natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ker sta Svet in Evropski parlament zahtevala kodifikacijo uredbe št. 1348/2000, je Komisija v svoj spremenjeni predlog vključila določbe, potrebne za razveljavitev te uredbe (uvodna izjava 27, člen 25 in primerjalna tabela v Prilogi III).
As the Council and European Parliament had requested the codification of Regulation No 1348/2000, the Commission inserted the requisite provisions for repealing this Regulation in its amended proposal (recital 27, Article 25 and the Correlation Table in Annex III).
Za zagotovitev ustrezne zakonodaje je Svet te določbe in primerjalno tabelo vključil v skupno stališče.
With a view to achieving the goal of good lawmaking, the Council integrated these provisions and the Correlation Table in its common position.
Spremembe, ki jih podal Svet
Amendments made by the Council
Ko je bila maja 2000 sprejeta uredba št. 1348/2000, še ni bila uveljavljena praksa, ki je bila uvedena za rešitev problema, ki se pojavlja, ker Danska v skladu s Protokolom o stališču Danske ne sodeluje pri sprejetju ukrepov, ki izhajajo iz naslova IV Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in ker ti ukrepi Danske ne zavezujejo in se jih v zvezi z njo ne uporablja.
When Regulation No 1348/2000 in May 2000, there was as yet no established practice for resolving the problem which arises from the fact that, pursuant to the protocol on the position of Denmark, Denmark does not participate in the adoption of measures falling under Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and that these measures are neither binding on nor applicable to Denmark.
Uredba št. 1348/2000 torej ni vsebovala sedaj običajne določbe o opredelitvi „države članice”.
Regulation No 1348/2000 did not therefore contain the otherwise standard provision on the definition of ‘Member State’.
Kot nadomestilo za izpuščeno določbo je Svet v svoje skupno stališče vključil nov tretji odstavek k členu 1.
To make good this omission, the Council has inserted a new paragraph 3 into Article 1 of its common position.
Prav tako je zaradi nesodelovanja Danske sprejel ustrezne spremembe prilog.
In view of Denmark’s non-participation, the Council has likewise proceeded to make the appropriate amendments to the annexes.
Svet meni, da je njegovo skupno stališče v zvezi z uredbo o vročanju listin popolnoma v skladu s spremembami, ki sta jih hotela z Evropskim parlamentom, in gre v smeri spremenjenega predloga Komisija, ki vključuje te spremembe.
The Council believes that its common position on the service of judicial documents is entirely in line with the amendments which the European Parliament and the Council were seeking, and in line with the Commission’s amended proposal incorporating these amendments.
Vročanje sodnih in zunajsodnih listin v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah
Service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Giana Paola Gobba
on the request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Gian Paolo Gobbo
– ob upoštevanju zahteve sodnice na predhodnem zaslišanju pred okrožnim sodiščem v Veroni (Italija) za presojo odvzema poslanske imunitete Gianu Paolu Gobbu v zvezi s kazenskim postopkom št. 81/96 R.G.N.R., razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 18. januarja 2007,
– having regard to the request made by the judge at the preliminary hearing before the District Court of Verona (Italy) for consultation on the parliamentary immunity of Gian Paolo Gobbo, in connection with criminal procedure No. 81/96 R.G.N.R., announced in plenary sitting on 18 January 2007,
– po zaslišanju Giana Paola Gobba v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Gian Paolo Gobbo 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 8. aprila 1965 in člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z 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 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 12. maja 1964 in 10. julija 1986,
– having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0367/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0367/2007 ),
A. ker je Gian Paolo Gobbo poslanec Evropskega parlamenta in je Parlament veljavnost njegovega mandata preveril 15. januarja 2007,
A. whereas Gian Paolo Gobbo is a Member of the European Parliament whose credentials were verified by Parliament on 15 January 2007,
B. ker je poslanec Gobbo skupaj s številnimi drugimi osebami – med njimi je istovetnost nekaterih ugotovljena, nekaterih pa ne – obtožen promocije, ustanovitve in vodenja paravojaškega združenja s političnimi cilji, znanega pod imenom „zelene srajce“, in sodelovanja v njem,
