natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Luigi de Magistris se je v svoji zahtevi izrecno skliceval na člen 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije.
Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union was expressly invoked by Luigi De Magistris in his request.
Sporočila za javnost so bila objavljena v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, saj je bil izvoljen leta 2009 na volitvah v Evropski parlament.
The press releases were published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election during the 2009 European Parliament elections.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso Parlamenta dejstvo, da so sodni postopki civilnopravne ali upravnopravne narave ali da vsebujejo vidike, ki sodijo v civilno ali upravno pravo, samo po sebi ne predstavlja ovire za veljavnost imunitete iz tega člena.
In accordance with Parliament’s established practice, the fact that the legal proceedings are of a civil or administrative law nature, or contain certain aspects falling under civil or administrative law, does not per se prevent the immunity afforded by that article from applying.
Kakor je ugotovilo Sodišče, mora biti obseg absolutne imunitete iz člena 8 določen le na podlagi prava Skupnosti
As the Court of Justice has held, the scope of the absolute immunity provided for in Article 8 ‘must be established on the basis of Community law alone’
Vseeno je Sodišče nedavno odredilo, da „izjava poslanca Evropskega parlamenta zunaj meja te institucije, zaradi katere je sodno preganjan v svoji državi članici izvora za kaznivo dejanje lažnih obtožb, n e predstavlja mnenja, izraženega med opravljanjem njegovih parlamentarnih nalog , in tako zajetega v imuniteto, ki jo zagotavlja ta določba, razen če ta izjava ni subjektivna ocena, ki ima neposredno, očitno povezavo z opravljanjem teh nalog “
However, the Court has also recently held that ‘a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties ’
Zadeva Patriciello, citirano zgoraj, operativni del. .(poudarki dodani).
Patriciello, cited above, operative part. (emphasis added).
V takšnih okoliščinah odbor meni, da dejstva v tej zadevi, kot so prikazana v sodnem pozivu in v pisni dokumentaciji, ki ju je Luigi de Magistris predložil Odboru za pravne zadeve, nakazujejo, da imajo trditve Luigija de Magistrisa neposredno, očitno povezavo z njegovim opravljanjem nalog poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, zlasti zato, ker se objavljene informacije nanašajo na dopolnilno pisno vprašanje za Evropsko komisijo.
Against this background, the Committee considers that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee, indicate that the statements made do have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, in particular since the published information relates to a follow-up written question to the European Commission.
Odbor zato meni, da je Luigi de Magistris z objavo omenjenih sporočil za javnost opravljal svoje naloge poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
The Committee therefore considers that, in publishing the press releases in question, Luigi de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties as Member of the European Parliament.
o zahtevi za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev Viktorja Uspaskicha
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Viktor Uspaskich
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Viktorja Uspaskicha z dne 5. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 9. maja 2011, za zaščito njegove imunitete in njegove zahteve z dne 11. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 4. julija 2011, za ponovni pregled sklepa Parlamenta s 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) svojega poslovnika,
– having heard Viktor Uspaskich on 10 October 2011, in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju sodb Sodišča Evropske unije z 12. maja 1964, 10. julija 1986, 15. in 21. oktobra 2008 ter 19. marca 2010
– having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008 and 19 March 2010
– ob upoštevanju sklepa Parlamenta s 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 ( A7‑0413/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0413/2011 ),
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 uresničevanje 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’;
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;
I. ker v pismu s 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 omejeno njegovo gibanje, 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 s 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 11. aprila 2011 Viktor Uspaskich poziva k ponovnemu pregledu sklepa Parlamenta s 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 ni bila ugotovljena zadostna povezava med domnevnimi novimi dejstvi 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 – in to 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;
Obtožba Viktorja Uspaskicha bremeni, da je med 13. julijem 2004 in 17. majem 2006 v Vilni kot predsednik Delavske stranke skupaj z drugimi osebami za namene: a) nezakonitega financiranja politične stranke, in sicer Delavske stranke, in b) izmikanja ustreznemu nadzoru financiranja stranke in njenih političnih kampanj vodil organizirano skupino, ki je bila oblikovana z namenom storitve številnih kaznivih dejanj.
The case against Viktor Uspaskich is that, in Vilnius between 13 July 2004 and 17 May 2006, as chair of the Labour Party, acting in concert with others for the purposes of (a) attempting to finance a political party – namely the Labour Party – illegally and (b) evading proper supervision of the financing of the party and its political campaigns, he directed an organised group created by them in order to perpetrate a number of criminal offences.
Tako je med letoma 2004 in 2006 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.
Viktor Uspaskich, ki je bil po 21. členu zakona o računovodstvu Republike Litve odgovoren za organizacijo računovodstva stranke in je deloval za račun in v interesu Delavske stranke kot pravne osebe, je obtožen, da je spomladi leta 2004 neki osebi dal navodilo, naj za delavsko stranko vodi „dvojno“ računovodstvo.
Viktor Uspaskich - who was responsible, under Article 21 of the Accounting Act of the Republic of Lithuania, for organising the keeping of the party’s accounts and was acting for the benefit and in the interests of the Labour Party as a legal person - is accused by the Lithuanian authorities of having instructed a person to undertake ‘double’ bookkeeping for the Labour Party in Spring 2004.
Ukazal naj bi tudi, da se podatki o transakcijah in poslovnih dejavnostih, ki jih je treba vnesti v izkaze, pa tudi neuradni prejemki in izdatki v denarju in premoženju v zvezi z dejavnostmi Delavske stranke, vnesejo v neuradne poslovne knjige.
In addition, it is alleged that transactions and business activities which it was compulsory to record in the accounts, as well as the unofficial receipt and disbursement of monies and assets in connection with Labour Party activities, should be recorded in unofficial ledgers.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da Viktor Uspaskich v času, ko naj bi bila storjena očitana mu kazniva dejanja, ni bil poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
It should be noted in addition that Mr Uspaskich was not Member of the European Parliament at the time when the offences of which he stands accused were allegedly committed.
Poslanec 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.
● 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 EUR).
● 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 EUR.
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.
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 2 05(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,
B. 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 uresničevanje pravice do odvzema imunitete svojemu članu;
B. 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 Member s of their Parliament , whereas immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members,
C. ker se obtožnica zoper Viktorja Uspaskicha ne nanaša na mnenja, ki so bila izražena, ali glasove, ki so bili oddani pri opravljanju njegovih dolžnosti člana Evropskega parlamenta ;
C. whereas the charges brought against Mr Uspaskich do not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament,
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, 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 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 ’ .
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
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 s 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 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 z naslednjo utemeljitvijo:
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.
9. aprila 2011 je WikiLeaks razkril skrivno noto veleposlaništva ZDA v Vilni, ki navaja, da je generalni sekretar litovske vlade ameriške diplomate obvestil, da je litovska vlada „načrtovala“ moj izgon iz Litve na podlagi moje narodnostne pripadnosti (biti Rus po narodnosti pomeni biti ruski vohun).
On 9 April 2011 WikiLeaks disclosed a secret note of the USA Embassy in Vilnius, where it is stated that State Secretary of the Government of Lithuania had informed the American diplomats the Government of Lithuania ‘ engineered ’ expelling me from Lithuania on the ground of my ethnic origin (ethnic Russian means Russian spy).
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.
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).
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.
(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 Delavsko stranko Litve.
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 enega od vidikov moje imunitete kot poslanca Evropskega parlamenta: privilegija prostega gibanja, ki 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 udeležbo na sestankih Evropskega parlamenta, na primer „ob ponedeljkih dopoldne“ (iz nadaljnjih predložitev Viktorja Uspaskicha je dejansko razvidna njegova 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.