natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Države članice zagotovijo povračilo stroškov in morebitne gospodarske škode, ki jo utrpi pristanišče zaradi odločitve, sprejete v skladu s členom 20(1), če teh stroškov ali škode v razumnem času ne povrne lastnik ali upravljavec ladje v skladu s to direktivo in z obstoječimi mehanizmi za finančno nadomestilo.“
Member States shall ensure the reimbursement of costs and potential economic damage suffered by a port as a result of a decision taken pursuant to Article 20(1) if such costs or damage are not reimbursed within a reasonable time by the owner or operator of the ship pursuant to this Directive and the existing financial compensation mechanisms. ”
Predlog spremembe 41 (prva obravnava v EP).
Amendment 41(EP, first reading).
Poročevalec ponovno vlaga člen 20b kot ga je Parlament dopolnil v prvi obravnavi.
Your rapporteur is retabling Article 20 b as amended by Parliament in first reading.
Parlament je že večkrat zahteval, naj se sestavi načrt za povračilo škode pristaniščem in pribežališčem.
Parliament has on several occasions sought for a compensation scheme for ports and places of refuge.
V večini primerov pa obstoječi skladi in konvencije (večina jih še ni v veljavi) ne nadomestijo finančnih izgub pristanišč.
The existing funds and conventions (most of which have not yet taken effect) do not in most cases compensate for the financial losses of a port.
Poročevalec poziva k oblikovanju načrta za povračilo škode v tovrstnih izjemnih primerih.
Your rapporteur calls for a compensation scheme to cover these exceptional cases.
Člen 22 a – odstavek 3
Article 22 a – paragraph 3
Za učinkovito izmenjavo informacij iz te direktive države članice zagotovijo, da se lahko nacionalni ali lokalni sistemi, vzpostavljeni za zbiranje, obdelavo in hranjenje teh informacij, povežejo s SafeSeaNetom.
To guarantee an effective exchange of the information referred to in this Directive, Member States shall ensure that the national or local systems set up to gather, process and preserve that information can be interconnected with SafeSeaNet.
Komisija zagotovi, da SafeSeaNet deluje 24 ur na dan.
The Commission shall ensure that SafeSeaNet is operational on a 24 hours-a-day basis.
Osnovna načela SafeSeaNeta so opredeljena v Prilogi 3.
The basic principles of SafeSeaNet are laid down in Annex 3.
Predlog spremembe 58 (prva obravnava v EP – spremenjena različica).
Amendment 58 (EP, first reading – modified version).
Po premisleku se zdi bolje, da ne se spremeni opredelitev SafeSeaNeta (glej predlog spremembe 58), ampak člen 22a.
On reflection it appears preferable not to amend the definition of SafeSeaNet (see Amendment 58) but Article 22 a.
Načela SafeSeaNeta se lahko vključijo v Prilogo III, ki bi jo morali pripraviti v posvetovanju s Komisijo.
The principles of SafeSeaNet can be incorporated in Annex III, which should be drawn up in consultation with the Commission.
Člen 22a – odstavek 3 a (novo)
Article 22a – paragraph 3 a (new)
V členu 22a se vstavi novi odstavek 3a:
In Article 22 a a new paragraph 3a is added as follows:
„Odstavek 3a
“ Paragraph 3 a
Pri sodelovanju znotraj regionalnih dogovorov ali v okviru čezmejnih, medregionalnih ali transnacionalnih projektov države članice zagotovijo, da razviti informacijski sistemi ali omrežja ustrezajo zahtevam te direktive ter so združljivi in povezani z evropskim sistemom za pomorske informacije in upravljanje SafeSeaNet.“
Where operating within regional agreements or in the framework of cross-border interregional or transnational projects, Member States shall ensure that information systems or networks developed comply with the requirements of this directive and are compatible and connected to the European maritime information and management system SafeSeaNet. ”
Predlog spremembe 42 (prva obravnava v EP).
Amendment 42 (EP, first reading).
