natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(a) „javno spodbujanje k terorističnemu kaznivemu dejanju“ pomeni razširjanje, ali dajanje na voljo na kak drug način, sporočila javnosti z namenom spodbujanja h kateremu od dejanj, navedenih v členu 1(1)(a) do (h), pri čemer takšno ravnanje, naj se neposredno zavzema za teroristična kazniva dejanja ali ne, povzroča nevarnost za storitev enega ali več takšnih kaznivih dejanj.
(a) "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence" means the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of one of the acts listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h), where such conduct , whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed;
„javno napeljevanje k terorističnemu kaznivemu dejanju“ pomeni razširjanje sporočila ali njegovo dajanje na voljo na kak drug način z jasnim in namernim pozivanjem h kateremu od kaznivih dejanj , navedenih v členu 1(1)(a) do (h), pri čemer takšno ravnanje očitno povzroča nevarnost za storitev enega ali več takšnih kaznivih dejanj.
(a) "public incitement to commit a terrorist offence" means the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public clearly and intentionally advocating the commission of one of the offences listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h), where such conduct manifestly causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed;
Člen 3 – odstavek 1 – točka (b)
Article 3 - paragraph 1 - point (b)
(b) „novačenje za teroristične dejavnosti“ pomeni nagovarjanje druge osebe, naj stori eno od dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1) ali v členu 2(2).
(b) "recruitment for terrorism" means to solicit another person to commit one of the acts listed in Article 1(1), or in Article 2(2);
(b) "novačenje za teroristične dejavnosti" pomeni namerno nagovarjanje druge osebe, naj stori enega od kaznivih dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1) (a) do (h) ali v členu 2(2);
(b) "recruitment for terrorism" means intentionally to solicit another person to commit one of the offences listed in Article 1(1) (a) to (h) , or in Article 2(2);
Razumljivo je, da se izključi odstavek 1 točke( i) člena 1 (ter da se zato sklicuje le na točke (a) do (h)), ker si je težko predstavljati, da je cilj novačenja za teroristične dejavnosti le grožnja s terorističnim kaznivim dejanjem.
It would seem logical to exclude point (i) from Article 1(1) (and consequently to refer only to points (a) to (h)), since it is very difficult to conceive that the purpose of recruiting for terrorism would be the threat to commit a terrorist offence.
Okvirni sklep 2002/475/PNZ
Framework decision 2002/475/JHA
Člen 3 – odstavek 1 – točka (c)
Article 3 - paragraph 1 - point (c)
(c)„usposabljanje za terorizem“ pomeni zagotavljanje navodil glede izdelave ali uporabe razstreliv ali drugega orožja ali zdravju škodljive ali nevarne snovi oziroma glede drugih posebnih metod ali tehnik za namen storitve enega od dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1), ob zavedanju, da so te veščine namenjene za uporabo za teroristične namene.
(c) "training for terrorism" means to provide instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or in other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1), knowing that the skills provided are intended to be used for this purpose.
(c) „usposabljanje za terorizem“ pomeni zagotavljanje navodil glede izdelave ali uporabe razstreliv ali drugega orožja ali zdravju škodljive ali nevarne snovi oziroma glede drugih posebnih metod ali tehnik za namen storitve enega od kaznivih dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1) (a) do (h) ob zavedanju, da so te veščine namenjene za uporabo za teroristične namene.
(c) "training for terrorism" means to provide instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or in other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of committing one of the offences listed in Article 1(1) (a) to (h) , knowing that the skills provided are intended to be used for this purpose.
Razumljivo je, da se izključi odstavek 1 točke( i) člena 1 (ter da se zato sklicuje le na točke (a) do (h)), ker si je težko predstavljati, da je cilj usposabljanje za terorizem le grožnja s terorističnim kaznivim dejanjem.
It would seem logical to exclude point (i) from Article 1(1) (and consequently to refer only to points (a) to (h ) ), since it is very difficult to conceive that the purpose of train ing for terrorism would be the threat to commit a terrorist offence.
