natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Protokol k predlaganemu sporazumu dovoljuje ribolov 25 španskim in francoskim plovilom za ribolov tunov s površinskimi parangali ter 18 španskim in portugalskim plovilom za ribolov tunov s potegalkami, skupaj torej predvideva 43 dovoljenj.
The Protocol to the proposed agreement grants fishing possibilities for 25 freezer tuna seiners, from Spain and France, and 18 surface longliners, from Spain and Portugal, subject to a total of 43 licences.
Finančni prispevek v višini 663 000 EUR na leto ustreza referenčni tonaži 8 500 ton.
The financial contribution is fixed at EUR 663 000 per year against a reference tonnage of 8 500 tonnes.
Poseben letni znesek 110 500 EUR je namenjen podpori in izvajanju pobud, sprejetih na podlagi sektorske ribiške politike Sao Tomeja in Principa.
A specific amount of EUR 110 500 per year is aimed at supporting and implementing initiatives taken in the context of São Tomé and Príncipe sectoral fisheries policy.
Če celotna količina ulova presega 8 500 ton na leto, se finančni prispevek poveča za 65 EUR za vsako dodatno tono ulova.
If the overall quantity of catches exceeds 8 500 tonnes per year, the financial contribution shall be increased by EUR 65 for each additional tonne caught.
Če količine ulova plovil Skupnosti presegajo količine, ki ustrezajo dvakratnemu skupnemu letnemu znesku (17 000 ton), se znesek za količino presežka plača naslednje leto.
Where the quantities caught by Community vessels exceed the quantities corresponding to twice the total annual amount (17 000 tonnes), the amount due for the quantity exceeding that limit shall be paid the following year.
Pristojbine za lastnike plovil bi lahko za Demokratično republiko Sao Tome in Principe pomenile dodaten letni dohodek v višini približno 165 900 EUR.
Ship-owners’ fees could create an additional annual income of around EUR 165 900 for São Tomé and Príncipe.
Odbor za razvoj Evropskega parlamenta pozdravlja sklicevanje na nacionalne pobude in upa, da bodo vključevale tudi financiranje projektov lokalne infrastrukture za predelavo in trženje rib ter tako lokalnemu prebivalstvu omogočili, da preseže samooskrbni ribolov.
The European Parliament’s Development Committee welcomes the referred link to national initiatives and hope that they may include the financing to local infrastructure projects of processing and marketing of the fish, thus allowing local populations to go beyond subsistence fisheries.
Odbor za razvoj Evropskega parlamenta ne odobrava postopka, sprejetega za ta sporazum, ker bi moral Evropski parlament sodelovati pri pogajalskem mandatu, ki bi ga Svet podelil Komisiji, in bi moral biti obveščen o poteku pogajanj.
The European Parliament’s Development Committee do not endorse the procedure adopted for this agreement because the European Parliament should have played a part in the negotiation mandate, which the Council would have given to the Commission, and should be informed of the development of the negotiations.
Parlament je bil k pripravi mnenja o predlaganem sporazumu pozvan šele marca 2007, tj. osem mesecev in pol po tem, ko je bil sporazum parafiran s ciljem, da bi začel veljati 1. junija 2006.
Parliament has been consulted about the proposed agreement only in March 2007, eight months and half after the agreement was initialled, with the aim of coming into effect on 1 June 2006.
V nasprotnem primeru bi se moral Odbor za ribištvo v imenu Parlamenta odzvati na sedanje stanje in morda celo glasovati proti sporazumom o ribolovu, sprejetim po sedanjem postopku.
In the absence of such circumstance, the Committee on Fisheries should lead Parliament’s reaction to the present status quo, including the option of voting against fisheries agreements submitted under present procedure.
(1a) Ocena prejšnjega sporazuma je pokazala probleme pri spremljanju in nadzoru dejavnosti določenih plovil, ki lovijo v skladu s tem sporazumom, zlasti glede poročanja o dejavnostih in ulovu.
(1a) Evaluation of the previous Agreement revealed problems concerning the control and surveillance of the activities of certain vessels operating under the terms of that Agreement, especially as regards reporting of activities and catches.
(2a) Finančni prispevek Skupnosti je treba nameniti razvoju obalnega prebivalstva, ki se preživlja z ribištvom, in odpiranju majhnih industrijskih obratov za zamrzovanje in predelavo rib.
(2a) The Community's financial contribution should be used for the development of coastal populations living on fisheries and the creation of small local fish freezing and processing industries;
Sporazum o partnerstvu v ribiškem sektorju med republiko Sao Tome in Principe in Evropsko skupnostjo
Fisheries Partnership Agreement between São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community
o predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Direktive 2006/66/ES o baterijah in akumulatorjih ter odpadnih baterijah in akumulatorjih glede Komisiji podeljenih izvedbenih pooblastil
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2007)0093 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0093 )
– ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 175(1) Pogodbe ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog ( C6‑0088/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0088/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane ( A6‑0232/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ( A6‑0232/2007 ),
Ker so navedeni ukrepi splošnega obsega in so namenjeni spreminjanju nebistvenih določb Direktive 2000/66/ES ter dopolnitvi Direktive z dodajanjem novih nebistvenih določb, bi jih bilo treba sprejeti v skladu z regulativnim postopkom s pregledom iz člena 5a Sklepa 1999/468/ES.
Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of Directive 2006/66/EC and to supplement this Directive by the addition of new non-essential elements, they should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.
(4) Zlasti bi bilo treba Komisiji podeliti pooblastila za sprejetje Priloge III ter za sprejetje in ponovni pregled podrobnih pravil za izvoz in označevanje baterij in akumulatorjev.
(4) In particular power should be conferred on the Commission to adapt Annex III and to adopt and revise detailed rules for exports and for labelling of batteries and accumulators.
Regulativni postopek s pregledom bi bilo treba uporabljati za podrobna pravila za izvajanje člena 15(3), da se lahko za izvoz šteje, da izpolnjujejo obveznosti, saj:
The procedure with scrutiny (RPS) should apply to the detailed rules for the implementation of Art. 15(3) allowing exports to count for the fulfilfment of the obligations as:
· so "podrobna pravila za izvajanje" kvazi zakonodajne narave,
· "detailed rules for implementation" are of quasi-legislative nature,
· bi moral biti člen 15(3) v skladu s členom 21(2) o podrobnih pravilih za izvajanje zahtev za označevanje, za kar se predlaga regulativni postopek s pregledom.
· Art. 15(3) should be coherent with Art. 21(2) on detailed rules for the implementation of the labelling requirements, for which RPS is proposed,
Evropski parlament mora imeti možnost nadzorovati vsebino ukrepa (Evropski parlament je v spravnem postopku dosegel, da morajo biti pogoji recikliranja enakovredni in ne le "na splošno" enakovredni).
EP should be able to oversee the content of the measure (EP achieved in in conciliation that the conditions of recycling in third countries have to be equivalent, and not just "broadly" equivalent).
ČLEN 1, TOČKA 2 A (novo) Člen 15, odstavek 3 (Direktiva 2006/66/ES)
Article 15, paragraph 3 (Directive 2006/66/EC)
(2a) V členu 15 se odstavek 3 nadomesti z naslednjim:
(2a) In Article 15, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
Podrobna pravila za izvajanje tega člena, zlasti merila za ocenjevanje enakovrednih pogojev v skladu z odstavkom 2 tega člena, se določijo v skladu z regulativnim postopkom s pregledom iz člena 24(3).“
Detailed rules for the implementation of this Article, in particular criteria for the assessment of equivalent conditions pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be laid down in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 24(3)."
V zvezi z Direktivo 2006/66/ES o baterijah in akumulatorjih ter odpadnih baterijah in akumulatorjih (direktivo o baterijah) sta sozakonodajalca sprejela dogovor o tretji obravnavi tik pred začetkom veljavnosti novega sklepa o komitologiji (sklep 2006/512/ES), s katerim se uvaja nov regulativni postopek s pregledom.
Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (Batteries Directive) was subject to third reading agreement by the co-legislators just prior to the entry into force of the new comitology decision (decision 2006/512/EC), introducing the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
Tako je namen sedanjega predloga Komisije, da se določbe direktive o baterijah na ustreznih mestih prilagodijo novemu postopku komitologije.
The purpose of the current Commission proposal is therefore to adapt the provisions in the Batteries Directive to the new comitology procedure where relevant.
Glede na sedanji predlog se po novem regulativnem postopku s pregledom opravijo določitev skupne metodologije za izračun letne prodaje prenosnih baterij in akumulatorjev končnim uporabnikom, prilagoditve priloge III zaradi upoštevanja tehničnega in znanstvenega napredka, določitev postopkovnih zahtev za registracijo proizvajalcev ter sprejetje in ponovni pregled podrobnih pravil za označevanje baterij in akumulatorjev.
According to the current proposal the adoption of a common methodology for the calculation of annual sales of portable batteries and accumulators to end-users, adaptations of Annex III to take account of technical and scientific progress, the establishment of the procedural requirements for producer registration and the adoption and revision of detailed rules for labelling of batteries and accumulators will be done in accordance with the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
V nekaj primerih je ohranjen stari regulativni postopek, ki se zdi v teh primerih ustrezen, saj so zadevni ukrepi ali specifični (člen 10(4), ki obravnava prehodno ureditev za reševanje težav države članice zaradi specifičnih nacionalnih okoliščin) ali povsem upravne narave in ne spreminjajo osnovnega akta (člena 15(3) in 22(2)).
In a few cases the old regulatory procedure has been kept, but as the measures concerned are either specific (Article 10 (4) which is dealing with transitional arrangements aiming at facilitating the situation for a Member State that faces difficulties in the light of specific national circumstances) or purely of a administrative nature not amending the basic act (Articles 15 (3) and 22 (2)), that procedure seems to be the appropriate one for those cases.
Baterije, akumulatorji ter odpadne baterije in akumulatorji (Komisiji podeljena izvedbena pooblastila)
Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (implementing powers conferred on the Commission)
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Maria Borghezia za zaščito njegove imunitete v zvezi s civilnim postopkom pred italijanskim sodiščem, ki jo je poslanec vložil 8. novembra 2006, na plenarnem zasedanju pa je bila razglašena 16. novembra 2006,
– having regard to the request by Mario Borghezio for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings pending before an Italian court, of 8 November 2006, announced in plenary sitting on 16 November 2006,
– po zaslišanju Maria Borghezia v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Mario Borghezio in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0233/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0233/2007 ),
Predsednik Evropskega parlamenta je na zasedanju 16. novembra 2006 sporočil, da je prejel pismo z dne 8. novembra 2006 z zahtevo za zaščito imunitete poslanca Maria Borghezia, ki je bilo pravočasno posredovano Odboru za pravne zadeve.
At the sitting of 16 November 2006 the President of the European Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Mario Borghezio, MEP, by letter of 8 November 2006, which was duly forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Zahteva je povezana s civilnopravnim zahtevkom za odškodnino zaradi izjav Maria Borghezia, ki so bile objavljene v medijih.
The request relates to a civil claim for damages in connection with statements of Mr Mario Borghezio that were published in the press.
Tožnik je sodnik civilnega sodišča v L'Aquili, ki zahteva odškodnino zaradi škode, ki so jo njegovemu zasebnemu in poklicnemu ugledu, časti, položaju in osebnemu dostojanstvu povzročile v medijih objavljene izjave več politikov različnih političnih usmeritev.
The claimant is magistrate at the Civil Court of L’Aquila and seeks to claim compensation for the damage caused to his personal and professional reputation, honour, status and personal dignity by a series of statements, reported in the press, by several politicians of various political background; all of these statements were made in relation to a ruling by the complainant of 22 October 2003 concerning the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of nursery schools and primary schools.
Vse izjave so se nanašale na sodbo, ki jo je tožnik sprejel 22. oktobra 2005 v zvezi z razpeli, ki visijo po učilnicah vrtcev in osnovnih šol.
As regards statements by Mario Borghezio, Il Messaggero of 29 October 2003 (Abruzzo edition, p.
Kar zadeva izjave Maria Borghezia, je časnik Il Messaggero 29. oktobra 2003 (v abruški izdaji v članku na 34. strani pod naslovom „Danes bomo sneli križe”) objavil izjavo, v kateri Borghezio med drugim pravi: „ Odločitev sodnika Montanara je sodna norost, hud napad na republiko in primer, ki dokazuje, da število islamistov ni le eksponentno naraslo, temveč da so vdrli tudi v naše nacionalne običaje, tudi v šole.”.
34, under the heading ‘We’ll take down the cross today’) published a statement by Mario Borghezio in which, amongst other things, he says: " Judge Montanaro’s ruling is judicial idiocy, a serious attack on the republic, an episode which proves not only that the number of Islamists has grown exponentially but that they are interfering in our national traditions, even in schools ’.
Tožnik v civilnem postopku zahteva odškodnino za vso premoženjsko škodo, povzročeno zaradi škodovanja njegovemu ugledu v skladu z 2043. členom civilnega zakonika, za moralno škodo, vključno s pecunia doloris , v skladu s pogoji iz 2059. člena civilnega zakonika, in za drugo vrsto škode, ki vključuje napad na ali škodo, storjeno vrednotam, ki jih varuje pravo, in sicer zasebnemu ugledu ( v smislu ugleda, ki ga ima posameznik kot človek, ali z drugimi besedami njegove časti in položaja) .
The claim seeks compensation in a civil proceeding for damage caused by any pecuniary loss resulting from damage to reputation, under Article 2043 CC, for moral prejudice (including ‘moral prejudice’ as pecunia doloris ) meeting the conditions of Article 2059 CC and for a further type of damage, which consists of an attack on and damage to ‘values’ which are protected, i.e. to ‘ personal reputation (in the sense of the reputation an individual has as a human being, in other words honour and status’) (‘injury damage’ ).
Od sodišča se zato zahteva, da:
The Court is hereby requested:
1) razglasi in potrdi, da so toženci kršili pravico tožnika do zasebnega in poklicnega ugleda, do časti, položaja in osebnega dostojanstva;
1) to declare and ascertain that the defendants have infringed the right of the claimant to a personal and professional reputation, and to honour, status and personal dignity;
2) vsem tožencem naloži poplačilo materialne škode in odškodnine za zgoraj omenjeno škodo, storjeno tožniku, v vrednosti najmanj € 100 000 (sto tisoč evrov) ali v višini, ki se zdi sodišču pravična, kar je ravno tako v skladu s 1226. členom civilnega zakonika;
2) to order each defendant to provide pecuniary redress and compensation for all the damage done to the claimant, as specified above, for a minimum amount of €100 000 (one hundred thousand €) or whatever the court deems equitable, also under Article 1226 of the Civil Code;
3) odredi objavo razsodbe v enem ali več časnikov v skladu s 120. členom procesnega civilnega zakonika.
3) to order the publication of the decision in one or more newspapers, under Article 120 CCP,
BESEDILA IN SPLOŠNA OBRAVNAVA IMUNITETE POSLANCEV EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
TEXTS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
a. na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
Kadar je član zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, sklicevanje na imuniteto ni mogoče in Skupščini ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members."
„Člen 6: Odvzem imunitete
"Rule 6 Waiver of immunity:
Evropski parlament je od svojega prvega petletnega mandata naprej obravnaval veliko število zahtev za odvzem imunitete.
Since its first five-year legislative period, the European Parliament has ruled on a number of requests for waiver of immunity.
V razpravah o teh zahtevah so bila oblikovana nekatera splošna načela , ki so bila dokončno potrjena z resolucijo, ki jo je Parlament sprejel na svojem zasedanju 10. marca 1987
From Parliament's debates on these requests some general principles have emerged which were given definitive recognition in the resolution adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 10 March 1987
Koristno bi bilo na hitro povzeti nekatera izmed teh načel, ki zadevajo ta primer:
It is worth briefly recapitulating some of these principles which are relevant in the present case:
(a) Poslanska imuniteta ni privilegij, ki bi se ga podelilo posameznemu poslancu, temveč naj bi bila poroštvo za neodvisnost Parlamenta in njegovih poslancev v odnosu do drugih institucij.
(a) Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted for the benefit of an individual Member of Parliament, but a guarantee of Parliament's independence and that of its members vis-à-vis other institutions.
(b) Poslanska imuniteta obstaja, da se zaščiti svoboda izražanja poslancev in svoboda politične razprave.
(b) Parliamentary immunity exists to protect Members' freedom of expression and freedom of political debate.
Odbor Parlamenta, ki je pristojen za to vprašanje, je zato že večkrat poudaril temeljno načelo, da se imunitete ne bo odvzelo v vseh primerih, v katerih so dejanja obtoženega poslanca del njegove politične dejavnosti ali so s to dejavnostjo neposredno povezana.
Parliament's competent committee has therefore consistently held that it is a fundamental principle that in all cases where the acts of the Member standing accused form part of his or her political activity or are directly related to such activity, immunity will not be waived.
To na primer vključuje mnenja, ki bi jih poslanec v okviru svoje politične dejavnosti izrazil na protestnih shodih, javnih zborovanjih, v političnih publikacijah, tisku, knjigah, na televiziji, s podpisom političnega manifesta ali celo pred sodiščem.
This includes, for example, expressions of opinion deemed to be covered by a Member's political activity made at demonstrations, at public meetings, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, by signing a political tract and even in a court of law.
(c) To načelo se uporablja skupaj z drugimi argumenti za ali proti odvzemu poslanske imunitete, še zlasti v primeru fumus persecutionis , torej ko se sklepa, da se s pregonom želi škodovati poslančevemu političnemu delovanju.
(c) This principle is taken together with other arguments for or against the waiver of immunity, particularly "fumus persecutionis", i.e. the presumption that the prosecution originates in an intention to cause prejudice to the Member's political activities.
Kakor je opredeljeno v obrazložitvi k Donnezovemu poročilu, načelo fumus persecutionis pravzaprav pomeni, da Parlament imunitete ne odvzame, če sumi, da je namen pregona škodovati poslančevemu političnemu delovanju.
As it is defined in the explanatory statement of the Donnez report the concept of " fumus persecutionis " means, in essence, that immunity is not waived where the suspicion exists that the prosecution is based on an intention to prejudice the Member's political activities.
Ko na primer sodni postopek sproži politični nasprotnik in ni dokaza o nasprotnem, Parlament imunitete ne odvzame, če meni, da se s postopkom ne želi doseči povrnitve škode, temveč škoditi poslancu.
For instance, where proceedings are brought by a political adversary, in the absence of evidence to the contrary immunity will not be waived in so far as the proceedings have to be regarded as intended to harm the Member concerned and not to obtain reparation for damage.
Prav tako se imunitete ne odvzame, ko je sodni postopek sprožen v okoliščinah, ki kažejo na to, da je bil njegov edini namen škodovati poslancu.
Likewise, where proceedings are brought in circumstances such as to suggest that they have been initiated solely in order to harm the Member concerned, immunity will not be waived.
V skladu s členom 7(2) Poslovnika odbor predlaga sklep, ki zgolj priporoča sprejetje ali zavrnitev zahteve za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev.
According to Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure the Committee's proposal for a decision should simply recommend the adoption or rejection of the request for the defence of immunity and privileges.
Ta primer je treba obravnavati v skladu s členom 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter v povezavi s prej omenjenimi načeli.
The present case has to be examined under Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in connection with the above mentioned principles.
Kot določa člen 9, se zoper člana Evropskega parlamenta ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
Article 9 states that "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".
Ta absolutna imuniteta velja le za „mnenje ali glas, ki ga je (poslanec) izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti”.
That absolute immunity only applies to "opinions expressed or votes cast by [Members] in the performance of their duties".
Določba poslance ne ščiti le pred kazenskimi temveč tudi pred civilnimi postopki, povezanimi z izražanjem mnenja pri opravljanju dolžnosti, še zlasti v primerih, ko se zahteva zelo visoko odškodnino
This provision protects Members not only against criminal proceedings but also against civil proceedings in connection with the expression of an opinion in the performance of their duties, in particular when the amount of the compensation for damages sought is significantly high
Glej sklepe Evropskega parlamenta z dne 1. julija 2003 ( A5-0243/2003 ), 23. septembra 2003 ( A5-0309/2003 ), 16. decembra 2003 ( A5-0421/2003 ), 18. marca 2004 ( A5-0185/2004 ) in 23. novembra 2005 ( A6-0331/2005 ). .
see European Parliament Decisions of 1 July 2003 ( A5-0243/2003 ), 23 September 2003 ( A5-0309/2003 ), 16 December 2003 ( A5-0421/2003 ), 18 March 2004 ( A5-0185/2004 ) and 23 November 2005 ( A6-0331/2005 ) .