natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pred začetkom obravnave se predlog prevede v tiste uradne jezike, za katere predsednik odbora meni, da so potrebni za kratko obravnavo.
Prior to referral, the proposal shall be translated into those official languages which the chairman of that committee regards as necessary to make summary consideration possible.
Odbor sprejme sklep o nadaljnjem postopku v roku treh mesecev od prejema predloga v obravnavo in po zaslišanju pripravljavca predloga.
The committee shall take a decision on further action within three months following the referral and after hearing the author of the proposal.
Kadar odbor sklene, da bo Parlamentu predložil predlog v skladu s postopkom iz člena 45, se ime avtorja predloga navede v naslovu poročila.
Where the committee decides to submit the proposal to Parliament pursuant to the procedure under Rule 45, the author of the proposal shall be named in the title of the report.
Člen 39, odstavek 2
Rule 39, paragraph 2
b) se priprave predloga še niso začele ali neupravičeno zamujajo;
(b) the preparations of such a proposal have not started or are unduly delayed;
c) Komisija ni pozitivno odgovorila na prejšnje zahteve, ki jih je podal pristojni odbor ali so vsebovane v resoluciji, ki jo je Parlament sprejel z večino oddanih glasov.
(c) the Commission has not responded positively to earlier requests either from the committee responsible or contained in resolutions adopted by Parliament with a majority of the votes cast.
Člen 45, odstavek 1, zadnji stavek (novo)
Rule 45, paragraph 1, last sentence (new)
Kadar je predmet poročila predlog, ki ga je vložil poslanec v skladu s členom 39(1a), se lahko dovoljenje odreče le, če niso izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 5 statuta poslancev Evropskega parlamenta ter člena 192 Pogodbe ES.
Where the subject of the report is a proposal tabled by a Member pursuant to Rule 39(1a), authorisation may be withheld only if the conditions set out in Article 5 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Article 192 of the EC Treaty are not met.
Člen 150, odstavek 6, pododstavek 1
Rule 150, paragraph 6, subparagraph 1
Parlament se izogiba sprejemanju odločitev, s katerimi bi bili poslanci, ki uporabljajo določen jezik, na nesprejemljiv način diskriminirani.
Parliament shall avoid taking decisions which would lead to Members who use a given language being disadvantaged to an unacceptable degree.
Priloga I, člen 2, odstavek 1, točka aa (novo)
Annex I, Article 2, paragraph 1, letter aa (new)
aa) vsako nadomestilo, ki ga poslanec prejema za opravljanje mandata v drugem parlamentu,
(aa) any remuneration which the Member receives for the exercise of a mandate in another parliament,
Priloga I, člen 4
Annex I, Article 4
Do sprejetja statuta poslancev Evropskega Parlamenta, ki bo nadomestil različne nacionalne predpise, veljajo za poslance glede prijavljanja premoženja predpisi držav članic, v katerih so bili izvoljeni.
Pending the introduction of a Statute for Members of the European Parliament to replace the various national rules, Members shall be subject to the obligations imposed on them by the legislation of the Member State in which they are elected as regards the declaration of assets.
Priloga VII, točka C a (novo)
Annex VII, Section C a (new)
S soglasjem predsedstva se lahko poslancu z utemeljenim sklepom zavrne vpogled v dokument Parlamenta, če predsedstvo po zaslišanju poslanca meni, da lahko vpogled na nesprejemljiv način škoduje institucionalnim interesom Parlamenta ali javnemu interesu, in da poslanec želi vpogled iz zasebnih ali osebnih razlogov.
With the approval of the Bureau, a Member may, on the basis of a reasoned decision, be denied the right to inspect a Parliament document if, after hearing the Member concerned, the Bureau comes to the conclusion that such inspection would cause unacceptable damage to Parliament’s institutional interests or the public interest and that the Member concerned is seeking to inspect the document for private and personal reasons.
Poslanec lahko zoper takšno odločitev v roku enega meseca po njeni predložitvi vloži pisno obrazloženo pritožbo.
The Member may lodge a written appeal, which must include reasons, against such a decision within a month of its transmission.
O pritožbi odloči Parlament brez razprave na zasedanju, ki sledi njeni vložitvi.
Parliament shall reach a decision on the appeal without debate during the part ‑session that follows its being lodged.
Predlog spremembe 1 – Trenutna različica člena 8 poslovnika ne ustreza več pravnemu stanju, ki bo nastopilo po začetku veljavnosti statuta poslancev.
Amendment 1 - The current wording of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure is no longer consistent with the legal situation which will obtain following the entry into force of the Statute for Members.
