natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To točko je povzela na naslednji način: „ Komisija je vedno menila, popolnoma v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča o vlogi in namenu postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, da je cilj takšnih postopkov na podlagi zakonodaje EU vzpostavitev ali obnovitev skladnosti sedanje nacionalne zakonodaje z zakonodajo EU, in ne izrekanje sodb o možni nekdanji neskladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje, ki se je v tem času spremenila ali bila zamenjana .“
It summarised this point as follows: " The Commission has consistently maintained, in full conformity with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on the role and purpose of infringement proceedings, that the objective of such proceedings under EU law is to establish or restore the compatibility of existing national law with EU law, and not to rule on the possible past incompatibility of a national law which has since been amended or replaced ."
Evropska komisija: Obvestilo članom z dne 22. junija 2005 o peticijah 0611/2004 in 0029/2005.
European Commission: Notice to Members of 22 June 2005 concerning petitions 0611/2004 and 0029/2005.
Zaradi peticij glede družbe Equitable Life je Parlament za obravnavo vprašanja ustanovil sedanji preiskovalni odbor.
The Equitable Life petitions eventually led Parliament to set up the present Committee of Inquiry to investigate the issue.
Razen vlaganja peticij pri Evropskem parlamentu imajo državljani možnost pritožb pri Komisiji, čeprav v primerjavi s peticijami to ni pravica, ki bi jo zagotavljala Pogodba.
Besides petitioning the European Parliament, citizens have the possibility of bringing forward complaints to the Commission, although, in contrast to petitioning, this is not a right granted by the Treaty.
V svojem Sporočilu Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožniki v zvezi s postopki kršitev prava Skupnosti
In its Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law
Vsa korespondenca, ki se obravnava kot pritožba, se shranjujejo v centralnem registru pritožb, ki ga hrani generalni sekretar Komisije.
Any correspondence which is likely to be investigated as a complaint is recorded in a central registry of complaints kept by the Secretariat-General of the Commission.
Uradniki Komisije lahko po obravnavi pritožbe zaprosijo Kolegij komisarjev, da v skladu s členom 226 Pogodbe začne postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev proti zadevni državi članici.
After investigating the complaint, Commission officials may ask the College of Commissioners either to initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State in question under Article 226 of the Treaty, or to close the case.
Komisija se o vprašanju odloči po lastni presoji.
The Commission decides on the matter at its discretion.
Komisija je v svojih letnih poročilih o spremljanju izvajanja zakonodaje Skupnosti vedno priznala ključno vlogo pritožnikov pri ugotavljanju kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti.
In its annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law, the Commission has regularly acknowledged the vital role played by the complainant in detecting infringements of Community law.
Leta 2005 so pritožbe na primer pripomogle k odkritju približno 43,5 % vseh ugotovljenih kršitev.
For instance, in 2005, complaints accounted for around 43.5% of the total infringements detected.
Triindvajseto letno poročilo Komisije o spremljanju izvajanja zakonodaje Skupnosti (2005); KOM(2006)416 konč.
23rd Annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law (2005); COM(2006) 416 final.
Medtem ko se lahko Komisija odloči za začetek postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev v državi članici, pritožnikom ne more dodeliti odškodnine.
While the Commission may decide to initiate infringement proceedings against a Member State, it cannot award compensation to complainants.
Vendar lahko začetek postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev pritožniku pomaga pri utemeljevanju zahtevkov za odškodnino na podlagi načela Francovich .
However, the launch of infringement proceedings may facilitate matters for a claimant to substantiate claims for damages under Francovich .
Ta točka je podrobneje obravnavana spodaj.
This point is further discussed below.
V notranjem sporočilu Komisije z dne 19. marca 2004, ki ga je Komisija predložila kot del WE-CONF 11, je navedeno, da „ smo skupaj prejeli 7 pritožb posameznih državljanov, 5 dopisov od poslancev EP in dve pisni vprašanji EP [v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life] “.
In an internal Commission note dated 19 March 2004, which the Commission provided as part of WE-CONF 11 it is stated that " in total we have received 7 complaints from individual citizens, 5 letters from MEPs and two EP written questions [concerning Equitable Life] ".
V H1 je TETRÁK navedel odgovor komisarja na dopis poslanca EP Perryja: „ V običajnih okoliščinah, ko oškodovana stranka meni, da nacionalni nadzorni organi niso primerno upoštevali zahtev ustreznih direktiv Komisije, se lahko odškodnina zahteva pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
In H1, Mr TERTÁK quoted from the Commissioner's reply to a letter from Mr Perry, MEP: " In normal circumstances, where an aggrieved party considers that national supervisory authorities have not properly respected the requirements of the relevant EC directives, redress may be sought by application to national courts.
