natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Brez poseganja v prvi pododstavek odstavka 6 lahko Svet na predlog Komisije in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom soglasno odloči, da se odstavki 1 do 4 uporabljajo tudi za mednarodna pogajanja in sporazume o intelektualni lastnini, kolikor niso ti že zajeti v odstavku 5.“
Without prejudice to the first subparagraph of paragraph 6, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may extend the application of paragraphs 1 to 4 to international negotiations and agreements on intellectual property in so far as they are not covered by paragraph 5."
Člen 300(1) Pogodbe ES se glasi:
Article 300 of the EC Treaty reads as follows:
Kadar ta pogodba predvideva sklepanje sporazumov med Skupnostjo ter eno ali več državami ali mednarodnimi organizacijami, da Komisija Svetu priporočila, Svet pa Komisijo pooblasti za začetek potrebnih pogajanj.
Where this Treaty provides for the conclusion of agreements between the Community and one or more States or international organisations, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council, which shall authorise the Commission to open the necessary negotiations.
Komisija ta pogajanja vodi ob posvetovanju s posebnimi odbori, ki jih Svet imenuje kot pomoč pri tej nalogi, in v okviru smernic, ki jih Komisiji lahko da Svet.
The Commission shall conduct these negotiations in consultation with special committees appointed by the Council to assist it in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue to it.
Pri izvajanju svojih pristojnosti iz tega odstavka odloča Svet s kvalificirano večino, razen v primerih iz prvega pododstavka odstavka 2, ko odloča soglasno.
In exercising the powers conferred upon it by this paragraph, the Council shall act by a qualified majority, except in the cases where the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 provides that the Council shall act unanimously.
Če sporazum zajema področje, pri katerem je za sprejetje notranjih predpisov potrebno soglasje, odloča Svet soglasno, enako pa velja za sporazume iz člena 310.
The Council shall act unanimously when the agreement covers a field for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules and for the agreements referred to in Article 310.
Z odstopanjem od pravil iz odstavka 3 veljajo ti postopki tudi za sklepe o začasni odložitvi uporabe sporazuma ali za določitev stališč, ki jih je treba sprejeti v imenu Skupnosti v organu, ustanovljenem s sporazumom, kadar mora ta organ sprejeti sklepe s pravnim učinkom, z izjemo sklepov o dopolnitvah ali spremembah institucionalnega okvira sporazuma.
By way of derogation from the rules laid down in paragraph 3, the same procedures shall apply for a decision to suspend the application of an agreement, and for the purpose of establishing the positions to be adopted on behalf of the Community in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt decisions having legal effects, with the exception of decisions supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.
Evropski parlament je nemudoma in v celoti obveščen o vseh sklepih iz tega odstavka o začasni uporabi ali odložitvi izvajanja sporazumov ali določitvi stališča Skupnosti v organu, ustanovljenem s sporazumom.
The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed of any decision under this paragraph concerning the provisional application or the suspension of agreements, or the establishment of the Community position in a body set up by an agreement.
Evropski parlament da svoje mnenje v roku, ki ga lahko glede na nujnost zadeve določi Svet.
The European Parliament shall deliver its opinion within a time limit which the Council may lay down according to the urgency of the matter.
Če ne da mnenja v tem roku, lahko Svet ukrepa.
In the absence of an opinion within that time limit, the Council may act.
Z odstopanjem od prejšnjega pododstavka se sporazumi iz člena 310, drugi sporazumi, ki z uvedbo postopkov sodelovanja vzpostavljajo poseben institucionalni okvir, sporazumi, ki imajo znatne proračunske posledice za Skupnost, in sporazumi, katerih posledica je sprememba akta, sprejetega v skladu s postopkom iz člena 251, sklepajo po pridobitvi privolitve Evropskega parlamenta.
By way of derogation from the previous subparagraph, agreements referred to in Article 310, other agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures, agreements having important budgetary implications for the Community and agreements entailing amendment of an act adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 shall be concluded after the assent of the European Parliament has been obtained.
V nujnih primerih se lahko Svet in Evropski parlament dogovorita glede roka za privolitev.
The Council and the European Parliament may, in an urgent situation, agree upon a time limit for the assent.
Pri sklepanju sporazuma lahko Svet z odstopanjem od odstavka 2 pooblasti Komisijo, da v imenu Skupnosti odobri dopolnitve, kadar sporazum predvideva, da se lahko sprejmejo po poenostavljenem postopku ali da jih sprejme organ, ustanovljen v skladu s sporazumom; takšnemu pooblastilu lahko Svet doda posebne pogoje.
When concluding an agreement, the Council may, by way of derogation from paragraph 2, authorise the Commission to approve modifications on behalf of the Community where the agreement provides for them to be adopted by a simplified procedure or by a body set up by the agreement; it may attach specific conditions to such authorisation.
Če namerava Svet skleniti sporazum, za katerega so potrebne spremembe k tej pogodbi, jih je treba najprej sprejeti v skladu s postopkom iz člena 48 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
When the Council envisages concluding an agreement which calls for amendments to this Treaty, the amendments must first be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.
Evropski parlament, Svet, Komisija ali država članica lahko od Sodišča pridobi mnenje, ali je načrtovani sporazum združljiv z določbami te pogodbe.
The European Parliament, the Council, the Commission or a Member State may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the provisions of this Treaty.
Kadar je mnenje Sodišča odklonilno, lahko sporazum začne veljati le v skladu s členom 48 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
Where the opinion of the Court of Justice is adverse, the agreement may enter into force only in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.
Sporazumi, sklenjeni v skladu s pogoji iz tega člena, so za institucije Skupnosti in države članice zavezujoči.
Agreements concluded under the conditions set out in this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States.
Vsi akti Skupnosti morajo temeljiti na pravni podlagi, določeni v Pogodbi (oziroma drugem pravnem aktu, ki ga imajo namen izvajati).
All Community acts must be founded upon a legal basis laid down in the Treaty (or in another legal act which they are intended to implement).
Glede na posledice, ki jih ima pravna podlaga, je njena izbira predvsem za Parlament bistvenega pomena, saj določa, koliko vpliva, če sploh kaj, ima Parlament v zakonodajnem postopku.
In view of the consequences of the legal basis, its choice is of basic importance, particularly for Parliament, since it determines what say, if any, Parliament has in the legislative process.
Po mnenju Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti izbira pravne podlage ni subjektivna, pač pa „mora temeljiti na objektivnih dejavnikih, ki jih je mogoče sodno preskusiti
According to the Court of Justice the choice of legal basis is not a subjective one, but "must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review"
Glede na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti je splošni člen Pogodbe ustrezna pravna podlaga, čeprav obravnavani ukrep skuša na podrejen način doseči tudi cilj, ki si ga prizadeva doseči specifični člen Pogodbe
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a general Treaty article constitutes a sufficient legal basis even though the measure in question also seeks, in a subordinate manner, to attain an aim sought by a specific Treaty article
Zadeva C-377/98, Nizozemska proti Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu , [2001] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnost I-7079, odstavki 27–28; Zadeva C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) in Imperial Tobacco [2002] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti I-11453, odstavki 93–94. .
Case C-377/98 Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council [2001] ECR I-7079, paras 27-28; Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paras 93-94. .
Vendar pa mora ukrep, kadar ima več med seboj neločljivo povezanih sočasnih ciljev, pri čemer nobeden ni drugotnega pomena in posredne narave glede na ostale, temeljiti na raznih ustreznih določbah Pogodbe
However, where a measure has several contemporaneous objectives which are indissolubly linked with each other without one being secondary and indirect in respect to the others, the measure must be based on the various relevant Treaty provisions
Obravnavani predlog Komisije temelji bodisi na členu 175(1) Pogodbe ES bodisi na členu 133, ki se sklicuje na člen 300.
The Commission's proposal under examination is based on both Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty and on Article 133, which refers to Article 300.
Postavlja se vprašanje, ali je dvojna pravna podlaga dopustna.
The question which arises is whether a dual legal basis is admissible.
Najprej je treba upoštevati, da zadevni predlog kot instrument prenovitve po eni strani uvaja vsebinske spremembe v obstoječo zakonodajo, po drugi strani pa kodificira določbe, ki naj ostanejo nespremenjene.
First and foremost, it should be borne in mind that, being a recasting instrument, the proposal in question on the one hand introduces substantive changes to the existing legislation and on the other hand codifies the provisions intended to remain unchanged.
Predlog poleg tega razveljavi akte, ki jih nadomesti.
It also repeals the acts that it replaces.