Člen 3 – odstavek 2 – točka (d)
Article 3 - paragraph 2 - point (d)
(d) velike tatvine z namenom storitve enega od dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1);
(d) aggravated theft with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1);
(d) velike tatvine z namenom storitve enega od kaznivih dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1);
(d) aggravated theft with a view to committing one of the offences listed in Article 1(1);
Člen 3 – odstavek 2 – točka (e)
Article 3 - paragraph 2 - point (e)
(e) izsiljevanje s ciljem, da se zakrivi eno od dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1);
(e) extortion with a view to the perpetration of one of the acts listed in Article 1(1);
(e) izsiljevanje s ciljem, da se zakrivi eno od kaznivih dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1);
(e) extortion with a view to the perpetration of one of the offences listed in Article 1(1);
Člen 3 – odstavek 2 – točka (f)
Article 3 - paragraph 2 - point (f)
(f) izdelava lažnih upravnih dokumentov s ciljem, da se izvrši eno od dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1)(a) do (h) in členu 2(2)(b).
(f) drawing up false administrative documents with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) and Article 2(2)(b).
(F) izdelava lažnih upravnih dokumentov z namenom storitve od kaznivih dejanj, naštetih v členu 1(1)(a) do (h) in členu 2(2)(b).
(f) drawing up false administrative documents with a view to committing one of the offences listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) and Article 2(2)(b).
Države članice zagotovijo, da so dejanja iz odstavkov 2(a), (b) in (c) tega člena inkriminirana ob ustreznem spoštovanju obveznosti glede svobode govora in svobode združevanja, ki jih morajo te države članice spoštovati, še zlasti obveznosti glede svobode tiska in svobode govora v drugih medijih, ter ob spoštovanju zaupnosti korespondence, med drugim tudi vsebine elektronskih sporočil in drugih oblik elektronske korespondence .
Member States shall ensure that the acts referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (c) of this Article are criminalised with due respect for the obligations relating to freedom of speech and freedom of association by which those States are bound, in particular the obligations relating to freedom of the press and freedom of speech in other media , and with due respect for the confidentiality of correspondence, including the content of e-mail and other kinds of electronic correspondence.
Inkriminacija dejanj, navedenih v odstavku 2(a), (b) in (c) ne bo zmanjšala ali omejila razširjanja informacij za znanstvene, akademske, umetniške ali poročevalske namene ter izražanja radikalnih, polemičnih ali spornih stališč v javnih razpravah o občutljivih političnih vprašanjih, vključno s terorizmom.“
The criminalisation of the acts covered in paragraph 2(a) to (c) shall not have the effect of reduc ing or restrict ing the dissemination of information for scientific , academic, artistic or reporting purposes, the expression of radical, polemic or controversial views in the public debate on sensitive political questions, including terrorism.
Člen 3 – odstavek 3 b (novo)
Article 3 - paragraph 3 b (new)
Države članice tudi zagotovijo, da je inkriminacija dejanj iz odstavka 2(a), (b) in (c) tega člena izvedena tako, da je sorazmerna z vrsto kaznivega dejanja in okoliščinami, v katerih je bilo to storjeno, glede na zakonite cilje in nujen obstoj tovrstnih ciljev v demokratični družbi, in izključuje vse oblike arbitrarnosti ali diskriminatornega obravnavanja.
Member States shall also ensure that the criminalisation of the acts referred to in paragraph 2(a) to (c) of this Article is effected in a way which is proportionate to the nature and the circumstances of the offence , having regard to the legitimate aims pursued and the necessity thereof in a democratic society , and exclude s any form of arbitrariness and discriminatory or racist treatment.
Z vidika usklajenosti besedila je v določbi potrebno izrecno opozoriti na temeljna načela sorazmernosti, nujnosti in nediskriminacije.
In order to ensure balance in the text, a specific reference must be made to the basic principles of proportionality, necessity and non-discrimination.
Člen 9 – odstavek 1 a
Article 9 - paragraph 1 a
1a Vsaka država članica uvede tudi svojo sodno pristojnost za kazniva dejanja iz člena 3(2)(a) do (c), kadar je bilo kaznivo dejanje namenjeno izvršitvi kaznivega dejanja iz člena 1 ali je privedlo do nje in za tako kaznivo dejanje velja sodna pristojnost države članice po katerem koli od meril, določenih v odstavku 1(a) do (e) tega člena. “
Each Member State shall also establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c) where the offence was directed towards or resulted in the carrying out of an offence referred to in Article 1 and such offence is subject to the jurisdiction of the Member State under any of the criteria set out in paragraph 1(a) to (e) of this Article. "
Države članice se lahko odločijo, da ne bodo uporabljale določb o sodni pristojnosti iz odstavkov 1(b) in (e) ali da jih bodo uporabljale le v posebnih primerih ali okoliščinah za kazniva dejanja iz člena 3(2)(a) do (c) in člena 4, če so povezana s kaznivimi dejanji iz člena 3(2)(a) do (c).
A Member State may decide not to apply , or to apply only in specific cases or under specific circumstances , the jurisdictional provisions in paragraph 1(d) and (e) in respect of the offences referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c) and in Article 4, in so far as they are linked to the offences referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c). "
Od držav članic naj se ne bi zahtevala vzpostavitev sodne pristojnosti za tri nova kazniva dejanja, storjena zunaj njihovega ozemlja, ker je to občutljivo vprašanje, katerega pojmovanje se med državami članicami zelo razlikuje.
Member States should not be required to establish their jurisdiction extra-territorially as regards the three new offences, since this is a highly sensitive matter, the perception of which varies greatly from one Member State to another.
Odločitev o uporabi pravil o sodni pristojnosti, določeni v točkah (d) in (e) člena 9, je treba prepustiti državam članicam.
The Member States should thus be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9 (d) and (e) .
Evropska unije, ki si je za cilj zadala, da bo državljanom zagotovila visoko stopnjo varnosti znotraj območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, ni čakala z odzivom, saj je bila ogrožena varnost 500 milijonov prebivalcev in je bilo treba zavarovati temeljne vrednote in načela, na katerih temelji Unija.
The European Union (EU) - which has set out to provide its citizens with a high level of security in an area of freedom, security and justice - reacted without delay, since the safety of its 500 million inhabitants was at stake and the basic values and principles on which the EU is founded had to be protected.
V mesecih po napadih v New Yorku je bila sprejeta vrsta ukrepov, med katerimi je okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/475/PNZ o boju proti terorizmu, katerega namen je približati opredelitve terorističnih kaznivih dejanj v posameznih državah članicah in zagotoviti, da se določijo ustrezne kazni za fizične in pravne osebe, ki so storile kazniva dejanja ali so odgovorne zanje.
Hence a whole series of measures was adopted over the months following the attacks in New York, including Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on action to combat terrorism (the purpose of which is to further approximate the definitions of terrorist offences in the various Member States and to ensure that suitable sanctions can be imposed on natural or legal persons who perpetrate or who are responsible for such offences).
Naloga je še posebej težka, ker se orodja in metode, ki jih teroristi uporabljajo, prenavljajo in postajajo raznovrstna.
This task is rendered all the more difficult on account of the fact that the tools and the methods used by terrorists have been redesigned and diversified.
Razvoj informacijske in komunikacijske tehnologije, zlasti interneta, teroristom zagotavlja pravo svetovno platformo, s katere lahko z najmanjšim stroškom in tveganjem razširjajo propagandna sporočila ter spletna navodila in priročnike za usposabljanje.
The development of information and communication technologies (in particular the Internet), provides terrorists with a genuine world platform from which to disseminate (at minimum cost and risk) propaganda messages and on-line instructions and training manuals.
Evropska komisija je zato, da bi EU in njenim državam članicam omogočila učinkovitejše soočanje s sodobnim terorizmom in njegovim novim načinom delovanja, predlagala revizijo okvirnega sklepa iz leta 2002
With a view to enabling the EU and its Member States to respond more effectively to modern terrorism and the latter's new modus operandi , the Commission has proposed revising the 2002 framework decision
UL L 164, 22.06.2002, str.
OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p.
3-7. ter njegovo uskladitev s konvencijo Sveta Evrope iz leta 2005 za preprečevanje terorizma
3-7 and bringing it into line with the Council of Europe's 2005 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism,
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Treaties/Html/196.htm , in sicer, da se v pojem terorizma vključi določene posebne pripravljalne akte, kot so javno spodbujanje k terorističnim kaznivim dejanjem ter novačenje in usposabljanje za teroristične dejavnost.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/196.htm namely the inclusion of the concept of terrorism in certain specific preparatory acts: public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism.
