natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Posvetovalna delovna skupina je imela na voljo 22 jezikovnih različic predloga, svoje delo pa je opravila na osnovi angleške različice, saj je bila to osnovna verzija obravnavanega besedila. preučila predlog direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, ki kodificira Direktivo 89/552/EGS Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju avdiovizualnih medijskih storitev (Direktiva o avdiovizualnih medijskih storitvah), ter prišla do naslednjih soglasnih ugotovitev:
The Consultative Working Party had at its disposal 22 language versions of the proposal and worked on the basis of the English version, being the master-copy language version of the text under discussion. , an examination of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council codifying Directive 89/552/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, as follows.
Izvirni naslov akta je bil Direktiva Sveta 89/552/EGS z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov“.
The original title of the act was "Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities" ".
2) Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je v preambuli različice predloga kodifikacije v angleškem jeziku prišlo do napake, zaradi katere je bila oznaka „(2)“ napačno navedena kot številka uvodne izjave pred drugo oznako, ki bi morala biti v referenčnem okvirčku.
2) It was acknowledged that a mistake occurred in the preamble to the English language version of the codification proposal, in which the indication " (2) " erroneously appears as a recital number preceding another indication that should have appeared in a reference box.
Zaradi tega so uvodne izjave od 2 do 105 napačno oštevilčene od 3 do 106.
As a consequence thereof, recitals 2 to 105 were erroneously numbered 3 to 106.
V različici predloga v angleškem jeziku je zato treba popraviti oštevilčenje uvodnih izjav.
The numbering of recitals should therefore be corrected in the English language version of the proposal.
3) V uvodni izjavi 35 je treba besede „izdajatelj televizijskega programa“ nadomestiti z besedami „ponudnik medijskih storitev“.
3) In recital 36 (to be renumbered 35), the word " broadcaster " should be replaced by the expression " media service provider ".
4) Besedilo uvodne izjave 43 [uvodne izjave 44 v angleški jezikovni različici, op.p.] bi bilo treba vključiti med uvodno izjavo 36 in uvodno izjavo 37 (ki postane uvodna izjava 38).
4) The text of recital 44 should be inserted between recital 37 (to be renumbered 36) and recital 38 (that should maintain the same number).
5) V delu A priloge I je treba navedbo „Direktiva 89/552/EGS Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta“ spremeniti v „Direktiva Sveta 89/552/EGS“.
5) In Annex I, Part A, the indication " Directive 89/552/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council " should be adapted so as to read " Council Directive 89/552/EEC ".
Opravljanje avdiovizualnih medijskih storitev (Kodificirana različica)
Provision of audiovisual media services (codified version)
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Mareku Siwiecu
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Marek Siwiec
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Mareku Siwiecu, ki jo je 27. septembra 2006 posredoval poljski generalni državni tožilec, na plenarnem zasedanju pa je bila razglašena 10. aprila 2008,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Marek Siwiec, forwarded by the Polish Prosecutor-General on 27 September 2006, and announced in plenary sitting on 10 April 2008,
– po zaslišanju Mareka Siwieca v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Marek Siwiec in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmann in Krier [1964] Recueil, stran 195, in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faure in drugi [1986] Recueil, stran 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ob upoštevanju člena 7b(1) poljskega zakona z dne 9. maja 1996 o izvrševanju mandata poslanca ali senatorja,
– having regard to Article 7b(1) of the Polish Law of 9 May 1996 on the performance of the mandate of deputy or senator,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0030/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7‑0030/2009 ),
A. ker je proti Mareku Siwiecu vložena zasebna tožba,
A. whereas a private prosecution has been brought against Marek Siwiec,
B. ker sodeč po tem, da je bil sodni postopek sprožen med volilno kampanjo tri leta po domnevnem kaznivem dejanju in je zasebni tožilec v svojih obtožbah odprto političen, kot to zlasti dokazujejo dokumenti, ki jih je tožilec osebno predložil predsedniku Parlamenta, in trditev tožilca, da nastopa v imenu državljanov, ki na splošno nasprotujejo temu, da Marek Siwiec opravlja javno funkcijo, sprožitev kazenskega postopka predstavlja fumus persecutionis, saj obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi za sum, da Mareka Siwieca toži politični nasprotnik z osnovnim ciljem ovirati njegovo delovanje v vlogi poslanca Evropskega parlamenta,
B. whereas it appears from the timing of the prosecution during an electoral campaign three years after the alleged offences were committed, and from the overtly political aims of the private individual bringing the prosecution, as evidenced in particular by documents presented by that individual himself to the President of Parliament and by the fact that he claims to be acting on behalf of citizens who object in general terms to Mr Siwiec's carrying out a public activity, that the bringing of the criminal proceedings in question constitutes a fumus persecutionis , inasmuch as there are serious reasons to believe that the charges against Mr Siwiec have been brought by a political opponent with the principal aim of undermining his activity as a Member of the European Parliament,
Zahtevo poljskega državljana Jerzyja Pietrowicza, ki ga zastopa odvetnik Jerzy Pomin, za odvzem parlamentarne imunitete Mareku Siwiecu, je Parlamentu poljski generalni državni tožilec posredoval 27. septembra 2006.
