natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
H. ker prvi odstavek 552. člena madžarskega zakona o kazenskem postopku določa, da se kazenski postopek proti osebi, ki uživa imuniteto, prekine in se zahteva odvzem te imunitete; ker prvi odstavek 551. člena tega zakona določa, da kazenski postopek proti, med drugim, poslancu Evropskega parlamenta lahko steče samo po odvzemu imunitete,
H. whereas Section 552(1) of the Hungarian Act on Criminal Proceedings requires that criminal proceedings against a person enjoying immunity be suspended and a waiver of such immunity requested, and whereas Section 551(1) of that Act provides that criminal proceedings may only be initiated against, inter alia, a Member of the European Parliament after the suspension of immunity,
I. ker prvi odstavek 12. člena zakona LVII določa, da mora sodišče za odvzem imunitete v zasebnih tožbah zahtevo nasloviti na predsednika Parlamenta,
I. whereas Section 12(1) of Act LVII provides that the request for waiver of immunity in cases subject to private action are to be made by the court to the President of the Parliament,
J. ker je v novem postopku po razveljavitvi Ágnes Hankiss navedla, da je poslanka Evropskega parlamenta, zaradi česar je osrednje okrožno sodišče v Budi na osnovi prvega odstavka 552. člena madžarskega zakona o kazenskem postopku in 12. člena zakona LVII sklenilo, da postopek prekine in zahteva odvzem imunitete,
J. whereas in the new proceedings following the annulment Ágnes Hankiss stated that she is a Member of the Parliament and in consequence the Central District Court of Buda, acting on the basis of Section 552(1) of the Hungarian Act on Criminal Proceedings and Section 12 of the Act LVII, decided to suspend the proceedings and ask for the waiver of immunity,
K. ker je zato ustrezno, da se v tem primeru priporoči odvzem imunitete,
K. whereas it is therefore appropriate to recommend that parliamentary immunity be waived in this instance,
Predsednik Parlamenta je na zasedanju 6. septembra 2010 v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika razglasil, da je prejel pismo osrednjega okrožnega sodišča v Budi z dne 6. julija 2010 z zahtevo za odvzem imunitete Ágnes Hankiss.
At the sitting of 6 September 2010 the President announced, under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a letter sent by the Central District Court of Budapest on 6 July 2010 requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Ágnes Hankiss.
Osrednje okrožno sodišče iz Bude, Budimpešta, Evropski parlament prosi, naj odvzame imuniteto svoji poslanki, Ágnes Hankiss, da bi proti njej lahko ponovno izpeljalo kazenski postopek po razsodbi vrhovnega sodišča Republike Madžarske z 12. novembra 2009.
The Central District Court of Buda, Budapest, is asking the European Parliament to waive the immunity of its Member, Ágnes Hankiss, in connection with renewed criminal proceedings ordered by the judgement of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary given on 12 November 2009.
Ágnes Hankiss toži zasebni tožilec zaradi domnevnega kaznivega dejanja zoper čast in dobro ime, storjenega v javnosti (179. člen madžarskega kazenskega zakonika), in zlasti razžalitve spomina mrtve osebe, tožnikovega očeta (181. člen madžarskega kazenskega zakonika) v izjavi v oddaji Péntek 8 mondatvadász’ 23. januarja 2004.
Ágnes Hankiss is accused by a private plaintiff of an alleged offence of defamation of honour committed in public (Section 179 of the Hungarian Criminal Code) and, in particular the defamation of the memory of a dead person, the plaintiff’s father, under Section 181 of the Hungarian Criminal Code, as a result of a statement made during the programme ‘ Péntek 8 mondatvadász ’ on 23 January 2004.
Obtožba z dne 18. februarja 2004 je bila pred osrednjim okrožnim sodiščem vložena 23. februarja 2004.
The accusation, dated 18 February 2004, was submitted to the Central District Court of Buda on 23 February 2004.
To sodišče je v zadevi razsodilo 28. junija 2005, na sodbo pa je bila vložena pritožba pred občinskim sodiščem v Budimpešti, ki je 3. februarja 2006 sodbo okrožnega sodišča v Budi razveljavilo.
On 28 June 2005 the Court gave its judgment, which was then appealed to the Budapest Municipal Court and annulled by that Court on 3 February 2006.
Zaradi tega je bila zadeva vrnjena osrednjemu okrožnemu sodišču v Budi, ki je 6. februarja 2009 Ágnes Hankiss oprostilo obtožbe.
As a result the case went back to the Central District Court of Buda, which acquitted Ágnes Hankiss of the charges on 6 February 2009.
Tožeča stranka se je na razsodbo pritožila pred občinskim sodiščem v Budimpešti, nakar se je to 25. marca 2009 odločilo, da sodbo okrožnega sodišča v celoti potrdi.
This judgement was appealed by the plaintiff to the Budapest Municipal Court, which on 25 March 2009 decided to uphold the judgment of the District Court on all its grounds.
Tožnik je potem pred madžarskim vrhovnim sodiščem vložil zahtevo za revizijo sodbe višjega sodišča, ker je sodba po njegovem mnenju kršila materialne določbe kazenskega zakonika.
Subsequently the plaintiff filed with the Hungarian Supreme Court an application for review of the appeal court’s judgement considering that the acquittal resulted from a violation of the substantive provisions of criminal law.
12. novembra 2009 je vrhovno sodišče sprejelo mnenje, da je dejansko prišlo do kršitve materialnih določb kazenskega zakonika in naročilo obnovo postopka pred osrednjim okrožnim sodiščem v Budi.
On 12 November 2009 the Supreme Court considered that there was indeed a violation of the substantive provisions of criminal law and ordered a renewed procedure to be conducted by the Central District Court of Buda.
To sodišče mora novi postopek opraviti glede na navodila odločbe vrhovnega sodišča.
The court is to conduct this renewed procedure in the light of considerations stated in the decision of the Supreme Court.
Osrednje okrožno sodišče v Budi je novi postopek začelo 31. marca 2010.
The Central District Court of Buda opened renewed proceedings on 31 March 2010.
Istega dne je bil postopek prekinjen, ker Ágnes Hankiss kot poslanka Evropskega parlamenta uživa parlamentarno imuniteto.
At the same day the proceedings were suspended on the grounds that Ágnes Hankiss enjoys parliamentary immunity as a Member of the Parliament.
Ustrezno zahtevo za odvzem njene imunitete je sodišče izdalo 6. julija 2010.
The relevant request for the waiver of that immunity was made by the Court on 6 July 2010.
12. člen zakona LVII iz leta 2004 o pravnem statusu madžarskih poslancev Evropskega parlamenta določa naslednje: "(1) Evropski parlament sme odločati o odvzemu imunitete poslancu Evropskega parlamenta.
Section 12 of the Act LVII of 2004 on the Legal Status of the Hungarian Members of the European Parliament (‘Act LVII’) reads as follows: "(1) The European Parliament is entitled to decide in connection with the suspension of the immunity of MEPs.
(4) Organ, ki zahteva odvzem imunitete, Evropskemu parlamentu in odboru, ki odloča o primerih imunitete, posreduje vse informacije, za katere odbor meni, da so potrebne za odločanje v zvezi z odvzemom imunitete.
(4) Authorities submitting a request for suspension of immunity shall give to the European Parliament and its Committee dealing with immunity cases all information that this Committee deems necessary in order to form its opinion in connection with the suspension of immunity.
(5) Če se odvzame imuniteta, sodišče ali drugi organ, ki odloča na podlagi odvzema imunitete, predsednika Evropskega parlamenta seznani s svojo odločbo v zvezi z imuniteto.
(5) If the immunity is suspended, the court or the authority that passes any decision resulting from the suspension of the immunity shall inform the President of the European Parliament about its decision in connection with the immunity.
(7) Sklep v zvezi z odvzemom imunitete kandidatov za Evropski parlament sprejme nacionalna volilna komisija.
(7) A decision concerning the suspension of immunity of candidates to the European Parliament shall be decided by the National Electoral Board.
S tem v zvezi mora biti zahteva naslovljena na predsednika nacionalne volilne komisije."
A request to this effect must be submitted to the Chairman of the National Electoral Board."
10. člen zakona LVII določa naslednje:
Section 10 of the Act LVII reads as follows:
(2) Poslanci Evropskega parlamenta so upravičeni do enake imunitete kot poslanci parlamenta.
(2) MEPs are entitled to the same immunity that Members of Parliament enjoy.
Prvi odstavek 552. člena madžarskega zakona o kazenskem postopku določa, da se kazenski postopek proti osebi, ki uživa imuniteto, prekine in se zahteva odvzem te imunitete, prvi odstavek 551. člena tega zakona pa določa, da kazenski postopek proti, med drugim, poslancu Evropskega parlamenta lahko steče samo po odvzemu imunitete.
Section 552(1) of the Hungarian Act on Criminal Proceedings requires to suspend the criminal proceedings against a person enjoying immunity and request a waiver of such immunity and Section 551(1) of that Act provides that the criminal proceedings may only be initiated against, inter alia, a Member of the Parliament after the suspension of the immunity.
Kar zadeva člen 9 protokola, je – glede na dejstvo, da se postopek nanaša na domnevno kaznivo dejanje, storjeno na Madžarksem, katere državljanstvo je v času dejstev imela Ágnes Hankiss – veljaven le sledeči del: a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države."
Under Article 9 of the Protocol, given that the proceedings concern an offence allegedly committed in Hungary, whose citizenship Ágnes Hankiss 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 ’.
Madžarski zakon, ki se uporablja v tem primeru, je 10. in 12. člen zakona LVII.
The applicable Hungarian law is Section 10 and Section 12 of the Act LVII.
Pri odločanju o zaščiti parlamentarne imunitete Parlament uporablja lastna dosledna načela.
In order to decide whether or not to defend parliamentary immunity, Parliament applies its own consistent principles.
V tem primeru poročevalka meni, da zadeva ne sodi v politične dejavnosti Ágnes Hankiss kot poslanke Evropskega parlamenta.
In the present case, the rapporteur finds that the case does not come within the scope of Ágnes Hankiss’s political activities as Member of the Parliament.
Nasprotno se zadeva nanaša na izjavo iz leta 2004, torej precej pred njeno izvolitvijo za poslanko Parlamenta.
It concerns instead a statement made in 2004, long before she was elected a Member of the Parliament.
Poročevalka tudi ni našla dokaza o tem, da naj bi šlo za fumus persecutionis , torej dovolj utemeljen sum, da je bil primer sprožen z namenom, da bi se poslancu politično škodovalo.
The rapporteur has also 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.
Vseeno pa velja omeniti, da je bila odločitev vrhovnega sodišča z 12. novembra 2009 o obnovi postopka izdana, ko je bila Ágnes Hankiss že poslanka Parlamenta in je že uživala poslansko imuniteto, čeprav tedaj ni prišlo do zahteve za njen odvzem.
It should however be noted that the decision of the Supreme Court of 12 November 2009 ordering to conduct new proceedings was handed down when Ágnes Hankiss was a Member of the Parliament and enjoyed the parliamentary immunity, the waiver of which was not requested at that time.
Za to lahko trdimo, da je bila to postopkovna napaka.
This can be argued to be a procedural mishap.
Vseeno pa je bila zahteva pravilno posredovana potem, ko je osrednje okrožno sodišče v Budi začelo nov postopek in je na podlagi prvega odstavka 552. člena madžarskega zakona o kazenskem postopku in 12. člena zakona LVII postopek na prvi stopnji 31. marca 2010 prekinilo in zahtevalo odvzem imunitete.
However, waiver of immunity was correctly requested after the renewed proceedings were initiated at first instance on 31 March 2010 by the Central District Court of Buda, which acting on the basis of Section 552(1) of the Hungarian Act on Criminal Proceedings and Section 12 of the Act LVII, suspended the procedure and asked for the immunity to be waived.
Zato je ustrezno, da se v tem primeru priporoči odvzem imunitete.
It is therefore appropriate to recommend to waive parliamentary immunity in this instance.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti odvzemu poslanske imunitete Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament Ágnes Hankiss odvzame poslansko imuniteto.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against waiving the Member’s immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should waive the parliamentary immunity of Ágnes Hankiss.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Christian Engström, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Jiří Maštálka, Bernhard Rapkay, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Dimiter Stojanov (Dimitar Stoyanov), Diana Wallis, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Christian Engström, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Jiří Maštálka, Bernhard Rapkay, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Dimitar Stoyanov, Diana Wallis, Tadeusz Zwiefka
o spremembi člena 51 poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta o postopku s skupnimi sejami odborov
on the amendment of Rule 51 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on procedures with joint committee meetings
– ob upoštevanju pisma predsednika konference predsednikov odborov z dne 11. marca 2010 in pisma predsednika Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane z dne 25. marca 2010,
– having regard to the letter of 11 March 2010 from the chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs and to the letter of 25 March 2010 from the chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve ( A7-0197/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A7-0197/2011 ),
Če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz členov 49(1) in 50, lahko konferenca predsednikov, kadar meni, da je zadeva večjega pomena, odloči, da bo uporabljen postopek s skupnimi sejami odborov in skupnim glasovanjem.
Where the conditions set out in Rule 49(1) and Rule 50 are fulfilled, the Conference of Presidents may , if it is satisfied that the matter is of major importance, decide that a procedure with joint meetings of committees and a joint vote is to be applied .
Če mora konferenca predsednikov odločati o vprašanju pristojnosti v skladu s členom 188(2), lahko odloči, da bo uporabljen postopek s skupnimi odbori in skupnim glasovanjem, če :
When a question of competence is referred to it pursuant to Rule 188(2), the Conference of Presidents may decide that the procedure with joint meetings of committees and a joint vote is to be applied , provided that :
– vprašanje glede na Prilogo VII nedvoumno spada v pristojnost več odborov in
– with reference to Annex VII, responsibility for the matter cannot be split between several committees; and
– meni, da gre za pomembno vprašanje.
- it is satisfied that the matter is of major importance.
V vseh fazah postopka lahko odbori pravice, vezane na status pristojnega odbora, izvajajo samo ob skupnem nastopanju.
At all stages of the procedure, the rights attaching to the status of committee responsible may be exercised by the committees concerned only when acting jointly.
Pri drugi obravnavi v okviru rednega zakonodajnega postopka se stališče Sveta preuči na skupni seji sodelujočih odborov, ki poteka, če se predsedniki teh odborov ne dogovorijo drugače, v sredo prvega tedna, predvidenega za sejo parlamentarnih organov, potem ko je Svet sporočil svoje stališče Parlamentu.
At the second-reading stage of the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council position shall be considered at a joint meeting of the committees concerned, which, should no agreement be reached between their Chairs, shall be held on the Wednesday of the first week set aside for meetings of parliamentary bodies following the communication of the Council’s position to Parliament.
O priporočilu za drugo obravnavo se glasuje na skupni seji na osnovi skupnega osnutka, ki ga pripravijo poročevalci sodelujočih odborov, ali, če skupnega osnutka ni, na osnovi predlogov sprememb, ki so bili vloženi v sodelujočih odborih.
The vote on the recommendation for second reading shall be taken at a joint meeting on the basis of a joint text drafted by the respective rapporteurs of the committees concerned or, in the absence of a joint text, on the basis of the amendments tabled in the committees concerned.
Pri tretji obravnavi v okviru rednega zakonodajnega postopka so predsedniki in poročevalci sodelujočih odborov člani delegacije spravnega odbora.
At the third-reading stage of the ordinary legislative procedure, the Chairs and rapporteurs of the committees concerned shall be ex officio members of the delegation to the Conciliation Committee.
DEJSTVA, NA KATERIH TEMELJI POROČILO
I. BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT
V preteklem zakonodajnem obdobju je konferenca predsednikov ustanovila delovno skupino za parlamentarno reformo z nalogo, da pregleda delovanje Parlamenta in predlaga izboljšave.
During the previous parliamentary term, the Conference of Presidents set up a Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, tasked with reviewing the functioning of Parliament and recommending possible improvements.
Pri poglavju, ki je posvečen sodelovanju med odbori, je delovna skupina predlagala, da se v postopku s pridruženimi odbori okrepi položaj pridruženega odbora – nekdaj člen 47, zdaj člen 50 poslovnika –, pa tudi, da se razvije nova oblika sodelovanja med odbori – ki je bila vzpostavljena z novim členom 51.
In a chapter on cooperation between committees, the working party proposed not only that the position of an associated committee in the procedure with associated committees – Rule 50 (formerly Rule 47) of the Rules of Procedure – should be strengthened, but also that a new form of cooperation between committees, subsequently introduced by means of the new Rule 51, should be developed.
Predlog je izhajal iz predpostavke, da v posebnih primerih, „če zakonodajni ukrep, ki velja za bolj pomembnega, ne sodi jasno v pristojnost enega od odborov, pač pa ga je nasprotno možno enakovredno razdeliti med več odborov [...], je prav, da se spor glede pristojnosti reši po načelu enakosti in sodelovanja.
The reasoning behind the proposal was that, in certain specific cases, ‘where a legislative dossier does not fall clearly within the competence of one committee but is rather equally divided among two or more committees and is of major importance […] the solution to a conflict of competence should be based on equality and cooperation.
Odbori, ki jih to zadeva, se sestanejo in predhodno izmenjajo argumente (...), da bi lahko med seboj jasneje opredelili večinska in manjšinska mnenja.
The committees concerned should meet jointly so that arguments can be exchanged in advance […] and the majority and minority viewpoints can emerge more clearly.
Njihovi člani potem skupaj glasujejo o pripravljenih predlogih sprememb k zakonodajnemu predlogu.
The members of the committees concerned should then vote jointly on the amendments tabled to the legislative proposal.
Tako je na plenarno zasedanje vloženo eno samo, bolj uravnoteženo poročilo“.
