natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Komisija mora pritožnikovo pritožbo zaradi kršitev obravnavati
The Commission should deal with the complainant's infringement complaint as
čim bolj prizadevno in hitro.
rapidly and as diligently as possibl e.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je upošteval naslednja dejstva:
The Ombudsman considered the following:
– Dejstvo, da je neko direktivo (93/104/ES) nadomestila druga (2003/88/ES) z enako vsebino, ne zadeva navedene pritožbe.
- The fact that one directive (93/104) has been replaced by another one (2003/88) dealing with the same subject matter was not relevant for the complaint.
– V skladu s členom 211 Pogodbe EU je za zagotavljanje izvajanja ukrepov institucij odgovorna Komisija.
- Under A rticle 211 of the EU Treaty it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that measures taken by the institutions are applied.
– Komisija je varuh Pogodb.
- The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties.
Poudarja, da je ta vloga bistvena za interese evropskih državljanov, in priznava pomembnost pravne države.
It has stressed that this role is essential to the interests of European citizens and it has recognised the importance of the rule of law.
Zato je v skladu z načelom dobrega upravljanja, da se pritožbe zaradi kršitev obravnavajo čim bolj prizadevno in hitro.
Therefore, it is good administrative practice to deal with infringement complaints as rapidly and diligently as possible.
– Komisija je predlagala, da obravnava pritožbo zaradi kršitev ob upoštevanju svojega predloga spremembe zadevne direktive.
- The Commission proposed to deal with the infringement complaint in the light of its proposal for an amendment of the relevant directive.
Komisija je dejansko predvidevala, da ji na podlagi člena 211 Pogodbe ES ni treba zagotoviti izvajanja direktive, za katero poteka postopek za spremembo.
Apparently the Commission assumed that Article 211 of the EC Treaty did not require it to ensure the application of a Directive which is in the process of being amended.
– Direktivi 93/104/ES in 2000/88/ES sta v času obravnavanja pritožbe še vedno veljali, hkrati pa ni bilo nobenega pravila ali načela, ki bi Komisiji dovoljevalo neupoštevanje svoje dolžnosti iz člena 211.
- Directives 93/104 and 2000/88 both were in force and there was no rule or principle that would allow the Commission to disregard its duty under Article 211.
– Komisija ima v primeru kršitev diskrecijsko pravico, da se odloči, ali naj zadevo preda Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
- The Commission in the case of an infringement has discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Vendar to še ne pomeni, da lahko neomejeno odlaga sprejetje sklepa glede pritožbe na podlagi dejstva, da se lahko veljavna zakonodaja nekoč v prihodnosti spremeni.
However, this does not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that applicable law may be amended some time in the future.
– Dejstvo, da Komisija ni obravnavala pritožnikove pritožbe zaradi kršitev v razumnem času, je nepravilnost.
- The Commission's failure to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time constituted maladministration.
Komisija je v svojem podrobnem mnenju vztrajala, da je imela veljavno diskrecijsko pravico v zvezi z odločitvijo, ali naj proti državam članicam še naprej izvaja postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev, in izbiro načina za upravljanje takšnih postopkov.
In its detailed opinion the Commission maintained that it had an established discretion whether to pursue infringement procedures against Member States, as well as over the way in which it managed such procedures.
Zato se je odločila, da ne nadaljuje s postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev, dokler niso znani rezultati zakonodajnega postopka glede njenega predloga spremembe direktive 2003/88/ES.
Therefore, it had decided not to advance with infringement procedures pending the results of the legislative process concerning its proposal for amendment of Directive 2003/88.
Komisija je dodala, da je navedena diskrecijska pravica zajemala vse faze pritožb in postopkov, vključno s postopki pred pravdo.
The Commission added that this discretion extended to all phases of complaints and proceedings, including the pre-litigation stage.
V sporočilu Parlamentu in varuhu človekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti iz leta 2002 je Komisija navedla, da se bo o začetku postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev in njihovem dokončanju praviloma odločila v enem letu od datuma prijave pritožbe.
In a Communication to the Parliament and the Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law of 2002, the Commission had indicated that, as a general rule, it would decide whether to open infringement proceedings or to close the file within a year from the date of the registration of the complaint.
Vendar to ni omejilo diskrecijske pravice Komisije, kadar je bil upravičen drugačen pristop, ki je bolj prilagojen posameznim dejstvom v zadevi.
However, this did not limit the discretion of the Commission when it seemed justified to adopt a different approach more adapted to the particular facts of the case.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil naslednje:
The Ombudsman noted the following:
- Komisija je sprejela nekatere obveznosti glede obravnave pritožb zaradi kršitev.
- The Commission had entered into certain commitments as regards the handling of infringement complaints.
