natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ker je Komisija do sedaj prejela več kot 1800 pritožb posameznikov, 40 parlamentarnih vprašanj in 33 peticij in je na tej osnovi obravnavala 115 pritožb in uvedla 5 postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nepravilne uporabe Direktive 2004/38/ES,
whereas the Commission has so far received more than 1 800 individual complaints, 40 questions from Parliament and 33 petitions, and on that basis it has registered 115 complaints and has brought 5 infringement proceedings for incorrect application of Directive 2004/38/EC,
ker Komisija v poročilu zastopa stališče, da Direktive 2004/38/ES na tej stopnji ni treba spremeniti, pač pa je treba narediti vse potrebno za njeno pravilno izvajanje, za kar naj bi ustanovila posebno skupino strokovnjakov, pripravila vprašalnik in z njim zbrala informacije, podatke in primere najboljše prakse ter leta 2009 izdala smernice za reševanje problematičnih vprašanj in tako zagotovila polno in pravilno uporabo,
whereas the Commission takes the view in its Report that there is no need to amend Directive 2004/38/EC at this stage, but that every effort must be made to achieve its correct implementation, through the creation of an experts' group, the collection of information, data and best practices on the basis of a questionnaire, and the issuing of guidelines in 2009 on problematic issues to ensure its full and correct application,
ker so nekateri nacionalni parlamenti že odgovorili na vprašalnik Odbora za državljanske pravice, pravosodje in notranje zadeve Avstrija, Belgija, Ciper, Češka republika, Grčija, Španija, Italija, Litva, Poljska, Romunija, Slovenija, Slovaška.
whereas a number of national parliaments have replied to the questionnaire of its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia.
in sta v nekaterih državah nanj odgovorila oba domova Belgija, Češka republika, Romunija.
while in certain Member States both parliamentary chambers replied to the questionnaire Belgium, Czech Republic and Romania.
ker so predstavniki nacionalnih parlamentov svoja stališča še dodatno lahko predstavili na skupnem srečanju parlamentarnih odborov o napredku na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki je potekal 19. in 20. januarja 2009,
whereas representatives of national parliaments had the opportunity to further express their views at the Joint Committee Meeting on progress in the area of freedom, security and justice which took place on 19 and 20 January 2009,
ker je pravna služba Parlamenta, s katero se je na to temo posvetoval Odbor za državljanske pravice, pravosodje in notranje zadeve, ugotovila, da ustrezne določbe zakonodaje Skupnosti izključujejo nacionalno zakonodajo, po kateri se nezakonito zadrževanje državljana ene države članice na ozemlju druge države članice šteje kot splošna oteževalna okoliščina pri kaznivem dejanju te osebe,
whereas its Legal Service, which was consulted by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on this subject, concluded that the relevant provisions of Community law preclude national legislation deeming it a general aggravating circumstance in relation to a crime or an offence for the person in question to be a citizen of one Member State illegally present on the territory of another Member State,
ker so bila s sodbami Sodišča v zvezi z vprašanjem prostega gibanja, zlasti v zadevah Metock, Jipa in Huber, potrjena naslednja načela:
whereas the rulings of the ECJ on the issue of freedom of movement, and particularly the Metock, Jipa and Huber cases, affirmed the following principles:
državljan tretje države, ki je zakonec državljana Unije in spremlja ali se pridruži temu državljanu, lahko koristi ugodnosti v skladu z določbami iz direktive, ne glede na to, kje in kdaj je bila sklenjena njuna zakonska zveza in ne da bi bilo potrebno predhodno zakonito bivanje Zadeva Metock
a non-Community national who is the spouse of a Union citizen who accompanies or joins that citizen can benefit from the provisions of the Directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and without the need for prior lawful residence Metock case.
čeprav člen 18 Pogodbe ES in člen 27 Direktive 2004/38/ES ne izključujeta nacionalne zakonodaje, ki dopušča omejevanje pravice državljana ene države članice do potovanja v drugo državo članico, zlasti na podlagi dejstva, da je bil iz te države članice zaradi "nezakonitega prebivanja" pred tem vrnjen v domovino, če njegovo osebno obnašanje predstavlja resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo enemu od temeljnih interesov družbe in je omejevalni ukrep ustrezen za izpolnitev želenega cilja ter za njegovo dosego ni pretirano omejevalen, in da nacionalno sodišče v postopku, sproženem pred njim, ugotovi, da je temu tako Zadeva Jipa
although Article 18 of the EC Treaty and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his "illegal residence" there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, and it is for the national court to establish whether that is so in the case before it Jipa Case.
