natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nadalje trdi, da ni imel možnosti učinkovito predstaviti svojega stališča 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.
( 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 Uspaskich 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 v vlogi 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.
(b) Zahteva z 11. aprila 2011
(b) The request of 11 April 2011
V drugem pismu z 11. aprila 2011 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 Delavske stranke Litve 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.
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 .
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 odstavek 48 in nasl. iz te sodbe:
Paragraph 48 et seq. of that judgment are worth citing in extenso :
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.
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 Member s of their parliaments, some of which protect Member s of national parliaments from legal proceedings to which they may be subject.
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.
Ne glede na vse navedeno pa neposredni vzrok domnevne nezmožnosti Viktorja Uspaskicha, da bi se udeleževal sestankov Parlamenta ob sredah, četrtkih in petkih, ni dejstvo, da mu je Parlament odvzel imuniteto, ampak sklep litovskega sodišča.
In any event, the proximate cause of Mr Uspaskich’s alleged inability to attend meetings at Parliament on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays is not the fact that Parliament waived his immunity, but the decision of the Lithuanian Court.
P7_TA(2010)0296 prekršil njegovo „pravico do obrambe – pravico, da predstavi svoje stališče, preden je sprejeta odločitev v zvezi z njim in ki mu lahko škoduje“.
Mr Uspaskich further claims that, in adopting Decision No P7_TA(2010)0296 , the Committee on Legal Affairs breached his ‘right of defence – the right to present his point of view before a decision is taken concerning him which may cause him damage’.
Nadalje izrazi nezadovoljstvo nad tem, da mu ni bila dana priložnost, da si ogleda ali komentira osnutek sklepa odbora in da so bila vprašanja litovskemu glavnemu državnemu tožilcu poslana brez njegove vednosti.
He then goes on to complain that he was given no opportunity to see or comment on the committee’s draft decision and that questions were sent to Lithuania’s Chief Public Prosecutor without his knowledge.
Uspaskich trdi, da dejstvo, da mu ni bilo omogočeno pogledati osnutka sklepa, ne predstavlja le kršenja njegovih temeljne pravice do obrambe in člena 41(1) in (2)(a) in (b)
He contends that the refusal to allow him to see the draft decision not only violated his fundamental right of defence and Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (b)
Vsi ti argumenti se vežejo na zakonitost sklepa Parlamenta o odvzemu Uspaskicheve imunitete in konec koncev na zakonitost poslovnika Parlamenta, zaradi njih pa Uspaskich ni mogel pregledati in komentirati osnutka poročila pristojnega odbora.
These are all arguments turning on the legality of Parliament’s decision to waive Mr Uspaskich’s immunity and ultimately on the legality of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which do not provide for him to inspect and comment on the draft report of the competent committee.
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)
Dejansko k ponovnemu pregledu poziva, ker je 9. aprila 2011 WikiLeaks objavil diplomatsko noto veleposlaništva ZDA v Vilni iz oktobra 2006, naslovljeno na ameriško zunanje ministrstvo, ki navaja, da je podsekretar litovskega ministrstva za zunanje zadeve Albinas Januska „zatrdil, da je [litovska vlada] (in s tem on sam) planiral odhod glavnega moža Delavske stranke Viktorja Uspaskicha iz Litve, ker vzdržuje stike z rusko SVR [zunanjo obveščevalno službo]“.
His ground for seeking a review is that on 9 April 2011 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 stated that Undersecretary Albinas Januska in the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ‘claimed that the [Government of Lithuania] (and, by extension, he himself) engineered the departure of Labour Party kingpin Viktor Uspaskich from Lithuania because of the latter’s ties to the Russian SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service].’
Tudi če bi obstajal dokaz o tem, da sta litovska vlada in Albinas Januska načrtovala odhod Viktorja Uspaskicha iz Litve zaradi njegove povezanosti z rusko SVR – a tega dokaza ni – pa to dejstvo in sodni postopek proti Uspaskichu zaradi ponarejanja računovodskih izkazov nista z ničemer povezana.