Člen 1 – točka 12 a (novo)
Article 1– point 12 a (new)
Člen 24 – odstavka 1 a (novo) in 1 b (novo)
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new) and 1 b (new)
(12a) V členu 24 se vstavita odstavka 1a in 1b:
(12a) In Article 24, the following paragraphs 1a and 1b are added:
Države članice v skladu s svojo nacionalno zakonodajo preverijo in potrdijo, da objavljeni podatki v sistemu AIS in LRIT, ki jih ladje dajo na razpolago, ne ogrožajo varnosti, niso v nasprotju z zaščito ali varstvom okolja, ali bi lahko vplivali na konkurenco med upravljavci ladij.
Member States shall, in accordance with their national legislation, verify that the publication of AIS and LRIT data transmitted by ships does not create a risk to safety, security and or the protection of the environment, or which would affect competition between ship operators.
Države članice še zlasti ne dovolijo javnega razširjanja podatkov v zvezi s podrobnostmi o tovoru in osebami na ladji, razen če je poveljnik ali upravljavec plovila privolil v takšno uporabo.
In particular, they shall not authorise the public dissemination of information concerning the details of the cargo or of the persons on board, unless the master or the operator of the vessel has agreed to such use.
Komisija razišče možne težave glede varnosti omrežij in informacij, ki bi lahko bile povezane z ukrepi iz te direktive in še posebej iz njenih členov 6, 6a, 14 in 22a, in za večjo varnost omrežja predlaga ustrezne spremembe Priloge (III).“
The Commission shall investigate possible network and information security problems which may be associated with the measures provided for under this Directive, and in particular Articles 6, 6a, 14 and 22a thereof and propose any appropriate amendment to Annex (III) for improving the security of the network. ”
Predloga spremembe 66 in 49 (prva obravnava v EP – spremenjeno).
Amendments 66 and 49 (EP, first reading – modified).
Pomembno je, da države članice sprejmejo ukrepe za preprečevanje zlorab.
It is important that Member States take the necessary measures to prevent abuse.
Člen 1 – točka 12 b (novo)
Article 1 – point 12 b (new)
Člen 27 se nadomesti z naslednjim:
Article 27 is replaced by:
„Postopek za spremembo Direktive
“ Amendment procedure
Opredelitve v členu 3, sklicevanje na instrumente Skupnosti in mednarodne pomorske organizacije ter priloge se lahko spremenijo v skladu z regulativnim postopkom s pregledom iz člena 28(2).
The definitions in Article 3, the references to Community
S tem se upoštevajo spremembe v pravu Skupnosti in mednarodnem pravu po sprejetju, spremembah ali začetku veljavnosti novih predpisov, pod pogojem, da takšne spremembe ne razširijo področja uporabe direktive.
and IMO instruments and the Annexes may be amended in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny laid down in Article 28(2) in order to bring them into line with Community or international law which have been adopted, amended or brought into force, in so far as such amendments do not broaden the scope of this Directive.
Glede na izkušnje se z regulativnim postopkom s pregledom iz člena 28(2) lahko prav tako spremenijo priloge I, III in IV te direktive, kolikor takšne spremembe ne razširijo področja uporabe direktive.
In addition, Annexes I, III and IV of this directive may be amended in the light of experience in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny laid down in Article 28(2) provided that such amendments do not involve any extension of the scope of this D irective. ”
Priloge se glede na pridobljene izkušnje lahko spremenijo le z novim postopkom s pregledom, kar Parlamentu omogoča, da jim ugovarja, če presodi, da je to potrebno.
Amendment of the annexes in the light of experience gained should be done under the new scrutiny procedure so that Parliament can object if it considers this to be necessary.
Skupno stališče Sveta – akt o spremembi
Common position of the Council – amending act
Člen 1 – točka 13 a (novo)
Article 1 – point 13 a (new)
Priloga I – odstavek 4 – alinea X
Annex I – paragraph 4 – indent X
Skupno stališče Sveta – akt o spremembi
Common position of the Council
V Prilogi I se odstavek X točke 4 nadomesti z naslednjim:
In Annex I, paragraph X under point 4 shall be replaced by:
– lastnosti in ocenjena količina goriva v tanku za plovila, ki prevažajo gorivo,
– characteristics and estimated quantity of bunker fuel for all vessels carrying it,
– navigacijski status.“
– navigation status ” .
Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo, najkasneje dvanajst mesecev po datumu začetka njene veljavnosti .
The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive on at the latest twelve months from the date of entry into force.
O besedilu teh ukrepov in korelacijski tabeli s prikazom ustreznosti med navedenimi predpisi in to direktivo obvestijo Komisijo.
They shall communicate to the Commission the text of those measures together with the table showing how the provisions correspond to this directive.
Nesreči tankerjev Erika (december 1999) in Prestige (november 2002) sta na boleč način opozorili na neprimerno evropsko politiko in ravnanje držav članic v primeru nesreč na morju.
The disasters of the Erika (December 1999) and Prestige (November 2002) painfully highlighted the inadequacy of European policy and the Member State’s approach in the event of a disaster at sea.
V manj kot treh letih sta bila sprejeta dva sklopa ukrepov.
In less than three years two packages of measures have been adopted.
23. novembra 2005 je Komisija sprejela tretji sklop sedmih ukrepov.
On 23 November 2005 the Commission approved a third packet of seven measures, of which the monitoring directive review is one.
Prva direktiva o spremljanju ladijskega prometa je nastala kot posledica naplavitve tankerja Erika decembra 1999 blizu francoske obale.
The first Monitoring Directive (2002) arose as a consequence of the oil tanker Erika off the French coast.
Ker je Erika naletela na težave pri sprejemu v pribežališče, je Komisija odločila, da je potrebno razviti evropsko politiko o pribežališčih in oblikovati sistem boljšega spremljanja ladij, ki plujejo vzdolž naših obal.
Given that the Erika had encountered problems with being accommodated in the port of refuge, the Commission developed a European policy on ports of refuge and a system to improve the monitoring of ships travelling along our coasts.
V razpravi o direktivi o spremljanju ladijskega prometa je poročevalec zagovarjal, prvič , obvezno zavarovanje ladij, in drugič , sistem za povračilo stroškov in škode, ki jo v pristanišču povzroči sprejem ladje v stiski.
In the debate on the monitoring system your rapporteur argued firstly for compulsory insurance for ships, secondly for a compensation system for the reimbursement of costs and any damage caused to a port accommodating a ship in distress.
Tedaj čas še ni bil pravi zato, da bi predlagali zakonodajne ukrepe na to temo.
At that time it seemed premature to propose legislative measures on this topic.
Komaj šest mesecev po tem, ko je Svet odobril pravni okvir za sprejem ladij v stiski, se je zgodila nesreča tankerja Prestige (novembra 2002).
Hardly six months after the Council had given its approval to this legal framework for the accommodation of ships in distress, the Prestige disaster occurred (November 2002).
Evropski parlament se je odločil, da imenuje začasni odbor za okrepitev pomorske varnosti (MARE).
The European Parliament decided to set up a temporary committee on improving safety at sea (MARE).
Rezultat tega je bila resolucija z dne 21. aprila 2004, v kateri se je Parlament zavzel za:
The result of this was a resolution of 21 April, 2004 in which Parliament called for:
- polno izvajanje obstoječih pravil glede sprejema ladij v stiski v vseh državah članicah,
- the existing rules governing the accommodation of ships in distress to be fully implemented by all Member States;
- jasno strukturo odločanja in poveljevanja v primeru pomorskih nesreč in za ustanovitev neodvisnega organa, ki bi imel pooblastila in izkušnje za sprejemanje vseh potrebnih odločitev,
- a clear decision-making and command structure for dealing with maritime emergencies and an independent authority having the powers of expertise to take the necessary decisions, in particular as regards to the selection and mandatory assignment of an emergency mooring or port to be set up;
- nove predloge, ki bi jih pripravila Komisija v zvezi s finančnimi nadomestili za pribežališča,
- the Commission to submit proposals for financial compensation for places of refuge;
- proučitev možnosti za uvedbo obveznega zavarovanja za plovila v evropskih vodah.