člen 12(1) Pogodbe ES je treba razlagati, kot da onemogoča, da bi posamezna država članica zaradi preprečevanja kriminala vzpostavila sistem obdelave osebnih podatkov, ki so lastni državljanom Unije, ki niso državljani te države članice Zadeva Huber
Article 12(1) of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the putting in place by a Member State, for the purpose of fighting crime, of a system for processing personal data specific to Union citizens who are not nationals of that Member State Huber Case.
ker je v zgoraj omenjenem poročilu o obisku zaprtih centrov za prosilce za azil in priseljence v Belgiji navedeno, da "pridržanje državljanov Skupnosti v centrih za pridržanje za nezakonito prebivajoče državljane tretjih držav je osupljivo in nesorazmerno, predvsem, kadar se izvrši le zaradi preprostih upravnih prekrškov.
whereas the above-mentioned report on a visit to closed detention centres for asylum seekers and immigrants in Belgium stated that "the detention of EU citizens at detention centres for third-country nationals who are illegal immigrants seems shocking and disproportionate, particularly if it is true that it can be imposed merely because a simple administrative violation has been committed.
Statistika belgijskih organov glede tega je zaskrbljujoča.",
The figures provided by the Belgian authorities are worrying in this respect",
ker je Svet za pravosodje in notranje zadeve v zgoraj navedenih sklepih z dne 27. novembra 2008 Komisijo zaprosil, naj v začetku leta 2009 pripravi obrazložitveno izjavo s smernicami o uporabi Direktive 2004/38/ES in preuči morebitne druge ustrezne in potrebne ukrepe,
whereas in its above-mentioned Conclusions of 27 November 2008 the Justice and Home Affairs Council requested the Commission to bring forward an interpretative statement providing guidelines on the operation of Directive 2004/38/EC in early 2009 and to consider all other appropriate and necessary measures,
ker so bila na osnovi zbranih informacij, zlasti na osnovi odgovorov nacionalnih parlamentov na vprašalnik Parlamenta, ki žal ni izčrpen in ne zajema vseh držav članic, in kot dopolnilo poročilu Komisije, izpostavljena naslednja osrednja problematična vprašanja:
whereas, on the basis of the information gathered, notably through national parliaments" answers to Parliament's questionnaire, which is unfortunately not exhaustive and does not cover all the Member States, and in addition to the Commission Report, the following main issues were identified as problematic:
razlaga držav članic pojma "dovolj sredstev" iz člena 7(1)(b) Direktive 2004/38/ES je pogosto nejasna, saj večina držav članic zahteva dokazila o zadostnih sredstvih; prav tako je v mnogih državah negotov pojem "nesorazmernega bremena sistema socialne pomoči v državi članici gostiteljici" ter če in v katerih primerih se sprejme ukrep izgona državljana Unije, ki je postal nesorazmerno breme (člen 14, uvodna izjava 10) Na primer v zvezi z italijansko zakonodajo, ki od državljanov EU zahteva dokazila o zadostnih sredstvih.
the interpretation by Member States of "sufficient resources" under Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC is often unclear, as most Member States require that evidence of sufficient resources be given; the notion of "unreasonable burden to the social assistance system of the host Member State" and if and in what cases the decision to expel a Union citizen who has become an unreasonable burden (Article 14, recital 10) is in many Member States uncertain as well For example in relation to Italian legislation which requires EU citizens to give evidence of their sufficient resources.
države članice izraz "resni/nujni razlogi v zvezi z javnim redom ali javno varnostjo" razlagajo zelo različno, poleg tega pa se tudi od ene države članice do druge razlikuje in je nejasno, v katerih primerih in s kakšnimi razlogi lahko upravičujejo izgon (člena 27 in 28), kar lahko vodi v zlorabe (kot tarča izbrani državljani določene države članice) oziroma se zelo nejasno sklada z Direktivo 2004/38/ES (primer mehanizmov samodejnega izgona) Člen 235 italijanskega kazenskega zakonika na primer določa, da se izženejo neitalijanski državljani, obsojeni na dve- ali večletno zaporno kazen.
the interpretation by Member States of the expression "serious/imperative grounds of public policy and public security" and in what cases and on what grounds it can justify an expulsion order (Articles 27 and 28) vary from one Member State to the other, are unclear and could lead to abuse (targeting of citizens of a certain Member State) or are of dubious conformity with Directive 2004/38/EC (for instance, automatic expulsion mechanisms) For instance, Article 235 of the Italian criminal code provides for the expulsion of non-nationals convicted of 2 or more years of imprisonment.
zakoni in praksa v zvezi z zlorabo pravic in navidezno sklenitvijo zakonske zveze,
law and practice in relation to abuse of rights and marriages of convenience,
ker v nekaterih državah članicah obstajajo velike razlike pri osebnih dokumentih med državljani te države in državljani Unije iz druge države članice, ki imajo težave pri dokazovanju, da so državljani Unije s stalnim prebivališčem, kar v praksi resno ovira uveljavljanje njihovih pravic in njihovo vključevanje v družbeno in poslovno življenje,
Whereas in some Member States there are significant differences in identity documents between nationals of the country and Union citizens from another Member State, who find it difficult to prove that they are resident Union citizens, which in practice seriously hinders the exercise of their rights and their integration into social and business life,
ker bi bilo treba slab prenos Direktive 2004/38/ES za izvajanje člena 18 Pogodbe ES v državah članicah obsoditi in ker je to stanje krivo ne le tega, da se slabi učinkovitost in nujnost direktive, pač pa tudi, da se ne uveljavlja ena ključnih pravic, na kateri temelji Unija in jo državljanom podeljujejo Pogodbe,
whereas the poor transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC implementing Article 18 of the EC Treaty by Member States should be condemned, and whereas such a situation results, if not in the effectiveness and necessity of the Directive itself being undermined, in the non-application of one of the key rights on which the EU is based and which are conferred on Union citizens by the Treaties,
ker so po sporočilu Komisije z dne 18. novembra 2008 o vplivu prostega gibanja delavcev v okviru širitve EU ( KOM(2008)0765 ) v prvi fazi (1. januar 2007 – 31. december 2008) prehodnih ureditev mobilni delavci iz držav, ki so se EU pridružile leta 2004 in 2007, imeli pozitiven vpliv na gospodarstvo držav članic,
V whereas according to the Commission Communication of 18 November 2008 on the impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement ( COM(2008)0765 ) during the first phase (1 January 2007 – 31 December 2008) of the transitional arrangements mobile workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have had a positive impact on the economies of Member States,
ker štiri države članice iz EU-15 še niso odprle svojih trgov dela za delavce iz držav članic EU-8,
whereas four Member States of the EU-15 have not opened their labour markets for workers from the EU-8 Member States,
ker je enajst držav članic Komisijo obvestilo o svoji odločitvi, da bodo od 1. januarja 2009 na svojih trgih dela še naprej uporabljale omejitve za državljane Romunije in Bolgarije,
whereas eleven Member States have notified the Commission of their decision to continue applying restrictions in their labour markets in respect of nationals of Romania and Bulgaria, as of 1 January 2009,
Uporaba Direktive 2004/38/ES
Application of Directive 2004/38/EC
poziva države članice, naj spoštujejo duh in črko člena 18 Pogodbe ES in člena 45 Listine o temeljnih pravicah, ki državljanom Unije podeljujeta temeljno pravico do prostega gibanja, kot prednostno nalogo začnejo v celoti izvajati Direktivo 2004/38/ES in zlasti na temelju poročila Komisije in sodne prakse Sodišča brez odlašanja revidirajo in spremenijo zakonodajo in upravno prakso, ki je v nasprotju s predpisi ES; ugotavlja, da je več določb v zakonodaji večine držav članic v nasprotju s črko in duhom direktive, saj ogrožajo pravice do prostega gibanja in državljanstva Unije, in da nacionalni upravni postopki državljane velikokrat znatno ovirajo pri uveljavljanju njihovih pravic;
Calls on Member States to respect the spirit and the letter of Article 18 of the EC Treaty and Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights granting Union citizens the fundamental right to free movement, by implementing Directive 2004/38/EC fully and as a matter of urgency, reviewing and modifying without delay legislation and administrative practices that are contrary to EC law, particularly on the basis of the Commission Report and of the case-law of the ECJ; notes that several provisions in the legislation of most Member States run counter to the letter and the spirit of the Directive, undermining rights of free movement and Union citizenship, and that national administrative practices very often constitute significant obstacles to the exercise by citizens of their rights;
poziva države članice, naj v celoti izvajajo pravice iz členov 2 in 3 Direktive 2004/38/ES ne le za različnospolne zakonce, pač pa tudi za registrirane partnerje, člane gospodinjstva in partnerje, vključno z istospolnimi pari, ki jih priznava ena od držav članic, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo in brez vpliva na njihovo nepriznavanje v civilnem pravu druge države članice, na osnovi načel vzajemnega priznavanja, enakosti, nediskriminacije, dostojanstva, zasebnosti in družinskega življenja; poziva države članice, naj upoštevajo, da direktiva nalaga obveznost priznavanja svobode gibanja za vse državljane Unije (tudi istospolne partnerje), ne nalaga pa priznavanja istospolnih zakonskih zvez; ob tem poziva Komisijo, naj izda stroge smernice, ki bodo črpale iz analize in ugotovitev poročila Agencije za temeljne pravice, ter naj spremlja ta vprašanja;
Calls on Member States to fully implement the rights granted under Article 2 and Article 3 of Directive 2004/38/EC not only to different sex spouses, but also to the registered partner, member of the household and the partner, including same-sex couples recognized by a Member State, irrespective of nationality and without prejudice to their non-recognition in civil law by another Member State, on the basis of the principles of mutual recognition, equality, non-discrimination, dignity, and private and family life; calls on Member States to bear in mind that the Directive imposes an obligation to recognize freedom of movement to all Union citizens (including same-sex partners) without imposing the recognition of same-sex marriages; in this regard, calls on the Commission to issue strict guidelines, drawing on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Fundamental Rights Agency report and to monitor these issues;
poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi ustrezne predloge v okviru stockholmskega programa, da se zagotovi prosto gibanje brez diskriminacije zaradi razlogov, naštetih v členu 13 Pogodbe ES, pri tem pa se opira na analizo in zaključke iz poročila Agencije za temeljne pravice;
Calls on the Commission to issue appropriate proposals within the framework of the Stockholm Programme to guarantee free movement without discrimination based on the grounds listed in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, drawing on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Fundamental Rights Agency report;
poziva države članice, naj pri izvajanju pravice do prostega gibanja in bivanja državljanom Unije in njihovim družinskim članom, vključno z družinskimi člani iz tretjih držav, ne nalagajo neupravičenih upravnih obremenitev, če niso izrecno predpisane z Direktivo 2004/38/ES, saj so te obremenitve v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti in neupravičena ovira pri uveljavljanju svoboščine, ki jo neposredno dodeljuje Pogodba ES, kar ni odvisno od tega, ali so zaključile upravne postopke; opozarja države članice, da so dolžne sprožiti upravne postopke, ki so vezani na uveljavljanje pravice do prostega gibanja, in jih poziva, naj spremljajo vse upravne in sodne odločitve na podlagi člena 3(2) direktive in poročajo o njih; opozarja države članice na njihovo obveznost, da olajšajo vstop družinskim članom državljanov Unije iz tretjih držav, da se jim omogoči normalno družinsko življenje v državi članici gostiteljici;
Calls on Member States, while implementing the right to free movement and residence, not to place unjustified administrative burdens on Union citizens and their family members, including third-country family members, that are not expressly provided for in Directive 2004/38/EC, as these are contrary to EC law and an unjustified obstacle to the exercise of a freedom conferred directly by the EC Treaty, which is not dependent on their having completed administrative procedures; draws to the attention of Member States that it is their duty to facilitate administrative practices linked to the exercise of the right to free movement and calls on Members States to keep track of and report all administrative and court decisions based on Article 3(2) of the Directive; reminds Member States of their obligation to facilitate the entry of third-country family members of Union citizens, in order to allow them to lead a normal family life in the host Member State;
poziva države članice, v katerih obstajajo taki dokumenti, naj sprejmejo enako obliko za osebne dokumente za njihove državljane in državljane Unije iz drugih držav članic, ne glede na razlike, ki morajo biti zabeležene v dokumentih Upravni postopki, ki niso v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, imajo izjemno negativen vpliv na državljanske pravice.
Calls on the Member States having such documents to adopt the same format for personal identity documents for their nationals and for Union citizens from other Member States, regardless of the differences which must be noted within the documents Administrative practices which are not in conformity with EC law have a significant negative impact on citizens' rights.
poziva Komisijo, naj skrbno oceni, ali zakoni in praksa držav članic ne posegajo v pravice, ki jih državljanom Unije podeljujeta Pogodba ES in ta direktiva, ali državljanom Unije in njihovim družinam ne nalagajo nesorazmerne obremenitve, s čimer bi posredno omejili njihovo pravico do prostega gibanja, zlasti glede pojmovanja "zadostnih sredstev", "nesorazmernega bremena sistema socialne pomoči v državi gostiteljici", "(resnih/nujnih) razlogov v zvezi z javnim redom ali javno varnostjo"; oceni naj še, ali obstajajo in delujejo materialna in postopkovna jamstva, zaščita in sodno varstvo proti izgonu; opozarja, da je treba strogo razlagati vsakršno omejitev temeljne pravice prostega gibanja;
Invites the Commission to assess carefully that the laws and practices of Member States do not infringe the rights conferred on Union citizens by the EC Treaty and the Directive and do not impose an unreasonable burden on Union citizens and their families indirectly restricting their right to free movement, particularly in relation to the notions of "sufficient resources", "unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host State", "(serious/imperative) grounds of public policy and public security", that material and procedural safeguards, protection and judicial redress against expulsions are properly in place and functioning; recalls that any limitation on the fundamental right to free movement must be interpreted strictly;
ugotavlja, da so državljani nekaterih držav članic in nekatere etnične skupnosti v posameznih državah članicah izpostavljeni napadom, in poudarja, da morajo te države članice izvajati Direktivo 2004/38/ES brez diskriminacije med državljani Unije in njihovimi družinskimi člani na podlagi katerega koli razloga iz člena 21 Listine o temeljnih pravicah; poziva Komisijo, Svet in vse države članice, naj zagotovijo zlasti, da ne v praksi ne v zakonodaji ne bo prihajalo do primerov diskriminacije zaradi državljanstva, rase ali etničnega porekla, in to spremljajo;
Notes that nationals of certain Member States and ethnic communities appear to be targeted in some Member States and stresses that they must implement Directive 2004/38/EC without discrimination between Union citizens and their family members on any of the grounds listed in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; calls on the Commission, the Council and all Member States to ensure and monitor in particular that discrimination based on nationality, race or ethnic origin, either in practice or in legislation, does not occur;
ugotavlja, da morajo biti ukrepi, sprejeti zaradi javnega reda ali javne varnosti, v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti in temeljiti izključno na osebnem obnašanju zadevnega posameznika; takšno osebno obnašanje mora predstavljati resnično, sedanjo in dovolj resno grožnjo, ki prizadene osnovne interese družbe; v zvezi s tem poziva države članice, naj sistematično preverjajo nacionalne razpise ukrepov z namenom zavrnitve vstopa, izdane za državljane Unije in njihove družinske člane V estonski in madžarski zakonodaji pri ukrepu izgona ni jasno navedena izključitev iz gospodarskih razlogov.
Notes that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security should comply with the principle of proportionality and should be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned; such personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society; calls in this respect on Member States to review systematically national alerts for the purpose of refusing entry issued for Union citizens and their family members Estonian and Hungarian legislation do not expressly provide for the exclusion of economic ends when imposing an expulsion order.
V madžarski in romunski zakonodaji sploh ni navedena izključitev na podlagi predhodnih kazenskih obsodb in splošnih preventivnih razlogov.
In Hungarian and Romanian legislation there is no reference to the exclusion of previous criminal convictions and general preventive aims.
; opozarja, da se na izjeme na podlagi javnega reda ne sme sklicevati iz gospodarskih razlogov ali splošnih preventivnih razlogov;
; recalls that the public policy exceptions cannot be invoked to serve economic ends or to pursue general preventive aims;