V svojem mnenju z dne 15. decembra 2008 je Odbor za pravne zadeve pri potrditvi mnenja pravnih služb menil, da dodatno sklicevanje na člen 133 Pogodbe ES poleg že obstoječega sklicevanja na člen 175(1) pomeni vsebinsko spremembo, ki bi morala biti osenčena s sivo barvo, ki se jo na splošno uporablja za označevanje takšnih sprememb.
In its opinion of 15 December 2008, the Committee on Legal Affairs, endorsing the opinion of the Legal Services, considered that the addition of a reference to Article 133 of the EC Treaty to the already existing reference to Article 175(1) constituted a substantive change which should have been identified by using the grey-shaded type generally used for marking such changes.
Zaradi tega pojasnila je Odbor za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hran vzel v poštev predlog spremembe, ki bi postavil vprašanje o primernosti dodatne pravne podlage.
That clarification enabled the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety to consider an amendment questioning the expediency of that additional legal basis.
Obrazložitveni memorandum v predlogu Komisije navaja, da sta glavna cilja Uredbe „ zagotoviti visoko raven varstva okolja in izvajati mednarodni sporazum s področja okolja .
The explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal states that "the primary objectives of the Regulation are to provide a high level of protection for the environment and to implement an international environmental agreement.
Vendar Uredba za dosego teh ciljev vsebuje trgovinske ukrepe, zato ta predlog temelji na členih 175 in 133 Pogodbe ES.“
However, the Regulation contains trade measures to achieve these objectives and therefore this proposal is based on Article 175 and Article 133 of the EC Treaty" .
Prednost okoljskih ciljev je v resnici nesporna.
In reality, the prevalence of environmental objectives is unquestionable.
Glede na uvodno izjavo 2 v predlogu je, prvič, še vedno prisotna „ resna grožnja zdravju in okolju “ in „ je treba sprejeti nadaljnje učinkovite ukrepe za zaščito zdravja ljudi in okolja pred škodljivimi učinki teh emisij ð ter preprečitev, da se ozonska plast obnovi še pozneje “.
Firstly, according to recital 2 of the proposal, a "significant threat to health and environment" persists and "further efficient measures need therefore to be taken in order to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from [ such ] emissions and to avoid risking further delay in the recovery of the ozone layer" .
Drugič, kar je še bolj poučno, člen 1 pri opredeljevanju predloga določa naslednje:
Secondly, which is even more instructive, Article 1, in defining the subject matter of the proposal, provides as follows:
„Ta uredba določa pravila za proizvodnjo, uvoz, izvoz, dajanje na trg, uporabo, zajem, recikliranje, predelavo in uničevanje snovi, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč, za sporočanje podatkov v zvezi s temi snovmi, ter za uvoz, izvoz, dajanje na trg in uporabo izdelkov in opreme, ki vsebujejo navedene snovi ali so od njih odvisni .“
"This Regulation lays down rules on the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market, use, recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of substances that deplete the ozone layer, on the reporting of information related to those substances and on the importation, exportation, placing on the market and use of products and equipment containing relying on those substances".
Pregled teh besedil pokaže, da določbe o trgovskih operacijah, kot sta uvoz in izvoz snovi, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč, nimajo ločenega cilja, ki bi se nanašal izključno na skupno trgovinsko politiko, ampak se prepletajo z vsemi drugimi določbami v predlogu, katerih globalni cilj je nedvomno varovanje človekovega zdravja in okolja.
Examination of those texts shows that rules on trade operations such as import and export of ozone-depleting substances do not have an isolated goal exclusively pertaining to the common commercial policy but are intertwined with all the other provisions of the proposal, whose global aim is manifestly the protection of human health and the environment.
Res je, da poglavje IV predloga obravnava določbe o trgovini s tretjimi državami, ki bi jih lahko šteli za določbe o izvajanju skupne trgovinske politike, saj v glavnem uvajajo omejitve pri uvozu in prepovedi uvoza.
It is true that Chapter IV of the proposal deals with rules on trade with third countries which might be regarded as provisions implementing the common commercial policy, for they essentially introduce import restrictions and export bans.
Vendar so ti predpisi uporabni le v širšem zakonodajnem kontekstu, katerega namen je zagotoviti pravočasno obnovo ozonskega plašča in preprečiti negativne posledice za zdravje ljudi in ekosisteme.
However, those provisions are merely functional to a broader legislative context which intends to ensure the timely recovery of the ozone layer and to avoid adverse impacts on human health and ecosystems.
Temu bi lahko ugovarjali, češ da je treba te elemente obravnavati, kot da so neločljivo povezani, da nobenega ne smemo obravnavati, kot da je postranski ali posreden glede na druge ter da je treba zaradi dejstva, da na podlagi člena 175 Pogodbe ES ni mogoče uvesti omejitve uvoza ali prepovedi izvoza, uporabiti člen 133.
It might be objected that these elements are to be regarded as being indissociably linked and neither can be regarded as secondary or indirect as compared with the other and that, given that an import restriction or an export ban could not be introduced under Article 175 of the EC Treaty, recourse to Article 133 is necessary.
Vendar pregled zakonodajnih aktov, ki se trenutno obnavljajo, zlasti Uredbe (ES) št. 2038/2000 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o snoveh, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč (kot je bila večkrat vsebinsko spremenjena) pokaže, da je bila pravna podlaga kljub uvedbi podobnih predpisov, ki uvajajo pomembne omejitve uvoza in prepovedi izvoza, vedno le člen 175.
However, a survey of the legislative acts which are now recast, especially Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (as substantially amended several times), shows that, in spite of similar provisions introducing import restrictions and export bans, the legal basis has always been Article 175 only.
To dokazuje, da so okoljski cilji vedno prevladovali.
This proves that environmental objectives have always been predominant.
Glede združljivosti obeh pravnih podlag je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti nedavno izjavilo, da uporaba člena 133 Pogodbe ES skupaj s členom 175(1) Pogodbe ES verjetno ne bi oslabila pravic Parlamenta, saj kljub temu, da prvi omenjeni člen ne zagotavlja formalnega sodelovanja te institucije pri sprejemanju ukrepa, o katerem je govora v tem primeru, se drugi člen po drugi strani izrecno nanaša na postopek iz člena 251 Pogodbe ES. (...)
As far as the compatibility of the two legal bases is concerned, the Court of Justice has recently held that "recourse to Article 133 EC jointly with Article 175(1) EC is likewise not liable to undermine the Parliament's rights because, although the first-mentioned article does not formally provide for the participation of that institution in the adoption of a measure of the kind at issue in this case, the second article, on the other hand, expressly refers to the procedure provided for in Article 251 EC. (...)
Uporaba kombinacije pravnih podlag zato v tem primeru ne pomeni poseganja v pravice Parlamenta, saj uporaba člena 175(1) Pogodbe ES tej instituciji omogoča, da sprejme ukrepe skladno s postopkom soodločanja
The use of a combination of legal bases does not therefore in this case involve any encroachment upon the Parliament's rights since recourse to Article 175(1) EC enables that institution to adopt the measure under the co-decision procedure"
Glej sodbo z dne 10. januarja 2006 o zadevi C-178/03 Komisija proti Parlamentu in Svetu [2006] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti I-107, odstavek 59, in sodbo istega dne o zadevi C-94/03 Komisija proti Svetu [2006] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti I-1, odstavek.
See the judgment of 10 January 2006 in Case C-178/03 Commission v. Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-107, para 59, and the judgment of the same date in Case C-94/03 Commission v. Council [2006] ECR I-1, para 54. .
V primeru mednarodnega sporazuma torej - v mnenju 2/00 (kartagenski protokol o biološki varnosti) [2001] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih Skupnosti I-9713, zlasti odstavek 25 ter odstavki od 40 do 44.
Thus – in the case of an international agreement – in Opinion 2/00 (‘Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’) [2001] ECR I-9713, especially paras 25 and 40 to 44. .
Zadeva C 281/01 Komisija proti Svetu (‘ Energy Star’ ) [2002] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti I-12049, odstavek 40 in fine in 41 in fine.
Case C‑281/01 Commission v Council (‘Energy Star’) [2002] ECR I‑12049, paras 40 in fine and 41 in fine.
Takšna presoja se lahko uporabi tudi pri drugih vrstah aktov Skupnosti.
This consideration may also be applied to other kinds of Community act.
Če torej akt Skupnosti s cilji na področju okoljske politike nima neposrednega in takojšnjega učinka na trgovino, naj bo njegova pravna podlaga člen 175 Pogodbe ES, v nasprotnem primeru pa naj bo njegova podlaga člen 133 Pogodbe ES.
