natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Člen 227 nove pogodbe (prej člen 194) določa, da imajo vsi državljani Unije in vse fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivališčem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni od držav članic pravico, da samostojno ali skupaj z drugimi državljani ali osebami naslovijo na Evropski parlament peticijo glede vprašanj, ki sodijo na področje delovanja Unije
Article 227 of the new Treaty (former article 194) provides that citizens or residents of the European Union, natural or legal persons, individually or in association with other citizens or persons have the right to submit petitions to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity.
Že samo besedilo tega člena celovito poda, kaj pomeni nasloviti peticijo na Evropski parlament – gre za orodje, ki državljanom omogoča, da pred Parlamentom predstavijo svoje težave zaradi posledic, ki jih imajo različne politike Evropske unije na njihovo vsakdanje življenje.
The very wording of this article offers a comprehensive image of what petitioning the European Parliaments is - a tool empowering citizens to bring before the Parliament their concerns with the impact of different EU policies and legislation on their everyday life.
Letni statistični podatki kažejo, da večina državljanov poišče pomoč pri Parlamentu v zadevah s področja okolja, temeljnih pravic, pravosodja, notranjega trga, itn.
Yearly statistics show that most citizens turn to Parliament looking for assistance in matters related to environment, fundamental rights, justice, internal market, etc.
Drugi bi radi izrazili svoje mnenje tako, da predstavijo predloge o razvoju evropskih politik.
Others try to have their voice heard by making suggestions concerning the development of the European policies.
Nenazadnje je treba upoštevati tudi število državljanov, ki na Evropski parlament naslovijo pritožbe, v katerih oporekajo sklepom nacionalnih organov.
Last, but not least, one needs to take due note of the number of citizens who appeal to the European Parliament in order to challenge decisions taken by the national authorities.
V njih večinoma trdijo, da se evropska zakonodaja ne izvršuje pravilno, nekateri se pritožujejo nad sodbami nacionalnih sodišč ali pomanjkljivim izvrševanjem predpisov na upravni ravni, kar pa so vprašanja, glede katerih lahko Evropski parlament stori le malo, saj ne sodijo v področje pristojnosti Unije.
Most of these petitions claim that the European legislation would not be properly enforced, while some complain about rulings of the national courts of law or lack of enforcement at administrative level or the European Parliament has little to do about such matters as they fall outside the scope of the competences of the Union.
Po statističnih podatkih je Evropski parlament leta 2009 prejel 1924 peticij, kar je nekaj več kot leta 2008, ko jih je bilo 1849.
According to statistics, in 2009 the European Parliament received 1924 petitions, a slight increase compared to the 1849 submitted in 2008.
To majhno razliko bi lahko označili kot nekakšno stagnacijo po tem, ko je njihovo število po širitvi Unije v letih 2004 in 2007 stalno naraščalo.
It may also be said that such a small difference indicates a certain stagnation after the constant ascending trend recorded following the 2004 and 2007 enlargement of the Union.
Okoli 46 % peticij, prejetih v letu 2009, je bilo dopustnih, kar je skoraj enako odstotku iz leta 2008.
About forty-six percent of the petitions received in 2009 were declared admissible, a percentage almost similar to the one recorded in 2008.
Od 688 peticij, označenih za dopustne, jih je bilo 655 posredovanih v informacijo Komisiji.
Out of the 688 petitions deemed admissible, 655 were sent to the European Commission for information.
Poudariti je treba, da je Komisija o peticijah, ki so bile v register vpisane v letu 2009, poslala okoli 300 sporočil.
It is worthwhile underlining that the latter sent about 300 communications referring to petitions registered in 2009.
Glede nedopustnih peticij je stanje zelo podobno preteklemu letu (812 v primerjavi z 818).
As far as inadmissible petitions are concerned the situation is very similar to the previous year (812 against 818).
Odstotek nedopustnih peticij ostaja dokaj visok (nekaj čez polovico prejetih peticij) zato je očitno, da si bo treba še bolj prizadevati za izvedbo preteklih in sedanjih priporočil za boljše obveščanje državljanov o pristojnostih Evropske unije.
As the percentage of inadmissible petitions remains quite high (slightly over half of the petitions received), it is obvious that efforts should be stepped up to enforce previous and current recommendations aiming to better inform the citizens about EU competences.
