natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Čeprav poročevalec tega sporazuma na drugi stopnji vsekakor ne dojema kot popolnega, pa se v nekaterih njegovih elementih kaže pomemben napredek.
While your Rapporteur certainly does not regard this second-stage Agreement as perfect, it includes important elements of progress.
Sporazum tudi odpravlja tveganje, da bi katera stran, če ga ne bi bilo, uveljavila določbo o začasnem odlogu.
It also avoids the risk that, in the absence of such an Agreement, someone might trigger the suspension clause.
Z začasnim odlogom bi evropski potniki in letalski prevozniki izgubili velike pridobitve, ki veljajo od marca 2008.
Suspension could lead to European passengers and airlines losing the significant gains that have been enjoyed since March 2008.
Zaradi vsega navedenega poročevalec priporoča, da Parlament odobri protokol o spremembi sporazuma o zračnem prometu EU-ZDA.
For these reasons, the Rapporteur's recommendation is that Parliament consent to the Protocol amending the EU-US Air Transport Agreement.
Georges Bach, Antonio Cancian, Saïd El Khadraoui, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Georgios Kumucakos (Georgios Koumoutsakos), Eva Lichtenberger, Hella Ranner, Olga Sehnalová, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Keith Taylor, Giommaria Uggias, Thomas Ulmer, Peter van Dalen, Artur Zasada, Roberts Zīle
Georges Bach, Antonio Cancian, Saïd El Khadraoui, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Eva Lichtenberger, Hella Ranner, Olga Sehnalová, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Keith Taylor, Giommaria Uggias, Thomas Ulmer, Peter van Dalen, Artur Zasada, Roberts Zīle
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Elmarju Broku
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Elmar Brok
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Elmarju Broku, ki so jo nemški organi predložili dne 28. septembra 2010 in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 22. novembra 2010,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Elmar Brok, forwarded by the German authorities on 28 September 2010 and announced in plenary sitting on 22 November 2010,
– po zagovoru Elmarja Broka v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Elmar Brok in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, 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 Evropske unije z dne 12. maja 1964 in 10. julija 1986
– having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
Glej zadevo 101/63 Wagner proti Fohrmannu in Krieru [1964] ECR 195 in zadevo 149/85 Wybot proti Faureju [1986] ZOdl 2391. ,
See Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure [1986] ECR 2391. ,
– ob upoštevanju 46. člena ustave (Grundgesetz) Zvezne republike Nemčije,
– having regard to Article 46 of the German Basic Law ( Grundgesetz ),
– ob upoštevanju nemškega davčnega zakonika (Abgabenordnung), zlasti oddelka 370,
– having regard to the German Fiscal Code ( Abgabenordnung ), in particular Section 370 thereof,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7‑0047/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7‑0047/2011 ),
A. ker dejstva, navedena v obrazložitvi, pomenijo jasen primer fumus persecutionis ;
A. whereas the facts set out in the explanatory statement constitute a clear case of fumus persecutionis ;
B. ker je bila vložena kazenska ovadba zoper znano politično osebo zaradi zneska in okoliščin, ki bi v primeru navadnega državljana sprožile zgolj upravni postopek;
B. whereas criminal charges have been brought against a well-known political figure in respect of a sum and in circumstances which would, in the case of an ordinary citizen, have attracted merely administrative proceedings;
C. ker državni tožilec Elmarju Broku ni le poskušal iz neupravičenih in nadvse škodljivih razlogov neutemeljeno zamolčati obtožnico, ampak je tudi zagotovil, da je imel primer velik medijski odmev in je poslancu prizadejal kar največjo škodo;
C. whereas, moreover, the public prosecutor not only sought to withhold knowledge of the charge from Mr Brok on spurious and highly derogatory grounds for no due cause, but also made sure that the case received great publicity in the media, thus inflicting the maximum amount of damage on the Member concerned;
D. ker je torej očitno, da gre za primer fumus persecutionis in se zdi, da je bil postopek uveden zgolj zato, da se škoduje časti in dobremu imenu poslanca;
D. whereas it is therefore plain that the case is one of fumus persecutionis in that it appears that the proceedings were brought with the sole aim of damaging the reputation of the Member concerned;
E. ker bi bilo zato nadvse neprimerno odvzeti poslancu imuniteto,
E. whereas it would therefore be completely inappropriate to waive the Member’s immunity,
Predsednik je na zasedanju 22. novembra 2010 v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika razglasil, da je prejel pismo nemških organov z dne 28. septembra 2010 z zahtevo za odvzem imunitete Elmarju Broku.
At the sitting of 22 November 2010 the President announced, under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a letter sent by the German authorities on 28 September 2010 requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Elmar Brok.
Pismo je v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(2).
Zahteva za odvzem imunitete je obrazložena v pismu državnega tožilca v Bielefeldu, v katerem je navedeno, da Elmar Brok ni vključil v svojo davčno napoved za leto 2005 honorarja v višini 5.000 EUR, ki ga je prejel za predavanje 28. oktobra 2005 na prireditvi skupine Hypo Vereinsbank „Europaforum”, za katerega bi moral plačati davek v višini 2.900 EUR.
The request for waiver is set out in a letter from the Public Prosecutor of Bielefeld in which it is claimed that Mr Brok failed to include in his income tax declaration for 2005 a fee of EUR 5 000 for a speech he had given in Munich on 28 October 2005 at the ‘Europa Forum’ held by the HypoVereinsbank Group, for which tax was due on an amount of EUR 2 900.
Državni tožilec je mnenja, da se lahko ta opustitev obravnava kot prekršek po členu 370, 1(2) nemškega davčnega zakonika.
The Public Prosecutor considers that this omission may constitute an offence under section 370, 1(2) of the German Fiscal Code.
Pismo javnega tožilca se konča z naslednjim odstavkom: „Poslanca nisem obvestil o nameri, da se proti njemu uvede preiskovalni postopek, ker na tej stopnji ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da je prejemal podobne dohodke iz drugih virov, s katerimi pristojni finančni organi še niso seznanjeni, in če bi bil obveščen o nameravani preiskavi, bi lahko prikril obremenilne dokaze ter ogrozil postopek ugotavljanja resnice.”
The letter from the Public Prosecutor concludes with the following paragraph: ‘I have refrained from informing the Member of the intention to make him the subject of an investigation, because it is not possible at this stage to exclude the possibility that he has received additional income from similar sources of which the relevant tax authorities are as yet unaware, and notifying him of my intention to launch an investigation might enable him to suppress incriminating evidence and jeopardise the process of ascertaining the truth of the matter.’
Pravni položaj
The Law
Ustrezna določba iz primarne zakonodaje Unije je 9. člen Protokola (št. 7) o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, ki se glasi:
The relevant provision of primary Union law is Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, which reads as follows:
a) na ozemlju svoje lastne države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države;
(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
Ker se je kršitev, ki bremeni nemškega poslanca Evropskega parlamenta Elmarja Broka, domnevno zgodila na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije, uživa ta poslanec imuniteto, ki velja za poslance bundestaga, kot je določeno v členu 46 ustave Zvezne republike Nemčije ( Grundgesetz )
Since the offence which Mr Brok, a German Member of the European Parliament, is alleged to have committed took place on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr Brok enjoys the immunity accorded to Members of the Bundestag, as set out in Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany ( Grundgesetz)
(1) Poslanca ni v nobenem primeru dovoljeno preganjati sodno ali po uradni dolžnosti, ali ga zunaj bundestaga kako drugače klicati na odgovornost zaradi njegovega glasovanja ali izjave, dane v bundestagu ali katerem njegovih odborov.
(1) At no time may a Member be subjected to court proceedings or disciplinary action or otherwise called to account outside the Bundestag for a vote cast or for any speech or debate in the Bundestag or in any of its committees.
Ta določba ne velja za obrekovanje in razžalitve.
This provision shall not apply to defamatory insults.
(2) Za kaznivo dejanje je poslanca dovoljeno klicati na odgovornost ali prijeti le z dovoljenjem bundestaga, razen če je bil prijet med storitvijo prekrška ali v teku naslednjega dne.
(2) A Member may not be called to account or arrested for a punishable offence without permission of the Bundestag, unless he is apprehended while committing the offence or in the course of the following day.
(3) Dovoljenje bundestaga je potrebno tudi ob kakršni koli drugačni omejitvi osebne svobode poslanca ali ob uvedbi postopka zoper poslanca po členu 18.
(3) The permission of the Bundestag shall also be required for any other restriction of a Member’s freedom of the person or for the initiation of proceedings against a Member under Article 18.
(4) Vsak kazenski postopek in vsak postopek po členu 18 zoper poslanca, vsak odvzem prostosti ali drugačna omejitev njegove osebne svobode se na zahtevo bundestaga odložijo. .
