natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zaščita obrtniških izdelkov.
To protect craft products.
Priloga – vrstica 9 a (novo)
Annex row 9 a (new)
Vijaki, matice, tirni vijaki (tirfoni), vijaki s kavljem, kovice, klini za natezanje, razcepke, podložke (vključno vzmetne podložke) in podobni izdelki, iz železa ali jekla
Screws, bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter pins, washers (including spring washers) and similar articles, of iron or steel
Priloga – vrstica 9 b (novo)
Annex - row 9 b (new)
Meči, sablje, bajoneti, sulice in podobno hladno orožje, njihovi deli ter nožnice za to orožje
Swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances and similar arms and parts thereof and scabbards and sheaths therefor
Priloga – vrstica 9 c (novo)
Annex row 9 c (new)
Pipe, zasuni, ventili in podobne naprave za cevovode, kotle, rezervoarje, velike posode in podobno, vključno z redukcijskimi ventili in termostatsko krmiljenimi ventili
Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vats or the like, including pressure-reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves
Priloga – vrstica 9 d (novo)
Annex - row 9 d (new)
Koleščki s pritrdilnimi elementi iz navadnih kovin
Castors with mountings of base metal
Deli za prikolice, polprikolice in druga vozila (brez avtomobilov) d.n.
Parts of trailers, semi-trailers and other vehicles, not mechanically propelled, n.e.c
Deli strojev, naprav in instrumentov iz tar. št. 8427, d.n.
Parts of machines, appliances and instruments of heading 8427, n.e.c
Novi plašči iz gume za vozila in kmetijska ali gozdarska vozila in stroje (brez tistih z vzorcem ribje kosti ali podobnim vzorcem)
New pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on agricultural or forestry vehicles and machines (excluding those having a herring-bone or similar tread)
Zračnice iz gume (brez tistih, ki se uporabljajo za osebne avtomobile, vključno z avtomobili vrste "karavan" ter dirkalnimi avtomobili, avtobusi, tovornjaki in kolesi)
Inner tubes, of rubber (excluding those of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing cars, buses, lorries and bicycles)
Priloga – vrstica 9 e (novo)
Annex - row 9 e (new)
Leče za očala iz stekla
Spectacle lenses of glass
Leče za očala iz drugih materialov
Spectacle lenses of other materials
Okviri za očala ali za podobne izdelke in njihovi deli
Frames and mountings for spectacles, goggles or the like, and parts thereof
Očala (korektivna, zaščitna ali druga) in podobni izdelki
Spectacles, goggles and the like, corrective, protective or other
Glavni partnerji in ekonomski tekmeci Evropske unije že nekaj časa na svojem ozemlju uporabljajo predpis, ki določa navedbo porekla za izdelke, ki prihajajo iz tujine.
The European Union's main trading partners and competitors have for some considerable time been applying within their territories rules requiring denomination of origin for manufactured goods from outside it.
Namen predpisa je, da se potrošnikom nudi pravilne informacije, s pomočjo katerih lahko sami uveljavljajo svojo pravico do proste izbire pri nakupu.
The purpose is to inform consumers accurately so that they can exercise freedom of choice in the purchases they make.
Znanje je temelj demokracije in znanje je svoboda: vedenje o tem, od kod prihaja izdelek, omogoča izvajanje demokratičnih predpisov, ki se morajo uporabljati tudi na področju trgovine, da se, kolikor je le mogoče, zagotovijo tržne svoboščine ter določijo jasni in skupni predpisi tudi za proizvajalce.
Knowledge is the very foundation of democracy, and knowledge is freedom: knowing where a product comes from is therefore an issue concerning the application of the rules of democracy, which must also be applied to trade, albeit while doing as much as possible to ensure that there are clear rules which manufacturers also endorse, in order to maintain free markets.
Na globaliziranem trgu so predpisi jamstvo za vse, da lahko dostopajo na trg, med seboj tekmujejo in posledično lahko nadaljujejo s proizvodnjo.
In a globalised marketplace, the rules serve as a guarantee to all that they can have access to that market, compete and therefore continue to produce.
Carinske ovire ne morejo biti obramba pred izkrivljanjem globaliziranega trga, predpisi pa lahko pripomorejo, da svetovni trg bolje izvaja svoje funkcije, in da okrepi in uskladi razvoj v svetu.