Even if there were proof that the Government of Lithuania and Albinas Januska had engineered Viktor Uspaskich’s departure from Lithuania because of the latter’s ties to the Russian SVR, which there is not, there would be no nexus between that fact and the bringing of proceedings against Mr Uspaskich for false accounting.
Drugič, poleg dejstva, da poslovnik ne predvideva, da bi pristojni odbor lahko ponovno pregledal sklepe, ki jih sprejme Parlament, – kar je konec koncev naloga Sodišča – ko Parlament odvzame poslančevo imuniteto v neki zadevi, poslanec v tej zadevi nima več imunitete in mu je torej ni možno ponovno odvzeti.
In the second place, apart from the fact that the Rules of Procedure do not provide for a review by the competent committee of decisions taken by Parliament - this, after all, is what the Court of Justice is for - once Parliament has waived a Member’s immunity in a given case, the Member no longer has any immunity to waive in that case.
Kljub temu je v tem primeru Odbor za pravne zadeve, potem ko je bil obveščen o odločitvi Viktorja Uspaskicha, da tožbo pred Sodiščem umakne, vseeno opravil temeljito oceno pravnih vidikov in dejstev v zvezi s poslančevimi navedbami in ga zaslišal, da bi videl, ali upravičujejo zaščito njegove imunitete.
Notwithstanding this, in this case, once the Committee on Legal Affairs had been apprised of Mr Uspaskich’s decision to withdraw his application before the Court of Justice, it carried out a thorough legal and factual appraisal of the Member’s allegations and held a hearing of him in order to see whether they justified defending his immunity.
Nadalje je ugotovljeno, da so litovski organi odvzem Uspaskicheve imunitete zahtevali julija 2009 in da sta od tedaj pretekli več kot dve leti.
It is further noted that the Lithuanian authorities requested the waiver of Mr Uspaskich’s immunity in July 2009 and that it has taken more than two years to deal with the request Mr Uspaskich had the opportunity of contesting Parliament’s decision before the Court of Justice.
Viktor Uspaskich je imel možnost, da sklep Parlamenta izpodbija pred Sodiščem, vendar je pritožbo umaknil.
He withdrew his application.
Poročevalec ugotavlja, da zaslišanje Vikotrja Uspaskicha 10. oktobra 2011 ni prineslo novih dejstev s tem v zvezi.
The rapporteur observes that the hearing of Mr Uspaskich on 10 October 2011 did not raise any new facts in this connection.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov, v skladu s členom 6(2) poslovnika in glede na dejstvo, da zaslišanje poslanca 10. oktobra 2011 ni prineslo novih dejstev, Odbor za pravne zadeve po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti poslančeve imunitete priporoča, da Evropski parlament Viktorju Uspaskichu odvzame imuniteto.
On the basis of the above considerations, pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and having regard to the fact that nothing new was raised at the hearing of the Member on 10 October 2011the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending the Member’s immunity, recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich.
