natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Države članice lahko odločijo, da namesto osebe, ki je dolžna plačati DDV, za plačilo davka solidarno odgovarja neka druga oseba.
Currently Member States have the option to hold a person other than the person liable for payment of VAT jointly and severally liable on their territory.
Ta nacionalni koncept je ustvaril določeno pravno negotovost, kar je razvidno tudi iz sodne prakse Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti.
This national law concept has created a certain degree of legal uncertainty, as it is shown in various ECJ cases.
Uporaba tega koncepta v čezmejnem kontekstu v primerih, ko je solidarna odgovornost odvisna od kakovosti poročanja o dobavah znotraj Skupnosti, pomeni, da lahko dobavitelja, ki z neustreznim poročanjem krši zakonodajo v eni državi članici, kaznuje druga država članica.
The translation of this concept into a cross-border context, in a situation where the joint liability is linked to the quality of reporting of intra-community supplies, implies that a breach of law in one Member State through wrong reporting by the supplier can be punished by another Member State.
Namesto da se sodno pristojnost držav članic pri izterjavi DDV, ki so ga izgubile na svojem ozemlju, širi prek meja, bi bilo treba več pozornosti nameniti učinkovitejši izmenjavi (in kakovosti) podatkov.
Rather than a bold cross-border expansion of the jurisdictional power of Member States in recovering VAT revenue lost in their territory, more emphasis should be placed on enhancing the exchange (and the quality) of information.
Kot je ugotovilo Računsko sodišče v posebnem poročilu št. 8/2007, kar polovica zahtev držav članic za izmenjavo podatkov ni uresničena v roku, ki ga predpisuje zakonodaja.
As noted by the European Court of Auditors in its Special Report 8/2007, half of the information exchange upon request between Member States does not take place within the timescales required by the legislation.
To med drugim pomeni, da države članice poročanja ne izvajajo ustrezno.
This statement implies, amongst other things, that not all Member States are doing their reporting job properly.
Poročevalec meni, da podjetjem ne bi smeli naložiti odgovornosti za pomanjkljivost upravnega sodelovanja med državami članicami.
The rapporteur believes that businesses should not bear to responsibility for the shortcomings of administrative cooperation between Member States.
Če bodo države članice dobile pooblastila za pregon dobaviteljev na čezmejni osnovi, jih ne bo nič spodbujalo k temu, da bi upravno sodelovanje resnično izboljšale.
If Member States are simply given an additional power to prosecute suppliers on a cross-border basis, Member States will have no incentive to bring a real improvement to administrative cooperation.
Zato bi morala Komisija nujno predložiti nadaljnje predloge o samodejnem dostopu vseh držav članic do nekaterih podatkov neobčutljive narave, ki jih druge države članice hranijo o svojih davčnih zavezancih (podjetniški sektor, nekateri podatki o prometu itn.), in o usklajevanju postopkov registracije in odjave davčnih zavezancev za DDV, da se zagotovi hitro odkrivanje in odjava nepristnih davčnih zavezancev.
That is why as a matter of urgency, the Commission should submit further proposals on the automated access by all other Member States to certain non-sensitive data held by Member States on their own taxable persons (such as, in the business sector, certain data concerning turnover), and on the harmonisation of the procedures for the registration and de-registration of persons liable for VAT to ensure the swift detection and de-registration of fake taxable persons.
Države članice morajo sprejeti odgovornost za posodabljanje svojih podatkov, še posebej kar zadeva odjavo in odkrivanje goljufivih registracij.
Member States must take responsibility for keeping their data up to date, in particular, as regards de-registration and the detection of fraudulent registrations.