The result would be the submission of a single, more balanced report […] to plenary’.
Konferenca predsednikov se je 19. marca 2009 z glasovanjem izrekla za to, da se „ v poslovnik vnese možnost, da konferenca predsednikov v zelo posebnih primerih, ko vprašanje skoraj v enaki meri spada v pristojnost vsaj dveh odborov, sproži postopek s skupnimi sejami odborov in skupnim glasovanjem [....]“.
At its meeting on 19 March 2009 the Conference of Presidents voted in favour of the inclusion of another option in the Rules of Procedure whereby the Conference of Presidents could launch a procedure with joint meetings of committees and a joint vote in very specific cases where matters fell almost equally within the competence of two or more committees.
Parlament je 6. maja 2009 sprožil pregled poslovnika in je s členom 51 ustvaril nov „postopek s skupnimi sejami odborov“
On 6 May 2009 Parliament carried out a review of its Rules of Procedure and introduced, under Rule 51, a new ‘procedure with joint committee meetings’
Poročilo A6-273/2009 Odbora za ustavne zadeve, poročevalec Richard Corbett ( P6_TA(2009)0359 , 6. maj 2009). :
Report A6-273/2009 of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, rapporteur Richard Corbett ( P6_TA(2009)0359 , 6 May 2009). :
V začetku leta 2010 je konferenca predsednikov odborov obravnavala osnutek smernic za sodelovanje med odbori v skladu s členom 51 poslovnika.
Early in 2010 the Conference of Committee Chairs considered draft ‘guidelines for cooperation between committees under Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure’.
Komentarje in predloge za spremembo tega besedila sta pripravila Jo Leinen v imenu Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane (ENVI) in Sharon Bowles v imenu Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve (ECON).
Mr Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), and Ms Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), made comments on and proposed changes to that text.
Predsednik konference predsednikov odborov, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, je po tej korespondenci Odbor za ustavne zadeve zadolžil, da odgovori na tri vprašanja o uporabi člena 51, ki jih lahko povzamemo tako:
Following that correspondence, the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs, Mr Lehne, referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs three questions concerning the application of Rule 51, which can be summarised as follows:
1) Ali se postopek iz člena 51 v primeru rednega zakonodajnega postopka uporablja med celim postopkom ali samo v prvi obravnavi?
1) In the context of an ordinary legislative procedure, does the Rule 51 procedure apply throughout the legislative procedure, or only at first reading?
2) Ali lahko pravice, ki jih „pristojnemu odboru“ podeljuje njegov status, kot je pravica do vlaganja predlogov sprememb ali predlog zavrnitve na plenarnem zasedanju, uveljavljajo samo odbori, ki sodelujejo v postopku s skupnimi odbori?
2) Can the rights attaching to the status of the ‘committee responsible’, such as the right to table amendments or a motion for rejection in plenary, be exercised solely by the committees concerned acting jointly?
3) Ali morajo odbori skupaj odločiti tudi o tem, kako bo Parlament uveljavljal svoje pravice glede osnutkov delegiranih ali izvedbenih aktov, ki temeljijo na istem zakonodajnem aktu, ta pa je bil sprejet po postopku iz člena 51?
3) Must the committees take a joint decision as to how Parliament uses its rights with regard to draft delegated acts or implementing measures which are themselves based on a legislative act adopted in turn under the Rule 51 procedure?
Klaus-Heiner Lehne je še predlagal, naj se poslovniku v skladu s členom 215(d) priložijo smernice za lažje izvajanje tega novatorskega postopka.
Mr Lehne has also suggested annexing to the Rules of Procedure, in accordance with Rule 215(d), guidelines to facilitate the implementation of this new procedure.
Jo Leinen je zadevo predložil tudi Odboru za ustavne zadeve in predlagal, naj se položaj pojasni z revizijo poslovnika.
Mr Leinen has also referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs a proposal that the situation should be clarified by means of a revision of the Rules of Procedure.
Opozoril je zlasti na to, da je v drugi obravnavi pri soodločanju ali „komitologiji“ praktično nemogoče delati z dvema ali več odbori.
He emphasised in particular the practical impossibility of involving two or more committees at second reading under codecision or ‘comitology’.
Niz členov poslovnika [43(1), 63(1), 87 in 88(2) in (3) in zlasti 188] naj bi navajal le en odbor, kar naj bi kazalo na to, da v takemu postopku ni mesta za še kakšen odbor.
He argued that a whole series of rules [43(1), 63(1), 87 and 88(2) and (3), and particularly 188] referred to only one committee, which demonstrated that there was no room for a second in such a procedure.