natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– Če države članice niso udeležene v vseh sistemih, kolikšno besedo naj imajo pri sprejemanju zakonodajne pobude o ustanovitvi agencije?
- When Member States do not participate in all of the systems, how much of a say should they be allowed in the adoption of the legislative initiative establishing the Agency?
– Do kakšne mere je uredba za te države članice obvezujoča?
- To what extent is the regulation binding on those Member States?
Predlog Komisije ni povsem jasen.
The Commission proposal is not entirely clear.
Po eni strani je Komisija prepričana, da predlog korenini v schengenskem pravnem redu.
On the one hand, the Commission believes the proposal as a whole to be a measure building upon the Schengen acquis .
A uvodni izjavi 24 in 25 predloga Komisije se, nasprotno, nanašata na sodelovanje Združenega kraljestva in Irske v pravnem okviru za te tri podatkovne zbirke.
On the other hand, recitals 24 and 25 of the Commission proposal make reference to the respective participation of United Kingdom and Ireland in the legal framework of each one of the three databases.
Predlog torej očitno skuša določiti, kolikšno besedo naj imata ti dve državi članici pri njegovem sprejemanju in v kakšnem obsegu se bo sprejeto besedilo uporabljalo zanju.
On this basis, the proposal seeks to determine to what extent those States may participate in the adoption of the legislative proposal and will be bound by the text adopted.
Uvodna izjava 24, glede Združenega kraljestva, zgolj splošno navaja, da ta država lahko sodeluje pri sprejetju uredbe in jo mora uporabljati za zadeve SIS II in VIS, ki ne sodijo pod nekdanji prvi steber.
However, as regards the United Kingdom, recital 24 only states in a general way that the United Kingdom participates in the adoption and is bound by the application of the regulation in so far as it does not relate to the former first-pillar part of SIS II or to VIS.
Podobno splošno opredelitev je mogoče najti v uvodni izjavi 25, ki se nanaša na Irsko.
A similar general formula can be found in recital 25 as regards Ireland.
V mnenju s 7. junija 2010 je pravna služba Evropskega parlamenta opozorila na sodbo Sodišča z 18. septembra 2009 v sporu med Združenim kraljestvom in Svetom (Zadeva C–77/05) o sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 2007/2004 o ustanovitvi agencije Frontex).
In its opinion of 7 June 2010 the EP’s Legal Service drew attention to the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice on 18 September 2009 in a dispute between the United Kingdom and the Council (Case C-77/05 on the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 – the Frontex Regulation).
Sodišče je zavzelo stališče, da čeprav je Združeno kraljestvo uradno sicer zaprosilo za sodelovanje pri sprejetju te uredbe, pa naj se mu to ne dovoli, ker se država ni strinjala, da bi bil ustrezni del schengenskega pravnega reda zanjo zavezujoč.
The Court took the view that although the United Kingdom had formally asked to take part in the adoption of the regulation, it should not be authorised to do so, since it had not agreed to be bound by the relevant part of the Schengen acquis .
Še ena podobna zadeva je v teku pred Sodiščem (v zvezi s sprejetjem Sklepa Sveta 2008/633/PNZ o VIS).
Another action on a similar subject is currently before the Court (concerning the adoption of Council Decision 2008/633/JHA on VIS).
Po mnenju pravne službe uvodni izjavi 24 in 25 v predlogu Komisije ne zagotavljata v zadostni meri, „da bi sprejetje te uredbe potekalo na pregleden način v skladu z navedeno sodno prakso Sodišča“.
In the view of the Legal Service, recitals 24 and 25 of the Commission’s proposal ‘ are not sufficient to ensure that the adoption of this Regulation would take place in a manner that is transparent and consistent with the above-mentioned case-law of the Court of Justice ’.
Še več, „nemogoče bi bilo (...) določiti pravne posledice akta v povezavi z Združenim kraljestvom in Irsko, kar bi vodilo v pravno negotovost, ki je v nasprotju z nečeli prava Unije“.
Moreover, ‘ it would be impossible (...) to determine the legal effects of the act in relation to the United Kingdom and Ireland, which would therefore create a situation of legal uncertainty, contrary to the principles of Union law ’ .
Parlament in Svet, ki si delita zakonodajno moč, skrbno proučujeta predlagane alternativne možnosti za razrešitev pravnega vprašanja, ki je bilo izpostavljeno v pravnem mnenju.
The EP and the Council, which share legislative power, are carefully considering the alternatives to overcome the legal problem highlighted in the legal opinion.
Pravne službe trenutno preučujejo tri možnosti.
Three options are currently being studied by the respective Legal Services:
(Naprimer z uredbo o ustanovitvi agencije in ločenimi zakonodajni instrumenti za podelitev pooblastil agenciji in ureditev upravljanja sistemov.
(For example a regulation establishing the Agency and separate legal instruments conferring powers on the Agency and governing the management of each system.
Kolikšno besedo bi pri odločanju imele posamezne države članice, bi bilo odvisno od obsega njihove udeležbe v določenem sistemu).
The say to be accorded to the individual Member States would depend on the extent of their participation in the system in question).
MOŽNOST – Predlog se dopolni tako, da se jasno navede, kakšne glasovalne pravice naj bi glede agencije imele posamezne države članice.
A decision could, in addition, be adopted if the United Kingdom and Ireland were to ask to exercise their right to opt into the regulation establishing the Agency.
Ob sprejemanju zakonodajnih instrumentov za SIS II in VIS sta Parlament in Svet Komisijo pozvala, naj pripravi potrebne zakonodajne pobude za ustanovitev organa, ki bi sistema upravljal.
When they adopted the legislative instruments on SIS II and VIS, the EP and the Council called on the Commission to submit the legislative initiatives necessary to set up a body to manage the systems.
Komisija je pripravila oceno učinka, s katero je želela ugotoviti, katera rešitev bi bila najboljša s finančnega, operativnega in institucionalnega vidika.
The Commission has produced an impact assessment in order to determine what would be the best solution from the financial, operational, and institutional point of view.
Poročevalec meni, da je med različnimi možnostmi, ki jih je Komisija predstavila v svoji študiji, ustanovitev evropske agencije še najboljša.
The rapporteur believes that, among the various options set out in the Commission’s study, setting up a European agency is the best.
Zakaj potrebujemo novo agencijo?
Why we need to establish a new agency
Preprosto druge rešitve ni.
There is plainly no other solution.
Naložiti odgovornost Komisiji ne bi bilo prav, še zlasti ne zaradi neskončnih težav, ki so se v zadnjih letih pojavljale pri razvoju teh sistemov.
It would be quite wrong to assign the responsibility to the Commission, especially in view of the protracted problems that have occurred in recent years regarding the development of the systems.
Poleg tega je Komisija že večkrat opozorila, da je zagon Eurodaca le začasna rešitev v sili in da sama ni v položaju, da bi lahko prevzela neposredno odgovornost za upravljanje obsežnih informacijskih sistemov.
Furthermore, the Commission itself has repeatedly pointed out that its running of Eurodac is merely a stopgap solution and that it does not consider itself equal to assuming direct management responsibility for large-scale IT systems.
Zakaj tudi izvajalska agencija ni rešitev?
Why would the solution not lie in an executive agency?
Ker bi v tem primeru zakonodajna oblast agencije ne mogla oblikovati in izvajati demokratičnega nadzora.
Because in that case the legislature would be denied the possibility to shape the agency and exercise its democratic scrutiny.
Če Komisija ustanovi izvajalsko agencijo, je ta pod nadzorom in v pristojnosti izključno Komisije.
Executive agencies are set up by the Commission entirely under its supervision and responsibility.
Komisija določi njene naloge in imenuje upravne organe, tudi direktorja.
The Commission lays down their tasks and appoints their managing bodies, including the director.
Izvajalska agencija je časovno omejena, torej predstavlja začasno rešitev.
An executive agency has a limited life and would thus be a temporary solution.
Razširitev pristojnosti agencije na še druge sisteme
Extending the Agency’s responsibilities to cover other systems
Po mnenju poročevalca je treba jasno opredeliti, da bi bila širša pooblastila agencije, s katerimi bi ta lahko upravljala nove take sisteme, če bi do njih prišlo, možna samo, če bi se določila s posebnimi zakonodajnimi instrumenti.
One point which the rapporteur believes has to be made clear is that wider powers for the Agency, allowing it to manage such new systems as might be set up, could be created only under specific legal instruments.
Jasna opredelitev ciljev in nalog agencije
Clarifying the Agency’s aims and tasks
Pomembno je opozoriti, da cilji in naloge agencije veljajo zgolj na tehnični ravni operativnega upravljanja.
It is important to stress that the Agency’s aims and tasks apply purely at the technical level of operational management.
Agencija ne sme biti pooblaščena za sprejemanje političnih odločitev, naprimer o novih sistemih ali v zvezi z interoperabilnostjo sistemov.
