natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A. ker so po razvrstitvi OECD/DAC razen Rusije vse države BRICS (Brazilija, Rusija, Indija, Kitajska in Južna Afrika) države v razvoju;
A. whereas, with the exception of Russia, all of the BRICS countries are, according to the OECD/DAC classification, developing countries;
B. ker gre kljub nedavni izjemni gospodarski rasti v večini držav BRICS po podatkih Svetovne banke za države z največjo koncentracijo revščine na svetu (na Kitajskem na primer 207 milijonov ljudi živi z manj kot 1,25 USD na dan, v Indiji pa s takim zneskom shaja 41,6 % prebivalstva); ker to kaže, da utegne hitra gospodarska rast brez politik rasti, prilagojenih revnim, in vzpostavljanja varnostnih mrež v veliki večini primerov povečati neenakost;
B. whereas, in spite of the recent spectacular economic growth in most of the BRICS countries, these same countries are also the ones with the single largest concentration of poverty in the world, according to the World Bank (e.g. in China, 207 million people live on less than USD 1.25 per day, while in India 41.6 % of the population does so); whereas this shows that in the great majority of cases, without pro-poor growth and creation of safety nets, rapid economic growth may entail an increase in inequalities;
3. prav tako poziva EU, naj za hitrejši napredek pri reformiranju svetovnih institucij za finančno in gospodarsko upravljanje, tj. institucije sistema Bretton Woods, okrepi politični dialog in sodelovanje z državami BRICS, da bi glede na njihovo spreminjajočo se gospodarsko težo zagotovili široko zastopanost vseh članic;
Likewise, calls on the EU to enhance political dialogue and cooperation with BRICS to push further forward the reform of global financial and economic governance institutions, i.e. the Bretton Woods institutions, with the aim of ensuring the broad representation of all member countries while reflecting changes in economic weight;
5. poziva EU, naj kljub vse hujši tekmi za vire ohrani standarde za družbeno odgovornost gospodarskih družb, da se zagotovijo pravna varnost in trajnostna dolgoročna partnerstva;
Calls on the EU to uphold standards of corporate social responsibility even in the face of increased competition over resources in order to guarantee legal security and sustainable long-time partnerships;
8. poudarja, da so prednosti uporabe načela učinkovitosti pomoči pomembne tudi za nove donatorje, in poudarja, da je bil pri pogovorih glede proračunske podpore in gradnje zmogljivosti v afriških državah dosežen napredek v obliki okrepljenih razprav z državami BRICS;
Highlights that the advantages of signing up to the aid effectiveness principles are also relevant for emerging donors and stresses that dialogues in the context of budget support and capacity building in African countries have proven to be productive with regard to intensified discussions with the BRICS;
13. poudarja, da so povečanje preglednosti finančnih tokov, zagotovitev konkurenčnih razpisov za projekte in celovita ocena makroekonomskega vpliva financiranja na področju razvojnih politik v interesu držav z nizkim dohodkom, držav BRICS in EU;
Points out that enhancing transparency on financing flows, ensuring competitive bidding in projects, and assessing fully the macroeconomic impact of financing in the field of development policies is in the interest of low-income countries, the BRICS and the EU;
17. poudarja, da države BRICS niso članice OECD, zato niso vezane ne na merila OECD za uradno razvojno pomoč ne na smernice OECD o financiranju izvoznih kreditov, na podlagi katerih se omejuje vezana pomoč, urejajo kreditne prakse, zahteva izmenjava informacij ter določajo socialni in okoljski standardi ter standardi upravljanja finančnih dejavnosti;
Points out that because the BRICS are not members of the OECD, they are not bound to observe OECD criteria for official development assistance (ODA) nor OECD guidelines on export credit financing that limit tied aid, regulate credit practices, require exchange of information, and impose social, environmental and governance standards on financing activities;
Pino Arlacchi, Bastiaan Belder, Frieda Brepoels, Elmar Brok, Tarja Cronberg, Arnaud Danjean, Mário David, Michael Gahler, Ana Gomes, Andrzej Grzyb, Takis Hadzigeorgiu (Takis Hadjigeorgiou), Richard Howitt, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Ioanis Kasulidis (Ioannis Kasoulides), Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Maria Eleni Kopa (Maria Eleni Koppa), Andrej Kovačev (Andrey Kovatchev), Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Vytautas Landsbergis, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Mario Mauro, Kiriakos Mavronikolas (Kyriakos Mavronikolas), Francisco José Millán Mon, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Norica Nicolai, Kristiina Ojuland, Alojz Peterle, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Cristian Dan Preda, Tokia Saïfi, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Werner Schulz, Marek Siwiec, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Kristian Vigenin, Sir Graham Watson
Pino Arlacchi, Bastiaan Belder, Frieda Brepoels, Elmar Brok, Tarja Cronberg, Arnaud Danjean, Mário David, Michael Gahler, Ana Gomes, Andrzej Grzyb, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Richard Howitt, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Ioannis Kasoulides, Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Maria Eleni Koppa, Andrey Kovatchev, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Vytautas Landsbergis, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Mario Mauro, Kyriakos Mavronikolas, Francisco José Millán Mon, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Norica Nicolai, Kristiina Ojuland, Alojz Peterle, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Cristian Dan Preda, Tokia Saïfi, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Werner Schulz, Marek Siwiec, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Kristian Vigenin, Sir Graham Watson
