natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– rasizem in ksenofobija,
− racism and xenophobia,
– organiziran ali oborožen rop,
− organised or armed robbery,
– nedovoljena trgovina s kulturnimi dobrinami, vključno s starinami in umetniškimi deli,
− illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
– izsiljevanje in oderuštvo,
− racketeering and extortion,
– ponarejanje industrijskih izdelkov in prodaja takih izdelkov,
− counterfeiting and piracy of products,
– ponarejanje uradnih listin in promet z njimi,
− forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
– ponarejanje plačilnih sredstev,
− forgery of means of payment,
– nedovoljena trgovina s hormonskimi snovmi in drugimi pospeševalci rasti,
− illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
– nedovoljena trgovina z jedrskimi in radioaktivnimi snovmi,
− illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
– trgovina z ukradenimi vozili,
− trafficking in stolen vehicles,
– kazniva dejanja, ki sodijo v pristojnost Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča,
− crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
– ugrabitev letala ali ladje,
− unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
Namen okvirnega sklepa je, da bi se uporabili kar najmanj prisilni ukrepi za osumljence, za katere bi se v nasprotnem primeru najverjetneje uporabili ukrepi pripora pred sojenjem, zato ni smiselno, da se za priznanje in izvršitev odločbe o nadzornih ukrepih ugotavlja identiteta norme.
As this framework decision aims to apply the least coercive measures to suspects who would otherwise most likely be subject to the application of a prison pre-trial measure, it makes no sense to make the recognition and execution of the decision on supervision measures subject to the verification of the dual criminality.
Člen 14 sicer izključuje ugotavljanje identitete norme za navedene kategorije kaznivih dejanj, vendar implicitno dopušča razlog za zavrnitev na podlagi dejstva, da ni identitete norme za vsa kazniva dejanja, ki niso na seznamu.
In fact, Article 14, excluding the verification of dual criminality for the categories of offences listed, implicitly, allows a ground for refusal based on the lack of dual criminality for all the offences not included in the list.
V praksi bi zaradi tega prišlo do še slabše obravnave osumljencev, saj je v primeru, da ni identitete norme, bolj verjetno, da bo osumljenec začasno pridržan, namesto da bi bili v državah članicah, kjer tako ravnanje ni kaznivo, uporabljeni drugi ukrepi brez pridržanja.
This would concretely result in a worse treatment of the suspect as in case of lack of dual criminality it would be more likely that he/she would be subject to provisional detention instead of a non detentive measure applied in a Member States where that behaviour is not punishable.
Poleg tega bi določitev praga treh let za izključitev ugotavljanja identitete norme pomenila, da bi bil izključen obseg uporabe odstavka 1 za primere, za katere je verjetno, da bodo pogostejši, tj. lažja kazniva dejanja.
Moreover, fixing the threshold for the exclusion of the verification of dual criminality in three years would mean leaving out of the scope of Paragraph 1 the cases which are likely to be more frequent: less serious crime.
Kot zadnje bi preverjanje identitete norme moralo postopoma izginiti iz instrumentov, ki temeljijo na vzajemnem priznavanju.
Finally, the verification of double criminality should gradually disappear from instruments founded on mutual recognition.
Določba, ki se s tem predlogom spremembe črta, gre v nasprotno smer in ni bila predvidena v predlogu Evropske komisije.
The provision which this amendment removes is a step in the opposite direction and was not envisaged in the European Commission proposal.
Svet lahko kadar koli po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom v skladu s členom 39(1) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji soglasno odloči, da se seznamu iz odstavka 1 dodajo še druge vrste kaznivih dejanj.
The Council may decide to add other categories of offences to the list in paragraph 1 at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.
Svet glede na poročilo, ki mu je predloženo na podlagi člena 27 tega okvirnega sklepa, preuči, ali je treba seznam razširiti ali spremeniti.
The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted to it pursuant to Article 27 of this Framework Decision, whether the list should be extended or amended.
To določbo je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost z drugimi predlogi sprememb člena 14.
This provision should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the other amendments concerning Article 14.
Pri kaznivih dejanjih, ki niso zajeta v odstavku 1, lahko država izvršitve priznavanje odločbe o nadzornih ukrepih pogojuje s tem, da so dejanja iz sodbe kazniva tudi po pravu države izvršitve, ne glede na elemente ali opis kaznivega dejanja.
