natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12. zagovarja boljše in učinkovitejše usklajevanje med Svetovno trgovinsko organizacijo in institucijami Bretton Woodsa (Mednarodni denarni sklad in Skupina Svetovne banke) za boj proti špekulacijam in za soočanje z izzivi, ki jih predstavlja resna kriza v monetarnem sektorju ter tudi v finančnem, energetskem in prehrambnem sektorju, ki ogroža vse države; meni, da bi tako usklajevanje prispevalo k monetarni in finančni stabilnosti svetovnega gospodarstva;
Advocates better and more efficient coordination between the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Bretton Woods institutions (International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group) in order to combat speculation and meet the challenges posed by the serious crisis not just in the monetary sector, but also in the financial, energy and food sectors which is currently threatening all countries; considers that such coordination would contribute towards monetary and financial stability in the world economy;
15. podpira predlog Komisije za pripravo skupnih evropskih monetarnih stališč z utrditvijo zastopanosti euroobmočja in dokončno določitvijo enotnega sedeža za euroobmočje v mednarodnih finančnih institucijah in forumih.
Supports the Commission proposal to develop common EU monetary positions by consolidating representation of the euro area and ultimately securing a single seat for the euro area in international financial institutions and fora.
Paolo Bartolozzi, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berčs, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Jonathan Evans, Elisa Ferreira, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Jean-Paul Gauzčs, Donata Gottardi, Benoît Hamon, Gunnar Hökmark, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Othmar Karas, Wolf Klinz, Christoph Konrad, Andrea Losco, Bernhard Rapkay, Dariusz Rosati, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Ieke van den Burg
Paolo Bartolozzi, Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Jonathan Evans, Elisa Ferreira, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Donata Gottardi, Benoît Hamon, Gunnar Hökmark, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Othmar Karas, Wolf Klinz, Christoph Konrad, Andrea Losco, Bernhard Rapkay, Dariusz Rosati, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Margarita Starkevičiūtė, Ieke van den Burg
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Franku Vanheckeju
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Frank Vanhecke
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU.....................................................................8
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE...........................................................................9
- ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Franku Vanheckeju, ki jo je na zahtevo državnega tožilca v Dermondeju vložil minister za pravosodje Kraljevine Belgije, in je bila razglašena 10. aprila 2008 na plenarnem zasedanju,
- having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Frank Vanhecke, submitted, at the request the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor, by the Minister of Justice of the Kingdom of Belgium, and announced in plenary sitting on 10 April 2008,
- po zagovoru Franka Vanheckeja, v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
- having heard Frank Vanhecke in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
- ob upoštevanju členov 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965, pa tudi člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
- having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
- ob upoštevanju sodb Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 12. maja 1964 in 10. julija 1986
- having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
- ob upoštevanju členov 58 in 59 belgijske ustave,
- having regard to Articles 58 and 59 of the Belgian Constitution,
- ob upoštevanju člena 6(2) in člena 7 svojega poslovnika,
- having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
- ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0421/2008 ),
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0421/2008 ),
Člena 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 določata naslednje:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities read as follows:
Člena 58 in 59 belgijske ustave določata:
Articles 58 and 59 of the Belgian Constitution provide as follows:
Zoper poslanca enega ali drugega doma se ne sme začeti sodni postopek ali preiskava zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
No member of either of the two Chambers can be prosecuted or pursued with regard to opinions and votes given by him in the exercise of his duties.
Razen v primerih, kadar je poslanec enega ali drugega doma zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, se med zasedanjem proti njemu ne smejo uvesti neposredni ukrepi ali ga pozvati pred sodišče ali razsodišče v zvezi s kazenskimi zadevami ali ga prijeti razen z dovoljenjem doma, katerega poslanec je.
Except in the case of a flagrant offence, no member of any Chamber may, during a session, be directly remanded or summoned before a court or tribunal regarding repressive matters nor be arrested except with the authorisation of the Chamber of which he is a member.
Razen v primerih, kadar je poslanec enega ali drugega doma zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, se med zasedanjem proti njemu v zvezi s kazenskimi zadevami ne smejo uvesti omejevalni ukrepi, ki zahtevajo posredovanje sodnika, razen v primeru, če to stori prvi predsednik pritožbenega sodišča na zahtevo pristojnega sodnika.
Except in the case of a flagrant offence, restraining measures requiring the intervention of a judge cannot be instituted against a member of any Chamber for the duration of a session, regarding repressive matters, except by the first President of the Court of Appeal at the demand of the competent judge.
O tej odločitvi se obvesti predsednika zadevnega doma.
This decision is communicated to the President of the concerned Chamber.
Vse preiskave ali zasegi, izvedeni v skladu z zgornjim odstavkom, se lahko opravijo le v prisotnosti predsednika zadevnega doma ali poslanca, ki ga ta imenuje.
All searches or seizures executed by virtue of the paragraph above can be performed only in the presence of the President of the Chamber concerned or a member appointed by him.
Med zasedanjem lahko kazenske postopke zoper poslanca enega ali drugega doma uvedejo le uslužbenci urada državnega tožilca in pristojni uslužbenci.
During the session, only the officers of the public prosecutor's department and competent officers may institute repressive proceedings against a member of any Chamber.
Poslanec enega ali drugega doma lahko v vseh fazah preiskave v zvezi s kazenskimi zadevami zahteva, da dom, katerega poslanec je, med zasedanjem začasno prekine kazenski postopek.
The member of any Chamber in question may at all stages of the investigations regarding repressive measures, request for the duration of the session that the Chamber of whom he is a member suspend the proceedings.
Zadevni dom mora ugoditi zahtevi, če jo podpre dvotretjinska večina oddanih glasov.
The Chamber in question must grant this request if supported by a majority of two-thirds of the votes given.
Pripor poslanca enega ali drugega doma ali preiskava, ki jo v zvezi z njim vodi sodišče ali razsodišče, se med zasedanjem začasno prekine, če tako zahteva dom, katerega poslanec je.
Detention of a member of any Chamber or his investigation by a court or Tribunal is suspended for the duration of the session if the Chamber of whom he is a member so requests.
Glede na pismo belgijskih organov so dejstva naslednja:
According to the letter from the Belgian authorities, the facts are as follows:
Državni tožilec v Dendermondeju je uvedel kazensko preiskavo zoper belgijskega poslanca Evropskega parlamenta Franka Arthurja Hyppolita Vanheckeja zaradi suma, da je kršil člen 1(3)(2) zakona z dne 30. julija 1981 o kaznovanju nekaterih dejanj, spodbujenih z rasizmom ali ksenofobijo (kot je bila spremenjen z zakonom z dne 10. maja 2007). .
[T]he Dendermonde Public Prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into Mr Frank Arthur Hyppolite Vanhecke, .... a Belgian Member of the European Parliament, on suspicion of violating Article 1(3)(2) of the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts Inspired by Racism or Xenophobia (as amended by the Law of 10 May 2007).
Dejstva, na katerih temelji preiskava, bi lahko opisali, kot sledi:
The facts on which it is based may be outlined as follows:
3. novembra 2005 je občinski odbor v mestu Sint-Niklaas vložil pritožbo zoper avtorja, založnika, tiskarja ali distributerja članka „To, česar v tisku niste smeli prebrati“, objavljenega v drugi številki časopisa Vlaams Belang iz aprila-maja-junija 2005 , izdaja Sint-Niklaas.
On 3 November 2005, the Municipal Executive of the town of Sint-Niklaas lodged a complaint against the writer, the publisher, the printer or the distributor of the article 'What you were not allowed to read in the press' in the Vlaams Belang Newspaper, No 2, Sint-Niklaas edition, of April-May-June 2005.
Pravna podlaga za pritožbo je bil člen 1(3)(2) zakona o kaznovanju nekaterih dejanj, spodbujenih z rasizmom ali ksenofobijo, z dne 30. julija 1981.
The legal basis for the complaint was Article 1(3)(2) of the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts Inspired by Racism or Xenophobia.
Zadevni članek v časopisu Vlaams Belang se je nanašal na polemiko, ki jo je sprožila oskrunitev nagrobnih kamnov na pokopališču Tereken med 29. marcem in 5. aprilom 2005, v zvezi s katero je časopis Vlaams Belang izpostavil domnevo, da so za dejanje odgovorni mladi ljudje tujega porekla.
The article in question in Vlaams Belang's newspaper concerned the controversy which had arisen over the desecration of gravestones in Tereken churchyard between 29 March and 5 April 2005, in which connection Vlaams Belang highlighted the alleged fact that the culprits were young people of foreign origin.
V omenjenem članku je beseda „tuj“ povezana s stavkom „ (..) kultura, ki nima več spoštovanja do mrtvih in za simbole drugačne vere je kultura, ki zašla na napačen tir (..)“, članek pa tudi pravi, da „ne bi bilo prav, če bi čez ta dejanja diskretno razgrnili plašč pozabe“.
In this article the term 'foreign' is linked to the statement '(…) a culture which no longer has any respect for the dead and for the symbols of a different faith is a culture which has become derailed (…)', and the article said that 'it would not be right to draw a discreet veil' over these actions.
Krivci pa očitno niso bili tujega porekla, ampak je šlo po ugotovitvah za štiri mladoletnike iz dveh avtohtonih flamskih družin.
In reality the culprits were apparently not of foreign origin but were identified as four minors of indigenous origin from two Flemish families.
30. junija 2005 je občinski svet v mestu Sint-Niklaas vložil uradno pritožbo na Centru za enake možnosti in nasprotovanje rasizmu.
On 30 June 2005, the Municipal Executive of the town of Sint-Niklaas lodged a formal complaint with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism.
30. septembra 2005 je Center za enake možnosti in nasprotovanje rasizmu domnevno poslal občinskemu svetu v mestu Sint-Niklaas mnenje, na podlagi katerega je ta sprejel odločitev, da vloži pritožbo na državnem tožilstvu v Dendermondeju.
On 30 September 2005 the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism apparently delivered an opinion to the Municipal Executive of Sint-Niklaas on the basis of which it was decided to lodge a complaint with the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor.
Državni tožilec v Dendermondeju je začel preiskavo, zlasti v povezavi z načelom kaskadne odgovornosti (alternativne, ne skupne), ki jo določa člen 25 usklajene ustave.
The Dendermonde Public Prosecutor launched an investigation, with particular reference to the principle of successive (alternative rather than joint) responsibility provided for by Article 25 of the Coordinated Constitution.
Na začetku ni bilo mogoče identificirati avtorja, tiskarja ali distributerja članka.
Initially, it was impossible to identify the writer, the printer or the distributor.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bil Frank Vanhecke odgovorni urednik ali založnik, vendar pa ta na začetku ni želel dajati izjav v zvezi s preiskavo.
It was possible to identify Mr Frank Vanhecke as the editor or publisher responsible; at first, however, he was not willing to make any statement in connection with the investigation.
27. novembra 2006 pa je državni tožilec v Dendermondeju prejel pismo Vanheckejevega odvetnika z zahtevo, da se opravi dodatna preiskava in izjavo o pripravljenosti na sodelovanje.
However, on 27 November 2006 the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor received a letter from Mr Frank Vanhecke's counsel with a request for a supplementary investigation and a statement of intention to cooperate.
Skoraj istočasno je državni tožilec v Dendermondeju prejel tudi sporočilo zvezne preiskovalne policije, ki je navajalo, da je policija prejela informacijo, da je bil avtor zadevnega članka pripravljen, da se javi in odgovarja na vprašanja.
Virtually simultaneously, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor also received a message from the Federal CID saying that they had been contacted with the information that the writer of the article in question was willing to report for questioning.
27. novembra 2006 je državni tožilec v Dendermondeju izdal navodilo, s katerim je ukazal nadaljnjo preiskavo ob upoštevanju teh dejstev.
By instruction of 27 November 2006, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor ordered a further investigation, taking account of these facts.
Sledila je preiskava, ki je razkrila, da se je za avtorja javila oseba z imenom Marc Van De Velde.
The subsequent investigation revealed that a person called Marc Van De Velde reported as the author.
Zaslišanje te osebe in pregled njenega osebnega računalnika naj bi delno potrdila, da je bila oseba avtor dela članka.
His questioning and an examination of his PC seemed partially to confirm that he was the writer of part of the article.
Ta oseba ni napisala četrtega in petega odstavka ter naslova članka.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the article and the title, however, were not written by him.
Med preiskavo, ki je sledila, ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, kdo je bil avtor obremenilnega četrtega in petega odstavka ter naslova članka, vključno z naslednjim odlomkom: „(…) česar ljudje niso smeli vedeti, pa je bilo, da so bili storilci, med katerimi so bili sami najstniki, tujega porekla (…)“.
In the course of the subsequent investigation it was not possible to ascertain who was the author of the incriminating fourth and fifth paragraphs of the article and its title, including the passage, which should be noted: '(…) what people were not allowed to know, however, is that the offenders, all of whom were young teenagers, were of foreign origin (…)'.
Državni tožilec v Dendermondeju meni, da je po doslej znanih dejstvih Frank Vanhecke kot odgovorni urednik ali založnik po kazenskem pravu odgovoren za omenjene dele besedila.
It seems to the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor that so far Mr Frank Vanhecke remains responsible under the criminal law for those sections, as the editor or publisher responsible.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve državni tožilec v Dendermondeju predlaga, da se Franka Vanheckeja povabi, da se v skladu s členom, navedenim na začetku tega poročila, zglasi na sodišču (glej tudi priloženi osnutek vabila).
In view of the above considerations, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor proposes to order that Mr Frank Vanhecke be summoned to appear before the Magistrate's Court pursuant to the article cited at the beginning of this report (see also the attached draft of the summons).
Zaradi statusa Franka Vanheckeja bi bil takšen kazenski pregon mogoč le potem, ko bi mu bila odvzeta poslanska imuniteta.
In view of Mr Vanhecke's status, such a prosecution would only be possible after his parliamentary immunity had been waived.
Zagovor Franka Vanheckeja
Submissions made by Mr Vanhecke
Na zaslišanju je poslanec Vanhecke trdil, da gre pri zadevi za fumus persecutionis.
At the hearing, Mr Vanhecke submitted that there was fumus persecutionis .
Kot prvo je bil župan mesta socialist, pregon pa je spodbudilo nasprotovanje posameznikom, ki zagovarjajo razpad belgijske države.
First, the Mayor of the town was a socialist and the prosecution was motivated by antagonism to persons who advocated a break-up of the Belgian State.
Kot drugo, pregon je bil glede na belgijske standarde izveden izjemno hitro.
Secondly, the prosecution had been conducted extremely fast by Belgian standards.
Kot tretje, časopis, ki izhaja v francoskem jeziku, je v poročilu o zadevi zapisal, da bo zadeva opuščena, če bo Evropski parlament zavrnil odvzem imunitete poslanca Vanheckeja (četudi je bil avtor članka znan).
Thirdly, a French-language newspaper stated, in reporting on the case, that if the European Parliament refused to waive Mr Vanhecke's immunity, the case would be dropped (even though the author of the article was known).
Poslanec Vanhecke je tudi izjavil, da ga kot odgovornega urednika po členu 25 belgijske ustave
Mr Vanhecke also stated that, under Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution
Člen 25 belgijske ustave:
Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution:
Tisk je svoboden; cenzure se ne sme vzpostaviti v nobenem primeru; od avtorjev, založnikov in tiskarjev se ne sme zahtevati jamstev.
The press is free; censorship can never be established; security from authors, publishers or printers cannot be demanded.
Če je avtor znan in prebiva v Belgiji, se ne sme preganjati založnika niti tiskarja niti distributerja . ni mogoče preganjati, če je bil avtor znan in je prebival v Belgiji.
When the author is known and resident in Belgium , neither the publisher, nor the printer, nor the distributor can be prosecuted. , he, as responsible editor, could not be prosecuted where the author was known and resident in Belgium.
Sam članka ni napisal ali spremenil ali komu naročil, naj to stori.
He had not written or altered the article or commissioned anyone to do so.
Bil je odgovorni urednik približno 200 lokalnih časopisov.
He was the responsible editor of some 200 local newspapers.
Pri zadevnem članku sta bila avtor in oseba, odgovorna za spremembo članka, znana, in sta prebivala v Belgiji.
In the case of the article in question, both the author and the person responsible for amending it were known and resident in Belgium.
Poslanec Vanhecke je še opozoril, da je izdal preklic članka in poskrbel za njegovo distribucijo.
Mr Vanhecke further pointed out that he had issued and distributed a retraction of the article.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da ta zadeva ni zajeta v členu 9 protokola, saj naloge poslancev ne vključujejo opravljanja funkcije odgovornega urednika časnika nacionalne stranke.
It is considered in the first place that this case is not covered by Article 9 of the Protocol in that an MEP's duties do not include acting as responsible editor for a national party newspaper.
Zaradi tega je treba zadevo obravnavati v skladu s členom 10, se pravi ob upoštevanju belgijske zakonodaje in ustaljene prakse Odbora za pravne zadeve.
Consequently, the case falls to be considered under Article 10, namely in the light of Belgian law and the consolidated practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Člen 58 belgijske ustave se izključi iz enakih razlogov kot člen 9 protokola.
Article 58 of the Belgian Constitution is excluded on the same grounds as Article 9 of the Protocol.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali bi bilo mogoče odvzeti imuniteto na podlagi katerega od razlogov, ki jih je navedel poslanec Vanhecke.
It is therefore necessary to consider whether immunity could be waived on any of the grounds raised by Mr Vanhecke.
Najprej je treba omeniti, da niso bili navedeni zadostni dokazi glede fumus persecutionis.
In the first place, it must be stated that sufficient evidence of fumus persecutionis has not been adduced.
Dodelitev odgovornosti za vsebino časopisa odgovornemu uredniku ni nič nenavadnega in dejstvo, da je lokalni župan socialist, ni zadosten dokaz za navedbo, da je bila tožba politično motivirana.
It is not unusual to attribute responsibility for the content of newspapers to the editor-in-chief and the fact that the local mayor is a socialist is not enough to make out an allegation that the charge was politically motivated.
Nadalje se ugotavlja, da je poslanec Vanhecke v skladu z belgijsko zakonodajo v celoti zaščiten, če je res, da so osebe, ki so napisale in spremenile zadevni članek, znane, in prebivajo v Belgiji.
Secondly, it is observed that if the persons who wrote and amended the article in question are indeed known and resident in Belgium, it is possible that Mr Vanhecke has a complete defence under Belgian law.
Kaže tudi, da je poslanec Vanhecke izdal in distribuiral preklic zadevnega članka.
Moreover, it appears that Mr Vanhecke issued and distributed a retraction of the article in question.
Poudarja pa se, da Odbor za pravne zadeve ni pristojen za ugotavljanje dejstev in presojanje vsebine obtožbe.
It is stressed, however, that it is not within the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs to make findings of facts or assess the merits of the charge.
Člen 7(7) Poslovnika jasno določa, da se Odbor za pravne zadeve v nobenem primeru ne izreče niti o krivdi ali nekrivdi poslanca niti o tem, ali mnenja oziroma dejanja, ki so mu pripisana, upravičujejo kazenski pregon, četudi se pri obravnavi zahteve podrobno seznani z dejstvi primera.
Rule 7(7) of the Rules of Procedure makes it plain that the Legal Affairs Committee shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členoma 7(1)(2) Poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti odvzemu poslančeve imunitete, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament Franku Vanheckeju odvzame poslansko imuniteto.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, and pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for and against waiving immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament waive Mr Frank Vanhecke's parliamentary immunity.
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Massimu D'Alemi
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Massimo D'Alema
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU.....................................................................9
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE.........................................................................10
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Massimu D'Alemi, ki jo je posredovalo državno tožilstvo v Milanu 30. maja 2008, in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 16. junija 2008,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Massimo D'Alema, forwarded by the Public Prosecution Service at the Court of Milan on 30 May 2008, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 June 2008,
– ob upoštevanju člena 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965, pa tudi člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju člena 6 in člena 7 svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6 and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0422/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0422/2008 ),