The request of a Polish citizen, Mr Jerzy Pietrowicz represented by attorney Jerzy Pomin, for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Marek Siwiec was transmitted to Parliament by the Polish Prosecutor-General on 27 September 2006.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je moral najprej odločiti o tem, ali je zahteva zasebne stranke sploh dopustna (v tem primeru zasebna stranka nastopa kot subsidiarni tožilec).
The Committee on Legal Affairs had to first decide on the admissibility of a request coming from a private person (in this case acting as a subsidiary prosecutor).
Na podlagi razprav v odboru in dodatnih informacij poljskih organov je predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve predsednika Parlamenta 31. marca 2008 obvestil, da se zahteva obravnava kot dopustna.
On the basis of the committee's deliberations and additional information provided by the Polish authorities, the Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee informed the President of Parliament on 31 March 2008 that the request should be considered admissible.
Predsednik Parlamenta je zahtevo v obravnavo Odboru za pravne zadeve posredoval 5. maja 2008.
On 5 May 2008, the President of Parliament forwarded the request to the Legal Affairs Committee for consideration.
Zaradi še drugih težav, na katere je odbor naletel pri vprašanju imunitete poslancev Parlamenta, izvoljenih na Poljskem, je bila obravnava imunitete poslanca Siwieca odložena, dokler niso na Poljskem sprejeli poročilo o parlamentarni imuniteti.
In view of other difficulties in connection with the immunity of Members of Parliament elected in Poland, the consideration of Mr Siwiec's immunity by the Legal Affairs Committee was suspended until after adoption of a report on parliamentary immunity in Poland.
Na podlagi tega poročila ( A6-0205/2009 ) je Parlament 24. aprila 2009 sprejel resolucijo
A resolution based on this report ( A6-0205/2009 ) was adopted by Parliament on 24 April 2009
P6_TA(2009)0316 , še neobjavljeno v Uradnem listu. .
P6_TA(2009)0316 , not yet published in the Official Journal. .
Marek Siwiec je bil 9. junija 2009 ponovno izvoljen za poslanca v Evropskem parlamentu.
Mr Marek Siwiec was re-elected as Member of Parliament on 9 June 2009.
Rada Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego ) je 17. septembra 1997 (štiri dni, preden so na parlamentarnih volitvah na Poljskem zmagale desnosredinske stranke) skupaj s predsednikom Aleksandrom Kwaśniewskim s helikopterjem prispel v Ostrzeszów.
On 17 September 1997 (four days before the parliamentary elections in Poland were won by the centre-right parties) Marek Siwiec (at that time Chairman of the National Security Council
Ko je zapuščal helikopter, se je pokrižal in potem poljubil tla (dejanje, po katerem je bil znan pokojni papež Janez Pavel II).
Rada Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego ) arrived with President Aleksander Kwaśniewski at Ostrzeszów by helicopter and upon leaving the aircraft made the sign of the cross and then kissed the ground (gestures commonly associated with the late Pope John Paul II).
Tri leta kasneje, med predsedniškimi volitvami 8. oktobra 2000, je Marian Krzaklewski (kandidat desnice) posnetek dogodka v Ostrzeszówu uporabil v strankarskopolitični oddaji na javni televizijski postaji (na volitvah je potem dobil manj kot 16 % glasov v prvem in končnem krogu, medtem ko je bil Aleksander Kwaśniewski izvoljen za drugi mandat z več kot 50 % glasov).
Three years later, during the presidential elections of 8 October 2000, Marian Krzaklewski (a right-wing candidate) used a recording of the events at Ostrzeszów in a party-political broadcast on a public television station (he subsequently obtained less than 16% of the votes in the first and final round, while Aleksander Kwaśniewski was elected for a second term with more than 50% of the vote).
31. oktobra 2000 so Jerzy Pietrowicz in druge zasebne stranke prvič obvestile državno tožilstvo, da je Marec Siwiec razžalil tujega predsednika države (naklepno kaznivo dejanje po členu 136(3) poljskega kazenskega zakonika) in žalil njihova osebna verska čustva (kaznivo dejanje po členu 196 poljskega kazenskega zakonika).
On 31 October 2000 Jerzy Pietrowicz and other private persons informed the Prosecutor's Office for the first time that Mr Siwiec had insulted a foreign Head of State (an intentional offence according to Art. 136(3) of the Polish Penal Code) and offended their personal religious feelings (an offence under Art. 196 of the Polish Penal Code).
Okrajni državni tožilec v Ostrzeszówu je 9. aprila 2004 preiskavo končal in zaključil, da ni ustreznih razlogov za sodni postopek proti Siwiecu.
On 9 April 2004 the District Prosecutor in Ostrzeszów finally closed the investigations, having found that there were not the necessary grounds to bring public charges against Mr Siwiec.
Septembra 2004 je regijski državni tožilec v Kaliszu to odločitev potrdil.
In September 2004, the Regional Prosecutor in Kalisz upheld this decision.
Pietrowicz je 13. oktobra 2004 v skladu s poljskim zakonom o kazenskem postopku (kot oškodovana stranka) pri okrajnem sodišču v Ostrzeszówu sprožil zasebni pregon.
On 13 October 2004, in accordance with the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr Pietrowicz (as the injured party) initiated his own private prosecution through the District Court in Ostrzeszów.
Marek Siwiec je obtožen v skladu z naslednjo določbo poljskega kazenskega zakonika:
Mr Siwiec has been charged under the following provision of the Polish Penal Code:
Č len 196
Article 196
Kdor razžali verska čustva drugih tako, da oskruni predmet verskega čaščenja ali kraj javnega verskega obreda, je obsojen na plačilo kazni, omejitev osebne svobode ali zaporno kazen do dveh let.
Who offends other person's religious feelings, by defiling an object of religious adoration or a place of public worship, shall be sentenced to a fine, restriction of personal freedom or imprisonment for up to 2 years.
(b) na ozemlju vseh drugih držav članic ne morejo biti priprti ali v sodnem postopku.
(b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Glede na to, da so se kazniva dejanja, katerih je obdolžen Siwiec, zgodila na Poljskem, da postopki potekajo na Poljskem in da je Marek Siwiec poljski poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, "uživa imunitete, priznane poslancem [poljskega] parlamenta".
Given that the offences of which Mr Siwiec stands accused took place in Poland, the proceedings are taking place in Poland and Mr Siwiec is a Polish MEP, he enjoys "the immunities accorded to members of [the Polish] parliament".
Parlamentarno imuniteto na Poljskem ureja člen 105 ustave:
Parliamentary immunity in Poland is governed by Article 105 of the Constitution:
Za taką działalność poseł odpowiada wyłącznie przed Sejmem , a w przypadku naruszenia praw osób trzecich może być pociągnięty do odpowiedzialności sądowej tylko za zgodą Sejmu.
Za taką działalność poseł odpowiada wyłącznie przed Sejmem, a w przypadku naruszenia praw osób trzecich może być pociągnięty do odpowiedzialności sądowej tylko za zgodą Sejmu.
Poslancu se ne sme vzeti prostosti ali ga aretirati brez privolitve sejma, razen v primeru dokazanega kaznivega dejanja (in flagrante delicto ), ko je odvzem prostosti nujen za zagotovitev ustreznega poteka postopka.
A Deputy shall be neither detained nor arrested without the consent of the Sejm, except for cases in flagrante delicto and in which his detention is necessary for securing the proper course of proceedings.
Trenutnemu namenu v členu ustreza odstavek 2.
For present purposes the relevant paragraph of this article is paragraph 2.
Podrobna načela in postopki iz člena 105(6) ustave so predpisani z zakonom z 9. maja 1996 o izvrševanju mandata poslanca ali senatorja (UL št. 221/2003, točka 2199, kot je bila spremenjena).
Detailed principles and procedures as provided for in Article 105(6) of the Constitution have been enacted in the Law of 9 May 1996 on the performance of the mandate of deputy or senator (OJ No 221/2003, item 2199, as amended).
Člen 7b(1) zakona, ki je za to poročilo zlasti umesten, določa:
Article 7b(1) of this Law, which is of particular relevance to this report, read as follows:
Prošnja za dovoljenje za sprožitev sodnega postopka proti poslancu ali senatorju v primeru kaznivega dejanja, ki je predmet sodnega pregona, se vloži s posredovanjem poljskega generalnega državnega tožilca.