For offences other than those covered by paragraph 1, the executing State may make the recognition of the decision on supervision measures subject to the condition that the decision relates to acts which also constitute an offence under the law of the executing State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.
Države članice lahko iz ustavnih razlogov ob sprejetju tega okvirnega sklepa v izjavi, naslovljeni na generalni sekretariat Sveta, navedejo, da ne bodo uporabljale odstavka 1 za nekatera ali vsa kazniva dejanja iz tega odstavka.
Member States may, for constitutional reasons, on the adoption of this Framework Decision, by a declaration notified to the General Secretariat of the Council, declare that they will not apply paragraph 1 in respect of some or all of the offences referred to in that paragraph.
Takšno izjavo je mogoče kadar koli umakniti.
Any such declaration may be withdrawn at any time.
Takšne izjave ali umiki izjav se objavijo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Such declarations or withdrawals of declarations shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
To določbo je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost z drugimi predlogi sprememb člena 14.
This provision should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the other amendments concerning Article 14
Člen 15 – odstavek 1 – točka d
Article 15 - paragraph 1 - point d
(d) se v primerih iz člena 14(3) in, če država izvršitve da izjavo na podlagi člena 14(4), v primerih iz člena 14(1) odločba o nadzornih ukrepih nanaša na dejanja, ki po pravu države izvršitve niso kazniva; vendar se v davčnih, carinskih in deviznih zadevah izvršitev odločbe ne more zavrniti iz razloga, da pravo države izvršitve ne predpisuje iste vrste davka ali da ne vsebuje enakih davčnih, carinskih in deviznih predpisov kot pravo države izdaje;
(d) the decision on supervision measures relates, in the cases referred to in Article 14(3) and, where the executing State has made a declaration under Article 14(4), in the cases referred to in Article 14(1), to an act which would not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State; in tax, customs and currency matters, however, execution of the decision may not be refused on the grounds that the law of the executing State does not prescribe any taxes of the same kind or does not contain any tax, customs or currency provisions of the same kind as the law of the issuing State;
To določbo je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost s predlogi sprememb člena 14.
This provision should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the amendments concerning Article 14.
Če pristojni organ v državi izdaje izda nalog za prijetje ali katero koli drugo izvršljivo sodno odločbo z enakim učinkom, se oseba preda v skladu z okvirnim sklepom o evropskem nalogu za prijetje.
If the competent authority of the issuing State has issued an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect , the person shall be surrendered in accordance with the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant.
Če v primeru kršitve nadzornega ukrepa pristojni organ v državi izdaje izda nalog za prijetje, se oseba preda v skladu z okvirnim sklepom o evropskem nalogu za prijetje.
If, in case of breach of the supervision measure , the competent authority of the issuing State has issued an arrest warrant, the person shall be surrendered in accordance with the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant.
Poročevalec se je v mnenju iz leta 2007 izrecno skliceval na primere kršitve nadzornih ukrepov in na to, da ni potrebe po vzpostavitvi sistema predaje/privedbe vzporedno k evropskemu nalogu za prijetje.
The rapporteur in the opinion delivered in 2007 expressly referred to cases of breaches of the supervision measures and to the need not to create a transfer/surrender system parallel to the European Arrest Warrant.
Sklicevanje na evropski nalog za prijetje je zato zelo dobrodošlo.
The reference to the European Arrest Warrant is therefore mostly welcome.
Člen 21 – odstavek 3
Article 21 - paragraph 3
Vsaka država članica lahko ob prenosu tega okvirnega sklepa ali pozneje obvesti generalni sekretariat Sveta, da bo uporabljala tudi člen 2(1) okvirnega sklepa o evropskem nalogu za prijetje pri odločanju o predaji zadevne osebe državi izdaje.
Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat of the Council, when transposing this Framework Decision or at a later stage, that it will also apply Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant in deciding on the surrender of the person concerned to the issuing State.
Ob upoštevanju namena tega pravnega instrumenta je treba zajeti vsa kazniva dejanja, ne da bi določili prag.
Taking into account the aim of this legal instrument, all offences should be covered, without setting a threshold.
Člen 21 – odstavek 4
Article 21 - paragraph 4
Generalni sekretariat Sveta omogoči vsem državam članicam in Komisiji dostop do informacij, prejetih v skladu s prejšnjim odstavkom.
