natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Odbor za razvoj Evropskega parlamenta pozdravlja tudi dejstvo, da sporazum deloma temelji na oceni lokalnega ribolova ter da spodbuja znanstveno in tehnično sodelovanje z lokalnimi oblastmi.
The European Parliament’s Development Committee also welcomes the fact that the agreement is partly based on an evaluation of local fisheries and that it fosters scientific and technical cooperation with local authorities.
Omenjena resolucija držav AKP in EU določa, da mora biti znanstvena ocena virov prvi pogoj za dostop do ribolova in da se nadaljnja ribolovna dovoljenja izdajajo na podlagi letne presoje virov.
The above mentioned ACP-EU resolution considers that scientific resource assessment must be a precondition for access to fishing, and that an annual evaluation of resources must be a condition for obtaining further fishing permits.
Odbor za razvoj Evropskega parlamenta ne odobrava postopka, sprejetega za ta sporazum, saj bi moral Evropski parlament sodelovati pri pogajalskem mandatu, ki ga Svet podeli Komisiji, in bi moral biti obveščen o poteku pogajanj.
The European Parliament’s Development Committee do not endorse the procedure adopted for this agreement because the European Parliament should have played a part in the negotiation mandate, which the Council would have given to the Commission, and should be informed of the development of the negotiations.
Posvetovanje s Parlamentom o predlaganem sporazumu je steklo šele aprila 2007, kar je devet mesecev in pol po parafiranju sporazuma, cilj pa je, da začne sporazum veljati septembra 2006.
Parliament has been consulted about the proposed agreement only in April 2007, nine months and half after the agreement was initialled, with the aim of coming into effect in September 2006.
Parlament bi moral ugovarjati in vztrajati pri stališču, da je ta postopek nesprejemljiv.
Parliament should object and should assert that this procedure is not acceptable.
V nasprotnem primeru bi se moral Odbor za ribištvo v imenu Parlamenta odzvati na sedanje stanje in morda celo glasovati proti sporazumom o ribolovu, predloženim po sedanjem postopku.
In the absence of such circumstance, the Committee on Fisheries should lead Parliament’s reaction to the present status quo, including the option of voting against fisheries agreements submitted under present procedure.
(2a) Finančni prispevek Skupnosti naj se uporabi za razvoj obalnega prebivalstva, ki se preživlja z ribolovom, in za odpiranje majhnih lokalnih industrijskih obratov za zamrzovanje in predelavo rib.
(2a) The Community's financial contribution should be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries and the creation of small local fishfreezing and processing industries.
Predlog Uredbe Sveta o sklenitvi Sporazuma o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju med Evropsko skupnostjo na eni strani in Republiko Kiribati na drugi strani
Proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Republic of Kiribati, on the other
Sporazum o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju med ES in Kiribati
EC/Kiribati Fisheries Partnership Agreement
o vključitvi novega člena 204a o popravkih v poslovnik Evropskega parlamenta
on insertion of a new Rule 204a on "Corrigenda" in Parliament's Rules of Procedure
– ob upoštevanju pisma svojega predsednika z dne 10. marca 2005,
– having regard to the letter from its President dated 10 March 2005,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve ( A6‑0229/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0229/2007 ),
Člen 204a (novo)
Rule 204a (new)
Ko se v besedilu, ki ga je sprejel Parlament, ugotovi napaka, predsednik, kjer je to primerno, pristojnemu odboru predloži osnutek popravka.
Where an error is identified in a text adopted by Parliament, the President, where appropriate, shall refer a draft corrigendum to the committee responsible.
Ko se v besedilu, ki ga je sprejel Parlament in se o njem dogovoril z drugimi institucijami, ugotovi napaka, predsednik zagotovi soglasje teh institucij o potrebnih popravkih, preden nadaljuje postopek.
Where an error is identified in a text adopted by Parliament and agreed with other institutions, the President shall seek the agreement of those institutions on the necessary corrections before proceeding in accordance with paragraph one.
Popravek se objavi na naslednjem delnem zasedanju.
The corrigendum shall be announced at the next part-session.
Če popravek ni sprejet, se ga ponovno predloži pristojnemu odboru, ki lahko predlaga spremenjen popravek ali konča postopek.
If the corrigendum is not approved, it shall be referred back to the committee responsible which may propose a modified corrigendum or close the procedure.
Že pred volitvami v Evropski parlament junija 2004 je bil Odbor za ustavne zadeve pozvan, naj preveri, ali bi bilo v poslovnik primerno vpeljati posebne določbe o pravnojezikovni redakciji besedil, in sicer pri sprejemanju tovrstnih besedil v postopku soodločanja ob prvi obravnavi, in o notranjih postopkih za popravke v postopku soodločanja.
Already before the elections to the European Parliament of June 2004, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs had been asked to examine whether it would be suitable to introduce into the Rules of Procedure specific provisions on the legal linguistic revision of texts, namely with a view of the adoption of such texts in codecision at first reading, and on internal procedures for corrigenda in the context of codecision procedures.
Pismo predsednika Coxa predsedniku Napolitanu 201539 z dne 11. marca 2004.
Letter by President Cox to chairman Napolitano 201539 of 11 March 2004.
Odboru je bil predložen osnutek poročila, v katerem je obravnavano prvo vprašanje in predlagane določbe za morebitno preložitev končnega glasovanja v takih okoliščinah.
A draft report was presented to the committee dealing with the first question and suggesting to make provision for the possible postponement of the final vote in such circumstances.
Osnutek poročila ni pravočasno prišel do plenarnega zasedanja in je zato zastaral
This draft report could not get to the plenary stage in time and therefore lapsed
Osnutek poročila 2004/2027(REG) z dne 31. marca 2004, poročevalec Richard Corbett. .
Draft report 2004/2027(REG) of 31 March 2004, Rapporteur Richard Corbett. .
Leto kasneje sta bili ti dve vprašanji spet poslani odboru
One year later, the same two questions were referred to the committee again
Pismo predsednika Borrella Fontellesa 201364 predsedniku Leinenu z dne 10. marca 2005. .
Letter by President Borrell Fontelles 201364 to Chairman Leinen of 10 March 2005. .
Ker je bilo vprašanje pravnojezikovne redakcije besedil v postopku soodločanja obravnavano že v skupni izjavi Parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije o praktičnih ukrepih za postopek soodločanja
As the question of legal-linguistic revision of texts under the codecision procedure had been already dealt with in a Joint Declaration of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 4 May 1999 on Practical Arrangements for the Codecision Procedure
Uradni list C 148, 28.5.1999, str.
Official Journal C 148 of 28.5.1999, p.
1. z dne 4. maja 1999, in je treba ta medinstitucionalni sporazum v vsakem primeru pregledati, se je Odbor za ustavne zadeve odločil, da počaka na izid pogajanj, preden preuči morebitne spremembe poslovnika.
1. and as this interinstitutional agreement was to be revised anyway, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs decided to wait for the outcome of the negotiations before examining possible modifications to the Rules of Procedure.
Ker so pogajanja privedla do podrobnejših dogovorov glede pravnojezikovne redakcije besedil, ki so potrjena ob prvi ali drugi obravnavi ali v spravnem postopku,
As these negotiations have led to more detailed arrangements with regard to the legal-linguistic finalisation of texts agreed at first or second reading or during conciliation,
Glej besedilo s sestanka na politični ravni z dne 13. decembra 2006, ki ga mora potrditi še konferenca predsednikov, točke IV.
See text resulting from the meeting at political level of 13 December 2006 pending its approval by the Conference of Presidents, points IV.
Zato to poročilo obravnava le drugo vprašanje, to je uvedbo določb o vzpostavitvi popravkov.
This report therefore deals only with the second issue, the question of introducing provisions on the establishment of corrigenda.
Parlament za razliko od Sveta doslej ni imel določb o tem
Parliament unlike the Council does up to now not have any provisions on the matter.
Svet ima modele za pripravo popravkov v svoji zbirki modelov aktov, ki jih bo sprejel Svet Evropske unije. .
The Council has models for the drafting of corrigenda in its collection of models of acts to be adopted by the Council of the European Union.
Predlagani člen
The proposed rule
V dejavnostih Parlamenta se lahko pojavijo napake, tudi če službe delujejo skrbno.
Errors can occur in the parliamentary activities even if the services work with greatest care.
V zakonodajnih dejavnostih Unije se to dogaja zlasti zaradi časovnega pritiska, udeležbe vsaj treh institucij in številčnih jezikov.
In the legislative activity of the Union this is namely due to time pressure, the involvement of at least three institutions and the multiplicity of languages.
Potreba po ustreznih in pravno veljavnih postopkih za popravljanje napak je zato neizpodbitna.