(Poenostavljeni postopek – Člen 46(1) poslovnika)
(Simplified procedure – Rule 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
– ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( COM(2011)0813 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2011)0813 ),
– ob upoštevanju člena 148(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C7‑0500/2011 ),
– having regard to Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C7‑0500/2011 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve ( A7-0011/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs ( A7-0011/2012 ),
o usklajenemu evropskemu pristopu h kolektivnim tožbam naproti
on ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’
MNENJE Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov .........................22
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 23
– ob upoštevanju delovnega dokumenta Komisije z dne 14. februarja 2011 z naslovom Javno posvetovanje: Usklajenemu pristopu h kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom naproti ( SEC(2011)0173 ),
– having regard to the Commission staff working document of 4 February 2011 entitled ‘Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ ( SEC(2011)0173 ),
– ob upoštevanju osnutka dokumenta o smernicah z naslovom Izračun škode v odškodninskih tožbah zaradi kršitev člena 101 ali 102, ki ga je Komisija objavila junija 2011,
– having regard to the draft guidance paper entitled ‘Quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, published by the Commission in June 2011,
– ob upoštevanju Direktive 2009/22/ES o opustitvenih tožbah zaradi varstva interesov potrošnikov
– having regard to Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests
UL L 110, 1.5.2009, str.
OJ L 110, 1.5.2009, p.30. ,
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 26. marca 2009 o Beli knjigi o odškodninskih tožbah zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil ES
– having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2009 on the White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules
– ob upoštevanju zelene knjige Komisije z dne 27. novembra 2008 o kolektivnih odškodninah za potrošnike ( COM(2008)0794 ),
– having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 27 November 2008 on consumer collective redress ( COM(2008)0794 ),
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 20. januarja 2011 o poročilu o politiki konkurence za leto 2009
– having regard to its resolution of 20 January 2011 on the Report on Competition Policy 2009
– ob upoštevanju bele knjige Komisije z dne 2. aprila 2008 o odškodninskih tožbah zaradi kršitve protimonopolnih pravil ES ( COM(2008)0165 ),
– having regard to the Commission White Paper of 2 April 2008 on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules ( COM(2008)0165 ),
– ob upoštevanju poročila Maria Montija z dne 9. maja 2010 o novi strategiji za enotni trg,
– having regard to the Monti report of 9 May 2010 on a new strategy for the single market,
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 30. marca 2007 z naslovom Strategija potrošniške politike EU 2007–2013: Usposabljanje potrošnikov, izboljševanje blaginje potrošnikov, učinkovito varstvo potrošnikov ( COM(2007)0099 ),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 March 2007 entitled ‘EU Consumer Policy Strategy 2007-2013: Empowering Consumers, Enhancing their Welfare, Effectively Protecting Them’ ( COM(2007)0099 ),
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 25. oktobra 2011 o alternativnem reševanju sporov v civilnih, gospodarskih in družinskih zadevah
– having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
Sprejeta besedila, P7_TA(2011)0449 . ,
Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0449 . ,
– ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 13. septembra 2011 o izvajanju direktive o mediaciji v državah članicah, njenem vplivu na mediacijo in sprejetju s strani sodišč
– having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2011 on the implementation of the directive on mediation in the Member States, its impact on mediation and its take-up by the courts
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve in mnenj Odbora za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve, Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko ter Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov ( A7-0012/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection ( A7-0012/2012 ),
A. ker državljani in podjetja v evropskem območju pravice ne smejo le uživati pravic, temveč morajo imeti tudi možnost, da jih nemoteno in uspešno uveljavljajo;
A. whereas in the European area of justice, citizens and companies must not only enjoy rights but must also be able to enforce those rights effectively and efficiently;
B. ker je nedavno sprejeta zakonodaja EU napisana tako, da strankam v čezmejnih zadevah omogoča, da uspešno uveljavljajo svoje pravice
B. whereas recently adopted EU legislation is designed to enable parties in cross-border situations either to enforce their rights effectively
Uredba (ES) št. 861/2007 o uvedbi evropskega postopka v sporih majhne vrednosti, UL L 199, 31.7.2007, str.