Poročevalka pozdravlja pripravljenost Komisije za okrepitev dejavnosti Evropske unije v boju proti novačenju in usposabljanju za teroristične dejavnosti ter meni, da obstaja prava dodana vrednost, ki izhaja iz vključitve te dejavnosti v celovit institucionalni okvir EU (brez dolgih postopkov podpisovanja in ratifikacije), ki bo za posebne pripravljalne akte predvidela enotno pravno ureditev glede narave in višine kazenskih sankcij ter jim omogočila uporabo mehanizmov sodelovanja EU, ki se nanašajo na okvirni sklep iz leta 2002
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's intention to step up EU action to combat recruitment and training for terrorism and considers that there is genuine added value to be derived from incorporating such action into the EU's integrated institutional framework (no lengthy signing and ratification procedures), from providing for those specific preparatory acts a uniform legal framework as regards the nature and the level of penal sanctions, and from enabling the EU's cooperation mechanisms relating to the 2002 framework decision
Na primer Sklep Sveta 2005/671/PNZ z dne 20. septembra 2005 o izmenjavi informacij in sodelovanju na področju terorističnih kaznivih dejanj (UL L 253, 29.09.2005, str.
For example, Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation in respect of terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p.
Poročevalka vseeno meni, da bi predlog Komisije, ki predvideva inkriminacijo „javnega spodbujanja k terorističnemu kaznivemu dejanju“, lahko predstavljal nevarnost za temeljne svoboščine in pravice, saj ne gre le za kaznovanje samih terorističnih kaznivih dejanj, ampak tudi za izrečene ali zapisane besede, za katere se domneva, da so povzročile kaznivo dejanje ali lahko imajo tak učinek.
The rapporteur considers, however, that the Commission proposal (which provides for 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' to be criminalised) could pose a threat to fundamental rights and freedoms, since penalties would no longer be imposed solely on terrorist offences themselves but also on words (either spoken or written) which are deemed to have caused a terrorist offence to be committed or may simply have that effect.
Poročevalka je glede včasih nejasnega ločevanja v praksi med svobodo izražanja in kršitvijo zakonodaje zaskrbljena, da ne bi te pomanjkljivosti odprle pot zlorabam.
And since the dividing line between freedom of speech and law-breaking is in practice sometimes rather blurred, the rapporteur fears that such shortcomings may open the door to abuse.
Zato predlaga v osnutku poročila določeno število sprememb za ponovno uskladitev besedila Komisije ter izboljšanje ravni njene pravne varnosti.
Hence she suggests in this draft report that a number of changes should be made in order to shift the balance within the Commission text and to increase the level of legal certainty therein.
To zadeva predvsem naslednja vprašanja: pojem „javnega izzivanja“ in njegovo opredelitev, jamstvo na področju varstva temeljnih svoboščin, inkriminacije poskusa storitve enega od treh novih kaznivih dejanj ter pravila glede pristojnosti, ki se zanje uporabljajo.
This mainly concerns the following points: the concept of 'public provocation' and the definition thereof, safeguards relating to the protection of fundamental freedoms, the criminalisation of any attempt to commit one of the three new offences and the jurisdictional rules applicable thereto.
Pojem „javnega spodbujanje k terorističnemu kaznivemu dejanju"
The concept of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence'
Poročevalka meni, da je treba poostriti opredelitev „javnega spodbujanja k terorističnim kaznivim dejanjem".
The rapporteur considers that the definition of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' should be tightened up.
Meni, da lahko pojem „spodbujanje" ob upoštevanju njegovega nejasnega obsega povzroči zmedo, zato naj bi se nadomestil z „napeljevanjem”, ki se pogosteje uporablja v jeziku kazenskega prava.
Firstly, she believes the very term 'provocation' may create confusion on account of its imprecision and that it should therefore be replaced by the term 'incitement', which is more commonly used in legal language.
Komisija je zato v predlogu
Furthermore, the Commission includes the concept of 'public incitement to violence or hatred' in its proposal
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0664:FIN:FR:PDF. okvirnega sklepa o boju proti rasizmu in ksenofobiji obdržala pojem „javno napeljevanje k nasilju ali k sovraštvu", enako se je odločil tudi Svet v svoji orientacijski razpravi z dne 26. februarja 2008
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0664:FIN:FR:PDF for a framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (a choice also made by the Council in its 26 February 2008 guideline
Poročevalka meni, da je pri vsebini opredelitve treba natančneje določiti razpon ravnanj, ki se lahko inkriminirajo.
Concerning the substance of the definition, the rapporteur thinks that the range of behaviour which may be criminalised should be more strictly delineated.
Zaščitni ukrepi na področju varstva človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin
Safeguards relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Poročevalka odločno podpira, da se v določbo besedila vnese zaščitne klavzule, enakovredne tistim iz člena 12 Konvencije Sveta Evrope o preprečevanju terorizma.
