natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
5. poudarja očitno nevarnost, da bi večino razpoložljivih sredstev iz Svetovnega sklada za energetsko učinkovitost in obnovljive vire energije prevzeli projekti gospodarstev v vzponu, kot sta kitajsko in indijsko; zato poudarja, da je v predlog Komisije treba dodati, da imajo prednost afriške, karibske in pacifiške države; poudarja tudi, da je treba v ogromne potrebe po podpori trajnostni energiji v gospodarstvih v vzponu vložiti dodatne napore, po možnosti z ustanovitvijo tehnološkega sklada, ki je nujen dodatek k mehanizmu čistega razvoja.
Emphasises the obvious risk that support from GEEREF for projects in emerging economies such as China and India will absorb most of the available funding; stresses therefore the importance of adhering to the Commission's proposal to give priority to African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries; stresses also that the enormous needs for support to sustainable energy in the emerging economies must be addressed through additional efforts, preferably by establishing a Technology Fund as a necessary supplement to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM);
2. verjame, da bi predlagani svetovni sklad za energetsko učinkovitost in obnovljive vire energije lahko občutno vplival na usmerjanje zasebnih vlaganj v projekte za energetsko učinkovitost in obnovljivo energijo v državah v razvoju; meni tudi, da bi sklad moral financirati širjenje le v državah v razvoju ter rastočih gospodarstvih;
Believes that the proposed Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund could play an important role in mobilising private investments in energy efficiency projects and renewable energy in developing countries; considers furthermore that the fund should finance deployment only in developing countries and emerging economies;
6. predlaga Komisiji, naj razišče načine, na katere bi se sklad za obdobje po letu 2012 lahko povečal znotraj okvirne konvencije Združenih narodov o spremembi podnebja, upoštevajoč, da bo imela trajnostna energija v državah v razvoju ključno vlogo pri doseganju ciljev te konvencije;
Invites the Commission to explore ways of enlarging the fund in the future context of a post-2012 regime under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking into account that sustainable energy in developing countries will be crucial to achieving the objective of this convention;
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Claudia Fave
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Claudio Fava
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Claudia Fave za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s civilnim postopkom, ki je bil sprožen proti njemu pred civilnim sodiščem v Marsali, z dne 29. maja 2007, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 6. junija 2007,
– having regard to the request by Claudio Fava for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings brought against him before the Marsala Civil Court, of 29 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 6 June 2007,
– po zagovoru Claudia Fave v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Claudio Fava in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0007/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0007/2008 ),
Zahteva se nanaša na civilni postopek, ki ga je proti Claudiu Favi in drugim obtožencem sprožil David Salvatore Costa in ki trenutno poteka pred civilnim sodiščem v Marsali.
The request relates to civil proceedings brought by Mr David Salvatore Costa against Mr Fava, along with other defendants, which are currently pending before the Civil Court of Marsala.
Med gosti v oddaji so bili predsednik regije Salvatore Cuffaro in Fava.
Among the guests on the programme were the President of the Region, Mr Salvatore Cuffaro, and Mr Fava.
Kot navaja Costa v sodnem pozivu, je Fava ob koncu oddaje, potem ko je v teatralnem tonu agresivno napadal Cuffara, začel obrekovati in žaliti Costo, ki v oddaji sploh ni bil navzoč.
According to Mr Costa's writ of summons, in the final part of the programme, Mr Fava, after violently hurling abuse at Mr Cuffaro, in a theatrical tone, wildly launched slanderous and defamatory accusations against Mr Costa, who was, moreover, not present during the debate.
Fava je med drugim dejal: „ Pred nekaj časa smo govorili o več svetnikih, ki so bili aretirani.
In particular, Mr Fava stated as follows: ‘ A while ago we were talking about a number of councillors who have been arrested.
Govorimo o svetniku, ki je bil aretiran, saj ga je v njegovem službenem vozilu med volilno kampanjo spremljal član mafije na begu pred roko pravice, s katerim se je udeleževal srečanj za zbiranje volilnih glasov.
We are talking about a councillor who was arrested because he was accompanied in his official car, during his electoral campaign, by a Mafia fugitive from justice whom he took to meetings to ask for votes.
Ali lahko domnevamo, da je šlo za nesporazum?
Do we think this was a misunderstanding?
Da svetnik ni vedel, kdo sedi poleg njega?
That he had not known who was sitting next to him?
Tako zgleda vladna politika na Siciliji.
This is what the government’s policy in Sicily is like.
In to je bil eden vaših svetnikov (je dejal Fava in pokazal s prstom na Cuffara)!
And it was one of your councillors (said while directly pointing at Mr Cuffaro) !
In pričakoval bi, da o tem govorite vi (Cuffaro), saj bi moral biti predsednik regije tisti, ki bi dejal, kako nepojmljivo je, da se svetnik na volilno kampanjo odpravi skupaj z ubežnikom.
And I would expect to be hearing these things from the President of the Region, because it should be you (Mr Cuffaro) who says that it is inconceivable that a councillor should take a fugitive around with him on his electoral campaign....’
Potem ko je Cuffaro dejal, da ne ve, o kom Fava govori, in da, kolikor je seznanjen, v zadevni volilni kampanji ni bilo svetnikov, je Fava dejal: „Svetnik Costa.
After Mr Cuffaro observed that he did not know who Mr Fava was talking about and that, as far as he knew, there were no councillors on the electoral campaign in question, Mr Fava promptly countered: ‘ Councillor Costa.
Izraz sodni postopek iz členov 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah se je običajno uporabljal le v zvezi s kazenskimi postopki.
The expression 'legal proceedings' used in Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities has traditionally been interpreted as covering only criminal proceedings.
Ker namreč nobena izmed šestih ustanovnih članic Evropskih skupnosti, ki so oblikovale besedilo omenjenih členov, svojim državnim poslancem ne podeljuje imunitete v zvezi s civilnimi postopki, je težko trditi, da so predstavniki teh šestih držav nameravali poslancem Evropskega parlamenta podeliti več privilegijev, kot jih uživajo njihovi državni poslanci.
Indeed, since none of the six founding Member States of the European Communities which considered the wording of those articles grant immunity to their national parliamentarians in connection with civil proceedings, it has been difficult to give credence to the notion that the representatives of those six Member States intended to grant Members of the European Parliament privileges which were broader in scope than those accorded to their own national parliamentarians.
Do septembra 2003 je imela razlaga, ki je domet zadevnih določb omejevala le na kazenske postopke, svoje zagovornike tudi v Parlamentu.
Until September 2003, the restrictive interpretation limiting the scope of the provisions in question to criminal proceedings also had its proponents in Parliament.
Marca 1987 je Parlament šel tako daleč, da je predlagal predlog spremembe k osnutku Komisije za spremembo Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah, s katerim bi odpravili nejasnosti v zvezi s sporno določbo in bi imuniteto poslancev Evropskega parlamenta izrecno omejili na kazenske postopke in ukrepe, ki pomenijo odvzem ali omejitev osebne svobode
In March 1987, Parliament went so far as to propose an amendment to the Commission draft text revising the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities with a view to clarifying the provision in question by expressly restricting the immunity of MEPs to criminal proceedings and measures involving the withdrawal or restriction of individual freedom
Glej poročilo Donnez, A2-0121/86 . .
See the Donnez report, A2-0121/86 . .
4. in 7. odstavek sedanje različice člena 7 poslovnika Parlamenta to razlago še dodatno krepita, saj izrecno govorita o kazenskem pregonu in pregonu poslancev.
Furthermore, paragraphs 4 and 7 of the current version of Rule 7 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure seem to lend further weight to that interpretation by making explicit reference to 'prosecution proceedings' and to the 'prosecution' of the Member concerned.
Vendar pa se je Parlament 23. septembra 2003 prvič odločil, da zaščiti imuniteto poslanca v civilnem postopku
However, on 23 September 2003 Parliament decided, for the first time, to uphold the immunity of a Member in civil proceedings
Glej A5-0309/03 , Sakellariou. .
See A5-0309/03 , Sakellariou. .
Posledično so bile v drugih primerih, ko je šlo za civilne postopke, večkrat sprejete podobe odločitve
Subsequently, many other similar decisions were taken in other cases involving civil proceedings
Glej A5-0421/03 , Gargani; A5-0184/04 , Schulz; A5-0185/04 , Lehne; A5-0281/04 , Bossi; A6-0449/07 , Brunetta. .
