natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Poročevalka pozdravlja dejstvo, da po večkratnih zahtevah Parlamenta proračun za leto 2012 prikazuje sredstva za plačila v višini 50.000.000 EUR v proračunski vrstici ESPG 04 05 01.
The Rapporteur welcomes the fact that, following repeated requests from the Parliament, 2012 budget shows payment appropriations (EUR 50.000.000) on the EGF budget line 04 05 01.
Opozarja na dejstvo, da je bil ESPG ustanovljen kot ločen in poseben instrument z lastnimi cilji in roki ter da kot takšen zasluži temu namenjena sredstva, s čimer bo preprečeno prerazporejanje iz drugih proračunskih vrstic, kakor se je dogajalo v preteklosti, saj bi to lahko ogrozilo doseganje različnih ciljev politik.
She reminds, in fact, that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that as such deserves a dedicated allocation, which will avoid transfers from other budget lines - as happened in the past - which could be detrimental to the achievement of the various policy objectives.
To je prvi predlog za uporabo sredstev sklada, predložen proračunskemu organu v letu 2012.
This is the first proposal for the mobilisation of the Fund submitted to the Budget Authority in 2012.
Če zahtevani znesek (1.642.030 EUR) odštejemo od razpoložljivih sredstev, ostaja do konca leta 2012 na voljo 498.357.970 EUR.
Therefore, deducing from the appropriations available the current amount requested (EUR 1.642.030) an amount of EUR 498.357.970 remains available until the end of 2012.
S tem bo ostalo na voljo več kot 25 % najvišjega letnega zneska, namenjenega ESPG, za dodelitev sredstev v zadnjih štirih mesecih leta 2012, kot določa člen 12(6) uredbe o ESPG.
This will leave more than 25% of the maximum annual amount earmarked for the EGF available for allocations during the last four months of 2012, as required by Article 12(6) of the EGF Regulation.
V skupni izjavi, sprejeti na usklajevalnem sestanku 17. julija 2008, so Evropski parlament, Svet in Komisija potrdili, da je treba ob spoštovanju Medinstitucionalnega sporazuma zagotoviti hitri postopek sprejemanja sklepov o uporabi sredstev sklada.
The Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, has confirmed the importance of ensuring a rapid procedure with due respect of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the adoption of decisions on the mobilisation of the Fund.
Zadeva: Mnenje o uporabi sredstev Evropskega sklada za prilagoditev globalizaciji (ESPG) za primer EFG/2011/006 ES/Comunidad Valenciana, Gradnja stavb, Španija (COM(2012)53)
Subject: Opinion on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the case EGF/2011/006 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Construction of buildings from Spain (COM(2012)53 final)
Odbor za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve (EMPL) in njegova delovna skupina za ESPG sta preučila uporabo sredstev sklada za primer EGF / 2011/006 ES/Comunidad Valenciana, Gradnja stavb in sprejela naslednje mnenje.
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) as well as its Working Group on the EGF examined the mobilisation of the EGF for the case EGF/2011/006 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Construction of buildings and adopted the following opinion.
A) ker vloga temelji na členu 2(b) uredbe o ESPG, njen cilj pa je zagotoviti pomoč za 1.138 od skupno 1.138 delavcev, ki so jih odpustili v 513 podjetjih, ki delujejo v oddelku 41 NACE po reviziji 2 (Gradnja stavb), v referenčnem obdobju med 25. julijem 2010 in 25. aprilom 2011 v regiji NUTS II Comunidad Valenciana (ES52);
A) Whereas this application is based on Article 2b) of the EGF regulation and targets for support 1 138 workers of the total of 1 138 workers dismissed in 513 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 41 ("Construction of buildings") within the reference period between 25 July 2010 and 25 April 2011 in the NUTS II region of Comunidad Valenciana (ES52).
