natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ker je pravilen način delovanja Skupnosti, kadar ima zakonodajno pristojnost, sprejemanje zakonodaje prek demokratičnih institucij Unije, Parlamenta in Sveta, v kolikor se zdi to nujno ob upoštevanju načel subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti; ker lahko le sprejetje zakonodaje s primernimi institucionalnimi postopki iz Pogodbe zagotovi pravno varnost, pravno državo, sodno varstvo in izvršljivost ter ker vključuje to tudi spoštovanje institucionalnega ravnovesja, ki ga zajema Pogodba, in omogoča odprtost pri sprejemanju odločitev,
whereas where the Community has legislative competence, the proper way to act is through the adoption of legislation by the democratic institutions of the Union, Parliament and the Council, in so far as this still appears necessary having due regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; whereas it is only by means of the adoption of legislation through the institutional procedures laid down in the Treaty that legal certainty, the rule of law, justiciability and enforceability may be secured, and whereas this also entails respect for the institutional balance enshrined in the Treaty and allows for openness of decision-making,
ker to na splošno, kadar ima Skupnost zakonodajno pristojnost, preprečuje uporabo "mehkega prava" ali "pravil ravnanja iz dokumentov, ki niso pravno zavezujoči,vendar imajo kljub temu nekatere neposredne pravne posledice, ter katerih cilj je dejanski učinek in ki ga lahko tudi dosežejo" Linda Senden, Soft Law, Self-Regulation and Co-Regulation in European Law: Where do they meet?, EJCL, Vol.
whereas, in general, where the Community has competence to legislate, this precludes the use of "soft law" or "[r]ules of conduct that are laid down in instruments which have not been attributed legally binding force as such, but nevertheless may have certain – indirect – legal effects, and that are aimed at and may produce practical effects" Linda Senden," Soft Law, Self-Regulation and Co-Regulation in European Law: Where do they meet?", EJCL, Vol.
, pri čemer so bila ta pravila ravnanja v preteklosti uporabljena za ublažitev pomanjkanja formalne zakonodajne pristojnosti in/ali sredstev za izvrševanje ter so kot taka značilna za mednarodno javno pravo,
, which have been used historically to alleviate a lack of formal law-making capacity and/or means of enforcement and as such are typical of public international law,
ker so instrumenti mehkega prava, kadar jih izrecno določa Pogodba, legitimni, če niso uporabljeni kot nadomestki za zakonodajo, kadar ima Skupnost zakonodajno oblast in ko se ureditev na ravni Skupnosti zdi primerna ob upoštevanju načel subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, saj bi to pomenilo tudi kršitev načela prenesenih posebnih pristojnosti, in ker to še toliko bolj velja za sporočila Komisije, katerih cilj je razlagati zakonodajo Skupnosti; ker predstavljajo pripravljalni dokumenti, kot sta zelena in bela knjiga, tudi legitimno uporabo mehkega prava skupaj z obvestili in smernicami, ki jih je objavila Komisija, da bi razložila, kako izvaja politiko konkurence in državne pomoči,
whereas, where the Treaty expressly provides for them, soft law instruments are legitimate, provided that they are not used as a surrogate for legislation where the Community has legislative power and where Community-wide regulation still appears necessary having due regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, since this would also constitute a breach of the principle of conferred specific powers, and whereas this applies a fortiori to Commission communications purporting to interpret Community legislation; whereas preparatory instruments, such as green and white papers, also constitute a legitimate use of soft law, in common with notices and guidelines published by the Commission in order to explain how it applies competition and state-aid policy,
ker se takih instrumentov, ki jih je mogoče uporabiti kot razlagalna ali pripravljalna orodja za zavezujoče pravne akte, ne bi smelo obravnavati kot zakonodajo ali jim pripisovati učinkovitosti glede ustvarjanja norm,
whereas such instruments, which can be used as interpretative or preparatory tools for binding legislative acts, should neither be treated as legislation nor be given any norm-setting effectiveness,
ker bi takšen položaj ustvaril zmedo in negotovost na področju, na katerem bi morali prevladovati jasnost in pravna varnost v interesu držav članic in državljanov,
whereas such a situation would bring confusion and insecurity to a field in which clarity and legal certainty should prevail, in the interests of the Member States and of the citizens,
ker poleg tega, da spoštuje pravico Komisije do pobude, Parlament podpira tudi svojo pravico, da Komisijo pozove, naj poda zakonodajni predlog (člen 192 Pogodbe ES),
whereas, as well as respecting the right of initiative of the Commission, Parliament also upholds its own right to invite the Commission to make a legislative proposal (Article 192 of the EC Treaty),
ker lahko odprta metoda usklajevanja pomaga pri spodbujanju dosežkov notranjega trga, vendar je sodelovanje Parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi s tem na žalost zelo slabo; ker se je zaradi tega demokratičnega primanjkljaja odprte metode posvetovanja ne bi smelo zlorabljati zato, da nadomesti pomanjkanje zakonodajne pristojnosti Skupnosti ter da se tako državam članicam naloži dejanske obveznosti, ki so enakovredne zakonodaji, vendar se ustvarjajo zunaj zakonodajnih postopkov, določenih v Pogodbi,
whereas the open method of coordination can be of service in promoting the achievement of the internal market but it is regrettable that the involvement of Parliament and the Court of Justice therein is very weak; whereas, because of this democratic deficit in the so-called open method of coordination, it should not be misused to replace the Community's lack of legislative competence and in this way to impose de facto obligations on the Member States that are tantamount to legislation but arise outside the legislative procedures laid down in the Treaty,
ker člen 211 Pogodbe o ES določa: "[d]a bi Komisija zagotovila ustrezno delovanje in razvoj skupnega trga ... oblikuje priporočila ... glede zadev, obravnavanih v tej pogodbi, če je to v njej izrecno predvideno ali po mnenju Komisije potrebno", vendar v skladu s petim odstavkom člena 249 priporočila niso zavezujoča in so v skladu s Sodiščem "ukrepi, ki niso zavezujoči niti za osebe, katerim so namenjeni" Zadeva C-322/88
whereas Article 211 of the EC Treaty provides that "[i]n order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall formulate recommendations ... on matters dealt with in this Treaty, if it expressly so provides or if the Commission considers it necessary", but, according to Article 249, fifth paragraph, recommendations have no binding force and, according to the Court, are "measures which, even as regards persons to whom they are addressed, are not intended to produce binding effects" Case C-322/88
[1989] ECR 4407, odstavek 16.
[1989] ECR 4407, paragraph 16.
in ne določajo pravic, na katere bi se posameznik lahko skliceval pred državnim sodiščem
and do not create rights upon which individuals may rely before a national court
, odstavek 16.
, paragraph 16.
, ter ker člen 230 Pogodbe ES preprečuje razveljavitev priporočil, ker niso obvezujoča,
, and whereas Article 230 of the EC Treaty precludes the annulment of recommendations, since they are not binding,
ker Sodišče kljub temu meni, da se taka dejanja "ne smejo ... obravnavati, kot da nimajo pravnega učinka.
whereas, none the less, the Court has held that such acts "cannot ... be regarded as having no legal effect.
Nacionalna sodišča so zavezana k upoštevanju priporočil, da lahko presojajo o nerešenih sporih, zlasti kadar priporočila pojasnjujejo razlago nacionalnih ukrepov, ki so bili sprejeti z namenom njihovega izvajanja, ali kadar je njihov namen dopolnitev zavezujočih določb Skupnosti"
The national courts are bound to take recommendations into consideration in order to decide disputes submitted to them, in particular where they cast light on the interpretation of national measures adopted in order to implement them or where they are designed to supplement binding Community provisions"
, odstavek 18.
, paragraph 18.
ker vsebuje člen I-33 Pogodbe o Ustavi za Evropo podobno določbo kot člen 211 Pogodbe ES, vendar dodaja, da "Evropski parlament in Svet pri obravnavi osnutkov zakonodajnih aktov ne sprejmeta nobenega akta, za katerega na zadevnem področju ni predviden ustrezen zakonodajni postopek";
whereas Article I-33 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe contains a similar provision to Article 211 of the EC Treaty, but adds that "When considering draft legislative acts, the European Parliament and the Council shall refrain from adopting acts not provided for by the relevant legislative procedure in the area in question",
ker je leta 2005 Komisija sprejela priporočilo o čezmejnem upravljanju avtorskih pravic za zakonite spletne glasbene storitve na podlagi člena 211 Pogodbe ES, opredeljeno kot "instrument mehkega prava ... oblikovan za to, da trgu omogoči, da gre v pravo smer" in oblikovan za izpostavitev direktiv o avtorskih pravicah v informacijski družbi Direktiva 2001/29/ES, (UL L 167, 22.6.2001, str.
whereas in 2005 the Commission adopted a recommendation on the cross-border management of copyright for legitimate online music services on the basis of Article 211 of the EC Treaty, described as "a soft-law instrument ... designed to give the market a chance to move in the right direction" and ostensibly designed to flesh out the existing directives on copyright in the information society Directive 2001/29/EC (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p.
ter o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja ter o določenih pravicah, sorodnih avtorski Direktiva 2006/115/ES (UL L 376, 27.12.2006, str.
and on rental right and lending right and on certain rights relating to copyright Directive 2006/115/EC (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p.
, ter ker uveljavlja Komisija možnosti posamezne politike s sredstvi mehkega prava, saj je njen glavni cilj spodbujati izdajo dovoljenj za več ozemelj ter priporočati, kako jo je treba urejati,
, and whereas, since its main aim is to encourage multi-territorial licensing and recommend how it should be regulated, the Commission is putting particular policy options into effect by soft-law means,
ker je Komisija nameravala delovati v skladu s priporočili na drugih področjih, na katerih ima Skupnost pristojnost, tudi na področju ureditve avtorskih pravic in omejevanja odgovornosti revizorja, ali je vsaj razmišljala o tem;
whereas the Commission has contemplated or seems to be considering acting by recommendation in other areas in which the Community has legislative competence, including the regulation of copyright levies and caps on auditors' liability,
ker ostaja poleg tega projekt evropskega pogodbenega prava v okviru mehkega prava;
whereas, in addition, the European contract law project remains still in the nature of soft law,
ker mehko pravo tudi ustvarja občutek "nadbirokracije" brez demokratične legitimnosti, ki ni le oddaljena od državljanov, ampak je do njih dejansko sovražna, in ki se je pripravljena prilagoditi močnim lobijem, s katerimi pogajanja niso ne pregledna ne razumljiva državljanom, in ker lahko imajo prizadete tretje stranke (npr. potrošniki) zaradi njega utemeljena pričakovanja, pri čemer se ne morejo pravno braniti pred akti, ki imajo za njih negativne pravne učinke,
whereas soft law also tends to create a public perception of a "superbureaucracy" without democratic legitimacy, not just remote from citizens but actually hostile to them, and willing to reach accommodations with powerful lobbies in which the negotiations are neither transparent nor comprehensible to citizens, and whereas this may raise legitimate expectations on the part of third parties affected (e.g. consumers) who then have no way of defending them at law in the face of acts having adverse legal effects for them,
ker se načrt za boljšo zakonodajo ne bi smel omajati, zato da bi lahko izvršni organi Skupnosti učinkovito sprejemali zakonodajo z instrumenti mehkega prava, s čimer bi potencialno ogrozili pravni red Skupnosti, se izognili vpletenosti demokratično izvoljenega Parlamenta in pravnemu pregledu, ki bi ga izvedlo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, ter prikrajšali državljane za pravna sredstva,
whereas the better-legislation agenda should not be subverted in order to allow the Community executive effectively to legislate by means of soft-law instruments, thereby potentially undermining the Community legal order, avoiding the involvement of the democratically-elected Parliament and legal review by the Court of Justice and depriving citizens of legal remedies,
ker ni določen noben postopek za posvetovanje s Parlamentom glede predlagane uporabe instrumentov mehkega prava, kot so priporočila in razlagalna sporočila;
whereas no procedure is laid down for consulting Parliament on the proposed use of soft-law instruments, such as recommendations and interpretative communications,
meni, da je mehko pravo v kontekstu Skupnosti preveč pogosto dvoumen in neučinkovit instrument, ki ima škodljiv učinek na zakonodajo Skupnosti in institucionalno ravnovesje ter ga je treba pazljivo uporabljati, tudi kadar je njegova uporaba določena v Pogodbi;
Considers that, in the context of the Community, soft law all too often constitutes an ambiguous and ineffective instrument which is liable to have a detrimental effect on Community legislation and institutional balance and should be used with caution, even where it is provided for in the Treaty;
opozarja, da tako imenovano mehko pravo ne more nadomestiti pravnih aktov in instrumentov, ki so na voljo za zagotavljanje kontinuitete zakonodajnih postopkov, zlasti na področju kulture in izobraževanja;
Recalls that so-called soft law cannot be a substitute for legal acts and instruments, which are available to ensure the continuity of the legislative process, especially in the field of culture and education;
poudarja dejstvo, da mora vsaka institucija EU, vključno z Evropskim svetom, upoštevati tako zakonodajne kot tudi nezakonodajne možnosti, ko se odloča od primera do primera, kakšne ukrepe, če sploh kakšne, bo sprejela;
Stresses that each EU institution, including the European Council, must consider both legislative and non-legislative options when deciding, on a case-by-case basis, what action, if any, to take;
meni, da je odprta metoda usklajevanja pravno vprašljiva, saj deluje brez zadostne parlamentarne udeležbe in sodnega nadzora; zato jo je treba uveljavljati le v izjemnih primerih, potrebno pa je tudi preučiti vse možnosti vključitve Parlamenta v ta postopek;
Considers the open method of coordination to be legally dubious, as it operates without sufficient parliamentary participation and judicial review; believes that it should therefore be employed only in exceptional cases and that it would be desirable to consider how Parliament might become involved in the procedure;
obžaluje, da uporablja Komisija mehko pravo, kadar predstavlja nadomestek za zakonodajo EU, ki je sama po sebi še vedno potrebna, ob upoštevanju načel subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, ali kadar prenaša sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti na neznano območje;
Deplores the use of soft law by the Commission where it is a surrogate for EU legislation that is still necessary per se, having due regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, or where it extrapolates the case-law of the Court of Justice into uncharted territory;
poziva institucije, da delujejo v skladu s členom I-33 Ustavne pogodbe in se vzdržijo sprejemanja instrumentov mehkega prava, ko so v obravnavi osnutki zakonodajnih aktov; meni, da tudi ob obstoječi zakonodaji zahteva izhaja iz načela pravne države iz člena 6 Pogodbe EU;
Urges the institutions to act by analogy with Article I-33 of the Constitutional Treaty by refraining from adopting soft-law instruments when draft legislative acts are under consideration; considers that, even under existing law, the requirement arises from the principle of the rule of law under Article 6 of the EU Treaty;
poziva Komisijo, naj si še posebej prizadeva za zagotovitev preglednosti, vidnosti in javne odgovornosti v postopku sprejemanja nezavezujočih aktov Skupnosti ter naj poveča uporabo ocene učinka v postopku odločanja;
Urges the Commission to make a particular effort to guarantee transparency, visibility and public accountability in the process of adopting non-binding Community acts, as well as to increase the use of impact assessment in the decision-making process;
poziva Komisijo, naj posebno pozornost posveti vplivu mehkega prava na potrošnike in njihove možnosti za vlaganje pravnih sredstev, preden predlaga kakršne koli ukrepe, ki vključujejo instrumente mehkega prava;
Calls on the Commission to give special consideration to the effect of soft law on consumers and their possible means of redress before proposing any measure involving soft-law instruments;
v zvezi s sporočili Komisije meni, da iz zelenih in belih knjig ne izhajajo neposredne pravne obveznosti; meni pa, da se ne bi smelo šteti, da iz sprejetih dokumentov posvetovanj in izjav o političnih ciljih izhaja pravna obveznost sprejemanja odgovarjajočih ureditev;
Is of the opinion, as regards Commission communications, that green and white papers do not give rise to any direct legal obligations; takes the view, however, that the adoption of consultation papers and political declarations of intent should not be seen as implying any legal obligation to enact the corresponding regulations;
meni, da je namen razlagalnih sporočil Komisija uresničevati legitimni cilj vzpostavitve pravne varnosti, vendar pa njihova vloga ne bi smela razširiti onkraj te točke; meni, da so razlagalna sporočila, ko služijo za nalaganje novih obveznosti, nesprejemljiv način razširjanja zakonodaje s pomočjo mehkega prava; če vsebuje sporočilo podrobne predpise, ki niso neposredno zajeti v svoboščinah v okviru Pogodbe, ni v skladu s svojim pravim namenom in je zato nično Zadeva C-57/95
Is of the opinion that Commission interpretative communications serve the legitimate purpose of providing legal certainty but that their role should not extend beyond that point; considers that, when they serve to impose new obligations, interpretative communications constitute an inadmissible extension of law-making by soft law; maintains that, when a communication lays down detailed arrangements not directly provided for by the freedoms established under the Treaty, it is departing from its proper purpose and is thus null and void Case C-57/95
, [1997] ECR I-1627, odstavki 23 do 26.
[1997] ECR I-1627, paragraphs 23 to 26.
11 meni, da morajo biti sporočila, ki izpolnjujejo ta merila, še naprej omejena na primere, ko zakonodajalca, Parlament in Svet, zaprosita Komisijo, naj pripravi odgovarjajoče razlagalno sporočilo; meni, da je za prenos Pogodbe v stvarnost odgovorno zakonodajno telo, za njeno razlago pa Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti;
Is of the opinion that communications satisfying the criteria referred to above should consequently be issued only in those cases where Parliament and the Council, in other words the legislature, have instructed the Commission to draw up the necessary interpretative communications; considers that translating the Treaty into reality is the responsibility of the legislature and that its interpretation is the responsibility of the Court of Justice;
meni, da so standardizacija in kodeksi ravnanja pomembni elementi samoregulacije; vseeno meni, da standardizacija ne sme pomeniti pretiranega normiranja in torej dodatnega bremena zlasti za mala in srednja podjetja; zato meni, da bi zadevne pravne podlage morale vsebovati varovala proti pretiranemu normiranju;
Is of the opinion that standardisation and codes of conduct are important elements of self-regulation; considers, however, that standardisation must not lead to overregulation and hence constitute an additional burden for small and medium-sized enterprises in particular; believes, therefore, that the legal bases concerned should incorporate built-in safeguards against overregulation;
poudarja, da se pripravljalni postopek ne sme kršiti in neupravičeno podaljšati, čeprav lahko Komisija upravičeno uporabi predzakonodajne instrumente; meni, da se mora Komisija na področjih, kot je projekt pogodbenega prava, na neki točki odločiti, ali bo izkoristila svojo pravico do pobude in na kakšni pravni podlagi jo bo izkoristila;
Points out that, whereas it is legitimate for the Commission to make use of pre-legislative instruments, the pre-legislative process should not be abused nor unduly protracted; considers that, in areas such as the contract-law project, a point must come where the Commission decides whether or not to use its right of initiative and on what legal basis;
poudarja, da se s Parlamentom kot edino demokratično izvoljeno institucijo Skupnosti trenutno ne opravljajo posvetovanja glede uporabe tako imenovanih instrumentov mehkega prava, kot so priporočila Komisije po členu 211 Pogodbe ES in razlagalna sporočila ter drugi podobni dokumenti;
Emphasises that Parliament, as the only democratically elected Community institution, is not currently consulted about the use of so-called soft-law instruments, such as Commission recommendations, based on Article 211 of the EC Treaty, and interpretative communications and other documents of a similar nature;
meni, da lahko medinstitucionalni dogovori pravno učinkujejo le na odnose med institucijami EU in zato ne predstavljajo mehkega prava, ki ga opredeljujejo pravni učinki v razmerju do tretjih strank;
Considers that interinstitutional agreements can produce legal effects only on relationships between EU institutions and that they therefore do not constitute soft law defined in terms of a legal effect in relation to third parties;
poziva Komisijo, naj v sodelovanju s Parlamentom razvije način delovanja, ki bo zagotavljal sodelovanje demokratično izvoljenih teles, vključno, če je to mogoče, s pomočjo medinstitucionalnega sporazuma, in torej učinkovitejši nadzor potrebe po sprejemanju instrumentov "mehkega prava".
Calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with Parliament, a modus operandi that guarantees the participation of the democratically elected bodies including, possibly, by means of an interinstitutional agreement, and thus more effective monitoring of the need for the adoption of "soft-law" instruments;
poziva Komisijo, da se s Parlamentom posvetuje, kako se je z njim mogoče posvetovati, preden Komisija sprejme instrumente mehkega prava, in tako omogoči, da se predlagani ukrepi mehkega prava nadzorujejo in se tako izogne, da bi izvršilni organi na kakršen koli način zlorabili pooblastila; v skladu s tem predlaga začetek razprave o sklenitvi medinstitucionalnega sporazuma o tem vprašanju; meni, da bi moral biti cilj tega sporazuma zlasti rešitev nasprotja, ki je nastalo med členi 211, 249(5) in 230 Pogodbe ES in sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v primerih, ko Sodišče od nacionalnih sodišč zahteva, da v sporih, ki se odvijajo pred sodišči, upoštevajo priporočila, ki sama po sebi v skladu s Pogodbo niso zavezujoča;
Calls on the Commission to discuss with Parliament how Parliament may be consulted before the Commission adopts soft-law instruments, in order to enable proposed soft-law measures to be scrutinised and to avoid any misuse of powers on the part of the executive; accordingly proposes opening talks on concluding an interinstitutional agreement on this subject; considers that such an agreement should in particular aim to resolve the contradiction that has arisen between the provisions of Articles 211, 249(5) and 230 of the EC Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, when the Court requires the national courts to take due account in current legal disputes of recommendations which are per se non-binding under the Treaty;