natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
6. ob upoštevanju mednarodnega pomena prenosa električne energije in vse večje občutljivosti evropske energetske sheme, kar zadeva zanesljivost posameznih shem držav članic, poudarja potrebo po poglobitvi sodelovanja, izmenjavi informacij in usklajevanju ukrepov med posameznimi shemami prenosa; zato podpira ustanovitev evropskega centra za usklajevanje shem prenosa držav članic;
Stresses the necessity, given the international importance of the transmission of electricity and ever greater sensitiveness of the European energy plan as regards the reliability of individual schemes of Member States, to deepen cooperation, exchange of information and coordination of actions among individual transmission schemes; for this purpose it supports the creation of European coordination centre of transmission schemes of Member States;
9. v zvezi s tem pozdravlja možnost ustanovitve evropskega omrežja neodvisnih regulatorjev (ERGEG+), ki bi omogočila formalizacijo vloge sedanje skupine evropskih regulatorjev za električno energijo in plin (ERGEG);
In this respect, welcomes the option of establishing a European network of independent regulators (ERGEG+) which would enable the role of the current Group of European electricity and gas regulators (ERGEG) to be formalised;
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Ashleyja Motea
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Ashley Mote
– ob upoštevanju zahteve, ki jo je Ashley Mote vložil 4. maja 2007 za zaščito svoje imunitete v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom pred sodiščem Združenega kraljestva, na plenarnem zasedanju pa je bila razglašena 10. maja 2007,
– having regard to the request of 4 May 2007 by Ashley Mote for defence of his immunity in connection with criminal proceedings pending before a court in the United Kingdom, announced in plenary sitting on 10 May 2007,
– po zaslišanju Ashleyja Motea v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Ashley Mote in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju člena 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 in člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
Zadeva 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krieru [1964] Poročila sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (ECR) 195 in zadeva 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju in drugim [1986] ECR 2391. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and Others [1986] ECR 2391. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0250/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0250/2007 ),
A. ker člen 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah določa, da „Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njegovi člani uživajo: (a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države;”,
A. whereas Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that "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 ...",
B. ker je bil zadevni kazenski postopek proti Ashleyu Moteu sprožen na ozemlju Združenega kraljestva,
B. whereas the criminal proceedings in question have been brought against Ashley Mote in the territory of the United Kingdom,
C. ker poslanci parlamenta Združenega kraljestva ne uživajo imunitete pred kazenskim pregonom,
C. whereas Members of the United Kingdom Parliament do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution,
D. ker Ashley Mote torej nima imunitete, ki bi jo bilo mogoče zaščititi,
D. whereas, therefore, Ashley Mote has no immunity to defend,
E. ker okoliščine ne predstavljajo upravne ali druge ovire za prosto gibanje poslanca do kraja zasedanja Parlamenta ali nazaj,
E. whereas the circumstances do not constitute an administrative or other restriction imposed on the free movement of the Member travelling to or from the place of meeting of Parliament,
Zahteva za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Ashleyja Motea
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Ashley Mote
Namestniki, (člen 178(2)), navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Alessandre Mussolini
on the request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini
– ob upoštevanju zahteve sodnice za predhodno zaslišanje Anne Marie Pagliari, da Evropski parlament odloči, ali je mogoče priznati poslansko imuniteto Alessandri Mussolini za izjave, ki jih je podala o Giuseppeju Pisanuju, za katere je slednji pričel civilni postopek pred Okrožnim sodiščem v Rimu, v katerem zahteva odškodnino zaradi obrekovanja (postopek št.
– having regard to the request by Anna Maria Pagliari, examining judge, for a decision of the European Parliament as to whether parliamentary immunity applies to the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini about Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, for which the latter brought civil proceedings against her before the District Court of Rome with a view to obtaining damages for defamation (procedure No.