- an investigation into the scope of introducing mandatory insurance for vessels in European waters.
23. novembra 2005 je Komisija potrdila predlog nove direktive 2009/59/EC, v katerem je v več točkah upoštevala pozive Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta, Komisije in različnih zainteresiranih strani, in sicer:
On 23 November 2005 the Commission approved the proposal amending directive 2009/59/EC, taking account of the calls made by the European Parliament Council and Commission and the various interested parties on several points:
- imenovanje neodvisnega pristojnega organa za sprejetje ladij v stiski (organ naj bi imenovale države članice),
- designation by the Member States of an independent competent authority for the accommodation of ships in distress;
- potrebno ukrepanje ob prisotnosti ledu,
- measures to be taken in the presence of ice;
- obravnavanje nezavarovanih ladij,
- treatment of uninsured ships;
- razvoj evropskega sistema za izmenjavo pomorskih informacij SafeSeaNet.
- the development of Safe Sea Net, a European system for the exchange of maritime information.
Komisija je predstavila tudi nekaj novih predlogov:
It also made a number of new proposals:
- obvezna uporaba sistema AIS za ribiška plovila daljša od 15 metrov,
- use of AIS to be made compulsory for fishing vessels longer than 15 metres;
- večje obveznosti vkrcevalca, da posreduje informacije.
- tightening of the shipper’s obligation to provide information.
Evropski parlament je v prvi obravnavi predlog Komisije podprl v celoti.
On first reading the European Parliament fully endorsed the Commission proposal.
Predlogi sprememb, ki jih je pripravil, so bili zgolj v dodatno pojasnilo predloga Komisije in za poudarek nekaterih načel.
Parliament’s amendments merely sought to clarify the Commission’s proposal and highlight a number of principles more clearly.
- neodvisni strokovnjaki in naloge pristojnih organov pri sprejemu ladij v stiski,
- the independence of experts and the tasks of the authorities responsible for the accommodation of ships in distress;
- izvajanje smernic Mednarodne pomorske organizacije glede poštenega ravnanja s kapitanom in posadko v primeru nesreče,
- implementation of IMO guidelines for the fair treatment of master and crews should accidents occur;
- sprejem nezavarovanih ladij v pribežališča: ladje brez zavarovanja so osumljena plovila.
- accommodation of uninsured ships in places of refuge: ships without insurance are suspect vessels.
Vseeno pa to, da ladja ni zavarovana, ni razlog, da se ji zavrne vstop v pribežališče,
However the fact that the ship is not insured is not a reason to refuse it refuge;
- informacije, ki jih mora posredovati vkrcevalec za vsako plovilo, ki vpluje v evropsko pristanišče.
- information which must be provided by the shipper for every vessel entering a European harbour.
Vkrcevalec ima nalogo in odgovornost, da sporoči točne podatke.
It is the task and responsibility of the shipper to provide accurate information;
- povračilo škode pristaniščem in pribežališčem, če to ni urejeno z veljavnimi mednarodnimi konvencijami,
- compensation for ports and places of refuge in cases where this is not covered by existing international conventions;
- zahteve po zaupnosti informacij v sistemih AIS in SafeSeaNet, potreba po nadaljnji proučitvi, kako podatke bolje zaščititi pred nezakonito uporabo.
- confidentiality requirements in respect of AIS and SafeSeaNet information, need for further investigation to provide better protection against wrongful use of data.
V eni točki je Evropski parlament želel več prožnosti, in sicer pri namestitvi AIS na ribiška plovila.
On one point, the European Parliament sought greater flexibility, that is to say the installation of AIS on fishing vessels.