Skupni sistem DDV glede davčnih goljufij, ki so povezane z uvozi in drugim čezmejnim poslovanjem
Common system of value added tax as regards tax evasion linked to import and other cross-border transactions
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Hannesa Swobode
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Hannes Swoboda
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Hannesa Swobode z dne 5. decembra 2008, ki jo je posredovalo deželno sodišče za kazenske zadeve na Dunaju dne 20. januarja 2009 in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju dne 5. februarja 2009,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Hannes Swoboda of 5 December 2008 from the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, forwarded on 20 January 2009 and announced in plenary sitting on 5 February 2009,
– po zagovoru Hannesa Swobode, v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Hannes Swoboda 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, 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. ,
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 člena 57 zveznega ustavnega zakona Republike Avstrije,
– having regard to Article 57 of the Austrian Bundesverfassungsgesetz (Federal Constitutional Law),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0190/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0190/2009 ),
Člena 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 določata naslednje:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 read:
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;
Kadar je član zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, sklicevanje na imuniteto ni mogoče in Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu poslancu.
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.
(2) Poslancu državnega zbora je lahko zaradi kazenskega postopka – razen v primeru zalotitve pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja – odvzeta prostost le s soglasjem državnega zbora.
(2) Except where they are caught in the act of committing a crime, members of the National Council may not be arrested on account of a criminal offence unless the National Council has given its consent.
Prav tako je soglasje državnega zbora potrebno za opravljanje hišnih preiskav pri poslancu državnega zbora.
Searches of the houses of members of the National Council shall likewise require the consent of the National Council.
(3) Sicer se lahko brez soglasja državnega zbora poslanca državnega zbora preganja po uradni dolžnosti zaradi kaznivega dejanja le takrat, kadar to kaznivo dejanje očitno ni povezano s političnimi dejavnostmi zadevnega poslanca.
(3) The above cases apart, no official action on account of a punishable offence may be taken against members of the National Council without the National Council’s consent unless that offence is manifestly not connected with the political activity of the member in question.
Zadevni organ pa mora pridobiti sklep državnega zbora o obstoju takšne povezave, če to zahteva zadevni poslanec ali tretjina članov stalnega odbora, pristojnega za te zadeve.
The authority concerned must, however, seek a decision from the National Council as to whether such a connection exists, where this is so requested by the member in question or one third of the members of the appropriate standing committee.
V primeru takšne zahteve se nemudoma prekine ali ustavi vse postopke pregona po uradni dolžnosti.
If a request has been made to that effect, all procedural steps must cease or be discontinued immediately.
(4) V vseh teh primerih se šteje, da je soglasje državnega zbora podeljeno, če državni zbor v osmih tednih ne sprejme sklepa o ustrezni prošnji organa pregona; zavoljo pravočasnega sprejemanja sklepov državnega zbora predsednik takšno prošnjo da na glasovanje najkasneje na predzadnji dan pred tem rokom.
(4) In all of the above cases the National Council shall be deemed to have given its consent if it has not acted within eight weeks on the necessary request from the authority competent to institute legal proceedings; to enable the National Council to take a decision in time, the President shall put the request to the vote at the latest on the last day but one of that period.
V ta rok ni vključeno obdobje, ko državni zbor ne zaseda.
Periods in which the National Council is not in session shall not be included in the eight-week period.
(5) Kadar je poslanec zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, mora organ pregona o opravljenem odvzemu prostosti nemudoma obvestiti predsednika državnega zbora.
(5) If a member has been caught in the act of committing a crime, the authority concerned must notify the President of the National Council without delay that the member has been arrested.
Če državni zbor oziroma v obdobju, ko državni zbor ne zaseda, stalni odbor, pristojen za te zadeve, tako zahtevata, se poslancu vrne prostost oziroma v celoti opusti pregon.
Where the National Council or, when it is not in session, the appropriate standing committee so requests, the member must be released from custody, or the legal proceedings as a whole must cease.
(6) Imuniteta poslanca se konča na dan sklica novoizvoljenega državnega zbora, pri organih državnega zbora, katerih trajanje funkcije ni omejeno s tem trenutkom, pa do prenehanja te funkcije.
(6) The immunity of members ends on the day on which the newly elected National Council is convened; the immunity of persons holding office in the National Council beyond that date shall end on expiry of their term of office.