- V svojem sporočilu je Komisija navedla, da bodo njeni organi praviloma preiskovali pritožbe in si prizadevali sprejeti sklep za izdajo uradnega obvestila ali za zaključek zadeve v roku enega leta od datuma prijave pritožbe in da bo pisno obvestila pritožnika, kadar se ta rok izteče.
- In its Communication the Commission had stated that as a general rule its departments will investigate complaints with a view to arriving at a decision to issue a formal notice or to close the case within not more than a year from the date of registration of the complaint and that it would inform the complainant in writing where this time limit is exceeded.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je enoletna omejitev upravičena le, če Komisija v tem času zadevo dejansko še preiskuje.
The Ombudsman considered that the one-year time limit is justified only if the Commission is indeed still investigating a case.
- Komisija bo obravnavala pritožbo v smislu svojega predloga spremembe direktive, ki ga je predložila septembra 2004.
- The Commission would deal with the complaint in the context of its proposal for amendment of the Directive which was submitted in September 2004.
Pozneje ni Komisija sprejela nobenih nadaljnjih ukrepov za nadaljevanje preiskav.
It seems the Commission had not taken any further steps since in order to proceed with the investigations.
- V skladu s sporočilom Komisije sta v zvezi s preiskavo pritožbe zaradi kršitev mogoči dve odločitvi.
- According to the Commission's Communication an investigation of an infringement complaint can result in one of two possible decisions.
Komisija se lahko odloči, da izda uradno obvestilo, tj. da sproži formalne postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev proti državi članici, ali zaključi zadevo.
Either the Commission decides to issue a formal notice i.e. to initiate formal infringement proceedings against a Member State or it decides to close the case.
V tej zadevi ni Komisija sprejela nobenih nadaljnjih ukrepov glede svojih preiskav.
- The Commission stressed its discretionary powers and that its commitments in its Communication did not limit its discretion when it seemed justified to follow a different approach.
Diskrecijske pravice Komisije bi se morale upoštevati v okviru sporočila, pri čemer razlog za neuspeh Komisije v zvezi s sprejetjem dokončnega stališča ne morejo biti diskrecijske pravice Komisije.
The Commission's discretionary powers should be exercised within the framework of the Communication and the failure to reach a decision cannot be justified by the Commission's discretionary powers.
- Poleg tega Komisija ni obravnavala vidikov pritožnikove pritožbe, ki so bili neodvisni od sodne prakse, na katero se sklicuje Komisija.
- Moreover the Commission did not deal with aspects of the complainant's complaint that were independent of the case-law the Commission refers to.
- Ugotovljeni primer nepravilnosti je, da Komisija ni sprejela dokončnega stališča glede pritožnikove pritožbe zaradi kršitev.
- The identified instance of maladministration consists in the Commission's failure to adopt a definite position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint.
Če bi bila preiskava zaključena in ugotovljena kršitev, bi Komisija imela diskrecijsko pravico, da se odloči, ali bo zadevo predala Sodišču.
If an investigation were completed and an infringement were found the Commission would have discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
Vendar Komisija takšne odločitve še ni sprejela.
However, the Commission has not yet taken such a decision.
- O vprašanju, ali je Komisija očitno presegla meje svoje diskrecijske pravice, bi lahko razpravljali v Evropskem parlamentu.
- An examination of the question whether the Commission has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion could be the subject for a discussion in the European Parliament.
o posebnem poročilu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic Evropskemu parlamentu po osnutku priporočila Evropski komisiji v pritožbi 3453/2005/GG
on the Special report from the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 3453/205/GG
Odbor za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve poziva Odbor za peticije, kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Petitions, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
4. opozarja tudi, da je treba pravo Skupnosti izvajati takšno, kot je, razen če ni spremenjeno z naknadnimi določbami, kar pomeni, da v nasprotju z njeno utemeljitvijo lastnega neukrepanja, predlogi za spremembo zakonodaje, ki jih poda Komisija, ne morejo povzročiti zakonodajne vrzeli ( vacatio legis );
Also stresses that Community law must be applied as it stands unless and until it is amended by subsequent legislation, and that, consequently, no proposal for amending legislation by the Commission can create a legislative lacuna ( vacatio legis ), which, in effect, was the Commission’s justification for its failure to act in the instant case;
9. do 31. decembra 2005, kar je bilo s sklepom nemškega zveznega sveta naknadno podaljšano do 31. decembra 2006; izraža začudenje ob tem in poudarja, da mora Komisija preučiti nemško zakonodajo in vse kolektivne sporazume, ki vsebujejo odstopanja od zakonodaje o delovnem času, da bi ocenila, ali se Direktiva 2003/88/ES izvaja v skladu s temi sporazumi;
9. until 31 December 2005, a deadline subsequently extended to 31 December 2006 by a decision of the German Bundesrat ; expresses its surprise at this state of affairs and emphasises that the Commission must examine the German legislation and all collective agreements containing exemptions to working time legislation in order to assess whether Directive 2003/88/EC is being implemented thereby;
7. zaradi vsega naštetega poziva tudi države članice, naj v celoti izvajajo standarde higiene in varnosti na delovnem mestu, v primeru dvoma pa naj prevlada razlaga, ki je koristnejša za zdravje in varnost delavcev ( in dubio pro operario ).
Also urges all the Member States, in the light of the foregoing, to apply faithfully all the rules relating to health and safety at work on the basis of the principle that, in event of any doubt, the interpretation of the law which is most favourable to the health and safety of workers should prevail ( in dubio pro operario ).
o predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o minimalnih varnostnih in zdravstvenih zahtevah za uporabo delovne opreme delavcev pri delu (druga posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16 (1) Direktive 89/391/EGS) (kodificirana različica)
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (codified version)
PRILOGA: MNENJE POSVETOVALNE SKUPINE PRAVNIH SLUŽB EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA, SVETA IN KOMISIJE 6
ANNEX: OPINION THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION 6
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2006)0652 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2008)0111 ),
– ob upoštevanju členov 251(2) in 137(2) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0127/2008 ),
– having regard to Articles 251(2) and Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0127/2008 ),
– ob upoštevanju medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 20. decembra 1994 – Pospešeni način dela za uradno kodifikacijo zakonodajnih besedil
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 - Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6‑0290/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0290/2008 ),
1. odobri predlog Komisije, kakor je bil prilagojen v skladu s predlogi posvetovalne skupine pravnih služb Parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije
Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;
PRILOGA: MNENJE POSVETOVALNE SKUPINE PRAVNIH SLUŽB EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA, SVETA IN KOMISIJE
ANNEX: OPINION THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
POSVETOVALNA SKUPINA
LEGAL SERVICES’
SVET KOMISIJO
THE COMMISSION
V skladu z Medinstitucionalnim sporazumom z dne 20. decembra 1994 o pospešenem delovnem postopku za uradno kodifikacijo zakonodajnih besedil, še posebej z njegovo 4. točko, se je posvetovalna skupina, ki jo sestavljajo predstavniki pravnih služb Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, srečala 3. aprila 2008, da bi med drugim preučila omenjeni predlog, ki ga je predstavila Komisija.
Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts, and in particular to point 4 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission met on 3 April 2008 in order to consider, among others, the above Commission proposal.
Skupina je na srečanju preučila
When it examined
Posvetovalna skupina je imela na voljo 22 uradnih jezikovnih različic, svoje delo pa je opravila na podlagi francoske različice, saj je bila francoščina izvorni jezik delovnega dokumenta. predloga Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, ki kodificira Direktivo Sveta 89/655/EGS z dne 30. novembra 1989 o minimalnih varnostnih in zdravstvenih zahtevah za uporabo delovne opreme delavcev pri delu (druga posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16(1) Direktive 89/391/EGS) in soglasno ugotovila, da je v prilogi III, del B, treba datum 5. december 1998 nadomestiti s 4. decembrom 1998.
The Working Party had at its disposal 22 language versions of the proposal and worked on the basis of the French version, which was the original version of the working document. the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council intended to codify Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Working Party, by common accord, noted that in Part B of Annex III, the date of 5 December 1998 should be replaced by that of 4 December 1998.
Posvetovalna delovna skupina je po pregledu predloga lahko soglasno sklenila, da gre pri predlogu zgolj za kodifikacijo obstoječih besedil in da ni prišlo do nobenih vsebinskih sprememb.
The Consultative Working Party confirmed by common accord that the proposal is indeed confined to straightforward codification without any substantive changes to the instruments in question.
Minimalne varnostne in zdravstvene zahteve za uporabo delovne opreme (druga posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16 (1) Direktive 89/391/EGS) (kodificirana različica)
Minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC - codified version)
o spremenjenem predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spodbujanju čistih in energetsko učinkovitih vozil za cestni prevoz
on the revised proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles
MNENJE Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov .........................34
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 34
MNENJE Odbora za promet in turizem ...................................................................48
OPINION of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ................................48
o predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spodbujanju čistih in energetsko učinkovitih vozil za cestni prevoz
on the revised proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles
– ob upoštevanju spremenjenega predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2007)0817 ),
– having regard to the revised Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0817 ),
– ob upoštevanju členov 251(2) in 175(1) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija podala predlog Parlamentu ( C6‑0008/2008 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0008/2008 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane ter mnenj Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko, Odbora za notranji trg in zaščito potrošnikov ter Odbora za promet in turizem ( A6–0291/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Transport and Tourism ( A6‑0291/2008 ),
(4) V sporočilu Komisije „Energetska politika za Evropo“ je predlagano, da se EU zaveže, da bo do leta 2020 dosegla najmanj 20% znižanje emisij toplogrednih plinov (v primerjavi z vrednostmi iz leta 1990).
(4) The Commission Communication “An energy policy for Europe” proposed an EU commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 compared to 1990.
Predlagani so bili zavezujoči cilji za dodatno izboljšanje energetske učinkovitosti za 20%, 20-odstotni delež obnovljive energije in 10-odstotni delež biogoriv na trgu motornih goriv v Skupnosti do leta 2020, med drugim za izboljšanje varnosti preskrbe z energijo z diverzifikacijo mešanice goriva.
Binding targets for further improvement of energy efficiency by 20%, a level of 20% of renewable energy and a 10% biofuels share in the motor fuel market in the Community by 2020 have been proposed, i.a. to improve security of energy supply by diversifying the fuel mix.
Predlagani so bili zavezujoči cilji za dodatno izboljšanje energetske učinkovitosti za 20%, 20-odstotni delež obnovljive energije in 10-odstotni delež trajnostno proizvedenih in certificiranih biogoriv na trgu motornih goriv v Skupnosti do leta 2020, med drugim za izboljšanje varnosti preskrbe z energijo z diverzifikacijo mešanice goriva.
Binding targets for further improvement of energy efficiency by 20%, a level of 20% of renewable energy and a 10% share of sustainably produced and certified biofuels in the motor fuel market in the Community by 2020 have been proposed, i.a. to improve security of energy supply by diversifying the fuel mix.
(9) Poročilo skupine na visoki ravni CARS 21 z dne 12. decembra 2005 je podprlo pobudo Komisije, da predstavi predlog o spodbujanju čistih in energetsko učinkovitih vozil, če je pristop tehnološko nevtralen in temelji na rezultatih.
(9) The CARS 21 High Level Group report of 12 December 2005 supported the Commission's initiative on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient vehicles, on condition that a technology-neutral and performance based is taken.
(9) Poročilo skupine na visoki ravni CARS 21 z dne 12. decembra 2005 je podprlo pobudo Komisije, da predstavi predlog o spodbujanju čistih in energetsko učinkovitih vozil, če je celosten pristop tehnološko nevtralen in temelji na rezultatih ter vključuje proizvajalce vozil, dobavitelje nafte ali goriv, serviserje, stranke ali voznike in javne organe .
(9) The CARS 21 High Level Group report of 12 December 2005 supported the Commission's initiative on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient vehicles, on condition that a technology-neutral and performance based integrated approach involving vehicle manufacturers, oil or fuel suppliers, repairers, customers or drivers and public authorities is taken.
(10a) Namen te direktive je usmerjati trg k čistim in energetsko učinkovitim vozilom, in sicer zlasti (zaradi občutnega vpliva na okolje) vplivati na trg standardiziranih vozil, ki se proizvajajo v večjih količinah, kot so osebni avtomobili, avtobusi in tovornjaki.
(10a) This Directive aims to stimulate the market for clean and energy efficient vehicles, and especially - since this would have a substantial environmental impact - to influence the market for standardised vehicles produced in larger quantities such as passenger cars, buses, coaches and trucks.
Torej ne namerava vplivati na odločitve v zvezi z naročanjem vozil, ki jih uporabljajo nujne službe, ali drugih visoko specializiranih vozil.
It is therefore not intended to influence procurement decisions relating to vehicles providing vital emergency services or other highly specialised vehicles.
Intervencijska vozila in druga visoko specializirana vozila so draga in se proizvajajo v majhnih količinah, kar pomeni, da niso učinkoviti „usmerjevalci trga“.
Emergency vehicles and other highly specialised vehicles are expensive and produced in low volumes which means that they are not effective “market drivers”.
(10b) (10a) Države članice bi morale nacionalne, regionalne ali lokalne javne in zasebne naročnike, ki zagotavljajo storitve javnega potniškega prevoza po pogodbi, z dovoljenjem ali pooblastilom javnih organov, obvestiti o določbah v zvezi z naročili čistih in energetsko učinkovitih vozil za cestni prevoz.
Member States should inform national, regional or local contracting authorities and contracting entities which provide public passenger transport services under licence, permit or authorisation granted by public authorities on the provisions relat ing to the procurement of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles.
Javnim naročnikom je treba zagotoviti ustrezne informacije, da bodo bolje pripravili prevzeme, glede na to, da se bodo določbam direktiv 2004/17/ES in 2004/18/ES pridružila nova „zelena“ merila za dodelitev.
It is important to provide the relevant information to the contracting authorities in order to better prepare for acquisitions due to the fact that the 'green' award criteria will be new, in addition to the provisions of the Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC.
Čista in energetsko učinkovita vozila so sprva dražja od običajnih vozil.
Creating sufficient demand for such vehicles should ensure that economies of scale can lead to cost reductions.