Od takrat naprej bodo pravila glede povračil stroškov in nadomestil poslancem temeljila na členih 9-23, 27 in 28 statuta poslancev in ne več na pravici do samoorganizacije Parlamenta v skladu s členom 199 Pogodbe ES.
From that moment on, the rules governing the reimbursement of Members’ expenses and Members’ allowances will no longer be based on Parliament’s right of administrative autonomy, pursuant to Article 199 of the EC Treaty, but instead on Articles 9 to 23, 27 and 28 of the Statute for Members.
Smiselno je, da sklepe o izvajanju takšnih zadev še nadalje sprejema predsedstvo.
It makes sense that implementing decisions concerning such matters should continue to be taken by the Bureau.
S predlagano novo različico člena 8 bo predsedstvo pridobilo ustrezne pristojnosti.
The proposed new wording of Rule 8 will grant the Bureau corresponding regulatory powers.
Pristojnost sprejemanja finančnih, organizacijskih in upravnih odločitev o zadevah poslancev, dodeljena predsedstvu s členom 22(2) ostaja še naprej smiselna, saj se nanaša na politično odgovornost za izvajanje pravil v posameznem primeru.
The competence to take financial, organisational and administrative decisions on matters concerning Members conferred on the Bureau by Rule 22(2) should be retained, since it concerns political responsibility for the implementation of the rules in individual cases.
Predlogi sprememb 3 do 6 – Namen predlagane spremembe je uresničevanje osebne pravice vsakega poslanca, predvidene v členu 5 statuta poslancev, da v okviru pravice do pobude Parlamenta vloži predlog za akt Skupnosti.
Amendments 3-6 - The aim of the proposed amendments is to make practical arrangements for the exercise of the individual right, granted to every Member by Article 4 of the Statute for Members, to table proposals for Community acts in the context of Parliament’s right of initiative.
V samem statutu velja za to pravico pridržek.
The Statute itself stipulates that Parliament will lay down in its Rules of Procedure the conditions for the exercise of this right.
Zato poslanec nima pravice zahtevati, da se o njegovem zakonodajnem predlogu glasuje na zasedanju.
Accordingly, individual Members are not entitled simply to have their legislative proposals put to the vote in plenary.
Pravica do vlaganja predloga je ohranjena, če se s primernim postopkom zagotovi obravnava predloga.
The right to table proposals is granted subject to the establishment of an appropriate procedure for their consideration.
V ta namen se je ustrezno sklicevati na postopek, določen v členu 39 poslovnika.
In that connection, the reference to the procedure governed by Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure makes obvious sense.
Smiselno je, da se zakonodajne predloge posameznih poslancev pošlje v kratko predhodno obravnavo pristojnemu odboru.
It would seem to be appropriate for legislative proposals tabled by individual Members to be referred to the committee responsible for summary preliminary consideration.
Da bi preprečili morebitno spodkopavanje pravice posameznika do predlogov, je treba predvideti, da bo odbor v določenem roku sprejel odločitev o nadaljnjem postopku in bo imel pripravljavec predloga možnost predstaviti svoje argumente v razpravi, še preden bo odbor sklenil, da posvetovanja prekine brez poročila.
In order to prevent the individual right to table proposals from being undermined in any way, provisions should be incorporated stipulating that the committee must take a decision on further action within a set time-limit and that, before it takes a decision to halt consideration of the proposal without a report, it must give the author of the proposal an opportunity to set out his or her arguments in an exchange of views.
Pravice poslanca do vložitve predloga za akt Skupnosti v uradnem jeziku po lastni izbiri ni mogoče omejiti zaradi člena 138 poslovnika.
In the light of Rule 138 of the Rules of Procedure, no restrictions can be imposed on the right of each Member to table a proposal for a Community act in the official language of his or her choice.
Prevajanje takšnih predlogov v vse uradne jezike pa bi preobremenilo razpoložljive vire in bi lahko privedlo do zlorabe pravice do predlogov s ciljem prevajanja določenih delov besedila.
However, the translation of such proposals into all the official languages would place an excessive burden on available resources and could give rise to abuses of the right to table proposals with the sole aim of securing the translation of certain passages of text.
Ko so zagotovljena jamstva za pravico posameznika do predlogov, je vsekakor smiselno, da izdelavo poročila o zakonodajnem predlogu, kot to že predvideva poslovnik, odobri ne le odbor, ampak tudi konferenca predsednikov, ki pa jo lahko zavrne samo, če niso izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 5 statuta poslancev Evropskega parlamenta ter člena 192 Pogodbe ES.
Once these guarantees of the individual right to table proposals for Community acts have been established, it would seem to be entirely appropriate that the drafting of a report on a legislative proposal should also be subject to authorisation by the Conference of Presidents, as already stipulated in the Rules of Procedure, authorisation which can then only be denied if the conditions set out in Article 5 of the Statute for Members and in Article 192 of the EC Treaty have not been met.
Kajti pravica do pobude je temeljna pravica vsakega poslanca Parlamenta, ki mora biti ohranjena tudi v poslovniku.
The right of initiative, the sovereign right of every Member, must not be undermined by the Rules of Procedure.
S tem načelom je združljivo tudi preverjanje, ki ga opravi pristojni odbor o tem, ali je primerno, da se zakonodajni predlog, ki ga je podal poslanec, s poročilom predloži Parlamentu.
What would be consistent with that principle, however, is an assessment by the committee responsible of the appropriateness of submitting a Member's legislative proposal to Parliament in the form of a report.
Kadar pristojni odbor meni, da je poročilo primerno, in predlog izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 5 statuta poslancev ter člena 192 Pogodbe ES, bi zavrnitev dovoljenja, zahtevanega v skladu s členom 45 poslovnika, pomenila nedopustno neupoštevanje "temeljne pravice" poslancev.
If the committee responsible regards a report as appropriate, and if the proposal meets the conditions set out in Article 5 of the Statute for Members and Article 192 of the EC Treaty, denial of the authorisation required pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure would undermine in an unacceptable way the sovereign right enjoyed by every Member.
Poslanec, ki pri uveljavljanju "temeljne pravice" vloži zakonodajni predlog, ima poleg tega legitimni interes, da bo s tem predlogom v naslednjih stopnjah obravnave v Parlamentu poimensko povezan.
Moreover, a Member who exercises this sovereign right and tables a legislative proposal has a legitimate interest in ensuring that his or her name remains attached to the proposal throughout its subsequent passage through Parliament.
Ker odbori samostojno odločajo o tem, kateri njihovi člani ali namestniki bodo poročevalci, se zdi primerno, da se ime pripravljavca zakonodajnega predloga zapiše v naslovu poročila.
Since the committees decide independently which of their members or substitute members should act as rapporteur on any given proposal, the name of the MEP who drafted the legislative proposal should be incorporated into the title of the report.
Predlog spremembe 7 – Člen 7 statuta poslancev določa, da imajo poslanci pravico zahtevati prevod dokumentov Parlamenta v svoje uradne jezike in tolmačenje svojih govorov v vse ostale uradne jezike.
Amendment 7 - Article 7 of the Statute for Members gives Members the right to have Parliament documents translated into their respective official languages and to have their speeches interpreted simultaneously into all the other official languages.
Te statutarne pravice zagotavlja člen 138 poslovnika.
These rights are guaranteed by Rule 138 of the Rules of Procedure.
V odstavku 3 in 4 te določbe je Parlament uporabil svojo pristojnost sprejemanja izvedbenih pravil tako, da je tolmačenje na sejah odborov in delegacij omejeno na dejanske potrebe.
In paragraphs 3 and 4 of that rule Parliament has made use of its power to enact implementing provisions by reducing the interpretation service provided in committee and delegation meetings to that required to meet actual needs.
Te omejitve ne spodbijajo načelne pravice vsakega poslanca do uporabe svojega jezika in so zato skladne z določbami statuta.
These restrictions do not call into question the fundamental right of every Member to use his or her own language and are therefore consistent with the provisions of the Statute for Members.
Parlament je decembra 2006 preveril prehodno določbo člena 139 o odstopanjih od načela polne večjezičnosti v primeru neizogibnega pomanjkanja osebja v jezikovnih službah in podaljšal njeno veljavnost za dve leti in pol.
The transitional arrangement laid down in Rule 139, concerning derogations from the principle of full multilingualism in the event of unavoidable shortages of interpreters and translators, was reviewed by Parliament in December 2006 and extended for a further two-and-a-half years.
Ker gre za izjemo, to ni v nasprotju s členom 7 statuta poslancev.
Given its exceptional nature, it is in no way at odds with Article 7 of the Statute for Members.
Smiselno bi bilo spremeniti člen 150 poslovnika, ki omogoča glasovanje o neprevedenih predlogih sprememb, če temu nasprotuje manj kot 40 poslancev.
Some changes would seem to be needed to Rule 150 of the Rules of Procedure, which makes it possible for a vote to be taken on amendments which have not been translated if fewer than 40 Members object.
Če bi takšno skupino poslancev vedno preglasovali, to ne bi bilo skladno s pravico do uporabe lastnega jezika.
It would be incompatible with the right to use one’s own language if the objections of such a group of Members were to be repeatedly disregarded.
Natančna pravna ureditev, ki bi upoštevala ta problem, bi bila zelo zapletena, njeno izvajanje pa bi zahtevalo težavne birokratske postopke.
Detailed rules taking account of this problem would be highly complicated and their application would necessitate cumbersome bureaucratic procedures.
Zato se predlaga dopolnitev člena 150(6) poslovnika s splošnim pravilom ob zaupanju, da se bo Parlament pri svojih odločitvah izogibal enostranski diskriminaciji.
For that reason, your rapporteur is proposing that a general provision should be incorporated in Rule 150(6) of the Rules of Procedure, trusting that Parliament will take care to ensure that its decisions do not regularly place individual groups of Members at a disadvantage.
Predlog spremembe 8 –Pravica poslancev do nadomestila, ki je opredeljena v členu 9 statuta poslancev, je omejena z eno samo določbo v členu 11, v skladu s katero je treba nadomestilo, ki ga poslanec prejema za opravljanje mandata v nekem drugem parlamentu upoštevati kot del nadomestila.
Amendment 8 - Members’ entitlement to a salary, as laid down in Article 9 of the Statute for Members, is subject to one single restriction, specified in Article 11: the salary received by a Member for the exercise of a mandate in another parliament is to be offset against his or her salary as an MEP.
Da bi poenostavili izvajanje te določbe je smiselno, da se podpis izjave, ki je predvidena v prilogi I poslovnika razširi za ta primer, četudi ne bo imela bistvenega praktičnega pomena, kot je predstavljeno v nadaljevanju.
With a view to simplifying the implementation of this provision, the requirement to declare interests laid down in Annex I to the Rules of Procedure should be extended to cover this particular case, even though, as explained below, it will have few practical implications.
Pravilo upoštevanja nadomestila tako lahko velja samo za nadomestila, prejeta za mandate v regionalnih parlamentih, če možnost dvojnega članstva ni izključena s predpisi na nacionalni ravni držav članic.
The offsetting rule can therefore only apply to salaries for the exercise of a mandate in regional parliaments, provided that a dual mandate is not ruled out by a Member State’s own national rules.
Naloga predsedstva je, da v določbah o izvajanju statuta pojasni, kako ločiti pojem parlamentarnega mandata od drugih političnih funkcij (v občinskem svetu, okrožnem svetu).
It is for the Bureau to clarify, in the implementing provisions on the Statute, precisely how the distinction will be drawn between a parliamentary mandate and other political functions (member of a municipal council, district council, etc.).
Predlog spremembe 9 - Statut poslancev ne vključuje določb, ki bi poslance zavezovale, da prijavijo svoje premoženje.
Amendment 9 - The Statute for Members contains no provisions requiring Members to declare their assets.
Če v zvezi s tem obstajajo obveznosti na podlagi določb nacionalne zakonodaje (npr. v nacionalni volilni zakonodaji), se te še naprej uporabljajo.
If such requirements are laid down in national law (e.g. in national electoral laws), they continue to apply.
Predlagana sprememba to upošteva.
The proposed amendment takes account of this situation.
Pri reviziji priloge VII, ki vsebuje določbe o ravnanju z zaupnimi dokumenti, je bila ugotovljena pravna vrzel, saj so zajeti samo dokumenti, ki so jih Parlamentu poslale druge institucije.
However, a reading of Annex VII, which sets out provisions governing the consideration of confidential documents, reveals a loophole, since it concerns only documents forwarded to Parliament by other institutions.
Za takšne dokumente (npr. občutljivi varnostno-politični dokumenti Sveta) ustrezajo in zadoščajo določbe v točkah A in B te priloge.
For this type of document (e.g. sensitive Council documents in the area of security policy) the rules laid down in Sections A and B of Annex VII are appropriate and adequate.
Te določbe se ne uporabljajo za dokumente, katerih avtor je Parlament sam.
However, these provisions do not apply to documents drawn up by Parliament itself.
Za takšne dokumente velja splošno pravilo statuta poslancev, da imajo poslanci pravico do vpogleda, če to niso osebni spisi ali obračuni.
Documents of this kind are covered by the general rule laid down in the Statute for Members stipulating that Members are entitled to inspect them, provided they are not personal files or accounts.
Kljub temu so možne izjeme, če se zdi upravičeno, da Parlament z vso potrebno previdnostjo uporabi pridržek, predviden v statutu poslancev, tako da prilogi VII doda točko C.