See A5-0421/03 , Gargani; A5-0184/04 , Schulz; A5-0185/04 , Lehne; A5-0281/04 , Bossi; A6-0449/07 , Brunetta. .
V skladu z omenjenim je treba izraz sodni postopek iz omenjenih določb protokola danes razlagati tako, da zajema vsak poskus zahteve za kaznovalno odškodnino prek civilnega postopka.
Accordingly, the reference to 'legal proceedings' in the above provisions of the Protocol must today be interpreted as covering any attempt to secure punitive damages by means of civil proceedings.
Uporaba v tem primeru
Application to the case in point
Kot je razvidno iz predhodnega besedila, člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah določa, da poslanec Evropskega parlamenta uživa popolno imuniteto pred sodnimi postopki „ zaradi mnenja ..., ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti “.
As seen above, Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
Dejansko je Fava v svojih izjavah, ki jih je pritožnik navedel v sodnem pozivu, le komentiral dejstva, ki so bila javnosti že znana.
As a matter of fact, in his statements reported by the writ of summons filed by the claimant, Mr Fava merely commented on facts in the public domain.
Z opisovanjem in kritiko, kar so bile po njegovem mnenju nepravilnosti v volilni kampanji na Siciliji, je le opravljal dolžnost poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, saj je svojim volivcem izražal svoje mnenje o zadevi javnega interesa.
In describing and criticising what in his views were deviations of the electoral campaign in Sicily , he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
Skratka Fava je le opravljal svoje delo kot poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
In short, Mr Fava was simply doing his job as a Member of Parliament.
Poskusi, da se poslance Evropskega parlamenta utiša pri izražanju svojih mnenj o zadevah, za katere vlada legitimni javni interes in zaskrbljenost, tako, da se proti njim sproži sodne postopke, so v demokratični družbi nesprejemljivi in očitno kršijo člen 9 protokola, katerega namen je varovati svobodo izražanja poslancev pri izvrševanju njihovih dolžnosti v interesu Parlamenta kot institucije.
To seek to gag Members of Parliament from expressing their opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern by bringing legal proceedings is unacceptable in a democratic society and manifestly in breach of Article 9 of the Protocol, which is intended to protect Members' freedom of expression in the performance of their duties in the interests of Parliament as an Institution.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti imunitete, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament zaščiti poslansko imuniteto Claudia Fave.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Claudio Fava should be defended.
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU...................................................................10
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................11
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Witolda Tomczaka za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom, ki ga vodi okrožno sodišče v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski na Poljskem, vložene 21. maja 2007 in na plenarnem zasedanju razglašene 24. maja 2007,
– having regard to the request by Witold Tomczak for defence of his immunity in connection with the criminal case conducted by the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland, made on 21 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 24 May 2007,
– po zaslišanju Witolda Tomczaka (4. oktobra 2007) v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Witold Tomczak on 4 October 2007 in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8, 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 in člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krieru [1964] Zbornik sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (ECR) 195 in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju in drugim [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 Communities,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0008/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0008/2008 ),
B. ker je Witold Tomczak obtožen razžalitve dveh policistov pri opravljanju njunih nalog v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski dne 26. junija 1999 in s tem kršitve člena 226(1) poljskega kazenskega zakonika; ker Witold Tomczak nekajkrat ni prišel na obravnavo in je okrožno sodišče v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski 10. januarja 2005 odločilo, da v skladu s členom 377(3) poljskega zakona o kazenskem postopku začne s sojenjem v nenavzočnosti,
B. whereas Witold Tomczak is charged with insulting two police officers in the performance of their duties in Ostrów Wielkopolski on 26 June 1999 in breach of Article 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code; whereas after a number of failures by Witold Tomczak to appear at the hearings, the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski decided on 10 January 2005, in accordance with Article 377(3) of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, to proceed with the trial in absentia,