Menil je, da na plovilih, krajših od 24 metrov, oprema AIS ni potrebna, zato se je zavzel za prožnejši časovni okvir in garancije glede zaupnosti in uporabe podatkov v AIS, in to ne le zaradi varnosti.
Parliament did not wish for vessels of less than 24 metres to be equipped with AIS and sought a more flexible timetable and guarantees regarding the confidentiality and use of AIS data for reasons other than safety.
Ocena skupnega stališča Sveta
Assessment of Council ’ s common position
Na seji Sveta za promet 8. in 9. junija 2006 je Svet sprejel splošni pristop do predloga, v katerem so bili elementi, ki zdaj tvorijo skupno stališče Sveta.
At the Transport Council of 8 to 9 June 2006 the Council adopted a general approach with regard to its proposal containing all the elements forming part of the Council’s present common position.
Evropski parlament je svoje mnenje v prvi obravnavi sprejel 25. aprila 2007.
The European Parliament adopted its opinion on first reading on 25 April 2007.
Z drugimi besedami: Svet stališča Parlamenta sploh ni upošteval, kar se tudi vidi.
In other words, at no time did the Council take account of Parliament’s views, and it shows.
Tako je sprejel le pet predlogov sprememb Parlamenta.
In fact, the Council has adopted only five of Parliament’s amendments.
Predlogi poročevalca za drugo obravnavo
Proposals by your rapporteur on second reading
Poročevalec meni, da prvotni predlog Komisije skupaj s spremembami Parlamenta iz prve obravnave tvori dobro osnovo za nadaljnje izboljšanje evropske politike do sprejema plovil v stiski.
Your rapporteur takes the firm view that the original Commission proposal together with Parliament’s amendments on first reading, forms a good basis for further improving European policy regarding the accommodation of vessels in distress.
Ker Svet po prvi obravnavi ni upošteval stališča Parlamenta in je poleg tega opustil kar nekaj predlogov Komisije, poročevalec priporoča praktično polno obnovitev statusa quo iz stališča Parlamenta po prvi obravnavi.
Given that the Council has not considered Parliament’s views on first reading and has, in addition, abandoned a number of Commission proposals, your rapporteur recommends an almost full return to the status quo regarding Parliament’s position on first reading.
– Imenovanje neodvisnega pristojnega organa
– Designation of an independent competent authority
Imenovanje neodvisnega pristojnega organa za sprejem plovil v stiski je nekaj, čemur Parlament – ob polni podpori Komisije – že ves čas daje velik pomen.
The designation of an independent competent authority for the accommodation of vessels in distress has always been something to which Parliament has always attached great importance with the full support of the Commission.
Zaporedne in skorajšnje nesreče kažejo, da je bilo pogosto porabljenega preveč časa, ker ni bilo jasno, kdo je za kaj odgovoren, ali ker so pristojni za sprejemanje odločitev morali čakati na pomoč strokovne skupine, ki je bila pogosto ustanovljena ad hoc.
The successive disasters and near-disasters show that much time is often wasted because it was not clear who was responsible for what or because those competent to take a decision had to call on the expertise of a team which often had to be set up on an ad hoc basis.
Določbe, ki jih je o tem pripravil Svet, so nejasne in bi v praksi tako rekoč ne prinesle nobenega izboljšanja.
The Council’s own provisions on this matter are vague and would result in practically no improvement in practice.
Predlogi sprememb, ki jih je pripravil poročevalec, od držav članic ne zahtevajo, da bi se morale v celoti odreči lastnim notranjim strukturam.
The amendments proposed by your rapporteur do not require the Member State to abandon totally their internal structure.
Njihov namen je bolj ta, da bi pristojni organ imel potrebno neodvisno (pomorsko) strokovno znanje, da bi se v primeru nesreče lahko neodvisno odločil o najustreznejših ukrepih za to, da se nesreča prepreči ali se vsaj kolikor se le da omejijo njene posledice.
They seek to ensure that the competent authority has the necessary independent (maritime) expertise to be able to decided independently should an incident occur on the best course of action to avoid a disaster or contain the consequences thereof as far as possible.
– Koncept ladje, ki potrebuje pomoč, v nasprotju z ladjo v stiski
– The concept of a ship in need of assistance as opposed to a ship in distress
Komisija, ki jo je podprl Evropski parlament, je uporabila izraz „ladja v stiski“.
The Commission, supported by the European Parliament, used the expression ‘ship in distress’.
Izhajajoč iz smernic Mednarodne pomorske organizacije glede sprejema ladij, ki potrebujejo pomoč, je Svet uporabil izraz „ladje, ki potrebujejo pomoč“.
Basing itself of IMO guidelines for the accommodation of ships in need of assistance, the Council used the expression ‘ship in need of assistance’.
Poročevalec sicer lahko pristane na predlog Sveta, a ni zadovoljen z opredelitvijo Sveta, ki po njegovem ne upošteva pomena človeških življenj pri sprejemu ladij v težavah.
You rapporteur can agree with the Council but is dissatisfied with the Council’s definition, which appears to disregard the importance of human lives in accommodating ships in difficulties.
Kar zadeva reševanja človeških življenj, je treba vzpostaviti vez s konvencijo o iskanju in reševanju na morju iz leta 1979.
The link with the Search and Rescue Convention of 1979 (SAR) concerning the rescue of human lives must be clarified.
– Pošteno ravnanje s kapitanom in posadko v primeru nesreče
– Fair treatment of masters and crews in the event of an accident
Poročevalec se zavzema, da bi države članice začele izvajati smernice IMO za pravično ravnanje z ladijsko posadko.
Your rapporteur calls for the implementation by the Member States of IMO guidelines concerning the fair treatment of ships’ crews.
Svet tega ne omeni.
The Council does not mention this.
Kapitani ladij pogosto odlašajo s klicem na pomoč zaradi strahu pred aretacijo, to pa pomeni izgubo dragocenega časa.
For fear of arrest, masters often postpone calling for help, thus wasting valuable time.
– Posledice odsotnosti potrdila o zavarovanju ali finančnega jamstva
– Consequences of absence of an insurance certificate or financial guarantee
To, da ni dokazila o finančnem jamstvu, je pomembno dejstvo pri oceni in odločitvi o sprejetju ladje v stiski.
The absence of evidence of financial security must be a factor in the assessment and decision on accommodating a ship in distress.
Seveda nastane problem, če ladja v stiski nima (ustreznega) zavarovanja.
Naturally a problem arises if a ship in distress does not have (adequate) insurance.
Kljub temu pa ni zaželeno, da bi v pribežališča sprejemali le zavarovana plovila.
However, it is not desirable that only insured vessels should be accommodated in a place of refugee.
Svet se je odločil, da iz predloga Komisije preprosto izpusti člen 20b in odpravi vse reference na direktivo o finančni odgovornosti lastnikov ladij ( KOM(2005)0593 in KOM(2007)0674 , poročilo Savary).
The Council decided to simply abandon Article 20 b of the Commission proposal and omit all references to the directive on the financial responsibility of shipowners ( COM(2005)0593 and COM(2007)0674 , Savary report).
– Načrt za povračilo škode pribežališčem in pristaniščem
– Compensation schemes for places of refuge and ports
V izjemnih primerih lahko sprejem ladje v stiski povzroči škodo in stroške za pristanišče, kjer ladja pristane, ti stroški pa glede na obstoječe sklade ali veljavne konvencije ostanejo nepokriti.
In exceptional cases, the accommodation of a ship may give rise to damage and costs for the port in question which are not covered by existing funds or conventions.
Parlament se je v zadnjih nekaj letih večkrat zavzel za pripravo načrta povračil za te primere.
Parliament has repeatedly called in recent years for a compensation scheme to be devised for such cases.