natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zahteval je tudi, da se strožje opredelijo merila in zahteve za oceno gensko spremenjenih rastlin in da se zagotovi skladnost med ocenami tveganja gensko spremenjenih rastlin, ki proizvajajo aktivne snovi iz Direktive 91/414/ES, in ocenami tveganja fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, ki te snovi vsebujejo.
The Council also called for a stricter definition of the criteria and requirements for assessing GMPs, with the need to ensure coherence between risk assessments of GMPs which produce active substances covered by directive 91/414/EEC and those of the corresponding plant protection products.
Poleg tega je zahteval, da morajo imetniki dovoljenj redno in podrobno spremljati morebitne neželene učinke iz direktive ter jih objaviti.
The Council also demanded that regular and in-depth monitoring be performed and disclosed by authorisation holders in order to detect any potentially adverse effects foreseen by the Directive.
Svet je tudi pozval, da bi bilo treba do junija 2010 predložiti poročilo o izvajanju direktive, ki bi med drugim zajemalo oceno socialno-ekonomskih posledic namernega sproščanja GSO in njihovega dajanja na trg.
The Council also asked for the submission of a report on the implementation of the Directive, including an assessment, inter alia, of socio-economic implications of deliberate releases and placing on the market of GMOs, so that a report could be submitted by June 2010.
Želel pa je tudi, da bi se izboljšalo delovanje Evropske agencije za varnost hrane.
Finally, the Council sought improvements in how EFSA worked.
Poleg tega bi bilo ob očitnem navzkrižju interesov potrebna reforma strokovnih postopkov Evropske agencije za varnost hrane, ki pa doslej še ni bila izvedena.
Furthermore, even though clear conflicts of interest have been discovered, a reform of the expertise procedures at EFSA seems to be on the agenda but has not yet been undertaken.
Zaradi teh neskladnosti in vrzeli pri izvajanju Direktive 2001/18, s tem pa tudi Uredbe 1829/2003, je nezaupanje nekaterih držav članic povsem upravičeno.
As a result, the reluctance shown by some Member States seem to be fully justified by these inconsistencies and shortcomings in the effective enforcement of Directive 2001/18, and thus of Regulation 1829/2003.
Zato je glavni cilj, da bi začeli obstoječo zakonodajo o oceni tveganja dejansko izvajati.
The primary objective is therefore to progress towards the effective application of the existing legislation on risk assessment.
3 – Pravni elementi predloga
3 – Legal elements of the proposal
V tem smislu osnutek uredbe Komisije, ki teži k temu, da bi države članice same odločale o gojenju GSO na svojem ozemlju, sledi želenemu cilju.
In this context, the objective of the Commission proposal for a regulation to give Member States competence on the use of their territory to grow GMOs is welcome.
Dopolniti ga je treba z oblikovanjem novih smernic o oceni zdravstvenega in okoljskega tveganja, ki morajo zagotoviti resnično izvajanje pravil iz Direktive 2001/18 in njene Priloge II.
It should be coupled with the drafting of new guidelines on the assessment of health and environmental risks which must finally allow for the effective application of the rules laid down by Directive 2001/18 and Annex II thereof.
V tem predlogu je treba upoštevati tudi člen 19(1) te direktive, ki določa opredelitev posebnih pogojev uporabe, glede katerih bi morale biti države članice bolj stroge.
This proposal should also be read in the light of Article 19(1) of the Directive that defines the specific conditions of use on which the Member States should be more demanding.
Besedilo osnutka uredbe se ne more omejevati na negativno opredelitev razlogov, ki bi jih utegnile navesti države članice.
First of all, the wording of the proposal should not be limited to a negative definition of the grounds that may be invoked by the Member States.
Pravni službi Sveta in Parlamenta sta izrazili velike zadržke glede zakonitosti nacionalnih ukrepov, ki bi jih sprejele države članice iz razlogov, ki ne bi imeli nobene zveze z okoljskimi vidiki, kot so javna morala, javni red ali etika.
The respective opinions issued by Council and Parliament's legal services both expressed strong reservations about the legality of national measures that could be taken by Member States on the basis of reasons that had very little to do with environmental considerations, such as public morality, public order or ethics.
Poleg tega bi bilo treba priznati, da ocena okoljskega tveganja na ravni Skupnosti ne more biti zadosti izčrpna glede na raznolikost evropskih ekosistemov in mogočih neposrednih ali posrednih učinkov.