The Agency must not have the power to take policy decisions, for instance to set up new systems or concerning system interoperability.
Pilotni projekti
P ilot projects
Pametno bi bilo določiti pravila, s katerimi bi agenciji preprečili, da bi se njena pristojnost zaradi bohotenja pilotnih projektov ne razširila prek nadzora in preglednosti.
It would be wise to lay down rules to prevent the Agency’s responsibilities being widened de facto through a proliferation of pilot projects beyond the range of supervision and transparency.
Sedež agencije
Siting of the Agency
Dve državi se potegujeta za sedež agencije: Estonija in Francija.
There are two candidates for the seat of the Agency: Estonia and France.
Poročevalec meni, da zaenkrat še ne bi smeli predlagati lokacije, čeprav je Parlament skupaj s Svetom pristojen za to, da sprejme potrebno odločitev.
The rapporteur does not think it right to propose a place for the time being, even though Parliament, together with the Council, has the power to take the necessary decision.
Vseeno bi Parlament moral opredeliti nekaj meril, ki jih bo treba izpolnjevati, če naj sprejme tehtno odločitev:
Parliament should, however, spell out certain criteria that will need to be observed in order to produce a sound decision:
– Iz varnostnih in proračunskih razlogov bi bilo bolje, če bi bila agencija na eni lokaciji (v nasprotju z decentralizirano ureditvijo); imeti obsežno infrastrukturo in obilico človeških virov ni ravno dobro.
- For security and budgetary reasons, it would be preferable for the Agency to be based in one place (as opposed to a decentralised arrangement); a plethora of infrastructures and human resources does not seem a good idea.
– Agencija bi morala biti lastnica prostorov ali jih vsaj najemati, s čimer bi povečali varnost stavbe, teh prostorov pa ne bi smela deliti za uporobo drugih nacionalnih sistemov.
- The facilities should be owned or rented by the Agency, so as to enhance possibilities to ensure the security of the building, and not shared with any other national system.
– Varnostna merila morajo biti kar najvišja, tako za fizične zmogljivosti kot za podatke.
- Security standards must be as high as possible, both as regards the physical facilities and as regards data.
– Sedež mora predstavljati cenovno najučinkovitejšo rešitev.
- The seat must constitute the most cost-effective solution.
Komunikacijska infrastruktura
Communication infrastructure
Kot je to določeno s pravnim okvirom za SIS II, bo agencija delno odgovorna za komunikacijsko infrastrukturo, zlasti kar zadeva nadzor in varnost, to pa zato, da se znotraj pravnega okvira za vsak posamezni sistem zagotovi varna mreža za izmenjavo podatkov.
As laid down in the SIS II legal framework, the Agency will be partly responsible for the communication infrastructure, specifically as regards its supervision and security, the object being to make the network secure for data exchange within the legal framework for each of the systems involved.
Izredno pomembno je, da se omrežje zaščiti pred vsakršno grožnjo in zagotavlja varnost, ne le samega omrežja, pač pa tudi posredovanih podatkov.
It is vital to protect the network from threats of every kind and guarantee security, not only of the network as such, but also of the data transmitted.
Po mnenju poročevalca posebna komunikacijska infrastruktura za vse tri sisteme skupaj ne bi bila prava rešitev, saj bi bile njene posledice vsaj z vidika proračuna precejšnje.
The rapporteur does not believe that an exclusive communication infrastructure should be set up for the three systems, not least because, in budget terms, the impact of this solution would be considerable.
Možen je prenos nalog na zunanjega izvajalca, a pod strogimi merili.
The possibility of outsourcing is available, but subject to stringent criteria.
To bi, denimo, zahtevalo precej sprememb v omrežju s-TESTA, da bi bile izpolnjene vse zahteve.
Significant changes would need to be made to, for example, the s-TESTA network in order to fulfil the requirements.
V strukturi agencije mora biti tudi:
The str ucture of the Agency should also comprise
– uradna oseba za varstvo podatkov
- a Data Protection Officer
– uradnik za varnost
- a Security Officer
Tako kot pravna služba Parlamenta (glej prej navedeni del njenega mnenja) tudi poročevalec meni, da je treba upoštevati sodbo Sodišča.
Like Parliament’s Legal Service (see the opinion reproduced above), the rapporteur believes that the ruling of the Court of Justice must be taken into account.
Komisijo in Svet poziva, naj si dejavno prizadevata za rešitev pravnih težav in tako poskrbita za kar največjo jasnost, ko bo agencija ustanovljena.
He calls on the Commission and Council to seek actively to resolve the legal problems so as to make for the utmost clarity when the Agency is to be established.
Člani upravnega odbora in glasovalne pravice
Memb ers of the Management Board and voting rights
Pri načelu neobveznega sodelovanja sta bistvenega pomena vodstvena struktura agencije in sodelovanje držav članic.
The Agency’s management structure and the Member States’ participation are determined by variable geometry.
Zdi se samo po sebi umevno, da država članica, ki ne sodeluje v sistemu, ne more dostopati do podatkov ali imeti odločilne vloge ali možnosti glasovanja o zadevah, povezanih s tem sistemom.
It seems obvious that a Member State which does not take part in a system should not be able to access information or have a say in, or vote on, matters related to that system.
Zapletenejše je, kako postopati, če države članice sodelujejo le do določene mere v samo nekaterih vidikih sistema.
A trickier problem is posed by Member States which participate only to some extent in certain aspects of a system.
S predlogom spremembe je poročevalec skušal vzpostaviti jasne pogoje za sodelovanje posameznih držav članic in pridruženih tretjih držav v vsakem od sistemov.
Through his amendments the rapporteur has attempted to establish clear-cut arrangements for the participation of individual Member States and the associated third countries in each of the systems.
Predsednik naj bi bil izbran med člani, ki jih kot kandidate imenujejo države članice, ki v celoti uporabljajo vse instrumente, povezane s sistemi, ki jih upravlja agencija.
The Chairperson should be chosen from among the members designated by Member States which fully apply all of the instruments relating to the systems managed by the Agency.
Boljše varstvo podatkov in večji demokratični nadzor
Greater data protection and democratic scrutiny
Poročevalec je spremenil kar nekaj členov, da bi okrepil vlogo Parlamenta in povečal preglednost.
The rapporteur has amended a number of articles in an attempt to strengthen Parliament’s role and enhance transparency.
Podobno je želel z okrepljeno vlogo Evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov poostriti pravila o varovanju podatkov, integriteto in varnost osebnih podatkov.
He has likewise sought to tighten up the rules on data protection and the integrity and security of personal data by strengthening the role of the European Data Protection Supervisor.
Natančno opredeliti in povečati bi bilo treba tudi vlogo Parlamenta pri izbiri kandidatov za mesto izvršnega direktorja.
Parliament’s role in selecting candidates for the post of executive director should be clearly defined and strengthened.
Zadeva: Mnenje o pravni podlagi za spremenjeni predlog uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o ustanovitvi agencije za operativno upravljanje obsežnih informacijskih sistemov na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice ( KOM(2010)0093 – C7‑0046/2009 – 2009/0089(COD) )
Subject: Opinion on the legal basis of the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice ( COM(2010)0093 – C7‑0046/2009 – 2009/0089(COD) )
v pismu z dne 14. marca 2011 ste v skladu s členom 37(2) poslovnika Odbor za pravne zadeve zaprosili, da preuči, ali naj se navedenemu predlogu uredbe dodata dve novi pravni podlagi.
By letter of 14 March 2011 you asked the Committee on Legal Affairs pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to consider the addition of two legal bases to the above proposal for a regulation.
Odbor je omenjeno vprašanje obravnaval na seji dne 12. marca 2011.
The committee considered the above question at its meeting of 12 April 2011.
Pravna podlaga, ki jo predlaga Komisija, so členi 74, 77(2)(a) in (b), 78(2)(e), 79(2)(c), 82(1)(d) in 87(2)(a) PDEU, vsi iz naslova V „Območje svobode, varnosti in pravice”.
The legal bases proposed by the Commission are Articles 74, 77(2)(a) and (b), 78(2)(e), 79(2)(c), 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU, all of which fall under Title V, entitled "Area of freedom, security and justice".
Predlagani pravni podlagi, ki naj se dodata, sta člena 85(1) in 88(2) PDEU, ki prav tako sodita pod naslov V in predpisujeta postopek, ki se uporablja pri določanju strukture, delovanja, področja ukrepanja in nalog Eurojusta in Europola.
The legal bases proposed to be added are Articles 85(1) and 88(2) TFEU, both of which also come under Title V, which set out the procedure to be used when determining the structure, operation, field of action and tasks of Eurojust and Europol, respectively.