The application for authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against a deputy or senator in the event of an offence subject to public prosecution shall be made through the intermediary of the Polish Prosecutor- General .
44. na podlagi Donnezovega poročila ( A2–121/86 ).
44. on the basis of Mr Donnez's report ( A2–121/86 ).
Dejstvo, da se člen 10, prvi odstavek, oddelek (a) PPI nanaša na imunitete, priznane poslancem nacionalnih parlamentov, ne pomeni, da Parlament ne more oblikovati svojih pravil, ki predstavljajo neke vrste sodno prakso.
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, section (a), of the PPI refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not mean that the Parliament cannot create its own rules which constitute a species of 'case law'.
V zvezi z odvzemom imunitete se takšna imuniteta, ki je enaka za poslance določene nacionalnosti v njihovih nacionalnih parlamentih in v Evropskem parlamentu, ne sme zamenjati z odvzemom le-te, ki je posebna pravica vsakega parlamenta.
As regards the waiver of immunity, such immunity, which is identical for Members of a given nationality in their national parliament and in the European Parliament, must not be confused with the waiver thereof, which is a prerogative of each individual parliament.
– obstoj fumus persecutionis, torej suma, da je namen kazenskega pregona oškodovanje poslančevega političnega delovanja,
– the existence of fumus persecutionis , i.e. the suspicion that criminal proceedings have been brought with the intention of undermining the political activity of the Member concerned,
Nadaljnje opazke
Further considerations
Pred uradnim posredovanjem poljskega generalnega državnega tožilca je gospod Pietrowicz zahtevo za odvzem imunitete Siwiecu poslal v pismu z dne 16. marca 2005 neposredno na predsednika Parlamenta.
Before the official transmission by the Polish Prosecutor-General, Mr Pietrowicz sent his request for waiver of Mr Siwiec's immunity directly to the President of Parliament in a letter dated 16 March 2005.
V pismu je bilo med drugim kot dodatno pojasnilo navedeno, da je Siwiec član večje skupine, ki naj bi napadala nekatera katoliška sredstva množičnega obveščanja na Poljskem.
The argument set forth in this letter consisted inter alia of 'background' information, portraying Mr Siwiec as member of a larger group attacking certain catholic media in Poland.
V drugem pismu, poslanem neposredno predsedniku Parlamenta (z datumom 27. marec 2007), je Pietrowicz povprašal o poteku razprave v Parlamentu glede njegove zahteve (ki so jo v vmesnem času že pravilno posredovali poljski organi) in zatrdil, da je bil Siwiec nekdaj zagovornik stalinistično-komunistične ideologije, kasneje pa je na nejasen način postal liberalec.
In another letter sent directly to the President of Parliament (dated 27 March 2007), Mr Pietrowicz inquired about the Parliament's deliberations concerning his request (which by this time had already been properly transmitted by Polish authorities), and claimed that Mr Siwiec used to be a defender of the stalinist-communist ideology and later became a liberal in a dubious way.
Na zaslišanju pred odborom 28. maja 2008 je Siwiec navedel, da se je za obnašanje v Ostrzeszówu že opravičil ob številnih priložnostih, pri tem pa se je skliceval na zasebno dopisovanje z Vatikanom, po besedah katerega se njihov državni voditelj (to je pokojni papež) zaradi te "šale" ni čutil užaljenega.
At the hearing held before the committee on 28 May 2008, Mr Siwiec stated that he had apologised for his behaviour in Ostrzeszów on numerous occasions and referred to his private correspondence with the Vatican which indicated that its Head of State (i.e. the late Pope) did not feel offended by this 'joke'.
Marec Siwiec je predložil še kopije treh dodatnih dokumentov, ki jih je podpisal Pietrowicz:
Mr Siwiec also presented copies of three additional documents signed by Mr Pietrowicz:
Pismo okrožnemu sodišču v Poznanu z dne 18. oktobra 2006, v katerem Pietrowicz prosi za pojasnilo v zvezi z roki, ki veljajo za izpodbijanje odločitve z dne 5. oktobra 2006, s katero je okrožno sodišče v Poznanu zaključilo postopek v zvezi s parlamentarno imuniteto Siwieca.
A letter to the Regional Court in Poznań dated 18 October 2006, in which Mr Pietrowicz asks for clarification of deadlines applicable to contest the decision of 5 October 2006 by which the District Court in Poznań closed the proceedings in view of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Siwiec.