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ L 199 , 31.07.2007, p.
1; Uredba (ES) št. 1896/2006 o uvedbi postopka za evropski plačilni nalog, UL L 399, 30.12.2006, str.
1); Regulation (EC) No1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ L 399 , 30.12.2006, p.
1; Uredba (ES) št. 805/2004 o uvedbi evropskega naloga za izvršbo nespornih zahtevkov, UL L 143, 30.4.2004, str.
1); Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ L 143, 30.04.2004, p.
15. ali da s pomočjo mediacije dosežejo izvensodno rešitev
15). or to seek out-of-court settlement by way of mediation
Direktiva 2008/52/ES o nekaterih vidikih mediacije v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, UL L 136, 24.5.2008, str.
Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 136, 24.05.2008, p.
C. ker koristim metode alternativnega reševanja sporov ni mogoče oporekati in ker bi moral biti vsem državljanom EU še naprej na voljo enakopraven dostop do sodnega varstva;
C. whereas the benefits of the alternative dispute resolution method are undisputed and fair access to justice should remain available to all EU citizens;
D. ker po raziskavi Flash Eurobarometer o odnosu potrošnikov do čezmejnega trgovanja in varstva potrošnikov iz marca 2011 79 % evropskih potrošnikov navaja, da bi bili bolj pripravljeni braniti svoje pravice na sodišču, če bi se lahko pridružili drugim potrošnikom, ki se pritožujejo o isti zadevi;
D. whereas, according to the Flash Eurobarometer on ’Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection’ published in March 2011, 79% of European consumers agree that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join other consumers complaining about the same issue;
E. ker oškodovani potrošniki, ki odškodnino zahtevajo individualno po sodni poti, pogosto naletijo na precejšnje ovire glede dostopnosti, učinkovitosti in cenovne dostopnosti, to pa zaradi včasih visokih sodnih stroškov, možnega psihološkega bremena, zapletenih in dolgotrajnih postopkov ter pomanjkljive obveščenosti o razpoložljivih pravnih sredstvih;
E. whereas consumers affected by a legal infringement who wish to pursue a court case in order to obtain redress on an individual basis often face significant barriers in terms of accessibility, effectiveness and affordability owing to sometimes high litigation costs, potential psychological costs, complex and lengthy procedures, and lack of information on the available means of redress;
F. ker v primeru, ko je zaradi iste kršitve oškodovana skupina državljanov, individualna tožba ni najučinkovitejše sredstvo za preprečitev nezakonitega ravnanja ali uveljavitev nadomestila, še zlasti, če je individualna škoda v primerjavi s sodnimi stroški majhna;
F. whereas, when a group of citizens are victims of the same infringement, individual lawsuits may not constitute an effective means of stopping unlawful practices or obtaining compensation, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison with the litigation costs;
G. ker v nekaterih državah članicah splošna učinkovitost obstoječih pravnih sredstev za potrošniške in izvrševanje ustreznih predpisov na ravni EU velja za nezadovoljivo, ali pa ti mehanizmi niso dovolj dobro poznani, zaradi česar je njihova uporaba omejena;
G. whereas in some Member States the overall performance of the existing consumer redress and enforcement tools designed at EU level is not deemed satisfactory, or such mechanisms are not sufficiently well known, which results in their limited use;
H. ker je zaradi povezovanja evropskih trgov in posledično večje čezmejne dejavnosti očitneje, da je potreben skladen vseevropski pristop za obravnavo primerov, kjer potrošniki ostanejo praznih rok, saj postopki skupinske odškodninske tožbe, ki so jih uvedle številne države članice, ne prinašajo čezmejnih rešitev;
H. whereas the integration of European markets and the consequent increase in cross-border activities highlight the need for a coherent EU-wide approach to address cases where consumers are left empty-handed as the procedures for the collective claim of compensatory relief which have been introduced in a number of Member States do not provide for cross-border solutions;