It was also time to recognise that the environmental risk assessment conducted at Community level could not be exhaustive given the diversity of European ecosystems and the diversity of possible direct or indirect impacts.
Zaradi spoštovanja notranjega trga in ocen Skupnosti – če bodo nujne reforme lahko vzpostavile verodostojnost skupine za GSO v Evropski agenciji za varnost hrane – morajo razlogi, ki jih navedejo države članice, dopolnjevati razloge, ki jih ta agencija oceni.
In order to comply with the internal market and the Community assessments – provided that the necessary reforms are able to restore the credibility of EFSA's GMO panel – the grounds invoked by the Member States should be supplementary to those assessed by EFSA.
Razlogi, ki jih navedejo države članice, pa ne morejo izključevati okoljskih ali kmetijsko-okoljskih razlogov, zlasti lokalnih in/ali regionalnih, ki niso bili zajeti v oceni Skupnosti.
The grounds invoked by the Member States may not then exclude environmental or agri-environmental grounds, particularly those of a local and/or regional nature, which have not been covered by a Community assessment.
Pri navedbi razlogov se bodo države članice verjetno vsaj deloma opirale na znanstvene podatke, ki zadevajo okoljske ali druge vplive.
The grounds invoked by the Member States will inevitably be based at least partly on scientific data if they concern some form of environmental impact .
Razlikovanje, ki ga vzpostavlja Komisija v svoji obrazložitvi med znanstveno oceno, ki bi bila zagotovljena na ravni Skupnosti, in razlogi, ki niso povezani z znanstveno razpravo o okoljskih vplivih, je preveč poenostavljeno in ne upošteva kompleksne povezanosti med oceno in obvladovanjem tveganja.
The distinction made by the Commission in its explanatory memorandum between a ‘scientific’ assessment conducted at Community level on the one hand, and grounds that have nothing to do with the scientific debate on the environmental impact on the other, is simplistic and takes no account of the complexity of the link between risk assessment and risk management.
Pri tem razlikovanju se tudi zanemarja dejstvo, da bi lahko neupoštevanje znanstvenih negotovosti, čeprav jih je treba v skladu z zakonodajnimi besedili upoštevati, škodovalo sprejetju ustreznih sklepov o obvladovanju tveganja oziroma izvajanju previdnostnega načela.
This distinction also ignores the fact that the failure to consider scientific uncertainties, although provision is made for this in the texts, may make it difficult to reach appropriate risk management decisions, or indeed to apply the precautionary principle.
Vsi vidiki – bodisi učinek uporabe herbicida pri gensko spremenjeni rastlini, ki je nanj odporna, bodisi učinek spremenjenih kmetijskih praks zaradi uporabe GSO ali tveganje za razvoj odpornosti na Bt-toksin pri škodljivih insektih v posamezni regiji – zajemajo oceno znanstvenih podatkov (ali njihove pomanjkljivosti), povezanih z okoljskimi vplivi.
Whether it be the impact of using a herbicide associated with a herbicide-tolerant GM plant, the impact of changes in agricultural practices caused by the use of a GMO, or the risk of harmful insects developing resistance to Bt toxins in a given region, all these aspects involve an assessment of scientific data - or the lack thereof - relating to the environmental impact.
Kar zadeva okuženost konvencionalnega ali ekološkega kmetijstva z GSO, ki jo poimenujemo tudi z besedo „soobstoj“, je Komisija kot razlog za svoje zavračanje sprejemanja zakonodaje na ravni Skupnosti vedno navajala raznolikost kmetijskih praks in podnebja ter geografsko raznolikost med državami članicami in znotraj njih.
On the issue of the contamination of conventional or organic farming by GMOs, also known as ‘coexistence’, the Commission has always justified its refusal to legislate at Community level by the diversity of agricultural practices, climates and geography among and within Member States.
Takšna raznolikost obstaja tudi v ekosistemih in prejemnih okoljih, zato za gojenje GSO po isti logiki upravičuje uporabo načela subsidiarnosti.
This same diversity exists for ecosystems and receiving environments, and justifies the application of subsidiarity to the cultivation of GMOs, following the same logic.
Da ne bi še naprej primanjkovalo študij, ki jih je treba opraviti v skladu z določbami, je treba pri pomanjkanju ustreznih informacij o vplivu na nacionalno, regionalno in/ali lokalno ozemlje državam članicam dati večja pooblastila.
