natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Predlogu Komisije je priložen časovni razpored zmanjšanja količin alkohola, proizvedenega v skladu z monopolom, do popolne odprave 1. januarja 2018.
The Commission proposal is accompanied by a schedule of reduction in the quantities of alcohol produced under the monopoly until the total abolition on January 1 st 2018.
Poleg tega so skupni zneski omejeni, predvideni sta odškodnina ob izstopu iz monopola in obveznost letnega poročanja Komisiji o postopnem opuščanju.
Also, the total sums used are capped, provisions for compensations are made for leaving the monopoly and an obligation to report yearly to the Commission on the phasing-out is provided for.
Poročevalec se strinja s predlogom, saj poročila, ki jih je prejela Komisija ne kažejo kršitev konkurence na notranjem trgu zaradi monopola.
Your rapporteur is in favour of the proposal, as the reports presented to the Commission do not show any infringement of internal market competition through the Monopoly.
Poleg tega poročevalec poudarja pomen teh določb za nemško podeželsko gospodarstvo, zlasti za majhne žganjarne.
Your rapporteur further highlights the importance for the German rural economy of such provisions, particularly with regards to the small scale distilleries.
Na dosedanjih pogovorih s Svetom je predlog Komisije dobil široko podporo.
The talks carried out so far with Council have shown a broad support for the proposal of the Commission.
Tudi Evropski Ekonomsko-socialni odbor je v mnenju podprl predlog
Also, the opinion submitted by the European Ecoomic and Social Committee has granted support for the proposal
Mnenje strokovne skupine za kmetijstvo, razvoj podeželja in okolje o predlogu Uredbe (EU) št. xxxx/2010 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne ... o spremembi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 (Uredba o enotni SUT) v zvezi s pomočjo, dodeljeno v okviru nemškega alkoholnega monopola, NAT 478 pomoč/alkoholni monopol .
Opinion of the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment on the Proposal for a regulation (EU) No xxxx/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of … amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation) as regards the aid granted in the framework of the German Alcohol Monopoly, NAT 478 Aid/Alcohol monopoly .
Vendar poročevalec meni, da mora pri izvajanju Komisija preučiti nekatere točke.
However, your rapporteur believes several points need to be taken into consideration by the Commission with regards to implementation.
Najprej potrebujemo zagotovilo, da praksa podaljševanja posebnih ureditev v Uredbi o enotni SUT ne bo postala pravilo namesto izjema.
First of all, we need to be assured that this practice of extending special arrangements within the Single CMO Regulation does not become the rule, rather than the exception.
Zagotoviti je treba tudi, da podaljšanje veljavnosti nemškega alkoholnega monopola ne bo trajalo dlje od predlaganih datumov (2013 za kmetijsko vezane žganjarne in 2017 za žganjarne, za katere je proizvodnja v davčne namene ocenjena po standardni stopnji).
We need to be further reassured that the extension of the application of the German Alcohol Monopoly does not go beyond the proposed dates (2013 for agricultural bonded distilleries and 2017 for the small-scale flat-rate distilleries).
Obžalovanja vredno je podaljšanje po letu 2013, saj nova SKP ne bi smela nositi starih bremen, vendar se je poročevalec zaradi gospodarskih potreb v nemškem podeželskem gospodarstvu, zlasti v nekaterih zveznih deželah, v katerih so majhne žganjarne splošno prisotne, odločil, da bo podaljšanje podprl.
An extension beyond 2013 is regrettable, in the sense that the new CAP should not start off with "existing baggage", but given the economic needs of the German rural economy, particularly in some of the Bundeslaender where small scale distilleries are widely present, your rapporteur decided to support this extension.
Poročevalec obžaluje, da pri predstavitvi poročila ni bila izvedena redna ocena učinka predloga in želi, da bi se ta izvedla s temeljito študijo o učinkih predloga na notranji trg.
As regards the presentation of the report, your rapporteur deplores the fact that no regular impact assessment of the effects of the proposal has been conducted and wishes to see this addressed by means of a study on the thorough effects on the internal market of the proposal.