The need for appropriate and legally sound procedures to correct errors is therefore undeniable.
Sodišče je v nedavni sodbi potrdilo sprejemljivost popravkov in potrebo po njih
The Court of Justice has in a recent ruling acknowledged the admissibility of and the need for corrigenda
Sodba Sodišča z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi C-380/03 Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu Evropske unije, odstavka 126 in 127. .
Judgement of the Court of 12 December 206 in Case C-380/03,Federal Republic of Germany against European Parliament and Council of the European Union, paragraphs 126 and 127. .
Predlagana nova določba v poslovniku bi zapolnila to vrzel.
The proposed new provision in the Rules of Procedure is intended to fill this gap.
Na splošno je oblikovana tako, da zajema vse vrste napak, ki so bolj ali manj očitne, zgolj oblikovne ali jezikovne, ki se pojavljajo le v nekaterih jezikovnih različicah oziroma so bolj ali manj vsebinske narave.
It is formulated broadly to cover all types of errors which may be more or less obvious, purely formal or linguistic, appear only in certain language versions or be of a more or less substantive nature.
Predlagana nova določba zajema zakonodajne postopke, kjer je potreba po popravkih največja, pa tudi nezakonodajne dejavnosti Parlamenta ter sklepanje medinstitucionalnih sporazumov.
The proposed new provision covers legislative procedures where the need for the possibility of corrigenda is the most prominent, but covers also the non-legislative activities of Parliament and the conclusion of interinstitutional agreements.
Predlaga se, da v postopku, ki vodi do sprejetja popravka, sodelujejo predsednik, odbor, ki je pristojen za besedilo, v katerem se je pojavila napaka, in Parlament na plenarnem zasedanju.
The process leading to the adoption of a corrigendum is suggested to be divided between the President, the committee which was responsible for the text in which the error has been detected and Parliament at plenary stage.
Predsednik mora zagotoviti, da so postopki Parlamenta pravilno izpeljani in da so sprejeta besedila v skladu s poslovnikom (člen 19).
The President is in charge of ensuring that the proceedings of Parliament are properly conducted and that texts adopted are in conformity with the Rules (Rule 19).
Predsednik je v zakonodajnih postopkih s soodločanjem med Parlamentom in Svetom zadolžen tudi za preverjanje besedil, o katerih se je Parlament dogovoril s Svetom, da jih sprejmeta (člen 66) in za podpis s predsedujočim Sveta pred objavo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The President in legislative procedures under codecision of Parliament and Council is held further to check texts agreed with the Council with a view to their joint adoption (Rule 66) and to sign them together with the President-in-Office of the Council before their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Predsednik je ob pomoči generalnega sekretarja zato najbolje umeščen v institucionalni organizaciji Parlamenta, da prične popravek napake.
The President, assisted by the Secretary-General, is therefore best placed within the institutional set up of Parliament to initiate the correction of an error.
Vendar mora biti zaradi preglednosti in politične odgovornosti primerno vključen tudi politični organ – "pristojni odbor", od koder obravnavano besedilo izhaja.
For the sake of transparency and political accountability however the political body from which the text which is at stake stems from, the "committee responsible", has to be involved in an adequate manner.
Moral bo oceniti vrsto napake in ali jo je mogoče popraviti na predlagan način.
It will have to assess the kind of error and whether it can be corrected in the proposed manner.
V nekaterih primerih bo morebiti ugotovil, da ni potrebe po popravku, pač pa po uradnem zakonodajnem predlogu Komisije.
It might in some cases even come to the conclusion that there is not a case for a corrigendum but for a formal legislative proposal by the Commission.
Obstajati mora oblika potrditve popravka na plenarnem zasedanju, da je sprejemljiv za Parlament kot institucijo.
In order to be accountable to Parliament as institution, there has to be some form of confirmation of a corrigendum at plenary stage.
Zagotoviti je treba ravnovesje med to potrebo in zahtevo, da se dnevnega reda Parlamenta in zlasti časa za glasovanje ne preobremeni.
This necessity has to be balanced with the requirement not to overload Parliament's agenda and namely its voting hours.
Predlagana rešitev je v poslovniku uporabljena v podobni obliki tudi za druge primere, na primer za izvolitev članov odborov (člen 177(3)) ali pripravo razlage členov (člen 201).