Finally, in order to put an end to the current situation regarding the absence of studies, even though these are required by the existing legislation, the Member States should be given greater powers where there is a lack of relevant information about the impact on the national, regional and/or local territory.
Pravice držav članic, kar zadeva uporabo njihovega lastnega ozemlja, je treba spoštovati, saj to sodi pod načelo subsidiarnosti in nikakor ne ogroža pravil o notranjem trgu in prostem pretoku blaga in proizvodov na ozemlju Unije.
It is necessary to respect the rights of the Member States when it comes to the use of their own territory, an area which is covered by subsidiarity and which in no way calls into question the rules governing the internal market and the free movement of goods and products throughout the territory of the Union .
Visoko raven zaščite zdravja in okolja, navedeno v Direktivi 2001/18 in drugih besedilih Skupnosti, bo mogoče doseči le, če bodo imele države članice dejansko na voljo vse potrebne študije o prejemnem okolju in pogojih za načrte spremljanja in če se bodo upoštevale posebnosti njihovega ozemlja, kmetijskih metod in prostorske ureditve.
The high level of protection in the field of health and the environment targeted by Directive 2001/18 and other Community texts can only be achieved if all the necessary studies on the receiving environment and the conditions in the monitoring plans are effectively at the disposal of the Member States, and take account of the specific characteristics of their territory, their agricultural methods and their spatial planning choices.
Ukrepi, ki jih bodo sprejele države članice, se bodo morali bolj kot na vse GSO nanašati na eno vrsto oziroma na skupino GSO s podobnimi značilnostmi in bodo morali biti ustrezno utemeljeni.
Finally, the measures taken by Member States should apply to a given GMO or, as the case may be, a group of GMOs with similar characteristics, rather than to all GMOs.
Poleg tega konvencionalni ali ekološki kmetje zaradi morebitnega gojenja GSO ne bi smeli imeti dodatnih stroškov.
These measures should be substantiated.
Zato je treba od držav članic zahtevati, da sprejmejo ukrepe za preprečitev prisotnosti GSO v drugih proizvodih.
The possible cultivation of a GMO should also not result in additional costs for farmers working in conventional or organic farming.
Posebno pozornost pa bi bilo treba nameniti morebitnim čezmejnim okužbam.
It should thus be compulsory for Member States to take measures to avoid the presence of GMOs in other products, and particular attention should be paid to any possible cross-border contamination.
Zadeva: Mnenje o pravni podlagi Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Direktive 2010/18/ES glede možnosti držav članic, da omejijo ali prepovejo gojenje GSO na svojem ozemlju (KOM(2010)375 konč.)
Subject: Legal basis of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory (COM(2010)375 final)
v pismu z dne 10. marca 2011 ste v skladu s členom 37(2) poslovnika Odbor za pravne zadeve zaprosili za mnenje o ustreznosti pravne podlage predloga Komisije.
By letter of 10 March 2011 you asked the Committee on Legal Affairs pursuant to Rule 37(2) to consider whether the legal basis of the above Commission proposal was valid.
Direktiva 2001/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 12. marca 2001 o namernem sproščanju gensko spremenjenih organizmov v okolje
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms
UL L 106 z dne 17.4.2001, str.
OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p.
1. in Uredba (ES) št. 1829/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. septembra 2003 o gensko spremenjenih živilih in krmi
1. and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed
UL L 268 z dne 18.10.2003, str.
OJ L 268 of 18.10.2003, p.
1. opredeljujeta skladen sistem za oceno tveganja okoljskih in zdravstvenih dejavnikov, povezanih z odobritvijo gensko spremenjenih organizmov, in določata natančna postopkovna pravila za pridobitev dovoljenja za promet.
1. establish a harmonised system for risk assessment of environmental and health factors related to the authorisation of GMOs and lay down detailed procedural rules for their subsequent marketing authorisation.
Direktiva 2001/18/ES vsebuje tudi določbe o namernem sproščanju
Directive 2001/18/EC also contains provisions on the deliberate release
"Namerno sproščanje" je opredeljeno v členu 2(3) direktive, ki se glasi: "namerno sproščanje" je vsak nameren vnos GSO ali kombinacije GSO v okolje, za katerega se ne uporabljajo posebni zadrževalni ukrepi za omejitev stika s prebivalstvom in okoljem in za zagotovitev visoke ravni varnosti za prebivalstvo in okolje. gensko spremenjenih organizmov za druge namene, kakor je dajanje na trg
"Deliberate release" is defined in Article 2(3) of the Directive, which reads: "'deliberate release' means any intentional introduction into the environment of a GMO or a combination of GMOs for which no specific containment measures are used to limit their contact with and to provide a high level of safety for the general population and the environment ". of GMOs for purposes other than placing on the market
"Dajanje v promet" je dajanje izdelkov na voljo tretjim osebam odplačno ali neodplačno.