Pomoč, dodeljena v okviru nemškega alkoholnega monopola
Aid granted in the framework of the German alcohol monopoly
o osnutku sklepa Sveta o podaljšanju Sporazuma o znanstvenem in tehnološkem sodelovanju med Evropsko skupnostjo in Ukrajino
on the draft Council decision concerning the renewal of the Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the European Community and Ukraine
Poenostavljeni postopek – člen 46 poslovnika
Simplified procedure - Rule 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure
– ob upoštevanju osnutka sklepa Sveta (11364/2010),
– having regard to the draft Council decision (11364/2010),
– ob upoštevanju prošnje za odobritev, ki jo je Svet podal v skladu s členom 186 in točko (a) drugega pododstavka člena 218(6) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ( C7–0187/2010 ),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 186 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7‑0187/2010),
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko ( A7-0306/2010 ),
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0306/2010),
o stališču Sveta iz prve obravnave z namenom sprejetja direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uveljavljanju pravic pacientov pri čezmejnem zdravstvenem varstvu
on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare
– ob upoštevanju stališča Sveta iz prve obravnave (11038/2010 – C7‑0266/2010 ),
– having regard to the Council position at first reading (11038/2010 – C7‑0266/2010 ),
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2008)0414 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council ( COM(2008)0414 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 95 Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0257/2008 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6-0257/2008 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 294(7) in člena 114 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU),
– having regard to Article 294(7) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju priporočila za drugo obravnavo Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane ( A7‑0307/2010 ),
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ( A7-0307/2010 ),
Znotraj tega splošnega okvira vsaka država članica na svojem ozemlju ohrani odgovornost za zagotavljanje varnega, visokokakovostnega, učinkovitega in količinsko ustreznega zdravstvenega varstva državljanom.
Within this general framework Member States themselves retain responsibility for providing safe, high quality, efficient and quantitatively adequate healthcare to citizens on their territory.
Država članica ne sme v nobenem primeru opustiti svojega zdravstvenega varstva samo zato, ker je to na voljo tudi v drugih državah članicah.
On no account may Member States dismantle their own health care due to its also being available in other Member States.
Poleg tega direktiva pacientom dopušča možnost izbire, kje poiskati zdravstveno varstvo, njen rezultat pa ne smejo biti politike, ki bi na kakršen koli način spodbujale paciente k odhodu v drugo državo članico, da bi tam poiskali zdravstveno varstvo.
Moreover, this Directive shall leave the choice of where to obtain healthcare to the patients and shall not have the result of creating policies that encourage patients in any way whatsoever to go to another Member State to obtain healthcare.
Skupno stališče Sveta
Council position
(5a) Ta direktiva spoštuje svobodno izbiro vsake države članice, da se odloči za tisto, kar je po njenem mnenju ustrezna oblika zdravstvenega varstva, ter ne posega v to odločitev.
(5 a) This Directive respects and does not prejudice the freedom of each Member State to decide what type of healthcare it considers appropriate.
Nobena določba te direktive se ne bi smela razlagati tako, da bi ogrožala temeljne etične odločitve držav članic.
No provision of this Directive should be interpreted in such a way as to undermine the fundamental ethical choices of Member States.
(Stališče EP o uvodni izjavi 6)
(EP position recital 6)
(6) Sodišče je že obravnavalo nekatera vprašanja v zvezi s čezmejnim zdravstvenim varstvom, zlasti glede povračila stroškov za zdravstveno varstvo opravljeno v državi članici, ki ni država članica v kateri ima prejemnik oskrbe stalno prebivališče.
(6) Some issues relating to cross-border healthcare, in particular reimbursement of healthcare provided in a Member State other than that in which the recipient of the care is resident, have already been addressed by the Court of Justice.
Ker je zdravstveno varstvo izključeno iz področja uporabe Direktive 2006/123/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. decembra 2006 o storitvah na notranjem trgu, je pomembno, da se ta vprašanja obravnavajo v posebnem pravnem instrumentu Unije ter se tako doseže bolj splošna in učinkovita uporaba načel, ki jih je Sodišče razvilo na podlagi posameznih primerov.
As healthcare is excluded from the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market it is important to address those issues in a specific Union legal instrument in order to achieve a more general and effective application of principles developed by the Court of Justice on a case-by-case basis.
S to direktivo bi morali doseči bolj splošno in učinkovito uporabo načel, ki jih je Sodišče razvilo na podlagi posameznih primerov.
This directive is intended to achieve a more general and also an effective application of principles developed by the Court of Justice on a case by case basis.
(9) Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za posamezne paciente, ki se odločijo, da bodo zdravstveno varstvo poiskali v drugi državi članici in ne v državi članici zdravstvenega zavarovanja .
(9) This Directive should apply to individual patients who decide to seek healthcare in a Member State other than the Member State of affiliation.
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče, posebna narava in način organizacije oziroma financiranja zdravstvenega varstva ne izvzemata iz obsega temeljnega načela pravice opravljanja storitev .
As confirmed by the Court of Justice, neither its special nature nor the way in which it is organised or financed removes healthcare from the ambit of the fundamental principle of the freedom to provide services.
Vendar lahko država članica zdravstvenega zavarovanja povračilo stroškov čezmejnega zdravstvenega varstva omeji iz razlogov, povezanih s kakovostjo in varnostjo opravljenega zdravstvenega varstva, kadar je to mogoče utemeljiti z nujnimi razlogi v splošnem interesu javnega zdravja.
However, the Member State of affiliation may choose to limit the reimbursement of cross ‑border healthcare for reasons relating to the quality and safety of the healthcare provided, where this can be justified by overriding reasons of general interest relating to public health.
Država članica zdravstvenega zavarovanja lahko sprejme tudi dodatne ukrepe iz drugih razlogov, kadar je to mogoče utemeljiti z nujnimi razlogi v splošnem interesu.
The Member State of affiliation may also take further measures on other grounds where this can be justified by such overriding reasons of general interest.
Dejansko je Sodišče določilo, da je varovanje javnega zdravja med nujnimi razlogi v splošnem interesu, na podlagi katerih je mogoče upravičiti omejevanje prostega pretoka, določenega s Pogodbama.
Indeed, the Court of Justice has laid down that public health protection is among the overriding reasons of general interest that can justify restrictions to the freedom of movement envisaged in the Treaties.
(9) Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za vse vrste zdravstvenega varstva .
(9) This Directive should apply to all types of healthcare.
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče, zdravstveno varstvo ni izvzeto iz obsega temeljnega načela prostega pretoka niti zaradi svoje posebne narave niti zaradi načina organizacije ali financiranja.
As confirmed by the Court of Justice, neither the special nature of healthcare nor the way in which it is organised or financed removes it from the ambit of the fundamental principle of the freedom of movement .
(10) Pojem "nujnih razlogov v splošnem interesu", na katerega se sklicujejo nekatere določbe te direktive, je razvilo Sodišče v svoji sodni praksi v zvezi s členoma 49 in 56 Pogodbe in se lahko razvija še naprej.
(10) The concept of “overriding reasons of general interest” to which reference is made in certain provisions of this Directive has been developed by the Court of Justice in its case law in relation to Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty and may continue to evolve.
Sodišče je večkrat poudarilo, da se lahko tveganje za resno ogrozitev finančnega ravnotežja sistema socialne varnosti samo po sebi šteje za nujen razlog v splošnem interesu, na podlagi katerega je mogoče utemeljiti omejevanje svobodnega opravljanja storitev.
The Court of Justice has held on a number of occasions that it is possible for the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of a social security system to constitute per se an overriding reason of general interest capable of justifying an obstacle to the freedom to provide services.
Prav tako je Sodišče potrdilo, da lahko tudi cilj vzdrževanja uravnoteženih in vsem dostopnih zdravstvenih in bolnišničnih storitev zaradi razlogov javnega zdravja sodi med odstopanja na podlagi javnega zdravja v skladu s členom 52 Pogodbe, kolikor prispeva k doseganju visoke ravni varovanja zdravja.
The Court of Justice has likewise acknowledged that the objective of maintaining, on grounds of public health, a balanced medical and hospital service open to all may also fall within one of the derogations, on grounds of public health, provided for in Article 52 of the Treaty in so far as it contributes to the attainment of a high level of health protection.
