natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Področja, na katerih se je sodna dejavnost obravnavala kot čezmerna, vključujejo zdravstvo in neusklajen davek na dobiček.
Areas in which judicial activity was perceived to be excessive included health matters and non-harmonised profit tax.
(ii) Odprava neposrednega učinka
(ii) Abolishing direct effect
Le nekaj anketirancev je imelo težave z razumevanjem in uporabo načela neposrednega učinka.
Only a few respondents found it difficult to get to grips with the principle of direct effect.
Na primer, eden od sodnikov je menil, da je izjemno težko stranki razložiti, da je izgubila zadevo, čeprav je natančno upoštevala domačo zakonodajo.
For instance, one judge considered it extremely difficult to have to explain to a party that it had lost a case, even though it had scrupulously respected domestic law.
Ti anketiranci so zato priporočali vrnitev k strogo dualističnemu sistemu, po katerem bi zakonodaja Skupnosti imela pravne učinke le prek nacionalnih izvršilnih zakonov.
These respondents therefore recommended reverting to a strictly dualist system according to which Community law would only produce legal effects through national implementing laws.
Postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev bi bili edino orodje, ki je na voljo Skupnosti za zagotovitev, da države članice ustrezno izvajajo svoje obveznosti iz pogodb, medtem ko posamezni državljani nimajo nobene vloge v tem mednarodnem postopku.
Infringement proceedings would be the only tool available to the Commission to ensure that Member States properly discharged their obligations under the Treaties, and individual citizens had no part to play in this international process.
Številni sodniki imajo težave z razumevanjem sodb SES.
Many judges had problems understanding the judgments of the ECJ.
Glavna točka kritike nemških sodnikov je bilo pomanjkanje sistematične utemeljitve ter notranje in zunanje skladnosti odločitev, čeprav je eden od anketirancev menil, da so sodniki iz te države članice mogoče preveč zaskrbljeni zaradi tega.
The main point of criticism from German judges was the lack of systematic reasoning and internal and external consistency of rulings, although one respondent commented that judges from that Member State were arguably too concerned about this.
Večina se je pritožila, da se slog SES zelo razlikuje od sloga, sprejetega v domači zakonodaji, kar pomeni, da je preučevanje sodb Evropskega sodišča zahtevalo izjemne napore.
Most complained that the ECJ’s style was very different from the style adopted domestically, and this meant that studying ECJ judgments required extraordinary efforts.
Sodnik iz Združenega kraljestva je prav tako menil, da so sodbe SES včasih nerazumljive, ter je priporočil, da bi bilo sodbe na nacionalni ravni lažje uveljaviti, če se zanje uporabi natančnejši in jasnejši slog, kot se uporablja v mnenjih generalnega pravobranilca.
A judge from the United Kingdom also considered ECJ judgments to be sometimes opaque, and recommended that judgments would be easier to apply at national level if they adoped the fuller and clearer style seen in Advocate General Opinions.
Več sodnikov – od prvostopenjskih sodišč do sodišč na zadnji stopnji – je menilo, da je lahko okrepljen dialog med nacionalnimi sodišči in sodišči Skupnosti bistven pri zagotavljanju boljše uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti v nacionalnem sodstvu.
Several judges from first instance to last instance thought that a reinforced dialogue between national and Community courts could be instrumental in ensuring a better use of Community law amongst the national judiciary.
To v osnovi ponavlja močno izraženo željo državnih sodnikov, da so bolj vključeni v vse stopnje postopka predhodnega odločanja (glej oddelek 4(g) (iv) ) ter imajo več stika s sodniki SES in uradniki v okviru njihovega usposabljanja.
This essentially repeats the strongly expressed desire of national judges to be more involved in all stages of the preliminary reference procedure (see section 4(g) (iv) ), and to have more contact with ECJ judges and officials in the framework of their training.
Dodatne točke v zvezi s spletno stranjo SES so obravnavane v omenjenem oddelku 7(c)( vi ).
Further points relating to the ECJ’s website are dealt with above in section 7(c)( vi ).
Glede na pomembno zanašanje veliko sodnikov, da se bodo stranke sklicevale na zakonodajo Skupnosti (glej oddelek 6(b) (i) ), se zdi več anketirancem (6 %) naravno, da se večji poudarek nameni usposabljanju odvetnikov kot usposabljanju sodnikov.
Given the important reliance of a large number of judges on the parties to raise any point of Community law (see section 6(b) (i) ), it seemed natural for a number of respondents (6%) that the focus should be more on training the lawyers than on training themselves.
Če bi se odvetniki bolj zanašali na zakonodajo Skupnosti, kadar je to primerno za njihove ugotovitve, bi sodniki pogosteje analizirali takšna vprašanja.
If lawyers relied more on Community law where it was relevant to their submissions, judges would be brought more often to analyse such issues.
Vendar ostaja še veliko dela.
However, much work remained to be done.
Po mnenju belgijskega pritožnega sodnika večina odvetnikov še ni sprejela obstoja pravnega reda Skupnosti ter EU obravnava bolj kot birokratski kot zakonodajni organ.
According to a Belgian appellate judge, most lawyers had not yet assimilated the existence of the Community legal order, and perceived the EU more as a bureaucracy than as a legislature.
Sodnik iz vrhovnega upravnega sodstva je razočarano ugotovil, da je domača odvetniška zbornica prenehala izvajati tečaje iz zakonodaje Skupnosti, ker je bilo povpraševanje po takšnih tečajih nezadostno in je bilo zato predrago.
A judge from a supreme administrative jurisdiction noted with disappointment that the domestic bar association had stopped offering Community law courses because such courses were not sufficiently in demand and therefore too costly.
Zelo majhen del sodnikov je predlagal temeljitejše spremembe ustavne strukture Evropske unije.
A very small proportion of judges suggested more radical changes in the European Union’s constitutional structure.
Najpogostejši kandidat za spremembo je bil jezikovni sistem Unije, pri čemer je več sodnikov pozvalo, naj bo angleščina edini delovni jezik Unije ali celo edini verodostojen jezik za akte Skupnosti, da se olajša sporazumevanje med sodniki in odpravijo kakršne koli težave, povezane s prevajanjem in veljavno razlago.
The most popular candidate for change was the linguistic regime of the Union with several judges calling for English to be the single working language in the Union, or even the only authentic language for Community acts, in order to facilitate communication between judges and to eliminate any problems related to translation and authoritative interpretation.
Končno, eden od sodnikov je predlagal združitev pogodb ES in EU v enotno pogodbo, kot predlaga Ustavna pogodba, podpisana leta 2004.
Finally, one judge recommended merging the EC and EU Treaties into a single Treaty, as proposed by the Constitutional Treaty signed in 2004.
Kopija vprašalnika, poslana državnim sodnikom
Copy of the questionnaire sent to national judges
VLOGA DRŽAVNIH SODNIKOV V SODNEM SISTEMU EVROPSKE UNIJE
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL JUDGE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Obkrožite pravilen odgovor ter ga dopolnite, kadar je to potrebno.
Please circle the correct answer and elaborate where necessary.
Dostop do zakonodaje Skupnosti
I. Access to Community law
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, kateri dostop do zakonodaje Skupnosti uporabljate?
If so, how do you have access to Community law?
· dostop prek interneta: EUR lex – CURIA – drugo: _______________________________
· internet access: EUR lex - CURIA - Other: _______________________________
· informiranje/usposabljanje, ki ga organizirajo nacionalni organi
· information / training organised by the national authorities
· informiranje/usposabljanje, ki ga organizirajo evropske mreže
· information / training organised by European networks
Kako pogosto uporabljate sodno prakso SES?
B. How often do you consult ECJ case-law?
Informiranje in usposabljanje
Information and training
· Ali menite, da je do določenih informacij zlasti težko dostopati v vašem jeziku?
· Do you consider any information to be particularly difficult to access in your language?
Navedite podrobnosti: _____________________________________________
Give details: _____________________________________________
· Ali ste se kdaj udeležili jezikovnega tečaja, ki je vključeval pravna vprašanja?
· Have you ever participated in a language course covering legal issues?
Ali ste se kdaj udeležili evropskega programa za usposabljanje, kot je TAIEX/EJTN/ERA itd.?
B. Have you ever participated in a European training programme such as TAIEX/ EJTN/ ERA etc?
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, vas prosimo, da odgovorite na naslednja vprašanja:
If so, please answer the following questions:
· Naziv programa: ____________________________________________
· Name of the programme: ____________________________________________
· Ali je bila vaša udeležba financirana?
· Was your participation financed?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite, kolikšen je bil delež financiranja? ____________ %
o If so, to what percentage? ____________ %
o Ali menite, da je bila vaša udeležba v finančnem smislu draga?
o Did you consider your financial participation expensive?
o Ali menite, bi moral biti tečaj brezplačen?
o Do you consider your participation to training sessions should be free of charge?
· Ali za udeležbo na takšnem usposabljanju veljajo določeni pogoji?
· Is the participation to such training sessions subject to conditions?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, razložite: _______________________________________________
o If so, explain: _______________________________________________
Ali poznate kakršen koli nacionalni program usposabljanja v zvezi z zakonodajo Skupnosti?
C. Are you aware of any national training programmes concerning Community law?
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite podrobnosti: ______________________________________________________
If so, give details: ______________________________________________________
Ali ste kdaj sodelovali v takšnem nacionalnem programu?
Have you ever participated in such a national programme?
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, odgovorite na naslednje:
If so, please answer the following:
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite, kolikšen je bil delež financiranja? _______ __ %
o If so, to what percentage? _______ __ %
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, razložite: ________________________________________________
o If so, explain: ________________________________________________
Ali obstajajo nacionalne mreže na pravosodni ali ministrski ravni za seznanjanje sodnikov o:
D. Do national networks exist at judicial or ministerial level to inform judges about:
· odprtih predlogih za sprejetje predhodne odločbe nacionalnih sodišč?
· pending preliminary references from national courts?
· zadevni sodni praksi sodišč v drugih državah članicah?
· relevant case-law of courts in other Member States?
· sodni praksi SES?
· case-law of the ECJ?
Predlogi za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
Preliminary references
· dobro seznanjen/seznanjen/nisem seznanjen
· Very familiar / Familiar / Unfamiliar
· Kako dolgo je trajal ta postopek (od vloge predloga do sodbe SES)?
· How long did the procedure take (from referral to ECJ judgment)?
o Ali menite, da je kateri koli del postopka predolg?
o Did you consider any part of the procedure to be excessively long?
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite podrobnosti: _________________________________________________
If so, give details: _________________________________________________
· Ali je Sodišče močno preoblikovalo vaša vprašanja?
· Were your questions substantially reformulated by the Court?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, koliko? __________________________________________
o If so, to what extent? __________________________________________
· Ali ste prejeli dovolj navodil za oblikovanje vprašanj, ki ste poslali Sodišču?
· Did you have sufficient guidance in order to formulate the questions referred?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite, od kod ste prejeli ta navodila? ____________________________________________
o If so, where from? ____________________________________________
Ali lahko na podlagi vaše nacionalne zakonodaje stranki v postopku pred nižjestopenjskim sodiščem zahtevata vložitev predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na SES?
C. Under your national law, can the parties to a trial before a lower court ask for a preliminary reference to the ECJ?
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno:
If so,
· Ali je takšno zadevo mogoče zavrniti?
· Can such a request be denied?
· Ali mora biti takšna zavrnitev utemeljena?
· Should a refusal be reasoned?
· Ali je lahko v vaši državi članici odločitev nižjestopenjskega sodišča, da vloži predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, vzrok za pritožbo?
· In your Member State, is a lower court's decision to make a preliminary ruling itself subject to appeal?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, navedite v kakšnih okoliščinah? ________________________________
o If so, under which circumstances? ________________________________
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, razložite: __________________________________________
o If so, please specify: __________________________________________
Nacionalni postopki
National Procedures
· razlaga v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti?
· interpretation in conformity with Community law?
o Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, razložite: _______________________________________
o If so, please explain: _______________________________________
· pooblastilo za razveljavitev nacionalnega zakona, ki je v nasprotju z zakonodajo Skupnosti?
· the power to set aside national law which is contrary to Community law?
Kako pogosto se stranke sklicujejo na zakonodajo Skupnosti glede na vaše izkušnje?
B. In your experience, how often is Community law raised by the parties?
· zelo pogosto/pogosto/občasno/redko/nikoli
· Very often / Often / Occasionally / Rarely / Never
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, katera področja so najpogosteje vključena in zakaj?___________________________
If so, which areas are most concerned, and why ?___________________________
Če ste odgovorili pritrdilno, koliko se to pojavlja v praksi (lahko navedete konkretne primere)?
If so, to what extent does this occur in practice (you could give concrete examples)?
Ali bi priporočili kakršne koli izboljšave postopka predhodnega odločanja?
B. Would you recommend any improvements to the preliminary ruling mechanism?
Anketi lahko dodate kakršne koli opombe ali predloge.
D. Feel free to add any comments or suggestions.
o okoljskem vplivu načrtovanega plinovoda skozi Baltiško morje, ki naj bi povezal Rusijo in Nemčijo (peticiji 0614/2007 in 0952/2007)
on the environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany (Petitions 0614/2007 and 0952/2007)
MNENJE Odbora za zunanje zadeve .........................................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs .................................................17
MNENJE Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko .............................20
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ...............22
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU...................................................................24
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................26
– ob upoštevanju peticije 0614/2007 Radvila Morkunaiteja z več kot 20.000 podpisi, peticije 0952/2006 Krzysztofa Mączkowskega in drugih peticij, ki jih je prejel v zvezi z vprašanjem, ki ga obravnava ta resolucija,
– having regard to Petition 0614/2007 by Radvile Morkunaite, bearing more than 20 000 signatures, Petition 0952/2006 by Krzysztof Mączkowski and the other petitions submitted to it on the issue covered by this resolution,
– ob upoštevanju lizbonske pogodbe, ki so jo vse države članice podpisale 13. decembra 2007,
– having regard to the Lisbon Treaty signed by all the Member States on 13 December 2007,
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu o tematski strategiji za varstvo in ohranjanje morskega okolja ( KOM(2005)0504 ),
– having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment ( COM(2005)0504 ),
– ob upoštevanju šestega okoljskega akcijskega programa Evropskih skupnosti,
– having regard to the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community,
– ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 97/11/ES o spremembi Direktive 85/337/EGS o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje
– having regard to Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
7. in 79/409/EGS
7. and 79/409/EEC
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 16. novembra 2006 o strategiji za regijo Baltskega morja v okviru severne dimenzije
– having regard to its resolution of 16 November 2006 on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension
– ob upoštevanju Konvencije o varstvu morskega okolja območja Baltiškega morja (helsinška konvencija),
– having regard to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention),
– ob upoštevanju priporočil Helsinške komisija in zlasti priporočila 17/3 z dne 12. marca 1996, ki opisuje zahtevo po izvajanju presoje vpliva na okolje in posvetovanju z državami, ki jih lahko prizadene negativen vpliv predlaganega projekta,
– having regard to the recommendations of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), and in particular Recommendation 17/3 of 12 March 1996 describing the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment and to consult with states that may suffer the adverse impact of a proposed project,
– ob upoštevanju Konvencije o presoji čezmejnih vplivov na okolje z dne 25. februarja 1991 (konvencija iz Espooja),
– having regard to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context of 25 February 1991(Espoo Convention),
– ob upoštevanju Konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah z dne 25. junija 1998 (aarhuška konvencija),
– having regard to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (Aarhus Convention),
– ob upoštevanju Konvencije Združenih narodov o pomorskem pravu,
– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
– ob upoštevanju previdnostnega načela, ki ga sodna praksa Sodišča uvršča med splošna načela pravnega reda Evropskih skupnosti in je del enega od vidikov trajnostnega razvoja v skladu z evropskim in mednarodnim pravom,
– having regard to the precautionary principle, which is included by the case-law of the Court of Justice amongst the general principles of the acquis communautaire and which forms one of the aspects of sustainable development under European and international law,
– ob upoštevanju načela dobrega upravljanja, ki predstavlja eno od splošnih načel evropskega prava,
– having regard to the principle of good governance, which constitutes one of the general principles of European law,
– ob upoštevanju dejavnosti medskupine Evropskega parlamenta Baltska Evropa,
– having regard to the activities of the European Parliament’s Baltic Europe Intergroup,
– ob upoštevanju predlogov, ki izhajajo iz javne obravnave z dne 29. januarja 2008,
– having regard to the proposals resulting from the public hearing of 29 January 2008,
– ob upoštevanju Odločbe št. 1364/2006/ES Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. septembra 2006 o določitvi smernic za vseevropska energetska omrežja
– having regard to Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks
– ob upoštevanju akcijskega načrta za Baltiško morje, ki je bil sprejet na srečanju ministrov za okolje iz baltskih držav 15. novembra 2007 v Krakovu,
– having regard to the Baltic Sea Action Plan adopted at a meeting of Baltic States Environment Ministers held in Krakow on 15 November 2007,
– ob upoštevanju člena 10 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, ki nalaga državam članicam dolžnost zvestobe Skupnosti,
– having regard to Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which imposes on Member States a duty of loyalty towards the Community,
– ob upoštevanju člena 192(1) Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rule 192(1) of the Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za peticije ter mnenj Odbora za zunanje zadeve in Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko ( A6-0225/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6-0225/2008 ),
A. ker je Baltiško morje zaliv, ob katerem leži kar osem držav članic Evropske unije, 80 % njegove obale pa spada pod ozemlje Evropske unije; ker je družba OAO Gazprom večinski delničar družbe Nord Stream,
A. whereas the Baltic Sea is a basin bordered by as many as eight European Union Member States and 80% of its shore is European Union territory; whereas OAO Gazprom is the majority shareholder of Nord Stream,
B. ker je skrb za morsko okolje Baltiškega morja eden od glavnih ciljev severne dimenzije Unije, kot je bilo večkrat potrjeno v sporočilih Komisije in resolucijah Parlamenta,
B. whereas concern for the Baltic marine environment is one of the principal objectives of the Union’s Northern Dimension, as repeatedly confirmed by Commission communications and Parliament resolutions,
C. ker sta kmetijski in industrijski sektor vseh obmejnih držav članic in Rusije največja onesnaževalca Baltiškega morja in povzročata največje težave njegovemu ekološkemu ravnovesju;
C. whereas the agricultural and industrial sectors of all the bordering Member States and of Russia are the biggest polluters of the Baltic Sea and pose the greatest problems to its ecological balance,
D. ker je Unija zlasti zavezana varstvu okolja, vključno z varstvom morskega okolja,
D. whereas the Union is especially committed to environmental protection, including protection of the marine environment,
E. ker je v postopkih pred Sodiščem Komisija večkrat potrdila, da je varstvo okolja ključni cilj Skupnosti, Sodišče pa je priznalo pristojnost Skupnosti na področju varstva in ohranjanja morskega okolja,
E. whereas in proceedings before the Court of Justice the Commission has repeatedly confirmed that environmental protection is one the Community’s key objectives and the Court has recognised the Community’s competence in the area of protection and conservation of the marine environment,
F. ker obstajajo načrti za izgradnjo številnih infrastrukturnih projektov v Baltiškem morju (Severni tok (Nord Stream), vetrna polja, baltski plinovod Scanled, plinovod med Finsko in Estonijo, električni kabli med Švedsko in Litvo, terminali za LNG v mestu Świnoujścje itd.),
F. whereas plans currently exist for the construction of numerous infrastructure projects in the Baltic Sea (Nord Stream, wind farms, the Scanled Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia, power cables between Sweden and Lithuania, LNG terminals in Świnoujścje, etc.),
G. ker je vedno večji delež zemeljskega plina v energetskem ravnovesju v Evropi – zlasti od leta 1990 – najpomembnejši vzrok za zmanjšanje emisij ogljikovega dioksida (CO2),
G. whereas the growing contribution of natural gas to the energy balance in Europe has been – especially since 1990 – the major single source of reduction of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions,