natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zdi se primerno, da se spomnimo načel, ki so pomembna za to poročilo, pri tem pa poudarimo, da morajo imeti odločitve o odvzemu imunitete trdno pravno podlago, tako da nanje ne vplivajo razlogi v zvezi s politično pripadnostjo ali nacionalnostjo poslanca.
It seems useful to call to mind the principles that are of relevance to this report, while stressing the need for decisions on waiver of immunity to have a sound legal basis so that they are not influenced by considerations relating to the political affiliation or the nationality of the Member concerned.
Na temelju tega načela datum, ko naj bi se domnevni dogodki zgodili, ni pomemben, in je lahko pred izvolitvijo poslanca ali po njej, saj je pomembna le zaščita Parlamenta prek njegovih poslancev.
On the basis of this principle, the date on which the alleged deeds took place is of no importance and may be either prior or subsequent to the election of the Member, since protection of Parliament through its Members is the sole consideration.
S Sodiščem so že dvakrat potekala posvetovanja o razlagi besedne zveze „med zasedanji Evropskega parlamenta“, ki se pojavi v odstavku 10 PPI.
The Court of Justice has twice been consulted on the interpretation of the phrase 'during the sessions of the European Parliament', which appears in Article 10 of the PPI.
Iz dveh sodb Sodišča (zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krieru [1964] ECR 397 in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju [1986] ECR 2403) se lahko sklepa, da ima Parlament letno zasedanje, na katerem njegovi poslanci, tudi v času, ko je zasedanje prekinjeno, uživajo imuniteto, določeno v PPI.
From the two judgments of the Court (Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 397 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure [1986] ECR 2403), it may be inferred that Parliament holds an annual session during which its Members, even during the periods when the session is interrupted, enjoy the immunity provided for in the PPI.
Neodvisni značaj imunitete poslancev Evropskega parlamenta v primerjavi z imuniteto poslancev nacionalnih parlamentov
C. Independent nature of European parliamentary immunity compared with national parliamentary immunity
Dejstvo, da se člen 10, prvi odstavek, oddelek (a) PPI nanaša na imunitete, priznane poslancem nacionalnih parlamentov, ne pomeni, da Parlament ne more oblikovati svojih pravil, ki sestavljajo vrsto sodne prakse.
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, section (a), of the PPI refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not mean that the Parliament cannot create its own rules which constitute a species of 'case law'.
V zvezi z odvzemom imunitete se takšna imuniteta, ki je enaka za poslance določene nacionalnosti v njihovih nacionalnih parlamentih in v Evropskem parlamentu, ne sme zamenjati z odvzemom le-te, ki je posebna pravica vsakega parlamenta.
As regards the waiver of immunity, such immunity , which is identical for Members of a given nationality in their national parliament and in the European Parliament, must not be confused with the waiver thereof , which is a prerogative of each individual parliament.
Ta pravila, ki izhajajo iz odločitev, sprejetih v zvezi z zahtevami za odvzem imunitete, ustvarjajo dosledno predstavo o imuniteti poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, ki je na splošno neodvisna od različnih nacionalnih parlamentarnih postopkov.
Those rules, which are derived from decisions adopted in respect of requests for waiver of immunity, create a consistent notion of European parliamentary immunity which, in general terms, is independent of the various national parliamentary procedures.
Če ne bi bilo tako, bi bile poudarjene neskladnosti med poslanci istega parlamenta na osnovi njihove nacionalnosti.
If this were not the case the disparities between members of one and the same parliament would be accentuated on the basis of their nationality.
Z uporabo teh načel se v odločitvah Parlamenta pojavlja stalen dejavnik, ki je postal temeljno merilo pri odzivanju na zahteve za odvzem imunitete.
Through application of these principles, a constant factor has emerged in Parliament's decisions, which has become a basic criterion in its response to each request for waiver of immunity.
Imunitete se ne odvzame, če je poslanec obtožen dejanj, ki spadajo pod naslov politične dejavnosti.
Immunity is not waived in any case where a Member is accused of actions that come under the heading of political activity.
To merilo dopolnjujejo drugi razlogi, ki lahko govorijo v prid ali proti odvzemu imunitete.
This criterion has been complemented by other considerations which may militate either for or against waiver of immunity.
To vključuje:
These include:
– obstoj fumus persecutionis , torej suma, da je namen kazenskega pregona oškodovanje poslančevega političnega delovanja,
– the existence of fumus persecutionis , i.e. the suspicion that criminal proceedings have been brought with the intention of undermining the political activity of the Member concerned,
– posebno resen značaj obtožb.
– the particularly serious nature of the charges.
Pristojnost za odločanje o „pristojnem organu“
Competence to decide on the "competent authority"
Člen 7(7) Poslovnika pristojnemu odboru omogoča, da poda utemeljeno mnenje o pristojnosti zadevnega organa in o dopustnosti zahteve.
Rule 7(7) of the Rules of Procedure allows the committee responsible to " offer a reasoned opinion about the competence of the authority in question and about the admissibility of the request ".
Zato se pred preučitvijo zahteve za odvzem imunitete lahko preveri dopustnost le-te, kar vključuje vprašanje pristojnosti nacionalnega organa za predložitev takšne zahteve.
Therefore examination of the request for the waiver of immunity may be preceded by a verification of its admissibility, which includes the question of the competence of the national authority to submit such a request.
Pri preučevanju dopustnosti zahteve za odvzem imunitete mora pristojni odbor upoštevati nacionalno zakonodajo zadevne države članice, da bi na primer ocenil, ali je zahtevo predložil pristojni organ
In analysing the admissibility of a request for waiver of immunity, the committee responsible has to take into consideration national law of the Member State concerned, e.g. in order to assess whether the request was made by the competent authority
Po členu 7(12): pristojni odbor lahko po posvetovanju z državami članicami pripravi okviren seznam organov držav članic, ki so pristojni za predložitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete poslanca.
Under Rule 7(12): " The committee, after consulting the Member States, may draw up an indicative list of the authorities of the Member States which are competent to present a request for the waiver of a Member's immunity. "
Države članice so bile v pismih z dne 29.9.2004 in 9.3.2005 pozvane, naj navedejo te organe.
By letters of 29.9.2004 and 9.3.2005 Member States were invited to indicate such authorities.
V primerih, ki vključujejo poslance, izvoljene na Poljskem, je zato treba preučiti poljsko zakonodajo, da bi poiskali odgovor na vprašanje dopustnosti zahteve.
In cases involving Members elected in Poland it is therefore necessary to look to Polish law for an answer to the question of the admissibility of the request.
Pristojnost za predložitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete
Competence to submit a request for the waiver of immunity
V skladu s členom 7b zakona o mandatu je za zahtevo za odvzem imunitete pristojen javni organ ali posameznik.
In accordance with Article 7b of the Law on the Mandate, the competence to request a waiver of immunity lies with a public authority or with a private person.
Ta pristojnost je odvisna od vrste kaznivega dejanja in razvrstitve glede tega, ali se ga preganja po uradni dolžnosti ali na zasebno tožbo.
That competence depends on the type of offence and on its classification as a publicly or privately prosecuted offence.
Treba bi bilo dodati, da v skladu s poljskim kazenskim pravom kazniva dejanja, ki jih preganja državno tožilstvo, lahko preganja tudi posameznik, ki deluje kot „nadomestni tožilec“.
It should be added that under Polish criminal law offences categorised as publicly prosecuted may also be "prosecuted" by a private person who acts as a "subsidiary prosecutor".
V takšnih primerih državni tožilec ne sodeluje vedno v postopkih pred sodiščem.
In such case the public prosecutor does not always take part in the proceedings before the court.
V zvezi s kaznivimi dejanji, ki se preganjajo na zasebno tožbo, obstaja tudi možnost, da državni tožilec pristopi k postopku, ki ga je sprožil posameznik, ali da celo sproži tak postopek (ob sodelovanju te osebe ali brez nje).
With respect to privately prosecuted offences there is also a possibility for the public prosecutor to accede to proceedings initiated by the private person or even to initiate such proceedings (with or without the participation of that person).
Velja naslednje razlikovanje:
The following distinctions can be drawn:
Kazniva dejanja, ki se preganjajo po uradni dolžnosti
Offences subject to public prosecution
a) postopki, ki jih sproži državni tožilec
a) proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor
Velja načelo, da se kazniva dejanja preganjajo po uradni dolžnosti.
The principle is the public prosecution of offences by public prosecutor.
To ne povzroča težav.
This does not raise any difficulties.
V primeru takšnih kaznivih dejanj se uporablja člen 7b(1) zakona o mandatu, zahtevo pa predloži posrednik državnega tožilstva ministrstva za pravosodje, ki izpolnjuje pogoj „pristojnega organa“ v okviru pomena člena 6(2) Poslovnika.
In the case of such offences, Article 7b(1) of the Law on the Mandate applies and the request will be brought through the intermediary of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice, who fulfils the notion of a "competent authority" within the meaning of Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Zahteva za odvzem imunitete bi se morala šteti za dopustno.
The request for the waiver of immunity should be considered admissible.
b) postopki, ki jih sproži ali jih začne posameznik („nadomestni tožilec“)
b) proceedings initiated or pursued by a private person ("subsidiary prosecutor")
Razvrstitev kaznivega dejanja kot dejanja, ki ga preganja državno tožilstvo, se ne spremeni.
The categorisation of the offence as publicly prosecuted does not change.
Zato ne bi smelo biti pomembno, kdo sproži pregon ali ga začne, če zahtevo za odvzem vloži državno tožilstvo ministrstva za pravosodje.
Therefore it should not be relevant who initiates or pursues the prosecution as long as it is the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice who submits the request for the waiver.
Državno tožilstvo ministrstva za pravosodje se v takem primeru lahko šteje kot „posrednik“ za „nadomestnega tožilca“.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Justice in such case can be considered to act as "intermediary" for the "subsidiary prosecutor".
Deluje na podlagi člena 7b(1) zakona o mandatu in s tem kot „pristojni organ“ v okviru pomena člena 6(2) Poslovnika.
It will act on the basis of Article 7b(1) of the Law on the Mandate and thus as a "competent authority" within the meaning of Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Kazniva dejanja, ki se preganjajo na zasebno tožbo
Offences subject to private prosecution
Trenutno le pet kaznivih dejanj spada v kategorijo dejanj, ki se preganjajo na zasebno tožbo.
Currently there are only five offences that fall under the category of privately prosecuted.
a) postopki, ki jih sproži ali začne posameznik
a) proceedings initiated and pursued by the private person
Po členu 7b(2) zakona o mandatu zahtevo za dovoljenje za uvedbo kazenskega postopka zoper poslanca ali senatorja v primeru kaznivega dejanja, ki se preganja na zasebno tožbo, predloži zasebni tožilec, ko je bila zadeva predložena sodišču.
Under Article 7b(2) of the Law on the Mandate " An application for authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against a deputy or senator in the event of an offence subject to private prosecution shall be lodged by the private prosecuting party , once the matter has been referred to the courts. "
Zato je jasno, da so po poljski zakonodaji v zvezi s kaznivimi dejanji, ki se preganjajo na zasebno tožbo, za vložitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete pristojni samo posamezniki.
It is clear therefore that with respect to any privately prosecuted offence Polish law authorises only the private person to make a request for waiver of immunity.
Edini pogoj je, da mora biti takšna zahteva predložena, ko je bil primer predan sodišču.
The only condition is that such request is to be made once the case has been brought before the court.
To pa je v nasprotju s členom 6(2) Poslovnika.
This is at odds with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Ta člen določa, da mora zahtevo za odvzem vložiti „pristojni organ“ (poljsko „właściwy organ“) države članice.
That Rule requires a request for waiver to be made by a "competent authority " (in Polish " właściwy organ ") of a Member State.
Zahteve torej ne more vložiti kdor koli, temveč le: (i) organ države članice, (ii) ki ga je ta država članica pooblastila za vložitev takšne zahteve.
The request therefore cannot be made by simply anybody but has to come from: (i) the authority of the Member State, (ii) to which that Member State gave competence to make such request.
Za posameznike se ne more šteti, da imajo dodeljeno pristojnost iz člena 6(2).
Private persons cannot be considered as having the attribute of authority referred to in Rule 6(2).
Zatorej po tem členu nimajo možnosti, da bi vložili neposredno zahtevo za odvzem imunitete in se mora vsaka takšna zahteva šteti za nedopustno.
Accordingly, under that Rule they do not have any possibility of making a direct request for waiver of immunity and any such request will have to be deemed inadmissible .
Ta sklep velja ne glede na dejstvo, da je oseba v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo države članice pristojna, da vloži takšno zahtevo za odvzem neposredno, ne da bi jo posredoval ali preučil državni tožilec ali sodnik.
This conclusion holds good regardless of the fact that under the national law of a Member State a person is competent to make a request for the waiver directly without such request being submitted through or examined by the public prosecutor office or a judge.
b) postopki, ki jih sproži posameznik, h katerim je naknadno pristopil državni tožilec
b) proceedings initiated by a private person, to which the public prosecutor subsequently acceded
Enak sklep mora veljati tudi, če se državni tožilec pridruži osebi pri njenem zasebnem sodnem pregonu.
The same conclusion must be drawn in the event that the public prosecutor joins the person in his or her private prosecution.
