natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Na osnovi veljavnih pogodb je zato nujno poiskati in ovrednotiti sredstva, ki jih Evropski parlament lahko izkoristi, da dejansko zaščiti svoje posebne pravice, ki zagotavljajo njegovo neodvisnost in funkcionalnost.
Under the existing Treaties, therefore, it is necessary to seek out and enhance the means that Parliament can exploit with a view to genuinely protecting its own prerogatives which were established as a guarantee of its independence and functionality.
Eden od instrumentov, ki bi jih lahko Evropski parlament uporabil v primeru kršitve svojih posebnih pravic, je (v teoriji) tožba zaradi opustitve ukrepanja v skladu s členom 227 Pogodbe ES.
At an abstract level, one of the instruments which can be used by the European Parliament in case of an infringement of its prerogatives is action for failure to act under Article 227 EC.
Če pride do kršitve njegove pravice, ki jo varuje pravo Skupnosti, Evropski parlament lahko pozove Komisijo, naj začne postopek zaradi kršitve v skladu s členom 226 Pogodbe ES.
In the event of an infringement of one of its rights that are protected by Community law, Parliament can call on the Commission to undertake infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 EC.
V praksi pa ta določba ne more zagotavljati polne zaščite posebnih pravic Evropskega parlamenta, saj je začetek postopka prepuščen diskreciji Komisije.
In practice, however, this cannot ensure the full protection of Parliament’s prerogatives in that the decision on whether or not to start formal proceedings is left to the Commission’s discretion.
Če se Komisija odloči, da ne bo sprejela nobenega ukrepa na podlagi načel, kot so dobro upravljanje, preglednost in sodelovanje med institucijami, mora Evropski parlament zahtevati, naj razkrije razloge, na podlagi katerih je sprejela odločitev.
Should the Commission decide not to take any action, in accordance with principles such as those of good administration, transparency and cooperation between institutions, Parliament must demand the reasons for such a decision to be clarified.
Evropski parlament ima pravico, če ne do ukrepanja Komisije, najmanj do tega, da je obveščen o razlogih, zakaj se je Komisija odločila za neukrepanje, da lahko preveri, ali Komisija pravilno izvaja diskrecijsko pravico, in da razume merila, ki usmerjajo njene odločitve.
Parliament is entitled, if not to demand action from the Commission, at least to know the reasons for which it has decided not to act, so that it can assess whether the Commission is exercising its discretion in a proper manner and understand the criteria guiding its decisions.
Glede zastopanja Evropskega parlamenta v postopku pred sodišči bi bilo primerno uradno podeliti predsedniku Odbora za pravne zadeve pravno sposobnost, da se kot zastopnik Parlamenta kot celote udeležuje postopkov pred sodišči, ki se tičejo posebnih pravic Evropskega parlamenta.
As regards the representation of the European Parliament in court, it would be appropriate to officially confer on the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs the legal capacity to take part in court proceedings, where these involve the prerogatives of the European Parliament, representing Parliament as a whole.
Glede tega je zaželena sprememba člena 19 Poslovnika, s čemer bi se predsednika Odbora za pravne zadeve izrecno pooblastilo za zastopanje Evropskega parlamenta v vseh sodnih postopkih, v katerih so postavljene pod vprašaj posebne pravice Evropskega parlamenta.
To that end, an amendment to Rule 19 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure would be desirable, to the effect that the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs should be expressly appointed to represent the European Parliament in court in all legal proceedings in which its prerogatives are at issue.
Člen 23 statuta Sodišča zlasti v zvezi s sodelovanjem v postopkih pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti določa, da Evropski parlament lahko predloži pripombe v primeru postopkov predhodnega odločanja, ki se nanašajo na veljavnost ali razlago aktov, sprejetih s postopkom soodločanja.
With reference, in particular, to participation in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, under Article 23 of the Court’s Statute, Parliament may submit observations in applications for a preliminary ruling which concern the validity or interpretation of acts adopted under the codecision procedure.
Ker pa Poslovnik Evropskega parlamenta ne sodi med te akte, je zaželeno, da bi Sodišče spodbujalo udeležbo Evropskega parlamenta pri postopkih, kjer so pod vprašanjem njegove posebne pravice, in sicer v skladu s členom 24(2), ki pravi: „Sodišče lahko tudi od držav članic in institucij, ki niso stranke v postopku, zahteva vse podatke, ki se Sodišču zdijo potrebni v postopku“.
