natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
19. poziva k zagotovitvi sredstev za delovno inšpekcijo, visokih standardov kakovosti pri izobraževanju in usposabljanju delovnih inšpektorjev ter k strožjim pregledom; poziva, da mora biti delovna inšpekcija neodvisna od podjetij.
Calls for the ring-fencing of resources for labour inspection, high-quality standards in the education and training of labour inspectors, and tighter controls; calls for guarantees that labour inspection is carried out independently of businesses;
25. poziva države članice, naj v svojo zakonodajo čim prej prenesejo Direktivo 2010/32/EU o zaščiti negovalnega osebja pred poškodbami z ostrimi pripomočki, bolnikom in negovalcem, izpostavljenim okužbam, povezanim z zdravstveno nego, pa zagotovijo najvišjo raven zaščite;
Calls on the Member States to implement as quickly as possible Directive 2010/32/EU on the protection of healthcare workers from sharps injuries and to ensure the highest level of protection for patients and healthcare workers against exposure to healthcare-associated infections;
30. poudarja, da je dolžnost delodajalcev, da skrbijo za telesno in duševno zdravje delavcev; zahteva, da podjetja uvedejo pogodbe, ki bodo določale obvezno skrb za zdravje pri delu v obliki potrjenega sistema za upravljanje varnosti in zdravja pri delu, ki bo ustrezal merilom kakovosti evropske mreže za spodbujanje zdravja pri delu;
Underlines the responsibility of employers to foster the physical and mental health of workers; calls on undertakings to adopt company agreements that make company-level health promotion mandatory, in the form of a certified company health and safety management scheme in line with the quality criteria set by the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion;
32. poziva k izboljšanju čezmejnih izmenjav informacij med različnimi nacionalnimi organi za učinkovitejši nadzor pri napotitvi delavcev v druge države članice Evropske unije.
Calls for improved cross-border exchange of information between the various national authorities with a view to more efficient checks when workers are transferred to other EU Member States;
János Áder, Elena Oana Antonescu, Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Pilar Ayuso, Sergio Berlato, Martin Callanan, Nessa Childers, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Julie Girling, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Jo Leinen, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Miroslav Ouzký, Gilles Pargneaux, Antonija Prvanova (Antonyia Parvanova), Andres Perello Rodriguez, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Teodoros Skilakakis (Theodoros Skylakakis), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils, Marina Yannakoudakis
János Áder, Elena Oana Antonescu, Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Pilar Ayuso, Sergio Berlato, Martin Callanan, Nessa Childers, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Julie Girling, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Jo Leinen, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Miroslav Ouzký, Gilles Pargneaux, Antonyia Parvanova, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Carl Schlyter, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils, Marina Yannakoudakis
Matthias Groote, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Philippe Juvin, Jiří Maštálka, Mihalis Tremopulos (Michail Tremopoulos), Kathleen Van Brempt, Andrea Zanoni
Matthias Groote, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Philippe Juvin, Jiří Maštálka, Michail Tremopoulos, Kathleen Van Brempt, Andrea Zanoni
o zahtevi za odvzem imunitete Georgiosu Tusasu (Georgios Toussas)
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Georgios Toussas
– ob upoštevanju zahteve za odvzem imunitete Georgiosu Tusasu, ki jo je dne 9. februarja 2011 Evropskemu parlamentu posredoval Ilias Stavropulos, sodnik na 7. oddelku prvostopenjskega sodišča v Pireju, in ki je bila razglašena na plenarnem zasedanju 9. marca 2011,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Georgios Toussas received from Judge Ilias Stavropoulos of the Piraeus Court of First Instance, Section 7, dated 9 February 2011 and announced in plenary sitting on 9 March 2011,
– po zagovoru Georgiosa Tusasa dne 19. septembra 2011 v skladu s členom 7(3) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Georgios Toussas on 19 September 2011 in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju člena 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije z dne 8. aprila 1965 in člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Article 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju določb 62. člena ustave Helenske republike,
– having regard to the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic,
– ob upoštevanju členov 6(2) in 7 svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0410/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0410/2011 ),
A. ker je sodnik 7. oddelka prvostopenjskega sodišča v Pireju zahteval odvzem imunitete Georgiosa Tusasa, poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, kar bi mu omogočilo vodenje kazenskega postopka, začetega v skladu z navodili državnega tožilstva okrožnega sodišča v Pireju zaradi domnevne kršitve zaupanja in povzročitve škode v višini več kot 147.000,00 EUR (člen 390 grškega kazenskega zakonika in člen 1 zakona 1608/1950), za kar je bila odrejena obsežna sodna preiskava, (členi 246, 248 in 250 grškega zakona o kazenskem postopku),
