natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Člen 3 navaja merila, ki so včasih preohlapna.
Article 3 only lays down criteria, which are moreover excessively wide in some cases.
Treba je še natančneje določiti dejavnosti, ki se lahko obravnavajo kot ribolovne dejavnosti IUU, in področja, na katera se nanašajo.
Greater precision is needed as regards which activities can be considered as IUU fishing and in what areas.
Člen 43 – odstavek 1
Article 43 – paragraph 1
Države članice zagotovijo, da se fizična oseba , ki je storila hujšo kršitev, ali pravna oseba , za katero se ugotovi, da je odgovorna za hujšo kršitev, kaznuje z učinkovitimi, sorazmernimi in odvračilnimi kaznimi , ki vključujejo največje denarne kazni v višini najmanj 300 000 EUR za fizične osebe in najmanj 500 000 EUR za pravne osebe.
Member States shall ensure that a natural person having committed or a legal person found liable for a serious infringement is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, which shall include fines of a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for natural persons and of at least EUR 500 000 for legal persons.
Države članice zagotovijo, da se za fizično osebo , ki je storila hujšo kršitev, ali pravno osebo , za katero se ugotovi, da je odgovorna za hujšo kršitev, odredi učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne upravne kazni v obliki denarne kazni, katere najvišji znesek je najmanj 300 000 EUR za fizične osebe in najmanj 500 000 EUR za pravne osebe.
Member States shall ensure that a natural person having committed or a legal person found liable for a serious infringement is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive adm inistrative sanctions, which shall include fines of a maximum of at least EUR 300 000 for natural persons and of at least EUR 500 000 for legal persons.
Izvirno besedilo ne loči med upravnimi in kazenskimi sankcijami, medtem ko na eni strani obstajajo dvomi o pristojnosti Komisije glede kazenskih sankcij, na drugi strani pa v nekaterih državah članicah niso predvidene kazenske sankcije za prekrške v ribištvu.
The original wording does not distinguish between administrative and penal sanctions when there are still legal doubts as to the Commission’s powers in relation to penal sanctions and there are some Member States whose legal system makes no provision for applying penal sanctions in the field of fisheries.
Člen 43 – odstavek 2 a (novo)
Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Države članice se lahko odločijo za kazenske sankcije, če so enakovredne upravnim kaznim.
The Member States may also opt for penal sanctions provided that the amount of such sanctions is at least equivalent to that of the administrative sanctions.
Kljub obrazložitvi predloga spremembe k odstavku 1 je treba vseeno predvideti možnost izvajanja kazenskih sankcij, če pravna ureditev države članice to omogoča.
Notwithstanding the statement made in the justification to the amendment to paragraph 1, provision should also be made for the possibility of applying penal sanctions if the legal system of the Member State in question so permits.
(45a) Kazni, predvidene v tem poglavju, lahko spremljajo druge kazni ali ukrepi, zlasti:
The sanctions provided for in this Chapter shall be accompanied by other sanctions or measures, in particular:
a) začasna (najmanj za čas izvajanja programa) ali trajna prepoved koriščenja državne pomoči ali subvencij.
a) a temporary ban for at least the duration of the programming period, or a permanent ban on access to public aid or subsidies;
b) dolžnost, da se vrne državno pomoč ali subvencije, ki so jih dobila plovila IUU v obravnavanem finančnem obdobju.
b) the repayment of public aid or subsidies received by IUU vessels during the relevant financial period.
Plovilom IUU je treba prepovedati, da bi koristila državno pomoč ali subvencije vsaj v času operativnega programa.
IUU vessels must be barred from public assistance or subsidies for at last the period of the operational programme.
Obvezno mora biti tudi črtanje plovil IUU s seznama možnih koristnikov, tako da davkoplačevalci ne plačujejo za plovila ali operaterje, obsojene zaradi kaznivih dejanj.
Removal from the list of eligible beneficiaries should also be made mandatory so that taxpayers do not subsidise vessels and operators convicted of criminal activity.