However, as the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament are not included among such acts, it is to be hoped that the Court of Justice may encourage the involvement of the European Parliament where its prerogatives are at issue, on the basis of Article 24(2) which states: ‘The Court may also require the Member States and institutions not being parties to the case to supply all information which the Court considers necessary for the proceedings’.
Sprememba tega statuta pa bi bila potrebna, da bi se pravica Evropskega parlamenta, da predloži svoje pripombe, razširila na vse zadeve, v katerih poteka neposredna ali posredna razprava o posebnih pravicah parlamenta.
It would, however, be advisable to amend the Statute so that the European Parliament’s power to submit its own observations may be extended to all cases in which, directly or indirectly, parliamentary prerogatives are being debated.
Potreba po odločni prisotnosti Evropskega parlamenta je nedvomno najbolj občutena v nacionalnih sodnih dvoranah.
But it is in the national courts that, without a doubt, an urgent need is felt for a strong European Parliament presence.
Neposredna udeležba Evropskega parlamenta v postopkih pred nacionalnimi sodišči, v katerih poteka razprava o njegovih posebnih pravicah, bi imela več prednosti.
Direct participation of the European Parliament in proceedings before the national judges in which its own prerogatives are at issue would have several advantages.
Takšna udeležba bi namreč omogočila zmanjšanje števila morebitnih postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev ali postopkov predhodnega odločanja, povečala bi učinkovitost na ravni postopkov in preprečila diskriminacijo med nacionalnimi in evropskimi poslanci.
It would, in fact, help to limit cases of possible infringement proceedings or referrals for a preliminary ruling, to foster greater efficiency in the courts and, lastly, to avoid forms of discrimination between national and European parliamentarians.
Predvsem bi bilo nujno spodbujati politiko sodelovanja med Evropskim parlamentom in nacionalnimi sodišči.
First of all, it is essential to foster a policy of cooperation between the European Parliament and national judges.
V tem smislu so že bile vzpostavljene dobre prakse s sodnimi organi nekaterih držav članic.
Good practices in this regard have already been developed with the judicial authorities of several Member States.
Cilj je izvajati takšne prakse in jih na koristen način uvesti tudi v okviru sodelovanja s tistimi državami, ki do sedaj niso pokazale večje dovzetnosti za to vprašanje.
The aim is to implement those practices and launch them successfully with those countries which up to now have not been so receptive to the issue.
Glede tega se je koristno spomniti člena 8 Protokola št. 2 o uporabi načel subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, priloženega k Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbo o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, ki pravi: „Sodišče Evropske unije je pristojno za odločanje o tožbah zaradi kršitve načela subsidiarnosti z zakonodajnim aktom, ki jih vloži država članica v skladu s pravili iz člena 230 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ali ki jih država članica posreduje v skladu s svojim pravnim redom v imenu svojega nacionalnega parlamenta ali enega od njegovih domov.“
In this connection it would be useful to note Article 8 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, according to which: ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction in actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act, brought in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Member States, or notified by them in accordance with their legal order on behalf of their national Parliament or a chamber thereof’.
Če pravni red Skupnosti priznava pravico nacionalnih parlamentov do vložitve tožbe pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti v primeru kršitve načela subsidiarnosti, bi bilo nelogično, če se, obratno, Evropskemu parlamentu ne bi bila priznala pravica, da vlaga tožbe, oziroma sodeluje v postopkih, ki potekajo pred nacionalnimi sodišči in se tičejo njegovih posebnih pravic.
Since the Community legal order recognises the right of national parliaments to take action before the Court of Justice should the principle of subsidiarity be infringed, it would be illogical not to accept, conversely, the European Parliament’s right to take legal action, or in any case to take part in proceedings which concern its own prerogatives before the national courts.
V primerih, ko državne ureditve ne bi priznavale te pravice Evropskega parlamenta, bi se pojavili resni dvomi glede spoštovanja in dejanske uporabe načela resničnega in lojalnega sodelovanja iz člena 10 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
Where national legal orders were not to recognise this right of the European Parliament, serious doubts would arise as to compliance with and enforcement of the ‘principle of sincere and loyal cooperation’ enshrined in Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Poleg tega pravna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti priznava implicitne pristojnosti glede zakonodajnih ukrepov, ki so potrebni za zagotavljanje polne učinkovitosti predpisov, določenih za področje, ki sodi v pristojnost zakonodajalca Skupnosti (na primer kazenske sankcije v zadevah v zvezi s kršitvijo predpisov o varstvu okolja)
Moreover, the case-law of the Court of Justice recognises an implicit power in respect of any legislative measures that are necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of rules laid down in an area falling within the competence of the Community legislator (for example, criminal penalties in matters relating to the infringement of environmental protection rules)
Če pa zakonodajalec Skupnosti ne meni, da bi bilo treba v zvezi s tem sprejeti zakonodajne ukrepe, ne bo mogoče ne upoštevati odločitve Sodišča, da so države članice dolžne določiti sistem pravnih sredstev in postopkov, s katerim se zagotovi spoštovanje pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva
Should, however, the Community legislator not consider it necessary to adopt legislative measures in this regard, it cannot ignore the decision in which the Court of Justice ruled that ‘it is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the right to effective judicial protection’.
CGCE C-50/00P, Unión de Pequenos Agricultores proti Svetu , 2002. .
CJEC C-50/00P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council, 2002.
Glede na to odločitev in širše glede na načelo odkritega in lojalnega sodelovanja iz člena 10 Pogodbe ES, namreč poročevalec meni, da morajo nacionalne ureditve na splošno, zlasti pa nacionalna sodišča, dovoliti sodelovanje Evropskega parlamenta v vseh postopkih, kjer so pod vprašajem njegove zakonsko priznane posebne pravice.
In the light of that judgment and, more generally, of the principle of sincere and loyal cooperation enshrined in Article 10 of the EC Treaty, your rapporteur considers that the national legal orders in general, and national judges in particular, are required to accept the participation of the European Parliament in all court proceedings in which Parliament’s legally recognised prerogatives are in question.
MNENJE Odbora za ustavne zadeve
OPINION of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (*)
Odbor za institucionalne zadeve,
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
A. ker se je v skladu s členom 47 poslovnika pridružil k pripravi poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve o zaščiti posebnih pravic Parlamenta pred nacionalnimi sodišči,
A. whereas it has been associated pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure with the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs on defending Parliament's prerogatives vis-à-vis the national courts,
B. ker obseg te pridružitve zajema vprašanja, povezana z medinstitucionalnimi odnosi in poslovnikom Parlamenta, v kolikor je za te zadeve pristojen Odbor za ustavne zadeve v skladu z delom XVIII priloge VI poslovnika,
B. whereas the scope of this association is such that it covers questions concerning interinstitutional relations and Parliament's Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as those matters come within the responsibility of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs under Part XVIII of Annex VI to the Rules of Procedure,
poziva Odbor za pravne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v skladu s četrto alineo člena 47 poslovnika brez glasovanja v predlog resolucije vključi naslednje predloge sprememb:
calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate pursuant to Rule 47, fourth indent, of the Rules of Procedure, without a vote, the following amendments in its motion for a resolution:
„poziva Komisijo, naj upošteva morebitne zahteve Evropskega parlamenta za sprožitev postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti državi, ki je obtožena kršitve ene od posebnih pravic Evropskega parlamenta, ter zahteva, da ga v primeru, če Komisija odloči, da ne bo ukrepala, kot se zahteva, pisno in podrobno obvesti o razlogih;“
"Calls on the Commission to take account of possible requests by the European Parliament to activate the infringement procedure against a State accused of having breached a parliamentary prerogative and requests to be informed by the Commission, in writing and in full detail, of the reasons for any decision by the Commission not to take the action requested;"
„predlaga, da se temeljito preuči, ali bi bilo možno razviti pravni mehanizem, podoben tistemu iz odstavka 6 člena 300 Pogodbe o ES, za primere, ko so resno ogrožene posebne pravice Evropskega parlamenta, ki bi Evropskemu parlamentu omogočil, da zaprosi Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, naj se izreče o skladnosti določenega akta nacionalnega prava s primarnim pravom Skupnosti, pri čemer bi Komisija ohranila izključno pristojnost, da sproži ali ne sproži postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti državi, ki naj bi zagrešila kršitev;“
“Suggests that an in-depth examination be carried out as to whether a legal mechanism similar to that laid down in Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty could be developed to cater for cases in which the prerogatives of the European Parliament are seriously under threat, allowing Parliament to ask the Court of Justice for an opinion on the compatibility of a certain act of national law with primary Community law, without prejudice to the exclusive power of the Commission to decide whether or not to initiate infringement proceedings against the State which may have committed an infringement;”
„poziva Komisijo, naj predlaga ustrezne zakonodajne ukrepe za zagotavljanje popolne učinkovitosti pravne zaščite posebnih pravic Evropskega parlamenta;”
“Calls on the Commission to propose the appropriate legislative measures in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the legal defence by Parliament of its prerogatives;”
“A. „ker Evropski parlament v sodnih postopkih na nacionalnih sodiščih pri zaščiti njegovih posebnih pravic pogosto ovirajo težave, značilne za njegovo posebno naravo;“
“A. whereas the European Parliament is often impeded, in proceedings before national courts, in protecting its prerogatives because of problems that are peculiar to its special nature;”
“Aa. ker Parlament spoštuje pravico Komisije do pobude, vendar vztraja tudi pri svoji pravici iz člena 192 Pogodbe o EU, da Komisijo pozove, naj predloži zakonodajni predlog,“
“Aa. whereas Parliament respects the right of initiative of the Commission but upholds its own right under Article 192 of the EC Treaty to request the Commission to submit legislative proposals,”
„B. ker ima Evropski parlament s tem v zvezi na voljo vrsto pravnih sredstev, predvidenih s Pogodbo, ki mu zagotavljajo zaščito omenjenih posebnih pravic pred drugimi institucijami Skupnosti, na primer tožbo zaradi opustitve ukrepanja (člen 232 Pogodbe o ES) in tožbo za razveljavitev akta Skupnosti (člen 230 Pogodbe o ES),“
“B. whereas in this regard the European Parliament has at its disposal a range of remedies under the Treaty which ensure that the aforementioned prerogatives are protected vis-à-vis the other Community institutions, such as actions for failure to act (Article 232 of the EC Treaty) and actions for the annulment of Community acts (Article 230 of the EC Treaty),”
„Ba. ker sodna praksa Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti določa odgovornost držav članic, ko ne uspejo izpolniti svojih obveznosti po pogodbah, ne glede na državni organ, katerega ukrepanje ali neukrepanje je povzročilo ta neuspeh, tudi če gre za ustanovo, ki je po ustavi neodvisna 1 ,
"Ba. whereas, under the case-law of the Court of Justice, a Member State incurs liability for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, whatever the agency of that State whose action or inaction has caused the failure, even in the case of a constitutionally independent institution 1 ,
„C. ker kljub vsemu Evropski parlament nima na voljo enakih neposrednih instrumentov za učinkovito obrambo teh posebnih pravic v primeru nacionalnih sodb na področju prava Skupnosti, ki so v nasprotju s temi pravicami, saj Evropski parlament ne more začeti postopka pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, da bi zagovarjal svoje odločitve,“
“C. whereas, however, the European Parliament does not have the same direct instruments with which to defend its prerogatives effectively in the event of a judgment of a national court in the field of Community law which runs counter to those prerogatives, since it is unable directly to bring an action before the Court of Justice to defend its decisions,”
„D. ker Evropski parlament ni pristojen, da neposredno začne postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev v skladu s členom 226 Pogodbe o ES proti državi članici, saj to lahko stori le preko Komisije,“
“D. whereas the European Parliament is not empowered to directly initiate infringement proceedings against a Member State under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, since it can do so only through the Commission,”
„E. ker pomanjkanje ustreznih instrumentov za učinkovito obrambo lastnih odločitev lahko ovira uspešnost Evropskega parlamenta kot političnega in zakonodajnega organa,“
“E. whereas the lack of appropriate instruments with which to defend its own decisions effectively can hamper the effectiveness of the European Parliament as a political and legislative body,”
„G. ker bi bilo treba zaradi premagovanja omenjenih težav okrepiti sredstva za zaščito posebnih pravic Evropskega parlamenta v evropskem pravnem okviru in sicer ne s spreminjanjem Pogodbe o ES, ampak z okrepljenim sodelovanjem s Komisijo in/ali s spodbujanjem Komisije, da po potrebi začne postopek po členu 226 Pogodbe o ES ali z uporabo mehanizmov in praks sodnega nadzora, ki jih je vpeljalo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti;“
“G. whereas, in order to circumvent the above-mentioned problems, the measures to protect parliamentary prerogatives within the European legal framework should be strengthened, not by amending the EC Treaty but rather by enhancing the collaboration with the Commission and/or with the aim of encouraging the Commission whenever necessary to bring actions under Article 226 of the Treaty, or by using the judicial review mechanisms and practices established by the Court of Justice,”;
nasprotuje predlogu spremembe 4 k poročilu Odbora za pravne zadeve, saj ta predlog spremembe zadeva temo, ki jo že obravnava poročilo, ki ga Odbor za ustavne zadeve pripravlja v odgovor na uradno zahtevo Odbora za pravne zadeve.
is opposed to amendment 4 tabled to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs, because that amendment addresses a matter which is already under consideration in a report to be drawn up by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in response to a formal request by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Načelo pravnega sodelovanja med Komisijo in Parlamentom zahteva, da vse odločitve v zvezi z zahtevami Parlamenta sprejema kolegij.
The principle of legal cooperation between the Commission and the Parliament requires that any decision concerning a request by Parliament is taken by the college.
Ko kolegij sprejme takšno odločitev, lahko v okviru svoje pristojnosti za notranjo organizacijo nalogo sporočanja svoje odločitve prenese na Parlament.
Once this decision is taken the college, within its power of internal organisation, can delegate the task of notifying its decision to Parliament.
Parlament bi se moral za sedaj izogibati vseh morebitnih nesporazumov glede svojih namenov v zvezi z novimi zahtevami po spreminjanju primarne zakonodaje EU.
At present the Parliament should avoid any possible misunderstandings concerning its intention in relation to new requests to amend EU primary law.
Težave, ki so opisane v osnutku mnenja, ne opravičujejo dvomov o posebni pravici predsednika Evropskega parlamenta, da predstavlja Parlament v pravnih zadevah.
The difficulties described in the draft report do not justify calling into question the prerogative of the President of the European Parliament to represent Parliament in legal matters.
Komisija ne more sprejemati zakonodajnih ukrepov, ampak jih lahko le predlaga, če meni, da so ustrezni.
The Commission cannot adopt legislative measures; it can only propose them if it considers them appropriate.
Parlamenta ni mogoče obravnavati kot „glavno čezmejno zakonodajno institucijo v Evropi“, saj si to lastnost deli s Svetom.
Parliament can not be regarded as the "the main transnational legislative institution in Europe" as it shares this quality with the Council.
Posebna narava Parlamenta je ovira le takrat, ko gre za njegovo možnost nastopanja pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
The specific nature of Parliament is an obstacle only with regard to its possibility to act before national courts.
Na ravni Unije so omejitve teh možnosti posledica trenutnega institucionalnega ravnovesja.
At Union level the limits of these possibilities are a consequence of the present institutional balance.
o skupnem stališču Sveta z namenom sprejetja Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Direktive 2004/49/ES o varnosti na železnicah Skupnosti
on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community's railways (Railway Safety Directive)
OSNUTEK ZAKONODAJNE RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA.........5
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION.....................................5
– ob upoštevanju skupnega stališča Sveta (16133/3/2007 – C6‑0129/2008 ),
– having regard to the Council common position (16133/3/2007 – C6‑0129/2008 )
Sprejeta besedila, 29.11.2007, P6_TA(2007)0557 . o predlogu Komisije Parlamentu in Svetu ( KOM(2006)0784 ),
Texts adopted , 29.11.2007, P6_TA(2007)0557 . on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council ( COM(2006)0784 ),
– ob upoštevanju priporočila za drugo obravnavo Odbora za promet in turizem ( A6‑0223/2008 ),
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ( A6‑0223/2008 ),
(4a) Da se zagotovi skladnost z obstoječo železniško zakonodajo, so železnice, ki so del kulturne dediščine, ter muzejske in turistične železnice izvzete iz te direktive.
(4a) In order to ensure consistency with existing railway legislation, heritage, museum and tourist railways are exempt from this Directive.
Člen 1 – točka -1 a (novo)
Article 1 – point -1 a (new)
Direktiva 2004/49/ES
Directive 2004/49/EC
Člen 2 – odstavek 2 – točki c a in c b (novo)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 - points c a and c b (new)
(-1a) V členu 2(2) se dodata naslednji točki:
(-1a) The following points shall be added to Article 2(2):