A. whereas the judge at the Piraeus Court of First Instance, Section 7, has requested the waiver of the immunity of Georgios Toussas, Member of the European Parliament, in order to enable him to conduct the criminal proceedings started as a result of the instructions issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Piraeus Magistrates’ Court concerning an alleged breach of trust resulting in damages exceeding EUR 147 000 (Article 390 of the Greek Penal Code and Article 1 of Law 1608/1950) and for which a judicial inquiry was ordered (Articles 246, 248 and 250 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure);
B. ker namerava sodnik v skladu s členi 270, 271 in 273 grškega zakona o kazenskem postopku Georgiosa Tusasa pozvati, naj kot obtoženec v tej zadevi priča ter odgovori na navedene obtožbe,
B. whereas the judge intends to summon Georgios Toussas to testify as a defendant in that case and to answer the abovementioned charges against him pursuant to Articles 270, 271 and 273 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure;
C. ker je zato primerno, da se v tem primeru priporoči odvzem poslanske imunitete;
C. whereas it is therefore advisable to recommend that parliamentary immunity be waived in the case in question;
Na plenarnem zasedanju 9. marca 2011 je predsednik skladno s členom 6(2) Poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta sporočil, da je prejel pismo Iliasa Stavropulosa, sodnika 7. oddelka prvostopenjskega sodišča v Pireju z dne 9. februarja 2011 z zahtevo, da se Georgiosu Tusasu odvzame poslanska imuniteta.
At the plenary sitting of 9 March 2011, the President announced, in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure that he had received a letter from Illias Stavropoulos, judge at the Piraeus Court of First Instance, Section 7, dated 9 February 2011, requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Georgios Toussas.
Sodnik 7. oddelka prvostopenjskega sodišča v Pireju je zahteval odvzem imunitete Georgiosa Tusasa, poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, kar bi mu omogočilo vodenje kazenskega postopka, začetega v skladu z navodili državnega tožilstva okrožnega sodišča v Pireju.
The judge at the Piraeus Court of First Instance, Section 7, has requested the waiver of immunity of Georgios Toussas, Member of the European Parliament, in order to enable him to conduct the criminal proceedings started as a result of the instructions issued by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Piraeus Magistrate Court.
Georgios Tusas je skupaj z osmimi drugimi osebami obtožen, da je za tretjo stranko in za znesek, ki presega 147.000,00 EUR, oškodoval premoženje pokojninskega sklada pomorščakov, pravne osebe po javnem pravu, ki mu je bilo zaupano v upravljanje.
Mr Toussas, together with eight other persons, is charged of knowingly defrauding for the benefit of another party, by a sum in excess of EUR 147 000, the property of the Merchant Seamen's Fund (NAT), a legal entity under public law, the management of which he was entrusted with,.
Domnevno goljufijo naj bi Georgios Tusas storil kot član sveta pokojninskega sklada pomorščakov, torej je imel status zaposlenega v skladu z grškim kazenskim pravom.
The alleged fraud was committed by Mr Toussas acting as a member of NAT's Board and having, as such, a status of employee in the meaning of Greek criminal law.
Obtožbe, za katere je bila odrejena sodna preiskava (členi 246, 248 in 250 grškega zakona o kazenskem postopku), temeljijo na členu 390 grškega kazenskega zakonika in členu I zakona 1608/1950.
Charges, for which a judicial inquiry was ordered (Articles 246, 248 and 250 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure), are based on Article 390 of the Greek Penal Code and Article 1 of Law 1608/1950.
Tekom zaslišanja pred odborom za pravne zadeve 10. oktobra 2011 je Georgios Tusas opozoril na možnost, da gre pri kazenskem postopku zoper njega v resnici za politično preganjanje.
In the course of his hearing by the Committee on Legal Affairs on 10 October 2011, Georgios Toussas raised the point that the criminal proceedings against him possibly constitute a political persecution directed at him.
Vendar odbor v tem primeru ni našel podlage za domnevo o fumus persecutionis.
However the Committee has not found grounds for fumus persecutionis in this case.
Protokol št. 7 o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, ki je priloga k pogodbam, določa:
Protocol No 7 on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the Treaties provides as follows:
a) na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države,
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament,
Grško pravo
Greek Law
Člen 62 grške Ustave določa naslednje:
Article 62 of the Constitution of Greece reads as follows:
„Poslance se v času njihovega mandata ne sme preganjati, ne sme se jim odvzeti prostost, jih zapreti ali drugače pripreti brez predhodne odobritve parlamenta.
" During the parliamentary term the Members of Parliament shall not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined without prior leave granted by Parliament.