Tariff barriers alone cannot provide a defence against global market distortions: rules are also necessary to make the global market fulfil more effectively its function, which is to boost development in the world and make it more homogeneous.
Evropski potrošniki imajo pravico, da poznajo poreklo izdelkov, ki jih kupujejo, torej da imajo enake pravice kot državljani in potrošniki drugih velikih držav.
European consumers have a right to know where the products that they buy come from: in other words, they have the same rights as citizens and consumers in major countries elsewhere.
Leta 2005 je po več temeljitih preučitvah Evropska komisija predložila predlog uredbe o navedbi države porekla za določene izdelke, uvožene iz tretjih držav.
In 2005, after a series of studies, the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation on the indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries.
Iz različnih razlogov, nekateri so nastali zaradi nezadostnega poznavanja obsega težave, ki jo je uredba nameravala razrešiti, Svet še ni sprejel skupnega stališča.
Due to various circumstances - probably including an insufficient awareness of the scope of the problem which the regulation was intended to address - the Council has not yet adopted a common position.
Nasprotno pa je Evropski parlament večkrat izrazil, da potrebujemo predpise, ki bi Evropi omogočila sprejetje predpisov, ki bi lahko končno izenačili naše proizvajalce in potrošnike s proizvajalci in potrošniki naših največjih gospodarskih partneric.
On the other hand the European Parliament has several times referred to the need to have rules which would result in Europe adopting rules which could at last place our producers and consumers on an equal footing with those in our main trading partners.
Spomnimo se pisne izjave iz prejšnjega zakonodajnega obdobja ( P6_TA(2007)0599 ), poročila iz leta 2008 o krepitvi vloge evropskih MSP v mednarodni trgovini (INI/2008/2205), poročila o vplivu ponarejanja na mednarodno trgovino (INI/2008/2133) in resolucije, ki je bila sprejeta novembra 2009, o uredbi o obvezni navedbi države porekla za določene izdelke, uvožene iz tretjih držav ( B7-0145/2009 ).
Reference may be made to Written Declaration P6_TA(2007)0599 adopted during the previous parliamentary term, the report of 2008 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (INI/2008/2205), the report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade (INI/2008/2133) and the resolution of November 2009 on the Regulation on the compulsory indication of the country of origin of certain products imported from third countries ( B7-0145/2009 ).
Kot dobro vemo, na področju trgovine pripravlja zakone Evropska unija in ne države članice, od Lizbonske pogodbe dalje pa ima s postopkom soodločanja Evropski parlament skupaj s Svetom pravico/dolžnost razvozlati in razrešiti številne ovire in težave v tem sektorju, saj je mednarodna trgovina osrednjega pomena ne samo za evropsko gospodarstvo, ampak tudi za politiko.
Clearly it is the European Union rather than the Member States which has the power to legislate on trade, and under the Lisbon Treaty, with codecision, it is the European Parliament which, together with the Council, has the power/duty to solve the numerous problems in the sector of international trade, which is vital not only to the economy but also to European policy.
V času, ki ga sedaj preživljamo, v času, v katerem je bilo dokazano, da moramo ponovno dati prednost realnemu gospodarstvu in ne virtualnim financam, ki so povzročile veliko škodo, je bolj kot kdajkoli prej za Unijo nujno, da sprejme jasno uredbo o navedbi porekla izdelkov, ki prihajajo izven EU.
At such times as those which we are passing through, when the need has been demonstrated to restore to the real economy primacy over virtual finance, which has caused so many disasters, it is becoming more urgent than ever for the Union to have clear regulations concerning the denomination of origin of products from outside the EU.
Besedilo, ki ga je Komisija sprejela leta 2005, je še vedno aktualno, čeprav je mogoče glede nekaterih vidikov že zastarelo.
The proposal published by the Commission in 2005 is still topical, although of course dated in certain respects.
Na primer deli, ki se nanašajo na države, ki so že postale sestavni del Evropske unije, morajo biti izbrisani, upoštevati pa je treba morebitne posebne sporazume, ki že veljajo oziroma so v pripravi.
For example, the parts need to be deleted which refer to countries which have now acceded to the EU, and account needs to be taken of any particular agreements already in existence or in preparation.
Pogovoriti se bo treba še o tem, ali naj se posebna pozornost posveti posebnim trgovinskim območjem, ki imajo privilegirane odnose z Unijo (na primer evro-sredozemske države).
It will also be necessary to debate whether or not to devote specific attention to particular trading areas which have special relations with the EU (e.g. the Euro-Mediterranean countries).
