natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgija, Češka republika, Romunija ,
Belgium, Czech Republic and Romania ,
N. ker so predstavniki nacionalnih parlamentov svoja stališča še dodatno lahko predstavili na skupnem srečanju parlamentarnih odborov o napredku na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki je potekal 19. in 20. januarja 2009,
N. w hereas representatives of national p arliaments had the opportunity to further express their views at the Joint Committee Meeting on p rogress in the area of freedom , security and justice which took place on 19 and 20 January 2009 ,
O. ker je pravna služba Parlamenta, s katero se je na to temo posvetoval Odbor za državljanske pravice, pravosodje in notranje zadeve, ugotovila, da ustrezne določbe zakonodaje Skupnosti izključujejo nacionalno zakonodajo, po kateri se nezakonito zadrževanje državljana ene države članice na ozemlju druge države članice šteje kot splošna obteževalna okoliščina pri kaznivem dejanju te osebe,
O. whereas its Legal Service, which was consulted by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on this subject, concluded that the relevant provisions of Community law preclude national legislation deeming it a general aggravating circumstance in relation to a crime or an offence for the person in question to be a citizen of one Member State illegally present on the territory of another Member State,
P. ker so bila s sodbami Sodišča v zvezi z vprašanjem prostega gibanja, zlasti v zadevah Metock, Jipa in Huber, potrjena naslednja načela:
P. whereas the rulings of the ECJ on the issue of freedom of movement, and particularly the Metock, Jipa and Huber cases, affirmed the following principles:
– državljan tretje države, ki je zakonec državljana Unije in spremlja ali se pridruži temu državljanu, lahko koristi ugodnosti v skladu z določbami iz direktive, ne glede na to, kje in kdaj je bila sklenjena njuna zakonska zveza in ne da bi bilo potrebno predhodno zakonito bivanje
– a non-Community national who is the spouse of a Union citizen who accompanies or joins that citizen can benefit from the provisions of the Directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and without the need for prior lawful residence
Zadeva Metock ,
Metock case ,
– čeprav člen 18 pogodbe ES in člen 27 direktive 2004/38/ES ne izključujeta nacionalne zakonodaje, ki dopušča omejevanje pravice državljana ene države članice do potovanja v drugo državo članico, zlasti na podlagi dejstva, da je bil iz te države članice zaradi "nezakonitega prebivanja" pred tem vrnjen v domovino, če njegovo osebno obnašanje predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo enemu od temeljnih interesov družbe in je omejevalni ukrep ustrezen za izpolnitev želenega cilja ter za njegovo dosego ni pretirano omejevalen, in da nacionalno sodišče v postopku, sproženem pred njim, ugotovi, da je temu tako
– although Article 18 of the EC Treaty and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, and it is for the national court to establish whether that is so in the case before it
Zadeva Jipa ,
Jipa Case ,
– člen 12(1) pogodbe ES je treba razlagati, kot da onemogoča, da bi posamezna država članica zaradi preprečevanja kriminala vzpostavila sistem obdelave osebnih podatkov, ki so lastni državljanom Unije, ki niso državljani te države članice
– Article 12(1) of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the putting in place by a Member State, for the purpose of fighting crime, of a system for processing personal data specific to Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State
Zadeva Huber ,
Huber Case ,
Q. ker je v zgoraj omenjenem poročilu o obisku zaprtih centrov za prosilce za azil in priseljence v Belgiji navedeno: "Pridržanje državljanov Skupnosti v centrih za pridržanje za državljane tretjih držav, ki nezakonito prebivajo v EU, je osupljivo in nesorazmerno, predvsem, kadar se izvrši le zaradi preprostih upravnih prekrškov.
Q. whereas the above-mentioned report on a visit to closed detention centres for asylum seekers and immigrants in Belgium stated that "the detention of EU citizens at detention centres for third-country nationals who are illegal immigrants seems shocking and disproportionate, particularly if it is true that it can be imposed merely because a simple administrative violation has been committed.
Statistika belgijskih organov glede tega je zaskrbljujoča."
The figures provided by the Belgian authorities are worrying in this respect",
R. ker je Svet za pravosodje in notranje zadeve v zgoraj navedenih sklepih z dne 27. novembra 2008 Komisijo zaprosil, naj v začetku leta 2009 pripravi obrazložitveno izjavo s smernicami o uporabi direktive 2004/38/ES in preuči morebitne druge ustrezne in potrebne ukrepe,
R. whereas in its above-mentioned Conclusions of 27 November 2008 the Justice and Home Affairs Council requested the Commission to bring forward an interpretative statement providing guidelines on the operation of Directive 2004/38/ES in early 2009 and to consider all other appropriate and necessary measures,
S. ker so bila na osnovi zbranih informacij, zlasti na osnovi odgovorov nacionalnih parlamentov na vprašalnik Parlamenta, ki žal ni izčrpen in ne zajema vseh držav članic, in kot dopolnilo poročilu Komisije, izpostavljena naslednja osrednja problematična vprašanja:
S. whereas, on the basis of the information gathered, notably through national parliaments’ answers to Parliament's questionnaire, which is unfortunately not exhaustive and does not cover all the Member States, and in addition to the Commission Report, the following main issues were identified as problematic:
– države članice strogo razlagajo pojme "družinski član" (člen 2), "drugi družinski člani" in "partner" (člen 3), zlasti za istospolne partnerje in njihovo pravico do prostega gibanja v skladu z dirketivo 2004/38/ES
– restrictive interpretation by Member States of the notion of "family member" (Article 2), of "any other family member" and of "partner" (Article 3), particularly in relation to same sex partners, and their right to free movement under Directive 2004/38/EC
– za vstop in prebivanje družinskih članov iz tretjih držav so upravne obremenitve neupravičeno velike
– unjustified administrative burdens are imposed in respect of the entry and residence of third-country family members
– razlaga držav članic o "dovolj sredstvih" iz člena 7(1)(b) direktive 2004/38/ES je pogosto nejasna, saj večina držav članic zahteva dokazila o zadostnih sredstvih; prav tako je v mnogih državah negotov pojem "nesorazmernega bremena sistema socialne pomoči v državi članici gostiteljici" ter če in v katerih primerih se sprejme ukrep izgona državljana Unije, ki je postal nesorazmerno breme (člen 14, uvodna izjava 10)
– the interpretation by Member States of "sufficient resources" under Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC is often unclear, as most Member States require that evidence of sufficient resources be given; the notion of "unreasonable burden to the social assistance system of the host Member State" and if and in what cases the decision to expel a Union citizen who has become an unreasonable burden (Article 14, recital 10) is in many Member States uncertain as well
Na primer v zvezi z italijansko zakonodajo, ki od državljanov EU zahteva dokazila o zadostnih sredstvih. ,
For example in relation to Italian legislation which requires EU citizens to give evidence of their sufficient resources; ,
– države članice izraz "resni/nujni razlogi v zvezi z javnim redom ali javno varnostjo" razlagajo zelo različno, poleg tega pa se tudi od ene države članice do druge razlikuje in je nejasno, v katerih primerih in s kakšnimi razlogi lahko upravičujejo izgon (člena 27 in 28), kar lahko vodi v zlorabe (kot tarča izbrani državljani določene države članice) oziroma se zelo nejasno sklada z direktivo 2004/38/ES (primer mehanizmov samodejnega izgona)
– the interpretation by Member States of the expression "serious/imperative grounds of public policy and public security" and in what cases and on what grounds it can justify an expulsion order (Articles 27 and 28) vary from one Member State to the other, are unclear and could lead to abuse (targeting of citizens of a certain Member State) or are of dubious conformity with Directive 2004/38/EC (for instance, automatic expulsion mechanisms)
Člen 235 italijanskega kazenskega zakonika na primer določa, da se izženejo neitalijanski državljani, obsojeni na dve- ali večletno zaporno kazen. ,
For instance, Article 235 of the Italian criminal code provides for the expulsion of non nationals convicted to 2 or more years of imprisonment. ,
– organi države članice gostiteljice od državljanov Unije pogosto zahtevajo, da jim predložijo neutemeljena dokazila, ki v direktivi 2004/38/ES niso predvidena
– Union citizens are often required to submit to the authorities of the host Member State unjustified additional documents not provided for in Directive 2004/38/EC
– zakoni in praksa v zvezi z zlorabo pravic in navidezno sklenitvijo zakonske zveze,
– law and practice in relation to abuse of rights and marriages of convenience,
T. ker v nekaterih državah članicah obstajajo velike razlike pri osebnih dokumentih med državljani te države in državljani Unije iz druge države članice, ki imajo težave pri dokazovanju, da so državljani Unije s stalnim prebivališčem, kar v praksi resno ovira uveljavljanje njihovih pravic in njihovo vključevanje v družbeno in poslovno življenje,
T. Whereas in some Member States there are significant differences in identity documents between nationals of the country and Union citizens from another Member State, who find it difficult to prove that they are resident Union citizens, which in practice seriously hinders the exercise of their rights and their integration into social and business life,
U. ker bi bilo treba slab prenos direktive 2004/38/ES za izvajanje člena 18 pogodbe ES v državah članicah obsoditi in ker je to stanje krivo ne le tega, da se slabi učinkovitost in nujnost direktive, pač pa tudi, da se ne uveljavlja ena ključnih pravic, na kateri temelji Unija in jo državljanom podeljujejo pogodbe,
U. whereas the poor transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC implementing Article 18 of the EC Treaty by Member States should be condemned, and whereas such a situation results, if not in the effectiveness and necessity of the Directive itself being undermined, in the non-application of one of the key rights on which the EU is based and which are conferred on Union citizens by the Treaties,
V. ker so po sporočilu Komisije z dne 18. novembra 2008 o vplivu prostega gibanja delavcev v okviru širitve EU o prvi fazi (1. januar 2007 – 31. december 2008) prehodnih ureditev ( KOM(2008)0765 ) mobilni delavci iz držav, ki so se EU pridružile leta 2004 in 2007, imeli pozitiven vpliv na gospodarstvo držav članic,
V whereas according to the Commission Communication of 18 November 2008 on the impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement ( COM(2008)0765 ) during the first phase (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2008) of the transitional arrangements mobile workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have had a positive impact on the economies of Member States,
W. ker štiri države članice iz EU-15 še niso odprle svojih trgov dela za delavce iz držav članic EU-8,
W. whereas four Member States of the EU-15 have not opened their labour markets for workers from the EU-8 Member States,
X. ker je enajst držav članic Komisijo obvestilo o svoji odločitvi, da bodo od 1. januarja 2009 na svojih trgih dela še naprej uporabljale omejitve za državljane Romunije in Bolgarije,
X. whereas eleven Member States have notified the Commission of their decision to continue applying restrictions in their labour markets in respect of nationals of Romania and Bulgaria, as of 1 January 2009,
Uporaba direktive 2004/38/ES
Application of D irective 2004/38/EC
3. poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi ustrezne predloge v okviru stockholmskega programa, da se zagotovi prosto gibanje brez diskriminacije zaradi razlogov, naštetih v členu 13 pogodbe ES, pri tem pa se opira na analizo in zaključke iz poročila Agencije za temeljne pravice;
Calls on the Commission to issue appropriate proposals within the framework of the Stockholm Programme to guarantee free movement without discrimination based on the grounds listed in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, drawing on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Fundamental Rights Agency report;
5. poziva države članice, kjer so taki dokumenti, naj sprejmejo enako obliko za osebne dokumente za njihove državljane in državljane Unije iz drugih držav članic, ne glede na razlike, ki morajo biti zabeležene v dokumentih
Calls on the Member States having such documents to adopt the same format for personal identity documents for their nationals and for Union citizens from other Member States, regardless of the differences which must be noted within the documents
Upravni postopki, ki niso v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, imajo izjemno negativen vpliv na državljanske pravice.
Administrative practices, which are not in conformity with EC law have a significant negative impact on citizens' rights.
8. ugotavlja, da morajo biti ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti, v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti in temeljiti izključno na osebnem obnašanju zadevnega posameznika; takšno osebno obnašanje mora predstavljati resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo, ki prizadene osnovne interese družbe; v zvezi s tem poziva države članice, naj sistematično preverjajo nacionalne razpise ukrepov z namenom zavrnitve vstopa, izdane za državljane Unije in njihove družinske člane
Notes that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security should comply with the principle of proportionality and should be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned; such personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; calls in this respect on Member States to review systematically national alerts for the purpose of refusing entry issued for Union citizens and their family members
V estonski in madžarski zakonodaji pri ukrepu izgona ni jasno navedena izključitev iz gospodarskih razlogov.
Estonian and Hungarian legislation do not expressly provide for the exclusion of economic ends when imposing an expulsion order.
9. ugotavlja, da vse države članice še niso začele izvajati člena 35 direktive 2004/38/ES, po katerem je možno sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za zavrnitev, prenehanje ali preklic pravic do prostega gibanja v primeru zlorabe pravic ali prevare (npr. navidezna sklenitev zakonske zveze), pod pogojem, da so ti ukrepi sorazmerni in nediskriminatorni in da se spoštujejo postopkovna jamstva; opozarja na možnosti, ki jih nudi ta člen;
Notes that not all Member States have implemented Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows them to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw free movement rights in cases of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience, provided that such measures are proportionate and non-discriminatory and that procedural safeguards are respected, and draws attention to the possibilities provided by that Article;
12. poziva Komisijo in države članice, naj pri izvajanju direktive 2004/38/ES upoštevajo morebitne diskriminacijske učinke uredb o socialni varnosti in dostopu do storitev splošnega interesa, ki bi lahko predstavljali ovire za prosto gibanje;
Calls on the Commission and Member States in the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC to consider the potential discriminatory effects of social security regulations and access to services of general interest which could constitute barriers to free movement;
14. poziva Komisijo in države članice, naj ponovno pregledajo omejitve, pridržke in časovne roke iz direktive 2004/38/ES pri uveljavljanju pravice do prostega gibanja v skladu z določili člena 39 te direktive ter analizirajo učinek odprave sedanje diskriminacije med državljani Unije glede na njihovo polno uživanje pravice do prostega gibanja in pravic, ki po pogodbi izvirajo iz državljanstva Unije;
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to review the limitations, restrictions and current time periods provided for in Directive 2004/38/EC to enjoy freedom of movement rights along the lines of Article 39 thereof and to analyse the impact of removing current discrimination between Union citizens in terms of their full enjoyment of free movement rights and Union citizenship rights conferred by the Treaty;
15. ugotavlja, da nezadovoljiv prenos direktive 2004/38/ES kaže na dejstvo, da Komisija ni mogla zagotoviti, da bi države članice direktivo izvajale skladno in pravočasno, in obravnavati velikega števila pritožb državljanov v zvezi z uporabo direktive;
Notes that unsatisfactory transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC demonstrates that the Commission has been unable to secure coherent and timely compliance with the Directive by Member States and to handle the large number of complaints from citizens in relation to the application of the Directive;
17. poziva države članice, naj sprožijo postopke za izvedbo smernic do konca leta 2009 in prilagodijo svojo zakonodajo in prakso ter naj smernice posredujejo vsem pristojnim organom in spremljajo njihovo uporabo;
Calls on Member States to start procedures to implement the guidelines by the end of 2009 so to adapt their national legislation and practices, and calls on them to provide the guidelines to any competent authority and monitor their application;
20. priznava omejitve za repatriacijo posmrtnih ostankov državljanov Unije in poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi kodeks ravnanja, ki bi ga države članice lahko upoštevale, da bi se zagotovilo, da je dodatek svobodi gibanja državljanov;
Recognises the restrictions on repatriation of mortal remains of Union citizens and calls on the Commission to bring forward a Code of Conduct to which Member States could adhere to, in order to ensure that it is a corollary to the freedom of movement of citizens.
24. poziva Komisijo, naj od držav članic zahteva redna poročila s statističnimi podatki v zvezi s prostim gibanjem, na primer o številu primerov, ko so bile zavrnjene pravice vstopa in prebivanja, ter opravljenih izgonov in razlogih zanje;
Calls on the Commission to require from Member States periodic reports including statistical data in relation to freedom of movement, for instance on the number of occasions when entry and residence rights were denied and of expulsions carried out and for which reason;
26. poziva Komisijo, naj preveri, ali v državah članicah obstajajo sistemi za obdelavo osebnih podatkov, specifičnih za državljane Unije, ki niso državljani zadevne države članice, in ali vsebujejo le tiste podatke, ki so potrebni za uporabo direktive 2004/38/ES in njen prenos v nacionalno zakonodajo; poziva jo, naj preveri tudi, ali obstajajo podobni sistemi, katerih namen je boj proti kriminalu, in poziva tiste države članice, ki imajo takšne sisteme, naj jih pregledajo v skladu z zadevo Huber;
Calls on the Commission to verify the existence in Member States of systems for processing personal data specific to Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State and whether they contain only those data necessary for applying Directive 2004/38/EC and national transposition legislation; calls on it also to verify whether similar systems exist for the purpose of fighting crime, and calls on those Member States which have such systems, to review them, in compliance with the Huber case;
ki sta ga predložila Roberta Angelilli in Mario Borghezio
submitted by Roberta Angelilli and Mario Borghezio
(člen 48 Poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta)
(Rule 48 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament)
O POROČILU VALEAN
ON THE VALEAN REPORT
– Čeprav odločno zagovarjava pomen direktive 38/2004/ES in poudarjava potrebo, da se z njo zagotovi prosto gibanje državljanov EU;
- While we firmly reiterate the importance of Directive 38/2004 and stress the need to ensure, through that directive, freedom of movement for EU citizens;
– se ne strinjava s pristopom iz poročila, ki posega na področja, ki so v izključni pristojnosti držav članic, zlasti družinsko pravo, kazensko pravo ter javni red in mir;
- We do not agree with the approach taken by the report, which goes into the merits of subjects which are within the exclusive competence of the Member States, in particular family law, criminal law and law and order;
– prav tako meniva, da je nesprejemljiva opomba k poročilu (uvodna izjava S), ki se sklicuje na domnevno strogo razlago pojma "družinski član", "drugi družinski član" ali "partner" s strani držav članic.
- We also find unacceptable the footnote in the report (Recital S) referring to a presumed "restrictive interpretation" by Member States of the notion of "family member", of "any other family member" and of "partner".
V opombi se kritizira "splošni trend proti priznavanju tretjega/četrtega zakonca" in se predlaga široka in dvoumna razlaga direktive 38/2004/ES, ki bi spodbujala h goljufivim sklepanjem navideznih zakonskih zvez ali celo k protislovnemu priznavanju legitimnosti poligamije.
The footnote criticises the "general trend against the recognition of third/fourth spouses", proposing, therefore, a broad and ambiguous interpretation of Directive 38/2004 which could encourage the fraudulent practice of marriages of convenience, or even the paradoxical recognition of the legitimacy of polygamy.
2. z razočaranjem ugotavlja, da je prenos direktive zadovoljiv samo na Cipru, v Grčiji, na Finskem, v Luksemburgu, na Malti, Portugalskem in v Španiji;
Notes with disappointment that only in Cyprus, Greece, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Spain is the transposition of the Directive satisfactory;
4. ugotavlja, da nepravilna uporaba direktive v državah članicah zahteva razmislek o spremembi najbolj problematičnih določb, in sicer pravice do vstopa in prebivanja družinskih članov iz tretjih držav ter zahteve, da državljani EU skupaj z vlogami za izdajo dovoljenja za prebivanje predložijo tudi dodatne listine, ki jih direktiva ne predvideva;
Notes that the failure of the correct application of the Directive by the Member States calls for consideration of amending the most problematic provisions, namely the right of entry and residence of third country family members and the requirement for EU citizens to submit, along with the applications for residence, additional documents not provided for in the Directive;
7. ugotavlja, da položaj registriranih partnerjev, ki imajo korist od direktive, ni vedno jasen, zlasti v državah, kjer registrirana partnerstva niso priznana; poziva Komisijo, naj pozorno spremlja ta pomembni vidik direktive;
Notes that the situation of registered partners who benefit from the Directive is not always clear, especially in those countries which do not recognise registered partnership; asks the Commission to monitor this important aspect of the Directive carefully;