C. ker v skladu s členom 9 Akta o volitvah v Evropski parlament z dne 23. januarja 2004 oseba lahko kandidira na volitvah v Evropski parlament v Republiki Poljski, če ni bila obsojena namerno storjenega kaznivega dejanja in obtožena kaznivega dejanja; ker je v odstavku 1(1) člena 142 tega akta navedeno, da poslanec izgubi sedež v Evropskem parlamentu, če ne izpolnjuje več pogojev zanj; ker Akt o volitvah v Sejm in Senat Republike Poljske (poljski parlament) z dne 12. aprila 2001 teh določb ne vsebuje;
C. whereas, in accordance with Article 9 of the Act of 23 January 2004 on elections to the European Parliament, " A person shall be eligible for elections to the European Parliament held in the Republic of Poland if he or she [...] has not been convicted of a crime committed intentionally and prosecuted by indictment ... " ; whereas Article 142, paragraph 1(1) of that Act states that " The forfeiture of a seat of a Member of the European Parliament shall be a result of forfeiture of eligibility "; whereas no such provisions exist in the Act of 12 April 2001 on elections to the Sejm and Senat of the Republic of Poland (the Polish parliament),
D. ker je Witold Tomczak že prej (29. aprila 2005) zaprosil Parlament za zaščito svoje imunitete v tem kazenskem postopku; ker je Parlament na plenarnem zasedanju 4. aprila 2006 sklenil, da njegove imunitete ne zaščiti, kljub temu, da je Witold Tomczak pred plenarnim zasedanjem poslal pismo, s katerim je sporočil, da umika svojo prejšnjo zahtevo za zaščito imunitete,
D. whereas Witold Tomczak had previously (on 29 April 2005) asked Parliament to defend his immunity in these criminal proceedings; whereas Parliament decided in plenary on 4 April 2006 not to defend his immunity, even though Mr Tomczak had sent a letter prior to the plenary sitting by which he purported to withdraw his earlier application for defence of his immunity,
E. ker Witold Tomczak trdi, da sodnik, ki vodi zadevo, ni objektiven, in da možnost sojenja v nenavzočnosti predstavlja kršitev načela o domnevni nedolžnosti,
E. whereas Witold Tomczak claims that the judge presiding in the case is not objective, and that the possibility of holding the trial in absentia infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence,
F. ker se je Witold Tomczak pritožil, da mu okrožno sodišče ne odobri dostopa do sodnih spisov o tej zadevi in da je kazenski postopek zoper njega pristranski, ker je skušal izpodbijati legalnost ukrepov lokalne policije in lokalnega tožilca,
F. whereas Witold Tomczak complains that the District Court is not granting him access to the files in the case and that the criminal proceedings against him are biased because he sought to challenge the legality of the actions of local police and the local prosecutor,
G. ker na osnovi pridobljenih informacij Witolda Tomczaka ne ščiti poslanska imuniteta v zvezi z nobenim od zahtevkov, na katere je bil opozorjen predsednik Evropskega parlamenta,
G. whereas, on the basis of the information obtained, Witold Tomczak is not protected by parliamentary immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President of the European Parliament,
Ker je bil izvoljen v Evropski parlament na volitvah, ki so bile na Poljskem 13. junija 2004, je postal poslanec EP in njegov mandat v Sejmu je prenehal 16. junija 2004, ko so bili objavljeni rezultati volitev.
As he was elected to the European Parliament in elections taking place in Poland on 13 June 2004, he became a Member of the EP and his term of office in Sejm ended with effect on the 16 June 2004, when the election results were announced.
Nekaj minut po polnoči so se peljali v napačni smeri po enosmerni ulici Gimnazjalna.
A few minutes after midnight, they were driving the wrong way down a one-way steett, Gimnazjalna Street.
Ustavila jih je policijska patrulja v neoznačenem avtomobilu in eden od policistov (Sławomir Marek) je z voznikove strani pristopil k avtomobilu gospoda Tomczaka.
A police patrol in an unmarked car blocked their way and one police officer (Sławomir Marek) approached Mr Tomczak's car from the driver's side.
Kmalu zatem (vsebina izmenjave med moškima je sporna, zlasti glede obtožbe, da je voznik uporabil "to, kar po splošnem mnenju velja za žaljiv jezik") je Tomczak odpeljal, kasneje pa (ko so bili potniki v avtomobilu le še njegovi sinovi) so ga ponovno ustavili trije policijski avtomobili na Kościuszkijevi ulici.
After a short while (the substance of the exchange between the two men is disputed, especially with regard to the charge that the driver was using 'what is generally deemed to be insulting language') Mr Tomczak drove away and was later (when only his sons were the passengers) stopped again by three police cars on Kościuszki Street.