V obrazložitvenem memorandumu je navedeno, da se sčasoma lahko sistemu označevanja porekla pridružijo drugi sektorji, vendar pa bi bila Komisija pooblaščena, da vključi ali izključi sektorje iz uredbe.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that in due course 'other sectors could be interested in joining the origin marking scheme' and that the Commission is therefore entitled 'to include or to suppress sectors' in the regulation.
Prepričani smo, da je treba o vsaki spremembi razpravljati v Parlamentu, ki mora spremembo tudi odobriti, saj ima vsaka nova vključitev ali izključitev politične, gospodarske in socialne posledice, zaradi česar ima Parlament v okviru postopka soodločanja pravico in dolžnost, da izrazi svoje mnenje.
We are firmly convinced that any change requires debate and approval by the European Parliament, because any fresh insertion or deletion would have political, economic and social implications on which Parliament under codecision has the right and duty to express its opinion.
Poleg tega menimo, da je treba bolje pojasniti in opredeliti načine, na katere imajo države članice pravico kaznovati kršenje uredbe.
It should also be noted that there is a need to clarify and define more precisely the procedures by means of which Member States may penalise those who infringe the rules.
Besedilo kot tako se nam zdi preveč oddaljeno od minimalne ravni usklajevanja, ki se zahteva na področju Unije, ob istočasnem upoštevanju avtonomije in pristojnosti držav članic.
As it stands, the proposal seems to us to fall too short of the minimum level of harmonisation which is required within the European Union, albeit of course with all due respect for the autonomy and powers of the Member States.
Ozemlje Unije, meje katere so odprte, ne sme imeti preveč različnih predpisov za kaznovanje enakega kaznivega dejanja na področju trgovine, področju, za katerega ima prav Unija skoraj izključno pristojnost.
EU territory whose borders are open cannot have excessively different rules on punishment for the same offence within the commercial sector, a sector where virtually exclusive competence is vested in the Union.
Na seznamu izdelkov, ki so obravnavani v tem predlogu uredbe, pa očitno manjkajo številni izdelki, ki bi se lahko v prihodnje, po preverjanju dobrega delovanja uredbe, dodali na seznam.
The list of manufactured products given in the proposal for a regulation obviously omits various products which it might in future be necessary to insert in the list, once it has been verified that the Regulation is functioning well.
Menimo, da je izredno pomembno, da se o vsaki spremembi razpravlja v Parlamentu in da jo ta tudi odobri.
It is extremely important that any amendment should be debated and accepted by Parliament.
To je težava, s katero se lahko soočimo v prihodnjih razpravah.
This is a problem which can be tackled in future debates.
Parlament pa mora nujno po toliko letih potrošnikom in državljanom ponuditi konkreten odgovor: boljše informiranje.
However, what Parliament urgently needs to do now is, after so many years, to give a specific reply to consumers in the form of provision for more information.
Informacije so sinonim varnosti in zanesljive informacije so bistvene za dajanje gotovosti evropskim potrošnikom.
Information is a resource which promotes safety, and the reliability of information is important in order to give European consumers certain knowledge.
Menimo, da je bila leta 2005 med pripravo seznama kategorij izdelkov storjena vsaj ena napaka, ki jo bo treba odpraviti, da se tako zagotovi varnost.
It should be borne in mind that in 2005, when the list of product categories was being drafted, at least one category was forgotten which should be inserted in the interests of safety.
Govorimo o pritrjevalnih materialih, torej o vseh tistih sestavnih delih, ki lahko, če so ustrezno kontrolirani in nosijo navedbo porekla, državljanom zagotovijo varnost mostu, električnega gospodinjskega aparata itd.
The category in question is fasteners – i.e. all those components which, if duly monitored and marked with an indication of origin, can give consumers an assurance that anything from a bridge to a domestic appliance is safe.
Preprečevanje vseh nesreč in zagotavljanje varnosti državljanov nista fakultativna in navedba porekla za tovrstne izdelke bi morala biti predlagana že na začetku.
Preventing all types of accident and guaranteeing the safety of citizens are not optional, and the origin marking of these types of products should have been proposed from the outset.
Za uporabo navedbe porekla zadošča uporaba predpisov, ki veljajo v tretjih državah, kjer uredba že obstaja.
For the purpose of applying origin marking it is sufficient to adhere to rules in force in countries outside Europe where regulation already exists.
Evropski parlament, ki je vedno ščitil razlike v bran kulturi in tradiciji posameznih držav, vidi v uredbi o obvezni navedbi porekla izdelkov instrument za povečanje preglednosti, ki bo evropske potrošnike postavil na isto raven s potrošniki naših trgovinskih partnerjev, pa tudi sredstvo za boljši razvoj trgovinskih odnosov in tradicionalnih gospodarstev.
The European Parliament, which has always stood up for diversity, in defence of the cultures and traditions of individual countries, regards the Regulation on compulsory origin labelling as being, on the one hand, an instrument to increase clarity, placing European consumers on an equal footing with the consumers of our trading partners, and on the other hand a way of developing trade relations and traditional economies more satisfactorily.
Evropski proizvajalci so upravičeno primorani spoštovati različne stroge predpise za izdelovanje lastnih izdelkov.
European manufacturers are, rightly, required to comply with various strict rules on the manufacture of their products.
To so standardi, ki zagotavljajo varnost potrošnikov, varstvo okolja, varovaje zdravja.
Standards which maintain consumer safety, respect for the environment, protection of health.
Označevanje bo pripomoglo k večji usklajenosti carinskega nadzora na mejah Unije in prineslo večjo jasnost in preglednost za vsak drug morebitni nadzor, ki bi ga lahko regionalne ali lokalne oblasti izvajale nad proizvodi, ki so v prodaji.
Marking will also promote greater harmonisation of customs controls at the EU's borders and render more clear and transparent any other inspections that regional or local authorities might have to perform on goods which are offered for sale.
William (grof) Dartmouth (William (The Earl of) Dartmouth), Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Kader Arif, Daniel Caspary, Christofer Fjellner, Metin Kazak, David Martin, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Cristiana Muscardini, Niccolò Rinaldi, Tokia Saïfi, Helmut Scholz, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Gianluca Susta, Keith Taylor, Iuliu Winkler, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Paweł Zalewski
William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Kader Arif, Daniel Caspary, Christofer Fjellner, Metin Kazak, David Martin, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Cristiana Muscardini, Niccolò Rinaldi, Tokia Saïfi, Helmut Scholz, Peter Šťastný, Robert Sturdy, Gianluca Susta, Keith Taylor, Iuliu Winkler, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Paweł Zalewski
o poenostavitvi izvajanja raziskovalnih okvirnih programov
on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes
Poročevalka: Maria Da Graça Carvalho
Rapporteur: Maria da Graça Carvalho
MNENJE Odbora za proračunski nadzor .............................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on Budgetary Control ........................................18
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU...................................................................22
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................24
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o poenostavitvi izvajanja raziskovalnih okvirih programov ( KOM(2010)0187 ),
– having regard to the Commission Communication on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes ( COM(2010)0187 ),
– ob upoštevanju sklepa Komisije z dne 23. junija 2009 o merilih sprejemljivosti za metodologije za povprečne stroške za osebje (C(2009)4705),
– having regard to the Commission decision of 23 June 2009 on Acceptability Criteria for Average Personnel Cost Methodologies (C(2009)4705),
– ob upoštevanju poročila strokovnih skupin o naknadnih ocenah šestega okvirnega programa (2002–2006) („poročilo Rietschel”) in odgovora Komisije nanj ( KOM(2009)0210 ),
– having regard to the Expert Group Report ‘Ex-post Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes (2002-2006)’ (‘the Rietschel Report’) and the subsequent Commission Communication ( COM(2009)0210 ),
– ob upoštevanju sklepov Sveta o smernicah glede prihodnjih prednostnih nalog za evropske raziskave in inovacije, ki temeljijo na raziskavah, v Lizbonski strategiji v obdobju po letu 2010, sprejetih 3. decembra 2009, ter sklepov Sveta za konkurenčnost o poenostavljenih in učinkovitejših programih v podporo evropskih raziskav in inovacij, sprejetih 26. maja 2010,
– having regard to the Council conclusions on ‘guidance on future priorities for European research and research-based innovation in post-2010 Lisbon strategy’, adopted on 3 December 2009, and the Competitiveness Council conclusions on ‘simplified and more efficient programmes supporting European Research and Innovation’, adopted on 26 May 2010,
– ob upoštevanju berlinske deklaracije o odprtem dostopu do znanja na področju znanosti in humanističnih ved,