R.G. 54191/05), s 24. julija 2006, na plenarnem zasedanju pa je bila razglašena 16. novembra 2006,
R.G. 54191/05), of 24 July 2006, as announced in plenary sitting on 16 November 2006,
– po zaslišanju Alessandre Mussolini v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Alessandra Mussolini in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju 68. člena ustave Italijanske republike,
– having regard to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic,
– ob upoštevanju člena 3 italijanskega zakona št. 140 z 20. junija 2003,
– having regard to Article 3 of Italian Law No. 140 of 20 June 2003,
– ob upoštevanju členov 6(1) in 7(13) poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(1) and 7(13) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0251/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0251/2007 ),
Na zasedanju 16. novembra 2006 je predsednik Parlamenta sporočil, da je prejel pismo s 24. julija 2006 s strani Anne Marie Pagliari, sodnice za predhodno zaslišanje Okrožnega sodišča v Rimu v zadevi št.
At the sitting of 16 November 2006, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request made on 24 July 2006 by Anna Maria Pagliari, examining Judge of the District Court of Rome in procedure No.
R.G. 54191/05 za odločitev od Evropskega parlamenta o tem, ali poslanska imuniteta velja za izjave, ki jih je podala Alessandra Mussolini.
R.G. 54191/05, for a decision of the European Parliament as to whether parliamentary immunity applies to the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini.
Zahteva sodišča, ki je bila takoj posredovana Odboru za pravne zadeve, se nanaša na civilni postopek, ki ga je Giuseppe Pisanu, tedanji italijanski minister za notranje zadeve, začel pred Okrožnim sodiščem v Rimu, da se ugotovi nezakonitost nekaterih izjav, ki jih je o njem izrekla poslanka Alessandra Mussolini ter ki so jih povzeli ali o njih poročali časopisi med 13. in 19. marcem 2005, ter da od Alessandre Mussolini dobi povračilo škode, ki jo je utrpel zaradi teh izjav.
The request of the court, which was duly forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs, relates to the civil proceedings that Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, the then Italian Minister for the Interior, brought before the District Court of Rome in order to establish the unlawful nature of certain statements made about him by Ms Alessandra Mussolini MEP and reported or referred to in the press between 13 and 19 March 2005, and to obtain redress from Ms Mussolini in respect of those statements.
4. marca 2005 je bila pri centralnem regionalnem uradu Višjega sodišča v Rimu deponirana regionalna lista "Alternativa sociale con Alessandra Mussolini" (v nadaljevanju "Alternativa sociale"), da bi lahko lista sodelovala na lokalnih volitvah v pokrajini Lacij 3. in 4. aprila 2005.
On 4 March 2005, the ' Alternativa Sociale con Alessandra Mussolini' (hereinafter ' Alternativa Sociale' ) regional list was deposited at the Central Regional Office at the Rome Court of Appeal with a view to its participation in the Lazio regional administrative elections called for 3 and 4 April 2005.
V dneh, ki so sledili predložitvi liste Alternativa sociale, so najpomembnejša nacionalna sredstva javnega obveščanja poročala, da so bile pri zbiranju podpisov v podporo kandidatom liste Alternativa sociale na teh regionalnih volitvah storjene hude nepravilnosti.
In the days following the submission of the Alternativa Sociale list, the main national information media reported that there had been serious irregularities with regard to the collection of signatures in support of the list of Alternativa Sociale candidates in the regional elections in question.
Ko so ta dejstva prišla na dan, so različni posamezniki in politične stranke državnim tožilcem v Rimu, Latini in Bologni podali izjave o verodostojnosti podpisov, ki so bili zbrani v zvezi s predložitvijo seznama kandidatov liste Alternativa sociale.
After these facts had emerged, various statements were lodged with the public prosecutors' offices in Rome, Latina and Bologna by various individuals and political parties concerning the authenticity of the signatures collected in connection with the submission of the list of Alternativa Sociale candidates.
Kasneje je z nalogom, izdanim 12. marca 2005, osrednji regionalni urad Višjega sodišča v Rimu izključil listo Alternativa socialne s sodelovanja na volitvah za novega predsednika regionalne vlade in regionalnega sveta pokrajine Lacij.
