natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Svet lahko na predlog Komisije in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom, Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom in Odborom regij soglasno odloči o uporabi rednega zakonodajnega postopka za področja iz prvega pododstavka .
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, may make the ordinary legislative procedure applicable to the matters referred to in the first subparagraph.
Evropski parlament in Svet po rednem zakonodajnem postopku ter po posvetovanju z Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom in Odborom regij sprejmeta splošne delovne programe, ki določajo prednostne cilje.
General action programmes setting out priority objectives to be attained shall be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
– finančne podpore iz Kohezijskega sklada, ustanovljenega v skladu s členom 177 . “
— financial support from the Cohesion Fund set up pursuant to Article 177. "
Pravna podlaga, ki jo je izbrala Komisija
The Commission's choice of legal basis
Komisija meni, da je primernejši člen 114 PDEU.
The Commission opts for Article 114 TFEU.
Predlog spreminja Direktivo 2001/18/ES, ki je bila sprejeta na podlagi člena 95 PEU (zdaj 114 PDEU), in sicer tako, da ji je dodan novi člen 26b, ki bi državam članicam zagotovil pravno podlago za sprejem ukrepov za omejevanje ali prepoved gojenja vseh ali nekaterih GSO, ki so že bili odobreni v skladu z delom C direktive ali Uredbe št. 1829/2003, na vsem svojem ozemlju ali na delu svojega ozemlja, pod pogojem, da so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji.
The proposal amends the Directive 2001/18/EC, adopted on the basis of Article 95 TEC (now 114 TFEU), by inserting a new Article 26b which would provide the Member States with a legal basis to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs which have already been authorised in accordance with Part C of the Directive or Regulation No 1829/2003 in all or parts of their territory, subject to compliance with certain conditions.
„Člen 26b Gojenje
"Article 26b Cultivation
Države članice lahko sprejmejo ukrepe za omejitev ali prepoved gojenja vseh ali nekaterih GSO, ki so odobreni v skladu z delom C te direktive ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1829/2003 in sestojijo iz gensko spremenjenih sort, danih na trg v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo EU o trženju semen in razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin, na svojem celotnem ozemlju ali njegovem delu, če:
Member States may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and consisting of genetically modified varieties placed on the market in accordance with relevant EU legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material , in all or part of their territory, provided that:
(a) navedeni ukrepi temeljijo na razlogih, ki niso povezani z oceno škodljivega vpliva na zdravje in okolje, ki ga lahko povzroči namerno sproščanje GSO ali njihovo dajanje na trg,
(a) those measures are based on grounds other than those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs;
(b) so v skladu s Pogodbama.
(b) that they are in conformity with the Treaties.
Z odstopanjem od Direktive 98/34/ES države članice, ki nameravajo sprejeti utemeljene ukrepe na podlagi tega člena, jih sporočijo v vednost drugim državam članicam in Komisiji en mesec pred njihovim sprejetjem.“
By way of derogation to Directive 98/34/EC, Member States that intend to adopt reasoned measures under this Article shall communicate them to the other Member States and to the Commission, one month prior to their adoption for information purposes. "
Uvodna izjava 5 navaja, da „ izkušnje kažejo, da je gojenje GSO vprašanje, ki se temeljiteje obravnava v državah članicah na nacionalni, regionalni ali lokalni ravni .
In recital 5 of the proposal it is stated that " Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed by Member States, either at central or at regional and local level.
V skladu s členom 2(2) PDEU je zato treba državam članicam dati možnost, da sprejmejo pravila za učinkovito gojenje GSO na svojem ozemlju po tem, ko je bil GSO zakonito odobren za dajanje na trg EU“.
In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU Member States should therefore be entitled to have a possibility to adopt rules concerning the effective cultivation of GMOs in their territory after the GMO has been legally authorised to be placed on the EU market. "
Ukrepi bi se morali nanašati le na gojenje GSO, ne pa na prosti pretok in uvoz gensko spremenjenih semen in razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin kot ločenih proizvodov ali v proizvodih ter njihovih pridelkov.
Measures should refer to the cultivation of GMOs only and not to the free circulation and import of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material, as or in products, and of the products of their harvest.
Člen 26b bi veljal za GSO, odobrene v skladu z Direktivo 2001/18/ES ali Uredbo št. 1829/2003.
Article 26b would apply to both GMOs authorised under Directive 2001/18/EC and under Regulation No 1829/2003.
Pristop Sodišča: namen in vsebina predlaganih ukrepov
Approach of the Court of Justice: aim and content of the proposed measures
Mnenje 2/00 z dne 6. decembra 2001 v zadevi Kartagenski protokol (ZOdl., stran I-9713, točka 5); Zadeva C-370/07 Komisija proti Svetu [2009] ZOdl.
Opinion 2/00 Carthagena Protocol [2001] E.C.R. I-9713, para.
Izbira pravne podlage nekega akta ni odvisna od prepričanja zadevne institucije o zastavljenem cilju, temveč mora temeljiti na objektivnih dejavnikih, ki so lahko predmet sodne revizije
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"
Sodba z dne z dne 26. marca 1987 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (45/86, Receuil, str.
Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] E.C.R. 1493, para.
1493, točka 11). , kot so cilj in vsebina ukrepa
11. , such as the aim and content of the measure
Sodba z dne 11. junija 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (C-300/89, Receuil, str.
Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] E.C.R. I-2867, para.
Člen 114 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije: prvotna pravna podlaga
Article 114 TFEU: the original legal basis
Odstavki od 4 do 9 državam članicam omogočajo, da sprejmejo nacionalne ukrepe zato, da uvedejo upravičene prepovedi ali omejitve za uvoz, izvoz ali blago v tranzitu, v skladu s členom 36 PDEU, zatem ko je bil sprejet usklajevalni ukrep.
Paragraphs (4) to (9) permit Member States to take national measures to introduce justified prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit, pursuant to Article 36 TFEU, after a harmonisation measure has been adopted.
Namen in vsebina ukrepa je priznati svobodo državam članicam, da na svojem ozemlju prepovejo ali omejijo gojenje GSO na podlagi razlogov, ki ne temeljijo na znanstveni oceni zdravstvenega in okoljskega tveganja.
The aim and content of the measure is to grant freedom to Member States to invoke grounds other than scientific assessment of health and environmental risks in order to ban or restrict the cultivation of GMOs on their territory.
Kaže, da predlog v resnici nima nobenega drugega cilja kot uvedbo določene prožnosti v obstoječi centraliziran sistem za odobritev GSO.
It appears that the proposal does not in fact pursue any objective other than introducing a certain "flexibility" into the existing centralised system of authorisation of GMOs.
Zato je pravna podlaga, ki jo je izbrala Komisija, ustrezna.
For this reason the legal basis chosen by the Commission is correct.
Na to ugotovitev ni vplivalo dejstvo, da je dodana vrednost predloga Komisije vprašljiva, saj so praktične posledice uporabe člena 26b omejene.
This conclusion is not influenced by the fact that the added value of the Commission proposal seems questionable because the practical implication of Article 26b can only be seen as limited.
V tem kontekstu je zanimivo sklicevanje na Pogodbe iz točke (b) tega člena.
In this context the reference to the Treaties in point (b) of that article is of interest.
Če pustimo očitno vprašanje skladnosti ukrepov, ki jih sprejme Unija ali države članice, s Pogodbami, se določba izrecno nanaša na odstavke od 4 do 9 člena 114 PDEU in na člen 36 PDEU.
Leaving aside the obvious question of conformity with the Treaties of measures adopted by the Union or Member States, the provision seems to refer implicitly to paragraphs (4) to (9) of Article 114 TFEU and Article 36 TFEU.
Pravna služba Parlamenta je v svojem poročilu pripravila natančno analizo razlogov za omejitev ali prepoved gojenja GSO (odst.
Detailed analysis of grounds for restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs has been made by the Parliament Legal Service in its opinion (paras 13-23).
Čeprav se zdi, da je to jasen primer opustitve pristojnosti Unije, bi bil člen 114 PDEU kljub vsemu ustrezna pravna podlaga, tudi če bil predlog viden kot ukrep odmika od usklajenosti
Although this seems not to be a genuine case of abandonment of Union competence, Article 114 TFEU would still be an appropriate legal basis also in the event that the proposal were to be considered as a "de-harmonisation" measure
V skladu z mnenjem pravne službe Sveta, ki se ne strinja z uporabo člena 114 PDEU kot ustrezne pravne podlage.
As considered by the Council Legal Service in its opinion contesting Article 114 TFEU as a valid legal basis.
Predvsem je težko sprejeti argument, da je odmik od usklajenosti na podlagi člena 114 PDEU dovoljen le, če je namen takšne spremembe izboljšati delovanje notranjega trga.
In particular the argument that "de-harmonisation" on the basis of Article 114 TFEU is allowed only if the purpose of the amendment aiming at such "de-harmonisation" is to improve the functioning of the internal market is difficult to accept.
Člen 114 PDEU daje zakonodajalcu Unije pristojnost, da oblikuje usklajevalne ukrepe za zagotovitev nemotenega delovanja notranjega trga in tudi, da že sprejete ukrepe prilagodi spreminjajočim se okoliščinam, in sicer s povečanjem ali zmanjšanjem že dosežene usklajenosti ali celo z razveljavitvijo usklajevalnih ukrepov.
Article 114 TFEU grants the Union legislator the competence to establish harmonising measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and consequently to adapt measures already taken to changing circumstances, either by increasing or lowering the degree of harmonisation already achieved, or even by repealing a harmonising measure.
Člen 114 PDEU je treba brati skupaj s členom 2(2) PDEU, ki izrecno navaja: „Če ima Unija po Pogodbah na določenem področju deljeno pristojnost z državami članicami, lahko Unija in države članice na tem področju izdajajo zakonodajne in sprejemajo pravno zavezujoče akte.
Article 114 TFEU has to be read in the light of Article 2(2) TFEU, which expressly states that: " When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area.
Države članice izvajajo svojo pristojnost, kolikor Unija svoje pristojnosti ne izvaja.
The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.
Mnenje v Primeru C-58/08 Vodafone in drugi [2010], še ni objavljeno, odst.
Opinion in Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010], not yet reported, para.
9. , Svet pa je v istem primeru menil: „Če so bile z aktom, ki temelji na členu 95 ES, že odstranjene vse ovire pri trgovanju na področju, ki ga usklajuje, to zakonodajalcu Skupnosti ne more preprečiti možnosti, da to določbo prilagodi vsem spremembam okoliščin ali razvoju znanja zaradi njegove naloge varovanja splošnih interesov, določenih s Pogodbo“
9. and the Court held, in the same case: " Where an act based on Article 95 EC has already removed any obstacle to trade in the area that it harmonises, the Community legislature cannot be denied the possibility of adapting that act to any change in circumstances or development of knowledge having regard to its task of safeguarding the general interests recognised by the Treaty "
Mnenje v Primeru C-58/08 Vodafone in drugi [2010], še ni objavljeno, odst.
Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010], not yet reported, para.
Člen 192 kot pravna podlaga
Article 192 TFEU as the legal basis
Poročevalka odbora ENVI predlaga člen 192 PDEU kot ustrezno pravno podlago: „Ker morajo države članice upoštevati dejavnike, povezane z varstvom živalskih in rastlinskih vrst, rabo zemljišč ali prostorskim načrtovanjem, za katere so ohranile precejšnje pristojnosti, je utemeljeno, da ta uredba temelji na členu 192 Pogodbe.“
ENVI’s rapporteur suggests Article 192 TFEU as the appropriate legal basis on the following ground: "The fact that Member States are responsible for factors relating to the conservation of fauna and flora, land use or town and country planning, on which they retain significant powers, justifies basing this Regulation on Article 192 of the Treaty."
Člen 192(1) PDEU omogoča, da se z rednim zakonodajnim postopkom sprejmejo ukrepi za uresničitev politike Unije v skladu s členom 191 o, med drugim, ohranjanju, varovanju in izboljšanju kakovosti okolja ter varovanju zdravja ljudi.
Article 192(1) TFEU permits measures to be taken under the ordinary legislative procedure to enact Union policy under Article 191 on, inter alia, preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, and protecting human health.
Člen 192(2) omogoča, da se po posebnem zakonodajnem postopku sprejmejo ukrepi, ki med drugim zadevajo ukrepe o količinskem upravljanju vodnih virov in uporabi tal.
Article 192(2) permits measures to be taken under a special legislative procedure which concern, inter alia, measures affecting the quantitative management of water resources, and land use.
Predlog spremembe ne določa, kateri odstavek člena 192 je ustrezen.
The amendment does not specify which paragraph of Article 192 should be considered appropriate.
Glede na predlog se zdi, da bi bil ustreznejši člen 192(1): 1.
In terms of the proposal it would seem that Article 192(1) may be considered more relevant: 1.
Zato je jasno, da namen predloga ni doseganje ciljev iz člena 191 PDEU.
It is therefore clear that the proposal does not seek to achieve any of the objectives referred to in Article 191 TFEU.
Ravno nasprotno, namen predloga je državam članicam omogočiti, da se pri prepovedi ali omejitvi gojenja GSO na svojem ozemlju sklicujejo na druge razloge, kot je znanstvena ocena tveganja za okolje in zdravje.
On the contrary, the purpose of the proposal is to allow Member States to invoke reasons going beyond considerations relating to the environment or human health protection in order to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
Glede na originalni predlog Komisije je treba ugotoviti, da ne opravičuje uporabe člena 192 PDEU kot njegove pravne podlage.
Thus, looking at the original Commission proposal , it has to be concluded that it does not justify the use of Article 192 TFEU as its legal basis.
Kljub temu je poročevalka vložila več predlogov sprememb, za sprejetje katerih bo morda potrebna sprememba pravne podlage.
However, the rapporteur has tabled a number of amendments for the adoption of which the change of the legal basis might seem necessary.
Brez podrobne analize osnutka poročila je treba pozornost nameniti predvsem predlogu spremembe 8, ki se glasi:
Without making a detailed analysis of the draft report, attention should be paid in particular to amendment 8, which reads as follows:
Direktiva 2001/18/ES
Directive 2001/18/CE
Člen 26 b
Article 26 b
V Direktivo 2001/18/ES se z učinkom od datuma začetka veljavnosti te uredbe vstavi naslednji člen:
In Directive 2001/18/EC, the following Article shall be inserted with effect from the date of entry into force of this Regulation:
1) Vstavi se naslednji člen:
1) The following Article shall be inserted:
„Člen 26b
'Article 26b
Države članice lahko sprejmejo ukrepe za omejitev ali prepoved gojenja vseh ali nekaterih GSO, ki so odobreni v skladu z delom C te direktive ali Uredbe (ES) št. 1829/2003 in sestojijo iz gensko spremenjenih sort, danih na trg v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo Unije o trženju semen in razmnoževalnega materiala rastlin, na svojem celotnem ozemlju ali njegovem delu, če:
Member States may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and consisting of genetically modified varieties placed on the market in accordance with relevant Union legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, in all or part of their territory, provided that:
a) navedeni ukrepi temeljijo na razlogih, ki niso povezani z oceno škodljivega vpliva na zdravje in okolje, ki ga lahko povzroči namerno sproščanje GSO ali njihovo dajanje na trg;
a) those measures are based on grounds other than those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs;
a) navedeni ukrepi temeljijo na
a) those measures are based on
i) razlogih, povezanih z okoljskimi posledicami, ki lahko povzročijo namerno sproščanje GSO ali njihovo dajanje na trg, in ki dopolnjujejo okoljske posledice, obravnavane pri oceni škodljivega vpliva na okolje v skladu z delom C te direktive; ali
i) grounds relating to environmental impacts which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs , and which are complementary to the environmental impacts examined during the assessment of the negative impacts on the environment conducted under Part C of this Directive; or
ii) razlogih, povezanih z neobstoječimi ali pomanjkljivimi podatki o morebitnih škodljivih vplivih sproščanja GSO na ozemlje ali biotsko raznovrstnost države članice; ali
ii) the absence or lack of data on the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the territory or biodiversity of the Member State ; or
iii) drugih razlogih, ki lahko med drugim vključujejo spremenjene kmetijske prakse, rabo zemljišč, prostorsko načrtovanje, socialno–ekonomske učinke ali druge upravičene dejavnike;
iii) other grounds that may include, inter alia, changes in agricultural practices, land use, town and country planning, socio-economic impacts, or other legitimate factors ;
b) so v skladu s Pogodbama.
b) that they are in conformity with the Treaties.
Z odstopanjem od Direktive 98/34/ES države članice, ki nameravajo sprejeti utemeljene ukrepe na podlagi tega člena, jih sporočijo v vednost drugim državam članicam in Komisiji en mesec pred njihovim sprejetjem.“
By way of derogation to Directive 98/34/EC, Member States that intend to adopt reasoned measures under this Article shall communicate them to the other Member States and to the Commission, one month prior to their adoption for information purposes'.
V obrazložitev predloga spremembe je poročevalka zapisala: „Ocena tveganja na ravni Skupnosti ne more biti izčrpna.
By way of justification for this amendment the rapporteur writes: " The risk assessment conducted at Community level cannot be exhaustive.
Poleg tega bi morali biti neobstoječi ali pomanjkljivi podatki o morebitnih škodljivih vplivih GSO na posamezne nacionalne ekosisteme ali prejemna okolja zadostni razlog za to, da bi države lahko prepovedale gojenje enega ali več zadevnih GSO.
In addition, the absence or lack of data relating to the potential negative impacts of GMOs on specific national ecosystems or receiving environments should be a sufficient reason to allow Member States to ban the cultivation of the GMO(s) concerned.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da navedejo tudi druge dejavnike, ki lahko vplivajo na okolje ali pa tudi ne.“
It should also be possible for Member States to invoke other factors which may or may not be linked to environmental impacts. "
Glede na to, da ta predlog spremembe znatno razširi razloge, zaradi katerih države članice lahko omejijo ali prepovejo gojenje GSO, tako da bodo lahko vključile tudi okoljske razloge, je treba predlog spremembe obravnavati, kot da spreminja namen predloga.
In view of the fact that this amendment substantially enlarges the grounds on which Member States could restrict or prohibit cultivation of GMOs so as actually to include environmental grounds, the amendment has to be seen as modifying the purpose of the proposal.
Poročevalka želi s predlogi sprememb državam članicam zagotoviti specifične razloge in možnosti za omejitev gojenja GSO.
Indeed, all the amendments proposed by the rapporteur aim to give Member States very specific grounds and possiblities to restrict the cultivation of GMOs.
Predlogi se nanašajo na pogoje v zvezi z okoljem ter njegovo ohranitvijo in zaščito, na primer na negativni učinek na ekosisteme, spremembo rabe tal, zaščito živalskih in rastlinskih vrst itd.
Moreover, they refer to conditions relating to environment and its preservation and protection, such as the potential negative impact on the ecosystem, changes in land use, fauna and flora protection, etc.
Danes se države članice, ki ne dovolijo gojenja GSO na svojem ozemlju, sklicujejo na etične razloge, kar je težko ubraniti pred Sodiščem
Today, Member States which do not want to allow cultivation of GMOs on their territory try to invoke ethical arguments, which are however difficult to defend before the Court of Justice
C-165/08, Komisija proti Republiki Poljski [2009] ECR I-6843. .
C-165/08 Commission v. Republic of Poland [2009] ECR I-6843. .
Kot je pravna služba Parlamenta zapisala v svojem mnenju, predlagani predlog spremembe direktive, ki ga je predlagala Komisija (tj. novi člen 26b), v bistvu ne bo prinesel nobenih sprememb sedanjega sistema za odobritev gojenja GSO.
As the Parliament Legal Service mentioned in its legal opinion, the amendment of the Directive as proposed by the Commission (i.e. the new Article 26b) will essentially not bring about any change in the current system of authorisations for the cultivation of GMOs.
Ker so argumenti proti gojenju GSO največkrat povezani z okoljem, bi morala biti pravna podlaga za predlog, kot ga spreminja poročevalka , člen 192(1) PDEU.
Taking into account the fact that arguments against the cultivation of GMOs are notably based on grounds related to environment, the correct legal basis for the proposal as amended by the rapporteur would have to be Article 192(1) TFEU.
Poudariti je treba tudi, da se zdijo ukrepi v zvezi s sproščanjem GSO v okolje Unije, povezani z notranjim trgom, neustrezni.
It should also be pointed out that measures concerning the release of GMOs into the Union environment on grounds relating to internal market seem inappropriate.
GSO ne moremo obravnavati na enak način kot kateri koli drug proizvod, saj so to živi organizmi, ki se lahko razmnožujejo in množijo, poleg tega pa vplivajo na proizvodne sisteme in ekosisteme, ki se po Uniji močno razlikujejo.
In the first place, GMOs cannot be considered in the same way as any other product since they are living organisms which are able to reproduce and multiply and, secondly, they have an impact on production systems and ecosystems, which are extremely diversified across the Union.
Glede na sveženj predlogov sprememb predloga, ki jih je vložila poročevalka, je člen 192(1) PDEU ustrezna pravna podlaga.
Taking into consideration the package of amendments tabled by the rapporteur to the proposal it is considered that Article 192(1) TFEU is the correct legal basis.
Na seji dne 22. marca 2011 je Odbor za pravne zadeve z devetimi glasovi za in osmimi glasovi proti
At its meeting of 22 March 2011 the Committee on Legal Affairs accordingly decided by 9 votes for and 8 against