Komisija je junija 2009 sprejela sveženj predlogov za ustanovitev agencije, odgovorne za operativno upravljanje obsežnih informacijskih sistemov na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice.
In June 2009 the Commission presented a package proposal to establish an Agency responsible for the operational management of large-scale information technology systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, consisting of a proposal for a regulation establishing the Agency and a proposal for a Council Decision conferring upon the Agency established by this regulation tasks regarding the operational management of the Second Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and the European Dactylscopy (EURODAC) in application of Title VI of the EU Treaty, under the former third pillar.
Sveženj je vključeval predlog uredbe o ustanovitvi agencije in predlog sklepa Sveta o pooblastitvi agencije, ustanovljene s to uredbo, za naloge v zvezi z operativnim upravljanjem druge generacije schengenskega informacijskega sistema (SIS II), vizumskega informacijskega sistema (VIS) in EURODAC pri uporabi naslova VI Pogodbe o EU v okviru nekdanjega tretjega stebra.
As we know, the Lisbon Treaty did away with the pillar structure and now virtually all legislation coming within the area of freedom, security and justice has to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Zato je Komisija predstavila omenjeni predlog uredbe, v katerem so upoštevane spremembe, ki so posledica začetka veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe, in ki vsebuje določbe, ki so bile prvotno predlagane v obliki sklepa Sveta.
The Commission therefore presented the above amended proposal for a regulation which takes into account the changes resulting from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and contains the provisions initially proposed as a Council decision.
V Odboru za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve je 11. oktobra 2010 potekalo orientacijsko glasovanje o predlogih sprememb k osnutku poročila, ki je dalo poročevalcu Carlosu Coelhu pooblastila v pogajanju s Svetom.
An orientation vote took place in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 11 October 2010 on amendments to a draft report in order to provide its rapporteur, Mr Carlos Coelho, with a mandate in negotiations with the Council.
Neuradni trialog na ravni strokovnjakov je potekal med novembrom 2010 in marcem 2011.
Informal trialogues at experts' level were held between November 2011 and March 2011.
Na predlog pravne službe Sveta je sporazumno besedilo, ki je predstavljalo podlago za trialog na visoki ravni, predviden konec marca 2011, vključevalo dve dodatni predlagani pravni podlagi, in sicer člena 85(1) in 88(2) PDEU, ki naj bi dopolnila pravno podlago instrumenta iz nekdanjega tretjega stebra
At the suggestion of the Council Legal Service, the compromise text which constituted the basis for a high-level trialogue scheduled for the end of March 2011 included the addition of the suggested two new legal bases, namely Articles 85(1) and 88(2) TFEU, in order to supplement the legal basis of the ex-third pillar instrument
Dokument Sveta 7638/11 z dne 11. marca 2011. .
Council document 7638/11 of 11 March 2011. .
II - Zadevni členi PDEU
II - Relevant Articles of the TFEU
Kot pravna podlaga za predlog Komisije so predloženi sledeči členi:
The following Articles are presented as the legal bases in the Commission proposal:
Odloča na predlog Komisije ob upoštevanju člena 76 in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom.
It shall act on a Commission proposal, subject to Article 76, and after consulting the European Parliament.
Akti iz poglavij 4 in 5 ter ukrepi iz člena 74, ki zagotavljajo upravno sodelovanje na področjih iz navedenih poglavij, se sprejmejo:
The acts referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, together with the measures referred to in Article 74 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Chapters, shall be adopted:
(a) na predlog Komisije, ali
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) na pobudo četrtine držav članic.
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
Unija oblikuje politiko, da bi:
The Union shall develop a policy with a view to:
(a) zagotovila, da se ne izvaja kontrola oseb pri prehajanju notranjih meja, ne glede na državljanstvo;
(a) ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders;
(b) izvajala kontrola oseb in učinkovit nadzor pri prehajanju zunanjih meja;
(b) carrying out checks on persons and efficient monitoring of the crossing of external borders;
(c) se postopno uvedel integriran sistem upravljanja zunanjih meja.
(c) the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders.
Unija oblikuje skupno politiko o azilu, subsidiarni zaščiti in začasni zaščiti z namenom ponuditi ustrezen status vsem državljanom tretjih držav, ki potrebujejo mednarodno zaščito, in zagotoviti skladnost z načelom nevračanja.
The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement .
Ta politika mora biti v skladu z Ženevsko konvencijo z dne 28. julija 1951 in Protokolom z dne 31. januarja 1967 o statusu beguncev ter drugimi ustreznimi Pogodbami.
This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.