Subsequently, by order issued on 12 March 2005, the Central Regional Office at the Rome Court of Appeal excluded the 'Alternativa Sociale' list from participating in the elections for a new President of the Lazio regional government and to the regional council.
Kot je navedeno v sodnem pozivu, ki so ga v imenu Giuseppeja Pisanuja sestavili njegovi odvetniki, so časopisi in tiskovne agencije med drugimi povzeli naslednje izjave Alessandre Mussolini v zvezi s temi dogodki:
According to the writ of summons issued on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Pisanu by his lawyers, newspapers and press agencies reported, among others, the following statements of Ms Mussolini in connection with those events:
· "Jasno je, da se je Storace poslužil računalniškega piratstva s hekerji, ki so delovali nezakonito.
· '(It is) clear that Storace has engaged in IT piracy, with hackers breaking the law.
In to ob sodelovanju ministra Pisanuja ( ANSA, ob 20.02, 16. marec 2005);
And all with the complicity of Minister Pisanu' (ANSA 20.02 h, 16 March 2005);
Izročiti moram pismo, ki ga je Pisanu pisal predsedniku Višjega sodišča v Rimu, ki ga je vprašal kako bi lahko izključil listo Alternativa sociale, ko pa so podpise overili javni uslužbenci (...) dejansko je minister za sodnika, ki ga je vprašal, kako bi lahko izključil listo Alternativa sociale, dovolil odstopanje od predpisov (...) resnica prihaja na dan, Storace je vdrl v to dokumentacijo, kar je kaznivo dejanje (...).
I have to hand the letter which Pisanu wrote to the President of the Rome Appeal Court, who had asked him how he could exclude the Alternativa Sociale list when the signatures had been authenticated by public officials (...) in effect, the minister waived the rules for the judge who had asked him how he could eliminate the Alternativa Sociale list (...) the truth is coming out, Storace hacked into this documentation, which is a criminal offence (...).
S pomočjo računalniškega piratstva, na pobudo ministra Pisanuja (...)"
By means of computer piracy, at the suggestion of Minister Pisanu (...)'
(ANDKRONOS, ob 21.21, 16. marec 2005);
(ADNKRONOS 21.21 h, 16 March 2005 );
Da ne bi izgubil volitev, je Storace organiziral izjavo, ki je temeljila na podatkih, ki so jih ukradli hekerji in iz katerih se zdi, da nekateri od uporabljenih podpisov niso bili veljavni; da bi to naredil je za pomoč zaprosil Pisanuja, ki je poslal okrožnico Višjemu sodišču, Višje sodišče pa je sledilo nasvetu ministra za notranje zadeve in nas je izključilo" ("La Repubblica", 17. marca 2005);
To avoid losing the elections, Storace organised a statement based on data stolen by hackers from which it appears that some of the signatures collected by us were invalid; to do this he enlisted the help of Pisanu, who sent a circular to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal took the Ministry for the Interior's advice and excluded us' ( 'La Repubblica' of 17 March 2005);
Ustrezne določbe poslovnika sta člena 6 in 7, zlasti člena 6(1) in 7(13).
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 6 and 7, in particular paragraphs 1 of Rule 6 and paragraph 13 of Rule 7:
Člen 6: Odvzem imunitete
Rule 6 :Waiver of immunity
Člen 7: Postopki v zvezi z imuniteto
Rule 7 : Procedures on immunity
Ker je predsednik Parlamenta menil, da je zahteva italijanskega sodišča pomenila poizvedbo nacionalnega organa v smisli člena 7(13), je pričel postopek za posvetovanje o imuniteti Alessandre Mussolini, kot to predvideva zgoraj omenjeni poslovnik, in zahteva je bila razglašena v parlamentu.
As the President of Parliament considered that the request of the Italian court amounted to an inquiry made by a national authority within the meaning of Rule 7(13), he opened the procedure for consultation on Ms Mussolini's immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, and the request was announced in Parliament.
Člena 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European
Ti dve določbi se seveda izključujeta.
Of course, these two provisions are mutually exclusive.