Plovila IUU ne bi smela dobivati sredstev davkoplačevalcev, tista pa, ki so jih že dobila v času operativnega programa, morajo denar vrniti.
IUU vessels should not receive taxpayer support and vessels that have received taxpayers' money during the operational programme period should repay that money.
Člen 53 – odstavek – 1 (novo)
Article 53 – paragraph -1 (new)
Popolno izvajanje predlagane ureditve bo v nekaterih državah članicah zahtevalo prilagajanje nacionalne pravne ureditve, nadzornega sistema, meril za financiranje, usposabljanje itd.
Full implementation of the proposed rules will require appropriate adjustments to be made in individual Member States as regards national law, inspection systems, funding requirements, training, etc .
Namen tega predloga spremembe je uskladitev s predlogom spremembe, ki črta člen 20.
Consistency with the amendment aimed at deleting Article 20.
Nezakonit, neprijavljen in nereguliran ribolov (IUU) je resen in vse večji svetovni problem.
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a serious and growing problem worldwide.
Razloge zanj ter njegov pomen, pa tudi ukrepe, sprejete (in nesprejete) s strani EU in mednarodne skupnosti je obravnavalo poročilo Marie-Hélène Aubert
The causes and importance of IUU fishing and the measures taken (and not taken) by the EU and the international community were discussed in the first Aubert report
A6-0015/2007 , Poročilo o izvajanju akcijskega načrta EU za nezakonit, neprijavljen in zakonsko neurejen ribolov, resolucija EP z dne 15. februarja 2007 ( P6_TA(2007)0044 ) .
A6-0015/2007 , Report on the implementation of the EU action plan against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, EP resolution of 15 February 2007 ( P6_TA(2007)0044 ) .
V poročilu je Parlament navedel vrsto zahtev:
In that report, Parliament made a number of demands:
· izboljšanje izvajanja določb skupne ribiške politike za zmanjšanje ribolova IUU, ki ga izvajajo plovila EU (odstavek 8),
· improved implementation of CFP provisions to reduce IUU fishing by EU vessels (para 8)
· prepoved trgovine z ribami, ulovljenimi na ta način (odstavek 14 ii),
· ban on trade in IUU fish (para 14 ii)
· vzpostavitev registra Skupnosti za plovila IUU (odstavek 18, druga točka),
· creation of a Community register of IUU vessels (para 18, second point)
· skupne minimalne kazni za kršitve (odstavek 18, tretja točka),
· common minimum penalties for infringements (para 18, third point)
· zahteva, da se pravni izvor rib dokaže pred raztovorom ali uvozom v EU (odstavek 18, šesta točka),
· requirement that legal origin of fish be demonstrated before being offloaded or imported into EU (para18, sixth point)
· prepoved vstopa v EU plovilom IUU in njihovim ribam (odstavek 20),
· ban on the entry into EU ports of IUU vessels and of their fish (para 20)
· poziv uvoznikom, prevoznikom in drugim zadevnim sektorjem, naj ne trgujejo z ribami, ki so jih ujela plovila IUU (odstavek 20).
· importers, transporters etc urged to not deal with fish caught by IUU vessels (para 20)
Te zahteve so dobile široko podporo vseh strani v Odboru za ribištvo in Parlamentu.
These demands met with wide, cross-party support in both the Fisheries Committee and Parliament.
Komisija se je hitro odzvala z oblikovanjem pravočasnega in celovitega predloga za ureditev boja proti ribolovu IUU, kjerkoli se ta pojavlja.
The Commission responded rapidly, by producing a timely and comprehensive proposal for a regulation to combat IUU fishing, wherever it occurs.
Predlog si zasluži polno podporo Parlamenta, ker v zelo veliki meri temelji prav na njegovih zahtevah.
The proposal deserves the full support of Parliament, for it is to a significant extent based upon the demands that Parliament itself has made.
Če bi bil predlog sprejet v svoji sedanji obliki, bi s tem Skupnost resnično prišla na čelo mednarodnih prizadevanj za odpravo ribolova IUU in v položaj, ko bi lahko izvajala pritisk na države, ki svojim plovilom takšen ribolov še naprej dovoljujejo.
Indeed, if the proposal is adopted in its present form, it would put the Community at the forefront of international efforts to eliminate IUU fishing and in a position to put pressure on States which continue to allow IUU fishing by their vessels.
Glede na to, da Skupnost velja za eno največjih ribiških sil in za največji svetovni trg, je jasno, da mora biti EU v ospredju teh prizadevanj.
Considering the Community's prominence as one of the largest fishing powers and the largest market in the world, the EU has a clear responsibility to be at the forefront.
Predlog je kompleksen, njegovi bistveni elementi pa so:
The proposal is complex, but the essential elements consist of:
· vzpostavitev seznama plovil (tistih, ki plujejo pod zastavo EU in plovil tretjih držav), ki izvajajo ribolov IUU;
· the creation of a list of vessels (both EU-flagged and non-EU) that are involved in IUU fishing;
· shema pomorske inšpekcije, ki bi plovilom IUU iz tretjih držav prepovedala dostop;
· a scheme of port state control that would prohibit access by third country IUU vessels;
· prepoved uvoza rib, ki izhajajo iz ribolova IUU, in zahteva, da mora država zastave izdati certifikat o zakonitem ulovu;
· a ban on the importation of IUU fish, by requiring certificatation by the flag state that the fish is legal;
· razvitje sistema Skupnosti za opozarjanje v primerih, ko bi obstajal sum, da so bile ribe ulovljene nezakonito;
· the development of a Community Alert System when there is a suspicion that IUU fish has been detected;
· prepoved uvoza rib iz držav, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da ne sodelujejo v shemi EU;
· prohibition of importing fish from countries that have been identified as not cooperating with the EU scheme;
· podrobne določbe o tem, kakšni ukrepi so potrebni za vsakega od omenjenih primerov;
· provisions detailing what actions are to be taken in each of the above situations.
Jasno je, da morata biti ta predlog in "uredba o nadzoru" popolnoma usklajena (kar bo predmet novega predloga uredbe Sveta oktobra 2008).
Clearly, there is a need to ensure full compatibility between this proposal and the "Control Regulation"
Sporni vidiki predloga
Controversial Aspects of the Proposal
Sporni so trije glavni vidiki – področje uporabe uredbe, potrdilo o ulovu in uskladitev sankcij.
There are three main aspects that are subject to controversy - the scope of the regulation, the catch certificate and harmonization of penalties.
Področje uporabe uredbe
Scope of the Regulation
Gre za vprašanje, ali bi se morala uredba nanašati na plovila, ki plujejo pod zastavo EU, ali samo na plovila tretjih držav.
The question here is whether the regulation should apply to EU-flagged vessels or only to the vessels of third countries.
Očitno je, da mora Skupnost pravila, ki jih uporablja za druge, uporabljati tudi za lastna plovila in izvajalce.
It is obvious that the Community must apply the same rules to its own vessels and operators that it applies to others.
Države članice in deli industrije trdijo, da plovila EU že urejajo določbe skupne ribiške politike, zaradi česar se bistveno razlikujejo od plovil drugih držav.
Member States and parts of the industry argue that EU vessels are already regulated under the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), so they are fundamentally different from vessels from other countries.
To je tako, kot če bi rekli: "mi smo boljši od vseh drugih".
This is equivalent to saying "we are better than everybody else".
To stališče ni utemeljeno iz več razlogov:
This position is not valid for several reasons.
Drugič, deli ribiške industrije EU in nekatere države članice napačno zatrjujejo, da so plovila EU strožje nadzorovana kot plovila drugih držav.
Second , it is a myth promoted by parts of the EU fishing industry and certain Member States that EU vessels are more strictly controlled than those from other countries.