However, exceptional cases could be envisaged in which Parliament would be justified, subject to due precautions, in making use of the power granted to it by the Statute to lay down conditions governing the exercise of this right by incorporating a Section Ca in Annex VII.
Če lahko Evropski parlament v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 zavrne javnosti dostop do enega svojih dokumentov, to praviloma ne more in ne sme ogroziti pravice poslancev do vpogleda.
If Parliament can, in keeping with Regulation 1049/2001, deny the public access to one of its own documents, in general this cannot and must not call into question a Member’s right to inspect files.
Ureditev pa se zdi smiselna za tiste izjeme, ko bi Parlament zaradi obstoječega navzkrižja interesov utrpel škodo, če bi poslanec iz zasebnih ali osebnih razlogov zahteval vpogled v dokumente.
However, rules are needed to cover exceptional cases in which, by virtue of an existing conflict of interests, Parliament’s interests would be seriously damaged if a Member were to be able to assert his or her right to inspect certain documents for purely private and personal reasons.
Odbor za ustavne zadeve
for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs
o spremembi poslovnika glede na statut poslancev
on the amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in the light of the Statute for Members
Pripravljavec mnenja načeloma soglaša s stališčem poročevalca pristojnega odbora, vendar v nadaljevanju opozarja na nekatera dodatna vprašanja.
In principle, your draftsman endorses the rapporteur’s approach, subject to the qualifications below.
Kar zadeva spremembo člena 8 poslovnika, je dejansko res, da njegova sedanja struktura ni v skladu s pravnimi razmerami, ki se bodo vzpostavile po začetku veljavnosti statuta poslancev.
As regards amendment of Rule 8, it is indeed the case that the present wording is inconsistent with the legal situation that will be created when the Statute for Members enters into force.
Po tem datumu se bodo vprašanja o povračilu stroškov in nadomestil poslancem urejala v okviru statuta poslancev in ne v okviru poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta.
From that moment on, the payment of expenses and allowances to Members will be governed by the Statute and no longer by Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
Vaš poročevalec se strinja z določbo, ki navaja, da mora vse ukrepe za izvajanje statuta, zlasti glede zgoraj omenjenih vprašanj, praviloma sprejemati predsedstvo.
Your draftsman agrees that measures giving effect to the Statute, especially when they relate to the above matters, should normally be taken by the Bureau.
Pozdravlja pojasnilo o tem, da to velja v vsakem primeru, "razen, če ni drugače določeno".
Furthermore, he welcomes the clarification that this principle will hold good ‘Unless otherwise stipulated’, for a distinction has to be made, in his view, between those provisions of the Statute which refer explicitly to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and those which contain no reference of that kind.
Vaš poročevalec opozarja, da je treba razlikovati med določbami statuta, ki se izrecno sklicujejo na poslovnik Evropskega parlamenta, in tistimi, ki tega ne predvidevajo.
What the Statute does in the former case is to reserve the right of regulation, given that the matters concerned are particularly delicate and the necessary implementing measures should therefore be adopted by a Parliament acting by a majority of its Members (cf.
V prvem primeru gre dejansko za zadržek poslovnika, ki ga opravičuje dejstvo, da se obravnavajo resnično občutljiva vprašanja, pri katerih je primerno, da ukrepe za izvajanje sprejme večina poslancev (glej člen 199 Pogodbe ES) in ne le predsedstvo.
Article 199 of the EC Treaty) rather than by the Bureau alone.
V drugem primeru ni takšnega zadržka, zato je lahko takšno izvajanje v pristojnosti predsedstva.
In the latter case the reservation does not apply, and implementing powers can be conferred on the Bureau.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da poslovnik ne vsebuje določb v obratnem smislu: ne glede na določbe statuta se vprašanja, ki se danes urejajo na podlagi poslovnika predsedstva, lahko z ustrezno spremembo tega poslovnika vedno prenesejo na druge parlamentarne organe.
One point to note, however, is that the action of reserving the right to regulate, as described above, does not work in the opposite direction: notwithstanding the Statute, the matters currently entrusted under the Rules of Procedure to the responsibility of the Bureau could be transferred at any time to the remit of other parliamentary bodies by means of the appropriate amendments to the text of the Rules.
Vaš poročevalec predlaga spremembo člena 4 poslovnika v skladu s členom 2(2) statuta, ki je namenjena varovanju svobode in neodvisnosti poslancev.
Your draftsman is proposing to amend Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure along the lines of Article 2(2) of the Statute in order to safeguard the freedom and independence that Members should enjoy.