natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– obstajajo razlogi za skrb v zvezi z naravo kritičnih učinkov, ki skupaj z vzorci uporabe/izpostavljenosti povzročijo primere uporabe, ki lahko še vedno zbujajo skrb, kljub zelo omejevalnim ukrepom za obvladovanje tveganja (kot so obsežna osebna zaščitna oprema ali zelo široki varovalni pasovi);
– there are reasons for concern linked to the nature of the critical effects which, in combination with the use/exposure patterns, amount to situations of use that could still cause concern, even with very restrictive risk management measures (such as extensive personal protective equipment or very large buffer zones);
– je na podlagi ocene preskusov genotoksičnosti na višji ravni, izvedenih v skladu z zahtevami po podatkih o aktivnih snoveh in fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih ter drugih razpoložljivih podatkov in informacij, v skladu z določbami Direktive 67/548/EGS razvrščena kot mutagena snov kategorije 1 ali 2, razen če je izpostavljenost človeka tej aktivni snovi v fitofarmacevtskem sredstvu v realnih predlaganih pogojih uporabe zanemarljiva.
– on the basis of assessment of higher tier genotoxicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances and the plant protection products and other available data and information, it is classified, in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, as mutagen category 1 or 2 unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use, is negligible.
– je ali mora biti na podlagi ocene preskusov rakotvornosti, izvedenih v skladu z zahtevami po podatkih o aktivnih snoveh in fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih ter drugih razpoložljivih podatkov in informacij, v skladu z določbami Direktive 67/548/EGS razvrščena kot rakotvorna snov kategorije 1 ali 2, razen če je izpostavljenost človeka tej aktivni snovi v fitofarmacevtskem sredstvu v realnih predlaganih pogojih uporabe zanemarljiva.
– on the basis of assessment of carcinogenicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances and the plant protection products and other available data and information, it is or has to be classified, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 67/548/EEC, as carcinogen category 1 or 2 unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use is negligible.
– je ali mora biti na podlagi ocene preskusov reproduktivne toksičnosti, izvedenih v skladu z zahtevami po podatkih o aktivnih snoveh in fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih ter drugih razpoložljivih podatkov in informacij, v skladu z določbami Direktive 67/548/EGS razvrščena kot reproduktivno toksična snov kategorije 1 ali 2, razen če je izpostavljenost človeka tej aktivni snovi v fitofarmacevtskem sredstvu v realnih predlaganih pogojih uporabe zanemarljiva.
- on the basis of assessment of reproductive toxicity testing carried out in accordance with the data requirements for the active substances and the plant protection products and other available data and information, it is or has to be classified, in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, as toxic for reproduction category 1 or 2 unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use, is negligible.
– se ne šteje za obstojno in strupeno snov, ki se kopiči v organizmih (PBT).
- it is considered to be a persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic (PBT) substance.
Snov, ki izpolnjuje vsa tri spodnja merila, je snov PBT.
A substance that fulfils all three of the criteria below is a PBT substance.
Aktivna snov izpolnjuje merilo obstojnosti, če njena:
An active substance fulfils the persistence criterion where:
– razpolovna doba v sladki vodi ali rečnih ustjih traja več kot 40 dni
– the half-life in fresh or estuarine water is higher than 40 days,
– razpolovna doba v sladkovodnih usedlinah ali rečnih ustjih traja več kot
– the half-life in fresh or estuarine water sediment is higher
120 dni ali
than 120 days, or
Ocena obstojnosti v okolju temelji na razpoložljivih podatkih o razpolovni dobi, zbranimi v skladu z ustreznimi pogoji, ki jih opiše vlagatelj.
Assessment of persistency in the environment shall be based on available half-life data collected under appropriate conditions, which shall be described by the applicant.
– je snov razvrščena kot rakotvorna (kategorije 1 ali 2), mutagena (kategorije 1 ali 2), ali reproduktivno toksična (kategorije 1, 2, ali 3) ali
– the substance is classified as carcinogenic (category 1 or 2), mutagenic (category 1 or 2), or toxic for reproduction (category 1, 2, or 3), or
– obstajajo drugi dokazi kronične strupenosti, kot opredeljujejo klasifikacije: T, R48, ali Xn, R48 v skladu z Direktivo 67/548/EGS;
– there is other evidence of chronic toxicity, as identified by the classifications: T, R48 or Xn, R48 pursuant to Directive 67/548/EEC.
– je zelo obstojna in bioakumulativna (vPvB).
- it is very persistent and very bioaccumulating (vPvB).
Snov, ki izpolnjuje obe spodnji merili, je snov z lastnostmi vPvB.
A substance that fulfils both of the criteria below is a vPvB substance.