" ‘ placing on the market ’ means making available to third parties, whether in return for payment or free of charge;
Naslednji postopki ne veljajo za dajanje v promet:
The following operations shall not be regarded as placing on the market:
– dajanje gensko spremenjenih mikroorganizmov na voljo za dejavnosti, urejene po Direktivi Sveta 90/219/EGS z dne 23. aprila 1990 o uporabi gensko spremenjenih mikroorganizmov v zaprtih sistemih, vključno z zbirkami kultur,
— making available genetically modified microorganisms for activities regulated under Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms, including culture collections,
– dajanje GSO na voljo, razen mikroorganizmov iz prve alinee, za uporabo izključno za dejavnosti, kjer se uporabljajo ustrezni strogi zadrževalni ukrepi za omejitev njihovega stika s prebivalstvom in okoljem in za zagotovitev visoke ravni varnosti prebivalstva in okolja, pri čemer morajo ukrepi temeljiti na istih načelih zadrževanja, kot so določena v Direktivi 90/219/EGS,
— making available GMOs other than microorganisms referred to in the first indent, to be used exclusively for activities where appropriate stringent containment measures are used to limit their contact with and to provide a high level of safety for the general population and the environment, the measures should be based on the same principles of containment as laid down in Directive 90/219/EEC,
– dajanje GSO na voljo za uporabo izključno za namerno sproščanje, ki izpolnjujejo zahteve iz dela B te direktive. (npr. za gojenje).
— making available GMOs to be used exclusively for deliberate releases complying with the requirements laid down in part B of this Directive ". (e.g., for cultivation).
Člen 22 direktive vsebuje klavzulo o prostem pretoku, ki državam članicam prepoveduje, da bi omejile dajanje na trg za GSO, ki je odobreno v skladu s to direktivo.
Article 22 of the Directive sets out the "free movement clause" prohibiting Member States from restricting the placing on the market of GMOs authorised under the Directive.
V skladu s členom 23 direktive lahko države članice omejijo ali prepovejo uporabo in/ali prodajo GSO iz zdravstvenih ali okoljskih razlogov le v primeru, da so nove informacije o tveganju za okolje in zdravje na voljo šele po odobritvi GSO.
Under Article 23 of the Directive, Member States can restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of GMOs for health and environmental reasons only in the event that new information with regard to health and environmental risks becomes available after the authorisation of a GMO.
Uredba št. 1829/2003 vsebuje podobne določbe za odobritev GSO za uporabo živil in krme, za živila in krmo, ki vsebujejo GSO ali so iz njih sestavljeni, ter za živila in krmo, ki so proizvedeni iz GSO ali vsebujejo sestavine, proizvedene iz GSO.
Regulation No 1829/2003 contains similar provisions for the authorisation of GMOs for food and feed use, food and feed containing or consisting of GMOs and food and feed produced from or containing ingredients produced from GMOs.
V zvezi s tem je uredba lex specialis, kar zadeva odobritev GSO za živila in krmo.
In that respect the Regulation is a lex specialis when it comes to the authorisation of GMOs related to food and feed.
Treba je omeniti, da direktiva in uredba vzpostavljata pravni okvir za odobritev gensko spremenjenih organizmov, ki v celoti velja za GSO za gojenje v vsej EU v obliki semen ali drugega razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin.
It should also be noted that the Directive and the Regulation establish a legal framework for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which is fully applicable to GMOs to be used for cultivation purposes throughout the EU as seeds or other plant-propagating material.
Na podlagi tega sklopa zakonodaje se bo za vsak GSO za gojenje posebej ocenilo tveganje, preden bo odobreno dajanje v promet v Uniji.
Under this set of legislation, GMOs for cultivation should undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market.
Cilj postopka odobritve je zagotovitev visoke ravni zaščite življenja in zdravja ljudi, zdravja in dobrega počutja živali, okolja in interesov potrošnikov ter učinkovitega delovanja notranjega trga.
The aim of the authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.
