natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ker je bila Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2007/2000 večkrat korenito spremenjena, je bila kodificirana z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009
As Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 was substantially amended several times, it was codified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009
UL L 328, 15.12.2009, str.
OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p.
Trgovinski preferenciali so bili odobreni do 31. decembra 2010 in se trenutno uporabljajo za Bosno in Hercegovino, Srbijo ter Kosovo, kakor je opredeljeno v resoluciji Varnostnega sveta ZN (RVSZN) 1244/99, za vse izdelke iz področja uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009.
The trade preferences were granted for a period ending on 31 December 2010 and currently apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo as defined by UNSCR 1244/99 for all the products under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009.
Za izdelke s poreklom iz Albanije, Republike Hrvaške, Nekdanje jugoslovanske republike Makedonije ali Črne gore bodo še naprej veljale določbe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009, kadar je tako navedeno, ali kakršni koli ukrepi iz Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009, ki so ugodnejši od trgovinskih ugodnosti iz dvostranskih sporazumov med Evropsko unijo in navedenimi državami.
The products originating in Albania, in the Republic of Croatia, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or in Montenegro continue to benefit from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 when so indicated or from any measures provided in Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 which are more favourable than the trade concessions provided for in the framework of bilateral agreements between the European Union and these countries.
Ker imata Bosna in Hercegovina ter Srbija od vmesnih sporazumov o trgovini in s trgovino povezanimi zadevami oziroma stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenih sporazumov (SPS) trgovinske ugodnosti za iste izdelke, kot so opredeljeni v avtonomnih trgovinskih preferencialih, je treba te ugodnosti umakniti iz Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009.
Given that specific Interim Agreements on trade and trade-related matters / Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs) grant trade concessions to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia on the same products identified in the autonomous trade preferences, these concessions have to be withdrawn from the Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009.
Ti preferenciali zadevajo preferencialne tarifne kvote za mlado govedino, sladkor in proizvode iz sladkorja, nekatera vina ter nekatere ribiške proizvode.
These concern the preferential tariff quotas for baby beef, sugar and sugar products, certain wines, as well as for certain fishery products.
Evropski parlament je v svoji resoluciji o širitveni strategiji za leto 2009 v zvezi z državami zahodnega Balkana, Islandijo in Turčijo z dne 26. novembra 2009 Komisijo pozval, da stori vse potrebno za ublažitev gospodarske krize na zahodnem Balkanu.
The European Parliament in its Resolution on 26 November 2009 Enlargement strategy 2009 concerning the countries of the Western Balkans Iceland and Turkey called on the Commission to make every possible effort to mitigate the effect of the economic crisis on the Western Balkans.
S prenehanjem veljavnosti trgovinskih preferencialov bi bila upravičenkam odvzeta objektivna gospodarska prednost v trgovini z EU.
The termination of the trade preferences would take from the beneficiaries an objective economic advantage in their trade with the EU.
To bi lahko negativno vplivalo na splošno gospodarsko učinkovitost držav zahodnega Balkana, kar pa bi imelo negativen učinek na notranje reforme in tranzicijo teh držav.
This could have negative consequences on the overall economic performances of Western Balkans, with consequent negative repercussions on their domestic reform and transition processes.
Poleg tega pa bi resno ogrozilo njihovo gospodarsko okrevanje.
Moreover, their economic recovery could be seriously jeopardised.
Zato poročevalec zavzeto podpira spremembo nekaterih elementov Uredbe (ES) št. 1215/2009, da se omogoči podaljšanje njene veljavnosti do 31. decembra 2015 ter uvede nekatere prilagoditve zaradi začetka veljavnosti dvostranskih sporazumov z Bosno in Hercegovino ter Srbijo.
That is why the Rapporteur strongly supports the amendment of certain elements of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 in order to permit the extension of its validity to 31 December 2015 and make certain adjustments consequent to the entry into force of bilateral agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.
Delegirani in izvedbeni akti
Delegated and Implementing Acts
Drugi pododstavek člena 2(2) osnovne uredbe predvideva ukrepe za spremembo ali prekinitev preferencialnega režima, ki ga uvaja člen 1 Uredbe 1215/2009.
Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 of the basic Regulation provides for measures to change or to interrupt the entitlement to benefit from the preferential arrangements introduced by Article 1 of regulation 1215/2009.
V prvotni različici osnovnega akta drugi pododstavek člena 2(2) predvideva, da lahko Svet "s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije sprejme ustrezne ukrepe".
In the original version of the basic act, Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2, provides for the Council to adopt "the appropriate measures by a qualified majority vote, on the basis of a Commission proposal".
To je daljnosežna določba, ki jo lahko razumemo samo v zgodovinskem kontekstu datuma pogajanj in sprejetja osnovnega akta.
This is a far-reaching provision that is only understandable in the historic context of the date of negotiation and adoption of the basic act.
Tako je Svet do 1. decembra 2009, na podlagi nekdanjega člena 133 Pogodbe o Evropski skupnosti, sprejemal ukrepe v skladu s tem členom in se ni posvetoval z Evropskim parlamentom.
Hence, until 1 December 2009, the Council, on the basis of ex-Article 133 TEC, adopted according to this rule without consulting the European Parliament.
Od začetka veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe Evropski parlament in Svet skupaj po rednem zakonodajnem postopku sprejemata ukrepe, s katerimi se opredeli okvir za izvajanje skupne trgovinske politike.
Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament and the Council act jointly in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, to adopt measures defining the framework for implementing the common commercial policy.
Drugi pododstavek člena 2(2) je tako treba uskladiti s tem novim kontekstom.
Article 2, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2 should therefore be aligned to this new context.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009 ravno tako v členih 3 in 7 vsebuje nekatera pooblastila, ki temeljijo na Sklepu Sveta 1999/468/ES o določitvi postopkov za uresničevanje Komisiji podeljenih izvedbenih pooblastil.
Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 contains, in Articles 3 and 7, certain implementing powers, which are based on Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
Sprememba uredbe predlaga spremembo člena 3(2) Uredbe 1215/2009.
The amending regulation proposes to amend Article 3(2) of regulation 1215/2009.
Ker je vzorec predvsem orodje za izvajanje in ne splošni ukrep, ki bi "dopolnil" ali "spremenil" osnovni akt, se ne priporoča, da se ta ukrep spremeni v delegirani akt v skladu s členom 290 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, ampak da se ga obravnava kot izvedbeni akt v skladu s členom 291 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
Given that the template is more a tool for implementation rather than a measure of general application which would "supplement" or "amend" the basic act, it is not recommendable to shift this measure towards a delegated act according to Article 290 TFEU, but to consider them as implementing acts according to Article 291 TFEU.
Člen 3(4) Uredbe 1215/2009 se nanaša na ukrepe, ki jih lahko Komisija sprejme, če uvoz kmetijskih in ribiških izdelkov povzroči resne motnje na trgih EU in v njihovih ureditvenih mehanizmih.
Article 3(4) of regulation 1215/2009 applies for measures which the Commission may take should imports of agriculture and fishery products cause serious disturbance to the EU markets and their regulatory mechanism.
Na primer: Komisija lahko zmanjša kvoto, določeno v predhodnem pododstavku člena 3.
For example: The Commission could reduce the quota established in the previous subparagraphs of Article 3.
Zato so delegirani akti bolj primerni ukrepi, saj bo zahtevano merilo iz člena 290 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (ukrepi za "splošno uporabo" in "sprememba" osnovnega akta) z njimi sovpadalo.
Therefore delegated acts are the more appropriate measure since the required criteria of Article 290 TFEU (measures of "general application" and "amendment" of the basic act) would concur.
Sprememba uredbe predlaga tudi spremembo člena 4.
The amending regulation also proposes to amend Article 4.
Člen 7 predpisuje, da Komisija uvede "spremembe in tehnične prilagoditve, potrebne zaradi sprememb oznak kombinirane nomenklature in pododdelkov TARIC", in "potrebne prilagoditve zaradi sklepanja drugih sporazumov med Skupnostjo ter državami in ozemlji iz člena 1".
Article 7 provides for the Commission to introduce "amendments and technical adjustments necessary following amendments to the Combined Nomenclature code and to the TARIC subdivisions" and "necessary adjustments following the conclusion of the other agreements between the Community and the countries and territories referred to in Article 1".
Poročevalec meni, da v praksi ta določba pomeni, da Komisija lahko spremeni priloge kot tudi člene uredbe.
In practice, the Rapporteur believes these imply that the Commission can amend the annexes as well as the articles of the regulation themselves.
Ker so izidi teh ukrepov "spremembe" osnovne uredbe, zlasti njenih prilog, se uporabljajo "delegirani akti".
Since the result of these measures are "amendments" to the basic regulation, in particular its annexes, "delegated acts" should apply.
Za določitev pravil za izvrševanje, nadzor in morebiten preklic delegiranih aktov so bili dodani členi 7a, 7b, 7c, in 7d.
In order to establish rules for the execution, control and eventual revocation of delegated acts, Articles 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d have been inserted.
Sprememba Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1215/2009 o uvedbi izjemnih trgovinskih ukrepov za države in ozemlja, ki sodelujejo ali so povezana s stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenim procesom Evropske unije
Amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the EU’s Stabilisation and Association process
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Viktorju Uspaskichu
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Viktorju Uspaskichu, ki so jo posredovale litovske sodne oblasti dne 14. julija 2009 in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 7. oktobra 2009,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, forwarded by the Lithuanian judicial authorities on 14 July 2009 and announced in plenary sitting on 7 October 2009,
– po zagovoru Viktorja Uspaskicha v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Viktor Uspaskich, in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, ki je priloga k Pogodbam,
– having regard to Article 8 and 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaties,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 in zadeva149/85 Wybot v Faure and Others [1986] ECR 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and Others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju 62. člena ustave Republike Litve,
– having regard to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0244/2010 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0244/2010 ),
A. ker je bil zoper Viktorja Uspaskicha, poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, začet kazenski postopek, in sicer je v postopku, ki poteka pred Okrožnim sodišče v Vilni, obtožen kaznivih dejanj po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 222(1) in 220(1), po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 220(1) in 205(1) in po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členom 205(1) kazenskega zakonika Litve,
A. whereas criminal proceedings have been brought against Viktor Uspaskich, Member of the European Parliament, who is accused in the proceedings pending in the Vilnius Regional Court of criminal offences under Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Lithuanian Criminal Code,
B. ker po členu 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije člani med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države, in ker se na imuniteto ni mogoče sklicevati, kadar se člana zaloti pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, in ker to Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanje pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu,
B. whereas, according to Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, whereas immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members,
C. ker se obtožnica zoper Viktorja Uspaskicha ne nanaša na mnenja, ki so bila izražena, ali glasove, ki so bili oddani pri opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti člana Evropskega parlamenta,
C. whereas the charges brought against Mr Uspaskich do not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament,
D. ker po 62. členu ustave Republike Litve poslanec nacionalnega parlamenta (seimasa) ni kazensko odgovoren, ne sme biti priprt in mu prostost ne sme biti omejena na drug način brez soglasja parlamenta,
D. whereas, according to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (the Seimas) may not be held criminally liable, arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Parliament,
E. ker 62. člen nadalje določa, da člana seimasa ni mogoče preganjati zaradi njegovega glasovanja ali govorov v seimasu, čeprav lahko odgovarja v skladu s splošnim postopkom zaradi razžalitve ali obrekovanja,
E. whereas Article 62 goes on to provide that a Member of the Seimas may not be persecuted for his voting or his speeches at the Seimas, although he may be held liable according to the general procedure for personal insult or slander,
F. ker je Viktor Uspaskich obtožen kaznivih dejanja ponarejanja računovodskih izkazov v zvezi s financiranjem politične stranke v obdobju pred njegovo izvolitvijo v Evropski parlament,
F. whereas Mr Uspaskich is essentially charged with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament,
G. ker niso bili predloženi trdni dokazi o obstoju fumus persecutionis in ker kazniva dejanja, katerih je obtožen Viktor Uspaskich, nimajo nobene zveze z njegovimi dejavnostmi poslanca Evropskega parlamenta,
G. whereas no cogent evidence has been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which Mr Uspaskich is charged have nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament,
H. ker je zato primerno, da se mu odvzame imuniteta,
H. whereas it is therefore appropriate to waive his immunity,
Na zasedanju 7. oktobra 2009 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika razglasil, da je prejel pismo litovskih pravosodnih oblasti z dne 14. julija 2009 z zahtevo za odvzem imunitete Viktorju Uspaskichu.