B. whereas Mr Gobbo is charged – along with many other people, of whom some have been identified and others have not – with the offence of promoting, setting up, leading and participating in a paramilitary association with political objectives, under the title of 'the Greenshirts',
C. ker je bil po navedbah italijanskega tožilstva namen zelenih srajc vzpostaviti hierarhično urejeno telo, usposobljeno za kolektivna dejanja nasilne ali grozilne narave, uporabljeno med drugim za ustrahovanje članov gibanja, ki so se zoperstavili političnim smernicam voditeljev in so znotraj gibanja želeli sprožiti razpravo, in je združenje z zadušitvijo vsakršnega izraza nesoglasja znotraj gibanja prispevalo k uveljavitvi razločne politične usmeritve gibanja Severna liga,
C. whereas, according to the Italian Prosecutors' Office, the Greenshirts' aim was to set up a hierarchically organised body which was trained to take collective action of a violent or threatening nature and was also used to intimidate any members of the movement who were opposed to the political directives issued by its leaders and prevent them from engaging in debate inside the movement, thus helping to impose a definite political line on the 'Lega Nord' movement by silencing any expression of dissent within it,
D. ker člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah določa, da poslanci uživajo polno zaščito zgolj pred sodnimi postopki zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki so ga izrekli pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti,
D. whereas Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities only accords Members full protection from legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast by them in the performance of their duties,
E. ker je sodelovanje v polvojaškem uniformiranem združenju, ki je očitno dajalo vtis, da skuša cilje doseči s potencialno ali dejansko uporabo sile, v očitnem nasprotju in nezdružljivo z vlogo in odgovornostjo parlamentarnega mandata in ga zato ne moremo obravnavati kot legitimno uresničevanje svobode govora oziroma, splošno gledano, običajno opravljanje nalog poslanca izvoljene skupščine, ki zastopa državljane,
E. whereas participating in a semi-military-style uniformed association which apparently gave the impression that it would seek to achieve its objectives through the potential or actual use of force is clearly contradictory to, and incompatible with, the role and responsibilities attaching to a parliamentary mandate and cannot therefore be regarded as a legitimate exercise of freedom of speech or as constituting, in general, the normal performance of the duties of members belonging to an elected assembly representing citizens,
F. ker poslanci Evropskega parlamenta v skladu s členom 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah kot edino veljavne določbe med zasedanji Parlamenta na ozemlju svoje države uživajo imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države; ker to Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje izvajanja pravice, da odreče imuniteto enemu od svojih članov,
F. whereas, pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, which is the sole provision applicable, during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament; whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members,
G. ker 68. člen italijanske ustave določa, da poslanci italijanskega parlamenta uživajo imuniteto pred kazenskim pregonom zgolj za mnenje ali glas, ki so ga izrekli pri opravljanju svojih funkcij, kar pa v tem primeru ne velja,
G. whereas under Article 68 of the Italian Constitution, members of the Italian Parliament do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, except in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions, which is not the case in the present instance,
2. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj ta sklep in poročilo pristojnega odbora nemudoma posreduje pristojnim organom Italijanske republike.
Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of its committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Italian Republic.
Na zasedanju 18. januarja 2007 je predsednik Parlamenta sporočil, da je 9. oktobra 2006 prejel zahtevo Rite Caccamo, sodnice na predhodnem zaslišanju pred okrožnim sodiščem v Veroni (Italija) v kazenski zadevi št. 81/96 R.G.N.R., za odločitev Evropskega parlamenta o tem, ali poslanska imuniteta velja za dejanja, ki jih je storil Gian Paolo Gobbo.
At the sitting of 18 January 2007, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request made on 9 October 2006 by Rita Caccamo, judge at the preliminary hearing before the District Court of Verona (Italy) in criminal procedure No. 81/96 R.G.N.R., for a decision of the European Parliament as to whether parliamentary immunity applies to the facts committed by Mr Gian Paolo Gobbo.
Predsednik je, skladno s členoma 7(13) in 6(2) poslovnika, zadevo posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve kot pristojnemu odboru.
The President referred the matter to the Committee on Legal affairs, as the committee responsible, in accordance with Rules 7(13) and 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
Obtožnica pristojnega nacionalnega sodišča poslanca Gobba bremeni, da je vedno sporazumno s številnimi drugimi osebami:
Initially, according to the competent national court, the main charges against Mr Gobbo were the following: always acting in concert with many other people,
a) deloval z namenom uničenja enotnosti italijanske države in razkosanja njenega ozemlja ter ustanovitve nove državne tvorbe z imenom „Padanija“, za katero so na različnih lokacijah predvideli zastopniški telesi, imenovani „vlada“ in „parlament“ „zvezne padanske republike“, sledila pa je še objava „uradnega lista“ z „akti padanskih ustanov“;
a) he committed acts aimed at destroying the unity of the Italian State by dismembering its territory and creating a new state entity under the name of ‘Padania’, with more representative bodies at various locations under the title of ‘government’ and ‘parliament’ of the ‘federal Padanian republic’, followed by the publication of an ‘official gazette’ containing the ‘acts of the Padanian institutions’;
b) po številnih poskusih za pridobitev mednarodnega priznanja te nove in umetno oblikovane tvorbe je sklical „padanske volitve“, na katerih je vse italijanske državljane, ki prebivajo v severni Italiji, pozval, da izvolijo predstavnike v „padanski parlament“;
b) after various attempts at obtaining international recognition for this new and artificially created entity, he called ‘Padanian elections’, urging all Italian citizens residing in northern Italy to vote for representatives to the so-called ‘Padanian parliament’;
c) deloval je z namenom spremembe državne ustave in sredstev, s katerimi država izvaja svojo suverenost;
c) he performed actions aimed at changing the constitution of the State and the means whereby it exercises sovereignty;
Ker so med obtoženimi tudi poslanci obeh domov italijanskega parlamenta, sta bila oba zaprošena, da presodita, ali so njuni člani zgolj izražali mnenje med opravljanjem svojih dolžnosti in ali je treba uporabiti popolno (nacionalno) imuniteto.
Since some of the accused for the same charges were members of the two Chambers of the national Parliament, the latter were asked to judge whether they were only expressing their opinion in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether (national) absolute immunity was therefore applicable.
Januarja 2001 je italijanski senat izjavil, da je bilo ravnanje po obtožnici zgolj „čudaški poskus pritegniti pozornost na politične predloge, ki so predmet povsem parlamentarne dejavnosti“ in da je šlo samo za „nenavadne mehanizme propagiranja institucionalnih dejavnosti“.
On 31 January 2001, the Italian Senate stated that the incriminated behaviour was just "the bizarre attempt to draw some attention to political proposals which were the subject of proper parliamentary activity" and that it simply consisted of "singular mechanisms for propagandising institutional activities".
Zaradi tega je zaključil, da „te zanosne in evokativne nastope lahko obravnavamo le kot zunanjo projekcijo političnega načrta ustanov, katerega namen je bil preprosto ta, da postane načrt opaznejši “ in za vse obsodbe proti nacionalnim poslancem uveljavil popolno imuniteto.
It thus concluded that, as "those emphatic and evocative demonstrations can only be regarded as the external projection of the political plan put forward in the institutions, which was simply designed to make that plan more visible" , all charges against national members were covered by absolute immunity.
Posledica tega je bila, da so bili 5. oktobra 2006 vsi obtoženi oproščeni z razlago, da dejanja, ki so jim bila pripisana pod točkami a), b) in c) zahtevka za napotitev na sodišče (glej zgoraj), ne sodijo več med kazniva dejanja, medtem ko je očitano kaznivo dejanje pod točko d) delno zastaralo.