Sklep o sprejetju peticije
Petition Adoption Decision
Število peticij
No. of petitions
Dopustne in zaključene
Admissible and Close
Peticija, poslana Komisiji za mnenje
Petition sent to EC for opinion
Peticija, poslana za mnenje drugim organom
Petition sent for opinion to other bodies
Peticija, poslana v informacijo drugim organom
Petition sent for information to other bodies
Ni zabeleženo
Not Recorded
Opozoriti je treba, da je bilo približno dve tretjini peticij iz leta 2009 (1232) zaključenih v zgodnji fazi postopka, ker so bile označene za nedopustne, oziroma so bile sicer označene za dopustne, pa zaključene takoj potem, ko so vlagatelju peticije posredovali podatke o vprašanjih, na katera so se nanašale, ali pa so bile preusmerjene na druge odbore Evropskega parlamenta, ker so spadale v njihovo pristojnost.
One should also note that about two thirds of the 2009 petitions, i.e. 1232 were closed at early stages of the procedure be it because they were deemed inadmissible or because, although admissible, they were closed immediately after providing the petitioners with information on the matters raised or after being re-directed to other EP Committees in whose remit they fell.
Spodnji podatki kažejo, da so statistični podatki za leti 2009 in 2008 primerljivi.
Yet again 2009 and 2008 statistics are comparable as it may be noted from the data below.
Sklep o sprejetju
Adoption Decision
Ni zabeleženo
Not recorded
Prav je, da tukaj spomnimo, da so člani večkrat opozorili na tako imenovane ne-peticije, pri obravnavi katerih naj bi po nepotrebnem trošili čas.
Against this background, it should be reminded that Members have repeatedly called the attention on the so-called non-petitions, arguing that processing them is unnecessarily time consuming.
Čeprav opredelitve ne-peticije ni, pa bi bilo treba natančno razmejiti med takimi dopisi in peticijami, ki so označene za nedopustne zato, ker ne spadajo v področje pristojnosti Evropske unije.
Although no definition of a non-petition is available, a clear distinction should be made between such submissions and the petitions which are deemed inadmissible because they fall outside the scope of competences of the EU.
Ne-peticije lahko običajno opišemo kot kratke osebne izjave ali komentarje o politikah Evropske unije ali o tem, kako naj bi se te razvijale.
Usually a non-petition can be described as a short personal statement or comment about EU policies or the way they should develop.
Na spletni strani Evropskega parlamenta, namenjeni peticijam, jasno piše, da Odbor za peticije ne posreduje podatkov niti ne obravnava splošnih komentarjev o politiki Evropske unije.
For that matter, on the European Parliaments webpage dedicated to Petitions it is clearly indicated that requests for information are not dealt with by the Committee on Petitions, neither are general comments on EU policy.
Državljane tudi obvešča, da peticij, ki vsebujejo žaljivke ali katerih vsebina ni primerna, ne bo obravnaval, niti ne bo nanje odgovoril.
Furthermore, citizens are notified that petitions which contain offensive language or lack pertinence in their substance will not be investigated by the Committee, nor will they be given a reply.
Lahko torej zaključimo, da mora odbor državljanom bolje pojasniti, kaj pomeni nasloviti peticijo na Evropski parlament, izboljšati pa mora tudi postopek vpisa v register.
One can, therefore, only conclude that the Committee needs to put further emphasis on better explaining to citizens what petitioning the European Parliament means, and on improving the registration process within the European Parliament.
V primerjavi z letom 2008 je bilo nekaj sprememb v državah, ki so na vrhu lestvice: Evropska unije kot celota je še vedno na prvem mestu, sledijo ji Nemčija, Španija, Italija in Romunija (ti dve državi sta v primerjavi z letom 2008 zamenjali mesti).
Compared to 2008, few changes were registered in the top of the concerned countries: thus, the European Union as a whole continues to rank first, followed by Germany, Spain, Italy and Romania (the last two switched places as compared to 2008).
Presenetljivo je na dnu lestvice Malta, za Slovenijo in Latvijo, saj se je na to državo nanašalo le 9 peticij, v primerjavi z 20 v predhodnem letu.
Surprisingly, Malta finds itself at the bottom of the table, behind Slovenia and Latvia, as only nine petitions concerned this country in contrast with the twenty one received last year.
Kot je bilo že omenjeno, med vlagatelji peticij največ zaskrbljenosti še naprej povzroča okolje, sledijo mu temeljne pravice, pravosodje in notranji trg, medtem ko je število peticij, povezanih s povrnitvijo preteklega stanja v nepremičninskih zadevah, v letu 2009 upadlo.
As already mentioned, environment remains the main field of concern for petitioners, followed by fundamental rights, justice and internal market, while property restitution related petitions decreased in number in year 2008.
Nikakršno presenečenje ni, da med evropskimi državljani stalno zaskrbljenost povzroča okolje.