If, then, a Community act with environmental policy aims has no direct and immediate effects on trade, that act is to be based on Article 175 EC; in the contrary case, it must be based on Article 133 EC.
Neposredni in takojšnji učinek na trgovino ne pomeni nujno pospeševanja ali olajševanja trgovine.
The direct and immediate effects on trade need not necessarily consist in promoting or facilitating trade.
Da bi akt Skupnosti lahko sodil na področje uporabe člena 133 Pogodbe ES, prej zadostuje, da je takšen akt instrument, katerega namen je v osnovi ... pospeševati, olajševati ali urejati trgovino
For a Community act to be capable of falling within the scope of Article 133 EC, it suffices rather that such an act is ‘an instrument intended essentially … to promote, facilitate or govern trade’
Nikakor ne drži, da imajo instrumenti trgovinske politike vedno izključni cilj pospeševanja ali olajševanja trgovine; nasprotno, člen 133 Pogodbe ES dopušča tudi klasične (zaščitne) ukrepe trgovinske politike, ki lahko zajemajo omejevanje ali celo prepoved uvoza ali izvoza nekaterih proizvodov, na primer uvedbo protidumpinških dajatev ali trgovinskega embarga (glede slednjega glej na primer Centro-Com , [1997] Poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti I 81). .
Instruments of commercial policy by no means always have the sole object of promoting or facilitating trade; rather, Article 133 EC also permits classic (protective) measures of commercial policy that may amount to restricting or even prohibiting the import or export of certain products, for instance if anti-dumping duties or a trade embargo is imposed (on the latter, see, for example, Centro-Com , [1997] ECR I‑81). .
Področje uporabe zadevnega predloga pa skupaj z zakonodajnim ravnanjem v preteklosti kaže, da ukrepov, katerih cilj je urejanje trgovine s snovmi, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč, ni mogoče skrčiti na klasične trgovinske ukrepe, saj je njihov namen predvsem varovati človekovo zdravje in okolje.
However, it appears from the scope of the proposal in question, along with its legislative precedents, that the measures aiming at governing trade of ozone-depleting substances cannot be reduced to classic commercial measures, since they are primarily intended to protect human health and the environment.
V luči povedanega je bilo presojeno, da je člen 175(1) Pogodbe ES najbolj ustrezna pravna podlaga, in da ni potrebno dodati sklicevanje na člen 133, saj bi s tem presegli dejanski namen predloga.
In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that the most appropriate legal basis is Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty and that there is no need to add any reference to Article 133, for this would exceed the actual objectives of the proposal.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je na seji 12. februarja 2009 soglasno odločil
At its meeting of 12 February 2009 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided, unanimously
Pri končnem glasovanju so bili navzoči: Alin Lucian Antochi (predsedujoči), Rainer Wieland (podpredsedujoči), Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (podpredsedujoča), Francesco Enrico Speroni (podpredsedujoči), Monica Frassoni (poročevalka), Sharon Bowles, Brian Crowley, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Manuel Medina Ortega, Georgios Papastamkos, Aloyzas Sakalas. , da priporoči, naj se ustrezna pravna podlaga predloga Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o snoveh, ki tanjšajo ozonski plašč (prenovitev) sklicuje na člen 175(1) Pogodbe ES.
The following were present for the final vote: Alin Lucian Antochi (acting Chair), Rainer Wieland (Vice-Chair), Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (Vice-Chair), Francesco Enrico Speroni (Vice-Chair), Monica Frassoni (rapporteur), Sharon Bowles, Brian Crowley, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Alain Lipietz, Manuel Medina Ortega, Georgios Papastamkos, Aloyzas Sakalas. , to recommend that the legal basis of proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (recast) refer to Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty.
o predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o industrijskih emisijah (celovito preprečevanje in nadzorovanje onesnaževanja) (Prenovitev)
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast)
(Prenovitev – Člen 80a Poslovnika)
(Recast – Rule 80a of the Rules of Procedure)
PRILOGA: PISMO ODBORA ZA PRAVNE ZADEVE...........................................................48
ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS...................................50
PRILOGA: MNENJE POSVETOVALNE DELOVNE SKUPINE PRAVNIH SLUŽB EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA, SVETA IN KOMISIJE 50
ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION 52