I. ker igrajo nacionalne in evropske oblasti ključno vlogo pri izvrševanju zakonodaje EU, izvrševanje zakonodaje na zasebni ravni pa bi moralo javno izvrševanje dopolnjevati, ne more pa ga nadomestiti;
I. whereas national and European authorities play a pivotal role in the enforcement of EU law, and private enforcement should only supplement, but not replace, public enforcement;
J. ker javno izvrševanje predpisov, da se prepreči kršitve in naloži denarna kazen, samo po sebi potrošnikom ne zagotavlja odškodnine za škodo, ki so jo utrpeli;
J. whereas public enforcement to stop infringements and impose fines does not of itself enable consumers to be compensated for damage suffered;
K. ker bi združitev tožb v skupinsko tožbo ali možnost, da to tožbo vloži skupni zastopnik ali organ, ki deluje v javnem interesu, lahko poenostavila postopek in znižala stroške strank v postopku;
K. whereas bundling claims in a single collective redress procedure, or allowing such a claim to be brought by a representative entity or body acting in the public interest, could simplify the process and reduce costs for the parties involved;
L. ker lahko sistem, ki temelji na skupinskih tožbah, koristno dopolni individualno pravno varstvo, vendar ga ne more nadomestiti;
L. whereas a system based on collective legal actions can usefully supplement, but is no substitute for, individual legal protection;
M. ker mora Komisija pri vseh predlogih, ki ne sodijo v izključno pristojnost Unije, spoštovati načeli subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti;
M. whereas the Commission must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality with regard to any proposal that does not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union;
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. proti Dukes in drugi, 564 U.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes et al.
S. xxx (2011). ter poudarja, da se v Evropi ne sme uvesti sistema skupinskih tožb po ameriškem modelu oziroma drugih sistemov, ki ne upoštevajo evropske pravne tradicije;
564 U. S. xxx (2011). , and stresses that Europe must refrain from introducing a US-style class action system or any system which does not respect European legal traditions;
5. poudarja možne prednosti kolektivnih tožb v obliki nižjih stroškov in večje pravne varnosti tožnikov, obtožencev in sodnega sistema, ki jih prinaša izogibanje vzporednim pravdnim postopkom za podobne tožbe;
Underlines the possible benefits of collective judicial actions in terms of lower costs and greater legal certainty for claimants, defendants and the judicial system alike by avoiding parallel litigation of similar claims;
7. želi spomniti, da trenutno samo države članice sprejemajo nacionalne predpise o določanju višine odškodnine; nadalje ugotavlja, da izvrševanje nacionalnega prava ne sme preprečiti enotnega izvrševanja evropskega prava;
Recalls that, currently, only Member States legislate on national rules for quantifying the amount of compensation that can be awarded; notes, furthermore, that the enforcement of national law must not prevent the uniform application of European law;
Obstoječa zakonodaja EU in sodna prepoved
Existing EU legislation and injunctive relief
13. meni, da se je treba pri sodni prepovedi osredotočiti na zaščito interesa posameznika in javnega interesa, in poziva k previdnosti, ko gre za razširitev dostopa do sodnega varstva za organizacije, saj slednjim ne bi smel biti omogočen lažji dostop do sodnega varstva kot pa posameznikom;
Considers that injunctive relief should focus on the protection of both the individual interest and the public interest, and calls for caution to be exercised when widening access to justice for organisations, since organisations should not enjoy easier access to justice than individuals;
15. meni, da dostop do sodnega varstva s pomočjo skupinskih tožb spada na področje postopkovnega prava in ga skrbi, da bi neusklajene pobude EU na področju kolektivnih tožb privedle do razdrobljenosti nacionalnih predpisov o postopkih in odškodnini, kar bi oslabilo, ne pa krepilo dostop do sodnega varstva v EU; če bi bila po temeljitem premisleku sprejeta odločitev, da je sistem EU za kolektivne tožbe zaželen in potreben, poziva, naj bodo vsi predlogi s področja kolektivnih tožb v obliki horizontalnega okvira, ki bo vključeval skupna načela in nudil enoten dostop do sodnega varstva preko kolektivnih tožb po Evropski uniji ter še posebej, vendar ne tudi izrecno, obravnaval kršitve pravic potrošnikov;