That environment represents a constant concern of European citizens does not constitute any surprise.
Evropska zakonodaja na tem področju temelji na načelu subsidiarnosti, razmejitve med nacionalnimi pristojnostmi in pristojnostmi Evropske unije pa državljanom niso vedno jasne, zato se obrnejo na Parlament po pomoč, kadar menijo, da jih regionalni ali nacionalni organi ne upoštevajo.
European legislation in this area is built in the spirit of the subsidiarity principle and the line between national and EU competences is not always clear to citizens who turn to the Parliament for assistance whenever they feel that regional or national authorities do not listen.
Odbor je v tej zvezi pozdravil sporočilo Komisije o izvajanju prava Evropske skupnosti o okolju (KOM (2008)0773) kot prvi ukrep za učinkovitejši nadzor izvrševanja predpisov na tem področju
In this context, the Committee welcomed the Commission's Communication on implementing the European environmental law (COM (2008)0773) as a first step towards ensuring better enforcement checks in this area
Pri temeljnih pravicah je treba razlikovati med peticijami, v katerih vlagatelji trdijo, da je v njihovem primeru šlo za sodno zmoto, neizvrševanje sodb nacionalnih sodišč ali kršitve pravice do sodnega varstva in poštenega sojenja na nacionalni ravni, in peticijami z zahtevo po zaščiti pravic, ki jih zagotavljata evropska zakonodaja in sodna praksa o notranjem trgu.
As far as fundamental rights are concerned, distinction should be made between the petitions which claimed miscarriage of justice, lack of enforcement of national court rulings or violations of the right to justice and to a fair trial at national level, on the one hand and petitions claiming the protection of the rights guaranteed by the European legislation and jurisprudence on internal market, on the other hand.
Zato je v letu 2009 odbor potrdil delovni dokument Diane Wallis o sporočilu Komisije o območju svobode, varnosti in pravice za državljane (tako imenovanem stockholmskem programu).
Thus, in 2009 the Committee endorsed Diana Wallis' Working Document on the EC Communication on "An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizens" - the so-called "Stockholm Program".
V njem je Wallisova poudarila številne težave, ki so jih v peticijah razkrili vlagatelji, med drugim težave, ki jih imajo družinski člani državljanov tretjih držav pri pridobivanju dokumentov za prebivanje v državi bivališča (zlasti v Združenem kraljestvu) in različna tolmačenja direktive 2004/38/ES o merilih za izpolnjevanje pogojev za stalno prebivanje ali priznavanje kvalifikacij.
It highlights a number of problematic aspects revealed by petitioners, among which the difficulties encountered by third country family members in obtaining residence documents in their country of residence (especially in the United Kingdom), different interpretations of EC Directive 2004/38 as far as the criteria for qualifying for permanent residence are concerned, problems encountered by petitioners in exercising their voting rights or having their qualifications recognised.
Odbor je vlagateljem peticij večkrat priporočil, naj uporabljajo mrežo Solvit, ki je sicer neuraden mehanizem, lahko pa pomaga k učinkovitim rešitvam v kratkih rokih.
On several occasions, the Committee recommended petitioners to use SOLVIT, an informal mechanism which can provide efficient solutions within strict deadlines.
Treba je poudariti, da zahteve po varovanju podatkov odboru ne dovoljujejo, da bi sam preusmeril peticije na mrežo Solvit in torej lahko vlagateljem le svetuje, naj to storijo sami.
One should stress that restrictions related to the data protection prevent the Committee from re-directing petitions to SOLVIT itself and therefore can only advise the petitioner on this matter.
Od vlagatelja samega je torej odvisno, ali bo mrežo Solvit uporabil in ali bo odbor obvestil o tem, kako uspešen je bil pri tem.
It is therefore up to the petitioner whether to use it or not and whether to communicate to the Committee the outcome of his or her eventual demarches to SOLVIT.
Opaziti je rahle razlike pri razvrstitvi peticij po jezikih: medtem ko sta nemščina in angleščina tako kot leta 2008 tudi v letu 2009 glavna jezika pri pisanju peticij, pa sta italijanščina in španščina zamenjali mesti.
Slight changes can also be observed in the ranking of the petitions by language: where in 2009 as in 2008 German and English remain the two main languages used by the petitioners, there was a switch of places between Italian and Spanish.
Slovenščina, malteščina in estonščina so na dnu seznama.
Slovenian, Maltese and Estonian rank last.
Na dnu so češki, estonski in luksemburški državljani, ki so v letu 2009 skupno vložili 11 peticij.
On the last places one can find the Czech, Estonian and Luxemburgish citizens who submitted together eleven petitions in 2009.