B) ker španske oblasti trdijo, da je bilo odpuščanje presežnih delavcev posledica svetovne finančne in gospodarske krize, ki je prizadela Španijo in predvsem njen gradbeni sektor;
B) Whereas the Spanish authorities argue that the redundancies were caused by the global financial and economic crises that hit Spain and affected seriously its construction sector;
C) ker so se zaradi krize znatno zmanjšala posojila gradbenemu sektorju in posameznikom ter povpraševanje po novih stanovanjih, kar je povzročilo zmanjšanje števila gradbenih dovoljenj za več kot 75 % v letu 2009 in 80 % v letu 2010 v primerjavi z letom 2007;
C) Whereas in result of the crisis, the loans for the construction sector and to individuals have been dramatically cut and the demand for new housing declined, which is reflected in the decline in the building permits of more then 75% in 2009 and by 80% in 2010 compared to 2007;
D) ker je Komisija v svojem načrtu za oživitev gospodarstva že priznala, da je bil evropski gradbeni sektor težko prizadet zaradi krize; ker je ESPG že posredoval v številnih primerih odpuščanj v gradbenem sektorju;
D) Whereas the Commission already recognised in its Economic and Recovery Plan that the EU construction sector has been drastically affected by the crisis; whereas the EGF has already intervened in several cases of dismissals in the construction industries;
E) ker je 82 % delavcev, ki bodo prejeli pomoč, moških, 18 % pa žensk; ker je 79 % delavcev starih med 25 in 54 let, 17 % delavcev pa ima več kot 54 let;
E) Whereas 82 % of the workers targeted by the measures are men and 18 % are women; whereas 79 % of the workers are between 25 and 54 years old and 17% of workers are older than 54 years;
F) ker je poklicna struktura odpuščenih delavcev raznolika in med drugim vključuje 43 % specializiranih obrtnikov, 17 % pomočnikov obrtnikov in 9 % delavcev za preprosta dela;
F) Whereas the occupational structure of the dismissed labour force is diverse and among others consists of 43% of specialised craft workers, 17% of craft worker assistants and 9% of elementary occupations;
G) ker ima 74 % odpuščenih delavcev samo osnovno, 10 % srednjo in 11 % visoko izobrazbo, 5 % delavcev pa je neizobraženih;
G) Whereas 74% of the dismissed workers has only basic education, 10% finished upper secondary education, further 11% is graduated from tertiary education and 5% of the workers is defined as uneducated;
1. se strinja s Komisijo, da so pogoji iz člena 2(b) iz uredbe o ESPG (1927/2006) izpolnjeni in je zato Španija upravičena do finančnega prispevka na podlagi te uredbe;
Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 2 b) of the EGF regulation (1927/2006) are met and that, therefore, Spain is entitled to a financial contribution under this regulation;
3. ugotavlja, da je ESPG že pomagal presežnim delavcem v gradbenem sektorju: EGF/2009/017 LT/Gradnja stavb, EGF/2010/019 IE/Gradnja 41, EGF/2011/002 IT/Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Gradnja;
Notes that the EGF has already supported workers made redundant in the construction sector: EGF/2009/017 LT/Construction of buildings, EGF/2010/019 IE/Construction 41, EGF/2011/002 IT/Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Construction;
7. ugotavlja, da so se španski organi, zato da bi delavcem hitro pomagali, odločili začeti izvajati ukrepe pred končno odločitvijo o dodelitvi pomoči iz ESPG za predlagani sveženj usklajenih ukrepov;
Notes the fact that in order to provide workers with speedy assistance, the Spanish authorities decided to start the implementation of the measures ahead of the final decision on granting the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;
9. ugotavlja, da sveženj usklajenih ukrepov predvideva spodbudo za sodelovanje, ki znaša 400 EUR na delavca (pavšalni znesek), da bi se spodbudila udeležba pri ukrepih; ugotavlja, da bo to finančno spodbudo spremljala finančna pomoč (med 50 in 300 EUR) za delno kritje potnih stroškov delavcev, ki bodo sodelovali pri ukrepih;
Notes that the coordinated package foresees "Participation incentive", which amounts to 400 euro per worker (lump sum) to encourage participation in the measures; notes that this financial incentive will be accompanied by financial aid (ranging from 50 to 300 euro) covering partly the commuting expenses incurred by the workers participating in the measures;
11. pozdravlja dejstvo, da so bili poleg regionalne vlade socialni partnerji glavne zainteresirane strani v razpravah o vlogi in da sodelujejo pri izvajanju in spremljanju ukrepov s pomočjo "interesnih skupin";
Welcomes the fact that beside the regional government the social partners were the main stakeholders involved in the discussion on the application and that they are involved in the implementation and monitoring of the measures through the so-called "Interest Group";
14. ugotavlja, da ta primer karakteristično odraža socialne in gospodarske razmere določene regije, ki bi se jih lahko v prihodnje obravnavalo z razširitvijo področja uporabe ESPG na samozaposlene delavce (kot je predlagala Komisija v predlogu za ESPG 2014–2020).
Notes that the case at hand typically reflects the social and economic landscape of the specific region which could in the future be addressed by extending the scope of the EGF to self-employed workers (as proposed by the Commssion in the proposal for the EGF 2014-2020).
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luigija de Magistrisa z dne 15. marca in 1. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 24. marca in 6. aprila 2011, za zaščito svoje imunitete v okviru postopka, ki proti njemu teče pred sodiščem v Catanzaru v Italiji,
– having regard to the requests by Luigi de Magistris of 15 March and 1 April 2011, announced in plenary on 24 March and 6 April 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with proceedings pending before the Court of Catanzaro, Italy,
– po zagovoru Luigija de Magistrisa v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika,
– having heard Luigi de Magistris in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola št. 7 o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, 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 poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0070/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0070/2012 ),
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, ki je bil zoper njega vložen pri sodišču v Catanzaru v imenu Maurizia Mottole di Amata v zvezi z dvema člankoma, ki ju je Luigi de Magistris objavil na svoji spletni strani v začetku leta 2011;
B. whereas the request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Catanzaro on behalf of Mr Maurizio Mottola di Amato in connection with two articles that Luigi de Magistris published on his website in early 2011;
C. ker je v sodnem pozivu navedeno, da trditve iz teh člankov predstavljajo obrekovanje, kar je privedlo do zahteve za odškodnino in zahtevka za sodni nalog o prepovedi, s katerim se zahteva odstranitev člankov;
C. whereas according to the writ of summons, statements made in those articles constitute libel, resulting in a claim for damages and a request for an injunction requiring the removal of the articles;
D. ker sta bila članka objavljena na spletni strani v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, potem ko je bil leta 2009 izvoljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament;
D. whereas the articles 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 se v skladu s členom 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije zoper poslanca Evropskega parlamenta ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt, niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja, ki ga je izrekel, ali glasu, ki ga je dal pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti, in ker v skladu s členom 9 tega protokola poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
E. 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, and whereas, according to Article 9 of that Protocol, Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament;
F. ker se Luigi de Magistris sklicuje na člen 8 in na člen 9 Protokola, vendar se člen 9 ne more uporabiti zaradi člena 68 italijanske ustave, zato se očitno opira zgolj na člen 8;
F. whereas Luigi de Magistris makes reference to both Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol, but whereas Article 9 is not relevant in view of Article 68 of the Italian Constitution and he is therefore obviously relying solely on Article 8;
G. ker 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;
G. whereas, 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;
H. ker dejstva v tej zadevi, kot so prikazana v sodnem pozivu in v pisnih predložitvah Luigija de Magistrisa 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 manifested 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, 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 člankov potemtakem opravljal svojo dolžnost poslanca Evropskega parlamenta;
I. whereas Luigi de Magistris, in publishing the articles in question, was therefore acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament;
Na zasedanju 24. marca 2011 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika razglasil, da je 15. marca 2011 prejel zahtevo Luigija de Magistrisa v zvezi z zaščito njegove poslanske imunitete v povezavi s členoma 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske Unije in s sklicevanjem na člen 68 ustave Republike Italije, ki je bil spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 3 z dne 29. oktobra 1993.
At the sitting of 24 March 2011 the President announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that on 15 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.
Na zasedanju 6. aprila 2011 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika razglasil, da je 1. aprila 2011 prejel zahtevo Luigija de Magistrisa v zvezi z zaščito njegove poslanske imunitete v povezavi s sodno prepovedjo, ki se zahteva proti njemu v okviru iste zadeve.
At the sitting of 6 April 2011 the President announced, under Rule 6(3), that on 1 April 2011 he had a received a request from Mr Luigi de Magistris concerning the defence of his parliamentary immunity with reference to an injunction requested within the framework of the same case.
Predsednik je obe zahtevi v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika posredoval Odboru za pravne zadeve.
The President referred both requests to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(3).
Odbor je Luigija de Magistrisa v skladu s členom 7(3) Poslovnika zaslišal 26. januarja 2012.
Mr De Magistris was heard by the Committee on 26 January 2012 in accordance with Rule 7(3).
Ozadje zahtev za zaščito je naslednje: Maurizio Mottola di Amato je pozval Luigija de Magistrisa pred sodišče v Catanzaru v zvezi z dvema člankoma, ki ju je Luigi de Magistris objavil na svoji spletni strani v začetku leta 2011.
The background to the requests for defence is as follows: Mr De Magistris was summoned before the Court of Catanzaro by Mr Maurizio Mottola di Amato in connection with two articles that Luigi de Magistris had published on his website in early 2011.
Mottola trdi, da je de Magistris objavil pravne listine, ki jih je Mottola predložil v povezavi s kazensko zadevo „ Splendor “.
Mr Mottola claims that Luigi de Magistris published legal documents relating to Mr Mottola submitted in the context of the criminal case ‘ Splendor ’.
Ko je Luigi de Magistris delal kot državni tožilec v Italiji je vodil preiskavo v tej zadevi, tožnik pa je bil vanjo vključen kot upravitelj podjetja IMPREMED.
When Luigi de Magistris worked as a public prosecutor in Italy he conducted an investigation in this case, which involved the claimant in his capacity as an administrator of the company IMPREMED.
V tem postopku je Luigi de Magistris domneval, da je podjetje namizne prte iz restavracij pralo skupaj z bolnišnično posteljnino in tako izpostavljajo ljudi resni nevarnosti za zdravje.