Nedavno poročilo Evropskega računskega sodišča
The recent report by the European Court of Auditors
Posebno poročilo št. 7/2007 (UL C 317 z dne 28.12.2007) je jasno pokazalo, v kolikšni meri države članice ne uveljavljajo skupne ribiške politike.
Special report n° 7/2007 (OJ C 317 of 28.12.2007) showed clearly the extent to which Member States fail to enforce the CFP.
Kulture usklajevanja v EU ni, kar je priznala celo industrija sama.
There is not a "culture of compliance" in the EU, as even the industry itself has admitted.
Poročilo Sodišča je bilo posredovano na vse konce in kraje, tako da se druge države sedaj dobro zavedajo, kaj se dogaja v EU.
The Court's report has been widely circulated and other countries are now well aware of what happens in EU.
Med največjimi škandali, povezanimi z ribolovom IUU v zadnjih letih, so tisti v zvezi z modroplavutim tunom, trsko v Barentsovem in Baltskem morju ter patagonsko zobato ribo, v katere so bila v velikem obsegu vključena plovila, izvajalci in uvozniki EU.
Among the most important IUU fishery scandals in recent years are bluefin tuna, cod in the Barents and Baltic Seas and Patagonian toothfish, all of which have significant EU involvement in terms of vessels or operators or importers.
EU je tako močno udeležena v več obsežnih primerih ribolova IUU, in to v različnih vlogah.
The EU is thus intimately involved in several major IUU fisheries in a wide variety of roles.
Medtem ko države, kot so Kitajska, Koreja ali države zastav ugodnosti pravila izvajajo v zelo omejenem obsegu, mnoge druge države menijo, da je Skupnost prej del problema IUU kot pa zgled, ki naj bi mu sledili.
While some countries such as China, Korea or the flags of convenience do little to implement the rules, there are many countries which consider the Community as part of the IUU problem, rather than an example to follow.
Na javnem posvetovanju pred objavo predloga je svetovalni odbor za ribištvo in ribogojstvo v zvezi z ribolovom IUU pozval k nediskriminatornim ukrepom
In the public consultation prior to the proposal's release, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) has called for non-discriminatory measures when dealing with IUU fishing
CCPA – PE (07)38 končno Bruselj, 30. marec 2007.
ACFA – EP(07)38 final Brussels, 30 March 2007.
Mnenje tega odbora o novi strategiji, ki jo Komisija predvideva za boj proti nezakonitemu, neprijavljenemu in nereguliranemu ribolovu .
ACFA opinion on a new strategy envisaged by the Commission for the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing .
Če določbe uredbe IUU ne bi veljale za plovila EU, potem bi lahko upravičeno trdili, da EU sebi dodeljuje privilegij ribolova IUU, medtem ko druge kritizira.
If the provisions of the IUU regulation are not applicable to EU vessels, then it will be claimed, with justification, that the EU allows itself the privilege of conducting IUU fishing while it criticizes others.
Tretjič, če bi EU nalagala različne režime in pogoje dejavnostim IUU, ki jih izvajajo plovila EU in plovila, ki niso iz EU, bi bilo to diskriminatorno glede na predpise Svetovne trgovinske organizacije.
Third , were the EU to impose different regimes and conditions on IUU activities by EU and non-EU vessels, it would be discriminatory under the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Za plovilo, ki bi prišlo na seznam plovil IUU, bi bila ena od posledic prepoved uvoza rib s tega plovila – se pravi trgovinska ovira.
One of the consequences of a vessel appearing on the IUU vessel list would be a prohibition on the importation of fish from that vessel - in other words, a trade barrier.
Če bi Skupnost poskušala uvesti trgovinske ovire za proizvode iz drugih držav na podlagi ukrepov, ki jih sebi ne nalaga, bi bilo to v popolnem nasprotju z določbami Svetovne trgovinske organizacije o nediskriminaciji.
If the Community attempts to impose trade barriers for products from other countries based on measures that it does not impose on itself, it would be in clear contravention of WTO provisions on non-discrimination.
Skupnost lahko in mora zavzeti odnos oziroma ravnati tako, da bo upravičeno ukrepala proti subjektom v tretjih državah, ki še naprej izvajajo ribolov IUU.
The Community can and must position itself so that it is entitled to take action against those in third countries who continue to be engaged in IUU fishing.
Naložitev sankcij
Penalties to be Imposed
Sedaj se sankcije, ki jih izvajajo različne države članice, močno razlikujejo in Svet pa tudi Računsko sodišče sta ugotovila, da denarne kazni niso odvračilne.
At present, sanctions applied by the various Member States differ widely and both the Commission and the Court of Auditors have noted that the fines are not dissuasive.
Parlament tudi že dolgo poziva k usklajenim kaznim, ki bi bile dejansko odvračilne, namesto preprostih stroškov za opravljanje posla
Parliament has also long called for harmonized penalties, sufficient to be dissuasive, instead of a simple cost of doing business
Glej npr. poročila A5-0228/2002 (Attwool), A5-0470/2001 (Miguelez Ramos) in A4-0298/1997 (Fraga Estevez) .
For instance see reports A5-0228/2002 (Attwool), A5-0470/2001 (Miguelez Ramos) and A4-0298/1997 (Fraga Estevez) .
Države članice trdijo, da je uveljavljanje kazni v njihovi pristojnosti, vendar je v nedavni sodbi Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti
Member States claim that imposing criminal sanctions is their competence, but a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice
Zadeva C-440/05 Komisija proti Svetu, sodba z dne 23. oktobra 2007 rečeno, da lahko Skupnost od držav članic zahteva, da kazenske ukrepe izvedejo, narava teh kazni in kako stroge so, pa je v pristojnosti držav članic samih.
Case C-440/05 Commission v. Council, judgment of 23 October 2007 said that the Community can require Member States to impose criminal penalties, while the nature or level of those penalties is up to the Member States.
Vendar se to nanaša na kazenske sankcije.
This, however, applies to criminal sanctions.
Predlog ne poziva h kazenskim ukrepom, poskuša samo doseči, da bi bile najvišje možne denarne kazni razumne in odvračilne.
The proposal does not call for criminal penalties, it merely tries to establish that the maximum fines that could be imposed are at a reasonable and dissuasive level.
Poleg tega so velike razlike v kaznih diskriminatorne do nekaterih ribičev EU.
Further, having widely differing penalties is discriminatory against some EU fishermen.
Ustrezno izvajanje te uredbe bo zahtevalo močno vključenost služb, odgovornih za inšpekcijske preglede in nadzor, na ravni Skupnosti, pa tudi oblikovanje zbora inšpektorjev Skupnosti.
Proper implementation of this regulation will require a strong integration at the Community level of the services responsible for inspection and control, including the creation of a corps of Community inspectors.
Glede tega vidika skupne ribiške politike subsidiarnost ni omogočila potrebne ravni usklajenosti.
Subsidiarity in this aspect of the CFP has clearly failed to deliver the needed level of compliance.
Ker poskušajo plovila IUU svoje dejavnosti usmerjati v najdonosnejši ribolov (modroplavuti tun, trska), morajo biti kazni, če naj bi bile odvračilne, dovolj visoke.
Since IUU vessels tend to concentrate on the most lucrative fisheries (bluefin tuna, cod) it is necessary that sanctions can be imposed that are high enough to be dissuasive.
Potrdilo o ulovu
Catch Certificate
Potrdilo o ulovu bi omogočilo veliko večjo sledljivost ribiškega proizvoda in bilo v veliko pomoč pri ureditvi tega področja.
The catch certificate would allow for far better traceability of the fish product and thus would be a major tool of the regulation.
Sicer velja za preveč zapleteno, vendar je ribolov v današnjem globaliziranem svetu zelo kompleksna dejavnost, saj ribe v času od ulova do končne prodaje potrošniku prepotujejo ves svet.
It has been described as too complex, but fishing in today's globalized world is a very complex business, with fish travelling all around the world between the time it is caught and the final sale to the consumer.
Prehodi čez številne meje, pristanišča in letališča nudijo mnoge priložnosti, da se zakonito in nezakonito ulovljene ribe pomešajo, skratka, omogočajo pranje nezakonitega ulova.
Passing through multiple borders, ports and airports offers many opportunities to mix legal and illegal fish, in effect laundering the IUU fish.
Učinkovit in celovit sistem sledljivosti je bistvenega pomena za zmanjšanje pranja nezakonitega ulova na najmanjšo možno mero.
An effective and comprehensive system of traceability is essential to minimise amount of fish laundering that occurs
Veliko držav članic vztraja pri mnenju, da potrdilo ne sme ovirati trgovine, kajti EU ribe potrebuje za svojo predelovalno industrijo in trg.
A number of Member States insist that the certificate must not be a barrier to trade, since the EU needs fish for its processing industry and its market.
Nočejo, da bi sistem potrdil vplival na oskrbo EU z ribami.
They do not want the system of certificates to affect the supply of fish to the EU.
Vendar je pri nekaterih vrstah ribolova, kot na primer zgoraj omenjenih (modroplavuti tun, trska itd.), odstotek nezakonitega ulova zelo visok, saj včasih znaša celo polovico vsega ulova ali celo več, od česar imajo korist nekateri deli industrije EU.
However, in certain fisheries, such as those mentioned above (bluefin tuna, cod etc), the percentage of IUU fish is very high, sometimes as much as half of the total catch or even more, and parts of the EU industry have benefited from this.
Zato mora shema sledljivosti po definiciji imeti možnost poseganja na trg, saj bi bila sicer brez vrednosti.
Therefore, by definition, the scheme for traceability must have the possibility to interfere with the market, otherwise it will be of no use.
Poleg tega večina rib, ki prihajajo v EU, ne izhaja iz sektorjev ribištva, katerim bi bila uporaba omenjenih potrdil v veliko breme, omogočila pa bi lahko odkrivanje ribolova IUU v drugih sektorjih.
Moreover, the bulk of the fish coming into the EU does not come from fisheries where the use of these certificates would cause an onerous burden, whereas it could allow IUU fish to be detected in other fisheries.
Komisija, države članice in ribiški sektor morajo sodelovati pri iskanju sistema, ki bo gospodarsko učinkovit in ki bo hkrati čim bolj zmanjšal upravno breme, vendar pa mora potrdilo o ulovu ostati eden od stebrov ureditve.
The Commission, the Member States and the industry need to work together to find a system that combines efficiency and effectiveness while keeping the administrative burden as low as possible, but the catch certificate must continue to be a pillar of the regulation.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bila korist celotne sheme le navidezna brez večjega vpliva na ribolov IUU.
Otherwise the entire scheme will be merely cosmetic and have no serious impact on IUU fishing.
Države v razvoju
Developing Countries
Mnogim razvitim državam manjka virov (finančnih, logističnih, upravnih, človeških itd.), da bi izpolnile številne obveznosti, povezane z nadzorom in izdajanjem potrdil, ki bi jih v skladu s predlagano uredbo morale izpolniti, da bi dobile dostop na trg EU.
Many Developing Countries lack the resources (financial, logistical, administrative, human, etc) to fulfil the many surveillance and certification requirements that the proposed regulation would impose, if they wish access to the EU market.
V teku konference na visoki ravni o izkoreninjenju ribolova IUU v Lizboni oktobra 2007 so mnogi partnerji iz držav v razvoju dejali, da želijo pomagati v boju proti ribolovu IUU, vendar za to potrebujejo pomoč.
At the High Level Conference on eradication of IUU fishing held in Lisbon in October 2007, many partners from Developing Countries said that they want to help in the fight against IUU fishing but they need help in order to do so.
Predlog sicer obljublja izpolnitev te potrebe (člen 30), vendar ne vsebuje nobenih konkretnih pobud.
The proposal pays lip service to this need (Article 30) but contains no concrete initiatives.