(4) Any criminal proceedings or any proceedings under Article 18 against a Member and any detention or other restriction of the freedom of his person shall be suspended at the demand of the Bundestag. .
Člen 46 ustave Zvezne republike Nemčije ureja področje uporabe poslanske imunitete.
Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany lays down the scope of parliamentary immunities.
V njegovem prvem odstavku je določeno, da poslanca v nobenem primeru ni dovoljeno preganjati sodno ali po uradni dolžnosti, ali ga zunaj bundestaga kako drugače klicati na odgovornost zaradi glasovanja ali izjave, ki jo je dal v bundestagu ali katerem njegovih odborov ( Indemnität ).
Paragraph 1 thereof stipulates that ‘at no time may a Member be subjected to court proceedings or disciplinary action, or otherwise called to account outside the Bundestag for a vote cast or for any speech or debate in the Bundestag or in any of its committees’ ( Indemnität ).
Odstavka (2) in (4) člena 45 urejata poslansko imuniteto.
Paragraphs (2) and (4) of Article 46 lay down rules on parliamentary immunity.
V ustavi je tudi določeno, da je poslanca za kaznivo dejanje „dovoljeno klicati na odgovornost ali prijeti le z dovoljenjem bundestaga”.
The law further stipulates that a Member ‘may not be called to account or arrested for a punishable offence without permission of the Bundestag’.
Dejstvo, da se točka (a) prvega pododstavka člena 9 protokola nanaša na nedotakljivost poslancev nacionalnih parlamentov, Evropskega parlamenta ne ovira pri tem, da izoblikuje svoja pravila, to je nekakšno sodno prakso, na podlagi katere nastaja razumljiv koncept poslanske imunitete, ki se po definiciji razlikuje od prakse posameznih nacionalnih parlamentov.
The fact that point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 9 of the Protocol refers to the immunities accorded to members of the national parliaments does not preclude the European Parliament from creating rules of its own, a kind of case law whose effect is to develop a coherent concept of European parliamentary immunity which is by definition separate from the national parliaments’ respective practices.
Kot posledica uporabe teh načel so se v odločitvah Parlamenta oblikovale enotne smernice, ki so postale osnovno merilo pri obravnavi potrebnih ukrepov v odziv na posamezne zahteve glede imunitete: v nobenem primeru se poslancu Evropskega parlamenta ne odvzame imuniteta, če dejanja, ki ga bremenijo, spadajo na področje njegovih političnih dejavnosti.
Through the application of these principles, a consistent line has emerged in Parliament’s decisions, which has become a fundamental criterion when considering the action to be taken in response to individual requests for immunity: in every case in which the acts of which the Member of the European Parliament is accused fall within the scope of his political activities, immunity is not waived.
To merilo se uporablja v povezavi z drugimi razmisleki, ki govorijo za ali zoper odvzem imunitete, zlasti v primeru fumus persecutionis , z drugimi besedami domneve, da je edini namen kazenskega postopka škodovati poslancu parlamenta kot politiku.
This criterion is applied in conjunction with other considerations which may militate for or against waiver of immunity, particularly in the case of fumus persecutionis , in other words a suspicion that the criminal proceedings have been brought simply to damage the Member of Parliament as a politician.
Tako kot je bilo Sodišče prve stopnje mnenja v zadevi Mote proti Evropskemu parlamentu [ 2008] ZOdl II-2849 , je namen člena 10 protokola „zagotoviti neodvisnost poslancev Parlamenta, s tem da med zasedanji Parlamenta prepreči izvrševanje pritiskov, ki zajemajo grožnje glede odvzema prostosti ali sodnih postopkov, nanje“ (odstavek 50).
By the same token, as the Court of First Instance held in Case T-345/05 Mote v. European Parliament [2008] ECR II-2849 , ‘ The objective of Article 10 of the Protocol is ... to safeguard the independence of Members by ensuring that pressure, in the form of threats of arrest or legal proceedings, is not brought to bear on them during the sessions of the Parliament.’ (paragraph 50)
V skladu s pismom nemškega državnega tožilca Elmar Brok v svojo davčno napoved za leto 2005 ni vključil honorarja v višini 5.000 EUR za predavanje (za kar bi moral plačati davek v višini 2.900 EUR) in ta opustitev se lahko obravnava kot prekršek po členu 370, 1(2) nemškega davčnega zakonika ( Abgabenordnung ).
According to the letter from the German Public Prosecutor, Mr Brok failed to include a fee of EUR 5 000 for a speech (for which tax was due on EUR 2 900) in his income tax declaration for 2005 and this omission may constitute an offence under Section 370, 1(2) of the German Fiscal Code ( Abgabenordnung ).
Člen 370, 1(2) se glasi:
Section 370, 1(2) reads as follows in the official English translation
Člen 370
Section 370
Davčna utaja
Tax evasion
(1) S kaznijo do petih let zapora ali denarno kaznijo se kaznuje, kdor
(1) A penalty of up to five years imprisonment or a monetary fine shall be imposed on whoever
2. davčnih organov v nasprotju z obveznostjo ne obvesti o dejstvih znatnega pomena za obdavčitev, ali
2. fails to inform the revenue authorities of facts of substantial significance for taxation when obliged to do so, or
in s tem zniža davke ali pridobi zase ali za koga drugega n eu pravičene davčne ugodnosti.
and as a result understates taxes or derives unwarranted tax advantages for himself or for another person.
Kaznivo dejanje davčne utaje v smislu člena 370 mora biti naklepno, kar pomeni,da je davčna utaja kazniva le, če je davčni zavezanec vedel zanjo in je imel namen utajiti davek (gl. člen 15 nemškega kazenskega zakonika
The offence of tax evasion within the meaning of Section 370 requires mens rea, that is to say it is punishable only where the taxpayer knew of the tax evasion and intended to evade tax (see Section 15 of the German Penal Code
„Če v zakonu ni izrecno zagrožena kazen za dejanje iz malomarnosti, je kaznivo le naklepno dejanje.” in člen 369(2) davčnega zakonika
‘Unless the law expressly provides for criminal liability based on negligence, only intentional conduct shall attract criminal liability’. and Section 369, 2 of the Fiscal Code
„Če kazenski predpisi davčnih zakonov ne določajo drugače, veljajo za davčne kršitve splošne kazenskopravne določbe.” ).
‘Tax crimes shall be subject to the general provisions of criminal law unless otherwise provided for by the tax laws provisions on crime’. ).
V tem primeru zelo očitno utaja davka ni bila naklepna, saj je iz pisma državnega tožilstva razvidno, da je bil zadevni znesek dokazljivo plačan na tekoči račun poslanca, potem ko je ta izdal podjetju Speakers Agency račun zanj.
In this case, there was manifestly no intention to evade tax since, as appears from the letter from the Public Prosecutor, the amount in question was paid transparently into the Member’s current account after having been invoiced by him to the company Speakers’ Agency.
To je razvidno tudi iz tega, da se račun pojavi v računovodskih knjigah tega podjetja.
It follows also that that amount also appears in the books of that company.
Poleg tega je splošno znano, da se nenamerna opustitev napovedi primerljivo majhnih zneskov kot v tem primeru ponavadi obravnava v upravnem postopku, kar je na zaslišanju potrdil tudi odvetnik Elmarja Brooka.
Furthermore, it is a matter of common knowledge and was confirmed by Mr Brok’s lawyer at his hearing that the accidental omission to declare such comparatively minor sums as that involved in this case is dealt with normally under an administrative procedure.
Ponavadi se manjši zneski neplačanih davkov ugotovijo pri rutinskih pregledih bančnih računov in izterjajo z upravnimi postopki.
It is quite common for small sums of unpaid tax to be turned up as a result of routine inspections of bank accounts and recovered by administrative procedures.
Ko je bil Elmar Brok seznanjen z dejstvom, da je obtožen davčne utaje, je plačal dolgovani znesek, dal davčnemu svetovalcu pregledati svoje račune od leta 2001 do leta 2008 in odpravil nekaj drugih manjših nepravilnosti, ki so se pri tem pokazale.
Indeed, when Mr Brok was apprised of the fact that he was accused of tax evasion, he paid the amount due, had his accounts for 2001 to 2008 audited by a tax adviser and regularised certain other minor irregularities found.
Dejstvo, da je bila opustitev tako obravnavana, čeprav Elmar Brok ni bil niti neposredno obveščen o obtožbah proti njemu, je povsem nenavadno.
The fact that this omission was dealt with in such a manner, whereby Mr Brok was not even directly informed of the charges laid against him, is completely exceptional.
V povezavi z dejstvom, da državno tožilstvo ni niti kvantificiralo natančnega zneska dolgovanega davka - tudi z neplačilom obresti, je domneva o fumus persecutionis v tem primeru še bolj jasna.
Indeed this, in conjunction with the fact that the Public Prosecutor has not even quantified the precise amount of tax owed - also by way of non payment of interest -, makes the case for the existence of a fumus persecutionis even stronger .
Navaden državljan v takih okoliščinah ne bi bil tako obravnavan.
This is not the way in which a normal citizen would be treated in such circumstances.
Elmar Brok je pred odborom pričal, da njegova žena že 40 let brez kakršnih koli težav skrbi za njegove davčne napovedi.
Mr Brok testified to the committee that his wife had been dealing with his tax returns for 40 years without any problem whatsoever.
Nobeno državno tožilstvo ne bi moglo glede na dane okoliščine iz ene same opustitve resno izpeljati naklepne davčne utaje.
No public prosecutor could reasonably infer intention to evade tax from one isolated omission in such circumstances.
Zadeva je nenavadna tudi zato, ker je predstavnik državnega tožilstva dal izjavo za medije, zlasti lokalno televizijo, še preden se je imel Elmar Brok možnost zagovarjati pred pristojnim odborom Evropskega parlamenta.
The case is also exceptional in that the prosecutor’s spokesperson spoke to the media, in particular, to the local television station before Mr Brok had even had the opportunity of being heard in the competent committee of the European Parliament.
Če kakšen drug državljan naključno ne bi napovedal 5.000 EUR, ne bi bilo takih posledic.
The accidental omission to declare EUR 5 000 on the part of any other citizen would not have resulted in such action.
Še več kot to, ta primer bi lahko enačili s kršitvijo zasebnosti poslanca.
Moreover, it amounts to an invasion of the member’s privacy.
Kot je splošno znano, se zahteve za odvzem imunitete v Parlamentu obravnavajo za zaprtimi vrati, medtem ko je državni tožilec, ki je vložil zahtevo, v tem primeru dal intervju za lokalno televizijsko postajo.
In Parliament, as is well known, requests for waiver of immunity are dealt with behind closed doors, yet the Public Prosecutor who made the request in this case actually granted an interview to the local television station.
Nenavadno v tem primeru je tudi, da so odvetniki Elmarja Broka zahtevali vpogled v spise te zadeve, kar je povsem običajno, vendar je bila ena stran teh dokumentov zavestno izpuščena.
A further exceptional feature of this case is that Mr Brok’s lawyers have sought disclosure of the documents in the case, which is normal, but one page of the documents has been deliberately omitted.
Elmar Brok je znana politična osebnost.
Mr Brok is a well-known political figure.
Zoper njega je bila vložena kazenska ovadba zaradi zneska in okoliščin, ki bi v primeru navadnega državljana sprožile zgolj upravni postopek.
Criminal charges have been brought against him in respect of a sum and in circumstances which would, in the case of an ordinary citizen, have attracted merely administrative proceedings.
Poleg tega državni tožilec Elmarju Broku ni le poskušal iz neupravičenih in nadvse škodljivih razlogov neutemeljeno zamolčati obtožnico, ampak je zagotovil, da je imel primer velik medijski odmev in je poslancu prizadejal kar največjo škodo.
Moreover, the public prosecutor not only sought to withhold knowledge of the charge from Mr Brok on spurious and highly derogatory grounds for no due cause, but made sure that the case received great publicity in the media, this inflicting the maximum amount of damage on the Member concerned.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 7(1) in (2) poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti odvzemu poslančeve imunitete, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament zavrne zahtevo za odvzem poslanske imunitete Elmarju Broku.
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 reject the request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Elmar Brok.
o imenovanju Haralda Wögerbauerja za člana Računskega sodišča
on the nomination of Harald Wögerbauer as a Member of the Court of Auditors
PRILOGA 1: ŽIVLJENJEPIS HARALDA WÖGERBAUERJA
ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITÆ OF Harald Wögerbauer
priloga 2: odgovori haralda wögerbauerja na vprašalnik
ANNEX 2: answers by Harald Wögerbauer to the questionnaire
– ob upoštevanju člena 286(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU), v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C7-0029/2011 ),
– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C7‑0029/2011 ),
– ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se je Odboru za proračunski nadzor na seji dne 3. marca 2011 predstavil kandidat, ki ga Svet predlaga za člana Računskega sodišča,
– having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 3 March 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,