As a consequence, on 5 October 2006, all the accused were acquitted on the grounds that the actions ascribed to them under points a), b) and c) of the request of committal (see above) were no longer classified as offences and the offence with which they were charged under point d) had partly fallen under the statute of limitations.
Po navedbah pristojnega sodišča tako sodni postopek zadeva le še preostalo obtožbo, navedeno pod prvotno točko d) zahtevka za napotitev na sodišče, namreč kršitev 1. člena zakonodajnega odloka št. 43/1948 (oblikovanje paravojaškega združenja s političnimi cilji).
According to the competent court, the legal proceeding is solely concerned, therefore, with the remaining charge referred to under the original point d) of the request for committal, namely infringement of Article 1 of legislative decree No 43/1948 (organisation of a paramilitary association with political objectives).
7. marca 2007 je italijanska poslanska zbornica odločila, da njeni člani, ki so v istem postopku, v celoti uživajo imuniteto, kar pomeni, da se njihovo delovanje obravnava kot legitimno uresničevanje njihovega poslanskega mandata.
On 7 March 2007 the Italian Chamber of Representatives decided that those of its members who were involved in the same proceedings were fully covered by absolute immunity, thus regarding their behaviour as the legitimate exercise of their parliamentary mandate.
VELJAVNE DOLOČBE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
Člena 9 in 10 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti (PPI)
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (PPI)
Razsodba v primeru o odgovornosti uradnih predstavnikov Skupnosti glede davkov na premoženje je jasno opredelila, da kršitev določil PPI predstavlja kršitev obveznosti iz pogodb (sodba s 24. februarja 1988, Komisija proti Belgiji, primer 260/86, ECR).
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium , Case 260/86, ECR.
966). se glasita:
966). read as follows:
Zoper člana Evropskega parlamenta se ne sme začeti preiskave, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodnega postopka zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
Ti dve določbi se seveda izključujeta.
The two provisions are clearly mutually exclusive.
Kot smo že navedli, člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah določa, da člani Evropskega parlamenta uživajo polno zaščito zgolj pred sodnimi postopki zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki so ga izrekli pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
As shown above, Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities, only accords Members full protection from legal proceedings related to opinions expressed and votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
Sodelovanje v polvojaškem uniformiranem združenju, ki je očitno dajal vtis, da skuša cilje doseči s potencialno ali dejansko uporabo sile, je očitno v nasprotju in nezdružljivo z vlogo in odgovornostjo parlamentarnega mandata in zato nanj ne moremo gledati kot na legitimno izvajanje svobode govora oziroma, splošno, običajno opravljanje nalog poslancev izvoljenega parlamenta, ki zastopa državljane.
Participating in a semi-military style uniformed association which apparently gave the impression that it would seek to achieve its objectives through the potential or actual use of the force is clearly contradictory and incompatible with the role and the responsibilities of a parliamentary mandate and cannot therefore be regarded as the legitimate exercise of the freedom of speech and, in general, as the normal performance of the duties of members belonging to an elected assembly representing citizens.
Člen 9 protokola torej v tem primeru ne velja.
Article 9 of the Protocol is therefore not applicable.
Kar zadeva člen 10, pa se – glede na dejstvo, da se obtožnica proti Gobbu nanaša na dejanja, storjena v Italiji, katere državljanstvo je imel takrat – uporablja le del: „Med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta njegovi poslanci uživajo a ) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države ”.
As for Article 10, given that the charges brought against Mr Gobbo refer to facts committed in Italy, whose citizenship he enjoyed at that moment, the only applicable part is the one pursuant to which " during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ".
Obseg poslanske imunitete v Italiji je zelo podoben tistemu, ki ureja delovanje EP in temelji na PPI.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in Italy is very similar to the one that serves the functioning of the EP, based on the PPI.
Prvi in drugi pododstavek 68. člena italijanske ustave se glasi:
Article 68, first and second subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution reads as follows:
Noben poslanec ne sme biti podvržen osebni ali hišni preiskavi brez dovoljenja zbornice, katere član je.
Members of Parliament may not be required to give account of any opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions.
