique Barón Crespo, Richard Corbett, Brian Crowley, Philip Dimitrov Dimitrov, Andrew Duff, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Ingo Friedrich, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Jo Leinen, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Rihards Pīks
o pravnih in institucionalnih vidikih uporabe instrumentov „mehkega prava“
on the institutional and legal implications of the use of ‘soft law’ instruments
Odbor za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov poziva Odbor za pravne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
3. meni, da je treba bolje pojasniti, v kolikšni meri in v katerih pogojih je uporaba mehkega prava sprejemljiva; meni, da morata Parlament in Svet določiti merila za uporabo mehkega prava; soglaša s Sodiščem, da v večini primerov ni pravno zavezujočega učinka
Is of the opinion that there is a need for further clarification as to how far and under what conditions soft law may be used; believes that it is the responsibility of Parliament and the Council to establish the criteria for the use of soft law; agrees with the Court that in most cases soft law is not legally binding
Sodbe v zadevi 108/83, Luksemburg / Parlament , letno poročilo 1984, 1945, str.
Judgments in Case 108/83 Luxembourg v Parliament [1984] ECR 1945, at p.
1957; Zadeva 310/ 85 Deufil / Komisija , letno poročilo 1987, 901, str.
1957; Case 310/85 Deufil v Commission [1987] ECR 901, at p.
927; Zadeva C-313/90 CIRFS in drugi / Komisija , letno poročilo 1993, I-1125, str.
927; Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, at p.
6. v zvezi s sporočili Komisije meni, da iz zelenih in belih knjig ne izhajajo neposredne pravne obveznosti; meni pa, da se ne bi smelo šteti, da iz sprejetih dokumentov posvetovanj in izjav o političnih ciljih izhaja pravna obveznost sprejemanja odgovarjajočih ureditev;
Is of the opinion, as regards Commission communications, that green and white papers do not give rise to any direct legal obligations; takes the view, however, that the adoption of consultation papers and political declarations of intent should not be seen as implying any legal obligation to enact the corresponding regulations;
Zadeva 95/ 85 Deufil / Komisija , letno poročilo 1987, 901, str.
Case C-57/95 France v Commission cited above, at p.
11. meni, da lahko medinstitucionalni dogovori pravno učinkujejo le na odnose med institucijami EU in zato ne predstavljajo mehkega prava, ki ga opredeljujejo pravni učinki v razmerju do tretjih strank;
Considers that interinstitutional agreements can produce legal effects only on relationships between EU institutions and that they therefore do not constitute soft law defined in terms of a legal effect in relation to third parties;
Pravni in institucionalni vidiki uporabe instrumentov „mehkega prava“
Institutional and legal implications of the use of ‘soft law’ instruments
B. ker se razlike med dura lex/mollis lex ne bi smelo sprejeti ali je priznati, saj je konceptualno zmotna,
B. whereas the distinction between dura lex/mollis lex, being conceptually aberrant , should not be accepted or recognised,
C. ker tako imenovani instrumenti mehkega prava, kot so priporočila, zelene in bele knjige ali sklepi Sveta, nimajo nobene pravne vrednosti in niso zavezujoči,
C. whereas so-called soft law instruments, such as recommendations, green and white books or Council conclusions, do not have any legal value or binding force,
D. ker se takih instrumentov, ki jih je mogoče uporabiti kot razlagalna ali pripravljalna orodja za zavezujoče pravne akte, ne bi smelo obravnavati kot zakonodajo ali jim pripisovati učinkovitosti glede ustvarjanja norm,
D. whereas such instruments, which can be used as interpretative or preparatory tools for binding legislative acts, should neither be treated as legislation nor be given any norm-setting effectiveness,
E. ker bi takšen položaj ustvaril zmedo in negotovost na področju, na katerem bi morali prevladovati jasnost in pravna varnost, v interesu držav članic in državljanov,
E. whereas such a situation would bring confusion and insecurity to a field in which clarity and legal certainty should prevail, in the interest of the Member States and of the citizens ,
3. poudarja, da je zlasti na področju izobraževanja, usposabljanja in mladine odprta metoda usklajevanja običajna oblika sodelovanja; obžaluje, da je vključenost Parlamenta majhna;
Points out that, especially in the fields of education, training and youth, the open method of coordination is a common form of cooperation; deplores the fact that Parliament's involvement is weak;
6. zato poudarja, da se je treba izrazu mehko pravo , pa tudi sklicevanju nanj v vseh uradnih dokumentih Evropskih institucij vedno izogibati.
Stresses, therefore, that the expression of soft law, as well as its invocation, should be avoided at all times in any official documents of the European institutions.
o priporočilu za sklep Sveta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije h Konvenciji z dne 26. julija 1995 na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Konvencija o Europolu)
on the recommendation for a Council decision concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 26 July 1995, based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)
* Posvetovalni postopek
* Consultation procedure
absolutna večina poslancev Parlamenta, razen v primerih, navedenih v členih 105, 107, 161 in 300 Pogodbe ES in členu°7 Pogodbe EU
majority of Parliament’s component Members except in cases covered by Articles 105, 107, 161 and 300 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of the EU Treaty
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2007)0215 )
– having regard to the Commission recommendation to the Council ( COM(2007)0215 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 3(4) Akta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6­0169/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 3(4) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0169/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0260/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0260/2007 ),
Akt o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije
The 2005 Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania
V prilogi I k temu aktu je seznam sedmih konvencij in protokolov za področje pravosodja in notranjih zadev, ki vključuje Konvencijo z dne 26. julija o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Konvencija o Europolu), Protokol z dne 24. julija 1996 o razlagi Konvencije o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada s predhodnim odločanjem Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, oba sestavljena na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, Protokol z dne 19. junija 1997, sestavljen na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji in člena 41(3) Konvencije o Europolu, o privilegijih in imunitetah Europola, članov njegovih organov, namestnikov direktorja in uslužbencev Europola, Protokol z dne 30. novembra 2000, sestavljen na podlagi člena 43(1) Konvencije o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Konvencija o Europolu) o spremembi člena 2 in Priloge k tej konvenciji, Protokol z dne 28. novembra 2002 o spremembi Konvencije o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Konvencija o Europolu) in Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Europola, članov njegovih organov, namestnikov direktorja in uslužbencev Europola, ter Protokol z dne 27. novembra 2003, sestavljen na podlagi člena 43(1) Konvencije o ustanovitvi Evropskega policijskega urada (Konvencija o Europolu), ki spreminja to konvencijo.
Annex I to the above-mentioned Act of Accession gives the list of the seven conventions and protocols concerned in the Justice and Home Affairs area, including the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Protocol of 24 July 1996 on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office, both based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol of 19 June 1997, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 41 (3) of the Europol Convention, on the privileges and immunities of Europol, the members of its organs, the deputy directors and employees of Europol, the Protocol of 30 November 2000, drawn up on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) amending Article 2 and the Annex to that Convention, the Protocol of 28 November 2002 amending the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) and the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of Europol, the members of its organs, the deputy directors and the employees of Europol, and the Protocol of 27 November 2003, drawn up on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), amending that Convention.
Zaradi navedene poenostavitve sistema ni več treba sklepati in se pogajati o posebnih pridružitvenih protokolih.
Taking into account the above-mentioned simplified system, it is not anymore necessary to negotiate and conclude specific accession protocols.
Da bi konvencija o Europolu in z njo povezani protokoli začeli veljati za Bolgarijo in Romunijo, se mora Svet pred sprejetjem sklepa, ki določa datum začetka veljavnosti konvencije in njenih protokolov
In order to make the Europol Convention and its related protocols enter into force for Bulgaria and Romania, the Council should only adopt a decision determining the date on which the Convention and its protocols shall enter into force, after having consulted the European Parliament
V skladu s členoma 3(3) in 3(4) Akta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije iz leta 2005, UL 2005, L 157, str.
According to article 3(3) and 3 (4) of the 2005 Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, OJ 2005, L 157, p.203 .
Poročevalka zato predlaga, da se sklep Sveta sprejme brez predlogov sprememb.
The rapporteur therefore proposes to adopt the Council decision without amendments.
Ne glede na to poziva Svet, naj sklep Sveta spremeni na podlagi priporočila Komisije v zvezi z začetkom veljavnosti zadnjih treh protokolov
However, the rapporteur invites the Council to rectify the Council decision based on the Commission's recommendation as regards the entry into force of the three last protocols
Protokoli z dne 30. novembra 2000, 28. novembra 2002 in 27. novembra 2003. , saj so ti začeli veljati marca/aprila 2007.
The Protocols of 30 November 2000, 28 November 2002 and 27 November 2003. since they entered into force in March/April 2007.
Ker njihov povratni učinek za Romunijo in Bolgarijo ni mogoč, je treba po sprejetju tega sklepa določiti nov datum.
Since no retroactive effect will be possible for Bulgaria and Romania, a new date following the adoption of this decision should be foreseen.
Pristop Bolgarije in Romunije h Konvenciji o Europolu z dne 26. julija 1995
Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the Europol Convention
o priporočilu za sprejetje sklepa Sveta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije h Konvenciji z dne 29. maja 2000, ki jo je Svet sklenil v skladu s členom 34 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami Evropske unije
on the recommendation for a Council decision concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 29 May 2000, established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2007)0213 )
– having regard to the Commission recommendation ( COM(2007)0213 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 3(4) akta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom( C6-0158/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 3(4) of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0158/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0261/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6‑0261/2007 ),
Priloga I k navedenemu aktu o pristopu vključuje seznam sedmih konvencij in zadevnih protokolov na področju pravosodja in notranjih zadev, vključno s konvencijo z dne 29. maja 2000, ki jo je Svet sklenil v skladu s členom 34 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami Evropske unije in protokolom z dne 16. oktobra 2001, ki ga je Svet sklenil v skladu s členom 34 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, h Konvenciji o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami Evropske unije.
Annex I to the above-mentioned Act of Accession gives the list of the seven conventions and protocols concerned in the Justice and Home Affairs area, including the Convention of 29 May 2000, established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and its Protocol of 16 October 2001, established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega poenostavljenega sistema pogajanja in sklepanje posebnih pridružitvenih protokolov niso več potrebni.
Taking into account the above-mentioned simplified system, it is not anymore necessary to negotiate and conclude specific accession protocols.