The General Secretariat of the Council shall make the information received under the previous paragraph available to all Member States and to the Commission.
To določbo je treba črtati, da se doseže skladnost s predlogi sprememb člena 21.
This provision should be deleted in the interests of consistency with the amendments on Article 21.
Priloga 1 – razdelek (f) – točka 2
Annex 1 - Certificate box (f) - point 2
Kolikor gre pri domnevnem kaznivem(-ih) dejanju(-ih) iz točke1 za eno ali več naslednjih kaznivih dejanj, kakor so opredeljena v pravu države izdajateljice, za katera je po pravu države izdajateljice zagrožena zaporna kazen ali ukrep, ki vključuje odvzem prostosti, najmanj treh let, prosimo, da to potrdite z označitvijo enega ali več ustreznih spodnjih razdelkov:
If the alleged offence(s) referred to in point 1 constitute(s) one or more of the following alleged offences, as defined in the law of the issuing State which are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty of a maximum of at least three years, please confirm by ticking the relevant box(es):
– kibernetski kriminal,
− computer-related crime,
– nedovoljena trgovina s hormonskimi snovmi in drugimi pospeševalci rasti;
− illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
­ ­ ­– trgovina z jedrskimi in radioaktivnimi snovmi,
− illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
Priloga 1 – razdelek (f) – točka 3
Annex 1 - Certificate box (f) - point 3
Če domnevno kaznivo(-a) dejanje/dejanja iz točke 1 ni/niso zajeto(-a) v točki 2 ali če se odločba in potrdilo posredujeta državi članici, ki je izjavila, da bo preverila dvojno kaznivost (člen 14(4) Okvirnega sklepa), navedite popoln opis zadevnega(-ih) kaznivega(-ih) dejanja/dejanj:
To the extent that the alleged offence(s) identified under point 1 is (are) not covered by point 2 or if the decision, as well as the certificate are forwarded to a Member State, which has declared that it will verify the double criminality (Article 14(4) of the Framework Decision), please give a full description of the alleged offence(s) concerned:
Priloga 1 – Potrdilo – razdelek (g) – odstavek 3 – pododstavek 1 – alinea 3 a (novo)
Annex 1 - Certificate box (g) - paragraph 3 - subparagraph 1 - indent 3 a (new)
obveznost depozita določenega denarnega zneska ali zagotovitve drugega jamstva bodisi v določenem številu obrokov bodisi v enkratnem znesku;
an obligation to deposit a certain sum of money or to give another type of guarantee, which may either be provided through a specific number of instalments or entirely at once;
Besedilo je črtano zaradi skladnosti s predlogi sprememb člena 8.
In the interests of consistency with the amendments concerning Article 8.
Priloga 1 – Potrdilo – razdelek (g) – odstavek 3 – pododstavek 2 – alinea 3
Annex 1 - Certificate box (g) - paragraph 3 - subparagraph 2 - indent 3
obveznost depozita določenega denarnega zneska ali zagotovitve drugega jamstva bodisi v določenem številu obrokov bodisi v enkratnem znesku.
an obligation to deposit a certain sum of money or to give another type of guarantee, which may either be provided through a specific number of instalments or entirely at once;
V prvem mnenju o tem zakonodajnem predlogu je že bilo poudarjeno, da je pripor pred sojenjem izjemen ukrep, pri katerem je vedno treba upoštevati pravico do prostosti in domnevo nedolžnosti
As already stressed in the first opinion on this legislative proposal, pre-trial detention shall be regarded as an exceptional measure which must be strictly tested against the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence
Člen 6(2) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji navaja, da Unija spoštuje temeljne pravice, kakršne zagotavlja Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (EKČP, 1950) in ki kot splošna načela prava Skupnosti izhajajo iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic.
Article 6(2) TEU provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, 1950) and as they result from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
Temeljne pravice in svoboščine, ki se nanašajo na pripor pred sojenjem in alternative tovrstnega pripora ter so določene v EKČP:
The basic rights or fundamental freedoms that govern pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention and that are determined by the ECHR are as follows:
– člen 5(1) „vsakdo ima pravico do svobode in osebne varnosti“;
- Art. 5(1) "everyone has the right to liberty and security of person";
– člen 6(2) „kdor je obdolžen kaznivega dejanja, velja za nedolžnega, dokler ni v skladu z zakonom dokazana njegova krivda“;
- Art. 6(2) " everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law";
– člen 5(1)(c) „zakonit odvzem prostosti, ki je potreben zato, da bi osebo privedli pred pristojno sodno oblast ob utemeljenem sumu, da je storila kaznivo dejanje, ali kadar je to utemeljeno zato, da bi preprečili storitev kaznivega dejanja ali beg po storjenem kaznivem dejanju“. .
- Art. 5(1)c "the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so" .
V fazi pred sojenjem je zato treba čim pogosteje uporabljati nadzorne ukrepe brez odvzema prostosti.
Consequently, in the pre-trial stage, the widest possible use should be made of non-custodial supervision measures.
Odvzem prostosti v fazi pred sojenjem je načeloma lahko uporabljen kot zadnja možnost samo za preprečitev treh klasičnih nevarnosti, in sicer nevarnosti bega, nevarnosti uničenja dokazov in nevarnosti ponovitve kaznivega dejanja.
Deprivation of liberty in the pre-trial stage may in principle be imposed only as an extrema ratio to prevent three classical situations: danger of flight, danger of suppression of evidence and danger of repetition of offences.
V skupnem evropskem območju pravice brez notranjih meja je treba zagotoviti, da osumljena oseba, ki nima stalnega prebivališča v državi, kjer poteka sojenje, ni obravnavana drugače kot osumljena oseba, ki ima stalno prebivališče v tej državi.
In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that a suspect who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a suspect who is so resident.
Alternativnih ukrepov namesto pripora pred sojenjem do zdaj ni bilo mogoče priznati preko meja, saj ni bil vzpostavljen noben poseben instrument za vzajemno priznavanje, zaradi česar je prišlo do oviranja sodnega varstva posameznikovih pravic.
However, so far alternative measures to pre-trial detention could not be recognised across borders as no specific mutual recognition instrument was in place and this resulted in an obstruction of the judicial protection of individual rights.
Obstaja jasna nevarnost neenake obravnave dveh kategorij oseb – državljanov EU, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča na ozemlju države članice, kjer so osumljeni storitve kaznivega dejanja, in državljanov EU, ki imajo stalno prebivališče.
There is a clear risk of unequal treatment between the two categories - EU citizens who are not residents in the territory of the Member State where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence and EU citizens who are residents.
To bi lahko razumeli tudi kot oviro prostemu gibanju oseb.
Furthermore, that could also be seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega poročevalec odločno podpira sprejetje te zakonodaje, ki bo omogočila vzajemno priznavanje predsodnih nalogov za nadzor.
Taking into account the above-mentioned, the rapporteur strongly supports the adoption of this piece of legislation, which will allow the mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision orders.
Ta instrument bi spodbudil pristojne nacionalne organe, da ne pridržijo oseb, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča v EU, v predsodnem postopku zaradi nevarnosti pobega, ampak jim omogočijo vrnitev v državo članico trenutnega zakonitega in običajnega prebivališča.
This instrument would encourage competent national authorities not to detain EU non-residents in pre-trial process due to the danger of absconding but to let them return to the Member State of their current lawful and ordinary residence.
V tem duhu poročevalec pozdravlja predlog spremembe besedila v smislu, da se upoštevajo tudi njegovi predlogi o razširitvi področja uporabe okvirnega sklepa in se vključi možnost, da osumljenec od pristojnega organa izdaje zahteva, da nalog za nadzor posreduje državi članici, kjer nima običajnega in zakonitega prebivališča.
In this spirit, the rapporteur welcomes the amendment of the text in the sense of taking on board his suggestion to widen the scope of the Framework Decision and to include the possibility for the suspect to request the issuing competent authority to forward the supervision order to a Member State other than the one in which he/she is ordinary and lawfully resident.
Poročevalec dodatno pojasnjuje opredelitev prebivališča.
The rapporteur further clarifies the definition of residence.
Ob upoštevanju cilja predloga je bistveno, da pomen prebivališča ni omejen na „stalno“ prebivališče, ki je že uveljavljen termin Skupnosti.
In the light of the aim of the proposal, it is vital not to restrict the meaning of the residence to the `permanent` residence which is already well-accepted Community terminology.
Vseeno je treba razjasniti, da mora biti prebivališče zakonito in običajno.
However, it should be clarified that the residence should be lawful and ordinary.
V ta namen je treba upoštevati dejanske okoliščine.
To this purpose de facto circumstances should be taken into account.
Namen okvirnega sklepa je, da bi se uporabili kar najmanj prisilni ukrepi za osumljence, ki bi bili v nasprotnem primeru najverjetneje začasno priprti, zato ni smiselno, da se za priznanje in izvršitev odločbe o nadzornih ukrepih ugotavlja identiteta norme.
As this framework decision aims to apply the least coercive measures to suspects who would otherwise most likely be subject to the application of provisional detention, it makes no sense to make the recognition and execution of the decision on supervision measures subject to the verification of the dual criminality.
Člen 14 in odstavek 1(d) člena 15 sicer izključujeta ugotavljanje identitete norme za navedene kategorije kaznivih dejanj, vendar dopuščata razlog za zavrnitev na podlagi dejstva, da ni identitete norme za vsa kazniva dejanja, ki niso na seznamu.
In fact, Article 14 and Article 15 Paragraph 1(d), excluding the verification of dual criminality for the categories of offences listed, allow a ground for refusal based on the lack of dual criminality for all the offences not included in the list.
Poleg tega bi določitev praga treh let za izključitev ugotavljanja identitete norme pomenila, da bi bil izključen obseg uporabe člena 14(1) za primere, za katere je verjetno, da bodo pogostejši, tj. lažja kazniva dejanja.
Moreover, fixing the threshold for the exclusion of the verification of dual criminality in three years would mean leaving out of the scope of Article 14 paragraph 1 the cases which are likely to be more frequent: less serious crime.
Kot zadnje bi preverjanje identitete norme moralo postopoma izginiti iz instrumentov, ki temeljijo na vzajemnem priznavanju.
Finally, the verification of double criminality should gradually disappear from instruments founded on mutual recognition..
Z namenom, da bi zagotovili najboljšo možno obravnavo osumljencev, in do sprejetja daljnosežnega instrumenta na področju postopkovnih jamstev bi bilo primerno, da bi vzpostavili vsaj minimalna postopkovna jamstva za izvajanje in spremembo nadzornih ukrepov ter zlasti pravico osumljenca, da je natančno obveščen v jeziku, ki ga razume.
In the spirit of ensuring the best treatment to the suspect and pending the adoption of a far ‑reaching instrument in the field of procedural safeguards, it would be appropriate to establish, at least, minimum procedural safeguards for execution/modification of supervision measures and notably the right for the suspect to be accurately informed in a language he/she understands.
V zvezi z mehanizmom za privedbo in novim sklicevanjem na evropski nalog za prijetje, se je poročevalec v mnenju iz leta 2007 izrecno skliceval na primere kršitve nadzornih ukrepov in na to, da ni potrebe po vzpostavitvi sistema predaje/privedbe vzporedno k evropskemu nalogu za prijetje.
Concerning the transfer mechanism and the new reference to the European Arrest Warrant, the rapporteur in the opinion delivered in 2007 expressly referred to cases of breaches of the supervision measures and to the need not to create a transfer/surrender system parallel to the European Arrest Warrant.
Sklicevanje na evropski nalog za prijetje je zato dobrodošlo.
The reference to the European Arrest Warrant is, therefore welcome.
Poročevalec vseeno meni, da bi se pristojni organ izdaje moral odločiti za vsak primer posebej, ali bi bilo treba osumljenca v primeru kršitve nadzornega ukrepa prijeti in predati državi članici izdaje.
It is nevertheless the opinion of the rapporteur that the competent issuing authority should decide on a case by case base if, in the case of breach of the supervision measure, the suspect needs to be arrested and surrendered to issuing Member State.
Poleg tega je treba jasno navesti, da morajo biti zajeta vsa kazniva dejanja (brez določitve praga).
It should in addition be clearly stated that all offences should be covered (without setting a threshold).
o finančnem poslovanju in nadzoru evropskih agencij
on financial management and control of EU agencies
– ob upoštevanju poročila Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu z dne 15. oktobra 2008 o nadaljnjem ukrepanju na podlagi sklepov o razrešnicah za leto 2006 ( KOM(2008)0629 ) in spremnega delovnega dokumenta osebja Komisije ( SEC(2008)2579 ),
– having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament of 15 October 2008 on the follow-up to 2006 discharge decisions ( COM(2008)0629 ) and the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document ( SEC(2008)2579 ),