Glede oblike peticij lahko trdimo, da vlagatelji raje pošiljajo peticije z uporabo obrazca na spletu kot pa v tradicionalni pisemski obliki (62,6 % peticij, prejetih v letu 2009, je bilo poslanih po elektronski pošti, v primerjavi z 59,2 % leta 2008).
As regards the format of petitions, one may speak of a confirmation: petitioners are more inclined to submit their petitions by using the internet form rather than the traditional letter-type format (62.6% of the petitions received in 2009 were sent via e-mail against 59.2 % in 2008).
Oblika poslanih peticij
Petition Format
Vseeno pa statistični podatki potrjujejo, da ugotovitve prejšnjih letnih poročil še vedno držijo.
Nonetheless, statistics prove that the conclusions of previous annual reports remain valid.
Kot smo že omenili, veliko število peticij, označenih za nedopustne, kaže, da ostaja zmeda glede razdelitve evropskih in nacionalnih pristojnostih ter institucij Evropske unije in Sveta Evrope, zlasti Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice.
Thus, as already mentioned, most of the petitions declared inadmissible show that confusion persists in respect to the European and national competences, the EU institutions and those of the Council of Europe, in particular the Court of Human Rights.
To pomeni, da so pretekli pozivi k večjemu prizadevanju za boljše obveščanje državljanov o postopku peticije in o tem, kaj se lahko doseže z naslovitvijo peticije na Parlament, še vedno aktualni.
Therefore, previous calls for stepping up the efforts aiming to better inform citizens of what the petitions process is all about and what can be achieved when submitting a petition to Parliament are as current as ever.
Ena od možnosti, ki jo je treba preučiti, je izboljšanje spletne strani o peticijah na portalu Evropske unije, da bi državljani, ki vložijo peticije po spletu, prejeli vse potrebne podatke o pristojnostih Parlamenta, oceni peticij, delu odbora in možnostih za hitrejše izboljšanje stanja z uporabo mrež na ravni Evropske unije ali na nacionalnih ravneh (Solvit, evropska mreža potrošnikov, evropski varuh človekovih pravic, nacionalni varuhi človekovih pravic ali nacionalni parlamentarni odbori za peticije).
One path to be explored could be the improvement of the webpage dedicated to Petitions on the portal of the European Parliament so that citizens submitting petitions online receive all the necessary information about the competences of the Parliament, the assessment of petitions, the work of the Committee and the possibilities of obtaining faster redress by using other networks available to them at EU or national level (SOLVIT, European Consumer Network, European Ombudsman, national Ombudsmen or the national parliamentary committees on petitions).
Prejšnja poročila so pozivala k vzpostavitvi enotnega mesta z jasnim opisom različnih pritožbenih mehanizmov, ki so državljanom na voljo na ravni Evropske unije in kjer bi lahko državljani poiskali napotke pri iskanju rešitev za domnevne kršitve njihovih pravic.
Previous Reports called for clearly signposting the various complaints mechanisms available to citizens at EU level by establishing a one-stop shop which could offer citizens guidance when they look for solutions to alleged breaches of their rights.
To še naprej ostaja zelo pomemben cilj, ki ga je treba izpolniti.
It does remain a very important objective to reach.
Velik napredek je bil narejen s pobudo Evropske komisije za prerazporeditev uradnih in neuradnih pritožbenih mehanizmov na spletni strani Vaše pravice v Evropski uniji, na spletišču europa.eu.
The initiative of the European Commission to regroup the formal and informal mechanisms of complaint under the Your Rights page of the europa.eu website represents a significant step forward.
Vendar je potrebno jasnejše razlikovanje med uradnimi mehanizmi (pritožbe, naslovljene na Komisije, peticije, naslovljene na Parlament, pritožbe, naslovljene na evropskega varuha človekovih pravic) in neuradnimi (Solvit, evropska mreža centrov za varstvo potrošnikov idr.).
Yet, clearer distinction should be made between the formal mechanisms (Complaints to EC, petitions to Parliament, complaints to the European Ombudsman) and the informal ones (Solvit, ECC-net, etc.).
Lahko bi razvili bolj interaktivno spletišče, ki bi državljanom omogočal, da bi potrebne podatke dobili, preden se odločijo, da se obrnejo na eno od institucij ali uporabijo enega od mehanizmov.
A more interactive website could be developed to allow citizens to get the information they need before making the decision to direct themselves to one institution or another, to use one mechanism or another.
Odnosi z Evropsko komisijo
Relations with the European Commission
Evropska komisija ostaja naravni partner odbora pri obravnavi peticij, saj se člani pri obravnavanju vprašanj iz peticij še naprej opirajo na strokovno znanje in izkušnje služb Komisije.
The European Commission remains the natural partner of the Committee when dealing with petitions as Members continue to rely on the expertise of its services for investigating matters raised in petitions.
Ker se delovni odnosi med institucijama stalno izboljšujejo, odbor Komisijo spodbuja, naj skrajša čas, v katerem se odzove na zahtevo po preiskavi.
As the working relationship between the two institutions has constantly improved, the Committee continue to push the Commission to improve its response-timings to the requests of investigations.
Zlasti morata obe strani rešiti vprašanje, kako naj Komisija obvešča odbor o napredku v postopkih ugotavljanja kršitev, ki so neposredno povezani s peticijami.
One particular aspect still to be addressed by the two parties concerns the way in which the Commission informs the Committee about the progress of the infringement proceedings directly linked to petitions.
Medtem ko Komisija zagotavlja, da so njene odločitve o kršitvah objavljene mesečno, je treba pripomniti, da so objavljene le od faze utemeljenega mnenja dalje, razen v primeru neizpolnjevanja sodb Sodišča, ko je objava dovoljena že od faze uradnega opomina, razen če Komisija odloči drugače.
While the Commission argues that its decisions on infringements are published monthly, one should note that they are published from the reasoned opinion stage onwards, except for the cases of failure to comply with Court judgments, when publication is authorized from the stage of the letter of formal notice, unless the Commission decides otherwise.
Glede na število primerov in dejstvo, da je težko predvideti potek obravnave nekega dosjeja in da ni iskalnika, ki bi omogočal iskanje določene kršitve, bi mesečno spremljanje te podatkovne baze pomenilo nepotrebno tratenje človeških in časovnih virov.
Given the number of cases and the fact that the rhythm of the progression of a given file is difficult to predict and that no search tool which would allow finding a specific infringement is provided, monthly monitoring of this data base would mean an unnecessary waste of human and time resources.
Zato so potrebni dodatni ukrepi, da bi Komisija samodejno obveščala odbor o vsakem napredki pri ugotavljanju kršitev, ki se nanašajo na peticije.
Therefore, additional steps should be taken so that the Commission automatically signals to the Committee every progress in the infringements relevant for petitions.
Odnosi z evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic – predstavitve kandidatov za to mesto
Relations with the European Ombudsman - Hearings for the candidates to this position
Med poglavitnimi nalogami odbora v letu 2009 je bila priprava predstavitev kandidatov za mesto varuha človekovih pravic.
One of the main priorities of the Committee in 2009 was the organisation of the hearings for the candidates to the position of the European Ombudsman.
Člani, med katerimi jih je mnogo novih v odboru in celo v Parlamentu, so svojo nalogo opravili uspešno.
Members, many new to the Committee and even to the Parliament, managed to successfully accomplish their responsibilities.
Omeniti je treba , da je bilo prvo poročilo, ki ga je sprejel novi odbor, poročilo o dejavnostih evropskega varuha človekovih pravic
It is worthwhile mentioning that the first Report adopted by the new Committee concerned the activity of the European Ombudsman
Poročilo o letnem poročilu o dejavnostih evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2008 ( 2009/2088(INI) ), Hrisula Paliadeli (A7/0020/2009). v letu 2008.
Report on the annual report on the European Ombudman's activities in 2008 ( 2009/2088(INI) ) by Chrysoula Paliadeli (A7/0020/2009). in 2008.
Poudarja, da se je vloga varuha človekovih pravic pri zaščiti interesov državljanov EU v odnosih z institucijami in organi Evropske unije v štirinajstih letih od ustanovitve njegove funkcije okrepila, zlasti zaradi neodvisnosti varuha in demokratičnega nadzora nad preglednostjo varuhovih dejavnosti, ki ga izvaja Parlament.
It emphasised the role of the Ombudsman in protecting the interests of EU citizens in the face of the institutions and bodies of the European Union had evolved in the 14 years since the office was created, especially because of the independence of the institution itself and of the democratic scrutiny exercised by the European Parliament over the transparency of his activities.
Člani so poudarili svoje prepričanje, da je vloga varuha človekovih pravic krepiti odprtost in odgovornost postopka odločanja in upravljanja Evropske unije in tako bistveno prispevati k Uniji, v kateri se odločitve sprejemajo čim bolj javno in v kar najtesnejši povezavi z državljani
Members stressed their conviction that the role of the Ombudsman consisted in enhancing openness and accountability in the decision-making processes and administration of the European Union, therefore bringing an essential contribution towards a Union in which decisions were taken "as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen"