natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– ob upoštevanju sklepov Sveta za pravosodje in notranje zadeve 27. in 28. novembra 2008 o vzpostavitvi mreže zakonodajnega sodelovanja med ministrstvi za pravosodje držav članic Evropske unije,
– having regard to the Conclusions of the JHA Council of 27-28 November 2008 on the establishment of a Network for legislative cooperation between the Ministries of Justice of the Member States of the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju pobude Francoske republike o sprejetju sklepa Sveta o vzpostavitvi evropske pravosodne mreže
– having regard to the Initiative of the French Republic with a view to adopting a Council Decision setting up a European judicial training network
9. , stališča Parlamenta v zvezi s tem
9. , to Parliament's position thereon
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 23. oktobra 2007 o vlogi Eurojusta in Evropske pravosodne mreže v okviru boja proti organiziranemu kriminalu in terorizmu v Evropski uniji ( KOM(2007)0644 ), prečiščene različice sklepa Sveta št. 2002/187/PNZ o ustanovitvi Eurojusta za okrepitev boja proti težjim oblikam kriminala (5347/09), sklepa Sveta št. 2008/976/PNZ z dne 16. decembra 2008 o evropski pravosodni mreži
– having regard to the Commission Communication of 23 October 2007 on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union ( COM(2007)0644 ), to the consolidated version of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA on setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (5347/09), to Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0384 in P6_TA(2008)0380 . ,
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0384 and P6_TA(2008)0380 . ,
– ob upoštevanju okvirnega sklepa Sveta št. 2008/987/PNZ o evropskem dokaznem nalogu za namene pridobitve predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih
– having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/987/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters
72. ter stališča Parlamenta v zvezi s tem
72. and to Parliament's position thereon
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0486 . ,
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0486 . ,
– ob upoštevanju študije z naslovom „Analiza prihodnjega vzajemnega priznavanja v kazenskih zadevah“ v Evropski uniji
– having regard to the study entitled "Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union"
Gisčle Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen in Laura Surano, Institute for European Studies, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Inštitut za evropske študije, Svobodna univerza v Bruslju) ECLAN – Evropska akademska mreža za kazensko pravo (European Criminal Law Academic Network). , ki jo je nedavno objavila Université Libre de Bruxelles (Svobodna univerza v Bruslju),
Gisèle Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen and Laura Surano, Institute for European Studies, Université Libre de Bruxelles ECLAN – European Criminal Law Academic Network. recently published by the Université Libre de Bruxelles,
– ob upoštevanju predloga okvirnega sklepa Sveta o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja odločb o nadzornih ukrepih med državami članicami Evropske unije kot alternativi začasnemu priporu (17506/08),
– having regard to the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (17506/08),
– ob upoštevanju ocenjevalnih poročil o izvajanju okvirnega sklepa Sveta št. 2002/584/PNZ o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami
– having regard to the evaluation reports on the application of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 20. novembra 2008 o zaplembi sredstev in premoženja kriminalnih organizacij ( KOM(2008)0766 ),
– having regard to the Commission Communication of 20 November 2008 on confiscation of assets and properties of criminal organisations ( COM(2008)0766 ) ,
UL L 327, 5.12.2008, str.
OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p.
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 30. maja 2008 z naslovom „Za evropsko strategijo na področju e-pravosodja“ ( KOM(2008)0329 ), sklepov Sveta o strategiji na področju e-pravosodja, resolucije evropskega parlamenta z dne 18. decembra 2008 s priporočili Komisiji o e-pravosodju
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 30 May 2008 entitled 'Towards a European e-Justice Strategy' ( COM(2008)0329 ), to the Council Conclusions on a strategy on e-Justice, to Parliament's resolution of 18 December 2008 with recommendations to the Commission on e-Justice
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0637 . , stališča Parlamenta z dne 9. oktobra 2008 o predlogu sklepa Sveta o vzpostavitvi Evropskega informacijskega sistema kazenskih evidenc (ECRIS) na podlagi člena 11 okvirnega sklepa 2008/XX/PNZ
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0637 . , as well as to Parliament’s position of 9 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2008/XX/JHA
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0465 . ter sklepov Sveta o poročilu o napredku, doseženem med francoskim predsedovanjem na področju e-pravosodja, ki jih je sprejel Svet za pravosodje in notranje zadeve 27. in 28. novembra 2008,
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2008)0465 . and the Council Conclusions on a report on the progress made during the French Presidency in the area of e-Justice adopted at the JHA Council of 27-28 November 2008,
– ob upoštevanju svojih prejšnjih priporočil
– having regard to its previous recommendations
– ob upoštevanju lizbonske pogodbe in zlasti členov 82–86 poglavja 4 (pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
– having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon and notably to Chapter 4, Articles 82 to 86 (judicial cooperation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju potrebe po prepoznavanju najboljših načinov za razvoj kazenskopravnega območja EU,
– having regard to the need to identify the best way of developing an EU criminal justice area,
– ob upoštevanju priprave osnutka prihodnjega stockholmskega programa,
– having regard to the drafting of the future Stockholm programme,
– ob upoštevanju potrebe po povečanju dialoga o teh zadevah z nacionalnimi parlamenti, civilno družbo in sodnimi organi,
– having regard to the need to step up the dialogue on these matters with national parliaments, civil society and the judicial authorities,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0262/2009 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0262/2009 ),
A. ker je delovanje sodstva v nacionalni pristojnosti držav članic,
A. whereas the administration of justice falls within the national competences of the Member States,
B. ker bi bilo treba ob upoštevanju lizbonske pogodbe poudariti, da bi ta, ko bi začela veljati, razširila pristojnosti EU na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah ter bi za to področje – z ukinitvijo sistema stebrov – uvedla zakonodajni postopek s soodločanjem,
B. whereas, with a view to the Treaty of Lisbon, it should be stressed that, once in force, it would widen EU competences in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and would introduce the co-decision law-making process in this area by abolishing the pillar system,
C. ker haaški program podobno kot program iz Tampereja določa vzpostavitev evropskega območja pravice kot prednostno nalogo in poudarja, da bi moralo priti do krepitve pravosodja prek ustvarjanja zaupanja in vzajemnega zaupanja, izvajanja programa vzajemnega priznavanja, razvoja enakovrednih standardov procesnih pravic v kazenskem postopku, približevanja zakonov – da se storilcem kaznivih dejanj prepreči izkoriščanje razlik v pravosodnih sistemih in državljanom zagotovi zaščita, ne glede na to, kje v EU so – ter zaradi pospeševanja razvoja Eurojusta,
C. whereas the Hague Programme 1 , like the Tampere Programme, set the creation of a European Area for Justice as a priority and stressed that the strengthening of justice should pass through confidence-building and mutual trust, the implementation of mutual recognition programme, the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings, the approximation of laws - in order to prevent criminals from benefiting from differences in judicial systems and in order to ensure that citizens are protected regardless of where they are in the EU - and with a view to furthering the development of Eurojust,
D. ker so bili po navedbah poročila o izvajanju haaškega programa za leto 2007 ( KOM(2008)0373 ) dosežki pri sodelovanju pravosodja v kazenskih zadevah razmeroma majhni, z oviranjem politike in zamudami, ki se odražajo v zmanjšanju števila sprejetih instrumentov, medtem ko je bil zabeležen zadovoljiv razvoj na drugih področjih, kot so sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah, upravljanje meja, zakonite in nezakonite migracije, politike azila,
D. whereas, according to the Report on Implementation of the Hague Programme for 2007 ( COM(2008)0373 ), the level of achievement in judicial cooperation in criminal matters has been rather low, with policy blockage and delays which are reflected in the diminishing number of instruments adopted, while satisfactory developments have been registered in other fields, such as cooperation in civil matters, border management, legal and illegal migration, asylum policies,
E. ker imajo kazenski postopki pomembne in številne posledice kar zadeva temeljne pravice tako žrtev kaznivih dejanj kot osumljencev in obtožencev,
E. whereas criminal proceedings have relevant and numerous implications in term of the fundamental freedoms of both victims of crime and suspects and defendants,
F. ker so varovanje pravic, na primer do pravičnega sojenja, domneva nedolžnosti, pravica do obrambe, pravice žrtev kaznivega dejanja, načelo ne bis in idem in minimalni postopkovni zaščitni ukrepi med preiskovalnim priporom pred sojenjem bistveni v kazenskih postopkih,
F. whereas the protection of rights such as the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the rights of victims of crime, the ne bis in idem principle and minimum procedural safeguards in pre-trial detention are primarily essential in criminal proceedings,
G. ker vsakodnevno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah še vedno temelji na instrumentih medsebojne pomoči, kot sta konvencija o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah iz leta 2000 in konvencija Sveta Evrope o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah iz leta 1959,
G. whereas day-to-day judicial cooperation in criminal matters is still based on mutual assistance instruments such as the 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,
H. ker načelo vzajemnega priznavanja v okviru ciljev in načel evropskega prava pomeni, da kadar pristojni sodni organ v eni državi članici izda odločbo, postane ta odločba v celoti in neposredno veljavna na celotnem ozemlju Unije, sodni organi v državah članicah, na ozemlju katerih bi se odločba lahko izvršila, pa pomagajo pri njenem izvrševanju, kot da bi bila to odločba, ki jo je izdal pristojni sodni organ te države članice, razen če instrument, v okviru katerega se izvaja, predvideva omejitve za njeno izvrševanje,
H. whereas within the boundaries of the aims and principles of European law, the mutual recognition principle implies that when a decision has been handed down by a competent judicial authority in one Member State, the decision becomes fully and directly effective throughout the territory of the Union, and the judicial authorities in the Member States in the territory of which the decision may be enforced assist in the enforcement of the decision as if it were a decision handed down by a competent authority in that Member State, unless the instrument within which it is implemented places limits on its execution,
I. ker uresničevanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja, ki je eden od temeljev pravosodnega sodelovanja od Evropskega sveta v Tampereju, nikakor ni zadovoljivo, in ga je treba pospremiti z enotnim nizom postopkovnih jamstev in zaščitnih ukrepov,
I. whereas the implementation of the mutual recognition principle, which has been the cornerstone of judicial cooperation since the Tampere European Council, is far from having been satisfactorily achieved, and needs to be accompanied by a uniform set of procedural guarantees and safeguards;
J. ker se je pri načelu vzajemnega priznavanja, kjer se izvaja, pokazalo, podobno kot v primeru evropskega naloga za prijetje, da ima veliko dodano vrednost za pravosodno sodelovanje v Evropski uniji,
J whereas where it is implemented, as is the case with the European Arrest Warrant, the mutual recognition principle has proved to have a great added value for judicial cooperation in the European Union,
K. ker je načelo vzajemnega priznavanja, da bi bilo popolnoma učinkovito, v veliki meri odvisno od oblikovanja skupne evropske pravosodne kulture, ki temelji na medsebojnem zaupanju, skupnih načelih, sodelovanju in določeni ravni usklajevanja – na primer pri opredelitvi nekaterih kaznivih dejanj in sankcij – in od dejanskega varstva temeljnih pravic, zlasti kar zadeva procesne pravice, minimalne standarde pogojev in ponovnega pregleda pridržanja, pravice zapornikov ter dostopne mehanizme odškodnine za posameznike,
K. whereas, to be fully effective, the mutual recognition principle largely depends on the creation of a common European judicial culture based on mutual trust, common principles, cooperation and a certain level of harmonisation - for instance, in the definition of certain crimes and in the sanctions - and by a genuine protection of fundamental rights, notably with regard to procedural rights, minimum standards for conditions and review of detention, prisoners' rights and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals,
L ker ima usposabljanje sodnikov, tožilcev, zagovornikov in drugih, ki so dejavni v pravosodju, ključno vlogo pri ustvarjanju medsebojnega zaupanja in razvoju skupne evropske pravosodne kulture, obenem pa krepi pravilno ravnovesje med interesi državnega tožilstva in interesi obrambe ter zagotavlja neprekinjenost in učinkovitost obrambe v čezmejnih zadevah,
L whereas training of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice plays a key role in building mutual trust and developing a common European judicial culture, while at the same time enhancing the right balance between the interests of the public prosecution and those of the defence and to ensure continuity and effective defence in cross-border cases,
M. ker je bil na področju sodniškega usposabljanja dosežen napredek v več pogledih, zlasti zaradi prispevka evropske mreže za sodniško usposabljanje in njenih dejavnosti,
Mwhereas many steps forward have been taken in the area of judicial training, in particular thanks to the contribution offered by the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) and its activities,
N. ker je bila vloga evropske mreže za sodniško usposabljanje kljub pomembnim dosedanjim dosežkom omejena zaradi ovir, povezanih z njeno organizacijsko strukturo, ter zaradi pomanjkanja zadostnih sredstev,
N.whereas, despite of the important results achieved so far, the role of the EJTN has been limited by constraints related to its organisational structure and by the lack of sufficient resources,
O. ker pravosodni organi zaradi omenjenih razmer sedaj nimajo orodij za usposabljanje, ki bi jih potrebovali za pravilno uporabo zakonodaje EU, in ker ima le majhen del sodstva dostop do sodnega usposabljanja, ki je osredotočeno na EU,
O.whereas - given the above-mentioned situation - judicial authorities are not currently given the training tools they need to properly apply EU legislation, and only a very small part of the judiciary has access to EU-focused judicial training,
P. ker prihodnji ukrepi, usmerjeni na razvoj kazenskega pravosodja EU, lahko temeljijo le na objektivnem, nepristranskem, preglednem, natančnem in stalnem spremljanju izvajanja politik in pravnih instrumentov EU, kot tudi na kakovosti in učinkovitosti sodstva v državah članicah,
P.whereas future action towards the development of the EU criminal justice area cannot but be based on an objective, impartial, transparent, accurate and continuous monitoring of the implementation of EU policies and legal instruments as well as of the quality and efficiency of justice in the Member States,
Q. ker se zdajle v EU ne izvaja nobeno celovito, stalno in jasno spremljanje politik EU na področju kazenskega prava niti kakovosti in učinkovitosti sodstva,
Q.whereas no comprehensive, constant and clear monitoring of EU policies in the field of criminal justice, or of the quality and efficiency of justice, is currently in place within the EU,
R. ker bi bilo takšno spremljanje bistvenega pomena za tiste, ki v EU sprejemajo odločitve, kadar pripravljajo najprimernejše zakonodajne ukrepe, obenem pa bi povečalo vzajemno zaupanje v sodne sisteme,
R.whereas such monitoring would be fundamental for the "EU decision-makers" when conceiving the most appropriate legislative actions while at the same time enhancing mutual trust in each other's judicial systems,
S. ker bi moral ta sistem ocenjevanja črpati iz obstoječih sistemov ocenjevanja, ne da bi podvajal prizadevanja in rezultate, Parlamentu pa bi moral nameniti aktivno vlogo,
S.whereas that evaluation system should take stock of existing evaluation systems without duplicating effort or results, and should give an active role to Parliament,
T. ker bi lahko novoustanovljeni forum za pravosodje pomembno prispeval v fazi predhodnega ocenjevanja zakonodajnih pobud EU,
T.whereas the newly established "Justice Forum" might make an important contribution to the ex-ante evaluation stage of EU legislative initiatives,
U. ker bi bilo treba zaradi zagotavljanja skladnosti in doslednosti ukrepanja EU, obenem pa zaradi varovanja temeljnih pravic, s primernimi postopki, ki naj vključujejo presoje vpliva, vzpostaviti javni posvetovalni postopek, še preden Komisija ali države članice vložijo predloge ali pobude za sprejetje zakonodajnih instrumentov EU,
U. whereas, in order to ensure coherence and consistency in the EU action while at the same time safeguarding fundamental rights, a public consultation process through the appropriate procedures, including impact assessments, should take place before proposals and initiatives for the adoption of EU legislative instruments are tabled by the Commission or the Member States;
V. ker stalne izmenjave informacij, praks in izkušenj med pravosodnimi organi v državah članicah bistveno prispevajo k razvoju okolja, ki temelji na medsebojnem zaupanju, kar dokazujejo izjemni rezultati, doseženi s programom izmenjav med pravosodnimi organi,
V.whereas a constant exchange of information, practices and experience among judicial authorities in the Member States makes a fundamental contribution to the development of an environment built on mutual trust, as the remarkable results achieved with the exchange programme for judicial authorities show,
W. ker na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah še vedno manjka primeren celovit sistem varstva podatkov in je v njegovi odsotnosti treba v vsakem posameznem zakonodajnem instrumentu skrbno regulirati pravice oseb, na katere se podatki nanašajo,
W.whereas an adequate overall data protection regime is still lacking in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in its absence the rights of data subjects need to be carefully regulated in each individual legislative instrument ,
X. ker mora kazenskopravno območje EU izkoristiti nove tehnologije, če želi biti učinkovito, obenem pa spoštovati temeljne pravice, ter uporabljati internetna orodja pri izvajanju politik EU in pri razširjanju informacij in predlogov ter razpravi o njih,
X.whereas, in order to be effective, an EU criminal justice area must take advantage of new technologies whilst respecting fundamental rights , and use internet tools in the implementation of EU policies as well as in the dissemination and discussion of information and proposals,
Y. ker je vloga nacionalnih sodstev v boju proti mednarodnemu kriminalu in pri varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin vse pomembnejša,
Y.whereas the role of national judiciaries is becoming more and more relevant in fighting trans-national crime and, at the same time, in protecting fundamental rights and freedoms,
Z. ker so usklajevalna telesa, kot je Eurojust, pokazala, da prispevajo resnično dodano vrednost, njihovi ukrepi proti mednarodnemu kriminalu pa so se izjemno razširili, čeprav so njihove pristojnosti še vedno preveč omejene in so nekatere države članice izkazale odpor do izmenjave informacij v tem okviru,
Z. whereas coordination bodies such as Eurojust have been shown to contribute a real added value and their action against trans-national crime has expanded remarkably despite the fact that their powers are still too limited and some Member States have proved reluctant to share information in this context,
Aa. ker je usklajevanje zagovornikov pomanjkljivo in bi ga bilo treba podpreti in odobriti na ravni EU,
Aa . whereas coordination for defence lawyers is lacking and should therefore be supported and endorsed at EU level,
Ab. ker so mafijske združbe in splošni organizirani kriminal postali nadnacionalni pojav, ki ima družbeni, kulturni, gospodarski in politični učinek na države članice in sosednje države, proti njemu pa se je treba bojevati tudi na družbeni ravni v sodelovanju s civilno družbo in demokratičnimi ustanovami,
Ab. whereas mafias and organised crime in general have become a transnational phenomenon having a social, cultural, economic and political impact on Member States and neighbouring countries, needing to be combated also at the social level, in cooperation with civil society and democratic institutions,
(a) ob upoštevanju, da mora kazenskopravno območje EU temeljiti na spoštovanju temeljnih pravic, poziva Svet, naj nadaljuje delo v zvezi z varovanjem temeljnih pravic in naj zlasti nemudoma sprejme:
(a) in view of the fact that an EU criminal justice area must be based on respect for fundamental rights, restart working on safeguarding fundamental rights and notably adopt without delay: