natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A. ker je poslanec Evropskega parlamenta Bruno Gollnisch zahteval zaščito svoje parlamentarne imunitete v zvezi z ukrepi francoskih oblasti, ki po njegovem mnenju omejujejo njegovo svobodo, izvajajo pa se v okviru sodne preiskave v primeru tožbe in odškodninskega zahtevka ( plainte avec constitution de partie civile ), ki ga je 26. januarja 2009 proti neimenovani osebi zaradi spodbujanja k rasnemu sovraštvu vložila Mednarodna liga proti rasizmu in antisemitizmu,
A. whereas Bruno Gollnisch, a Member of the European Parliament, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with measures which he claims restrict his freedom applied by the French authorities as part of the judicial investigation of an action and claim for compensation ( plainte avec constitution de partie civile ) brought by the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism on 26 January 2009 against an unnamed person for incitement to racial hatred,
B. ker v zahtevi za zaščito imunitete ni bilo sklicevanja na člen 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije in se ga zato ne uporabi,
B. whereas Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union was not invoked in the request for defence of immunity and therefore does not apply,
C. ker člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, na katerega se je Bruno Gollnisch v svojemu pismu predsedniku Parlamenta z dne 10. junija 2010 izrecno skliceval in ki velja v tem primeru, določa, da med zasedanji Evropskega parlamenta njegovi poslanci uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države; in ker to Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu,
C. whereas, in accordance with Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, which was expressly invoked by Bruno Gollnisch in his letter to the President of 10 June 2010 and which is applicable in the present case, during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament; and whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members,
D. ker se v skladu z drugim odstavkom 26. člena ustave Francoske republike „nobenega poslanca ne sme prijeti zaradi kaznivega dejanja ali prekrška, niti se ga ne sme pripreti ali mu kako drugače odvzeti prostosti brez dovoljenja skupščine, katere poslanec je; to dovoljenje ni potrebno v primeru hudega kaznivega dejanja, zagrešenega in flagrante delicto ali v primeru dokončne obsodbe“, in ker se v skladu s tretjim odstavkom 26. člena „pripor, druge oblike odvzema prostosti ali kazensko preganjanje poslanca ustavi do konca zasedanja, če to zahteva skupščina, katere poslanec je“,
D. whereas, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic, ‘no Member of Parliament may be arrested or subject to any other measure depriving him or her of freedom or restricting that freedom as a result of criminal or minor offences without the authorisation of the Assembly to which he or she belongs, except if a serious crime has been committed, in the event of flagrante delicto or if a final judgment has been handed down’, and whereas, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 26, ‘detention, measures depriving the Member of his or her freedom or restricting that freedom or the prosecution of the Member of Parliament shall be suspended during the session if the Assembly of which he or she is a Member so demands’,
E. ker ima Parlament pri pripravi sklepa o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete enega svojih poslancev veliko mero diskrecijske pravice
E. whereas Parliament has a broad measure of discretion to determine the direction it wishes to give to a decision following a request to defend the immunity of one of its Members
Zadeva T-42/06 Gollnisch proti Parlamentu , odstavek 101. ,
Case T-42/06 Gollnisch v Parliament at paragraph 101. ,
F. ker v tem primeru Parlament ni našel dokaza, da naj bi šlo za fumus persecutionis , torej dovolj utemeljen sum, da je bil primer sprožen z namenom, da bi se poslancu politično škodovalo;
F. whereas in the present case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis , i.e. a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the case has been brought with the intention of causing political damage to the Member,
G. ker primer ne zadeva političnih dejavnosti Bruna Gollnischa kot poslanca Evropskega parlamenta; ker namesto tega zadeva dejavnosti Bruna Gollnischa kot člana sveta regije Rhône-Alpes, ki so povsem regionalne in lokalne narave, saj je bil v to funkcijo izvoljen na neposrednih splošnih volitvah, funkcija pa je ločena od mandata poslanca Evropskega parlamenta,
G. whereas the case does not fall within the scope of Bruno Gollnisch's political activities as Member of the European Parliament; whereas it concerns instead activities of a purely regional and local nature as a Rhône-Alpes regional councillor, a mandate to which Bruno Gollnisch was elected by direct universal suffrage and which is distinct from that of Member of the European Parliament,
H. ker je Bruno Gollnisch pojasnil, zakaj je njegova politična skupina v svetu regije Rhône-Alpes objavila sporočilo za javnost, zaradi katerega je zahteval zaščito imunitete: dejal je, da je sporočilo za javnost napisala ekipa stranke Nacionalna fronta v tej regiji, skupaj z odgovorno osebo za komunikacije, ki je bila „pooblaščena za dajanje izjav v imenu izvoljenih uradnih predstavnikov Nacionalne fronte“; ker bi uveljavljanje parlamentarne imunitete v takšnih okoliščinah pomenilo neustrezno uporabo pravil, katerih namen je preprečiti motnje v delovanju in neodvisnosti Parlamenta ,
H. whereas Bruno Gollnisch has given an explanation as to why the press release which has prompted the request for defence of immunity was issued by his political group in the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council, stating that it had been written by the Front National team in that region, including its head of communications, who was ‘empowered to speak on behalf of the Front National’s elected officials’; whereas the application of parliamentary immunity to such a situation would constitute an undue extension of those rules, which are intended to prevent any interference with the functioning and independence of the Parliament,
I. ker naj bi francoski organi proti Brunu Gollnischu uvedli določene ukrepe, ki naj bi omejevali njegovo svobodo, še preden so zahtevali odvzem njegove imunitete, kar je obžalovanja vredna kršitev pristojnosti Parlamenta; ker pa so zdaj francoski organi uradno zahtevali odvzem njegove imunitete, da bi v prihodnosti lahko proti njemu uvedli takšne ukrepe, zaradi česar v tem pogledu ni več treba braniti imunitete Bruna Gollnischa,
I. whereas it is a regrettable infringement of Parliament's prerogatives that the French authorities should have taken what appear to be certain measures restricting Bruno Gollnisch’s freedom prior to requesting the waiver of his immunity; whereas, however, given that the French authorities have now formally requested the waiver of his immunity in order to take such measures in the future, it is no longer necessary to defend Bruno Gollnisch's immunity in that regard,
J. ker ni naloga Parlamenta, temveč pristojnih sodnih organov, da odločijo, ob spoštovanju vseh demokratičnih jamstev, v kolikšni meri je bila kršena francoska zakonodaja o spodbujanju k rasnemu sovraštvu in kakšne bi bile lahko pravne posledice,
J. whereas it is not for Parliament but for the competent judicial authorities to decide, whilst respecting all democratic guarantees, to what extent French law on incitement to racial hatred has been broken and what the judicial consequences might be,
K. ker torej parlamentarne imunitete Bruna Gollnischa ne bi smeli zaščititi,
K. whereas Bruno Gollnisch’s parliamentary immunity should therefore not be defended,
2. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj ta sklep in poročilo pristojnega odbora nemudoma posreduje pristojnemu organu Francoske republike in Brunu Gollnischu.
Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the French Republic and to Bruno Gollnisch.
Predsednik Parlamenta je na zasedanju 14. junija 2010 v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika razglasil, da je 10. junija 2010 prejel zahtevo Bruna Gollnischa za zaščito njegovih parlamentarnih pravic.
At the sitting of 14 June 2010 the President announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a request by Bruno Gollnisch on 10 June 2010 requesting the defence of his parliamentary rights.
Predsednik je zadevo kot zahtevo za zaščito imunitete v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
The President referred the matter as a request for the defence of immunity to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(3).
V svojem pismu je Bruno Gollnisch izjavil, da ga je „policija po nalogu francoskega sodnika v petek, 4. junija 2010 ob 9.00, poskušala aretirati z namenom, da ga privede pred sodnika v zvezi s primerom, ki zadeva izražanje političnih mnenj“.
In his letter, Bruno Gollnisch states that a French judge "attempted to have [him] arrested by the police on Friday 4 June 2010 at 9.00 in order to appear before him in connection with a case concerning the expression of political opinions".
Zatrdil je tudi, da je takšen „ukrep pridržanja“ prepovedan, saj francoski sodnik ni zahteval odvzema njegove parlamentarne imunitete v skladu s 26. členom francoske ustave in členom 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije.
He goes on to argue that such a "measure of detention" was forbidden, since the French judge had not asked for the waiver of his parliamentary immunity, in accordance with Article 26 of the French Constitution and Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.
Bruno Gollnisch poziva predsednika Parlamenta, naj pri francoskih organih odločno protestira.
Bruno Gollnisch calls on the President of the Parliament to make a vigorous protest to the French authorities.
Preiskava zadeva tožbo in odškodninski zahtevek ( plainte avec constitution de partie civile ), ki ju je 26. januarja 2009 proti neimenovani osebi zaradi spodbujanja k rasnemu sovraštvu vložila Mednarodna liga proti rasizmu in antisemitizmu (v nadaljevanju MLRA)
The request concerns the judicial investigation of an action and claim for compensation ( plainte avec constitution de partie civile ) brought by the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (hereinafter, the LICRA) on 26 January 2009 against an unnamed person for incitement to racial hatred
24. člen zakona z dne 29. julija 1881 o svobodi tiska, kakor je bil spremenjen. .
Article 24 of the Law of 29 July 1881 on press freedom, as amended. .
Sporočilo za javnost je sledilo odprtemu pismu predsednika sveta regije Rhône-Alpes Jean-Jacka Queyranna ministrici za notranje zadeve Michèle Alliot-Marie, v katerem je Queyranne kritiziral anketo med nekaterimi uslužbenci v javni upravi, katere cilj je bil dognati, ali so verujoči uslužbenci, razen kristjanov, zahtevali spremembe delovnega časa ali pogojev zaposlitve, da bi lahko izražali svojo veroizpoved.
The press release followed an open letter from the President of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council, Jean-Jack Queyranne, to Michèle Alliot-Marie, Minister of the Interior, criticising a survey among certain civil servants, the aim of which was to ascertain whether staff members of religions other than Christianity had asked for their hours of work or conditions of service to be altered to enable them to practise their religion.
V pritožbi je MLRA navedla, da je na tiskovni konferenci 10. oktobra 2008 v Lyonu predsednik skupine Nacionalne fronte v svetu regije Rhône-Alpes Bruno Gollnisch obrazložil objavo sporočila za javnost svoje politične skupine z besedami, da ga je napisala ekipa Nacionalne fronte v regiji, skupaj z odgovorno osebo za komunikacije, ki je bila pooblaščena za dajanje izjav v imenu izvoljenih funkcionarjev Nacionalne fronte.
The LICRA states in its complaint that, in the course of a press conference held in Lyon on 10 October 2008, Bruno Gollnisch, President of the Front National Group in the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council, gave an explanation of the publication of the press release by his political group stating, in particular, that it had been written by the Front National team in the Region, including its head of communications, who was 'empowered to speak on behalf of the Front-National elected officials'.
Po mnenju MLRA naslednje besede predstavljajo kaznivo dejanje spodbujanja k rasnemu sovraštvu:
The LICRA considered that the following words constitute the offence of incitement to racial hatred:
„[odziv sveta regije Rhône-Alpes] ne upošteva realnosti, saj ljudje, ki „praznujejo“ konec obdobja posta (čez dan, kar nadoknadijo ponoči) z uničevanjem in požiganjem tuje lastnine ter m etanjem kamnov, niso videti kristjani.
"[the reaction from the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council] ignores current realities, because the people who are 'celebrating' the end of a period of fasting (by day, a deprivation which they make up for at night) by destroying and setting fire to property and throwing stones do not appear to be Christians.
Ne upošteva realnosti, saj mesta Rimljanov niso požgali kristjani.“
It ignores current realities, because it was not Christians who set fire to the town of Romans "
„Res je, da je bila tisti čas levica proti veri, zdaj pa je njen cilj podpreti invazijo na našo domovino in uničenje naših kulturnih vrednot s strani islama, vere, katere strpnost ter spoštovanje človekovih pravic in svobode je mogoče jasno videti, kadar koli je na oblasti, recimo v Saudski Arabiji, Iranu, Afganistanu, naših predmestjih, kmalu pa morda po vsej Franciji, z blagoslovom prostozidarskih lož in levice.“
"Admittedly, at the time the Left was opposed to religion, whereas its current objective is to support the invasion of our Fatherland and the destruction of our cultural values by Islam, a religion whose tolerance, respect for human rights and freedom can clearly be seen wherever it is in power, i.e. in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, our suburbs and soon, perhaps, the whole of France, with the blessing of the Masonic Lodges and the Left"
22. januarja 2009 je bila proti neimenovani osebi, osumljeni spodbujanja k rasnemu sovraštvu, sprožena sodna preiskava.
A judicial investigation was opened on 22 January 2009 against an unnamed person suspected of incitement to racial hatred.
Francoski organi trdijo, da je Bruno Gollnisch, ki je navajal svojo imuniteto pred pregonom kot poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, zavrnil poziv preiskovalcev in kasneje preiskovalnega sodnika, ki je želel pripraviti zapis zbranih dokazov v preiskavi (procès-verbal de première comparution) .
The French authorities state that Bruno Gollnisch, citing his immunity from prosecution as a Member of the European Parliament, refused to reply to the summons issued by the investigators and subsequently by the investigating magistrate, who wished to draw up a transcript of evidence in connection with the initial examination proceedings ( procès-verbal de première comparution ).
Ker niti poziv pred preiskovalnega sodnika (mandat de comparution) s 17. novembra 2009 niti odredba za privedbo osebe pred preiskovalnega sodnika (mandat d'amener) z 11. maja 2010 nista bila uspešno izvršena, je preiskovalni sodnik zadevo posredoval tožilstvu v obravnavo organu za pregon.
As neither the summons to appear ( mandat de comparution ) before the investigating magistrate issued on 17 November 2009 nor the warrant to bring the person summoned before the investigating judge ( mandat d'amener ) issued on 11 May 2010 were successfully enforced, the examining magistrate forwarded the file to the Prosecutor's Office to be dealt with by the prosecuting authorities.
Med zaslišanjem pred Odborom za pravne zadeve je Bruno Gollnisch zatrdil, da so mu večkrat grozili z aretacijo in da so bili v ta namen poslani policisti v zgradbo sveta regije, v kateri ga ni bilo.
During his hearing before the Committee on Legal Affairs, Bruno Gollnisch claimed that he was threatened with arrest on several occasions and that police officers were sent to that effect to the building of the Regional Council from which he was absent.
V pismu, ki so ga francoski organi 3. novembra 2010 poslali Parlamentu, je državni tožilec izjavil, da naj bi imel Bruno Gollnisch vso pravico, da se sklicuje na svojo parlamentarno imuniteto.
In a letter transmitted by the French authorities to Parliament on 3 November 2010, the Public Prosecutor states that it would seem that Bruno Gollnisch is fully entitled to assert his claim to benefit from parliamentary immunity.
Državni tožilec pa meni, da ima tudi on enako pravico in obveznost, da v tem primeru zahteva odvzem parlamentarne imunitete Brunu Gollnischu, da bi se ga lahko pozvalo pred sodišče in da bi odgovarjal na obtožbe MLRA.
However, the Public Prosecutor considers that he is equally entitled and obliged to request, in the case in question, the waiver of Bruno Gollnisch's parliamentary immunity to enable him to be duly summoned and to answer the allegations made about him by the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism.
Člen 8 in člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 določata naslednje:
Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, read as follows:
a. na ozemlju svoje lastne države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
Člen, spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 95-880 z dne 4. avgusta 1995. francoske ustave določa naslednje:
Article amended by Constitutional Law No 95-880 of 4 August 1995. of the French Constitution provides as follows:
Proti nobenemu poslancu se ne sme odrediti sodni postopek, preiskava, aretacija ali priprtje in se proti njemu ne sme izreči sodba zaradi mnenja, ki ga je izrekel, ali glasov, ki jih je oddal pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
"No Member of Parliament shall be subject to legal proceedings, investigations, arrest, detention or judgment for opinions expressed or votes cast by him while carrying out his duties.
Pripor, druge oblike odvzema prostosti ali kazensko preganjanje poslanca se ustavi do konca zasedanja, če skupščina, katere poslanec je, tako zahteva.
Detention, measures depriving the Member of his freedom or restricting that freedom or the prosecution of the Member of Parliament shall be suspended during the session if the Assembly of which he is a Member so demands.
Če je to potrebno, se skupščina za izvajanje prejšnjega odstavka avtomatično sestane na dodatnih sejah.
The Assembly concerned shall meet automatically for additional sittings to enable, where appropriate, the provisions of the preceding paragraph to be applied."
Bruno Gollnisch se v svoji zahtevi ni skliceval na člen 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, ki se v tem primeru ne uporabi.
Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union was not invoked by Bruno Gollnisch in his request and it is not applicable in this case.
Kar zadeva člen 9, pa je – glede na dejstvo, da se postopek nanaša na domnevno kaznivo dejanje, storjeno v Franciji, katere državljanstvo je imel takrat Bruno Gollnisch – veljaven le sledeči del: „ Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njegovi poslanci uživajo a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države” .
As for Article 9 of the Protocol, given that the proceedings concern an offence allegedly committed in France, whose citizenship Bruno Gollnisch enjoyed at the material time, the only applicable part is the one pursuant to which ‘ during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ’.
Ustrezen francoski zakonski predpis je 26. člen francoske ustave, zlasti odstavka 2 in 3, ki se glasita:
The applicable French law is Article 26 of the French Constitution, and in particular paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof which state that:
Pripor, druge oblike odvzema prostosti ali kazensko preganjanje poslanca se ustavi do konca zasedanja, če skupščina, katere poslanec je, tako zahteva.“
Detention, measures depriving the Member of his freedom or restricting that freedom or the prosecution of the Member of Parliament shall be suspended during the session if the Assembly of which he is a Member so demands".
Kot so dejstva tega primera opisali francoski organi, se zdi, da poziva preiskovalnega sodnika, izdana 17. novembra 2009 in 11. maja 2010, katerih prejemnik je bil Bruno Gollnisch, ustrezata „drugim oblikam odvzema prostosti“ po drugem pododstavku 26. člena francoske ustave.
From the facts of the case communicated by the French authorities, it seems that the various summons issued by the investigating judge on 17 November 2009 and on 11 May 2010 respectively, to which Bruno Gollnisch was subject constitute measures "depriving the Member of freedom or restricting that freedom" under the second subparagraph of Article 26 of the French Constitution.
Posledica takšne nedoslednosti, če se je dejansko zgodila, je obžalovanja vredna kršitev pristojnosti Parlamenta.
The consequences of such a discrepancy, should it in fact have occurred, are a regrettable infringement of Parliament's prerogatives.
Ker pa so zdaj francoski organi uradno zahtevali odvzem njegove imunitete, da bi v prihodnosti lahko proti njemu uvedli takšne ukrepe za odvzem prostosti, v tem pogledu ni več treba braniti imunitete Bruna Gollnischa.
However, given that the French authorities have now formally requested the waiver of his immunity in order to adopt such freedom-restricting measures in the future, it is no longer necessary to defend Bruno Gollnisch's immunity in that regard.
Pri odločanju o zaščiti parlamentarne imunitete Parlament uporablja svoja lastna dosledna načela.
In order to decide whether or not to defend parliamentary immunity, Parliament applies its own consistent principles.
V tem primeru odbor ni našel dokaza, da naj bi šlo za fumus persecutionis , torej dovolj resen in jasen sum, da je bil primer sprožen z namenom, da bi se poslancu politično škodovalo.
In the present case, the Committee has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis , i.e. a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the case has been brought with the intention of causing political damage to the Member.
Francoski zakon o volitvah, členi 336-338. in je ločena od mandata poslanca Evropskega parlamenta
French electoral code, Articles L336-338. and which is distinct from that of Member of the European Parliament
Po analogiji z resolucijo Parlamenta z dne 6.10.1998 o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Jean-Marie Le Penu, UL C 328, z dne 26.
See, by analogy, Parliament resolution of 06.10.1998 on the Request for the waiver of Mr Le Pen's immunity, C 328 26.10.1998, p.
Uveljavljanje parlamentarne imunitete v takšnih okoliščinah bi pomenilo neustrezno uporabo pravil, katerih namen je preprečiti motnje v delovanju in neodvisnosti Parlamenta.
The application of parliamentary immunity to such a situation is considered to constitute an undue extension of those rules, which are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the Parliament .
Končno, ni naloga Parlamenta, temveč pristojnih sodnih organov, da ob spoštovanju vseh demokratičnih jamstev odločijo, v kolikšni meri je bila kršena francoska zakonodaja o spodbujanju k rasnemu sovraštvu in kakšne naj bodo pravne posledice.
Finally, it is not for Parliament but for the competent judicial authorities to decide, whilst respecting all democratic guarantees, to what extent French law on incitement to racial hatred has been broken and what the judicial consequences might be.