natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Meni, da je treba spremeniti pravno podlago iz izvirnega predloga Komisije, in podpira stališče Sveta, izraženo v pismu z dne 26. januarja 2011, da morata sozakonodajalca v skladu s členom 43(2) po rednem zakonodajnem postopku sprejeti akt o spremembi direktive 2000/75/ES.
The rapporteur supports the position of the Council expressed in its letter from 26 January 2011 that the act amending Council Directive 2000/75/EC should be adopted by the co-legislators under the ordinary legislative procedure pursuant to Article 43(2).
V pismu z dne 10. februarja 2011 ste v skladu s členom 37(2) poslovnika Odbor za pravne zadeve prosili za mnenje o pravni podlagi zadevnega predloga Komisije in predvideno spremembo, s katero bi zlasti člen direktive Sveta 92/119/EGS nadomestili s členom 43(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU).
By letter of 10 February 2011 you asked the Committee on Legal Affairs pursuant to Rule 37(2) to give its opinion on the envisaged amendment of the legal basis of the above Commission proposal, i.e. the change of the legal basis from Article 15 of Council Directive 92/119/EEC to Article 43(2) TFEU.
Odbor je to vprašanje obravnaval na seji 28. februarja 2011.
The committee considered the above question at its meeting of 28 February 2011.
Komisija je predlog direktive Sveta o spremembi Direktive 2000/75/ES glede cepljenja proti bolezni modrikastega jezika Svetu predložila 15. novembra 2010.
The proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2000/75/EC as regards vaccination against bluetongue was submitted to the Council by the Commission on 15 November 2010.
Nato je predsednik odbora AGRI 8. decembra 2010 Komisiji in Svetu poslal pismo, v katerem je izrazil resne dvome o postopku za sprejetje predloga.
Following that, on 8 December 2010 the Chair of AGRI sent a letter to the Commission and the Council in which he raised serious doubts about the procedure for the adoption of the proposal.
Prav tako je od Komisije zahteval, naj svoj predlog umakne, od Sveta pa, naj ga ne sprejme, temveč počaka, da Komisija predloži novega.
He also asked the Commission to withdraw its proposal and the Council not to adopt it but to wait for the submission of a new one by the Commission.
Predlagano je bilo, da bi moral novi predlog temeljiti na členu 43(2) PDEU.
It was proposed that the new proposal should be based on Article 43(2) TFEU.
V pismu je bilo poudarjeno, da je Komisija uporabila izvedeno pravno podlago, za katero se zdi, da je glede na sodno prakso Sodišča (zlasti njegovo sodbo z dne 6. maja 2008 v primeru C-133/06) nezakonita, ter navedeno, da si v skladu z Lizbonsko pogodbo zakonodajno funkcijo zdaj delita Parlament in Svet in da Svet glede na to, da je člen 202 ES razveljavljen, nima več samostojne zakonodajne oblasti.
The letter stressed that the Commission had used a secondary legal basis, which ‘(...) seems to be illegal in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice (in particular its judgment of 6 May 2008 in case C-133/06)’ and further stated that ‘(...) under the Treaty of Lisbon, the legislative function is now shared between Parliament and the Council and, as Article 202 EC has been repealed, the Council no longer has an autonomous legislative power.
Za sprejemanje zakonodajnih aktov s področja kmetijstva v skladu s členom 43(2) PDEU se uporablja redni zakonodajni postopek.
With regard to legislative acts in the field of agriculture under Article 43(2) TFEU, it is the ordinary legislative procedure which applies to their adoption.’
O predlogu je 2. decembra 2010 razpravljala delovna skupina Sveta, sestavljena iz vodij veterinarskih uprav.
The proposal was discussed by the Council Working Party of Chief Veterinary Officers on 2 December 2010.
Na tem sestanku je Pravna služba Sveta delegacijam odsvetovala uporabo izvedene pravne podlage za predlog in menila, da bi moral temeljiti na členu 43(2) PDEU.
At that meeting the Council Legal Service advised delegations against the use of the secondary legal basis for the proposal and expressed the view that it should be based on Article 43(2) TFEU.
Svet se je glede na vse to odločil, da ne bo uporabil pravne podlage, ki jo je predlagala Komisija.
In view of all this, the Council decided not to use the legal basis proposed by the Commission.
Komisija je pojasnila, da ni bilo mogoče pričakovati, da bi bil predlog lahko umaknjen in nadomeščen s predlogom na podlagi člena 43(2) PDEU, tako da bi ga Parlament in Svet pravočasno sprejela za akcijo cepljenja v letu 2011.
The Commission explained that it could not be expected that the proposal could be withdrawn and replaced by a proposal based on Article 43(2) TFEU so as to allow for its adoption by the Parliament and the Council in time for the 2011 vaccination campaign.
Ker je šlo za nujen cilj, je Svet v pismu z dne 26. januarja 2011, naslovljenem na predsednika Parlamenta, Parlamentu posredoval predlog in predlagal, da sozakonodajalca spremenita njegovo pravno podlago v člen 43(2) PDEU.
Given the urgency of that objective, in a letter dated 26 January 2011 addressed to the President of the Parliament, the Council transmitted the proposal to the Parliament and proposed that the co-legislators modify its legal basis to Article 43(2) TFEU.
Svet je prav tako pozval Parlament, naj sprejme svoje stališče o predlogu Komisije na tej podlagi v skladu z rednim zakonodajnim postopkom.
The Council also invited the Parliament to adopt its position on the Commission proposal on this basis under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Predstavniki Komisije so jasno povedali, da Komisija temu pristopu ne bi nasprotovala.
The Commission representatives made it clear that the Commission would not object to this approach.
Odbor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja namerava kot pristojni odbor spremeniti pravno podlago predloga, kot predlaga Svet.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development as the committee responsible intends to amend the legal basis of the proposal as suggested by the Council.
Predlog Komisije temelji na členu 15 direktive Sveta 92/119/EGS z dne 17. decembra 1992 o splošnih ukrepih Skupnosti za nadzor nad določenimi živalskimi boleznimi in o posebnih ukrepih v primeru vezikularne bolezni prašičev
The Commission proposal is based on Article 15 of Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease
UL L 62, 15.3.1993, str.
OJ L 62, 15.03.1993, p.
„Člen 15
‘Article 15
Z odstopanjem od splošnih določb te direktive, so posebne določbe v zvezi z ukrepi za nadzor in izkoreninjenje posamezne bolezni:
By way of derogation from the general provisions laid down in this Directive, specific provisions relating to the control and eradication measures for each respective disease:
– za vezikularno bolezen prašičev, navedeno v Prilogi II,
— are, for swine vesicular disease, set out in Annex II for swine vesicular disease,
– za vse druge bolezni iz Priloge I posebne določbe sprejme Svet s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije.“
— are, for each of the other diseases listed in Annex I, adopted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.’
Naslov Priloge I se glasi „Seznam bolezni, ki jih je obvezno treba prijaviti“ in vključuje bolezen modrikastega jezika.
Annex I is entitled ‘List of compulsorily notifiable diseases’ and includes bluetongue.
Pravna podlaga, ki jo predlagata Svet in odbor AGRI, je člen 43(2) PDEU, ki se glasi: „2.
The legal basis proposed by the Council and AGRI is Article 43(2) TFEU, which reads as follows: ‘ 2.
Evropski parlament in Svet po rednem zakonodajnem postopku in po posvetovanju z Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom določita skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov iz člena 40(1) in druge določbe, potrebne za doseganje ciljev skupne kmetijske in ribiške politike.“ (deli besedila dodatno podčrtani)
The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall establish the common organisation of agricultural markets provided for in Article 40(1) and the other provisions necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. ’ (emphasis added)
Pravna podlaga, ki jo je izbrala Komisija
The Commission’s choice of legal basis
Komisija je v obrazložitvenem memorandumu podala naslednjo obrazložitev izbire pravne podlage: „Pravna podlaga za Direktivo 2000/75/ES je druga alinea člena 15 Direktive Sveta 92/119/EGS z dne 17. decembra 1992 o splošnih ukrepih Skupnosti za nadzor nad določenimi živalskimi boleznimi in o posebnih ukrepih v primeru vezikularne bolezni prašičev („temeljni akt“), ki določa, da lahko Svet s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije sprejme posebne določbe v zvezi z ukrepi za nadzor in izkoreninjenje katerih koli živalskih bolezni, ki so naštete v Prilogi I direktive.