Komisija je 13. julija 2010 predlagala spremembo Direktive 2001/18/ES glede možnosti, da države članice sprejmejo ukrepe, ki omejujejo ali prepovejo gojenje vseh ali nekaterih GSO na vsem svojem ozemlju ali na delu svojega ozemlja .
On 13 July 2010 the Commission proposed to modify Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs on all or parts of their territory.
Istega dne je Komisija objavila sporočilo o prosti presoji držav članic glede gojenja gensko spremenjenih pridelkov
On the same date, the Commission published a Communication on the freedom for Member States to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops
KOM(2010)0380 . , v katerem so pojasnjeni razlogi za njen predlog o uvedbi prožnejšega pristopa v okviru obstoječe zakonodaje na področju gojenja GSO.
COM(2010)0380 . in which it explains the reasons behind its proposal to introduce a more flexible approach under the existing legislation as regards GMO cultivation.
V okviru Sveta je ad hoc delovna skupina, ki jo je COREPER oblikoval z namenom, da bi preučila predlog, opredelila številna vprašanja in pomisleke, med drugim v zvezi z izbiro pravne podlage.
Within the Council, the ad hoc Working Party created by COREPER to examine the proposal identified a number of issues and concerns, including the choice of legal basis.
V odgovor je pravna služba Sveta oblikovala mnenje
In response, the Council Legal Service gave an opinion
Načeloma zaradi odmika od usklajenosti; glej dok.
In principle on grounds relating to "de-harmonisation"; see Council Doc.
Sveta 15696/10. , v katerem je ugotovila, da člen 114 PDEU ni ustrezna pravna podlaga za predlog v sedanji obliki.
15696/10. concluding that the proposal as it stands is not validly based on Article 114 TFEU.
Komisija je ugotovitvam močno nasprotovala
The Commission strongly disagreed with that conclusion
Pravna služba Parlamenta je na vašo zahtevo preučila to vprašanje in v mnenju z dne 17. novembra 2010 ugotovila: „Pravna služba ni našla razlogov, da bi postavila pod vprašaj izbiro člena 114 PDEU za pravno podlago predloga“.
Parliament's Legal Service examined the question at your request and in its opinion of 17 November 2010 concluded as follows: " The Legal Service has not identified any grounds such as to call into question the choice of Article 114 TFEU as the legal basis of the proposal. "
Poročevalka Corinne Lepage predlaga spremembo pravne podlage in zamenjavo člena 114 PDEU s členom 192 PDEU (predlog spremembe 1)
The rapporteur, Corinne Lepage, proposes to change that legal basis and replace Article 114 TFEU by Article 192 TFEU (amendment 1)
Poročevalka predlaga tudi druge spremembe, ki naj bi vsebino predloga Komisije spremenile tako, da bi bila upravičena izbira člena 192 PDEU.
The rapporteur also proposes other amendments which would purportedly modify the proposal of the Commission in such a way as to justify recourse to Article 192 TFEU.
Predlog Komisije temelji na členu 114 PDEU, ki se glasi:
The Commission proposal is based on Article 114 TFEU, which reads as follows:
„Člen 114
"Article 114
(prejšnji člen 95 PES)
(ex Article 95 TEC)
Zgornji usklajevalni ukrepi v ustreznih primerih vključujejo zaščitno klavzulo, ki dovoljuje državam članicam, da zaradi enega ali več neekonomskih razlogov iz člena 36 sprejmejo začasne ukrepe, ki so predmet nadzornega postopka Unije.“
The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 36, provisional measures subject to a Union control procedure. "
Poročevalka predlaga, da se kot pravna podlaga uporabi člen 192 PDEU, ki se glasi:
The rapporteur proposes to change this legal basis to Article 192 TFEU, which reads as follows:
„Člen 192
"Article 192
(prejšnji člen 175 PES)
(ex Article 175 TEC)
* Ti cilji vključujejo: „(-) ohranjanje, varstvo in izboljšanje kakovosti okolja, (-) varovanje človekovega zdravja, (-) skrbno in preudarno rabo naravnih virov ter (-) spodbujanje ukrepov na mednarodni ravni za reševanje regionalnih ali globalnih okoljskih problemov, zlasti v boju proti podnebnim spremembam“. * .
* Those objectives include: "(-) preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, (-) protecting human health, (-) prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, (-) promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change" . * .
(c) ukrepe, ki pomembno vplivajo na izbiro držav članic med različnimi viri energije in na splošno strukturo njihove oskrbe z energijo.
(c) measures significantly affecting a Member State ’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.