Glede na to, da so vključena domnevno obrekovalna mnenja poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, je uporaba samo člena 9 protokola sama po sebi umevna.
As allegedly defamatory opinions expressed by a Member of the European Parliament are involved, the applicability of Article 9 alone of the Protocol is self-explanatory.
Italijansko sodišče je sklenilo, da se posvetuje z Evropskim parlamentom v skladu s členom 3 zakona št. 140 z 20. junija 2003.
The Italian court decided to consult the European Parliament pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 140 of 20 June 2003.
Slednji dejansko določa, da ko sodnik civilnega ali kazenskega sodišča ne sprejme ugovora toženca ali obrambe glede poslanske imunitete, mora pridobiti (ali, če še ne obstaja, zahtevati) odločitev ustrezne zbornice o tem, ali poslanska imuniteta zajema izjave poslanca, za katere tožnik ali urad državnega tožilca menita, da so predstavljale obrekovanje.
The latter basically provides that where a judge in a civil or criminal court does not decide to accept a plea made by the defence on the grounds of parliamentary immunity, he or she must obtain - or, if it does not already exist, request - the relevant Chamber's decision as to whether the remarks made by the Member, which the plaintiff or the Prosecutors' office alleges were defamatory, are covered by parliamentary immunity.
Določa se dobesedno sklicuje na poslansko imuniteto poslancev nacionalnega parlamenta v smislu člena 68(1) italijanske ustave, ki se glasi:
That provision literally refers to the parliamentary immunity of Members of the national Parliament within the meaning of Article 68, first subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution, which reads as follows:
Člen 68, prvi odstavek
Article 68, first subparagraph
Od poslancev ni mogoče zahtevati, da odgovarjajo za izraženo mnenje ali glas pri opravljanju svoje funkcije.
Members of Parliament may not be required to give account of any opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions.
Italijansko sodišče je upoštevalo tako člen 68 italijanske ustave kot tudi zakon 140/2003, ker " določbe o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti (člen 10 protokola 34, ki je priložen pogodbi s 8. aprila 1965), dajejo poslancem Evropskega parlamenta v zvezi z dogodki in postopki v poslančevi domači državi, enako imuniteto kot tisto, ki jo uživajo poslanci v svoji domači državi" in "zadevne določbe se sklicujejo na člen 68 ustave tako v vsebinskem kot tudi v postopkovnem smislu".
The Italian Court considered Article 68 of the Italian Constitution as well as law 140/2003 because "the rules on the privileges and immunities of the European Community (Article 10 of Protocol 34 annexed to the Treaty of 8 April 1965) give Members of the European Parliament, in respect of facts and proceedings relating to the Members’ home state, the same immunity as that enjoyed by Members of the Parliament of their home country" and "the provisions in question refer back to Article 68 of the Constitution in both substantive and procedural terms" .
V tem primeru, ker je Alessandra Mussolini poslanka Evropskega parlamenta in ne nacionalnega parlamenta, je sodišče pravilno presodilo, da mora to odločitev sprejeti Evropski parlament.
In this case, as Ms Mussolini is a Member of the European Parliament rather than the national parliament, the court correctly considered that the decision in question falls to the European Parliament.
Člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah določa, da poslanec Evropskega parlamenta uživa popolno imuniteto pred sodnimi postopki "zaradi mnenja ..., ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti".
Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
Dejansko je Alessandra Mussolini v svojih izjavah, ki so jih nato povzeli mediji, le komentirala javna dejstva, ki so imela evropsko politično razsežnost, saj so bila neposredno povezana s pravico volivcev do poštene volilne tekme in njihovega interesa, da so vsi kandidati vključeni vanjo.
As a matter of fact, in her statements as reported by the press, Ms Mussolini merely commented on facts in the public domain which had a European political dimension as they were directly linked to the voters' right to a fair electoral competition and their interest in having all candidates duly admitted to it.
Kljub izključno lokalni naravi italijanskih lokalnih volitev, je najširše možno izvrševanje te pravice zadevalo vsakega evropskega državljana, saj je šlo za specifično izražanje splošnih in temeljnih svoboščin, ki so zagotovljene s členom 6 PEU.
