natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V temu delu so na splošno opredeljeni tudi sedanje prakse in instrumenti, ki jih je Komisija uporabljala pri spremljanju prenosa zakonodaje EU in njene uporabe na kraju samem.
This part goes on to identify, in general terms, the current practice followed and instruments used by the Commission in monitoring both transposition of EU legislation and its application on the ground.
Pri tem je opozorjeno na nekatere večje ovire in težave v zvezi s tem, zlasti z navajanjem ustnih dokazov, ki so jih odboru predstavili predstavniki Komisije in akademski strokovnjaki.
In doing so, reference is made to some of the major obstacles and difficulties encountered in this respect, mainly by drawing from oral evidence presented to the committee by Commission representatives and academic experts.
Poudarjen je zlasti postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev kot glavno sredstvo v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki odpravlja nepravilno izvajanje zakonodaje EU s strani držav članic.
Particular emphasis is laid on infringement procedure as the main tool under Community law to remedy incorrect implementation of EU legislation by the Member States.
Odbor potem opredeljuje nekatere sistematične in druge pomanjkljivosti pristopa Komisije k spremljanju izvajanja.
The committee then identifies certain systematic and other weaknesses in the Commission's approach to monitoring implementation.
To temelji tudi na analizi uspešnosti Komisije pri spremljanju izvajanja tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju v zvezi z družbo Equitable Life, ki je na voljo v delu II tega poročila.
This is based also on the analysis of the Commission's performance in monitoring the implementation of the Third Life Directive in relation to Equitable Life, which is set out in Part II of this report.
Končno poudarja odbor potrebo po celovitejšem pristopu k zagotovitvi učinkovitega izvajanja zakonodaje EU in določa več obveznih dejavnikov takšnega pristopa.
Finally, the committee emphasises the need for a more comprehensive approach to ensuring effective implementation of EU legislation and identifies a number of necessary elements of such an approach.
Odbor predlaga več priporočil za izboljšanje teh ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti.
The committee puts forward a number of recommendations on how to improve these perceived weaknesses.
Izvajanje zakonodaje EU – splošno ozadje
The implementation of EU legislation - general background
Pred analizo je treba pojasniti terminologijo, uporabljeno v tem poročilu, zlasti ker so ključni izrazi in opredelitve pojmov včasih različno uporabljeni in razloženi.
Before undertaking the analysis, it is necessary to clarify the terminology used in this report, particularly as the key terms and definitions, which are sometimes used and interpreted in different ways.
V tem poročilu in preiskavi preiskovalnega odbora so opredelitve, uporabljene v skladu z zadnjimi resolucijami Evropskega parlamenta o izvajanju zakonodaje Skupnosti:
For the purposes of this report and the EQUI committee's investigation, the definitions used, in line with the European Parliament's latest Resolutions on implementation of Community Law, are as follows:
§ Prenos: postopek prenašanja zakonodaje EU (npr. direktive) v nacionalno zakonodajo;
§ Transposition: the process of transcribing EU law (e.g. a directive) into national legislation;
§ Uporaba: vsakodnevni postopek uporabe in izvrševanja zakonodaje EU s strani nacionalnih organov in/ali zakonodajalcev (včasih imenovano tudi „izvrševanje“, glej spodaj);
§ Application: the process of applying and enforcing transposed EU law on a day-to-day basis by the national authorities and/or regulators (also known sometimes as 'enforcement', see below);
§ Izvajanje: ta širši koncept vključuje prenos in uporabo.
§ Implementation: this wider concept encompasses both transposition and application.
Zakonodaja Skupnosti zahteva, da se zakonodaja EU izvaja na učinkovit, pravočasen in sorazmeren način (vendar se v nekaterih primerih uporablja bolj omejujoče, kot sopomenka za „uporabo“);
It is a requirement of Community law that EU legislation should be implemented in an effective, timely and proportionate manner (however, in some instances, it is used in a more restrictive manner, as a synonym for 'application');
§ Izvedbeni ukrepi/določbe/pravila: zakoni, pravila, predpisi, deli ali členi nacionalne zakonodaje, s katerimi se izvaja zakonodaja EU;
§ Implementing measures/provisions/rules: the laws, rules, regulations, fragments or articles of national law that give effect to EU law;
§ Izvrševanje: včasih se uporablja kot sopomenka za uporabo, vendar bolj pogosto pomeni postopek popravljanja ali razveljavitve napačne uporabe nacionalne zakonodaje, ki kaže napake ali kršitve pri uporabi nacionalne zakonodaje, katere morajo nacionalni organi odpraviti po potrebi s prisilnimi ukrepi.