The choice of the legal basis is explained by the Commission in the explanatory memorandum as follows: ‘ The legal basis of Directive 2000/75/EC is the second indent of Article 15 of Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease (the ‘basic act’), which provides that the Council may adopt specific provisions relating to the control and eradication measures for any of the animal diseases listed in Annex I to the Directive, acting on a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.
Ker temeljni akt, ki daje pravno podlago, še vedno velja, veljavnost Lizbonske pogodbe ne vpliva na zakonitost pooblastil, ki so dane Svetu s tem aktom, ta pooblastila pa ostanejo v izključni pristojnosti Sveta .“ (deli besedila dodatno podčrtani) Podobno je generalni direktor GD SANCO 15. novembra 2010 poslal pismo predsedniku odbora AGRI, v katerem je v glavnem navedel, da je pravna podlaga Direktive Sveta 2000/75/ES o določitvi posebnih določb za boj zoper in izkoreninjenje bolezni modrikastega jezika pravna podlaga Direktive Sveta 92/119/EGS, ki določa, da lahko Svet s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije sprejme posebne določbe v zvezi z ukrepi za nadzor in izkoreninjenje za številne bolezni živali, med njimi za bolezen modrikastega jezika.
Since the basic act providing for this legal basis is still in force, the legality of the powers vested in the Council in this act are not affected by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and these powers remain solely with the Council. ’ (emphasis added) Similar wording was used in a letter of 15 November 2010 from the Director General of DG SANCO to the Chair of AGRI: ‘ The legal basis of Council Directive 2000/75/EC on the control and eradication of bluetongue is [to be] found in Council Directive 92/119/EEC, which provides that the Council may adopt specific provisions relating to the control and eradication measures for a number of animal diseases, amongst which bluetongue, acting on a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.
Ker temeljni akt, ki daje pravno podlago, še vedno velja, veljavnost Lizbonske pogodbe ne vpliva na zakonitost pooblastil, ki so dane Svetu s tem aktom.
Since the basic act providing for this legal basis is still in force, the legality of the powers vested in the Council in this act are not affected by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Predlog Komisije je zato naslovljen samo na Svet.
For these reasons, the Commission proposal is addressed to the Council, only. ’
Pristop Sodišča
Approach of the Court of Justice
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča so razvidna nekatera načela.
Certain principles emerge from the case law of the Court.
Glede na posledice pravne podlage v smislu stvarne pristojnosti in postopka je izbira ustrezne pravne podlage ustavnega pomena
First, in view of the consequences of the legal basis in terms of substantive competence and the procedure, the choice of the correct legal basis is of constitutional importance
V skladu s členom 13(2) PDEU mora vsaka institucija delovati v mejah pristojnosti, ki so ji dodeljene s Pogodbo
Secondly, under Article 13(2) TEU, each institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty
Sodba z dne 23. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Parlament proti Komisiji, (C-403/05, ZOdl., str.
Case C-403/05 Parliament v Commission [2007] ECR I‑9045, para.
I-9045, točka 49 in tam navedena sodna praksa). , pravila glede načina, kako institucije Skupnosti pridejo do svojih odločitev, pa so določena v Pogodbi in države članice ali institucije same z njimi ne morejo razpolagati.
49, and the case-law cited therein. and the rules regarding the manner in which the Community institutions arrive at their decisions are laid down in the Treaty and are not at the disposal of the Member States or of the institutions themselves
Namen in vsebina predlaganih ukrepov
Aim and content of the proposed measures
Namen predloga je sprememba Direktive Sveta 2000/75/ES z dne 20. novembra 2000 o določitvi posebnih določb za boj zoper in izkoreninjenje bolezni modrikastega jezika
The proposal seeks to amend Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue
UL L 327, 22.12.00, str.
OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.
74. , ki je bila tudi sprejeta na podlagi člena 15 Direktive Sveta 92/119/EGS z dne 17. decembra 1992 o splošnih ukrepih Skupnosti za nadzor nad določenimi živalskimi boleznimi in o posebnih ukrepih v primeru vezikularne bolezni prašičev.
74 , which was adopted on the basis of Article 15 of the Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing general Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease.
Direktiva 92/119/EGS je bila sprejeta na podlagi člena 43 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske gospodarske skupnosti, ki je sedaj člen 43 PDEU kot določba na področju kmetijstva.
Directive 92/119/EEC was adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, which is currently Article 43 TFEU, as a measure in the field of agriculture.
Treba je poudariti, da izbira pravne podlage za zakonodajni akt ni odvisna od prepričanja zadevne institucije v zvezi z zadanim ciljem, temveč mora „temeljiti na objektivnih elementih, ki so lahko predmet sodnega nadzora
It should be noted that the choice of the legal basis for an act does not turn on the relevant institution’s conviction as to the objective pursued but must be ‘based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review’
Zadeva 45/86, Komisija proti Svetu, ZOdl.
Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] E.C.R. 1493, para.
1987, stran 1493, točka 11. “, zlasti pa na cilju in vsebini akta
11. , such as the aim and content of the measure
Zadeva C-300/89, Komisija proti Svetu, ZOdl.
Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] E.C.R. I-2867, para.
Namen predloga je uvedba dodatnih možnosti za cepljenje proti bolezni modrikastega jezika in za „zmanjšanj[e] bremena, ki ga kmetijskemu sektorju povzroča navedena bolezen“ (uvodna izjava 5 predloga).
The objective of the proposal is to introduce additional vaccination possibilities against bluetongue disease and to ‘ reduce the burden on the agricultural sector posed by that disease ’ (recital 5 of the proposal).
Predlog torej zadeva kmetijsko politiko bi moral temeljiti na členu 43(2) PDEU.
It therefore concerns agricultural policy and should be based on Article 43(2) TFEU.
Odbor meni, da člen 15 direktive 92/119/EGS ni veljavna pravna podlaga za sprejetje predloga, ki bi moral temeljiti na členu 43(2) PDEU.
It is considered that Article 15 of Directive 92/119/EEC is not a valid legal basis for the adoption of the proposal, which should rather be based on Article 43(2) TFEU.
Zato je Odbor za pravne zadeve na seji 28. februarja 2011 soglasno
At its meeting of 28 February 2011 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided unanimously
Pri končnem glasovanju so bili navzoči Klaus-Heiner Lehne (predsednik), Raffaele Baldassarre (podpredsednik), Evelyn Regner (podpredsednica), Sebastian Valentin Bodu (podpredsednik), Piotr Borys, Françoise Castex, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Christian Engström, Eva Lichtenberger, Toine Manders, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Alajos Mészáros, Bernhard Rapkay, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Alexandra Thein, Cecilia Wikström, Zbigniew Ziobro in Tadeusz Zwiefka. (s 14 glasovi) sklenil, da vam kot podlago za predlog priporoči člen 43(2) PDEU.
The following were present for the final vote: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (Chair), Raffaele Baldassarre (Vice-Chair), Evelyn Regner (Vice-Chair), Sebastian Valentin Bodu (Vice-Chair), Piotr Borys, Françoise Castex, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Christian Engström, Eva Lichtenberger, Toine Manders, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Alajos Mészáros, Bernhard Rapkay, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Alexandra Thein, Cecilia Wikström, Zbigniew Ziobro, Tadeusz Zwiefka. , by 14 votes to recommend that the proposal be based on Article 43(2) TFEU.
o razrešnici glede izvrševanja proračuna Evropske agencije za okolje za proračunsko leto 2009
on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2009
– ob upoštevanju letnih računovodskih izkazov Evropske agencije za okolje za proračunsko leto 2009,
– having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2009,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Računskega sodišča o letnih računovodskih izkazih Evropske agencije za okolje za proračunsko leto 2009, skupaj z odgovori Agencije
– having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency’s replies
UL C 338, 14.12.2010, str.
OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p.58. ,
72. z dne 19. novembra 2002 o okvirni finančni uredbi za organe iz člena 185 Uredbe (ES, Euratom) št. 1605/2002, zlasti člena 94 te uredbe,
72. of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, and in particular Article 94 thereof,
1. podeli razrešnico izvršnemu direktorju Evropske agencije za okolje glede izvrševanja proračuna agencije za proračunsko leto 2009;
Grants the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2009;
o zaključku poslovnih knjig Evropske agencije za okolje za proračunsko leto 2009
on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2009
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za proračunski nadzor in mnenja Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane ( A7-0122/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ( A7-0122/2011 ),
s pripombami, ki so del sklepa o razrešnici glede izvrševanja proračuna Evropske agencije za okolje za proračunsko leto 2009
with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2009
B. ker je Parlament 5. maja 2010 izvršnemu direktorju Evropske agencije za okolje podelil razrešnico glede izvrševanja proračuna agencije za proračunsko leto 2008
B. whereas on 5 May 2010, Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2008
UL L 205, 25.9.2010, str.
OJ L 205, 25.9.2010, p.
151. in v resoluciji, ki spremlja sklep Parlamenta o razrešnici, med drugim:
151. and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia,
- pozval agencijo, naj še naprej redno (vsakih 5 let) zagotavlja pripravo zunanje neodvisne ocene na podlagi ustanovitvene uredbe (EGS) št. 1210/09 in delovnih načrtov, ki jih je sprejel upravni odbor;
- called on the Agency to continue providing on a regular basis (i.e. every five years) an independent external evaluation on the basis of its founding regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 and the work programmes adopted by the Management Board,
- se seznanil z ugotovitvijo Računskega sodišča, da bi bilo treba namesto tega, da so bili plačani stroški storitev podjetja, ki so ga izbrali lastniki stavbe, pripraviti javni razpis za podpis pogodbe o obnovitvi prostorov, ki jih ima agencija v zakupu;
- noted the Court of Auditors' observation that a tendering procedure should have been issued for the contract for refitting the premises rented by the Agency, instead of paying a firm chosen by the building’s owners,
- priznal, da je agencija izvedla 9 od 27 priporočil, ki jih je od leta 2006 pripravila notranja revizijska služba;
- acknowledged that the Agency has implemented 9 of the 27 recommendations made by the Internal Audit Service (IAS) since 2006,
C. ker je proračun agencije za leto 2009 znašal 39.900.000 EUR, kar je za 7,1 % več kot v proračunskem letu 2008;
C. whereas the budget of the Agency for the year 2009 was EUR 39 900 000 which is an increase of 7,1 % from the financial year 2008;
6. izrecno pozdravlja agencijo kot zanesljivega vira neodvisnih in potrjenih okoljskih informacij za vse institucije Unije, države članice in organe odločanja;
Welcomes specifically the Agency as reliable provider of independent and assured environmental information for all Union institutions, the Member States and policy-making bodies;
Proračunski postopek
Budgetary procedures
14. ugotavlja, da agencija še ni izvedla treh priporočil, ki jih je notranja revizijska služba podala za spremljanje preteklih priporočil; ugotavlja zlasti, da priporočila zadevajo predvsem občutljiva delovna mesta, kontrole/preverjanja subvencij na mestu samem in finančne kroge ter so bila ocenjena kot "zelo pomembna";
Acknowledges from the Agency that three recommendations from the Internal Audit Service's (IAS) follow up of past audit recommendations still need to be implemented; notes, in particular, that these mainly concern sensitive posts, on-the-spot controls/verifications of grants and financial circuits and are considered "very important";
Odbor za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane poziva Odbor za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
4. je seznanjen z ugotovitvami Računskega sodišča o precejšnjem številu proračunskih prerazporeditev v letu 2009; meni, da je treba glede tega upoštevati obrazložitev agencije, ki navaja izvajanje novega petletnega strateškega načrta z novo nomenklaturo;
Takes note of the observations by the Court of Auditors on the considerable number of budgetary transfers in 2009; is of the opinion that the explanation given by the EEA on this phenomenon should be respected, i.e. the implementation of the new five-year strategic plan with a new nomenclature;
9. na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov meni, da se izvršnemu direktorju Evropske agencije za okolje lahko podeli razrešnica glede izvrševanja proračuna agencije za proračunsko leto 2009.
Is of the opinion, on the basis of the data available, that discharge can be granted to the Executive Director of the EEA in respect of the implementation of the budget of the EEA for the financial year 2009.