The solution proposed here is used in similar form in other instances in the Rules as for example the election of Members of committees (Rule 177(3)) or the production of interpretations of the Rules (Rule 201).
Vključitev novega člena 204a o popravkih v poslovnik Evropskega parlamenta
Insertion of a new Rule 204a on "Corrigenda" in Parliament's Rules of Procedure
o predlogu spremembe člena 201 poslovnika Parlamenta o uporabi ali razlagi poslovnika
on amendment of Rule 201 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on application or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
PREDLOG SPREMEMBE POSLOVNIKA EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA (B6‑0166/2006) 5
PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT OF PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE (B6-0166/2006) 5
– ob upoštevanju predloga spremembe svojega poslovnika ( B6‑0166/2006 ),
– having regard to the proposal for amendment of its Rules of Procedure ( B6‑0166/2006 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve ( A6‑0230/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0230/2007 ),
Člen 201, odstavek 1
Rule 201, paragraph 1
V primeru dvoma v zvezi z uporabo ali razlago poslovnika lahko predsednik ne glede na prejšnje odločitve zadevo pošlje pristojnemu odboru v obravnavo.
Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may , without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field, refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.
V primeru dvoma v zvezi z uporabo ali razlago poslovnika lahko predsednik zadevo pošlje pristojnemu odboru v obravnavo.
Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.
Predsedniki odborov to lahko naredijo, ko se med delom odbora pojavi dvom, ki je s tem povezan.
Committee chairs may do so where such a doubt arises in the course of the committee's work and is related to it.
Predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve Giuseppe Gargani je 9. marca 2006 predlagal spremembo člena 201 o uporabi poslovnika, kar bi predsednikom odborov omogočilo, da pod posebnimi pogoji pristojnemu odboru predložijo vprašanja o razlagi poslovnika in pridobijo veljavna navodila za prihodnost.
The chairman of the Committee on legal affairs, Giuseppe Gargani, made on 9.3.2006 a proposal to amend Rule 201, Application of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to allowing committee chairmen to refer under certain conditions questions of interpretation of the Rules of Procedure to the committee responsible for the Rules in order to get an authoritative guidance for the future.
Doslej je imel to pristojnost le predsednik Parlamenta.
Till now only the President of Parliament has this power.
Kot Gargani upravičeno poudarja, morajo predsedniki odborov neprestano uporabljati poslovnik in si ga zato razlagati med izvajanjem svojih dolžnosti.
As Mr. Gargani rightly points out, the committee chairs are constantly required to apply and therefore interpret the Rules of Procedure in the course of the exercise of their duties.
Del tega se odraža v členu 186, v katerem je navedenih veliko število členov o plenarnih zasedanjih, ki se lahko uporabijo tudi v odborih.
Part of this reality is reflected in Rule 186 which declares a large number of Rules concerning plenary sittings applicable in committee.
Ena uporabnih določb, člen 166(5), že sedaj omogoča predsedniku odbora, da se glede vprašanj v zvezi s pravilnostjo postopka obrne na pristojni odbor.
One of the provisions declared applicable, Rule 166(5), gives the chairman of a committee already now the possibility to refer a matter which was raised as a point of order to the committee responsible.
Vendar je ta možnost omejena na vprašanja, ki se pojavijo v zvezi z zasedanji v odborih, ko je pogosto potrebna pojasnitev poslovnika v povezavi z drugimi vprašanji kot so sodelovanje med odbori, posamezne vloge Parlamenta na parlamentarnem zasedanju in parlamentarnih odborov, itd.
But this possibility is limited to questions arising in connection with committee sittings whereas the need for a clarification of the Rules often arises with regard to other questions like the cooperation between committees, the respective roles of the Parliament at plenary stage and the parliamentary committees etc.
Ustrezna rešitev težave bi bila s spremembo člena 201, kot je predlagano v tem poročilu, podeliti predsednikom odborov splošnejše pristojnosti, ki bi jim omogočila zahtevati razlage poslovnika.
The adequate solution to the problem appears to be to give the committee chairs, by an amendment to Rule 201 as proposed with this report, a more general power to seek for an interpretation of the Rules.
Ta pristojnost bi bila omejena na vprašanja, ki se pojavijo med delom odbora in so z njim povezana.
This power would be restricted to questions which arise in the course of the committee's work and are related to it.
Splošna pristojnost predsednika po tem členu ostane nespremenjena.
The general power of the President under this Rule would not be put into question.