In those proceedings Luigi de Magistris had alleged that the company used to wash restaurant tablecloths together with hospital linen, thus exposing people to serious health hazards.
Tožnik trdi, da so obtožbe de Magistrisa njemu in podjetju IMPREMED povzročile veliko škodo ter je zato vložil tožbo za denarno odškodnino in zahteva sodno prepoved za odstranitev omenjenih člankov s spletne strani Luigija de Magistrisa.
The claimant maintains that Luigi de Magistris’s accusations caused serious damage to him and to IMPREMED and is therefore bringing a claim for monetary damages and is requesting an injunction for the removal of the articles in question from Luigi de Magistris’s website.
Tožnik nadalje trdi, da je de Magistris navajal lažne in klevetniške obtožbe proti njemu in njegovi ženi, ki je bila zaposlena kot sodnica na sodišču v Catanzaru, ko je bil de Magistris državni tožilec, in je od njega prevzela preiskavo v kazenski zadevi „ Why not “, ki je zadevala obtožbe o goljufiji na račun Evropske unije ter je vključevala neupravičeno prisvajanje in nenamensko trošenje sredstev.
It is furthermore alleged by the claimant that Luigi de Magistris made false and libellous accusations against him and his wife, who worked as a judge at the Court of Catanzaro when Luigi de Magistris was a public prosecutor and who took over from him the investigation in the criminal case ‘ Why not? ’, which concerned allegations of fraud committed against the European Union, involving wrongful appropriation and misspending of funds.
Luigi de Magistris medtem trdi, da v vlogi poslanca Evropskega parlamenta šteje za povsem ustrezno obveščati državljane o italijanskih sodnih spisih (pri čemer gre za listine, ki jih ne zadevajo nobene določbe o varstvu zaupnosti), da bi izpostavil nenormalno izvajanje sodne funkcije v Italiji, zlasti na sodišču v Catanzaru, ter da njegove izjave zato predstavljajo izraz politične dejavnosti poslance Evropskega parlamenta, ki bi morale biti zaščitene v skladu s Protokolom o privilegijih in imunitetah.
For his part, Luigi de Magistris submits that in his role as Member of the European Parliament he considers it altogether proper to inform the citizens about Italian court documents (which were documents not covered by any confidentiality provisions) in order to highlight the abnormal exercise of the judicial function in Italy, especially at the court of Catanzaro, and that 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.
Poudarja tudi, da se je v funkciji predsednika Odbora za proračunski nadzor zelo zavzel za kritiziranje in preučitev odločitve, da se preiskava o uporabi sredstev EU zaupa sodnici, katere moža je pred tem sam preiskoval.
He stresses that, in his capacity as Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, he felt very strongly about criticising and analysing the decision to entrust an investigation into the use of EU funds to a judge whose husband he had previously investigated.
Glede sodne prepovedi se je Luigi de Magistris sprijaznil s tem, da sta bila članka 8. marca 2011 odstranjena z njegove spletne strani in do njiju ni več mogoče dostopati, zato tudi ne moreta povzročati dodatne škode Mauriziu Mottolu.
Concerning the injunction, Luigi de Magistris submits that given that the articles were removed from his website on 8 March 2011 and may no longer be accessed they can cause no further harm to Mr Mottola.
a. na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države ;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ;
Člen 68 italijanske ustave se glasi:
Article 68 of the Italian Constitution reads as follows:
Člen 68 [nekaznovanje, imuniteta]
Article 68 [Indemnity, Immunity]
(2) Brez predhodne odobritve zbornice, kateri poslanec pripada, se proti njemu ne sme uvesti osebne ali hišne preiskave ter se ga ne sme aretirati ali mu na kakšen drug način odvzeti prostosti ali zadržati v priporu, razen če gre za izvršitev pravnomočne obsodbe ali če je bil zaloten pri storitvi kaznivega dejanja, za katerega je predpisana obvezna aretacija.
(2) No members of Parliament shall, without the authori s ation of the Chamber to which they belong, be subjected to search warrants on their persons or in their homes, nor arrested or otherwise deprived of personal freedom, nor kept in state of detention, save in the case of execution of an irrevocable sentence of conviction, unless they be caught in the act of committing an offence for which an order of arrest is mandatory.
(3) Podobna odobritev je potrebna tudi, če naj se proti poslancem uvede katera koli oblika prisluškovanja njihovim pogovorom ali komunikaciji in če naj se zasežejo njihova sporočila po elektronski pošti ali korespondenca.
(3) A similar authori s ation shall be required in order to subject Members of Parliament to any form of interception of their conversations or communications, and in order to seize their mail or correspondence.
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 the performance of their duties . (...)