Prav tako se zaradi političnih zločinov ne preganja članov razpuščenega parlamenta v času med razpustitvijo starega ter izjavo o izvolitvi članov novega sklica parlamenta.
Likewise, a member of a dissolved Parliament shall not be prosecuted for political crimes during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the declaration of the election of the members of the new Parliament.
Šteje se, da odobritev ni bila dana, če Parlament ne odloči v treh mesecih od dneva, ko državni tožilec zahtevo za pregon posreduje predsedniku parlamenta.
Leave shall be deemed not granted if Parliament does not decide within three months of the date the request for prosecution by the public prosecutor was transmitted to the Speaker.
Trimesečni rok ne teče v času parlamentarnih počitnic.
The three month limit is suspended during the Parliament's recess.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 6(2) Poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti poslančeve imunitete, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament Georgiosu Tusasu odvzame imuniteto.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against waiving the Member’s immunity, recommends that the European Parliament should waive the parliamentary immunity of Georgios Toussas.
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Viktorja Uspaskicha za zaščito njegove imunitete z dne 5. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 9. maja 2011, in njegove zahteve z dne 11. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 4. julija 2011, za ponovni pregled sklepa Parlamenta z dne 7. septembra 2010 o odvzemu njegove imunitete
– having regard to the request by Viktor Uspaskich for defence of his immunity of 5 April 2011, announced in plenary sitting on 9 May 2011, and to his request of 11 April 2011, announced in plenary sitting on 4 July 2011, for a review of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 to waive his immunity
Sprejeta besedila, P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
Texts adopted , P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
– po zagovoru Viktorja Uspaskicha 10. oktobra 2011 v skladu s členom 7(3) poslovnika,
– having heard Viktor Uspaskich on 10 October 2011, in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 7 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
I-7929; Zadeva T-42/06 Gollnisch proti Parliamentu . ,
Gollnisch v. Parliament . ,
– ob upoštevanju določb člena 62 ustave Republike Litve,
– having regard to the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
– ob upoštevanju sklepa Parlamenta z dne 7. septembra 2010 o odvzemu imunitete Viktorju Uspaskichu
– having regard to Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 to waive Viktor Uspaskich’s immunity
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0411/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0411/2011 ),
A. ker je primerno, da se zahtevi Viktorja Uspaskicha s 5. in 11. aprila 2011 obravnavata skupaj, saj se navezujeta na isti sodni postopek;
A. whereas it is appropriate to deal with the requests made by Viktor Uspaskich on 5 and 11 April 2011 together since they relate to the same legal proceedings;
B. 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;
B. 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;
C. ker po členu 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države, in ker se na imuniteto ni mogoče sklicevati, kadar se poslanca zaloti pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, in ker to Evropskemu parlamentu ne preprečuje uresničevanja pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu,
C. whereas, according to Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members ‘enjoy in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament’, whereas ‘immunity cannot be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its members’;
D. ker po 62. členu ustave Republike Litve poslanec nacionalnega parlamenta (Seimasa) ni kazensko odgovoren, ne sme biti priprt in mu prostost ne sme biti omejena na drug način brez soglasja Seimasa;
D. whereas, according to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (the Seimas) may not be held criminally liable or arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted, without the consent of the Parliament;
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 under the general procedure for personal insult or slander;
F. ker je Viktor Uspaskich obtožen kaznivih dejanj ponarejanja računovodskih izkazov v zvezi s financiranjem politične stranke v obdobju pred njegovo izvolitvijo v Evropski parlament;
F. whereas Viktor Uspaskich is charged essentially 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 je Parlament 7. septembra 2010 Viktorju Uspaskichu odvzel imuniteto, ker je menil, da 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 on 7 September 2010 Parliament waived Viktor Uspaskich's immunity, considering that no cogent evidence had been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and that the offences with which Viktor Uspaskich is charged had nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament;
H. ker je 28. oktobra 2010 Viktor Uspaskich na Splošno sodišče vložil ničnostno tožbo zoper sklep Evropskega parlamenta s 7. septembra 2010, ki jo je umaknil julija 2011;
H. whereas on 28 October 2010 Viktor Uspaskich brought an action for the annulment of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 in the General Court, only to withdraw it in July 2011;
I. ker v pismu z dne 5. aprila 2011 z zahtevo po zaščiti svoje imunitete Viktor Uspaskich trdi, da zaradi kazenskega postopka, ki so ga zoper njega sprožili litovski organi, ne more opravljati oziroma težko opravlja svoje parlamentarne dolžnosti, saj je omejena njegova prostost gibanja, kar je v nasprotju s členom 7 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah;
I. whereas in his letter of 5 April 2011 requesting the defence of his immunity Viktor Uspaskich claims that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Lithuanian authorities prevent him from performing, or make it difficult for him to perform, his parliamentary duties by restraining his freedom of movement contrary to Article 7 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities;
K. ker zaradi tega Parlament ne more privoliti v zahtevo Viktorja Uspaskicha z dne 5. aprila 2011 o zaščiti njegove imunitete na podlagi člena 7 Protokola;
K. whereas, consequently, it is impossible for Parliament to accede to Viktor Uspaskich’s request of 5 April 2011 to defend his immunity on the basis of Article 7 of the Protocol;
L. ker v pismu z dne 11. aprila 2011 Viktor Uspaskich poziva k ponovnemu pregledu sklepa Parlamenta z dne 7. septembra 2010 zaradi domnevno novih dejstev, ki jih je razkril WikiLeaks in za katere trdi, da dokazujejo, da je bil žrtev fumus persecutionis;
L. whereas in his letter of 11 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich requests the revision of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 on the grounds of alleged new facts raised by WikiLeaks, which he maintains show he was the victim of fumus persecutionis ;
M. ker bi bilo treba to zahtevo zavrniti, saj nič ne navaja na obstoj zadostne povezave med domnevnimi novimi dejanji in sodnim postopkom zoper Viktorja Uspaskicha zaradi ponarejanja računovodskih izkazov;
M. whereas this claim should be rejected on the grounds that no sufficient nexus has been established between the alleged new facts and the bringing of proceedings against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting;
N. ker poleg tega – kar velja tudi za trditev Viktorja Uspaskicha, češ da sta bili s sklepom s 7. septembra 2010 kršeni njegova temeljna pravica do zaščite in Evropska listina o temeljnih pravicah – zahteva po ponovnem pregledu sklepa Parlamenta s 7. septembra 2010 ne pomeni zahteve po zaščiti imunitete in privilegijev v smislu členov 6 in 7 poslovnika Parlamenta;
N. whereas in addition – and this applies also to Viktor Uspaskich’s claim that his fundamental right of defence and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights were violated in taking the decision of 7 September 2010 –, the application for a review of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 does not constitute a request for the defence of his immunity and privileges within the meaning of Rules 6 and 7;
14. julija 2009 je glavni državni tožilec Republike Litve zahteval odvzem poslanske imunitete Viktorju Uspaskichu.
On 14 July 2009 the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich.
Glavnemu državnemu tožilcu republike Litve je bilo s sklepom Okrožnega sodišča v Vilni z dne 29. junija 2009 naloženo, da Evropski parlament zaprosi, naj odvzame imuniteto svojemu članu Viktorju Uspaskichu, zoper katerega se je začel kazenski postopek z opr. št. 1-38/2009, in sicer zato, da bi se lahko kazenski postopek, začet zoper njega, nadaljeval in da bi se lahko izvršil sklep o varščini, ki je bil kot previdnostni ukrep izdan zoper njega.
The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania was instructed, by decision of the Regional Court of Vilnius of 29 June 2009, to ask the European Parliament to waive the immunity of its Member Viktor Uspaskich, against whom criminal proceedings have been brought in Case No 1-38/2009, in order that the criminal proceedings initiated against him may go ahead and the bail order made against him by the court as a precautionary measure may be enforced.
S tem namenom je med letoma 2004 in 2006 v Vilni osebju naročil, naj vodi nezakonite lažne izkaze za delavsko stranko, rezultat tega pa je bil, da za leta 2004, 2005 in 2006 ni mogoče popolnoma ugotoviti obsega premoženja in obveznosti stranke ter njene strukture.
To that end, from 2004 to 2006, in Vilnius, he directed staff to keep unlawful bogus accounts for the Labour Party, with the result that it is not possible to establish in full the extent of the party’s assets and liabilities or the party structure during the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.
9. decembra 2008 se je litovski parlament (Seimas) strinjal, da se Viktorju Uspaskichu odvzame imuniteta v zvezi z istim postopkom.
On 9 December 2008, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) agreed to waive the immunity of Mr Uspaskich in respect of the same proceedings.
Viktor Uspaskich je bil v skladu s členom 7 poslovnika Parlamenta zaslišan 27. januarja 2010.
On 27 January 2010 Mr Uspaskich was heard in accordance with Article 7 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
Po tem zaslišanju je predsednik Odbora za pravne zadeve 2. februarja 2010 pisal predsedniku Parlamenta in ga prosil, naj od litovskih organov zaprosi za pojasnilo naslednjih vprašanj:
As a result of that hearing, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs wrote to the President of Parliament on 2 February 2010 asking him to clarify the following questions with the Lithuanian authorities: