natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Čeprav bi tako dejanje lahko štelo za nedopustno z etičnega stališča in porajalo dvome glede primernosti odnosov med tiskom in poslanci, saj bi se lahko ustvaril vtis, da je šlo za značilno dejanje napeljevanja ( agents provocateurs ), ki do tega trenutka, kar je nenavadno, ni bilo predmet sodnega postopka, ni nobenih znakov, da bi šlo na strani romunskih sodnih organov za primer fumus persecutionis .
However much such action may be regarded as reprehensible from an ethical point of view and raise doubts as to the propriety of relations between the press and MEPs, to the extent that it could appear to be an act typical of agents provocateurs , who, as matters stand, – and this is strange –, have not been the subject of any judicial proceedings, there are no indications that it might be, on the part of the Romanian judicial authority, a case of fumus persecutionis .
To pomeni, da ni na voljo dovolj resnih in specifičnih razlogov za sum, da je bil postopek začet z izrecnim namenom političnega oškodovanja poslanca.
That is to say, there are no sufficiently serious and specific grounds for suspecting that the proceedings have been initiated with the precise intention of damaging the Member politically.
Notranja zakonodaja
In law
Romunsko kazensko pravo
Romanian criminal law
Zgoraj navedena dejanja po romunskem pravu urejajo določbe člena 6 zakona št. 78/2000 o preprečevanju, odkrivanju in kaznovanju kaznivih dejanj korupcije, v povezavi s členom 254 (korupcija) in členom 257 (trgovanje z vplivom) kazenskega zakonika, ter s členom 81(b) zakona št. 78/2000 o preprečevanju, odkrivanju in kaznovanju kaznivih dejanj korupcije.
Under Romanian law, provision is made for the above-mentioned acts in Article 6 of Law No 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and punishing offences of corruption, in conjunction with Article 254 (corruption) and Article 257 (influence peddling) of the Criminal Code, and with Article 81(b) of Law No 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and punishing offences of corruption.
Zgoraj omenjene določbe določajo naslednje:
The above-mentioned provisions stipulate the following:
Člen 6 zakona št. 78/2000 o preprečevanju, odkrivanju in kaznovanju kaznivih dejanj korupcije določa, da se kazniva dejanja pasivne korupcije (jemanje podkupnine) skladno s členom 254 kazenskega zakonika, aktivna korupcija (dajanje podkupnine) skladno s členom 255 kazenskega zakonika, prejemanje koristi, do katerih ni upravičen, skladno s členom 256 kazenskega zakonika in trgovanje z vplivom skladno s členom 257 kazenskega zakonika kaznujejo skladno z ustreznimi pravnimi določbami.
Article 6 of Law No 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and punishing offences of corruption states that the criminal offences of passive corruption (bribe-taking), under Article 254 of the Criminal Code, active corruption (bribe giving), under Article 255 of the Criminal Code, the receiving of undue benefits, under Article 256 of the Criminal Code, and influence peddling, under Article 257 of the Criminal Code, are to be punished according to the relevant legal texts.
Člen 254 kazenskega zakonika določa:
Article 254 of the Criminal Code states that:
(1) Ravnanje javnega uslužbenca, ki neposredno ali posredno zahteva ali prejme denar ali druge koristi, do katerih ni upravičen, ali jih ne zavrne, z namenom, da opravi ali ne opravi dejanja, povezanega z njegovo funkcijo, ali zadrži njegovo dokončanje, ali da deluje v nasprotju s svojo funkcijo, se kaznuje s kaznijo od 3 do 12 let zapora in z izgubo določenih pravic.
(1) An act of a public official who, directly or indirectly, requests or receives money or other benefits that are not due to him, or does not reject them, in order to perform, fail to perform or delay the completion of an act relating to his duties, or in order to act against those duties, shall be punished by 3-12 years of imprisonment and the loss of certain rights.
(2) Če dejanje iz odstavka 1 stori javni uslužbenec, ki ima nadzorno funkcijo, se to kaznuje s kaznijo od 3 do 15 let zapora in izgubo določenih pravic.
(2) The act referred to in paragraph 1, if committed by a public official having a supervisory role, shall be punished by 3-15 years of imprisonment and the loss of certain rights.