Prav tako se ga ne sme aretirati, mu kako drugače odvzeti prostost ali ga zadržati v priporu, razen v primerih, ko gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je zaloten pri kriminalnem dejanju, za katerega je predpisan obvezen pripor.
Without authorization from the House to which they belong, no member of Parliament may be subjected to a personal search or have their domicile searched, neither may they be arrested or otherwise deprived of personal freedom, or kept in detention, except to enforce a final conviction, or if caught in the act of committing a crime for which arrest is mandatory.
Drugače rečeno, 68. člen italijanske ustave določa, da poslanci italijanskega parlamenta uživajo imuniteto pred kazenskim pregonom zgolj za mnenje ali glas, ki so ga izrekli pri opravljanju svojih funkcij.
In other words, pursuant to Article 68 of the Italian Constitution, members of the national Parliament do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, except for opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the exercise of their functions.
To pa v primeru ravnanja poslanca Gobba ne velja, zato se sodni postopki proti njemu lahko nadaljujejo.
As this is not the case as regards Mr Gobbo's behaviour, the legal proceedings brought against him can go on.
Ker je Evropski parlament zakonodajno telo, izvoljeno na vsesplošnih neposrednih volitvah, ki je pri sprejemanju odločitev absolutno avtonomno, sklepi italijanskega parlamenta v zvezi z uveljavitvijo absolutne imunitete za dejanja njegovih poslancev zanj niso zavezujoči.
Of course, since the European Parliament, as legislative body elected by direct universal suffrage, enjoys absolute autonomy when taking its decisions, on no account can the conclusions of the Italian Parliament on the applicability of absolute immunity to the facts committed by its own members be binding.
Na podlagi zgornjih zaključkov Odbor za pravne zadeve po zaslišanju poslanca Gobba in preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti njegove imunitete, meni, da poslanska imuniteta po členu 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z 8. aprila 1965 ter, kolikor velja za ta primer, členu 68, prvi pododstavek, italijanske ustave, ne pokriva dejanj, ki bremenijo Giana Paola Gobba, zaradi česar sklene, da ne zaščiti njegove imunitete in privilegijev.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having heard Mr Gobbo and having examined the reasons for and against defending his immunity, considers that parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Article 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and, insofar as it is relevant, Article 68, first subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution do not cover the facts committed by Mr Gian Paolo Gobbo and therefore decides not to defend his immunity and privileges.
o spremembi poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta z vidika statuta poslancev
on the amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in the light of the Statute for Members
MNENJE Odbora za pravne zadeve ...........................................................................10
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs ......................................................11
– ob upoštevanju pisma svojega predsednika z dne 29. junija 2006 in razglasitve na zasedanju 7. septembra 2006,
– having regard to the letter from its President of 29 June 2006 and the announcement in plenary on 7 September 2006,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve in mnenja Odbora za pravne zadeve( A6‑0368/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0368/2007 ),
Člen 8
Rule 8
Izvajanje statuta poslancev
Implementation of the Statute for Members
Če ni določeno drugače, sprejme določbe, ki urejajo izvajanje statuta poslancev, predsedstvo Evropskega parlamenta.
Unless otherwise stipulated, the rules governing implementation of the Statute for Members shall be laid down by the Bureau.
Člen 39, odstavek 1
Rule 39, paragraph 1
Parlament lahko z resolucijo, sprejeto na podlagi samoiniciativnega poročila pristojnega odbora, sestavljenega v skladu s členom 45 , od Komisije zahteva, da mu predloži vsak ustrezen predlog v skladu s členom 192(2) Pogodbe ES.
Parliament may request the Commission to submit to it any appropriate proposal pursuant to Article 192, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty by adopting a resolution on the basis of an own-initiative report from the committee responsible initiated pursuant to Rule 45 .
Člen 39, odstavek 1 a (novo)
Rule 39, paragraph 1 a (new)
Člen 39, odstavek 1 b (novo)
Rule 39, paragraph 1 b (new)