o skupnem besedilu, ki ga je odobril Spravni odbor v okviru proračunskega postopka za leto 2012
on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee in the framework of 2012 budgetary procedure
Delegacija Evropskega parlamenta v spravnem odboru v proračunskem postopku
European Parliament delegation to the Budgetary Conciliation Committee
Poročevalca: Francesca Balzani
Rapporteurs: Francesca Balzani
– ob upoštevanju skupnega besedila, ki ga je odobril Spravni odbor (PE-CONS 00000/2011 – C7-0000/2011), ter izjav Parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, ki so priložene k tej resoluciji,
– having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 00000/2011 – C7‑0000/2011) and the Parliament, Council and Commission statements annexed to this resolution,
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 26. oktobra 2011 o predlogu splošnega proračuna Evropske unije za proračunsko leto 2012, kakor ga je spremenil Svet – vsi oddelki
– having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2011 on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012 as modified by the Council – all sections
Sprejeta besedila, P7_TA(2011)0461 . , in pisnih predlogih sprememb k temu predlogu,
Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0461 . and the budgetary amendments therein,
– ob upoštevanju stališča o predlogu splošnega proračuna Evropske unije, ki ga je Svet sprejel 25. julija 2011 (13110/2011),
– having regard to the position on the draft general budget of the European Union adopted by the Council on 25 July 2011 (13110/2011),
– ob upoštevanju dopolnilnih pisem št. 1/2012, 2/2012 in 3/2012 o spremembi predloga splošnega proračuna Evropske unije za proračunsko leto 2012, ki jih je Komisija predložila 17. junija 2011, 16. septembra 2011 in 25. oktobra 2011,
– having regard to Letters of Amendment No 1/2012, 2/2012 and 3/2012 to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012 presented by the Commission on 17 June 2011, 16 September 2011 and 25 October 2011 respectively,
– ob upoštevanju člena 314 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in člena 106a Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo,
– having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
– ob upoštevanju člena 75b in 75e svojega poslovnika,
– having regard to Rule 75d and 75e of its Rules of Procedure,
- seznama proračunskih vrstic, ki niso spremenjene v primerjavi s predlogom proračuna ali stališčem Sveta;
- list of budget lines not modified, compared to the draft budget or the Council's position;
- skupnih zneskov po razdelkih finančnega okvira;
- summary figures by financial framework headings;
- zneskov po vrsticah za vse proračunske postavke;
- line by line figures on all budget items;
2. potrjuje skupne izjave Parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, ki so vključene v skupne sklepe, ki jih je potrdil Spravni odbor in ki so navedene v prilogi k tej resoluciji;
Confirms the joint statements by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission included in the joint conclusions agreed by the Conciliation Committee annexed to this resolution;
4. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, drugim zadevnim institucijam in nacionalnim parlamentom.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the other institutions concerned and the national parliaments.
Proračun za leto 2012 – Skupni sklepi
Budget 2012 – Joint conclusions
Ti skupni sklepi vključujejo tri oddelke:
These joint conclusions cover three sections:
Proračun za leto 2012
Budget 2012
Proračun za leto 2011 – Sprememba proračuna št. 6/2011
Budget 2011 – Amending Budget 6/2011
Skupne izjave
Joint statements
Če v teh sklepih ni drugače navedeno, so vse proračunske vrstice, ki jih ni spremenil niti Svet niti Parlament, in tiste, za katere je Parlament med obravnavo sprejel spremembe Sveta, potrjene.
Unless stated otherwise below in these conclusions, all budget lines not amended by either Council or Parliament, and those for which Parliament accepted Council's amendments during their respective reading are confirmed.
Spravni odbor je za druge proračunske postavke prišel do naslednjih sklepov:
For the other budget items, the Conciliation Committee has reached the following conclusions:
Skupni prispevek EU za decentralizirane agencije (sestavljen iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev, ki jih je treba predvideti v proračunu za leto 2012, in razpoložljivih namenskih prejemkov v obliki odobritev za prevzem obveznosti in odobritev plačil) je v letu 2012 znižan za 1 % v primerjavi s predlogom proračuna, kakor je bil spremenjen z dopolnilnim pismom št. 3/2012.
The total EU contribution in 2012 (consisting of appropriations to be inscribed in the 2012 budget and assigned revenues available, in commitment appropriations and in payment appropriations) for decentralised agencies is reduced by 1%, as compared to the Draft Budget (DB) as amended by Amending Letter 3/2012.
Vendar je skupni prispevek EU (odobritve za prevzem obveznosti in odobritve plačil) določen na ravni predloga proračuna za FRONTEX (naslova 1 in 2) , Evropski azilni podporni urad (EASO) , Evropski bančni organ (EBA) , Evropski organ za zavarovanja in poklicne pokojnine (EIOPA) in Evropski organ za vrednostne papirje in trge (ESMA).
However, the total EU contribution (in commitment appropriations and in payment appropriations) is set at the level of the DB for FRONTEX (Title 1 & 2), the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
Za naslov 3 FRONTEX , glej razdelek 3a v oddelku 1.3 spodaj.
For FRONTEX Title 3, see heading 3a under section 1.3 below.
V primerjavi s predlogom proračuna Komisije to vodi v splošno zmanjšanje prispevka EU v višini 6,1 milijona EUR za naslednje decentralizirane agencije, kot je prikazano v spodnji tabeli:
As compared to the Commission's Draft Budget, this leads to an overall reduction in the EU contribution to the following decentralised agencies of EUR 6.1 million, as shown in the table below:
Ime decentralizirane agencije
Name decentralised agency
Skupni prispevek EU v letu 2012 (odobrena proračunska sredstva in namenski prejemki): odobritve za prevzem obveznosti
Total EU contribution in 2012 (budget appropriations and assigned revenues): commitment appropriations
Prvotni znesek
Initial amount
Spremenjeni znesek
Revised amount
Zmanjšanje proračuna za leto 2012
Reduction in Budget 2012
Evropska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) – Kemikalije
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Chemicals
Agencija za evropski GNSS (GSA)
European GNSS Agency (GSA)
Evropska fundacija za zboljšanje življenjskih in delovnih razmer (EUROFOUND)
European Foundation for Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)
Evropska agencija za varnost in zdravje pri delu (EU-OSHA)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA)
od tega ukrepi za preprečevanje onesnaževanja (06 02 02 03)
Of which anti-pollution measures (06 02 02 03)
Urad Organa evropskih regulatorjev za elektronske komunikacije (BEREC)
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication – Office (BEREC)
Evropski center za razvoj poklicnega usposabljanja (Cedefop)
European Centre for Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)
Evropska agencija za zdravila (EMA)
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
od tega zdravila sirote (17 03 10 03)
Of which orphan medicinal products (17 03 10 03)
Agencija za sodelovanje energetskih regulatorjev (ACER)
European Agency for Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER)
Evropski inštitut za enakost spolov (EIGE)
Gender Institute (EIGE)
Evropska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) – Biocidi
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Biocides
Evropska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) – Soglasje po predhodnem obveščanju
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Prior Informed Consent
Agencija za operativno upravljanje obsežnih informacijskih sistemov
Agency for the Operational Management of large-scale IT Systems
Evropski policijski urad (Europol)
European Police Office (EUROPOL)
Agencija Evropske unije za temeljne pravice (FRA)
Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA)
Evropski center za preprečevanje in obvladovanje bolezni
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
Evropska ustanova za usposabljanje (ETF)
European Training Foundation (ETF)
Prevajalski center
Translation Centre
Neto vpliv
Net impact
Glede ravni odobrenih proračunskih sredstev, ki jih je treba vključiti v proračun za leto 2012, bodo omenjena zmanjšanja za posamezne agencije po proračunskih členih sorazmerno porazdeljena po proračunski postavki do vrednosti dveh zadevnih proračunskih postavk v predlogu proračuna (prispevek za naslova 1 in 2 ter prispevek za naslov 3).
As regards the level of appropriations to be entered in the 2012 budget, the abovementioned reductions for individual agencies by budget article will be shared out by budget item proportionally to the weight in the Draft Budget of the two budget items concerned (contribution to Title 1 & 2 and contribution to Title 3).
Število delovnih mest za vse decentralizirane agencije je določeno na ravni iz predloga proračuna Komisije, kakor je bil spremenjen z dopolnilnim pismom št. 3/2012.
The number of posts for all decentralised agencies is set at the level proposed by the Commission in the Draft Budget, as amended by Amending Letter 3/2012.
Prispevek EU (odobritve za prevzem obveznosti in odobritve plačil) in število delovnih mest za izvajalske agencije sta določena na ravni iz predloga proračuna, razen „zaprta” vrstica za prispevke EU za EACI iz programa Marco Polo (06 01 04 32).
The EU contribution (in commitment appropriations and in payment appropriations) and the number of posts for executive agencies are set at the level proposed in the Draft Budget, with the exception of the 'closed' line for the EU contribution to EACI from the Marco Polo programme (06 01 04 32).
Pilotni projekti in pripravljalni ukrepi
Pilot Projects/Preparatory Actions