Člen 257 kazenskega zakonika določa:
Article 257 of the Criminal Code states that:
(1) Če oseba, ki ima ali daje vedeti, da ima zadosten vpliv nad javnim uslužbencem, da ga lahko pripravi do tega, da opravi uradno dejanje, ki bi ga moral opraviti, ali da ga ne opravi, sprejme ali zahteva dobrine ali druge koristi, tj. sprejme neposredno ali posredno obljubo ali darila zanj ali za koga drugega, se to kaznuje s kaznijo od 2 do 10 zapora.
(1) Acceptance of, or a request for, goods or other benefits, i.e. acceptance of promises or gifts, either directly or indirectly, for himself or for a third party, on the part of a person who has, or leads people to believe he has, sufficient influence over a public official to make him perform or fail to perform an act that is part of his official duties, shall be punished by 2-10 years of imprisonment.
Člen 81(b) zakona št. 78/2000 o preprečevanju, odkrivanju in kaznovanju kaznivih dejanj korupcije določa, da se določbe iz členov 254–257 kazenskega zakonika in členov 61 in 82 zakona št. 78/2000 uporabljajo tudi za naslednje kategorije:
Article 81(b) of Law No 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and punishing offences of corruption stipulates that the provisions of Articles 254-257 of the Criminal Code and Articles 61 and 82 of Law No 78/2000 also apply to the following categories:
'b) poslance parlamentarnih skupščin mednarodnih organizacij, katerih član je Romunija.
'b) members of the parliamentary assemblies of the international organisations of which Romania is a member.'
V tem primeru pristojnost nacionalnega protikorupcijskega urada potrjujejo določbe člena 13 nujne vladne odredbe št. 43/2002 o nacionalnem protikorupcijskem uradu, ki določa, da je za kazniva dejanja po zakonu št. 78/2000 o preprečevanju, odkrivanju in kaznovanju kaznivih dejanj korupcije, skupaj z naknadnimi spremembami ali dodatki, pristojen nacionalni protikorupcijski urad, kadar so storjena v eni od naslednjih okoliščin:
In the case at issue the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Department is confirmed by the provisions of Article 13 of the government's Emergency Order No 43/2002 concerning the National Anti-Corruption Department, which stipulates that offences under Law No 78/2000 on preventing, detecting and punishing offences of corruption, together with subsequent amendments and additions, fall within the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Department where they take place in one of the following situations:
a) kadar materialna škoda, ki so jo dejanja povzročila, ne glede nato, kdo so storilci kaznivih dejanj, presega protivrednost zneska 200 000EUR v romunski lejih, ali kadar so dejanja povzročila zelo resne motnje v dejavnosti javnega organa, javne institucije ali druge pravne osebe, ali kadar je vrednost zneska ali dobrine, ki je predmet kaznivega dejanja korupcije, večja od protivrednosti 10.000 EUR v romunski lejih.
a) 'where, regardless of the quality of the persons who committed them, the offences in question caused material damage greater than the equivalent in Romanian Lei of EUR 200 000, or where they caused particularly serious disturbance to the activity of a public authority, public institution or any other legal person, or where the value of the sum or asset which is the subject of the corruption offence is greater than the equivalent in Romanian Lei of EUR 10 000;
b) kadar ne glede na vrednost materialne škode ali resnost motnje, povzročene javnemu organu, javni instituciji ali drugi pravni osebi, ali vrednost zneska ali dobrine, ki je predmet kaznivega dejanja korupcije, taka kazniva dejanja storijo [...] osebe iz člena 81 zakona št. 78/2000 ter naknadnih sprememb ali dodatkov [...].
b) where, regardless of the value of the material damage or the seriousness of the disturbance caused to a public authority, public institution or any other legal person, or of the value of the sum or asset which is the subject of the corruption offence, such offences are committed [...] by the persons referred to in Article 81 of Law No 78/2000, together with subsequent amendments and additions [...].'
Člen 11 kazenskega zakonika določa, da se kazensko pravo uporablja za kazniva dejanja, ki jih zunaj romunskih meja storijo romunski državljani ali osebe brez državljanstva, kadar se zadevno dejanje šteje za kaznivo tudi po kazenskem pravu države, v kateri je bilo kaznivo dejanje storjeno.
Article 11 of the Criminal Code stipulates that criminal law is applied to criminal offences committed outside Romanian borders by Romanian citizens or stateless persons where the act in question is regarded as an offence also under the criminal law of the country in which the offence was committed.
Protokol št. 7 o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, ki je priloga k pogodbam:
Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaties:
Člen 9:
'Article 9:
a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
b) na ozemlju drugih držav članic imuniteto pred kakršnim koli ukrepom ali priporom in sodnim postopkom.
b) in the territory of other Member States, immunity from any measure or detention and from legal proceedings.
Kadar je član zaloten pri kaznivem dejanju, sklicevanje na imuniteto ni mogoče in Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members'.
Določbe romunske ustave glede imunitete poslancev romunskega parlamenta – člen 72(2):
Provisions of the Romanian Constitution concerning the immunity of Members of the Romanian Parliament – Article 72(2):
Zoper poslance in senatorje se lahko uvede kazenska preiskava ali kazenski pregon za dejanja, ki niso povezana z njihovim glasovanjem ali političnim mnenjem, izraženim med opravljanjem njihovega mandata, vendar se jih brez soglasja zbora, ki mu pripadajo, po njihovem predhodnem zaslišanju ne sme preiskati, pridržati ali prijeti.
'Deputies and Senators may be subject to criminal investigation, or criminally prosecuted for acts that are not connected with their votes or their political opinions expressed in the exercise of their office, but shall not be searched, detained or arrested without the consent of the Chamber they belong to, after being heard.
Preiskavo in pregon lahko izvaja le državni tožilec vrhovnega kasacijskega sodišča.
The investigation and prosecution shall only be carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
Za ta primer je pristojno vrhovno kasacijsko sodišče.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice shall have jurisdiction over this case.'
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 6(2) Poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti poslančeve imunitete, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against waiving the Member's immunity, recommends that the European Parliament should waive
odvzame poslansko imuniteto Adrianu Severinu, hkrati pa meni, da do pravnomočnosti sodbe poslancu ni mogoče odvzeti prostosti ali ga zapreti ali zoper njega uvesti ukrepe, ki mu onemogočajo izvrševanje nalog iz njegovega mandata.
the parliamentary immunity of Adrian Severin, while considering that, until a final sentence is passed, the Member should be immune from any form of detention or remand or any other measure which prevents that Member from performing the duties proper to the mandate.
o zavarovalnih jamstvenih shemah
on Insurance Guarantee Schemes
MNENJE Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov .........................12
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 12
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 12. julija 2010 z naslovom Bela knjiga o zavarovalnih jamstvenih shemah ( KOM(2010)0370 ),
– having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 July 2010, entitled ‘White Paper on Insurance Guarantee Schemes’ ( COM(2010)0370 ),
– ob upoštevanju Direktive 2009/138/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. novembra 2009 o začetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti zavarovanja in pozavarovanja (Solventnost II)
– having regard to Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)
UL L 335, 17.12.2009, str.
OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p.
– ob upoštevanju Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (EU) št. 1094/2010 z dne 24. novembra 2010 o ustanovitvi Evropskega nadzornega organa (Evropski organ za zavarovanja in poklicne pokojnine)
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority)
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 4. julija 2006 o krizi družbe Equitable Life Assurance Society
– having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2006 on the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society
– ob upoštevanju končnega poročila z dne 23. maja 2007 svojega preiskovalnega odbora o krizi družbe „Equitable Life Assurance Society“ ( A6-0203/2007 ),
– having regard to the final report of 23 May 2007 of its Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society ( A6-0203/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve ter mnenj Odbora za pravne zadeve in Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov ( A7-0243/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection ( A7-0243/2011 ),
A. ker je finančna kriza pokazala, da je zaupanje potrošnikov v finančni sistem hitro omajano, če ni ustreznih odškodninskih postopkov v zvezi z njihovimi izgubami, do katerih pride zaradi propada finančne institucije,
A. whereas the financial crisis has demonstrated that consumer confidence in the financial system can be quickly undermined in the absence of adequate compensation processes for consumer losses incurred as a result of the failure of financial institutions,
B. ker so lahko zavarovalne jamstvene sheme dragoceno orodje za zmanjšanje tveganj, s katerimi se imetniki zavarovalnih polic ali, kjer je to ustrezno, upravičenci soočijo v primeru propada zavarovalne družbe,
B. whereas Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGSs) can be a valuable tool in reducing the risks facing policy-holders or, where appropriate, beneficiaries in the event of the failure of an insurance entity,
C. ker potreba po zavarovalnih jamstvenih shemah, njihova funkcija in struktura niso v skladu niti s sistemi zajamčenih vlog niti z odškodninskimi shemami za vlagatelje, in sicer zaradi različnih poslovnih modelov zavarovateljev in ker so potrošniki v primeru zavarovateljevega propada izpostavljeni tveganju v različnem obsegu,
C. whereas the necessity, function and structure of IGSs are not analogous with those of either deposit guarantee schemes or investor compensation schemes, on account of the different business model used by insurers and the different degree to which consumers are exposed to risk in the event of the failure of an insurer,
D. ker v državah članicah obstaja veliko število zavarovalnih jamstvenih shem, ki omogočajo različno raven varstva potrošnikov na podlagi različnih vrst produktov in različnih modelov financiranja,
D. whereas a wide range of IGSs exist in the Member States, offering varying degrees of consumer protection across various product lines on the basis of various funding models,
E. ker pri imetnikih zavarovalnih polic ali, kjer je to ustrezno, upravičencih ni opaznejših izgub zaradi finančne krize, evropska zavarovalna panoga pa je krizo prestala razmeroma nepoškodovana,
E. whereas there have been no notable insurance policy-holder or, where appropriate, beneficiary losses as a result of the financial crisis, and whereas the European insurance industry has emerged from the crisis comparatively unscathed,
F. ker uvaja direktiva Solventnost II lestvico nadzornih intervencij, ki naj bi kar se da zmanjšale možnost, da bi šel zavarovatelj v stečaj, zaradi česar bi bili imetniki zavarovalnih polic ali, kjer je to ustrezno, upravičenci oškodovani,
F. whereas Solvency II introduces a ladder of supervisory intervention minimising the likelihood of an insurer going bankrupt and the disruption to policyholders or, where appropriate, beneficiaries resulting from such an event,
G. ker bo uvedba direktive Solventnost II in zavarovalnih jamstvenih shem prispevala k vzpostavitvi enakih konkurenčnih pogojev na evropskem zavarovalnem trgu in pripomogla, da se vzpostavi notranji trg,
G. whereas the introduction of Solvency II and IGSs will contribute to the establishment of a level playing field on the European insurance market and help to bring about the completion of the internal market,
H. ker so po direktivi Solventnost II terjatve imetnikov polic ali, kjer je to ustrezno, upravičencev varne, če zavarovatelj začne postopek nesolventnosti (če prekrši zahtevani solventnostni kapital), ogrožene pa so samo, če gre zavarovatelj v stečaj (če nima dovolj premoženja za pokritje svojih obveznosti),
H. whereas under Solvency II policy-holder or, where appropriate, beneficiary claims are secure when an insurer enters into insolvency (when the insurer breaches its Solvency Capital Requirement), and only become at risk if the insurer goes bankrupt (when its assets are insufficient to cover its liabilities),
I. ker je čezmejnega zagotavljanja zavarovanj v EU malo, zaradi uvedbe direktive Solventnost II pa bi utegnilo porasti, saj ta z vseevropsko strukturo podružnic omogoča kapitalske ugodnosti,
I. whereas cross-border provision of insurance in the EU is low but likely to grow as a result of the introduction of Solvency II, owing to the capital benefits offered by a branch-based pan-European structure,
J. ker pomanjkanje usklajenih ureditev za zavarovalne jamstvene sheme na evropski ravni in raznoliki režimi v državah članicah povzročajo neučinkovito in neenako varstvo imetnikov zavarovalnih polic ter z izkrivljanjem čezmejne konkurence upočasnjujejo delovanje zavarovalniškega trga,
J. whereas the lack of harmonised IGSs at European level and the diversity of regimes in Member States have led to ineffective and uneven protection for insurance policy-holders and have slowed down the functioning of the insurance market by distorting cross-border competition,
K ker lahko zaupanje potrošnikov v delovanje notranjega trga finančnih storitev zagotovimo samo z dosledno ravnjo varstva potrošnikov, ne glede na izvor ponudnika storitev, in sicer predvsem s skladno uporabo trdnih bonitetnih pravil in z učinkovitim nadzorom, ki ga izvajajo Evropski nadzorni organ za zavarovanja in poklicne pokojnine (organ EIOPA) ter, kjer je to ustrezno, pristojni nacionalni organi,
K whereas consumer trust in the functioning of the internal market in financial services can only be assured by a consistent level of consumer protection regardless of the origin of the service provider, primarily through the consistent application of sound prudential rules and effective supervision by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and, where appropriate, national competent authorities,
L. ker je treba nevarnost, da bi propad finančnih institucij ogrozil davkoplačevalce, z učinkovitim in sorazmernim pregledom nad nacionalnimi in evropskimi nadzorniki obdržati na čim nižji ravni,
L. whereas taxpayers’ exposure to the failure of financial institutions must be kept at a minimum through effective and proportionate oversight by national and European supervisors,
4. priznava, da bi možnosti za neenake konkurenčne pogoje lahko povzročile regulativno arbitražo, ki bi vplivala na zavarovalne jamstvene sheme; poziva Komisijo, naj pregleda medsebojno učinkovanje med usklajevanjem in izvajanjem shem iz vse EU ter načelom matične države, da pojasni, ali gre za pomembno izkrivljanje trga ali ne; meni, da bi ta pregled lahko izvedli tri leta po celovitem izvajanju direktive Solventnost II;
Acknowledges that the potential for an uneven playing field could cause regulatory arbitrage, which would affect IGSs; calls on the Commission to examine the interplay between harmonisation and the application of schemes from across the EU and the home state principle to clarify whether or not a significant distortion of the market occurs; considers that this review should be conducted three years after the full implementation of Solvency II;
9. priznava, da bi uveljavljanje načela subsidiarnosti pri izbiri modelov vnaprejšnjega ali naknadnega financiranja lahko privedla do konkurenčnih izkrivljenj med državami članicami; meni, da imajo tovrstne motnje enak vpliv na varstvo potrošnikov in davkoplačevalcev ter da bi morala Komisija k obravnavanju tovrstnih motenj pristopiti previdno in dolgoročno;
Acknowledges that the application of the subsidiarity principle in relation to the choice of ex-ante or ex-post funding models may result in competitive distortions between Member States; believes that such distortions have an equal bearing on both consumer and taxpayer protection and that the Commission should take a cautious, long-term approach to addressing such distortions;
– odškodnina: izgube, ki jih utrpijo imetniki polic ali upravičenci v primeru nesolventnosti zavarovatelja, se neposredno nadomestijo z rednim postopkom reševanja odškodninskih zahtevkov;
– compensation: losses faced by policy-holders or beneficiaries in the event of the insolvency of an insurer are directly compensated following an orderly claims-settlement process;
– neprekinjenost: neprekinjenost zavarovalnih pogodb se zagotovi s prenosom portfelja na preostale zavarovatelje na trgu ali na poseben subjekt, ustanovljen v ta namen;
– continuity: the continuity of insurance contracts is secured through portfolio transfers to the remaining insurers in the market or to a special entity created for this purpose;
priporoča, naj bosta v prihodnjem okviru zavarovalne jamstvene sheme dovoljena oba pristopa, ob upoštevanju različnih velikosti, koncentracij, zasnov produktov in ustreznih vrst zavarovanj, ki se ponujajo na nacionalnih trgih;
recommends that both approaches should be permitted under the future IGS framework, taking into account the differences between national markets in terms of size, concentration, product design and range of insurance products offered;
16. meni, da mora Komisija zaradi zagotovitve celovite in stalne zaščite za imetnike polic in upravičence ohraniti in upoštevati druge obstoječe zaščitne mehanizme in zakonodajne določbe; je prepričan, da je treba zavarovalne jamstvene sheme uporabiti, kadar odpovejo drugi zaščitni mehanizmi;
Argues that, in order to ensure comprehensive and continuous protection for policy-holders and beneficiaries, the Commission should retain and take into account other protection mechanisms and legislative provisions that are already in place; believes that IGSs should be activated when other protection mechanisms have failed;