Aktivna snov izpolnjuje merilo velike obstojnosti, če njena:
An active substance fulfils the very persistent criterion where:
Ta merila bi bilo treba uporabiti za določitev snovi kot snovi, ki jih je treba nadomestiti, da ne bi snovi zavrnili brez pravega ocenjevanja.
These criteria should be used to identify substances as candidates for substitution not to reject substances without proper evaluation.
Preneseno iz točk 3.6 in 3.7 priloge II
Transferred from Annex II Points 3.6 and 3.7
Trenutna merila za snovi, ki jih je treba nadomestiti, v predlogu uredbe imajo malo oz. nimajo nič skupnega z dejanskimi tveganji, ki izhajajo iz uporabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev.
The ‘candidate for substitution’ criteria currently used in the draft regulation have little or no correlation to real risks arising from the use of plant protection products.
Priloga IV, točka 3, pododstavek 1
Annex IV, point 3, subparagraph 1
Bistvena praktična ali gospodarska izguba za uporabnika je opredeljena kot znatna oslabitev delovnih praks ali poslovne dejavnosti, ki jo je mogoče izmeriti in posledično ne omogoča ohranjanja ustreznega nadzora nad ciljnim organizmom.
Significant practical or economic disadvantage to the user is defined as a major quantifiable impairment of working practices or business activity leading to inability to maintain sufficient control of the target organism.
Do takšne znatne oslabitve lahko pride v primeru, kadar niso na voljo ali niso ekonomsko izvedljive nobene tehnične zmogljivosti za uporabo nadomestne snovi (nadomestnih snovi).
Such a major impairment might be, for example, where no technical facilities for the use of the alternative substance(s) are available or economically feasible.
Bistvena praktična ali gospodarska izguba za uporabnika je opredeljena kot znatna oslabitev delovnih praks ali poslovne dejavnosti, ki jo je mogoče izmeriti in posledično ne omogoča ohranjanja ustreznega nadzora nad ciljnim organizmom ali zmanjšanje konkurenčnosti kmetijske dejavnosti .
Significant practical or economic disadvantage to the user is defined as a major quantifiable impairment of working practices or business activity leading to inability to maintain sufficient control of the target organism or impairment of the competitiveness of agricultural activity .
Ohraniti je treba konkurenčnost kmetijstva v Skupnosti.
The competitiveness of Community agriculture must be safeguarded.
Priloga IV 3, pododstavek 2 a (novo)
Annex IV 3, subparagraph 2 a (new)
Primerjalna ocena upošteva registrirano uporabo v manjši meri.
The comparative assessment shall take authorised minor users into account.
Glej obrazložitev predloga spremembe k členu 48, odstavek 1, točka (c).
See justification for amendment to Article 48, paragraph 1, point (c).
o predlogu Sklepa Sveta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije h Konvenciji z dne 26. julija 1995, pripravljeni na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti, k Protokolu z dne 27. septembra 1996, pripravljenem na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, h Konvenciji o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti, k Protokolu z dne 29. novembra 1996, pripravljenem na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o razlagi Konvencije o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti s predhodnim odločanjem Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in k Drugemu protokolu z dne 19. junija 1997, pripravljenem na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, h Konvenciji o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti
on the recommendation for a Council decision concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 26 July 1995, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, the Protocol of 27 September 1996, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, the Protocol of 29 November 1996, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and the Second Protocol of 19 June 1997, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2007)0277 ),
– having regard to the Commission recommendation to the Council ( COM(2007)0277 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 3(4) akta o pristopu Republike Bolgarije in Romunije, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6-0238/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 3(4) of the Act of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0238/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0360/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committeе on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0360/2007 ),
(4a) Bolgarska in romunska vlada si ves čas prizadevata za izpolnitev meril uspešnosti, zahtevanih za pristop po poenostavljenem postopku.
(4a) The Bulgarian and Romanian governments have made efforts to meet the respective benchmarks provided for the activation of the simplified accession procedure,
Pogajanja in sklenitev, posebnih pridružitvenih protokolov k tem konvencijam (ki bi zahtevali ratifikacijo 27 držav), kot je to bilo v preteklosti, niso več potrebni: člen 3(3) Akta določa preprosto, da Bolgarija in Romunija pristopita k tem konvencijam in protokolom na podlagi Akta o pristopu.
It is indeed not anymore necessary, as in the past, to negotiate and conclude specific accession protocols to these conventions (which would have implied ratification by 27 States): Article 3(3) of the Act provides simply that Bulgaria and Romania accede to these conventions and protocols by virtue of the Act of Accession.
Člen 3(3) in (4) Akta o pristopu določa, da Svet v ta namen sprejme sklep, s katerim določi datum začetka veljavnosti teh konvencij za Bolgarijo in Romunijo ter sprejme vse potrebne prilagoditve k tem konvencijam, ki se zahtevajo zaradi pristopa teh dveh novih držav članic (kar pa v vsakem primeru vključuje sprejetje konvencij v bolgarskem in romunskem jeziku, da so lahko te različice „enako verodostojne“).
Article 3(3) and 3(4) of the Act of Accession provide that, to that effect, the Council shall adopt a decision in order to determine the date on which these conventions shall enter into force for Bulgaria and Romania and to make all the necessary adjustments to these conventions required by reason of the accession of the two new Member States (which would include, in any event, the adoption of the conventions in the Bulgarian and Romanian languages, so that these versions can be "equally authentic").
Pristop Bolgarije in Romunije h Konvenciji z dne 26. julija 1995 o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti in njenim protokolom
Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and to the various Protocols to the Convention
o predlogu sklepa Sveta o sklenitvi Drugega dodatnega protokola k Sporazumu o pridružitvi med Evropsko skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami na eni strani in Republiko Čile na drugi strani zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji
on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of a Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
– ob upoštevanju predloga Sklepa Sveta (12550/2007)
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (12550/2007)
– ob upoštevanju Drugega dodatnega protokola k Sporazumu o pridružitvi med Evropsko skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami na eni strani in Republiko Čile na drugi strani zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji,
– having regard to the Second Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za privolitev, ki jo je Svet predložil v skladu s členom 300(3), drugi pododstavek, v povezavi s členom 310 in členom 300(2), prvi pododstavek, prvi in drugi stavek Pogodbe o ES ( C6‑0325/2007 ),
– having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 310 and Article 300(2) first subparagraph, first and second sentence of the EC Treaty ( C6‑0325/2007 ),
– ob upoštevanju členov 75, 83(7) in 43(1) svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Odbora za mednarodno trgovino(A6-0361/(2007),
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade ( A6‑0361/2007 ),
Sklenitev protokola k pridružitvenemu sporazumu ES/Čile zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Bolgarije in Romunije k EU
Conclusion of a Protocol to the Association Agreement between the EC and Chile to take account of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU
o osnutku Okvirnega sklepa Sveta o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodb v kazenskih zadevah, s katerimi so izrečene zaporne kazni ali ukrepi, ki vključujejo odvzem prostosti, za namen njihovega izvrševanja v Evropski uniji
on the draft Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
– ob upoštevanju osnutka Sveta (09688/2007)
– having regard to the Council draft (9688/2007)
– ob upoštevanju pobude Republike Avstrije, Republike Finske in Kraljevine Švedske(07307/2005)
– having regard to the initiative by the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (7307/2005)
UL C 150, 21.6.2005, str.
OJ C 150, 21.6.2005, p.
– ob upoštevanju svojega stališča z dne 14. junija 2006
– having regard to its position of 14 June 2006
Sprejeta besedila , P6_TA(2006)0256 . ,
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0256 . ,
– ob upoštevanju členov 31(1) in 34(2)(b) Pogodbe EU,
– having regard to Articles 31(1)(a) and 34(2)(b) of the EC Treaty of the European Union,
– ob upoštevanju člena 39(1) Pogodbe EU, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6‑0209/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6‑0209/2007 )),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A6‑0362/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0362/2007 ),
(2a) Procesne pravice v kazenskih postopkih so ključni dejavnik, ki zagotavlja vzajemno zaupanje med državami članicami na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja, kljub prizadevanjem nemškega predsedstva pa doslej ni bil dosežen noben sporazum po osnutku okvirnega sklepa, ki ga je predložila Komisija in podprl Parlament.
(2a) Procedural rights in criminal proceedings are a crucial element for ensuring mutual confidence among the Member States in judicial cooperation, and despite the efforts of the German Presidency, no agreement has thus far been reached following the presentation of a draft Framework Decision by the Commission, backed by Parliament;
Evropski svet je na zasedanju v Tampereju 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 potrdil načelo vzajemnega priznavanja, ki naj bi postalo temelj pravosodnega sodelovanja znotraj Unije, tako v civilnih kot v kazenskih zadevah.
The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition, which should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.
Svet je 29. novembra 2000, v skladu s sklepi iz Tampereja, sprejel program ukrepov za izvajanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja sodnih odločb v kazenskih zadevah, v katerem je pozval k presoji, ali je treba uvesti moderne mehanizme za vzajemno priznavanje pravnomočnih kazenskih sankcij, ki vključujejo odvzem prostosti, in k razširitvi uporabe načela premestitve obsojenih oseb, da bi to zajelo tudi osebe s prebivališčem v državi članici.
On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, in which it called for an assessment of the need for modern mechanisms for the mutual recognition of final sentences involving deprivation of liberty and for extended application of the principle of the transfer of sentenced persons to cover persons resident in a Member State.
Haaški program za krepitev Evropske unije kot območja svobode, varnosti in pravice zahteva od držav članic, da dokončajo programe ukrepov, zlasti na področju izvrševanja pravnomočnih zapornih kazni.
The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires the Member States to complete the programme of measures, in particular in the field of enforcing final custodial sentences.
Odnosi med državami članicami, za katere je značilno posebno medsebojno zaupanje v pravne sisteme enih in drugih, omogočajo priznavanje sodnih odločb, ki jih sprejmejo oblasti države izdajateljice, s strani države izvršiteljice.
Relations between the Member States, which are characterised by special mutual confidence in other Member States' legal systems, enable recognition by the executing State of decisions taken by the issuing State's authorities.
Ne glede na potrebo po tem, da se obsojeni osebi zagotovi primerna zaščita, za njeno sodelovanje v postopku naj ne bi bilo več nujno potrebno v vseh primerih zahtevati njenega privoljenja, da se sme sodbo zaradi njenega priznanja in izvršitve kazenske sankcije posredovati drugi državi članici.
Notwithstanding the necessity of providing the sentenced person with adequate safeguards, his or her involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant by requiring in all cases his or her consent to the forwarding of a judgment to another Member State for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement of the sentence imposed.
Ta okvirni sklep bi bilo treba izvajati in uporabljati na način, ki bi omogočal spoštovanje splošnih načel enakosti, pravičnosti in razumnosti.
This Framework decision should be implemented and applied in a manner which allows for respecting general principles of equality, fairness and reasonableness.
Ta okvirni sklep bi bilo treba smiselno uporabljati tudi za izvrševanje kazenskih sankcij v primerih iz členov 4(6) in 5(3) Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami.
This Framework Decision should also, mutatis mutandis, apply to the enforcement of sentences in the cases under Articles 4(6) und 5(3) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
To med drugim pomeni, da bi lahko država članica izvršiteljica brez poseganja v okvirni sklep sveta 2002/584/PNZ preverila obstoj razlogov za zavrnitev iz člena 9, vključno s preverjanjem dvojne kaznivosti, če je kot pogoj za priznanje in izvršitev sodbe podala izjavo iz člena 7(4), da bi preučila, ali naj v primerih iz člena 4(6) omenjenega okvirnega sklepa osebo preda ali izvrši kazensko sankcijo.
This inter alia means, that without prejudice to the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the executing Member State could verify the existence of grounds for refusal as provided for in Article 9, including checking of dual criminality to the extent the executing State has made a declaration under Article 7(4), as a condition to recognise and enforce the judgment with a view to consider whether to surrender the person or to enforce the sentence in cases pursuant to Article 4(6) of the said Framework Decision.
Ta okvirni sklep spoštuje temeljne pravice in upošteva načela, ki jih priznava člen 6 pogodbe in odraža Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah , zlasti njeno poglavje VI.
This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof.
Določbe tega okvirnega sklepa bi se morale uporabljati v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo ES, med drugim zlasti z direktivo 2004/38/ES, direktivo 2003/109/ES in direktivo 2003/86/ES.
The provisions of this Framework Decision should be applied in conformity with applicable EC law, including in particular Directive 2004/38/EC, Directive 2003/109/EC and Directive 2003/86/EC.
Vprašanja, ki jih je izpostavil Evropski parlament, s katerim je posvetovanje o dokumentu potekalo že 17. maja 2006, so bila v veliki meri upoštevana, zato poročevalec priporoča, da se spremenjeno besedilo Sveta odobri.
The issues raised by the European parliament which was already consulted on this file on 17 May 2006 were largely taken into consideration and thus the rapporteur recommends to have it approved as amended by the Council.
Evropski izvršilni nalog in premestitev obsojenih oseb
European enforcement order and the transfer of sentenced persons
o predlogu Sklepa Sveta o sklenitvi Sporazuma med Evropsko skupnostjo in Ukrajino o poenostavitvi izdajanja vizumov za kratkoročno bivanje
on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on the facilitation of issuance of short-stay visas
MNENJE Odbora za zunanje zadeve ...........................................................................6
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ...................................................7
– ob upoštevanju predloga Sklepa Sveta ( KOM(2007)0190 ),
– having regard to the proposal for a Council decision ( COM(2007)0190 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 63(3)(b) in prvega stavka prvega pododstavka člena 300(2) Pogodbe o ES,
– having regard to Articles 63(3)(b) and 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,
– ob upoštevanju prvega pododstavka člena 300(3) Pogodbe o ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6-0187/2007 ),
– having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0187/2007 ),