The rapporteur firmly supports the incorporation into the text of safeguard clauses equivalent to those laid down in Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.
Čeprav je Komisija v svojem predlogu opredelitve „javnega spodbujanja”, „novačenja” in „usposabljanja” vnesla dobesedno iz konvencije, je izpustila zaščitne ukrepe, določene v členu12, za katere Svet Evrope meni, da so s temi inkriminacijami neločljivo povezani, ker so pomembni za njihovo interpretacijo.
Although in its proposal the Commission has incorporated almost word for word the definitions of 'public provocation', 'recruitment' and 'training' which are contained in that convention, it has omitted the safeguards provided for in Article 12 which the Council of Europe itself regards as indissociable from those concepts, since they have an essential role to play in interpreting them.
Poročevalka želi odpraviti to pomanjkljivost ter neusklajenost zaradi vnosa novih določb v besedilo, da bi države članice opozorili, da morajo spoštovati listino EU o temeljnih pravicah in njihove obveznosti na področju svobode izražanja in združevanja ter da morajo biti inkriminacije sorazmerne „glede na zakonite cilje in nujen obstoj tovrstnih ciljev v demokratični družbi” ter izključevati „vse oblike arbitrarnosti ali diskriminatornega ali rasističnega obravnavanja”.
The rapporteur wishes to remedy this omission and the resulting imbalance by incorporating into the text new provisions intended to remind the Member States on the one hand of the need for them to uphold the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and to meet their obligations as regards freedom of speech and freedom of association, and on the other hand of the fact that penalties must be proportionate ‘having regard to the legitimate aims pursued and the necessity thereof in a democratic society’ and exclude ‘any form of arbitrariness or of discriminatory or racist treatment’.
Zaščitne klavzule so po mnenju poročevalke pomembne za pravno varnost evropskih državljanov ter za skladnost s stališčem Sveta Evrope.
In the rapporteur’s opinion, such safeguard clauses are essential both in terms of legal certainty for European citizens and in terms of consistency with the Council of Europe’s position.
Inkriminacija poskusa
Criminalisation of attempts
Poročevalka glede tega vprašanja enako kot Komisija v členu 4(2) izključuje vsako odgovornost do inkriminacije poskusa storitve enega od treh novih kaznivih dejanj iz člena 3(2)(a) do (c).
In this respect the rapporteur is in agreement with the Commission which, in Article 4(2) of its proposal, excludes any obligation to criminalise an attempt to commit one of the three new offences listed in Article 3(2)(a) to (c).
V Svetu se razpravlja o inkriminaciji poskusa "novačenja" in poskusa "usposabljanja", nekatere države članice so temu naklonjene, druge nasprotujejo.
Within the Council, criminalising an attempt at ‘recruitment’ and an attempt at ‘training’ has nonetheless been discussed – some of the Member States being in favour and the others opposed.
(Poskus "javnega spodbujanja" se težko določi, zato je bila možnost inkriminacije izločena že na začetku).
(An attempt at ‘public provocation’ is difficult to conceive, hence the possibility of making it a criminal offence was eliminated straight away.)
Končna rešitev, ki jo je sprejel Svet v svoji orientacijski razpravi 18. aprila 2008 – enako tudi Svet Evrope v konvenciji o preprečevanju terorizma – , je ena od neobveznih inkriminacij poskusa novačenja in usposabljanja.
The arrangement finally adopted by the Council in its 18 April 2008 guideline (and also by the Council of Europe in the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism) is that of optional criminalisation of attempted recruitment and training.
Poročevalka meni, da je takšna rešitev ustreznejša od obvezne inkriminacije, ki jo je predlagalo določeno število držav članic, ter da je bolje sprejeti besedilo Komisije, zato se k tej točki ne vloži predloga spremembe.
Although the rapporteur regards this arrangement as more reasonable than the mandatory criminalisation proposed by certain Member States, the rapporteur considers that it would be better to accept the Commission’s wording and hence not to table an amendment on this point.
Pravila glede pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo za nova kazniva dejanja
The jurisdictional rules applicable to the new offences
Poročevalka enako kot Svet meni, da gre novi odstavek 1a, ki ga je Komisija vnesla v člen 9 okvirnega sklepa, predaleč in se ga zato ne ohrani.
Like the Council the rapporteur considers that the new paragraph 1a incorporated by the Commission into Article 9 of the framework decision goes much too far and should thus be dropped.