„Swoboda: sestanek Klausa z irskim nasprotnikom reformne pogodbe EU je škandal
'Swoboda: Meeting between Klaus and Irish opponents of the EU Reform Treaty is scandalous
Podnaslov: „Češko predsedovanje EU se je še pred začetkom spotaknilo ob prvo oviro“
Subheading: " Czech EU Presidency has got off to a false start before it has even begun"
Točno to pa je naloga reformne pogodbe,“ je za konec poudaril Swoboda.
The task of the Reform Treaty is precisely that" , concluded Swoboda.
Pomen te izjave naj bi bil, da se zasebnega tožnika opiše kot (splošno znanega) lažnivca.
The significance of the statement was that the private plaintif f was described as a (notorious) liar.
Očitanje lažnivosti naj bi bilo kaznivo dejanje žaljive obdolžitve zaradi značajskih lastnosti.
The allegation of mendacity constituted punishable defamation of character.
Z očitanjem lažnivosti naj bi se očitalo obnašanje v smislu prvega odstavka 111. člena avstrijskega kazenskega zakonika.
The allegation of lying constituted an allegation as regards behaviour within the meaning of Article 111(1) of the Austrian Criminal Code.
Očitek naj bi zasebnemu tožniku podtikal, da zavestno (stalno) širi neresnična dejstva.
The allegation insinuated that the private plaintiff had consciously (consistently) made untrue statements.
Ker očitek lažnivosti ni bil ponazorjen s konkretnimi podrobnostmi, naj bi šlo za žaljivo obdolžitev v smislu prve alternative prvega odstavka 111. člena avstrijskega kazenskega zakonika.
In the absence of specific details to support the allegation of lying, that allegation constituted defamation within the meaning of Article 111(1), option 1 of the Austrian Criminal Code.
Očitek, da je lažnivec oziroma splošno znan lažnivec in da razširja mnoge laži, naj bi zasebnega tožnika izpostavil preziru javnega mnenja.
The allegation of being a liar or of notoriously lying and spreading many lies made the plaintiff contemptible in public esteem.
Obtoženec naj ne bi izjavil zadevnega mnenja med parlamentarnim zasedanjem, temveč pred mediji, zaradi česar naj ne bi užival stvarne imunitete in bi proti njemu lahko vložili kazensko obtožbo.“
The accused had not made the offending statement during a session of Parliament but to the press, and the fact that he did not enjoy substantive immunity meant that he could be prosecuted.'
V skladu s členom 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah uživajo poslanci Evropskega parlamenta „zaradi mnenja, ki [so ga izrekli] pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti“ neomejeno varstvo pred sodnim pregonom.
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, Members of the European Parliament enjoy unlimited protection from legal proceedings 'in respect of opinions expressed […] by them in the performance of their duties' .
Odvzem imunitete ne pride v poštev, če dejanja, katerih dolžijo poslanca, sodijo k opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti oziroma so z njimi neposredno povezana.
There can be no question of waiving immunity if the actions of which the Member is being accused were carried out in the performance of his duties or in direct connection with those duties.
Zato mora parlament braniti imuniteto poslanca v skladu s členom 9, če zadevna dejanja sodijo k opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti ali so z njimi neposredno povezana.
It follows that Parliament must defend a Member's immunity pursuant to Article 9 if the actions in question were carried out in performance of his duties or in direct connection with them.
Ko je svojim volivcem izrazil mnenje o tako temeljnih vprašanjih Evropske unije, je opravljal svoje dolžnosti kot poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
In expressing his views on such fundamental European Union issues to his voters, he was performing his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.
Dejstvo, da je bil predmet njegovih izjav zlasti tudi odnos predsednika tiste države članice EU, katere predsedovanje je bilo v tistem času pred vrati, do lizbonske pogodbe, te izjave postavlja v okvir legitimne politične razprave.
The fact that his statements also concerned, in particular, the attitude to the Lisbon Treaty of the President of the EU Member State that was shortly to take over the Council Presidency places those statements in the context of a legitimate political discussion.
To razpravo je treba obravnavati v celoti in je ne gre razstaviti na posamezne sestavne dele.
This discussion must be seen in its context and cannot be divided up into individual components.
Poudariti je treba, da se odbor ne izreka o krivdi ali nedolžnosti zadevnega poslanca oziroma o smotrnosti kazenskega pregona mnenj, pripisanih poslancu.
It should be stressed that the committee is not expressing a view on the guilt or innocence of the Member concerned or on the advisability of bringing criminal proceedings on the grounds of the statements attributed to the Member.
Gre le za to, ali je bila izjava, pripisana poslancu, dana „pri opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti“.
It is simply a question of whether the statement attributed to the Member was made ‘in the performance of his duties’.
Poudariti je treba tudi, da parlamentarna imuniteta ni osebni privilegij posameznih poslancev parlamenta, marveč je zagotovilo neodvisnosti parlamenta in njegovih poslancev od drugih ustanov.
Firstly, it should be stressed that parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted to individual Members of Parliament but the guarantee for the independence of Parliament and its Members from other institutions.
Odbor je vedno znova poudarjal, da služi parlamentarna imuniteta zlasti zaščiti svobode mnenj in svobode politične razprave poslancev.
The committee has repeatedly stressed that parliamentary immunity is intended in particular to protect Members’ freedom of expression and freedom of political debate.
V skladu s tem je zadevni parlamentarni odbor vedno dosledno menil, da bi bilo treba poslansko imuniteto vedno priznati v tistih primerih, ko dejanja ali mnenja, katerih dolžijo poslanca, sodijo k opravljanju njegovih političnih dejavnosti oziroma so s temi dejavnostmi neposredno povezana.
The relevant committee in the European Parliament has always held as a fundamental principle that, in all cases where the actions or statements of which a Member is accused are an integral part of, or directly connected with, his political activity, immunity cannot be waived.
K temu sodijo na primer izražanje mnenja, pri čemer se predpostavlja, da le-ta spadajo k poslančevim političnim dejavnostim, recimo mnenja na protestih, pri javnih shodih, v političnih publikacijah, v tisku, v knjigi, na televiziji, med podpisovanjem političnega dokumenta in tudi mnenja, izražena pred sodiščem.
This includes, for example, expressions of opinion deemed to be part of a Member’s political activity made at demonstrations, at public meetings, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, by signing a political tract and even in a court of law.
Tudi s tega vidika gre pri zadevnih mnenjih za mnenja, povezana s političnimi dejavnostmi poslanca.
In this light too, the remarks in question are linked to the Member’s political activity.
Zaradi zgoraj omenjenih preudarkov Odbor za pravne zadeve po obravnavi razlogov za in proti odvzemu imunitete zavrne zahtevo po odvzemu imunitete poslanca Swobode.
In the light of the above considerations and after examining the reasons for and against a waiver of immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs decides not to waive Mr Swoboda’s immunity.
(1) Wer einen anderen in einer für einen Dritten wahrnehmbaren Weise einer verächtlichen Eigenschaft oder Gesinnung zeiht oder eines unehrenhaften Verhaltens oder eines gegen die guten Sitten verstoßenden Verhaltens beschuldigt das geeignet ist, ihn in der öffentlichen Meinung verächtlich zu machen oder herabzusetzen, ist mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu sechs Monaten oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 360 Tagessätzen zu bestrafen.
(1) Wer einen anderen in einer für einen Dritten wahrnehmbaren Weise einer verächtl ichen Eigenschaft oder Gesinnung zeiht oder eines unehrenhaften Verhaltens oder eines gegen die guten Sitten verstoßenden Verhaltens beschuldigt das geeignet ist, ihn in der öffentlichen Meinung verächtlich zu machen oder herabzusetzen, ist mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu sechs Monaten oder mit Geldstrafe bis zu 360 Tagessätzen zu bestrafen.
o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o bonitetnih agencijah
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Credit Rating Agencies
MNENJE Odbora za pravne zadeve ...........................................................................83
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS......................................................87
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2008)0704 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2008)0704 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 95 Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0397/2008 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0397/2008 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve (A6‑0000/2009),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0191/2009 ),
(1) Bonitetne agencije imajo pomembno vlogo na svetovnih trgih vrednostnih papirjev in bančništva, saj njihove bonitetne ocene uporabljajo vlagatelji, kreditojemalci, izdajatelji in vlade pri sprejemanju z informacijami podprtih naložbenih in finančnih odločitev.
(1) Credit rating agencies play an important role in global securities and banking markets, as their ratings are used by investors, borrowers, issuers and governments to make informed investment and financing decisions.
Kreditne institucije, investicijska podjetja, zavarovalnice, pozavarovalnice, kolektivni naložbeni podjemi za vlaganja v prenosljive vrednostne papirje (KNPVP) in institucije za poklicno pokojninsko zavarovanje lahko te bonitetne ocene uporabljajo kot pomoč za izračun svojih kapitalskih zahtev za namene plačilne sposobnosti ali za izračunavanje tveganj svoje naložbene dejavnosti.
Credit institutions, investments firms, insurance undertakings, assurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and institutions for occupational retirement provision , may use those ratings as the reference for the calculation of their capital requirements for solvency purposes or for calculating risks in their investment activity.
Zato bonitetne ocene pomembno vplivajo na zaupanje vlagateljev in potrošnikov.
Consequently, credit ratings have a significant impact on the trust and confidence of investors and consumers.
Torej je bistvenega pomena, da so bonitetne ocene, ki se uporabljajo v Skupnosti, neodvisne, objektivne in visoko kakovostne.
It is essential, therefore, that credit ratings used in the Community are independent, objective and of the highest quality.
(1) Bonitetne agencije imajo pomembno vlogo na svetovnih trgih vrednostnih papirjev in bančništva, saj njihove bonitetne ocene uporabljajo vlagatelji, kreditojemalci, izdajatelji in vlade pri sprejemanju z informacijami podprtih naložbenih in finančnih odločitev.
(1) Credit rating agencies play an important role in global securities and banking markets, as their credit ratings are used by investors, borrowers, issuers and governments as part of making informed investment and financing decisions.
Kreditne institucije, investicijska podjetja, zavarovalnice, pozavarovalnice, kolektivni naložbeni podjemi za vlaganja v prenosljive vrednostne papirje (KNPVP) in institucije za poklicno pokojninsko zavarovanje lahko te bonitetne ocene uporabljajo kot pomoč za izračun svojih kapitalskih zahtev za namene plačilne sposobnosti ali za izračunavanje tveganj svoje naložbene dejavnosti.
Credit institutions, investment firms, insurance undertakings, assurance undertakings, reinsurance undertakings, undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and institutions for occupational retirement provision may use those credit ratings as the reference for the calculation of their capital requirements solvency purposes or for calculating risks in their investment activity.
Zato bonitetne ocene pomembno vplivajo na delovanje trgov ter na zaupanje vlagateljev in potrošnikov.
Consequently, credit ratings have a significant impact on the operation of the markets and on the trust and confidence of investors and consumers.
Torej je bistvenega pomena, da bonitetne agencije spoštujejo načela neoporečnosti, preglednosti, odgovornosti, dobrega vodenja in institucionalnega sodelovanja, da se zagotovi, da bodo zadevne bonitetne ocene, ki se uporabljajo v Skupnosti, neodvisne, objektivne in visoko kakovostne.
It is essential, therefore, that credit rating agencies observe the principles of integrity, transparency, responsibility, good governance, and institutional cooperation in order to ensure that resulting credit ratings used in the Community are independent, objective and of the highest quality.
(2) Danes ima večina bonitetnih agencij sedež zunaj Skupnosti.
(2) Currently, most credit rating agencies have their headquarters outside the Community.
Večina držav članic s predpisi ne ureja dejavnosti bonitetnih agencij ali pogojev za izdajo bonitetnih ocen.
Most Member States do not regulate the activities of credit rating agencies or the conditions for the issuance of credit ratings.