Razen tega imajo v takšnih primerih nacionalna sodišča tudi pristojnost dodelitve odškodnine oškodovanim strankam, kar Komisija ne more storiti ...
Furthermore, in such cases, national courts also have the power to award damages to aggrieved parties, something the Commission cannot do. ...
Zdaj Komisija ni seznanjena z nobeno kršitvijo direktiv EU o zavarovanju v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life, vendar bo po potrebi pregledala stanje ob upoštevanju rezultatov preiskave lorda Penrosa “.
At the present time, the Commission is not aware of any infringement of the EU insurance directives in connection with Equitable Life, but it will review the position in the light of the results of the Penrose Inquiry, if necessary ".
V skladu z WE-CONF 11 je bil prvotni odziv Komisije na pritožbe državljanov, „ da je treba pred odločitvijo, kakšni ukrepi, če sploh, naj se sprejmejo, počakati na rezultat neodvisnega poročila … lorda Penrosa “.
Similarly, according to WE-CONF 11, the Commission's initial response to the complaints by citizens had been " that we would await the outcome of the independent report ... by Lord Penrose before determining what action, if any, should be taken ".
Do objave Penrosovega poročila je Komisija (po analogiji s stališčem, ki ga je izrazila kot odgovor na zahtevo Odbora za peticije po obveščanju) pritožnikom sporočila, da so sporni dogodki povezani s prvotno zakonodajno in nadzorno ureditvijo, ki jo je Združeno kraljestvo v tem času zamenjalo (WE-CONF 11).
By the time the Penrose report had been published, the Commission stressed (by analogy with the position it expressed in response to the request for information by the Petitions Committee) to complainants that the events complained about related to a prior regulatory and supervisory regime which has since been replaced by the UK (WE-CONF 11).
Komisija je v WE 1
In WE 1
Strani 7-9. svoje stališče pojasnila na naslednji način: „ Komisija nima dokončnega stališča o tem, ali je pri praktičnem izvajanju direktive v primeru družbe Equitable Life prišlo do kršitve; tudi če bi takšno stališče lahko zavzela in bila prepričana, da je v praksi prišlo do kršitve, se postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev pred Sodiščem ne bi mogli izvesti. ...
Pages 7-9. , the Commission explained its position as follows: " The Commission is not in a position to take a definitive view on whether there might have been an infringement in the practical application of the directive in the case of Equitable Life and, even if it were able to take such a view and was convinced that there had been an infringement in practice, it would not be able to take infringement proceedings before the Court. ...
Sodišče je odločilo, da je bil namen postopkov doseči spremembo vedenja sporne države in ne abstraktno navajanje napak v preteklosti.
The Court of Justice had ruled that the purpose of proceedings was 'to bring about a change in behaviour on the part of the recalcitrant State, and not to record in abstracto that a failure existed in the past'.
Sodišče je menilo, da lahko Komisija postopke glede kršitev Pogodbe na Sodišču začne le, če država članica v časovnem roku, ki ji je bil za ta namen sporočen, ni delovala v skladu z obrazloženim mnenjem
The Court had held that the 'Commission may not bring proceedings before the Court for Treaty infringement unless a Member State has failed to comply with the reasoned opinion within the time-limit notified to it for that purpose'
Zadeva C-349/99 Komisija proti Italiji , ECR (2002) str.
Case C-349/99 Commission v Italy , ECR (2002) p.I-305 . ...
Komisija ni videla nobenega razloga za začetek postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, izdano ni bilo nobeno obrazloženo mnenje in zelo jasno je bilo, da so se zakonodajne in nadzorne ureditve življenjskega zavarovanja v Združenem kraljestvu, na katere so opozarjali različni korespondenti, pritožniki in vlagatelji peticij, po nastanku težav, ki so bile sporočene Komisiji in Parlamentu, temeljito spremenile .“
The Commission had seen no reason to begin infringement proceedings, no reasoned opinion was issued and it was quite clear that the UK life insurance regulatory and supervisory regimes that had been called into question by various correspondents, complainants and petitioners had been radically amended since the occurrence of the problems brought to the Commission’s and Parliament’s attention ."
Komisija je sklenila, da je „ zaradi dejstva, da se zdi glavno vprašanje izplačilo odškodnine, … vedno trdila, da morajo postopki za dodelitev odškodnine potekati pred nacionalnimi organi in sodišči “, kar bi „ veljalo tudi, če bi direktive Skupnosti zagotavljale pravice neposredno posameznikom“ (WE 1
The Commission noted in conclusion that " since the main point at issue appeared to be the payment of compensation ... it had consistently stated that action to seek compensation had to be pursued before the national authorities and courts ", which would be " true even where the Community directives directly conferred rights on individuals " (WE 1
Pritožniki in vlagatelji peticij so bili zelo nezadovoljni zaradi nepripravljenosti Komisije, da preišče domnevno neskladnost nekdanje zakonodajne ureditve Združenega kraljestva s tretjo direktivo o življenjskem zavarovanju.
Complainants and petitioners regarded the Commission's reluctance to investigate the alleged incompatibility of the former UK regulatory regime with the Third Life Directive as highly unsatisfactory.
Akcijska družba EMAG na primer v WE 44 ugotavlja, da so „ pokojninski prihranki produkti, ki se zbirajo 50 let ali več, za kakovostno življenje v starosti“ in da „ lahko traja več desetletij, preden se pokažejo pomanjkljivosti, kot so se pri družbi Equitable“ .
For instance, EMAG notes in WE 44 that " pensions savings are products accumulated over 50 years or more, to provide for old age " and that " it can take decades for black holes to be revealed, as with Equitable ".
Akcijska skupina EMAG meni, da bi bilo zato „ za Komisijo nesprejemljivo, če bi zavrnila obravnavo preteklih napak “, pri čemer se sprašuje: „ V katerem učinkovitem pravnem okviru se lahko kršitelji izognejo kazni le z obljubami o spremembah?
EMAG suggests that it would therefore be " unacceptable for the Commission to refuse to address past failures " and asks: " In what effective legal framework can offenders walk away just with promises to reform? "
Komisija ne verjame, da obstaja pomanjkljivost, ker „ ne vidi razloga za začetek postopkov za ugotovitev, ali je v preteklosti prišlo do kršitve “ (WE 1
The Commission does not believe that there is a loophole since it " did not see what would be the purpose of bringing proceedings to establish that an infringement might have existed in the past " (WE 1
Iz navedenih razlogov niti Evropski parlament niti Evropska komisija ne moreta zahtevati plačila odškodnine vlagateljem peticij ali pritožnikom, ki so utrpeli škodo zaradi domnevnega nepravilnega izvajanja in uporabe zakonodaje EU s strani države članice.
For the reasons set out above, neither the European Parliament nor the European Commission can order the payment of compensation to petitioners or complainants, who have suffered loss as a consequence of an alleged failure by a Member State to implement and apply EU legislation correctly.
Vendar če bi institucija EU ugotovila, da ukrepi ali opustitve države članice niso v skladu z zakonodajo EU, bi lahko to pritožnikom pomagalo pri vlaganju zahtevkov prek ustreznih sodnih poti.
However, if an EU institution were to establish that actions or omissions by a Member State were not in conformity with EU legislation, this could help plaintiffs to pursue claims through the appropriate judicial channels.
Zato je razumljivo, da so vlagatelji peticij in pritožniki razočarani nad nepripravljenostjo Komisije, da obravnava domnevne pretekle kršitve, ki so se pozneje odpravile.
It is therefore understandable that petitioners and complainants are disappointed by the Commission's reluctance to look into alleged breaches that lie in the past and have since been remedied.
Odbor razume, da Komisija v takšnih primerih ne more začeti postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev.
The committee accepts that the Commission cannot launch infringement proceedings in such cases.
Kot ugotavlja v WE 1
Indeed, as it notes in WE 1
Stran 9. , mora Komisija upoštevati predpise Pogodbe in sodne prakse Sodišča, vse spremembe predpisov o postopkih za ugotavljanje kršitev pa bi zahtevale uradno spremembo Pogodbe.
Page 9. , the Commission has to respect the rules of the Treaty and the jurisprudence of the Court and any modifications of the rules on infringement proceedings would require a formal Treaty amendment.
Zato Parlament ne bo mogel ugoditi tistim zavarovancem, ki so izrazili pričakovanje, da bo Evropski parlament Komisiji priporočil, „ naj pospeši postopke na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti za tožbo proti vladi Združenega kraljestva, ker ni delovala v skladu z direktivami ES“ (BRAITHWAITE, H 10).
For this reason, Parliament will not be able to satisfy those policyholders who had expressed their hope that the European Parliament would make a recommendation to the Commission " to instigate proceedings in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to bring an action against the UK Government for failing to operate in accord with the EC Directives " (Mr BRAITHWAITE, H 10).
Vendar določbe Pogodbe Komisiji ne prepovedujejo preiskave domnevnih preteklih kršitev (brez poznejšega začetka postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev).
However, the Treaty provisions do not prevent the Commission from investigating alleged past breaches as such (without subsequently launching infringement proceedings).
Odbor meni, da bi bilo to zlasti v primerih, kot je družba Equitable Life, upravičeno, kadar domnevne kršitve vplivajo na veliko državljanov po Evropi.
In the committee's view, this would be particularly justified in cases such as Equitable Life, where a large number of citizens across Europe are affected by the alleged breaches.
Kar zadeva določbe Pogodbe glede postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, odbor meni, da obstajajo pomanjkljivosti, ker se neustrezno izvajanje pogosto odkrije šele čez več desetletij.
As regards the Treaty provisions on infringement proceedings, the committee considers that there are loopholes because failures to implement in many cases become apparent only decades later.
Zato bi lahko določbe Pogodbe spremenili na način, ki bi temeljito spremenil značilnosti postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, tako da bi bile države članice za pretekle kršitve kaznovane.
One may therefore consider amending the Treaty provisions in a way that would fundamentally change the nature of infringement proceedings, so that Member States can be penalised for past breaches.
Odbor meni, da bi bilo koristno oceniti možne prednosti takšne spremembe, kot so večje spodbude državam članicam za pravilno in pravočasno izvajanje zakonodaje EU.
The committee believes it would be worthwhile to assess the potential merits of such a modification, such as increased incentives for Member States to implement EU legislation in a correct and timely manner.
Zadeva Equitable Life je še enkrat poudarila pomembnost pravice državljanov EU do predložitve peticije Evropskemu parlamentu.
The Equitable Life case highlights once more the importance and significance of the right of EU citizens to petition the European Parliament.
Medtem ko je Komisija zavrnila preiskavo vprašanj, ki so jih sprožili pritožniki, je Parlament odločil, da so obtožbe vlagateljev peticij dovolj resne za izvedbo poglobljene preiskave, in za ta namen ustanovil Preiskovalni odbor.
While the Commission refused to investigate the matters raised by complainants, Parliament decided that the allegations made by petitioners are serious enough to warrant an in-depth investigation and set up the Committee of Inquiry in response.
Čeprav Parlament nima pristojnosti, da bi vlagateljem peticije dodelil odškodnino, lahko predloži potrebna priporočila, ki se mu zdijo v zvezi s tem potrebna.
Although it does not itself have the power to award compensation to petitioners, Parliament may make any recommendations it deems appropriate in this regard.
Kot je navedeno v delih II in III tega poročila, je odbor ugotovil več regulativnih napak organov Združenega kraljestva, odgovornih za nadzor nad družbo ELAS.
As outlined in Parts II and III of this report, the committee identified several regulatory failures by the UK authorities responsible for the supervision of ELAS.
Razen tega je ugotovil, da organi Združenega kraljestva niso ustrezno izvajali standardov za nadzor varnega in skrbnega poslovanja iz Direktive 2002/83/ES.
It furthermore concluded that the UK authorities failed to apply properly the standards of prudential supervision laid down in Directive 2002/83/EC.
V spodnjih opombah bomo obravnavali, ali lahko dejstvo, da Združeno kraljestvo ni delovalo v celoti v skladu z določbami Direktive, povzroči zahtevke za odškodnino oškodovanih zavarovancev.
In the comments set out below, we will examine whether the failure by the UK to comply fully with the provisions of the Directive may give rise to claims by aggrieved policyholders for compensation.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti je lahko država članica, ki ne deluje v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti, odškodninsko odgovorna osebi, ki je zaradi njenega delovanja utrpela škodo.
According to the case law of the European Court of Justice, a Member State which fails to comply with Community law may be liable in damages to a person who has suffered loss as a result.
Na podlagi sodne prakse iz zadeve Francovich
Under the Francovich case law
· kršeno pravno pravilo podeljuje posameznikom pravice;
· the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
· kršitev je dovolj resna;
· the breach must be sufficiently serious;
· obstaja neposredna vzročna zveza med kršitvijo obveznosti države in škodo, ki so jo utrpeli oškodovanci.
· there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.
Glej strani 98-100. je prvi pogoj samodejno izpolnjen, kadar država članica ne sprejme izvedbenih ukrepov.
See pages 98 to 100. , the first condition is automatically met where a Member State fails to adopt implementing measures.
Če država članica sprejme izvedbene ukrepe, ki zahtev Direktive ne izpolnjujejo v celoti, kršitev ni nujno resna.
Where a Member State enacts implementing measures but they fall short of the requirements of the Directive, the breach is not necessarily serious.
Za ugotovitev, ali pomeni nepravilni prenos zakonodaje resno kršitev, je treba upoštevati vse okoliščine zadeve.
In order to determine whether the incorrect transposition amounts to a serious breach, all the circumstances of the case must be taken into account.
Dejavnike, ki so bistveni pri določanju, ali je kršitev resna, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti navedlo v zadevi Brasserie .
The factors being material in determining whether the infringement passes the threshold of seriousness are listed by the ECJ in the Brasserie case.
Ti so: jasnost kršenega predpisa; stopnja diskrecije nacionalnih organov; ali sta kršitev in povzročena škoda namerna ali nenamerna; ali je kršitev zakonodaje opravičljiva ali ne; ali je stališče institucije Skupnosti morda prispevalo k opustitvi; sprejetje ali ohranjanje nacionalnih ukrepov ali praks, ki so v nasprotju z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
These are: the clarity of the rule breached; the measure of discretion left to the national authorities; whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary; whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable; whether the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the omission; the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to Community law.
V svoji sodbi v zadevi C-278/05 ( Robins ) z dne 25. januarja 2007 je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti opozorilo, da pomeni pogoj, ki zahteva dovolj resno kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti, očitno in resno neupoštevanje omejitev diskrecijske pravice države članice, pri čemer se v zvezi s tem upoštevajo dejavniki, kot so med drugim stopnja jasnosti in natančnosti kršenega predpisa ter stopnja diskrecije, ki jo ta predpis zagotavlja nacionalnim organom.
In its judgment on case C-278/05 (" Robins ") of 25 January 2007, the ECJ recalled that the condition requiring a sufficiently serious breach of Community law implies manifest and grave disregard by the Member State for the limits set on its discretion, the factors to be taken into consideration in this connection being, inter alia, the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed and the measure of discretion left by that rule to the national authorities.
Sodišče v odstavku 81 meni, da bi lahko bilo poročilo Komisije, v katerem navaja svoje zadovoljstvo glede izvajanja ustrezne zakonodaje v Združenem kraljestvu, dejavnik, ki kaže, da kršitev ni dovolj resna ali očitna.
The Court suggests, in paragraph 81, that a Commission report indicating that it was satisfied with the implementation of the relevant legislation by the United Kingdom, may be a factor indicating that the breach is not sufficiently grave or manifest.
Kljub temu da je stališče institucij Skupnosti pomemben dejavnik, je mogoče dvomiti, ali bi morala imeti država članica, ki krši zakonodajo Skupnosti, koristi od nejasnih ali previdnih izjav ene od institucij Skupnosti, zlasti če upoštevamo, da je koncept izvajanja zakonodaje Skupnosti dinamičen in se lahko sčasoma razvije.
However, even though the position taken by the Community institutions is a relevant factor, doubts could be raised as to whether a Member State in breach of Community law should be entitled to benefit from equivocal or cautious pronouncements by one of the Community institutions, especially when one considers that the concept of implementation of Community law is a dynamic one, which may evolve in the course of time.
Kar zadeva družbo ELAS, ni bila glavna napaka Združenega kraljestva, kot je navedeno v delih II in III tega poročila, nepravilen prenos zakonodaje, ampak dejstvo, da uprava ni izvajala in uveljavila določb Direktive.
In relation to ELAS, the main failure of the UK, as established in Parts II and III of this report, was not incorrect transposition but failure by the administration to apply and enforce the provisions of the Directive.
ES 3 jasno navaja, da to pomeni kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti in se zato tako tudi obravnava.
ES 3 makes it clear that such failure is considered to be a breach of Community law and is therefore treated accordingly.
Dejavniki, ki se uporabljajo za ugotavljanje, ali je kršitev resna, so enaki kot dejavniki iz zgornjega odstavka v zvezi z nepravilnim prenosom zakonodaje.
The factors used in determining whether the breach is serious are the same as the ones mentioned in the above paragraph in relation to incorrect transposition.