Takes the view that access to justice by means of collective redress comes within the sphere of procedural law and is concerned that uncoordinated EU initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws, which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; calls, in the event that it is decided after detailed consideration that a Union scheme of collective redress is needed and desirable, for any proposal in the field of collective redress to take the form of a horizontal framework including a common set of principles providing uniform access to justice via collective redress within the EU and specifically but not exclusively dealing with the infringement of consumers' rights;
20. ponavlja, da je treba znotraj horizontalnega instrumenta uvesti zaščitne ukrepe, da bi se izognili neupravičenim zahtevkom in zlorabi kolektivnih tožb ter zagotovili pravične sodne postopke, ter poudarja, da morajo zaščitni ukrepi med drugim zajemati sledeče:
Reiterates that safeguards must be put in place within the horizontal instrument in order to avoid unmeritorious claims and misuse of collective redress, so as to guarantee fair court proceedings, and stresses that such safeguards must cover, inter alia, the following points:
– zastopniška tožba je dopustna, če obstaja natančno identificirana skupina, identifikacija članov skupine pa je opravljena pred vložitvijo tožbe;
– for a representative action to be admissible there must be a clearly identified group, and identification of the group members must have taken place before the claim is brought;
– evropski pristop h kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom je treba oblikovati na podlagi načela sodelovanja, pri čemer morajo biti oškodovanci jasno opredeljeni in sodelovati v postopku le, če si to izrecno želijo, da bi se preprečile morebitne zlorabe; poudarja, da je treba v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti spoštovati obstoječe nacionalne sisteme; poziva Komisijo, naj pretehta vzpostavitev sistema, ki bi zagotavljal ustrezno obveščenost vseh potencialnih oškodovancev, povečal reprezentativnost skupinskih tožb in omogočil čim večjemu številu oškodovancev, da zahtevajo odškodnino, ter zagotovil enostaven, cenovno ustrezen in učinkovit dostop do sodnega varstva za državljane EU, s čimer bi preprečili pretirano število sodnih sporov, kasneje pa tudi nepotrebne posamične ali skupinske tožbe zaradi iste kršitve; poziva države članice, naj vzpostavijo učinkovite mehanizme za obveščanje čim večjega števila oškodovancev, da bodo poznali svoje pravice in obveznosti, kar zlasti velja za oškodovance, ki imajo bivališče ali sedež v različnih državah članicah, pri čemer pa zaradi upoštevanja domneve nedolžnosti ne smejo neupravičeno škodovati ugledu strank;
– the European approach to collective redress must be founded on the opt-in principle, whereby victims are clearly identified and take part in the procedure only if they have expressly indicated their wish to do so, in order to avoid potential abuses; underlines the need to respect existing national systems, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls on the Commission to consider a system which will provide relevant information to all potential victims involved, increase the representativeness of collective actions, allow for the largest number of victims to seek compensation and ensure simple, affordable and effective access to justice for EU citizens, thereby avoiding excessive litigation and subsequent unnecessary individual or collective actions concerning the same infringement; calls on the Member States to put in place efficient mechanisms ensuring that as many victims as possible are informed and made aware of their rights and obligations, in particular when they are domiciled in several Member States, whilst avoiding unduly harming the reputation of the party concerned, in order to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence;