natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Pravi kraj za izpodbijanje tega sklepa je sodišče v Litvi ali Luksemburgu.
The proper place to attack that decision is in court in Lithuania or in Luxembourg.
Kljub temu pa poročevalec predlaga, naj se predsednika Parlamenta zaprosi, da bi litovskim organom naslovil prošnjo o tem, da bi bilo sojenje Viktorju Uspaskichu organizirano v največji možni meri tako, da ne bi vplivalo na njegovo delo poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
Notwithstanding this, the rapporteur proposes that the President of Parliament be asked to write to the Lithuanian authorities requesting them to ensure that the trial of Mr Uspaskich is organised as far as possible in such a way as not to interfere with his work as a Member of the European Parliament.
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.
Zaradi tega jih ni mogel komentirati.
Consequently, he was unable to comment on them.
Uspaskich trdi, da dejstvo, da mu ni bilo omogočeno pogledati osnutka sklepa, predstavlja ne le kršitev njegove 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)
Vsakdo ima pravico, da institucije in organi Unije njegove zadeve obravnavajo nepristransko, pravično in v razumnem roku.
Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union .
a) pravico vsake osebe, da se izjasni pred sprejetjem kakršnega koli posamičnega ukrepa, ki jo prizadene;
a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
b) pravico vsake osebe do vpogleda v svoj spis ob spoštovanju legitimnih interesov zaupnosti ter poklicne in poslovne tajnosti;
b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;
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.
Pravi kraj za ta vprašanja je Sodišče in ne Odbor za pravne zadeve, ki po poslovniku ni pristojen za ponovni pregled svojih sklepov.
The proper place to raise these questions is the Court of Justice, not the Legal Affairs Committee, which has no competence under the Rules of Procedure to review its own decisions.
Poročevalec ugotavlja, da zaslišanje Viktorja 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.
S to zahtevo si Viktor Uspaskich prizadeva za ponovni pregled sklepa Parlamenta s 7. septembra 2010 na podlagi člena 6(2)
By this request, Mr Uspaskich requests the revision of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 on the basis of Rule 6(2)
Vsaka zahteva za zaščito privilegijev in imunitet, ki jo na predsednika naslovi poslanec ali nekdanji poslanec, se razglasi v Parlamentu in posreduje pristojnemu odboru. poslovnika zaradi domnevnih novih dejstev, na katere je opozoril WikiLeaks in za katere Uspaskich trdi, da kažejo na to, da je bil žrtev fumus persecutionis .
Any request addressed to the President by a Member or a former Member to defend privileges and immunities shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible. on the ground of alleged new facts raised by WikiLeaks, which he maintains show he was the victim of fumus persecutionis .
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) planirala 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]."
Prvič, med domnevno izjavo, ki naj bi jo nekdanji uradni uslužbenec litovskega zunanjega ministrstva dal po svojem odstopu leta 2006, in sodnim postopkom, začetim leta 2009, ni takšne povezave, da bi lahko upravičevali obstoj fumus persecutionis.
First of all, there is no connection between the statement allegedly made by a former official in the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry after his resignation in 2006 and legal proceedings brought in 2009 such as to justify the claim that there is a fumus persecutionis .
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.
S stališča pravne varnosti to pomeni, da naj bi – razen v absolutno izjemnih okoliščinah – sklep, ko je enkrat sprejet na plenarnem zasedanju, obveljal.
Considerations of legal certainty mean that, except in absolutely exceptional circumstances, once a decision has been taken by the plenary, it should stand.
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.
Dalje ugotavljamo, 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.
Zdaj ima priložnost, da se zagovarja v temeljnem postopku pred litovskimi sodišči, z vsemi možnostmi, ki se mu s tem odpirajo, vključno s sklicevanjem na predhodno odločanje v Luksemburgu in pritožbo v Strasbourgu.
He now has the opportunity to fight the substantive proceedings before the Lithuanian courts, with all the possible avenues of appeal open to him - including references for preliminary rulings to Luxembourg and appeals to Strasbourg.
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 2011, the 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.
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luigija de Magistrisa z dne 31. marca 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 6. aprila 2011, za zaščito njegove imunitete v okviru postopka v teku pred sodiščem v Neaplju (Italija),
– having regard to the request by Luigi de Magistris of 31 March 2011, announced in plenary on 6 April 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with proceedings pending before the Court of Naples, Italy,
– ob upoštevanju pisnih predložitev Luigija de Magistrisa v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having regard to the written submissions made by Luigi de Magistris in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju člena 8 Protokola (št. 7) o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, priloženega Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije, ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Article 8 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and to 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 sodb Sodišča Evropske unije z dne 12. maja 1964, 10. julija 1986, 15. in 21. oktobra 2008, 19. marca 2010 in 6. septembra 2011
– 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, 19 March 2010 and 6 September 2011
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0412/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0412/2011 ),
A. ker je poslanec Evropskega parlamenta Luigi de Magistris zahteval, da se zaščiti njegova poslanska imuniteta v zvezi s postopkom pred italijanskim sodiščem;
A. whereas a Member of the European Parliament, Luigi de Magistris, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with proceedings before an Italian court,
B. ker je zahteva Luigija de Magistrisa povezana s sodnim pozivom na obravnavo pred Sodiščem v Neaplju, ki mu je bil vročen v imenu podjetja Bagnolifutura SpA s sedežem v Neaplju, ki se ukvarja s projektantskimi deli in sanacijo tal, in sicer v zvezi s sporočili za javnost, ki jih je De Magistris izdal in ki so bila objavljena na njegovi spletni strani;
B. whereas the request by Luigi De Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Naples on behalf of Bagnolifutura SpA, a company domiciled in Naples engaged in design and in soil remediation, in connection with press releases issued by him and published on his website,
C. ker je v sodnem pozivu navedeno, da trditve v teh sporočilih za javnost predstavljajo obrekovanje, kar je privedlo do zahteve za odškodnino;
C. whereas, according to the writ of summons, statements made in those press releases constitute libel, resulting in a claim for damages,
D. ker so bila sporočila za javnost na spletni strani objavljena v obdobju, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, v katerega je bil izvoljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament leta 2009;
D. whereas the press releases were published on the website at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election at the 2009 European Parliament elections,
E. ker je v teh sporočilih za javnost Luigi de Magistris objavil informacije v zvezi z dopolnilnim pisnim vprašanjem Evropski komisiji, v katerem je zaprosil za dodatne podrobnosti v zvezi nepravilnostmi pri javnem naročanju, ki jih je Komisija ugotovila maja leta 2009, in ker je zaprosil je tudi za več podrobnosti v zvezi z domnevnim razsipnim ravnanjem z javnimi sredstvi na območju Neaplja, kjer podjetje Bagnolifutura opravlja svojo dejavnost,
E. whereas in those press releases Luigi de Magistris published information relating to a follow-up written question to the European Commission, in which he asked for additional details concerning public procurement irregularities noted in May 2009 by the Commission, and whereas he also asked for more details about an alleged waste of public funds in the area of Naples where Bagnolifutura conducts its business,
F. ker se v skladu s členom 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije zoper člana Evropskega parlamenta ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti;
F. whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties,
G. ker dejstvo, da sodni postopki sodijo v civilno ali upravno pravo ali da vsebujejo vidike, ki sodijo v civilno ali upravno pravo, v skladu z ustaljeno prakso Parlamenta samo po sebi ne predstavlja ovire za veljavnost imunitete iz tega člena,
G. whereas, in accordance with Parliament’s established practice, the fact that the legal proceedings fall under civil or administrative law, or contain certain aspects falling under civil or administrative law, does not per se prevent the immunity afforded by that article from applying,
H. ker 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,
H. whereas the facts of the case, as presented in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do have a direct and obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament,
I. ker je Luigi de Magistris z objavo omenjenih sporočil za javnost potemtakem opravljal svoje naloge poslanca Evropskega parlamenta;
I. whereas Luigi de Magistris, in publishing the press releases in question, was therefore acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament,
Na zasedanju 6. aprila 2011 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika razglasil, da je 31. marca 2011 prejel zahtevo Luigija de Magistrisa v zvezi z zaščito njegove poslanske imunitete v skladu s členoma 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske Unije in s členom 68 ustave Republike Italije, ki je bil spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 3 z dne 29. oktobra 1993.
At the sitting of 6 April 2011 the President announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that on 31 March 2011 he had received a request from Mr Luigi de Magistris concerning the defence of his parliamentary immunity with reference to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Union and to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic as amended by Constitutional Law No 3 of 29 October 1993.
Predsednik je zahtevo v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(3).
Luigi de Magistris se je odpovedal svoji pravici do zagovora pred odborom.
Mr De Magistris waived his right to be heard by the Committee.
Ozadje zahteve za zaščito je naslednje: Luigija de Magistrisa je pred neapeljsko sodišče pozvalo mešano podjetje Bagnolifutura SpA s sedežem v Neaplju, ki se ukvarja s projektantskimi deli in sanacijo tal, in sicer v zvezi z sporočili za javnost, ki jih je De Magistris izdal in ki so bila objavljena na njegovi spletni strani.
The background to the request for defence is as follows: Mr De Magistris was summoned before the Court of Naples by Bagnoliafutura SpA, a mixed company domiciled in Naples engaged in design and in soil remediation, in connection with press releases issued by him and published on his website.
V teh sporočilih za javnost je Luigi de Magistris objavil informacije v zvezi z dopolnilnim pisnim vprašanjem Evropski komisiji, v katerem je zaprosil za dodatne podrobnosti v zvezi nepravilnostmi pri javnem naročanju, ki jih je Komisija ugotovila maja leta 2009.
In these press releases Luigi de Magistris published information relating to a follow-up written question to the European Commission, in which he asked for additional details concerning public procurement irregularities noted in May 2009 by the Commission.
Zaprosil je tudi za več podrobnosti v zvezi z domnevnim razsipnim ravnanjem z javnimi sredstvi na območju Neaplja, kjer podjetje Bagnolifutura opravlja svojo dejavnost.
He also asked for more details about alleged waste of public funds in the area of Naples where Bagnoliafutura conducts its business.
Pri podjetju trdijo, da Luigi de Magistris v sporočilih za javnost podjetje obtožuje zamud, tratenja javnega denarja, pasivnosti in neučinkovitosti, obenem pa dokazuje vpletenost podjetja v ravnanje, ki bi ga lahko opisali kot prepletanje politike in kriminala.
Bagnoliafutura claims that in the press releases Luigi de Magistris accuses the company of delay and waste of public money, of passiveness and inefficiency, and argues that the company is involved in conduct best described as a mixture of politics and criminality.
Luigi de Magistris naj bi zlorabil svobodo govora in naj ne bi spoštoval pomembne dolžnosti, namreč te, da bi moral govoriti resnico.
Luigi de Magistris abused freedom of speech, and failed to comply with the important requirement to tell the truth.
Tožnik dokazuje, da je zaradi obtožb podjetje imelo resne težave na trgu ter pri odnosih z bankami, vladnimi agencijami in dobavitelji.
The claimant argues that the allegations bring the company into serious difficulties in the market and in its business relationships with banks, government agencies and suppliers.
Luigi de Magistris pa trdi, da je v sporočilih za javnost izražal svoje politično mnenje kot poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, poleg tega se mu zdi popolnoma normalno, da poslanec z rezultati svojega dela seznanja javnost.
For his part, Luigi de Magistris submits that in the press releases he expressed his political opinion as a Member of the European Parliament and according to him it is absolutely normal and necessary to inform the public of the results of his work.
Njegove izjave naj bi torej bile izraz politične dejavnosti poslanca, ki bi jo moral ščititi Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah.
The statements made therefore constitute an expression of the political activity of an MEP which should be protected by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.
Člena 8 in 9 Protokola (št. 7) k Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije se glasita (poudarki so dodani):
Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) to the TFEU on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union read as follows (emphasis added):
Zoper poslanca Evropskega parlamenta se ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties .
a. na ozemlju svoje lastne države imunitete, priznane članom parlamenta te države;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ;
Člen 6 – Odvzem imunitete
Rule 6 - Waiver of immunity
Parlament si pri izvajanju svojih pooblastil v zvezi s privilegiji in imunitetami predvsem prizadeva ohranjati integriteto kot demokratična zakonodajna skupščina in zagotoviti neodvisnost poslancev pri opravljanju njihovih nalog. (...)
In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall seek primarily to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in performance of their duties . (...)
Člen 7 – Postopki v zvezi z imuniteto
Rule 7 - Procedure on immunity
Zadevni poslanec ima možnost zagovora; predloži lahko vse dokumente ali druge pisne dokaze, ki se mu zdijo pomembni.
The Member concerned shall be given an opportunity to be heard; he may bring any documents or other written evidence he deems relevant .
V primerih zaščite imunitete ali privilegijev odbor preveri, ali okoliščine predstavljajo upravno ali kako drugo omejitev svobode gibanja poslancev pri potovanju v kraje zasedanja Parlamenta ali iz njih ali pri izražanju mnenja ali glasovanju v okviru izvrševanja mandata in ali sodijo v okvir člena 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah, ki niso predmet nacionalne zakonodaje, ter predlaga, da se zadevni organ zaprosi, naj sprejme potrebne sklepe.
In cases concerning the defence of immunity or privileges, the committee shall state whether the circumstances constitute an administrative or other restriction imposed on the free movement of Members travelling to or from the place of meeting of Parliament or an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the performance of the mandate or fall within aspects of Article [9] of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities which are not a matter of national law, and shall make a proposal to invite the authority concerned to draw the necessary conclusions.
Odbor lahko poda obrazloženo mnenje o pristojnosti organa in dopustnosti zahteve, vendar se v nobenem primeru ne izreče niti o krivdi ali nekrivdi poslanca niti o tem, ali mnenja oziroma dejanja, ki so mu pripisana, upravičujejo kazenski pregon, četudi se pri obravnavi zahteve podrobno seznani z dejstvi primera. (...)
The committee may offer a reasoned opinion about the competence of the authority in question and about the admissibility of the request, but shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case. (...)