Sodišče je poleg tega odločilo, da taka določba Pogodbe državam članicam omogoča, da omejijo svobodo opravljanja zdravstvenih in bolnišničnih storitev, če je ohranitev zmogljivosti zdravljenja ali zdravstvene stroke na nacionalnem ozemlju bistvena za javno zdravje.
The Court of Justice has also held that such provision of the Treaty permits Member States to restrict the freedom to provide medical and hospital services in so far as the maintenance of treatment capacity or medical competence on national territory is essential for public health.
(14a) Kot so države članice navedle v sklepih Sveta z dne 1. in 2. junija 2006, obstaja sklop operativnih načel, ki so skupna zdravstvenim sistemom po vsej EU.
(14a) As recognised by the Member States in the Council Conclusions of 1-2 June 2006, there is a set of operating principles that are shared by health systems throughout the EU .
Ta načela so potrebna za zagotovitev zaupanja pacientov v čezmejno zdravstveno varstvo, ki je nujno, če želimo doseči mobilnost pacientov in visoko raven varovanja zdravja.
Those operating principles are necessary to ensure the confidence of patients in cross-border healthcare, which is itself necessary for achieving patient mobility as well as a high level of health protection.
Ne glede na te skupne vrednote pa vendarle velja, da se države članice iz etičnih razlogov različno odločajo glede dostopnosti nekaterih načinov zdravljenja in posebnih pogojev dostopa.
Notwithstanding those common values it is accepted that Member States take different decisions on ethical grounds as regards the availability of certain treatments and the specific access conditions.
(Stališče EP o uvodni izjavi 14)
(EP position recital 14)
(15) Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v pravila držav članic o prodaji zdravil in medicinskih pripomočkov prek spleta.
(15) This Directive should not affect Member States' rules concerning the sale of medicinal products and medical devices over the internet .
(15) Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v pravila držav članic o prodaji zdravil in medicinskih pripomočkov prek spleta.
(15) This Directive should not affect Member States' rules concerning the sale of medicinal products and medical devices over the internet.
Vendar so ponarejena zdravila in medicinski pripomočki povod za resnične in resne pomisleke, zlasti v okviru čezmejnega zdravstvenega varstva.
F alsified medicines and medical devices are , however , a real and serious concern especially in the cross-border healthcare context.
(16a) Prenos te direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo in njena uporaba ne bi smela spodbujati pacientov, da bi se proti svoji volji zdravili zunaj države članice zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
(16a) The transposition of this Directive and its application into national legislation should not result in patients being encouraged to receive treatment outside their Member State of affiliation when this is against their wishes.
To bi bilo še posebej nezaželeno, če bi razlogi za spodbujanje pacientov k iskanju zdravstvenega varstva v drugi državi članici temeljili na nemedicinskih dejavnikih, na primer stroških zdravljenja.
This would be particularly undesirable if the decision to encourage the patient to seek healthcare in another Member State were to be based on non-medical factors, such as the cost of treatment.
(18) Da bi pacienti lahko sprejeli ozaveščeno odločitev, ko želijo prejeti zdravstveno varstvo v drugi državi članici, bi morala država članica zdravljenja zagotoviti, da pacienti iz drugih držav članic na zahtevo dobijo ustrezne informacije o standardih varnosti in kakovosti, ki veljajo na njenem ozemlju, pa tudi o tem, za katere izvajalce zdravstvenega varstva se ti standardi uporabljajo .
(18) In order to enable patients to make an informed choice when they seek to receive healthcare in another Member State, the Member State of treatment should ensure that patients from other Member States receive on request the relevant information on safety and quality standards enforced on its territory as well as on which healthcare providers are subject to these standards.
Nadalje bi morali izvajalci zdravstvenega varstva pacientom na zahtevo zagotoviti informacije o posebnih vidikih storitev zdravstvenega varstva, ki jih ponujajo.
Furthermore, healthcare providers should provide patients on request with information on specific aspects of the healthcare services they offer.
Če izvajalci zdravstvenega varstva pacientom s stalnim prebivališčem v državi članici zdravljenja že sedaj zagotavljajo ustrezne informacije, ta direktiva izvajalcev zdravstvenega varstva ne zavezuje, da bi morali pacientom iz drugih držav članic zagotavljati obširnejše informacije.
To the extent that healthcare providers already provide patients resident in the Member State of treatment with relevant information on those specific aspects, this Directive should not oblige healthcare providers to provide more extensive information to patients from other Member States.
Državi članici zdravljenja nič ne bi smelo preprečevati, da obveznost zagotavljanja informacij o posebnih vidikih storitev zdravstvenega varstva, ki jih ponujajo, ob izvajalcih zdravstvenega varstva naloži tudi drugim akterjem, kot so zavarovalnice ali javni organi, če bi to bilo glede na organizacijo njenega sistema zdravstvenega varstva primerneje.
Nothing should prevent the Member State of treatment from also obliging other actors than the healthcare providers, such as insurance providers or public authorities, to provide the information on specific aspects of the healthcare services offered, if that would be more appropriate with regard to the organisation of its healthcare system.
(18) Da bi pacienti lahko sprejeli ozaveščeno odločitev, ko želijo prejeti zdravstveno varstvo v drugi državi članici, bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da pacienti iz drugih držav članic na zahtevo dobijo ustrezne informacije o standardih varnosti in kakovosti, ki veljajo na njenem ozemlju, pa tudi o značilnostih zdravstvenega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja posamezni izvajalec zdravstvenega varstva .
(18) In order to enable patients to make an informed choice when they seek to receive healthcare in another Member State, Member States should ensure that patients from other Member States receive on request the relevant information on safety and quality standards enforced on its territory as well as on the characteristics of healthcare provided by a specific healthcare provider.
Take informacije bi morale biti na voljo tudi v oblikah, dostopnih invalidnimi osebam.
Such information should also be made available in formats accessible to persons with disabilities.
Takšne informacije bi morale biti dostopne tudi na daljavo v elektronski obliki.
Such information should be inter alia remotely accessible by electronic means.
(Stališče EP o uvodni izjavi 15)
(EP position recital 15 )
(19) Države članice bi morale poskrbeti, da se vsi pacienti obravnavajo enako na podlagi njihovih zdravstvenih potreb in ne na podlagi države članice njihovega zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
(19) Members States should ensure that all patients are treated equitably on the basis of their healthcare needs rather than on the basis of their Member State of affiliation.
Pri tem bi morale države članice upoštevati načela prostega gibanja oseb znotraj notranjega trga, nediskriminacije, med drugim na podlagi državljanstva, ter nujnosti in sorazmernosti kakršnih koli omejitev prostega pretoka.
In doing so, Member States should respect the principles of free movement of persons within the internal market, non‑discrimination, inter alia with regard to nationality and necessity and proportionality of any restrictions on free movement.
Vendar nobena določba te direktive od izvajalcev zdravstvenega varstva ne bi smela zahtevati, da sprejmejo načrtovano zdravljenje pacientov iz drugih držav članic ali jim dajo prednost v škodo drugih pacientov, na primer s podaljševanjem čakalnih dob za zdravljenje drugih pacientov.
However, nothing in this Directive should oblige healthcare providers to accept for planned treatment patients from other Member States or to prioritise them to the detriment of other patients, for instance by increasing the waiting time for treatment of other patients.
Dotoki pacientov lahko privedejo do povpraševanja, ki presega zmogljivosti, ki so v državi članici na voljo za določeno zdravljenje.
Inflows of patients may create a demand exceeding the capacities existing in a Member State for a given treatment.
V takšnih izjemnih primerih bi morala država članica ohraniti možnost, da nastalo situacijo uredi iz razlogov javnega zdravja, v skladu s členoma 52 in 62 Pogodbe.
In such exceptional cases, the Member State should retain the possibility to remedy the situation on the grounds of public health, in accordance with Articles 52 and 62 of the Treaty.
Vendar pa takšna omejitev ne bi smela posegati v obveznosti držav članic v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 883/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o koordinaciji sistemov socialne varnosti.
However, this limitation should be without prejudice to Member States' obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.