natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
● Odločitev Okrožnega sodišča v Vilni 29. junija 2009, po kateri je bilo glavnemu državnemu tožilcu Litve naloženo, da zaprosi za odvzem imunitete, naj bi sprejel en sam sodnik.
● It seems that the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 29 June 2009 that instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Lithuania to request the waiver of the immunity, was adopted by a single judge.
Ali je to v skladu z litovskim zakonom?
Is this compatible with Lithuanian law?
● 29. aprila 2008 je Okrožno sodišče v Vilni Viktorju Uspaskichu kot previdnostni ukrep naložilo plačilo varščine v znesku 1.500.000 LTL (približno 436.000 evrov).
● On 29 April 2008, the Vilnius Regional Court ordered Viktor Uspaskich to pay bail amounting to LTL 1.500.000 (approximately EUR 436.000) as a precautionary measure.
Viktor Uspaskich je pred odborom JURI zatrdil, da bi mu bila v primeru, da sodbo izgubi, naložena kazen v višini samo 14.000 evrov.
Viktor Uspaskich claimed before the Committee that the sanction which could be imposed on him should he lose the case is a fine of only 14.000 Euro.
Po njegovem je višina varščine nesorazmerna in nezakonita po litovskem zakonu.
He argued that bail was disproportionate and illegal under Lithuanian law.
Litovske oblasti so podrobno odgovorile 27. aprila 2010.
The Lithuanian authorities replied in detail on 27 April 2010.
2. septembra 2009 je Odbor za pravne zadeve poslanca Uspaskicha zaslišal drugič.
On 2 September 2009, the Committee on Legal Affairs heard Mr Uspaskich for a second time.
7. septembra 2010 se je Evropski parlament odločil odvzeti imuniteto Viktorju Uspaskichu (P7_TA (2010)0296) iz naslednjih razlogov:
On 7 September 2010, the European Parliament decided to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (P7-TA (2010)0296) on the following grounds:
„A. ker je bil zoper Viktorja Uspaskicha, poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, začet kazenski postopek, in sicer je v postopku, ki poteka pred Okrožnim sodiščem v Vilni, obtožen kaznivih dejanj po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 222(1) in 220(1), po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členoma 220(1) in 205(1) in po členu 24(4) v zvezi s členom 205(1) kazenskega zakonika Litve,
"A. whereas criminal proceedings have been brought against Viktor Uspaskich, Member of the European Parliament, who is accused in the proceedings pending in the Vilnius Regional Court of criminal offences under Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Lithuanian Criminal Code,
E. ker 62. člen nadalje določa, da člana Seimasa ni mogoče preganjati zaradi njegovega glasovanja ali govorov v Seimasu, čeprav lahko odgovarja v skladu s splošnim postopkom zaradi razžalitve ali obrekovanja,
E. whereas Article 62 goes on to provide that a Member of the Seimas may not be persecuted for his voting or his speeches at the Seimas, although he may be held liable according to the general procedure for personal insult or slander,
F. ker je Viktor Uspaskich obtožen kaznivega dejanja ponarejanja računovodskih izkazov v zvezi s financiranjem politične stranke v obdobju pred njegovo izvolitvijo v Evropski parlament,
F. whereas Mr Uspaskich is essentially charged with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament,
G. ker niso bili predloženi trdni dokazi o obstoju fumus persecutionis in ker kazniva dejanja, katerih je obtožen Viktor Uspaskich, nimajo nobene zveze z njegovimi dejavnostmi poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.“
G. whereas no cogent evidence has been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which Mr Uspaskich is charged have nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament".
Parlament je zatem, na plenarnem zasedanju 9. septembra 2010, razglasil, da je zahteva Viktorja Uspaskicha za zaščito njegove imunitete nična, ker se navezuje na isti kazenski postopek, zaradi katerega mu je bila imuniteta odvzeta.
Subsequently, at the plenary session of 9 September 2010, Parliament declared that a request made by Mr Uspaskich for the defence of his immunity was to no purpose on the ground that the request related to the same criminal proceedings for which immunity had been waived.
Viktor Uspaskich je bil o tem obveščen v pismu 20. septembra 2010.
Mr Uspaskich was informed by letter of 20 September 2010.
28. oktobra 2010 je Viktor Uspaskich na Splošno sodišče vložil tožbo za razveljavitev sklepa Parlamenta s 7. septembra 2010 in za odškodnino v višini 10.000 evrov za nematerialno škodo, ki je bila v vpisnik vnesena kot Zadeva T-507/10
On 28 October 2010, Mr Uspaskich brought an action in the General Court for the annulment of Parliament's decision of 7 September 2010 and for damages of EUR 10 000 for non-material damage, which was placed on the cause list as Case T-507/10
UL C 13, 15.
OJ C 13, 15.
Med postopkom se je 17. decembra 2010 predsednik Splošnega sodišča izrekel proti začasni odredbi (tj. odlogu izvršbe sklepa Parlamenta z dne 7. septembra 2010)
In the course of the proceedings, on 17 December 2010, the President of the General Court dismissed an application for interim measures ( i.e. for the suspension of the application of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010)
Viktor Uspaskich se je zoper sklep predsednika pritožil (Zadeva C-66/11 P(R)).
Mr Uspaskich appealed against the order of the President (Case C-66/11 P (R)).
Na zasedanju 9. maja 2011 je predsednik Parlamenta v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika razglasil, da je 5. aprila 2011 prejel zahtevo Viktorja Uspaskicha za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev v zvezi s členom 7 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah (v nadaljnjem besedilu „zahteva s 5. aprila 2011“).
At the sitting of 9 May 2011 the President of the Parliament announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a request from Mr Viktor Uspaskich on 5 April 2011 calling for his immunity and privileges to be defended in relation to Article 7 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (hereinafter "the request of 5 April 2011").
Predsednik je zahtevo v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve v pismu z dne 27. maja 2011.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(3), by letter of 27 May 2011.
Predsednik je odbor zaprosil, „naj točko obravnava, takoj ko bo to mogoče in ga obvesti o ugotovitvah razprave v Odboru za pravne zadeve“.
The President asked the committee "to take this item into consideration at the earliest convenience and subsequently inform me about the outcome of discussions in the Committee on Legal Affairs".
Na sestanku koordinatorjev 20. junija 2011 je poročevalec Bernhard Rapkay sporočil, da je prejel sporočilo Viktorja Uspaskicha, v katerem ga je ta obvestil, da se je odločil umakniti tožbo proti Evropskemu parlamentu pred Splošnim sodiščem, in sicer iz naslednjih razlogov:
At the coordinators' meeting of 20 June 2011, Mr Rapkay made it known that he had received a message from Mr Uspaskich informing him that he had decided to withdraw his claim against the European Parliament in the General Court for the following reason:
„Evropski parlament, tj. koordinatorje odbora JURI, prosim, naj ponovno pretehtajo svojo odločitev o odvzemu imunitete v mojem primeru.
He had "asked the European Parliament, i.e. JURI coordinators to reconsider the decision on waiver of immunity in my case.
Od danes pred Sodiščem ni več tožbe proti Parlamentu, Parlamentu pa nič ne preprečuje, da bi zadevo proučil še enkrat.
Starting from today, there is no more proceedings of mine versus the Parliament, and nothing stops the Parliament from considering the issue once again.
V prilogi si lahko ogledate dva dokumenta: pismo, s katerim umikam zahtevo, naslovljeno na predsednika Splošnega sodišča EU, in potrdilo pošte o tem, da je bilo pismo dejansko poslano.“
Please find 2 documents attached: my letter withdrawing the claim addressed to the President of the EU General Court, and the confirmation from the post that the letter has been indeed sent."
Skladno s tem so se koordinatorji odbora odločili, da predsednika Parlamenta zaprosijo, naj zadevo razglasi v Parlamentu in jo posreduje odboru v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika.
Accordingly, the committee's coordinators decided to ask the President of Parliament to arrange for this matter to be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee pursuant to Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Predsednik Parlamenta jo je ustrezno razglasil 4. julija 2011 (v nadaljnjem besedilu „zahteva z 11. aprila 2011“).
The President of Parliament duly made the announcement on 4 July 2011 (hereinafter "the request of 11 April 2011").
Istega dne je pravna služba prejela obvestilo Sodišča o umiku tožbe Viktorja Uspaskicha (tokrat pravilno v litovščini (jeziku zadeve) in s strani njegovih odvetnikov).
On the same day, the Legal Service was notified by the Court of the withdrawal of Mr Uspaskich's application (this time done properly, in Lithuanian (the language of the case) and by his lawyer).
Zadeva je bila iz vpisnika izbrisana s sklepom Splošnega sodišča 3. avgusta 2011.
The case was removed from the register by order of the General Court of 3 August 2011.
Pritožba zoper sklep o zavrnitvi zahteve Viktorja Uspaskicha za začasno odredbo je zaradi tega nična.
The appeal against the order dismissing Mr Uspaskich's request for interim measures is consequently to no purpose.
Viktor Uspaskich je bil v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika zaslišan 10. oktobra 2011.
Mr Uspaskich was heard in accordance with Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure on 10 October 2011.
Zahtevi za zaščito imunitete
The requests for defence of immunity
a) Zahteva s 5. aprila 2011
(a) The request of 5 April 2011
V zahtevi s 5. aprila 2011 poziva Viktor Uspaskich k zaščiti svoje imunitete v skladu s členom 6(3) poslovnika Parlamenta.
In his request of 5 April 2011, Mr Uspaskich calls for his immunity to be defended pursuant to Rule 6(3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
Republiko Litvo obtoži koordiniranega napada nanj in na litovsko delavsko stranko.
He accuses the Republic of Lithuania of conducting a coordinated attack on him and the Lithuanian Labour Party.
Trdi, da je ta napad privedel do „kršitve vidika moje imunitete kot poslanca Evropskega parlamenta: privilegij prostega gibanja, ki mi ga zagotavlja člen 7 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah“ .
He claims that this attack has resulted in a "violation of an aspect of my immunity as a Member of the European Parliament: the privilege of freedom of movement, which is guaranteed by Article 7 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities".
Natančneje trdi, da mu razpored zaslišanj, kakršnega je sprejelo Okrožno sodišče v Vilni, onemogoča udeleževanje na sestankih Evropskega parlamenta, na primer „v ponedeljek dopoldne“ (iz kasnejšega zagovora Viktorja Uspaskicha je razvidna navedba, da so zaslišanja napovedana vsak četrtek, zaradi česar izgubi sredo, četrtek in petek kot delovne dni v Evropskem parlamentu.
More specifically, he contends that the timetable of hearings adopted by the Vilnius Regional Court prevents him from attending meetings at the European Parliament "for example on Monday morning" (in point of fact it is clear from Mr Uspaskich's further submissions that he is claiming that the hearings are scheduled to be held every Thursday, which causes him to lose Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as working days at the European Parliament.
Bolj bi mu ustrezalo, če bi bila zaslišanja vsak teden v ponedeljek dopoldne).
He would prefer the hearings to be scheduled for Monday morning each week).
Viktor Uspaskich citira sklep predsednika Splošnega sodišča s 16. marca 2007 v zadevi T-345/05 R V proti Parlamentu
Mr Uspaskich, citing the order of the President of the General Court of 16 March 2007 in Case T-345/05 R V. v Parliament
Viktor Uspaskich še trdi, da mu ni bilo omogočeno, da bi svoje stališče predstavil učinkovito, še preden je Parlament sprejel sklep o odvzemu njegove imunitete.
Mr Uspaskich further maintains that he did not have the chance to put forward his point of view effectively before Parliament adopted the decision waiving his immunity.
Po njegovem to predstavlja kršitev člena 41 Evropske listine o temeljnih pravicah
In his contention, this constitutes a violation of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights
Vsakdo ima pravico, da institucije, organi, uradi in agencije Unije njegove zadeve obravnavajo nepristransko, pravično in v razumnem roku.
Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union .
a) pravico vsake osebe, da se izjasni pred sprejetjem kakršnega koli posamičnega ukrepa, ki jo prizadene;
(a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
b) pravico vsake osebe do vpogleda v svoj spis ob spoštovanju legitimnih interesov zaupnosti ter poklicne in poslovne tajnosti;
(b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
c) obveznost uprave, da svoje odločitve obrazloži. in kršitev njegove temeljne pravice do obrambe.
(c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. and a violation of his fundamental right of defence.
Izrazi nezadovoljstvo, ker mu Odbor za pravne zadeve ni omogočil vpogleda ali komentiranja osnutka sklepa pred njegovim sprejetjem, pa tudi zato, ker so bila vprašanja litovskemu glavnemu državnemu tožilcu poslana brez njegove vednosti.
He complains that the Legal Affairs Committee did not give him the opportunity to see or comment on the draft decision before it was adopted and that questions were sent to Lithuania's Chief Public Prosecutor without his knowledge.
Če si pritožbo Viktorja Uspaskicha pogledamo podrobneje, ugotovimo, da se pritožuje, ker mu je Parlament imuniteto odvzel na podlagi zmotnega vtisa, da mu je bilo treba imuniteto odvzeti v skladu z litovskimi predpisi, ker so se domnevna kazniva dejanja zgodila pred njegovo izvolitvijo v Evropski parlament in niso vezana na njegovo delovanje kot evropskega poslanca.
At a more detailed level, Mr Uspaskich complains that Parliament waived his immunity under the erroneous impression that under Lithuanian law immunity had to be waived because the alleged offences were committed before he was elected to the European Parliament and are not linked to his activities as an MEP.
Nezadovoljstvo izrazi še, ker Parlament ni upošteval njegovih trditev o domnevnem političnem preganjanju in v njegovem primeru ni uporabilo načela fumus persecutionis.
He further complains that Parliament ignored his allegations of political persecution and did not apply fumus persecutionis in his case.
b) Zahteva z 11. aprila 2011
(b) The request of 11 April 2011
V drugem pismu z 11. aprila 2011 Viktor Uspaskich navaja, da je 9. aprila WikiLeaks objavil diplomatsko noto veleposlaništva ZDA v Vilni iz oktobra 2006, naslovljeno na ameriško zunanje ministrstvo, ki omenja, da je državni sekretar litovskega ministrstva za zunanje zadeve potrdil, da je preganjanje litovske delavske stranke organizirala litovska vlada zaradi suma, da je bil Viktor Uspaskich v stikih z rusko zunanjo obveščevalno službo.
In his second letter of 11 April 2011, Mr Uspaskich states that on 9 April WikiLeaks made public a diplomatic note of the United States Embassy in Vilnius of October 2006 addressed to the US State Department, in which it is mentioned that the State Secretary at the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the persecution of the Lithuanian Labour Party was organised by the Lithuanian Government, owing to the suspicion that Mr Uspaskich had relations with the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.
Viktor Uspaskich trdi, da nota dokazuje, da je žrtev političnega preganjanja in da je Evropski parlament z odvzemom njegove imunitete ravnal napačno, ko ni uporabil načela fumus persecutionis.
Mr Uspaskich contends that this note proves that he is the victim of political persecution and that, in waiving his immunity, the European Parliament erroneously failed to apply fumus persecutionis .
Na tej osnovi Viktor Uspaskich zahteva ponovni pregled sklepa Parlamenta s 7. septembra 2010 na podlagi člena 6(2)
On those grounds, Viktor Uspaskich requests the revision of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 on the basis of Rule 6(2)
Vsaka zahteva za odvzem imunitete poslancu, ki jo na predsednika naslovi pristojni organ države članice, se razglasi v Parlamentu in posreduje pristojnemu odboru. oziroma na podlagi člena 6(3)
Any request addressed to the President by a competent authority of a Member State that the immunity of a Member be waived shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible . or, in the alternative, on the basis of Rule 6(3)
Vsaka zahteva za zaščito privilegijev in imunitet, ki jo na predsednika naslovi poslanec ali nekdanji poslanec, se razglasi v Parlamentu in posreduje pristojnemu odboru. poslovnika.
Any request addressed to the President by a Member or a former Member to defend privileges and immunities shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible. .
Pravna analiza
Legal Analysis
V zvezi s pismom s 5. aprila 2011 z zahtevo po zaščiti njegove imunitete na podlagi trditve, da zaradi kazenskega postopka, ki so ga zoper njega sprožili litovski organi, ne more opravljati oziroma težko opravlja svoje parlamentarne dolžnosti, in je omejeno njegovo prosto gibanje, ki ga zagotavlja člen 7 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije
As regards the claim made in his letter of 5 April 2011 for the defence of his immunity on the ground that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Lithuanian authorities prevent him from performing, or make it difficult for him to perform, his parliamentary duties, and restrain his freedom of movement, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union
Člen 7 določa naslednje: „ Prostega gibanja članov Evropskega parlamenta do kraja zasedanja Evropskega parlamenta ali nazaj se ne sme upravno ali kako drugače omejevati.
Article 7 provides that " No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
a) enake olajšave, kot jih njihove vlade podeljujejo visokim uradnikom, ko potujejo v tujino zaradi začasne uradne naloge; b) enake olajšave, kot jih vlade drugih držav članic podeljujejo predstavnikom tujih vlad na začasni uradni nalogi. , bi bilo ustrezno sklicevanje na sodbo z dne 15. oktobra 2008 v zadevi T-345/05 Mote proti Parlamentu
(a) by their own governments, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions; (b) by the governments of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions . , reference should be made to the judgment of 15 October 2008 in Case T‑345/05 Mote v. Parliament
Naj v celoti navedemo točko 48 in nasl. iz te sodbe:
Paragraph 48 et seq. of that judgment are worth citing in extenso :
Namen privilegija je, kot je pojasnjeno s to določbo, poslancem Parlamenta zagotoviti izvrševanje njihovega prostega gibanja do kraja zasedanja Parlamenta in nazaj.
As that provision states, the privilege is intended to ensure that Members may exercise their freedom to travel to or from the place of meeting of the Parliament.
49 Vendar je treba poudariti, da te omejitve – čeprav niso izčrpno naštete v členu 8, prvi odstavek, protokola, ki se nanaša na to, da se ne sme upravno „ali kako drugače“ omejevati – ne vključujejo tistih, ki izhajajo iz sodnih postopkov, ker te spadajo na področje uporabe člena 10 [zdaj člen 9] , v katerem je opredeljena pravna ureditev imunitet, ki pa ne zadeva posebne ureditve za glasove in mnenja, ki jih izrečejo poslanci pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti iz člena 9 [zdaj člen 8].
49 However, those restrictions, although not listed comprehensively by the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Protocol, which refers to administrative ‘or other’ restrictions, do not include restrictions arising out of legal proceedings since such restrictions fall within the scope of Article 10 [now Article 9] , which sets out the legal regime governing immunities, except in the specific area, provided for in Article 9 [now Article 8], of opinions expressed or votes cast by Members in the performance of their duties.
Sodni postopki so namreč izrecno omenjeni v členu 10, prvi odstavek, točka b, protokola in so med tistimi, iz katerih je poslanec med zasedanjem Parlamenta na ozemlju vseh drugih držav in svoje izvzet.
Legal proceedings are expressly mentioned by subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol as being among the restrictions from which the Member is immune, in the territory of any Member State other than his own, during the sessions of the Parliament.
Na enak način poslanec Parlamenta skladno s členom 10, prvi odstavek, točka a, protokola v istem obdobju na ozemlju svoje države uživa imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države, med katerimi so določene, ki nacionalne poslance varujejo pred sodnimi postopki, ki bi bili lahko sproženi zoper njih.
Likewise, under subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol, Members enjoy, during the same period, in the territory of their own States, the immunities accorded to members of their parliaments, some of which protect members of national parliaments from legal proceedings to which they may be subject.
Nazadnje, člen 10, drugi odstavek, določa, da imajo poslanci imuniteto tudi, ko potujejo do kraja zasedanja Parlamenta in nazaj.
Lastly, the second paragraph of Article 10 provides that immunity likewise applies to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Parliament.
Z obstojem tega člena, ki kot člen 8, prvi odstavek, protokola varuje poslance Parlamenta pred poseganjem v njihovo prosto gibanje, se potrjuje, da omejitve, omenjene v slednjem členu, ne vključujejo vseh možnih posegov v prosto gibanje poslancev Parlamenta in da je treba sodne postopke, kot je bilo to prikazano s predhodno preučitvijo člena 10, obravnavati, kot da spadajo v pravno ureditev, vzpostavljeno s slednjim členom.
The existence of that provision, which, like the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Protocol, protects Members against interference with their freedom of movement, confirms that the restrictions mentioned by the first paragraph of Article 8 do not include all possible interference with the freedom of movement of Members and that, as shown by the provisions of Article 10 examined above, legal proceedings must be regarded as being covered by the legal regime established by Article 10.
51 Naloga člena 8 protokola je varovati poslance Parlamenta pred omejitvami njihovega prostega gibanja, ki niso sodne.
51 Article 8 of the Protocol has the function of protecting Members against restrictions on their freedom of movement, other than judicial restrictions.
Opozoriti velja, da je sklep predsednika Splošnega sodišča s 16. marca 2007 v zadevi T-345/05 R V. proti Parlamentu
It should be noted that the order of the President of the General Court of 16 March 2007 in Case T-345/05 R V. v Parliament
V zadevi Mote proti Parlamentu je Splošno sodišče jasno navedlo, da člen 7 protokola ne vsebuje imunitete, pač pa privilegij, in ne ščiti pred sodnimi omejitvami pri prostem gibanju poslancev.
In Mote v. Parliament , the General Court clearly held that Article 7 of the Protocol does not contain an immunity but a privilege and does not protect against judicial restrictions on Members' freedom of movement.
Zaradi tega Parlament ne more privoliti v zahtevo Viktorja Uspaskicha s 5. aprila 2011 o zaščiti njegove imunitete na podlagi člena 7 protokola.
Consequently, it is impossible for Parliament to accede to Mr Uspaskich's request of 5 April 2011 to defend his immunity on the basis of Article 7 of the Protocol.