– having regard to the Berlin declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko ter mnenj Odbora za proračunski nadzor in Odbora za regionalni razvoj ( A7‑0274/2010 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committees on Budgetary Control and Regional Development ( A7‑0274/2010 ),
A. ker je sedmi okvirni program največji nadnacionalni program za raziskave in razvoj na svetu ter bistvena sestavina udejanjanja Evropskega raziskovalnega prostora in izpolnjevanja ciljev strategije EU2020,
A. whereas the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is the largest transnational R&D programme in the world and a critical element in the realisation of a European Research Area and the fulfilment of objectives of the EU2020 strategy,
B. ker raziskave bistveno prispevajo h gospodarski rasti in ustvarjanju delovnih mest ter k okolju prijazni in trajnostni energiji,
B. whereas research provides a fundamental contribution in terms of economic growth, job creation and green and sustainable energy,
C. ker so za sedmi okvirni program potrebni najvišji standardi odličnosti, zmogljivosti in učinkovitosti raziskav, da bi pritegnili in obdržali najboljše znanstvenike v Evropi ter ustvarili bolj inovativno in na znanju temelječe gospodarstvo EU, ki se bo lahko merilo s svetovnim gospodarstvom,
C. whereas the FP requires the highest standards of excellence, efficacy and efficiency in research to attract and keep the best scientists in Europe and foster a more innovative and knowledge-based EU economy able to compete in a global economy,
D. ker je usklajevanje med nacionalnimi, regionalnimi in evropskimi politikami raziskav še vedno nezadostno, kar zelo ovira stroškovno učinkovite rešitve,
D. whereas there is still limited coordination between national, regional and European research policies, which causes major obstacles to achieving cost-effective solutions,
E. ker so za sedanje upravljanje sedmega okvirnega programa kljub izboljšavam v primerjavi s šestim okvirnim programom, značilni prekomerna birokracija, nizka stopnja dovoljenega tveganja, neučinkovitost in neupravičene zamude, ki skupnost raziskovalcev, akademski svet, organizacije civilne družbe, podjetja in industrijo (zlasti manjši raziskovalni akterji, vključno z malimi in srednjimi podjetji) nedvomno odvračajo od sodelovanja,
E. whereas the current management of FP7 is, despite the improvements made in relation to FP6, still characterised by excessive bureaucracy, low risk tolerance, poor efficiency and undue delays that act as a clear disincentive to the participation of the research community, academia, civil society organizations, businesses and industry (especially smaller research actors, including SMEs),
F. ker vse zainteresirane strani pozivajo k nadaljnji poenostavitvi ter uskladitvi pravil in postopkov, pri čemer poenostavitev ni sama sebi namen, temveč sredstvo, s katerim postanejo sredstva za raziskave EU privlačna in dostopna, in zmanjša čas, ki ga morajo raziskovalci vložiti v sam postopek,
F. whereas all stakeholders are calling for further simplification and harmonisation of rules and procedures, with simplification not an objective per se , but rather a means to ensure the attractiveness and accessibility of EU research funding , and to reduce the time that researchers have to invest in the process itself,
G. ker bi financiranje na podlagi rezultatov utegnilo omejiti obseg raziskovalnih projektov na manj tvegane projekte in tržno usmerjene raziskave, kar bi oviralo EU pri doseganju odličnosti pri pionirskih raziskavah in inovacijah,
G. whereas result-based funding might limit the scope of the research projects to less risky projects and research orientated towards the market, something that would hamper the EU in pursuing excellence in frontier research and innovation,
H. ker je treba jasno razlikovati med raziskavami in inovacijami kot med dvema različnima procesoma (raziskave spreminjajo naložbe v znanje, inovacije pa znanje v naložbe),
H. whereas research and innovation need to be clearly distinguished as two different processes (research is turning investment into knowledge and innovation is turning knowledge into investment),
I. ker sedanji postopek poenostavitve poteka v odločilnem trenutku in zagotavlja zagon za vmesni pregled sedmega okvirnega programa ter za priprave na naslednjega, osmega,
I. whereas the current simplification process comes at a crucial moment, providing impetus for the Midterm Review of FP7 and for the preparations of the forthcoming FP8,
2. opozarja, da je postopek poenostavite kljub svoji pomembnosti le eden od nujnih reform, ki so potrebne za izboljšanje financiranja raziskav EU;
Draws attention to the fact that, despite the importance of the simplification process, it is only one of the necessary reforms required to improve EU research funding;