Istočasno se lahko besedilo člena 201 izboljša na dva načina:
On the same occasion, the wording of Rule 201 could be improved under two aspects:
Veljavni drugi pododstavek odstavka 1 se lahko črta, ker je odveč zaradi tretjega odstavka člena 166(5), ki ima isti cilj in učinek.
The existing second subparagraph of paragraph 1 could be deleted because it is redundant with Rule 166(5) third sentence which has exactly the same object and effect.
Stavek "ne glede na prejšnje odločitve" ni potreben, ker je jasno, da kasnejše razlage ne vplivajo na že sprejete odločitve predsednika o uporabi poslovnika.
The phrase" without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field" does not seem to be necessary because it goes without saying that previous decisions taken by the President when applying the Rules are not affected in their validity by an interpretation which is given later.
Ta ideja je izražena v istem členu v odstavku 6 z naslednjimi besedami: "Razlage morajo biti upoštevane pri prihodnji uporabi in razlagi zadevnih členov." (podčrtal avtor).
This idea is expressed in the same Rule in paragraph 6 in the following terms: "Interpretations shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned." (underlining by the author).
PREDLOG SPREMEMBE POSLOVNIKA EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA ( B6‑0166/2006 )
PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT OF PARLIAMENT'S RULES OF PROCEDURE ( B6-0166/2006 )
ki ga vlaga Giuseppe Gargani
by Giuseppe Gargani
Sprememba člena 201
Amendment of Rule 201
Člen 201, odstavek 1 a (novo)
Rule 201, paragraph 1 a (new)
Predsedniki odborov se lahko obrnejo na pristojni odbor, ko gre za vprašanja o razlagi tega poslovnika, ki nastanejo v povezavi z izvajanjem pristojnosti in odgovornosti, ki so jim podeljene s tem poslovnikom.
Committee chairmen may refer to the committee responsible matters concerning the interpretation of these Rules of Procedure which arise in connection with the exercise by the committees of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by these Rules of Procedure.
Predsedniki odborov in delegacij morajo ob opravljanju svojih dolžnosti uporabljati in razlagati poslovnik.
The committee and delegation chairmen are required to apply and interpret the Rules of Procedure when performing their duties.
Zato morajo imeti pravico, da se lahko obrnejo na pristojni organ, Odbor za ustavne zadeve, ko gre za vprašanja, ki nastanejo v povezavi z izvajanjem pristojnosti in odgovornosti odborov in delegacij, ki so jim podeljene s tem poslovnikom.
Accordingly, they should have the right to refer to the competent body, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, matters arising in connection with the exercise by the committees and delegations of the powers and responsibilities granted to them by the Rules of Procedure.
Tak ukrep bo pripomogel k zagotavljanju enotnosti pri uporabi poslovnika in pravni jasnosti v sistemu notranjih pravil Parlamenta.
Such a measure would help to guarantee uniformity in the application of the Rules of Procedure and legal certainty within Parliament's internal system of rules.
Poleg tega lahko v členu 166 poslovnika najdemo predhodnik tega predloga, ki se po členu 186 lahko uporabi v odboru.
Moreover, a precedent for this proposal can be found in Rule 166 of the Rules of Procedure, which, pursuant to Rule 186, is applicable in committee.
Odstavek 5 tega člena, ki zadeva sprožitev vprašanja, predvideva, da "predsednik lahko zadevo pošlje pristojnemu organu".
Paragraph 5 of that rule, which concerns points of order, stipulates that 'the President may refer the matter to the committee responsible'.
Predlog spremembe člena 201 poslovnika Parlamenta o uporabi ali razlagi poslovnika
Amendment of Rule 201 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on application or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
o predlogu uredbe Sveta o sklenitvi Sporazuma o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju med Demokratično republiko Sao Tome in Principe in Evropsko skupnostjo
on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Principe and the European Community
MNENJE Odbora za proračun .....................................................................................10
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS.................................................................11
MNENJE Odbora za razvoj ...........................................................................................14
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT......................................................15
– ob upoštevanju uredbe Sveta ( KOM(2007)0085 )
– having regard to the proposal for a Council regulation ( COM(2007)0085 )
– ob upoštevanju členov 37 in 300(2) Pogodbe o ES,
– having regard to Article 37 and Article 300(2) of the EC Treaty,
– ob upoštevanju prvega pododstavka člena 300(3) Pogodbe o ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6‑0098/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0098/2007 ),