natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(2) Brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, se proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je predpisana obvezna aretacija.
(2) No members of Parliament shall, without the authorisation of the Chamber to which they belong, be subjected to search warrants on their persons or in their homes, nor arrested or otherwise deprived of personal freedom, nor kept in state of detention, save in the case of execution of an irrevocable sentence of conviction, unless they be caught in the act of committing an offence for which an order of arrest is mandatory.
(3) Podobna odobritev je potrebna tudi, če naj se proti poslancem uvede katera koli oblika prisluškovanja njihovim pogovorom ali komunikaciji in če naj se zasežejo njihova sporočila po elektronski pošti ali korespondenca.
(3) A similar authorisation shall be required in order to subject Members of Parliament to any form of interception of their conversations or communications, and in order to seize their mail or correspondence.
Renato Brunetta se zagovarja, da sta njegova politična dejavnost in mesto urednika povezana ter zahteva, da se uporabi prvi odstavek člena 68(1) italijanske ustave, ki navaja, da: „Od poslancev ni mogoče zahtevati, da odgovarjajo za izraženo mnenje ali glas pri opravljanju svoje funkcije“.
Mr Brunetta argues that there is a nexus between his political activity and his function of editor and calls for the application of the first paragraph of Article 68(1) of the Italian Constitution, which provides that: “Members of Parliament cannot be held accountable for the opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of their function”.
To zahtevo si je treba razlagati kot zahtevo za uporabo člena 9 Protokola, saj je Brunetta (nekdanji) poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, sporna knjiga pa je bila objavljena, ko je bil še poslanec.
This request should be construed as a request for the application of Article 9 of the Protocol given that Mr Brunetta is a (former) member of the European Parliament and the book in question was published when he was still a member.
Brunetta – sourednik knjige o enem pomembnejših in kontroverznih vidikov vpliva ZSSR na italijansko in evropsko politiko – je sočasno opravljal dolžnosti poslanca Parlamenta.
Mr Brunetta, in his capacity as the editor of a book about one of more important and controversial aspects of the influence of the USSR on Italian and European politics, was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament.
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.
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.
Kot sourednik politične knjige, v kateri je zgolj opis zadeve, ki je za italijansko in evropsko politično življenje ključnega pomena, je Brunetta opravljal naloge poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, saj je svojim volivcem predstavil svoje mnenje o zadevi javnega interesa.
As co-editor of a political book that merely describes a matter of key importance for Italian and European political life, Mr Brunetta was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti imunitete Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament zaščiti poslansko imuniteto Renata Brunette.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Renato Brunetta be defended.
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Alda Patriciella
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Aldo Patriciello
PRILOGA: Člen 68(2) italijanske ustave:......................................................................................9
ANNEX: Article 68(2) of the Italian Constitution...........................................................................9
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Alda Patriciella za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom, ki je bil sprožen proti njemu pred okrožnim sodiščem v Campobassu, z dne 11. novembra 2008, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 20. novembra 2008,
– having regard to the request by Aldo Patriciello for defence of his immunity in connection with criminal proceedings brought against him before the District Court of Campobasso, of 11 November 2008, announced in plenary sitting on 20 November 2008,
– po zagovoru Alda Patriciella, opravljenem v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Aldo Patriciello in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities ("the Protocol"), 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,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0196/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0196/2009 ),
A. ker je Aldo Patriciello poslanec Evropskega parlamenta in je Parlament veljavnost njegovega mandata preveril 15. junija 2006,
A. whereas Aldo Patriciello is a Member of the European Parliament whose credentials were verified by Parliament on 15 June 2006,
B. ker morajo v skladu s stališčem Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti Evropski parlament in nacionalni pravosodni organi sodelovati v izogib vsakemu konfliktu pri razlagi in izvrševanju določb Protokola; zato velja naslednje: ko se pred nacionalnim sodiščem začne postopek proti poslancu Evropskega parlamenta in je to sodišče obveščeno, da se je začel postopek za zaščito privilegijev in imunitete po členu 6(3) Poslovnika, mora to sodišče zadržati nadaljevanje sodnega postopka in od Parlamenta zahtevati, naj v čim krajšem času izda svoje mnenje
B. whereas, according to the Court of Justice, the European Parliament and the national judicial authorities must cooperate in order to avoid any conflict in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Protocol; whereas, consequently, where an action has been brought against a Member of the European Parliament before a national court and that court is informed that a procedure for defence of the privileges and immunities of that Member, as provided for in Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, has been initiated, that court must stay the judicial proceedings and request Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible
Sodba v združenih primerih C-200/07 in C-201/07, Marra, odstavka 42 in 43. ,
Judgment in Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra , at paragraphs 42 and 43. ,
C. ker po členu 10 Protokola poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države, in ker se na imuniteto ni mogoče sklicevati, kadar se poslanca zaloti pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja; ker to Parlamentu ne preprečuje, da bi uveljavljal pravico do nepriznanja imunitete kateremu izmed svojih poslancev
C. whereas, according to Article 10 of the Protocol, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their parliament and whereas immunity cannot be claimed where a Member is caught in the act of committing an offence; whereas this does not prevent Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members
Člen 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z 8. aprila 1965. ,
Article 10 of the Protocol. ,
D. ker se za ta primer uporabljajo določbe člena 68(2) italijanske ustave, ki dovoljuje uvedbo kazenskih postopkov proti poslancem Parlamenta brez kakšnih posebnih formalnosti, pri čemer se brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je v primeru flagrante delicto predpisana obvezna aretacija,
D. whereas, therefore, the provision applicable to the case in question is Article 68(2) of the Italian Constitution, which allows criminal proceedings to be brought against Members of Parliament without any special formalities, given its provision that, without the leave of the Chamber to which the Member belongs, a search may not be carried out on either the person or the domicile of a Member of Parliament and a Member may not be arrested or otherwise deprived of his or her personal freedom or kept in detention, except to enforce a final conviction or where the Member is caught in the act of committing a crime for which arrest is mandatory in the case of flagrante delicto ,
E. ker Protokol v sedanji obliki Evropskemu parlamentu ne omogoča sprejetja zavezujočih ukrepov za zaščito Alda Patriciella,
E. whereas, as it stands, the Protocol does not afford the European Parliament the means of taking binding action in order to protect Aldo Patriciello,
Zahteva se nanaša na kazenski postopek, ki ga je proti Aldu Patriciellu začel urad državnega tožilca ter trenutno poteka pred okrožnim sodiščem v Campobassu (zadeva 106/2004 r.g.n.r.).
The request relates to the criminal proceedings brought by the Public Prosecutor's Office against Mr Patriciello and currently pending before the District Court of Campobasso (Case No 106/2004 r.g.n.r.).
Aldo Patriciello je bil obtožen kaznivih dejanj po členih 81(2), 323(1) in (2), 640(a), 56, 640(2) št. 1, 56 in 316(a) kazenskega zakonika ter kaznivih dejanj po členih 31, 32(1) in (3) ter 44(c) konsolidiranega akta o gradbenem sektorju ( Testo Unico sull’Edilizia ).
Mr Patriciello was charged with offences under Articles 81(2), 323(1) and (2), 640(a), 56, 640 second paragraph No 1, 56, 316(a) of the Criminal Code, and offences under Articles 31, 32(1) and (3), 44(c) of the Consolidated Act on the Construction Sector ( Testo Unico sull’Edilizia ).
Obtožnica, ki jo je sestavil lokalni državni tožilec, navaja, da je Aldo Petriciello, ki "... je bil v času storitve kaznivih dejanj podpredsednik in svetnik pokrajine Molise..." ter "... vplivna in močna referenca ter politična opora, pa tudi pravi "lastnik" in ustanovitelj Neuromeda – moralna in finančna referenčna točka..." pri omenjenih kaznivih dejanjih sodeloval s tedanjim predsednikom in direktorjem Neuromeda – Mediteranskega nevrološkega instituta, tedanjim pravnim zastopnikom fundacije "Paola Pavone", tedanjim generalnim direktorjem oddelka za zdravje in politiko socialne varnosti pokrajine Molise ter tedanjim generalnim direktorjem urada za zdravje mesta Campobasso.
The charges brought by the local public prosecutor alleged that Mr Patriciello, who ‘ at the time of the facts was Vice-President and Councillor of the Molise Region’ and ‘an influential, powerful point of reference and political “backer”, as well as the true ‘proprietor’ and creator of Neuromed – a moral and financial point of reference’ , played a part in the aforementioned offences together with the then chair and the then managing director of Neuromed - Mediterranean Neurological Institute, the then legal representative of the 'Paola Pavone' Foundation, the then Director-General of the Department of Health and Social Security Policies of the Molise Region and the then Director-General of the Campobasso Health Authority.
Inštitut naj bi tudi ustvaril znaten dobiček s ponujenimi storitvami, ki jih je pokrajina Molise znatno povračala, v škodo tako javnim organom kot vsej skupnosti".
It also sought to make further substantial profit from the services provided, which were handsomely reimbursed by the Molise Region, to the detriment of both the authority and the entire community ’.
Aldo Patriciello je bil omenjenih kaznivih dejanj obtožen še v zvezi z gradnjo objektov, saj naj bi v sodelovanju z drugimi obtoženci "... spremenil namembnost objekta..." v občini Salcito "... iz doma za starejše občane v sodobni center za rehabilitacijo...", kar naj bi storil brez potrebnega upravnega dovoljenja ter uporabil objekt, ki "... ni imel več licence, ki mu je bila dodeljena brezplačno za prvotni socialni namen, ki pa je zastaral".
Mr Patriciello was also charged with the aforementioned town-planning offences because, in cooperation with other defendants, he allegedly ‘ altered the official purpose of the facility ’ in the municipality of Salcito ‘ from a care home for the elderly to an advanced rehabilitation centre ’ without the necessary administrative clearance, using a facility that ‘ no longer had a licence given that it had been granted free of charge for its original social objective, which had become obsolete ’.
Glede uporabe člena 9 je treba opozoriti, da se obtožnica proti Aldu Patriciellu ne nanaša na mnenja, ki so bila izražena, ali glasove, ki so bili oddani pri opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, iz jasnega razloga, da poneverjanja javnih sredstev ali kaznivih dejanj v zvezi z gradnjo objektov ni mogoče enačiti z mnenjem ali glasom.
As for the applicability of Article 9, it should be noted that the charges brought against Mr Patriciello do not refer to the opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a member of the European Parliament, for the clear reason that embezzlement of public funds or town planning offences cannot be equated with an "opinion" or a "vote".
Kar zadeva člen 10, pa je – glede na dejstvo, da se obtožnica proti Patriciellu nanaša na dejanja, storjena v Italiji, katere državljanstvo je imel takrat – veljavni le sledeči del: „ Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njegovi poslanci uživajo a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države”.
As for Article 10, given that the charges brought against Mr Patriciello refer to facts committed in Italy, whose citizenship he 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 ".
Obseg poslanske imunitete v Italiji je zelo podoben tistemu, ki ureja delovanje Evropskega parlamenta in temelji na Protokolu.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in Italy is very similar to the one that serves the functioning of the European Parliament, based on the Protocol.
Člen 68(2) italijanske ustave se glasi:
Article 68(2) of the Italian Constitution reads as follows:
Člen 68(2)
Article 68 (2)
Brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, se proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je v primeru flagrante delicto predpisana obvezna aretacija.
Without authorisation from the House to which they belong, no member of Parliament may be subjected to a personal search or have their domicile searched, neither may they be arrested or otherwise deprived of personal freedom, or kept in detention, except to enforce a final conviction, or if caught in the act of committing a crime for which arrest is mandatory.
Z drugimi besedami je po italijanski ustavi mogoče začeti kazenski postopek zoper poslance parlamenta brez posebnih formalnosti, dovoljenje pa je potrebno le v nekaterih posebnih primerih.
In other words, under the Italian Constitution, criminal proceedings may be initiated against Members of Parliament without any special formalities, an authorisation being necessary only in some specific cases.
Na podlagi omenjenih in dostopnih dokumentov je treba zaključiti, da se Patriciellov primer s pravnega stališča ne more obravnavati kot primer zaščite imunitete s strani Evropskega parlamenta.
On the basis of the foregoing and the available documents, it has to be concluded that, from a legal point of view, Mr Patriciello's case cannot be regarded as a case of immunity to be defended by the European Parliament.
Primer Alda Patriciella v celoti sodi v italijansko zakonodajo.
In the final analysis, Mr Patriciello's case falls entirely under Italian legislation.
Na sedanji stopnji kazenskega postopka proti Aldu Patriciellu prej omenjeni člen 68(2) italijanske ustave ne ogroža njegovih posebnih pravic poslanca: tako kot to velja za poslance italijanskega parlamenta, ne uživa imunitete pred kazenskim pregonom.
At the present stage of the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Patriciello, the above-mentioned Article 68(2)of Italian Constitution does not endanger his prerogatives as a parliamentarian: in the same way as Members of the Italian Parliament, he does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution as such.
Posledično ni dvoma, da točka člen 10(a) Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah v sedanji obliki, ki prepušča zaščito poslancev nacionalnim zakonodajam, Evropskemu parlamentu v zadevnem primeru ne omogoča zavezujočega ukrepanja za zaščito Alda Patriciella.
As a consequence, it is unquestionable that, as it stands, Article 10(a), of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities, by letting Members' protection depend on their own national legislation, does not afford the European Parliament with the means of taking binding action in order to protect Mr Patriciello in the case in point.
Odbor za pravne zadeve je ob upoštevanju navedenega, potem ko je zaslišal Alda Patriciella in preučil razloge za in proti zaščiti njegove imunitete, ocenil, da Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 v sedanji obliki Evropskemu parlamentu ne omogoča sprejetja zavezujočih ukrepov za zaščito Alda Patriciella.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having heard Mr Patriciello and having examined the reasons for and against defending his immunity, considers that, as it stands, the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not afford the European Parliament with the means of taking binding action in order to protect Aldo Patriciello.
PRILOGA: Člen 68(2) italijanske ustave:
ANNEX: Article 68(2) of the Italian Constitution
Brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, se proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je v primeru flagrante delic to predpisana obvezna aretacija.
'Without authorization from the House to which they belong, no member of Parliament may be subjected to a personal search or have their domicile searched, neither may they be arrested or otherwise deprived of personal freedom, or kept in detention, except to enforce a final conviction, or if caught in the act of committing a crime for which arrest is mandatory flagrante delicto '.
o zahtevi za posvetovanje o imuniteti in privilegijih Antonia Di Pietra
on the request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Antonio Di Pietro
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za posvetovanje o imuniteti in privilegijih Antonia Di Pietra, ki jo je posredoval pristojni organ Republike Italije 15. maja 2008 in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 5. junija 2008,
– having regard to the request for consultation on the parliamentary immunity of Antonio Di Pietro, forwarded by the competent authority of the Italian Republic on 15 May 2008, and announced in plenary sitting on 5 June 2008,
– po zagovoru Antonia Di Pietra, opravljenem v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Antonio Di Pietro 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, pa tudi člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 9 and 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,
Primer 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmann in Krier [1964] Zbirka 383, in primer 149/85 Wybot proti Faure in drugi [1986] Zbirka 2391 in združena primera C-200/07 in C-201/07 Marra proti De Gregorio in Clemente , ki jih poročila Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti še ne navajajo. ,
Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195, Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and Others [1986] ECR 2391 and Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente , not yet reported in the European Court Reports. of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
– ob upoštevanju člena 68(1) italijanske ustave,
– having regard to Article 68(1) of the Italian Constitution,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6(1) in člena 7(13) Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(1) and 7(13) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0197/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0197/2009 ),
S pismom z dne 15. maja 2008 je stalno predstavništvo Republike Italije Evropskemu parlamentu posredovalo zahtevo civilnega sodišča v Rimu z dne 10. aprila 2007 v civilni zadevi št. 85124/2003 med Filippom Verdejem (tožnik) in Antoniem Di Pietrom (toženec).
By letter of 15 May 2008, the Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic forwarded to the European Parliament the order of the Civil Court of Rome of 10 April 2007 in civil case No 85124/2003 between Filippo Verde (claimant) and Antonio Di Pietro (defendant).
S to zahtevo in ob upoštevanju zagovora Antonia Di Pietra, ki je uveljavljal ugovor nedopustnosti, italijansko sodišče od Evropskega parlamenta zahteva, naj odloči o odvzemu imunitete Antoniu Di Pietra, ki je bil v kritičnem času poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
In its order, the Italian Court, in considering the defence raised by Mr Di Pietro by way of objection of inadmissibility , asks the European Parliament to rule on the immunity of Mr Di Pietro, given that he was a member of the European Parliament at the material time.
Na uradnem spletnem mestu politične stranke „Lista Di Pietro“ je bil 12. februarja 2003 objavljen članek Antonia Di Pietra, ki je bil že 26. oktobra 2002 objavljen v dnevnem časopisu „Rinascita“.
On 12 February 2003, the official website of the political party "Lista Di Pietro" published an article by Mr Di Pietro which had already been published in the daily newspaper "Rinascita" on 26 October 2002.
V uvodni izjavi Filippo Verde navaja, da nikoli ni bil na seznamu obtoženih v primeru Lodo Mondadori , in Antonia Di Pietra obtožuje širjenja objektivno nepravilnih informacij, kar pomeni, da gre za kaznivo dejanje obrekovanja (prejšnji člen 595 kazenskega zakonika).
In the initiating summons, Mr Filippo Verde states that he was never included in the list of accused in the Lodo Mondadori case, and accuses Mr Di Pietro of having disseminated objectively false information, which amounts to the criminal offence of defamation (former Art. 595 of the Criminal Code).