Dejstvo, da državni tožilec pristopi k postopku, ne spremeni razvrstitve kaznivega dejanja iz zasebne v javno.
The fact that the public prosecutor accedes to the proceedings does not change the qualification of the offence from private to public.
Tako bi bilo le posamezniku omogočeno, da zahteva odvzem imunitete.
Thus only the private person would be allowed to request the immunity to be waived.
c) postopki, ki jih sproži državni tožilec (ob sodelovanju osebe, ki ima pravico, da deluje kot zasebni tožilec v postopkih pred sodiščem, ali brez njenega sodelovanja)
c) proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor (with or without participation of the person having the right to act as a private prosecutor in the proceedings before the court)
Podobno ta sklep velja, ko pregon za kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja na zasebno tožbo, sproži državni tožilec.
Similarly, the conclusion remains good when it is the public prosecutor who initiates the prosecution of a privately prosecuted offence.
Zdi se tudi, da je možnost, da državni tožilec primer uspešno obravnava pred sodiščem, odvisna od posameznikove zahteve za odvzem.
It seems also that the possibility for the public prosecutor to have the case successfully heard by the court would depend on the private person's request for the waiver.
Doslej Odbor za pravne zadeve še ni bil pozvan, naj poda mnenje o zadnjih dveh primerih, vendar pa je verjetno zgolj vprašanje časa, preden se bo pojavil takšen primer, glede na različne možne scenarije po poljski zakonodaji.
To date, the Committee on Legal Affairs has not been asked to pronounce on the last two cases; however, it is likely to be only a question of time before such a case arises, given the various scenarios possible under Polish law.
Dodatne opombe
Additional observations
Namen zahteve po „pristojnem organu“ iz člena 6(2) je zagotoviti, da Parlament prejme zahteve zgolj v postopkih, katerim so namenili pozornost organi države članice.
The purpose of the requirement for a "competent authority" in Rule 6(2) is to guarantee that Parliament receives only requests in proceedings that have received the attention of the authorities of a Member State.
Namen je državam članicam omogočiti, da obdržijo določeno mero nadzora nad zahtevami za odvzem imunitete poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, hkrati pa morajo zagotoviti, da so zahteve, vložene pri Evropskem parlamentu, resne.
The purpose is to give Member States the possibility to retain certain amount of control over requests for the waiver of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament, while guaranteeing at the same time that requests made to the European Parliament are serious.
Treba je tudi opozoriti, da se na pojem „organa“ jasno nanašata člena 6 in 7 Poslovnika v zvezi z vsemi vprašanji glede odnosov med pristojnim odborom in organi države članice v primerih o odvzemu imunitete.
It should also be noted that the notion of "authority" is clearly and consequently referred to in Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure with respect to all questions concerning relations between the committee responsible and authorities of a Member State in cases concerning waivers of immunity.
Glede na naravo aktov in postopkov je treba sklepati, da je to pristojnost treba dodeliti sodstvu.
Given the nature of the acts and proceedings involved, it should be inferred that this power should be vested in the judiciary.
V večini držav članic je to državno tožilstvo; v nekaterih primerih zakonodaja določa pravosodnega ministra, policijske organe, sodnika ali preprosto organ, ki je pristojen za postopke.
In most Member States, this is the public prosecutor's office; in some case the law designates the Minister of Justice, police authority, a judge or simply the authority in charge of proceedings.
V večini primerov je to organ, ki prevzame pobudo pri sprožitvi postopka.
In most cases this is the authority which takes the initiative in instituting proceedings.
Treba je poudariti, da se kljub temu, da je zasebni pregon kaznivih dejanj po zakonodajah različnih držav članic nekaj običajnega, možnost, da posameznik naslovi zahtevo za odvzem imunitete na Evropski parlament, zdi posebnost poljske zakonodaje.
It should be noted that, although private prosecution of offences is common under the laws of various Member States, the possibility for a private person to address a request for waiver of immunity directly to the European Parliament seems to be peculiar to Polish law.
V zvezi s poslanci, izvoljenimi na Poljskem, obstaja ne samo veliko pomanjkanje jasnosti, kako obravnavati zahteve za odvzem imunitete glede na določbe člena 7b(2) zakona o mandatu in člena 6(2), temveč obstaja tudi omejen nadzor nad resnostjo kaznivih dejanj, v zvezi s katerimi se vlagajo zahteve za odvzem.
As far as Members elected in Poland are concerned, there is not only a highly unsatisfactory lack of clarity as to how to treat certain requests for waiver of immunity in the light of the provisions of Article 7b(2) of the Law on the Mandate and Rule 6(2), but there is also a limited control over the seriousness of offences in respect of which requests for waiver are made.
Kaže tudi, da sedanja rešitev povzroča neenako obravnavanje prijaviteljev.
It also appears that the current solution creates unequal treatment of applicants.
Morebitno prenehanje mandata poslancev, izvoljenih na Poljskem
Potential loss of the mandate by the Member elected in Poland
Odbor za pravne zadeve je v svojih razpravah o imuniteti poslancev, izvoljenih na Poljskem, obravnaval tudi vprašanje morebitnih posledic odvzema imunitete.
In its debates on the immunity of Members elected in Poland, the Committee on Legal Affairs also addressed the question of the possible consequences of a waiver of immunity.
Če poslanca sodišče spozna za krivega, bi odvzem lahko povzročil izgubo poslančevega sedeža v skladu s členoma 9 in 142 akta o volitvah v Evropski parlament z dne 23. januarja 2004 (UL št. 25/2004, točka 219, kot je bila spremenjena).
Waiver might result, in the event that the Member is found guilty by the court, in a loss of his or her seat in accordance with Articles 9 and 142 of the Law on the elections to European Parliament of 23 January 2004 (OJ No 25/2004, item 219, as amended).
Ta zakon ureja pasivno volilno pravico in prenehanje mandata.
That Law regulates eligibility and loss of mandate.
Treba je opozoriti, da po členu 9(1) akta oseba lahko kandidira na volitvah v Parlament, če ni bila kaznovana zaradi naklepno storjenega kaznivega dejanja, ki se preganja po uradni dolžnosti.
It should be observed that under Article 9(1) of the Law a person is eligible for election to the Parliament if he or she " was not punished for an intentional offence prosecuted by public prosecution ".
V skladu s členom 142(1)(1) tega akta poslancu Parlamenta preneha mandat, če ne more več kandidirati na volitvah.
Under Article 142(1)(1) of that Law a Member of the Parliament loses his or her mandate if he or she ceases to be eligible for election.
Nevarnost prenehanja mandata se torej pojavi, če je poslanec spoznan za krivega za naklepno storjeno kaznivo dejanje, ki ga preganja državno tožilstvo.
The risk of losing the mandate occurs therefore when the Member is found guilty of committing a publicly prosecuted intentional offence.
Ni ustrezne določbe, ki bi se uporabljala za poslance poljskega sejma ali senata , ki v tem primeru ne izgubijo pasivne volilne pravice.
There is no equivalent provision applicable to members of the Polish Sejm or Senat, who do not cease to be eligible for election in such a case.
Ta diskriminatorna obravnava je bila predmet vprašanja za ustni odgovor
This discriminatory treatment was the subject of an oral question
Ne da bi zavzeli stališča do tega, kako bi se to vprašanje moralo rešiti, je treba poudariti, da veljavne določbe povzročajo neenako obravnavanje poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, izvoljenih na Poljskem, v primerjavi s poslanci nacionalnih parlamentov.
Without taking any position as to how this question should be resolved, it should be stressed that the provisions in force result in unequal treatment of Members of the European Parliament elected in Poland as compared with members of the national parliament.
Povzroča tudi razlike pri obravnavanju Evropskega parlamenta in nacionalnih parlamentov.
It also results in a differentiation of the treatment of the European and the national parliamentary assemblies.
Ker je Evropski parlament tisti, ki odloča o odvzemu imunitete, in če je takšen odvzem odobren, o primeru odloča nacionalno sodišče, takšno različno obravnavanje po zakonu med poslanci dveh parlamentov, izvoljenih v isti državi članici, pomeni, da je Evropski parlament dolžan, da pripravi še temeljitejšo in natančnejšo analizo vsake zahteve za odvzem imunitete, da zagotovi neodvisnost Evropskega parlamenta in enako obravnavanje svojih članov
Whereas it is for the European Parliament to decide on the waiver of immunity and, if such waiver is granted, it is for the national court to rule on the case, that such different treatment in law exists as between Members of two parliamentary assemblies elected in the same Member State also means that the European Parliament is duty bound to carry out an even more thorough and rigorous analysis of every request for waiver of immunity in order to guarantee the European Parliament's independence and equality of treatment of its Members.
Evropski parlament bi moral predvsem zagotoviti, da odvzem imunitete ne bi pomenil kršitve člena 10(1)(a) PPI.
The European Parliament would have to make sure in particular that waiving the immunity would not be tantamount in breaching Article 10, first paragraph, section a), of the PPI .