natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na prenos pooblastila je zato mogoče gledati kot na orodje za boljšo pripravo zakonodaje na ravni EU.
In this way, delegation can be seen partly as a tool for better law-making at EU level.
Področje uporabe in trajanje prenosa pooblastila
Scope and duration of the delegation
Prenos pooblastila je zahteven postopek, v katerem zakonodajalec naroči Komisiji, da izvrši del njegovih pristojnosti.
A delegation is a delicate operation in which the Legislator instructs the Commission to exercise part of its own power.
Zaradi tega je treba cilje, vsebino, področje uporabe in trajanje prenosa izrecno in natančno opredeliti v temeljnem aktu, prenos pooblastila pa ne more trajati neomejeno.
As a result, the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation have to be expressly and meticulously defined in the basic act.
Bi pa lahko temeljni akt omogočal redno podaljševanje, in sicer avtomatsko ali na izrecno zahtevo Komisije.
The duration of a delegation cannot thus be indefinite, but a basic act could provide for the possibility of periodical renewal to take place either tacitly or following an express request by the Commission.
V obeh primerih bi se lahko prenos pooblastila podaljšal le, če ne Parlament ne Svet v predvidenem roku ne bi ugovarjala.
In both cases, the delegation could only be renewed if the Parliament and Council did not express any objections within a given deadline.
Splošna načela pri nadzoru izvajanja prenesenega pooblastila
General principles for controlling the exercise of delegated power
Člen 290 PDEU daje zakonodajalcu svobodo pri izbiri nadzornih mehanizmov.
Article 290 TFEU gives the Legislator the freedom to choose the control mechanism(s) to put in place.
Le kot primer omenja dva načina nadzora.
It mentions two such means of control purely by way of example.
Sklepanje, da sta ta dva načina edini možnosti, bi ne bilo v nasprotju le z jasnim zapisom člena 290 PDEU, temveč tudi s temeljno filozofijo, po kateri zakonodajalec določeno pristojnost, ki je del njegove vloge, prenese, zato pa mora biti gotov, da bo lahko ustrezno nadziral njeno izvajanje
To conclude that these two means of control form an exhaustive list would not only be contrary to the plain wording of Article 290 TFEU but would also be contrary to the underlying philosophy whereby the Legislator is delegating a power which is intrinsic to its own role and must therefore be sure of being able to retain proper control over its use
Iz tega sledi, da je predvidena največja možna svoboda pri določanju načina za nadzor prenosa pooblastila
This implies the widest possible margin of appreciation in determining how to control a delegation
Glej tudi resolucijo Evropskega parlamenta z dne 7. maja 2009 o novi vlogi in pristojnostih Parlamenta pri izvajanju Lizbonske pogodbe ( P6_TA(2009)0373 ), odstavek 68. .
See to the same effect Parliament's resolution of 7 May 2009 on Parliament's new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon Treaty ( P6_TA(2009)0373 ), at paragraph 68. .
Vseeno pa morajo mehanizmi nadzora, ki jih oblikuje zakonodajalec, spoštovati nekatera splošna načela prava Unije.
However, the control mechanisms set out by the Legislator must respect certain general principles of Union law.
Še zlasti morajo:
In particular, they must:
· biti preprosti in lahko razumljivi,
· be simple and easily understandable,
· zagotavljati pravno varnost ,
· safeguard legal certainty,
· Komisiji omogočati učinkovito izvajanje prenesenega pooblastila in
· enable the Commission to exercise the delegated power effectively , and
· zakonodajalcu omogočati ustrezen nadzor nad izvajanjem prenesenega pooblastila .
· enable the Legislator to monitor properly the use made of delegated power .
Posebni pogoji pri nadzoru izvajanja prenesenega pooblastila
Specific conditions for controlling the exercise of delegated power
Dva pogoja, ki sta izrecno omenjena v členu 290(2) PDEU, preklic in ugovor, je mogoče videti kot najbolj običajna načina nadzora nad Komisijo pri njenem izvajanju prenesenega pooblastila.
The two conditions expressly mentioned in Article 290(2) TFEU, revocation and objection, may be regarded as the most usual ways to control the Commission's use of delegated powers.
Preklic s strani Parlamenta ali Sveta je izrecno omenjen kot prvi možni pogoj po členu 290 PDEU.
Revocation by the Parliament or the Council is expressly provided for as a first possible condition under Article 290 TFEU.
Iz določbe je razvidno, da za preklic prenosa pooblastila ni potreben dogovor med zakonodajnima vejama Unije.
It is clear from that provision that agreement of both branches of the Union legislature is not necessary to revoke a delegation.
Preklic bi moral zaradi pravne varnosti navajati, da ne vpliva na veljavnost delegiranih aktov, ki so že bili sprejeti pred preklicem.
A revocation should, for reasons of legal certainty, state that it does not affect the validity of delegated acts already adopted prior to this revocation.
(ii) Ugovor in zgodnji neugovor
(ii) Objection and early non-objection
Ugovor s strani Parlamenta ali Sveta v roku, ki ga predpisuje temeljni akt, je izrecno omenjen kot drugi možni pogoj v skladu po členu 290 PDEU.
Objection by the Parliament or the Council within a period set by the basic act is expressly provided for as a second possible condition under Article 290 TFEU.
Iz določbe je razvidno, da za ugovor k posameznemu delegiranemu akti ni potreben dogovor med obema zakonodajnima vejama Unije ter da bi že ugovor le ene od njiju preprečil začetek veljavnosti akta.
It is clear from that provision that agreement of both branches of the Union legislature is not necessary to object to an individual delegated act and an objection from just one of the branches would thus prevent it from entering into force.
Parlament je pri uveljavljanju pravice do ugovora odvisen od svoje parlamentarne vloge in krajev dela.
Parliament's exercise of the right of objection is necessarily conditioned by its parliamentary role and places of work.
Odbor za pravne zadeve meni, da bi ga bilo treba določiti v temeljnem aktu za vsak primer posebej in da bi moral biti minimalni rok za ugovor opredeljen v možnem prihodnjem skupnem dogovoru, ki bi obravnaval horizontalna vprašanja (glej v nadaljevanju).
The Committee on Legal Affairs considers that it should be fixed on a case-by-case basis in each basic act and that a minimum period for objection should be set in a future Common Understanding dealing with horizontal questions (see below).
Po mnenju odbora bi moral biti nujni postopek s skrajšanim rokom za ugovor iz temeljnega akta rezerviran le za zelo izjemne primere, povezane na primer z varnostnimi vprašanji in humanitarnimi krizami.
The Committee considers that an urgent procedure with a shorter period for objection contained in the basic act itself should be reserved for particularly exceptional cases only, for example when security matters or humanitarian crises are at stake.
Vseeno pa odbor meni, da bi lahko veliko večino primerov, pri katerih je potrebno hitro sprejetje delegiranih aktov, obravnavali s prožnim postopkom zgodnjega neugovora , prek katerega bi lahko Parlament in Svet na prošnjo Komisije v ustrezno utemeljenih primerih skrajšala rok za ugovor.
It believes, however, that the vast majority of situations requiring the speedy adoption of delegated acts could be dealt with by a flexible procedure for early non-objection which could provide that the time-period for expressing an objection may be shortened by the Parliament and the Council, following a request by the Commission in duly justified cases.
Uporabo nujnega postopka in zgodnjega neugovora bi moralo voditi spoštovanje demokratičnega načela, ki je lasten vsakemu prenosu zakonodajnih pristojnosti.
Respect for the democratic principle, inherent in any delegation of legislative power, should guide the use of the urgent procedure and of the early non-objection.
Nobena rešitev se ne sme zlorabljati, a Parlamentu mora biti omogočeno, da posamezne delegirane akte ustrezno obravnava, pri tem pa upošteva organiziranost svojih stalnih odborov in postopkovne posledice vsakega postopka za ugovor zoper delegirani akt.
Both solutions must not be abused, and Parliament must be able to give proper consideration to individual delegated acts, taking into account the organisation of its standing committees and the procedural implications of any procedure to object to a delegated act.
(iii) Dodatni možni pogoji
(iii) Further possible conditions
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, daje člen 290 PDEU zakonodajalcu svobodo pri izbiri nadzornega mehanizma.
As stated above, Article 290 TFEU gives the Legislator the freedom to choose which control mechanism(s) to put in place.
Dva primera, našteta v členu 290(2), in sicer ugovor in preklic, sta zato zgolj ponazorilna, prenos pooblastila pa bi se lahko podredil tudi drugim načinom nadzora, kot sta na primer izrecna odobritev Parlamenta in Sveta za vsak delegirani akt ali možnost preklica posameznih delegiranih aktov, ki so že v veljavi.
The two examples enumerated in Article 290(2), objection and revocation, are therefore purely illustrative and one could envisage subjecting a delegation of power to other means of control, such as an express approval by Parliament and Council of each delegated act or a possibility of repealing individual delegated acts already in force.
(iv) Horizontalna vprašanja
(iv) Horizontal questions
Trenutna razprava sproža številna praktična in pravna vprašanja horizontalne narave, ki jih je na tej točki vredno obravnavati:
Ongoing discussions raise several practical and legal points of a horizontal nature worth considering at this point:
· Posvetovanje v pripravljalni fazi: Komisija bi morala pri pripravi in oblikovanju delegiranih aktov zagotoviti zgodnje in stalno posredovanje informacij in dokumentov pristojnim odborom Parlamenta, vključno z osnutki delegiranih aktov in prejetimi prispevki; v ta namen bi se komitološki register lahko uporabljal kot model za boljši digitalni informacijski sistem.
· Consultations in the preparatory stage: The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure an early and continuous transmission of information and relevant documents to Parliament's relevant committees, including successive drafts of delegated acts and any contributions received; to this end, the current comitology register could be used as a model for an improved digital information system.
Morala bi tudi omogočiti udeležbo Parlamenta na pripravljalnih sestankih, izmenjavah mnenj in posvetovanjih.
The Commission should also give Parliament access to related preparatory meetings, exchanges of views and consultations.
Te zahteve so še posebej pomembne na področju finančnih storitev, kjer so doslej veljali posebni postopki.
These obligations are specifically important in the area of financial services, in which particular procedures have applied so far.
· Predhodno obvestilo: Razprava se nanaša tudi na vprašanje, ali naj se določi, da mora institucija, ki preklicuje, pred preklicem drugim institucijam posredovati določene informacije.
· Prior notice: The creation of an obligation on the revoking institution to provide a certain amount of information to the other institutions involved before revocation is being discussed.
· Obvezna utemeljitev: Še ena točka razprave je vprašanje, ali je treba zahtevati, da zakonodajni veji Unije utemeljita svoj preklic prenosa pooblastila oziroma ugovor zoper delegirani akt.
· Obligation to state reasons: A specific obligation to reason a decision by either branch of the Union legislature to revoke a delegation or to object to a delegated act has been mooted.
Člen 296 PDEU že tako predpisuje, da se pravni akti obrazložijo.
Article 296 TFEU already provides the overarching requirement that "legal acts shall state the reasons on which they are based".
Vsaka podobna zahteva po obrazložitvi pravnega akta bi bila torej odveč in bi povzročala zmedo.
Any further overlapping obligation to justify legal acts would therefore be redundant and confusing.
· Minimalni rok za ugovor: Rok mora biti dovolj dolg, da bo omogočal učinkovit nadzor nad prenosom pooblastila in mora biti določen v temeljnem aktu za vsak primer posebej.
· Minimum period for objection: The deadline must be sufficient to enable effective control of the delegation and it should be fixed on a case-by-case basis in each basic act.
Je pa treba določiti tudi minimalni rok za ugovor, da bi zagotovili učinkovit demokratični nadzor Parlamenta.
However, a minimum should be also set in order to ensure that Parliament's democratic control does not become nugatory.
· Računanje rokov: Posamezni roki za nadzor nad delegiranimi akti lahko začnejo teči šele, ko Komisija posreduje vse jezikovne različice.
· Computation of time-periods: The various periods for scrutiny of delegated acts may only start on transmission of all language versions by the Commission.
Prav tako je treba ustrezno upoštevati parlamentarne počitnice in volilna obdobja.
Likewise, Parliament's recess and electoral periods must be properly taken into account.
· Obvezna objava nekaterih aktov: Izrecna obveznost Parlamenta in Sveta iz vsakega temeljnega akta, da objavita sklepe v zvezi z nadzorom nad Komisijo pri njenem izvajanju prenesenega pooblastila, se zdi odveč, saj že tako izhaja iz člena 297 PDEU.
· Obligation to publish certain acts: An express obligation on Parliament and Council in each basic act to publish decisions taken whilst controlling the Commission's exercise of delegated power seems superfluous as such an obligation already exists under Article 297 TFEU.
Glede na to, da je delegirani akt po naravi splošnega obsega, bi moral biti vsak ugovor v obliki sklepa brez naslovljenca.
Given that a delegated act is of general scope, any objection to it should correspondingly be in the form of a decision with no addressee.
· Datum objave delegiranih aktov: Odbor zastopa stališče, da delegirani akti lahko začnejo veljati šele, ko se izteče rok za ugovor.
· Date of publication of delegated acts: It seems clear to the Committee that delegated acts can only enter into force after the expiry of the period for objection.
To pomeni, da pred tem datumom ni možna nobena objava v Uradnem listu, razen v primeru zgodnjega neugovora.
This precludes any publication in the Official Journal prior to that date, except where an early non-objection is granted.
Odbor meni, da teh horizontalnih točk ne bi bilo smiselno izrecno vključevati v temeljne akte, ker bi ti postali nepotrebno okorni, temveč bi bilo bolje, če bi postale del skupnega dogovora med institucijami, ki bi bil lahko v obliki medinstitucionalnega sporazuma.
The Committee considers that, rather than including them explicitly in the basic acts and thus making such acts unnecessarily cumbersome, these horizontal points could be better dealt with as part of Common Understanding between the institutions which may take the form of an inter-institutional agreement.
Sporočilo Komisije o delegiranih aktih
The Commission's Communication on delegated acts.
Obžalovanja vredno je, da iz sporočila Komisije
It is regrettable that the Commission's Communication
Sporočilo Komisije z dne 9. decembra 2009 o izvajanju člena 290 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ( KOM(2009)0673 ). očitno veje nerazumevanje tako obsega kot pomena sprememb, ki jih v ustavni in pravni okvir Unije vnaša Lizbonska pogodba.
Commission communication of 9 December 2009 on the Implementation of Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( COM(2009)0673 ). appears to understand neither the extent nor the significance of the changes in the Union's constitutional and legal framework ushered in by the Treaty of Lisbon.
Komisija delegirane akte obravnava, kot da so nasledili Lamfalussyjev postopek in ukrepe komitologije, sprejete na podlagi člena 202 Pogodbe ES
The Commission deals with delegated acts as though they were the descendants of the "Lamfalussy procedure" and "comitology" measures adopted on the basis of Article 202 EC
„Da bi zagotovil doseganje ciljev te pogodbe, Svet v skladu z njenimi določbami (...) v pravnih aktih, ki jih sprejema, prenese pristojnost za izvajanje svojih predpisov na Komisijo.
"To ensure that the objectives set out in this Treaty are attained the Council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty (...) confer on the Commission, in the acts which the Council adopts, powers for the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down.
Svet lahko glede izvajanja te pristojnosti postavi nekatere zahteve. (...)" .
The Council may impose certain requirements in respect of the exercise of these powers. (...)" .
Čas je, da se pri prenosu zakonodajne pristojnosti na Komisijo neha tako razmišljati .
The time has come to abandon this way of thinking when dealing with the delegation of legislative power to the Commission.
Potreba po tem, da bi na Komisijo prenesli bolj tehnične vidike zakonodaje, se je pojavila že v preteklosti, ko pogodbe še niso predpisovale ustreznih mehanizmov.
The need to delegate the more technical aspects of legislation to the Commission also existed in the past, at a time when the Treaties did not provide for any mechanism to achieve such a result.
Institucije so bile primorane uporabljati mehanizem iz člena 202 Pogodbe ES, kar pa je bila nezadovoljiva rešitev za zakonodajalca, še zlasti pa za Parlament.
The institutions were compelled to use the mechanism set out in Article 202 EC which was an unsatisfactory solution for the Legislator, and particularly for Parliament.
Regulativni postopek s pregledom , ki je bil dodan z zadnjo spremembo sklepa Sveta 1999/468/ES
The regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS, or to use its French initialism, PRAC), added during the latest modification of Council Decision 1999/468/EC
23), kakor je bil spremenjen s Sklepom Sveta 2006/512/ES z dne 17. julija 2006 (UL L 200, 22.7.2006, str.
23), as amended by Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 (OJ L 200, 22.7.2006, p.
11). o uporabi člena 202 Pogodbe ES, je bil začasna, čeprav še zdaleč ne popolna rešitev po Pogodbi iz Nice.
11). implementing Article 202 EC was created precisely to provide a temporary answer, albeit a far from perfect one, under the Treaty of Nice.
Praznino zato zapolnjuje postopek iz člena 290 PDEU.
The procedure laid down in Article 290 TFEU therefore fills a void.
Pri tem še zlasti ne morejo nobene vloge igrati države članice in odbori strokovnjakov iz držav članic.
In particular, Member States, and a fortiori committees composed of experts from the Member States, have no role to play in this area.
Če se želi Komisija pred sprejetjem delegiranega akta neuradno posvetovati z nacionalnimi strokovnjaki, to seveda lahko stori na enak način, kot se lahko posvetuje s predstavniki civilne družbe, zastopniki interesov, podjetji, socialnimi partnerji, akademiki ali celo s poslanci oziroma organi Evropskega parlamenta.
If the Commission, before adopting a delegated act, wants to consult-informally with national experts, it is absolutely free to do so in the same way as it is free to consult civil society, interest representatives, companies, the social partners, academics, or even Members or organs of the European Parliament.
Odbor za pravne zadeve pravzaprav meni, da bi bilo zelo koristno, če bi Komisija pristojne organe Evropskega parlamenta vključila v priprave na sprejetje delegiranih aktov.
In fact, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that it would be very useful for the Commission to associate the responsible organs of the European Parliament in the preparations leading up to the adoption of delegated acts.
Nasprotno pa Parlament izrecno zavrača vsakršno uradno vlogo nacionalnih strokovnjakov, ki bi imeli vpliv na mehanizem nadzora nad Komisijo, saj bi bilo to v nasprotju s pogodbami in načelom institucionalnega ravnotežja.
By contrast, Parliament categorically rejects any formal role of national experts having the effect of a control mechanism on the Commission as being contrary to the Treaties and the principle of institutional balance.
Notranja organizacija Parlamenta
Internal organisation of Parliament
Vprašanje prilagoditve veljavnega pravnega reda
The question of the alignment of the existing acquis
Prenos nekaterih zakonodajnih pooblastil, potreben tako v preteklosti kot sedaj, se je prej izvajal s postopkom komitologije, kot ga je predpisoval navedeni sklep Sveta 1999/468/ES, kar pa je bilo iz že omenjenih razlogov neustrezno.
The necessity of delegating some legislative power, which existed in the past as it does today, was previously exercised through the "comitology" procedure laid down by the above-mentioned Council Decision 1999/468/EC, which was inadequate for the reasons outlined above.
Acquis je zato treba karseda hitro prilagoditi novemu pravnemu redu Unije in mehanizmu prenosa, zaradi česar je nujno, da Komisija predstavi ustrezne zakonodajne predloge.
The acquis must therefore be adapted as quickly as possible to the Union's new legal order and the delegation mechanism, and it is therefore urgent that the Commission present legislative proposals to achieve this.
Odbor meni, da prilagoditev ne bi smela biti omejena le na ukrepe, ki so bili prej obravnavani po regulativnem postopku s pregledom, temveč bi morala zajemati vse ukrepe splošnega obsega ne glede na to, ali se je za njih pred uveljavitvijo Lizbonske pogodbe uporabljal tak ali drugačen postopek odločanja oziroma postopek komitologije.
The Committee considers that the alignment should not be limited to those measures previously dealt with under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, but should cover all appropriate measures of general scope independently of the decision-making procedure or comitology procedure applicable to them prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Delegirani in izvedbeni akti
Delegated acts contrasted with implementing acts
Glavno odgovornost za izvajanje zakonodaje Unije nesporno nosijo države članice.
It is undisputed that the primary responsibility for the implementation of Union law lies with the Member States.
To je razvidno iz drugega pododstavka člena 4(3) PEU (nekdanji člen 10 Pogodbe ES: „Države članice sprejemajo vse ustrezne ukrepe ... da zagotovijo izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodb”) in samega člena 291 PDU („Države članice sprejmejo vse ukrepe notranjega prava, ki so potrebni za izvajanje pravno zavezujočih aktov Unije”).
This is made clear in Article 4(3) second subparagraph TEU (ex Article 10 EC - "the Member States shall take any appropriate measure (...) to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties") and in Article 291 TFEU itself ("Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts").
Tako je bilo že pred uveljavitvijo Lizbonske pogodbe.
This was also the case prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Vseeno pa mora zavezujoči del sekundarne zakonodaje (bodisi zakonodajni akt ali ne) pooblastiti Komisijo za sprejemanje izvedbenih ukrepov, če zakonodajalec meni, da so potrebni enotni pogoji za izvajanje pravno zavezujočih aktov Unije.
However, where the Legislator considers that uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts are needed, a binding piece of secondary law (whether a legislative act or not) must empower the Commission to adopt implementing measures.
Člen 291 PDEU, ki neposredno sledi mehanizmom komitologije, temelječim na členu 202 Pogodbe ES, nudi podlago za sprejetje izvedbenih aktov Komisije, ki so podvrženi določenemu nadzoru držav članic nad tem, kako Komisija izvaja izvedbena pooblastila
Article 291 TFEU, following on directly from the "comitology" mechanisms based on Article 202 EC, provides a basis for the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission, subject to certain controls by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers
Pravila in splošna načela v zvezi z nadzorom, ki ga izvajajo države članice, je treba sprejeti v obliki predpisov zakonodajalca, ki deluje v skladu z rednim zakonodajnim postopkom – člen 291(3) PDEU. .
The rules and general principles for control by Member States are however to be adopted in the form of regulations by the Legislator acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure - Article 291(3) TFEU. .