In spite of the merely local scope of the Italian administrative elections, the widest exercise of such a right concerned every European citizen as it was a particular expression of the general and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by Article 6 of the TEU.
Pri tem dejanju je opravljala dolžnost poslanke Evropskega parlamenta, saj je svojim volivcem izražala svoje mnenje o zadevi javnega interesa.
In so doing, she was carrying out her duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing her opinion on a matter of public interest to her constituents.
Poleg tega dejstvo, so se njene izjave nanašale na obnašanje politika in nosilca javne funkcije, te umešča v okvire legitimne politične razprave.
Moreover, the fact that the subject of her statements was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings them within the realm of legitimate political debate.
Po drugi strani, poskusi, da se poslance Evropskega parlamenta utiša pri izražanju svojih mnenj o zadevah, za katere vladata legitimni javni interes in zaskrbljenost, tako, da se proti njim sproži sodne postopke, so v demokratični družbi nesprejemljivi in očitno kršijo člen 9 Protokola, katerega namen je varovati svobodo izražanja poslancev pri izvrševanju njihovih dolžnosti v interesu Parlamenta kot institucije.
On the other hand, to seek to gag Members of Parliament from expressing their opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern by bringing legal proceedings is unacceptable in a democratic society and manifestly in breach of Article 9 of the Protocol, which is intended to protect Members' freedom of expression in the performance of their duties in the interests of Parliament as an Institution.
Na podlagi zgornjih zaključkov Odbor za pravne zadeve meni, da poslanska imuniteta po členih 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter, kolikor velja za ta primer, členu 68 italijanske ustave, v celoti zajema izjave, ki jih je podala Alessandra Mussolini, zato sklene, da bo zaščitil njeno imuniteto in privilegijev civilnem postopku št.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and, insofar as it is applicable, of Article 68 of the Italian Constitution fully covers the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini and therefore decides to defend her immunity and privileges in civil proceedings No.
Zahteva za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Alessandre Mussolini
Request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini
Okrožno sodišče v Rimu 24.7.2006 16.11.2006
District Court of Rome 24.7.2006 16.11.2006
o predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Direktive Sveta 78/855/EGS o združitvi delniških družb in Direktive Sveta 82/891/EGS o delitvi delniških družb v zvezi z zahtevo po neodvisnem strokovnem poročilu ob združitvi ali delitvi
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 78/855/EEC concerning mergers of public limited liability companies and Council Directive 82/891/EEC concerning the division of public limited companies as regards the requirement for an independent expert's report on the occasion of a merger or a division
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2007)0091 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0091 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 44(2)(g) Pogodbe o ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0082/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 44(2)(g) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0082/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0252/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0252/2007 ),
(2) Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/56/ES z dne 26. oktobra 2005 o čezmejnih združitvah kapitalskih družb določa oprostitev obveznosti, da načrt združitve preveri neodvisen strokovnjak, ki pripravi poročilo, če se vsi delničarji strinjajo, da takšno poročilo ni potrebno.
(2) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies provides for an exemption from the obligation to have the draft terms of merger examined by an independent expert and to have a report established by that expert, if all the shareholders agree that such a report is not needed.
(2) Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/56/ES z dne 26. oktobra 2005 o čezmejnih združitvah kapitalskih družb določa oprostitev obveznosti, da načrt združitve preveri neodvisen strokovnjak, ki pripravi poročilo za delničarje , če se vsi delničarji strinjajo, da takšno poročilo ni potrebno.
(2) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies provides for an exemption from the obligation to have the draft terms of merger examined by an independent expert and to have a report established by that expert for the shareholders , if all the shareholders agree that such a report is not needed.
(4) Ni razloga, da se zahteva takšna proučitev s strani neodvisnega strokovnjaka, če se vsi delničarji strinjajo, da je ne potrebujejo.
(4) There is no reason to require such an examination by an independent expert if all the shareholders agree that it may be dispensed with.