§ Enforcement: sometimes used also as a synonym for application but more frequently makes reference to the process of correcting or reversing the mis-application of national law, implying the existence of a malfunction or anomaly in the way national law is being applied, which must be corrected by the national authorities, if need be by coercive action.
Po opredelitvi teh kratkih referenčnih točk je analizirano, v kakšnem obsegu pomeni zakonodaja EU obveznosti za države članice.
Having established these brief points of reference, we will analyse to what extent EU law creates obligations for Member States.
V nadaljevanju se analiza osredotoča na direktive in ne na uredbe ali druge pravne instrumente, ker so direktive najpogostejša oblika zakonodaje EU in ker je tekoča preiskava o zadevi ELAS odvisna zlasti od izvajanja direktive, tj. tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju
The subsequent focus of this analysis is on Directives and not Regulations or other legal instruments, given that the former are the most common type of EU law and that the current investigation into the ELAS case hinges particularly on the implementation of a directive, the Third Life Directive
Direktiva Sveta 92/96/EGS z dne 10. novembra 1992 o uskladitvi zakonov in drugih predpisov o neposrednem življenjskem zavarovanju, ki spreminja Direktivi 79/267/EGS in 90/619/EGS (tretja Direktiva o življenjskem zavarovanju), UL L 311, 14.11.1997, str.
Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ L 311, 14.11.1997, p.34).
V skladu s členom 249 Pogodbe ES so direktive zavezujoče glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, vendar je izbor oblike in načina izvajanja prepuščen nacionalnim organom.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods for their implementation.
V nasprotju z uredbami določajo direktive rezultat, ki ga je treba doseči, in ne, kako je treba ravnati; državam članicam omogočajo prilagodljivost pri izbiri načina prenosa v nacionalno zakonodajo, pri čemer teoretično spodbujajo vključitev norm Skupnosti v domačo zakonodajo in spoštujejo različne nacionalne pravne tradicije.
In contrast to regulations, directives impose obligations of result and not obligations of conduct; they allow Member States flexibility in choosing the method of their transposition into national law, thus in theory facilitating the integration of Community norms into domestic law and respecting the various national legal traditions.
To teoretično spodbujanje ima dejansko nekatere prednosti v političnem smislu: Nekateri trdijo, da so direktive učinkovite, ker dopuščajo presojo glede izvajanja in se zato države članice lažje dogovorijo o njih.
This theoretical facility does indeed have some advantages in political terms: It is argued by some that directives provide for efficiency because they leave some discretion with regard to implementation and so are easier for Member States to agree upon.
Veliko zakonodaje EU ne bi bilo sprejeto, če ne bi bila predstavljena v obliki direktive.
Much of EU law would not have been adopted if it had not been presented in the form of a directive.
Prednost direktiv je, da so zelo prilagodljiv instrument in jih zato države članice lažje vključijo v svoje različne pravne sisteme.
Directives have the advantage of being a very flexible instrument and Member States can incorporate them more easily into their diverse legal systems.
Ta prilagodljivost ter različne oblike in načini prenosa so v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti združljivi z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
This flexibility and the different forms and methods of transposition are compatible with Community law, according to the case law of the European Court of Justice.
Poleg tega je Sodišče celo potrdilo, da so dovoljeni izjemni primeri, v katerih sprejetje posebnih zakonodajnih ukrepov ni nujno, če obstaja na primer „ jasna in natančna skladnost “ med direktivo in nacionalno zakonodajo.
Moreover, the Court has even acknowledged that there may be exceptional cases where the adoption of specific legislative measures is not indispensable, for instance, when there is a “ clear and precise conformity ” between a directive and existing national legislation.
Glej zadevo 29/84 Komisija proti Nemčiji [1985] ECR 1661, odstavek 23.
See Case 29/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 1661, paragraph 23.
Svoboda izbire načinov in oblik ne odvezuje držav članic od zavezujočih učinkov direktive „ glede ciljev, ki jih je treba doseči “.
The freedom of choice on the methods and forms does not exempt Member States from the binding effects of a directive “ as to the results to be achieved ”.
Poleg tega velja za države članice obsežna klavzula o zvestobi iz člena 10 Pogodbe o Evropski skupnosti, ki jim nalaga dolžnost, da „sprejemajo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splošne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te pogodbe ali so posledica ukrepov institucij Skupnosti“. .
In addition, Member States are subject to the comprehensive loyalty clause of Article 10 TEC, which imposes upon them the duty to “ take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community .”
Poleg tega zakonodaja, ki je bila prilagojena direktivam ES, pozneje ne more biti spremenjena v nasprotju s cilji teh direktiv.
Moreover, legislation which has been adapted to EC directives may not subsequently be amended contrary to the objectives of those directives.
Pri oceni primernosti in skladnosti izvedbenih ukrepov poudarja Sodišče zlasti namen direktive.
In assessing the suitability and conformity of implementing measures, the Court places particular emphasis on the purpose of the directive.
Ključno vprašanje je, ali je zadevna država članica sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotavljanje popolne učinkovitosti direktive v skladu z njenimi cilji .
The crucial issue is whether the Member State in question has adopted all the necessary measures to ensure the full effectiveness of the directive in accordance with the objective which the latter pursues .
Glej zadevo 14/83 Colsona in Kamana [1984] ECR 1891, odstavek 15.
See Case 14/83 von Colson and Kaman [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 15.
Sodišče poudarja, da morajo države članice zagotoviti popolno in učinkovito uporabo direktive.
The Court stresses that Member States are under an obligation to ensure the full and effective application of a directive.
Za izpolnjevanje te obveznosti ni dovolj, da država članica le sprejme potrebno zakonodajo za prenos.
To meet this obligation, it is not sufficient for a Member State merely to adopt the necessary transposing legislation.
To pomeni, da izvajanje po mnenju Sodišča ni enkratna naloga izključno zakonodajne narave.
In other words, implementation is not, in the eyes of the Court, a one-off task of a purely legislative nature.
S sprejetjem nacionalnih ukrepov za pravilen prenos direktive se v celoti ne izkoristijo njeni vplivi.
The adoption of national measures correctly transposing a directive does not exhaust the effects of the directive.
Država članica mora zagotavljati skladnost z določbami direktive tudi po sprejetju izvedbenih ukrepov:
The Member State remains bound to ensure compliance with the provisions of a directive even after the adoption of implementing measures:
"... sprejetje nacionalnih ukrepov za pravilno izvajanje direktive ne izniči njenih vplivov.
“… the adoption of national measures correctly implementing a directive does not exhaust the effects of the directive.
Država članica mora dejansko zagotavljati popolno uporabo direktive tudi po sprejetju teh ukrepov.
Member States remain bound actually to ensure full application of the directive even after the adoption of those measures.
Posamezniki se lahko zato na nacionalnih sodiščih proti državi sklicujejo na določbe direktive, ki so po vsebini očitno brezpogojne in dovolj natančne, kadar dejansko ni zagotovljena popolna uporaba direktive, kar pomeni ne le, kadar se direktiva ne izvaja ali se izvaja nepravilno, ampak tudi kadar se nacionalni ukrepi, ki pravilno izvajajo direktivo, ne uporabljajo tako, da bi se dosegli določeni cilji . "
Individuals are therefore entitled to rely before national courts, against the State, on the provisions of a directive which appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise whenever the full application of the directive is not in fact secured, that is to say, not only where the directive has not been implemented or has been implemented incorrectly, but also where the national measures correctly implementing the directive are not being applied in such a way as to achieve the result sought by it . ”
Poleg tega je Sodišče stalno poudarjalo, da so direktive zavezujoče za vse organe držav članic .
Further, the Court has repeatedly held that directives are binding on all the authorities of the Member States.
Torej direktiva ni zavezujoča le za zakonodajno telo, ampak tudi za upravne agencije, ki so odgovorne za vsakodnevno uporabo in izvrševanje zakonodaje, in domača sodišča.
Thus, not only the legislature is bound by a Directive but also the administrative agencies responsible for the day-to-day application and enforcement of the law and the domestic courts.
Namen tega je preprečevanje upravnih praks ali sodnih razlag, ki ogrožajo zaščito interesov, določenih z direktivo.
The intention behind this is to avoid administrative practices or judicial interpretations that undermine the protection of interests established by the directive.
V zadnjih letih je Sodišče poudarjalo zlasti obravnavanje težave „neskladnosti na drugi stopnji“, kar pomeni položaj, v katerem je domača zakonodaja uradno združljiva z zakonodajo Skupnosti, vendar njeno uporabo ali izvrševanje ogrožajo upravne ali sodne prakse.
In recent years, the Court has placed particular emphasis on tackling the problem of “second level non-compliance”, that is, the situation where, although domestic legislation is formally compatible with Community law, its application or enforcement is undermined by administrative or judicial practices.
Sodišče je prav tako menilo, da lahko za nacionalno upravno prakso veljajo izvršilni ukrepi, če so delno skladni in splošni.
The Court has also held that a national administrative practice can be the subject of an enforcement action when it is, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature.
Glej npr. zadevo C-387/99 Komisija proti Nemčiji , sodba z dne 29. aprila 2004, odstavek 42.
See e.g. Case C-387/99, Commission v. Germany , judgment of 29 April 2004, para 42.
Torej vsaj sistematično in stalno sprejemanje položajev, ki so neskladni z določbami direktive, s strani nacionalnih organov pomeni kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti, čeprav je bila direktiva uradno prenesena v nacionalno zakonodajo.
Thus, at least the systematic and consistent tolerance on the part of national authorities of situations inconsistent with the provisions of a directive is a breach of Community law even if the directive has been formally transposed into national law.
Zadeva C-494/01 Komisija proti Irski , sodba z dne 26. aprila 2005.
Case C-494/01, Commission v Ireland , judgment of 26 April 2005.
Končno mora biti ustrezna nacionalna zakonodaja, kadar direktiva dodeljuje pravice posameznikom, dovolj natančna in jasna, da zadevne osebe v celoti poznajo vse svoje pravice in se lahko, če je primerno, sklicujejo nanje pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
Finally, where a directive confers rights on individuals, the relevant domestic legislation must be sufficiently precise and clear so that the persons concerned are made fully aware of their rights, and, where appropriate, afforded the possibility of relying on them before national courts.
Glej zadevo C-59/89, Komisija proti Nemčiji .
See Case C-59/89, Commission v Germany .
Z vidika sodnega varstva je natančnost in jasnost domače izvedbene zakonodaje ključna, ker omogoča pridobitev odškodnine pred nacionalnim sodiščem, če država članica ne zagotovi popolne in učinkovite uporabe direktive.
From a judicial protection perspective, the precision and clarity of domestic implementing legislation is crucial because it paves the way to obtaining redress before a national court where a Member State fails to ensure the full and effective application of a directive.
Obveznost Komisije, da spremlja izvajanje, v skladu s Pogodbo
The Commission's obligation under the Treaty to monitor implementation
Pogodba Komisiji dodeljuje vlogo varuha zakonodaje EU.
The Treaty gives the Commission the role of the guardian of EU law.
V skladu s členom 211 Pogodbe je dolžnost Komisije zagotoviti, da države članice pravilno upoštevajo in izvajajo zakonodajo Skupnosti.
In accordance with Article 211 of the Treaty, it is the duty of the Commission to ensure that Member States observe and implement Community law properly.
Zato je Komisija odgovorna za spremljanje prenosa in uporabe direktiv ES.
Therefore, it is the Commission's responsibility to monitor the transposition and application of EC Directives.
To doseže s:
It does so by:
§ preverjanjem, ali so države članice sprejele zakonodajo za prenos in jo v predpisanem roku sporočile Komisiji;
§ verifying if Member States have adopted transposing legislation and communicated them to the Commission within the prescribed time limit;
§ preverjanjem skladnosti nacionalnih ukrepov za prenos z zakonodajo Skupnosti;
§ verifying the conformity of national transposition measures with Community legislation;
§ spremljanjem uporabe zakonodaje EU s strani zasebnih in javnih subjektov, organov in organov oblasti;
§ monitoring the application of EU legislation by private and public entities, bodies and authorities
§ odpravljanjem napak, da se doseže skladnost z zakonodajo EU, z uvedbo postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev.
§ rectifying failures to comply with EU legislation through the launch of infringement proceedings.
Člena 226 in 228 Pogodbe določata uporabo postopka, če Komisija meni, da država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
Articles 226 and 228 of the Treaty provide for a procedure in cases where the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law.
