natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Prav tako se ne strinja za zamisljivo, da se od držav članic zahteva 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.
She also disagrees with the idea of requiring the Member States to establish their jurisdiction extraterritorially 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.
Zato predlaga, da se odločitev o uporabi pravil o sodni pristojnosti, določeni v točkah (d) in (e) člena 9, prepusti državam članicam.
Hence she proposes that the Member States should be allowed to choose whether or not to apply the jurisdictional rules laid down in Article 9(d) and (e).
Vsekakor je to prvotno predlagalo nekaj delegacij v Svetu.
This is in any case what had initially been proposed by a number of delegations within the Council.
Poročevalka resno jemlje nevarnost terorizma in je zaskrbljena, ker se zadnja leta množi število spletnih strani s teroristično propagando (sedaj jih je okoli 5000) ter zaradi vpliva, ki ga lahko imajo zlasti v smislu radikalizacije ravnanj in novačenja za teroristične dejavnosti.
The rapporteur takes the terrorist threat very seriously and is concerned at the huge increase over the last few years in the number of terrorist-propaganda sites (of which there are currently approximately 5000) and at the impact which those sites may have, particularly in terms of the radicalisation of behaviour and of recruitment to the terrorist cause.
Kljub temu meni, da je kljub spopadanju s to težavo pomembno, da se posebna skrb nameni načinu, kako se to izvaja, ker obstaja na tako občutljivem področju nevarnost, da pripravljenost za izboljšanje varnosti evropskih državljanov ne bi dejansko privedla do omejevanja njihovih pravic in svoboščin.
She nonetheless considers that, although tackling the problem is essential, particular care should be taken over how this is done, since in such a sensitive area the risk is that efforts to increase the security of European citizens will in practice result in restrictions on those citizens’ rights and freedoms.
Njena glavna skrb je, da se doseže usklajeno in pravno jasno besedilo, ki bo dopuščalo večjo učinkovitost v boju proti terorizmu in visoko raven varstva človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.
Her first concern is thus to draw up a balanced and legally clear text which will enable greater effectiveness in the fight against terrorism to be combined with a high level of protection for human rights and basic freedoms.
o predlogu okvirnega Sklepa Sveta o spremembi Okvirnega sklepa 2002/475/PNZ o boju proti terorizmu
on the proposal for a Council framework decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism
Okvirni sklep 2002/475/PNZ je bil eden prvih temeljev boja proti terorizmu v Evropski uniji.
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA was a landmark in the combating of terrorism in the EU.
Z njim se je v vseh državah članicah uskladila definicija terorizma, uskladile pa so se tudi kazni za tovrstno ravnanje.
It enabled the definition of terrorism, and the penalties for it, to be harmonised across the Member States.
Da se ta pravni arzenal posodobi in se še prav posebej vzpostavi ustrezen pravni okvir za kibernetski terorizem, je Komisija pripravila predlog o spremembi okvirnega sklepa, v katerem izvirnemu besedilu dodaja tri kazniva dejanja:
The Commission has submitted a proposal for the amendment of that Framework Decision with the aim of updating that legal arsenal and, above all, with the clear intention of establishing an appropriate legal framework against cyberterrorism.
· javno spodbujanje k terorističnemu kaznivemu dejanju
§ public provocation to commit terrorist offences;
· novačenje za teroristične dejavnosti
§ recruitment for terrorism, and
· usposabljanje za teroristične dejavnosti
§ training for terrorism.
Komisija se je pri tem v veliki meri naslonila na konvencijo Sveta Evrope o preprečevanju terorizma, ki ravno tako navaja te tri vrste kaznivih dejanj.
The Commission has to a large extent based its proposal on the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which, inter alia , recognises those three types of criminal offence.
Mogoče se na prvi pogled sicer to zdi malo, a ta tri kazniva dejanja so nesporno dodana vrednost, saj se z njimi razširja področje uporabe okvirnega sklepa:
Despite appearances, the inclusion of those three offences is unquestionably of added value since it broadens the scope of the Framework Decision:
Glej prilogo h konvenciji Sveta Evrope. ); in
See the Annex to the Council of Europe Convention. ), and
· drugič, pravna ureditev iz okvirnega sklepa je zelo popolna in na primer določa sankcije, ki bi se avtomatično uporabljale za našteta kazniva dejanja.
§ Secondly, the legal regime established by the Framework Decision is very comprehensive, including, for example, a system of penalties that would apply automatically to the three offences mentioned.
Seveda pa je izredno pomembno, da države članice kar se da hitro ratificirajo konvencijo Sveta Evrope o preprečevanju terorizma, saj bi vzporedna in kombinirana uporaba obeh instrumentov ponudila optimalna jamstva za državljane Unije in državljane držav članic Sveta Evrope.
Nevertheless, it is essential for the Member States to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism as quickly as possible, since the parallel and combined implementation of both those instruments would provide maximum guarantees for citizens of the Union and nationals of the member states of the Council of Europe.
Kar zadeva varovanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, je zelo pomembno, da je od samega začetka jasno, da aktualna pravna ureditev polno jamči za te pravice, še zlasti za svobodo izražanja misli in združevanja, naj bo to z okvirnim sklepom (člen 1(2)), instrumenti Evropske unije (člen 6 PEU in Listina o temeljnih pravicah EU) ali Evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah in temeljnih svoboščinah, katere načela in sodna praksa veljata za EU.
As regards the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is vital to make it clear from the outset that, under the current legal framework, those rights, and particularly the freedom of expression and of association, are fully guaranteed at the level both of the Framework Decision (Article 1(2)) and of the European Union (Article 6 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), as well as in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to whose principles and relevant case law the EU is subject.
Ne bo pa odveč, da se v okvirni sklep jasno zapišeta svoboda izražanja misli in združevanja ter Listina o temeljnih pravicah.
There is nothing superfluous in making clarifications to the Framework Decision that lay the emphasis on freedom of expression and association or refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Kljub temu je zelo pomembno, da se jasno zapiše, da že sam pravni sistem Unije v celoti ščiti človekove pravice.
Nevertheless, it is vital to make it clear that the EU legal system, per se, fully protects human rights.
Treba se je odločno upreti željam, da bi boju proti terorizmu zoperstavili varovanje človekovih pravic (kar bi lahko pomenilo, da boj proti terorizmu lahko vodimo le na škodo človekovih pravic): cilja namreč še zdaleč nista nezdružljiva, saj je glavna utemeljitev za boj proti terorizmu prav zaščita človekovih pravic.
Any attempt to counterpose the combating of terrorism and the protection of human rights (implying that terrorism can only be combated to the detriment of human rights) should be emphatically discarded: far from being mutually incompatible objectives, the protection of human rights is the main justification for the combating of terrorism.
Dihotomija je umetna, pravno napačna in politično nevarna.
Any notion of a dichotomy is artificial, legally flawed and politically dangerous.
Glede usposabljanja za teroristične dejavnosti predlagamo, da tudi poskus storitve tega kaznivega dejanja postane kazniv, saj lahko pride do primerov odkritja in uničenja infrastrukture še pred njeno uporabo, zato je treba biti pripravljen tudi nanje.
Lastly, with regard to training for terrorism, it is suggested that attempting to provide training should also be qualified an offence, since there is a real possibility of training facilities being discovered and dismantled before they have been used, and this must be taken into consideration.
Poudariti velja, da se bodo z njim države članice lahko ne le zoperstavile kibernetskemu terorizmu, ampak bodo lahko tudi z vsemi sredstvi in povsod nevtralizirale vse oblike sporočil javnosti, katerih namen je javno spodbujanje ali apologija terorizma.
It should be highlighted that the Commission proposal would enable the Member States not only to counteract cyberterrorism, but also to neutralise any publicity that constitutes public provocation to commit terrorism, or apologias for it, via any medium and in any place.
Iz vseh naštetih razlogov lahko predlog Komisije sprejmemo, pod pogojem, da bodo upoštevane v tem poročilu predlagane spremembe.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission proposal should be supported, subject solely to the amendments proposed in this report.
Odbor za pravne zadeve poziva Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoje poročilo vključi naslednje predloge sprememb:
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affaire, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(4a) Čeprav je prednostna naloga boj proti kibernetskemu terorizmu, je vseeno prav, da postane kaznivo tudi javno spodbujanje k terorističnemu dejanju v vseh državah članicah Unije, to pa zaradi tega, ker je treba z vsemi sredstvi in povsod nevtralizirati vse oblike sporočil javnosti, ki pomenijo javno spodbujanje ali apologijo terorizma.
(4a) While the combating of cyberterrorism is a priority, the relevance of criminalising public provocation in all the EU Member States also stems from the need to neutralise any type of publicity that constitutes public provocation to commit terrorism, or apologias for it, via any medium and in any place.
(12a) Spremembe iz tega predloga dopolnjujejo določbe konvencije Sveta Evrope o preprečevanju terorizma z dne 16. maja 2005, zato je nujno, da vzporedno z začetkom veljavnosti tega sklepa vse države članice v najkrajšem možnem času ratificirajo to konvencijo.
(12a) The amendments contained in this proposal are complementary to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 16 May 2005, and it is therefore essential, in parallel with the entry into force of this Decision, that all Member States ratify that Convention.
Člen 1 – točka –1 (novo)
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Sklep 2002/475/PNZ
Decision 2002/475/JHA
Člen 1(2) se nadomesti z naslednjim:
Article 1, paragraph 2, is replaced by the following:
Treba je posodobiti besedilo člena 1(2) okvirnega sklepa in vnesti sklicevanje na Listino o temeljnih pravicah EU.
Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision should be updated with a reference to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Prav je tudi, da jasno opredelimo dve temeljni svoboščini, katerima bi napačno tolmačenje okvirnega sklepa lahko škodovalo, in sicer svobodo združevanja in svobodo izražanja misli.
Similarly, it would be appropriate to emphasise the two fundamental freedoms liable to be prejudiced by erroneous interpretation of the Framework Decision: freedom of association and freedom of expression.
„Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da postane poskus storitve kaznivega dejanja iz člena 1(1) in člena 3, z izjemo posedovanja iz člena 1(1)(f) in kaznivih dejanj iz člena 1(1)(i) in člena 3(2)(a) do (c) , kazniv.“
"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 1(1) and Article 3, with the exception of possession as provided for in Article 1(1)(f) and the offences referred to in Article 1(1)(i) and Article 3(2)(a) to (c) , is made punishable.".
„Vsaka država članica sprejme potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da postane poskus storitve kaznivega dejanja iz člena 1(1) in člena 3, z izjemo posedovanja iz člena 1(1)(f) in kaznivih dejanj iz člena 1(1)(i) in člena 3(2)(a) in (b) , kazniv.“
"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to commit an offence referred to in Article 1(1) and Article 3, with the exception of possession as provided for in Article 1(1)(f) and the offences referred to in Article 1(1)(i) and Article 3(2)(a) and (b) , is made punishable.".
Nujno je treba poskus usposabljanja za teroristične dejavnosti obravnavati kot kaznivo dejanje v vseh državah članicah EU.
It is necessary for attempted training to be considered an offence in all the EU Member States.
Vsekakor je treba realno – in ne zgolj teoretično – predvideti, da bo prišlo do primerov odkritja in uničenja infrastrukture še pred njeno uporabo.
There is a very real possibility of training facilities being discovered and dismantled before they have been used, and this is something that must be taken into consideration.
o spremembi člena 121 poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta o postopku pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti
on amendment of Rule 121 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on proceedings before the Court of Justice
– ob upoštevanju pisma predsednika Odbora za pravne zadeve z dne 26. septembra 2007,
– having regard to the letter from the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs of 26 September 2007,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve ( A6‑0324/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A6‑0324/2008 ),
Člen 121 – odstavek 3a (novo)
Rule 121 - paragraph 3a (new)
Predsednik predloži ugotovitve ali se v imenu Parlamenta pridruži postopkom pred sodiščem po tem, ko se posvetuje s pristojnim odborom.
The President shall submit observations or intervene on behalf of Parliament in court proceedings after consult ing the committee responsible .
Če predsednik ne namerava upoštevati mnenja pristojnega odbora, o tem obvesti odbor in zadevo preda konferenci predsednikov ter navede razloge.
Where the President intends to depart from the recom me ndation of the committee responsible , he shall inform the committee accordingly and shall refer the matter to the Conference of Presidents , stating his reasons.
Če konferenca predsednikov sprejme stališče, da Parlamentu izjemoma ni treba predložiti ugotovitev ali se pridružiti postopkom pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, ko gre za sodbo o pravni veljavnosti akta Parlamenta, se zadeva nemudoma predloži plenarnemu zasedanju.
Where the Conference of Presidents takes the view that Parliament should , exceptionally , not submit observations or intervene before the Court of Justice where the legal validity of an act of Parliament is being questioned , the matter shall be submitted to plenary without delay.
Predsednik lahko v nujnih primerih sprejme previdnostne ukrepe zaradi spoštovanja časovnih rokov, ki jih zahteva zadevno sodišče.
In case s of urgency, the President may take precautionary action in order to comply with the time limits prescribed by the court concerned .
V takih primerih se čim prej izvrši postopek, ki je predviden v tem odstavku.
In such case s , the procedure provided for in this paragraph shall be implemented at the earliest opportunity.
Nobena določba poslovnika ne preprečuje pristojnemu odboru, da se odloči o primerni ureditvi postopkov za pravočasen prenos svojega priporočila v nujnih primerih.
Nothing in the Rules prevents the committee responsible from deciding on appropriate procedural arrangements for the timely transmi ssion of its recommendation in cases of urgency.
S pismom z dne 26. septembra 2007 je predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve predstavil predsedniku Odbora za ustavne zadeve predlog glede razlage člena 121 Poslovnika Parlamenta.
By letter dated 26 September 2007, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs presented a proposal to the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs concerning the interpretation of Rule 121 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
Če predsednik vloži tožbo v nasprotju s priporočilom pristojnega odbora, na naslednjem delnem zasedanju Parlamentu predloži sklep o nadaljevanju tožbe.
Should the President bring an action contrary to the recommendation of the committee responsible, he shall put to plenary, at the start of the following part-session, the decision on maintaining the action".
Področje uporabe razlage
Scope of the interpretation
Naslov člena 121 je Postopek pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, 3. odstavek pa se nanaša izrecno na „tožbe“, ki jih predsednik vloži v imenu Parlamenta.
There are also other types of proceedings brought before the Court of Justice in the course of which Parliament may have an interest to intervene or submit observations in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
Če se predsednik odloči, da ne bo sledil takšnemu priporočilu, je treba zadevo za končno odločitev predložiti plenarnemu zasedanju, čeprav lahko predsednik sprejme previdnostni ukrep.
According to current practice, in these cases the Committee on Legal Affairs is consulted on the appropriateness of presenting observations before the Court of Justice, while the President of Parliament takes the final decision under the powers conferred on him by Rule 19(4).
Obstajajo tudi druge vrste postopkov pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti, pri katerih ima Parlament lahko interes, da se jim pridruži ali v zvezi z njimi predloži ugotovitve v skladu z določbami statuta Sodišča.
The Rapporteur believes that the confusion created by the different linguistic versions of the title of Rule 121 (' proceedings ', ' Verfahren ', ' recours ', ' ricors i', etc.) does not concern paragraph 3 in which the term 'action' is translated in all languages uniformly (' Klage ', ' recours ', ' ricorso ', etc.).
Do tega pride zlasti v primeru predhodnih postopkov, v katerih gre za sodbo o veljavnosti zakonodajnega akta in še posebej, če sta ta akt skupaj sprejela Parlament in Svet.
For the above reasons, the Rapporteur considers that it would not be justifiable to extend the scope of the terminus technicus 'action' ('recours', 'Klage', 'ricorso', etc), which is used in article 121(3), merely by virtue of the wider meaning of the term used in some linguistic versions of the Rule's title.
V skladu s sedanjo prakso se v takšnih primerih zaprosi Odbor za pravne zadeve za mnenje glede primernosti predložitve ugotovitev pred Sodiščem, predsednik Parlamenta pa sprejme dokončno odločitev v skladu s pristojnostmi, ki jih ima v skladu s členom 19(4) Poslovnika.
As it is clear that the scope of paragraph 3 is limited to 'actions' initiated by Parliament, it could not be interpreted widely so as to also include observations and interventions, which are qualitatively different actions.
V omenjenem pismu predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve predlaga, da se člen 121(3) Poslovnika razlaga tako, da ne zajema le tožb, ki jih vloži Parlament, temveč tudi ugotovitve in pridružitev postopkom v zadevah pred Sodiščem.
It could be argued that there might still be a legitimate reason for establishing a specific procedure to decide whether Parliament should lodge observations or intervene before the Court in cases of disagreement between the President and the committee responsible.
V praksi bi to pomenilo, da bi v primerih, ko predsednik in Odbor za pravne zadeve ne soglašata, predsednik moral plenarnemu zasedanju v odločanje predložiti ne le odločitve o tem, ali vložiti tožbo, temveč tudi o tem, ali Sodišču predložiti ugotovitve in ali se pridružiti postopkom pred Sodiščem.
This principle is enshrined in a letter of 10 December 1997 by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, Mr Willy de Clercq, to the President of the European Parliament, Mr José Maria Gil-Robles, determining the criteria that should be followed by the European Parliament when deciding whether to submit observations in preliminary proceedings.
Poročevalec meni, da zmeda, do katere je prišlo zaradi razlik v jezikovnih različicah naslova člena 121 Poslovnika („proceedings“, „Verfahren“, „recours“, „ricorsi“, itd.), ne zadeva 3. odstavka tega člena, v katerem je izraz „tožba“ enotno preveden v vseh jezikih („Klage“, „recours“, „ricorso“, itd.).
Nevertheless, the Rapporteur is aware of two cases where the Committee on Legal Affairs advised the President not to defend before the Court of Justice the validity of an act adopted by codecision.
Zaradi navedenih razlogov poročevalec meni, da ne bi bilo utemeljeno razširiti področja uporabe tehničnega izraza „tožba“ („recours“, „Klage“, „ricorso“, itd.), ki se uporablja v členu 121(3) Poslovnika, le zaradi širšega pomena izraza, ki je v nekaterih jezikovnih različicah uporabljen v naslovu tega člena.
In both cases the President's decision derived from the established practice of defending the validity of legal acts adopted by codecision in conformity with the criteria determined by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Ker je jasno, da je področje uporabe člena 3 omejeno na „tožbe“, ki jih vloži Parlament, ga ni mogoče razlagati širše, da bi vključeval tudi ugotovitve in pridružitev postopkom, pri katerih gre za kakovostno drugačne ukrepe.
It should be noted that although paragraph 3 of article 121 was already in force in the second case, the President did not ask the Plenary to confirm his decision; this paragraph was correctly interpreted as referring only to 'actions' brought by the President on behalf of Parliament.
Lahko bi rekli, da še vedno obstaja legitimni razlog za oblikovanje posebnega postopka za odločanje o tem, ali naj Parlament predloži ugotovitve Sodišču ali se pridruži postopkom pred Sodiščem v zadevah, ko pride do nesoglasja med predsednikom in pristojnim odborom.
He believes that, as a matter of principle, Parliament should defend the validity of its acts in cases brought before the Court of Justice in accordance with the presumption of legality and the principle of loyal cooperation vis-à-vis its co-legislator (the Council).
Na splošno se razume, da je Parlament, po tem, ko je sprejel nek pravni akt, odgovoren za zagovarjanje njegove veljavnosti pred Sodiščem.
The Rapporteur, however, considers that there might be exceptional cases where the Parliament could be empowered to take a different view from that taken in the codecision procedure, provided that there has been an important change of legal circumstances (e.g. Treaty reform, entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, case-law) which may render an act incompatible with the Union's primary law.
To načelo je zajeto v pismu, ki ga je 10. decembra 1997 predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve in pravice državljanov Willy de Clercq poslal predsedniku Evropskega parlamenta Joséju Marii Gil-Roblesu in v katerem je opredelil merila, ki bi jih moral upoštevati Evropski parlament pri odločanju o tem, ali naj predloži ugotovitve v okviru predhodnega postopka.
Such an act would remain in force as adopted under the previous legal framework, but Parliament, lacking the right of initiative, would not be in a position to modify it in order to render it compatible with the new legal circumstances.
S tem se je oblikovalo načelo, po katerem bi moral Parlament predložiti ugotovitve v okviru predhodnega postopka, če gre za pravno veljavnost akta, ki se ga sprejme s soodločanjem, medtem ko ne bi ukrepal pri postopkih, ki se nanašajo na razlago pravnega akta.
It can be argued that, in that particular case, Parliament could have a legitimate reason to decide not to lodge observations or intervene before the Court.