Ker g.Tomczak ni hotel pokazati svojih dokumentov, sta ga dva policista (Sławomir Marek in Radosław Gmur) prisilila, da je izstopil iz avtomobila, mu nataknila lisice in ga odpeljala na lokalno policijsko postajo.
As Mr Tomczak refused to present his documents, two police officers (Sławomir Marek and Radosław Gmur) forced him out of the car, handcuffed him and took to the local police station.
Tam je g.Tomczak po opravljenem alkotestu (s katerim je bilo ugotovljeno, da je trezen) pokazal poslansko izkaznico Sejma in omogočeno mu je bilo, da je poklical na regionalno policijsko centralo v Poznańu ter se pritožil čez vedenje lokalnih policistov.
There, after being breathalysed (which established that he was sober), Mr Tomczak presented his Sejm Member's card and was allowed to call the regional police headquarters in Poznań with a complaint about the police officers' behaviour.
Ko so ga pospremili nazaj do njegovega avtomobila, se je sam odpeljal na policijsko postajo v Ostrówu in po telefonu govoril z uradom okrožnega javnega tožilca.
After being taken back to his car, he drove to the police station in Ostrów himself and had a telephone conversation with the district public prosecutor's office.
Preiskavo je dne 30. junija 1999 začel urad okrožnega javnega tožilca v kraju Ostrów Wielkopolski.
The investigation was opened on 30 June 1999 by the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Public Prosecutor's Office.
S sklepom varšavskega regionalnega državnega tožilca je bila odgovornost za nadaljevanje postopka predana okrožnemu državnemu tožilcu v okrožju Warsaw-Praga Północ.
By decision of the Warsaw regional public prosecutor, responsibility for prosecuting the proceedings was assigned to the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Public Prosecutor.
1. februarja je okrožni državni tožilec Adam Woźny sprejel sklep, da opusti postopek proti Tomczaku z utemeljitvijo, da obstajajo nerešljivi dvomi v zvezi s pričevanji vpletenih policistov.
On 1 February the District Public Prosecutor, Adam Woźny, decided to discontinue the proceedings against Mr Tomczak, on the grounds of irresolvable doubts with regard to the testimonies of police officers involved.
15. oktobra 2001 je okrožni državni tožilec Adam Woźny vložil obtožnico proti Tomczaku zaradi razžalitve dveh policistov (Sławomirja Mareka and Jaceka Bałamąceka) med opravljanjem uradne dolžnosti (kar predstavlja kaznivo dejanje po členu 226(1) poljskega kazenskega zakonika).
On 15 October 2001 the District Public Prosecutor, Adam Woźny, brought charges against Mr Tomczak of insulting two police officers (Sławomir Marek and Jacek Bałamącek) in the performance of their official duties (constituting an offence under Art. 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code).
Tomczak dvanajstkrat zapovrstjo ni zglasil na sodišču, se je sodišče odločilo, da začne s sodnim postopkom v njegovi nenavzočnosti.
As Mr Tomczak failed to appear in Court on twelve consecutive occasions, the Court decided to proceed with the trial in absentia.
Ko je Tomczak 30. aprila 2005 obvestil sodišče, da je Evropskemu parlamentu predložil zahtevo za zaščito svoje poslanske imunitete, je sodišče 30. maja 2005 sprejelo sklep, da začasno prekine kazenski postopek.
After Mr Tomczak informed the Court on 30 April 2005 that he submitted a request for defence of his immunity to the European Parliament, the Court decided on 30 May 2005 to stay the criminal proceedings.
Tomczak je bil, potem ko je Evropski parlament aprila 2006 sklenil, da njegove imunitete ne zaščiti, ponovno pozvan pred sodišče, vendar sodba doslej še ni bila izrečena.
Following the European Parliament's decision in April 2006 not to defend the immunity of Mr Tomczak, the Court has again summoned Mr Tomczak, but no judgment has yet been given.
Trdi, da ni kriv razžalitve policistov in da so dokazi, ki dokazujejo nasprotno, ponarejeni, ter predstavljajo poskus odziva na njegove obtožbe proti policistom in okrožnemu tožilcu.
He claims that he was not being guilty of offending the police officers on duty and states that evidence proving otherwise was forged in an attempt to respond to his allegations against the police officers as well as the District Prosecutor.