At the sitting of 7 October 2009 the President announced, under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a letter sent by the Lithuanian judicial authorities on 14 July 2009 requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Uspaskich.
Predsednik je pismo v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(2).
Glavnemu državnemu tožilcu republike Litve je bilo s sklepom Okrožnega sodišča v Vilni z dne 29. junija 2009 naloženo, da Evropski parlament zaprosi, naj odvzame imuniteto svojemu članu Viktorju Uspaskichu, zoper katerega se je začel kazenski postopek z opr. št. 1-38/2009, in sicer zato, da se lahko kazenski postopek, začet zoper njega, nadaljuje in da se lahko izvrši sklep o varščini, ki je bil kot previdnostni ukrep izdan zoper njega.
The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania was instructed, by decision of the Regional Court of Vilnius of 29 June 2009, to ask the European Parliament to waive the immunity of its Member Viktor Uspaskich, against whom criminal proceedings have been brought in Case No 1-38/2009, in order that the criminal proceedings initiated against him may go ahead and the bail order made against him by the court as a precautionary measure may be enforced.
Viktor Uspaskich je v postopku, ki poteka pred Okrožnim sodiščem v Vilni, obtožen kaznivih dejanj po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 222(1) in 220(1), po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 220(1) in 205(1) in po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členom 205(1) kazenskega zakonika Litve.
Viktor Uspaskich is accused in proceedings pending in the Vilnius Regional Court of criminal offences under Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.
Obtožba Viktorja Uspaskicha bremeni, da je med 13. julijem 2004 in 17. majem 2006 v Vilni kot predsednik delavske stranke skupaj z drugimi osebami za namene: a) nezakonitega financiranja politične stranke, in sicer delavske stranke, in b) izmikanja ustreznemu nadzoru financiranja stranke in njenih političnih kampanj vodil organizirano skupino, ki je bila vzpostavljena za storitev številnih kaznivih dejanj.
The case against Viktor Uspaskich is that, in Vilnius between 13 July 2004 and 17 May 2006, as chair of the Labour Party, acting in concert with others for the purposes of (a) attempting to finance a political party – namely the Labour Party – illegally and (b) evading proper supervision of the financing of the party and its political campaigns, he directed an organised group created by them in order to perpetrate a number of criminal offences.
S tem namenom je med letoma 2004 in 2006 osebju naročil, naj vodi nezakonite lažne izkaze za delavsko stranko, rezultat tega pa je bil, da za leta 2004, 2005 in 2006 ni mogoče popolnoma ugotoviti obsega premoženja in obveznosti stranke ter njene strukture.
To that end, from 2004 to 2006, in Vilnius, he directed staff to keep unlawful bogus accounts for the Labour Party, with the result that it is not possible to establish in full the extent of the party’s assets and liabilities or the party structure during the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Viktor Uspaskich, ki je bil po 21. členu zakona o računovodstvu Republike Litve odgovoren za organizacijo računovodstva stranke in je deloval za račun in v interesu delavske stranke kot pravne osebe, je obtožen, da je spomladi leta 2004 neki osebi dal navodilo, naj za delavsko stranko vodi „dvojno“ računovodstvo.
Viktor Uspaskich - who was responsible, under Article 21 of the Accounting Act of the Republic of Lithuania, for organising the keeping of the party’s accounts and was acting for the benefit and in the interests of the Labour Party as a legal person - is accused by the Lithuanian authorities of having instructed a person to undertake "double" bookkeeping for the Labour Party in Spring 2004.
Ukazal naj bi tudi, da se podatki o transakcijah in poslovnih dejavnostih, ki jih je treba vnesti v izkaze, pa tudi neuradni prejemki in izdatki v denarju in premoženju v zvezi z dejavnostmi delavske stranke, vnesejo v neuradne poslovne knjige.
In addition, it is alleged that transactions and business activities which it was compulsory to record in the accounts, as well as the unofficial receipt and disbursement of monies and assets in connection with Labour Party activities, should be recorded in unofficial ledgers.
Dal naj bi tudi natančna navodila o tem, da je treba nekatere gospodarske in finančne operacije opraviti mimo uradnih vnosov v računovodske izkaze stranke.
He is also accused of having issued specific instructions that certain commercial and financial operations should be carried out without their being recorded in the party’s accounts,
9. decembra 2008 se je litvanski parlament (seimas) strinjal, da se Viktorju Uspaskichu v zvezi z istimi postopki odvzame imuniteta.
On 9 December 2008, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) agreed to waive the immunity of Mr Uspaskich in respect of the same proceedings.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da Viktor Uspaskich v času, ko naj bi bila storjena očitana mu kazniva dejanja, ni bil poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
It should be noted in addition that Mr Uspaskich was not Member of the European Parliament at the time when the accused offences were allegedly committed.
(a) Union law
(a) Union law
Za člane velja imuniteta tudi med tem, ko potujejo do kraja zasedanja Evropskega parlamenta in nazaj.
Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Postopek v Evropskem parlamentu urejata člena 6 in 7 poslovnika.
The procedure in the European Parliament is governed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
Člen 6 – Odvzem imunitete:
‘ Rule 6 - Waiver of immunity:
Odbor predlaga sklep, ki priporoča zgolj sprejetje ali zavrnitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete ali zahteve za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev.
The committee shall make a proposal for a reasoned decision which recommends the adoption or rejection of the request for the waiver of immunity or for the defence of immunity and privileges.
(b) Nacionalno pravo
(b) National law
Ustava Republike Litve
The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(Sprejeli so jo državljani Republike Litve na referendumu 25. oktobra 1992, veljati je začela 2. novembra 1992)
(Adopted by citizens of the Republic of Lithuania in the Referendum of 25 October 1992, came into force on 2 November 1992)
Osebnost poslanca seimasa je nedotakljiva.
The person of a Member of the Seimas shall be inviolable.
Poslanec seimasa ni kazensko odgovoren, ne sme biti priprt oziroma mu prostost ne sme biti omejena na drug način brez soglasja seimasa.
A Member of the Seimas may not be held criminally liable, arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Seimas.
Poslanec seimasa ni kazensko odgovoren za glas ali govor, ki ga je izrekel v seimasu.
A Member of the Seimas may not be persecuted for his voting or his speeches at the Seimas.
Lahko pa odgovarja v skladu s splošnim postopkom zaradi razžalitve ali obrekovanja.
However, he may be held liable according to the general procedure for personal insult or slander. ’
Statut seimasa Republike of Litve
S tatute S eimas of the R epublic of L ithuania
(17. februar 1994, št.
( 17 February 1994 No I-399 )
Osebnost poslanca seimasa je nedotakljiva.
The person of a Seimas Member shall be inviolable.
Zoper poslanca seimasa se ne sme začeti kazenski postopek, ne sme biti priprt oziroma mu svoboda ne sme biti omejena na drug način brez soglasja seimasa, razen če je bil zaloten pri kaznivem dejanju (in flagrante delicto).
Criminal proceedings may not be instituted against a Seimas Member, he may not be arrested, and may not be subjected to any other restrictions of personal freedom without the consent of the Seimas, except in cases when he is caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto).
V teh primerih mora generalni državni tožilec o tem nemudoma obvestiti seimas.
In such cases the Prosecutor General must immediately notify the Seimas thereof. ’