Člen 226 pooblašča Komisijo za ukrepanje proti državam članicam, če ne izpolnjujejo svojih obveznosti v skladu s Pogodbo.
Article 226 empowers the Commission to take action against a Member States for instances of failure to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty.
Komisija ima popolno pristojnost za odločitev o uvedbi postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev.
The Commission has full discretion in deciding whether or not to initiate infringement proceedings.
Postopek se začne z uradnim opominom državi članici, ki ji omogoča, da predloži informacije in uveljavi pravico do obrambe.
The procedure starts with a letter of formal notice to the Member State, which enables it to give information and to exercise its right of defence.
Če Komisija ni zadovoljna z odgovorom, izda obrazloženo mnenje, s katerim državi članici naroča, da popravi razmere.
If the answer does not satisfy the Commission, it issues a reasoned opinion, ordering the Member State to rectify the situation.
Če se kršitev nadaljuje, lahko Komisija zadevo predloži Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
If the infringement persists, the Commission may refer the case to the ECJ.
V skladu s členom 228 Pogodbe lahko Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti določi denarno kazen, če države članice dalj časa ne upoštevajo sodbe v skladu s členom 226.
Under Article 228 of the Treaty, the ECJ may impose a pecuniary penalty if there is a persistent failure of a Member State to comply with a judgement under Article 226.
Na podlagi ustrezne sodne prakse je cilj postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev v skladu z zakonodajo EU vzpostaviti ali obnoviti skladnost sedanje nacionalne zakonodaje z zakonodajo EU in ne odločati na podlagi morebitne prejšnje neskladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje, ki je bila pozneje spremenjena ali zamenjana.
Under relevant case law, the objective of infringement 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.
Tako se dejansko ne izvaja naknadna preiskava domnevnih kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti.
Thus, there is actually no ex-post investigation of alleged violations of Community law.
Spremljanje izvajanja s strani Komisije v praksi
The Commission's monitoring of implementation in practice
Odbor je prejel dokaze o pristopu Komisije k spremljanju izvajanja od predstavnikov Komisije med H10 in akademskih strokovnjakov pri WS2.
The committee received evidence on the Commission's approach to monitoring implementation both from representatives of the Commission during H10 and from academic experts at WS2.
Ta oddelek ne obravnava le splošnega pristopa in instrumentov, ki jih je Komisija uporabila za zagotovitev pravočasnega in pravilnega izvajanja, ampak zajema tudi nekatere težave in omejitve, s katerimi se srečuje Komisija pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti spremljanja izvajanja zakonodaje EU.
This section not only makes reference to the general approach taken, and instruments used, by the Commission to ensure timely and correct implementation but also touches upon some of problems, difficulties and constraints the Commission faces in fulfilling its obligation to monitor the implementation of EU law.
Sporočanje ukrepov za prenos
Communication of transposition measures
Komisija najprej preveri, ali so države članice (do roka iz direktive) sporočile nacionalne ukrepe, s katerimi bodo prenesle določen del zakonodaje EU.
Firstly, the Commission checks whether Member States communicate (by the time specified in the Directive itself) the national measures, which are intended to transpose a particular piece of EU legislation.
Kot je razložila DURANDOVA, „v zvezi z nesporočanjem ukrepov za prenos izvaja Komisija sistematični nadzor vseh teh ukrepov.
As explained by Mrs. DURAND " regarding non-communication of transposition measures, the Commission carries out systematic controls of all these measures.
Zato je od leta 2004 na ravni generalnega sekretariata Komisije vzpostavljena zbirka podatkov, v kateri so registrirane vse direktive, za katere se je začelo obdobje prenosa.
To this end, it has set up, since 2004, at the level of the Secretariat-General of the Commission, a database which indexes all the directives whose transposition period is under way.
Vse države članice so sprejele to zbirko podatkov in od takrat sporočajo ukrepe za prenos prek nje.
All the Member States have adopted this same database and, henceforth, they communicate the transposition measures via this database.
Le enemu korespondentu na državo članico je dovoljeno, da predstavi ukrepe za prenos, pri čemer v času prenosa vsakega ukrepa določi, ali je prenos še vedno nedokončan ali zaključen. “
Only one correspondent by Member State is permitted to introduce the transposition measures and he or she specifies, at the time each measure is transmitted, if the transmission is still incomplete or finalized" .