V pismu Pietrowicz trikrat nejasno govori o "RDEČEM SATANU", ki naj bi bil odgovoren za postopkovno napako sodišča.
In this letter Mr Pietrowicz three times makes an imprecise reference to ‘RED SATAN’ as being responsible for the procedural mistake made by the Court.
Okrajno sodišče v Poznanu je postopek dejansko zaključilo 5. oktobra 2006, čeprav je okrožno sodišče v Poznanu odločitev kasneje ovrglo, češ da je bila zahteva za odvzem Siwiečeve imunitete navsezadnje že vložena.
Indeed, the District Court in Poznań did close the proceedings on 5 October 2006, but that decision was later overruled by the Regional Court in Poznań on the basis that the application for waiver of Mr Siwiec’s immunity had eventually been made.
Končna analiza
Final analysis
Odgovoriti je treba na vprašanje, ali bi lahko obtožbe proti Siwiecu škodovale njegovemu političnemu delovanju kot poslanec Parlamenta in bi bile torej fumus persecutionis ter bi upravičile odločitev Parlamenta, da zavrne zahtevo po odvzemu imunitete.
The question to be answered is whether the charges brought against Mr Siwiec might be intended to undermine his political activity as a Member, which would constitute a fumus persecutionis and warrant Parliament's refusing to waive his immunity.
Čeprav se je državni tožilec v Ostrzeszówu odločil, da preiskavo konča, ker ni našel potrebnih razlogov za javno obtožbo, pa je Pietrowicz še vedno lahko ukrepal kot zasebna stranka na osnovi subjektivnega dojemanja, češ da ga je Siwiečevo obnašanje "žalilo" (ali, pravno, oškodovalo).
Although the Public Prosecutor in Ostrzeszów decided to close the investigation, having failed to find the necessary grounds for bringing public charges, it was still open to Mr Pietrowicz to pursue an action as a private individual on the basis of his own subjective perception that he had been "offended" (or legally injured) by the behaviour of Mr Siwiec.
S tem je bil upravičen do sprožitve postopka proti Siwiecu.
Thus he had the right to initiate proceedings against Mr Siwiec.
Potemtakem mora zdaj poljsko sodišče odločiti, ali dogodek, ki se je zgodil 17. septembra 1997, izpolnjuje merila kaznivega dejanja po členu 196 poljskega kazenskega zakonika (sodišče bi seveda moralo v prvi vrsti tudi upoštevati, ali je zastaralni rok kaznivega dejanja že potekel).
It is then a matter for the Polish court to decide whether the events that took place on 17 September 1997 fulfil the criteria of the crime as provided for in Art. 196 of the Polish Penal Code (the court would of course also have to consider in the first place whether the period of limitation for the offence had already expired).
Vseeno pa moramo upoštevati kar nekaj specifičnih vidikov zadeve (uporaba video posnetka dogodka v Ostrzeszówu med volilno kampanjo tri leta po dogodku in nedvoumna politična naravnanost Pietrowicza proti Siwiecu, saj je Pietrowicz s svojim delovanjem prvenstveno želel preprečiti izvolitev Siwieca v Evropski parlament, pa tudi Pietrowiczove trditve, da deluje v imenu tistih poljskih državljanov, ki splošno nasprotujejo javnemu delovanju Siwieca), zaradi česar obstajajo utemeljeni razlogi za sum, da lahko Pietrowiczove obtožbe označimo za fumus persecutionis.
However, taking into account many specific aspects of this case (i.e. the use of a video recording of the event in Ostrzeszów during an electoral campaign three years after it happened and the explicit political aims of Mr Pietrowicz in his actions against Mr Siwiec, which appeared to be first and foremost to prevent his election to the European Parliament, and also the fact that Mr Pietrowicz claims to act on behalf of those Polish citizens who object to the public activity of Mr Siwiec in general), there are serious reasons to believe that Mr Pietrowicz’s charges have to be categorised as fumus persecutionis .
Zato menimo, da je treba parlamentarno imuniteto Mareka Siwieca zaščititi.
Consequently, it is considered that the parliamentary immunity of Mr Marek Siwiec should not be waived.
o predlogu uredbe Sveta o vzpostavitvi mreže za zbiranje računovodskih podatkov o dohodkih in poslovanju kmetijskih gospodarstev v Evropski skupnosti (kodificirana različica)
on the proposal for a Council regulation setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community (codified version)
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2009)0125 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2009)0125 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 37(2) Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C7‑0005/2009 ),
– having regard to Article 37(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C7‑0005/2009 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7‑0031/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0031/2009 ),