natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ker se vprašanje nanaša na celično zdravljenje z izvornimi celicami, so informacije na voljo le za dejavnosti z jasno klinično uporabo, ki so navedene v Prilogi Priloga se pošlje neposredno cenjenemu članu in sekretariatu Parlamenta. .
Since the question refers to stem cell therapy, information is provided only on those activities with a clear clinical application and these are listed in the annex The annex is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament. .
Projekti v zvezi z drugimi uporabami izvornih celic, kot je na primer farmacevtski razvoj ali usposabljanje, ali tisti, ki se osredotočajo na molekularne mehanizme, niso vključeni.
Projects concerning other uses of stem cells, for example for pharmaceutical development or training, or those focusing on molecular mechanisms are not included.
Osem opredeljenih projektov predstavlja prispevek EU v višini skoraj 41 milijonov EUR.
The eight projects identified represent an EU contribution of close to EUR 41 million.
Ker se pri številnih projektih izbere primerjalen pristop glede vira izvornih celic in se uporabljajo različne vrste izvornih celic, ni mogoče zagotoviti natančnih podatkov za vsako od treh navedenih kategorij (izvorne celice odraslega, zarodka ali izvorne celice, pridobljene iz popkovnične krvi).
Since many projects take a comparative approach to stem cell source and use different types of stems cells, precise figures for the three categories raised in the question (adult, embryonic and cord blood) cannot be provided.
Zato predlagamo naslednjo razčlenitev: pri treh projektih se uporabljajo izključno izvorne celice odraslega (18,0 milijona EUR); pri treh projektih se uporabljajo tako izvorne celice zarodka kot tudi izvorne celice odraslega (17,3 milijona EUR); en projekt vključuje primerjalno uporabo izvornih celic odraslega, zarodka in izvornih celic, pridobljenih iz popkovnične krvi (2,7 milijona EUR), pri enem projektu pa se uporabljajo izključno izvorne celice, pridobljene iz popkovnične krvi (3 milijoni EUR).
Therefore, we propose the following breakdown: three projects use exclusively adult stem cells (EUR 18.0 million); three projects use both embryonic and adult stem cells (EUR 17.3 million); one project involves comparative use of embryonic, adult and cord blood (EUR 2.7 million) and one project uses exclusively cord blood stem cells (EUR 3 million).
Med temi projekti Optistem Optimizacija celičnega zdravljenja z izvornimi celicami za klinične študije degenerativnih bolezni kože in mišic. čaka na pogodbo in ustrezno subvencijo, glede Projekta 1 Projekt v zvezi z izvornimi celicami odraslega za poškodovano tkivo. pa je bil dosežen sporazum in čaka na končno izbiro.
Among these projects, Optistem Optimization of stem cell therapy for clinical trials of degenerative skin and muscle diseases. is awaiting its contract and corresponding grant and Project 1 Project on adult stem cells for damaged tissue. has been negotiated and is awaiting final selection.
Nazadnje objavljeni pregled zakonodaje, ki velja za to področje v posameznih državah članicah, je pregled, ki ga je junija 2007 Evropska skupina za etiko v znanosti in novih tehnologijah v Mnenju št. 22 predložila Komisiji http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_22_final_follow_up_en.pdf . .
The most recent published overview of the legislative framework in force in this area in each of the European countries is the one provided in June 2007 in Opinion No 22 of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the Commission http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_22_final_follow_up_en.pdf .
PISNO VPRAŠANJE P-6712/08
WRITTEN QUESTION P-6712/08
Zadeva: Zavrnitev projektov Life+ narava s strani Evropske komisije
Subject: Commission's rejection of Life+ Nature projects
Program Life+ narava je finančni instrument, namenjen ohranjanju posebnih varstvenih območij evropskega omrežja Natura 2000.
The Life+ Nature programme is a financial instrument for preserving protected sites in the European Natura 2000 network.
Prijavitelji iz držav članic pripravijo projekte in jih prijavijo Evropski komisiji, ki jih pregleda in oceni.
Applicants from the Member States draw up projects and submit them to the Commission, which reviews and assesses them.
Če jih zavrne, poda tudi obrazložitev.
If it rejects them, it provides an explanation.
Prijavitelj je pripravil načrt upravljanja za 16 prioritetnih vrst in habitatnih tipov na izbranem območju in želi izvesti vzorčne akcije na terenu za večino vrst.
The applicant drew up a management plan for 16 priority species and typical habitats at the selected location and wishes to conduct sampling exercises on the ground for most of the species.
Ocenjevalec pa je z obrazložitvijo, da za rjavega medveda in risa niso pripravljene konkretne akcije , predlagani projekt zavrnil.
The assessor rejected the proposed project on the grounds that specific actions had not been prepared for the brown bear and lynx.
Pri tem ni upošteval, da sta rjavi medved in ris samo dve od prioritetnih vrst in so zanju načrtovane le splošne akcije.
But the assessor failed to take into account the fact that the brown bear and lynx are just two of the priority species and that only general actions were prepared for them.
Poleg tega je ocenjevalec pri pregledu finančnega načrta v obliki MS-Excel spregledal, da se v različnih nacionalnih nastavitvah programa kot ločilo za tisočice uporablja pika (.) ali vejica (,).
What is more, when he examined the financial plan in Excel format the assessor overlooked the fact that different national settings in the Excel program separate thousands differently, using either a full stop or a comma.
Tako je prišlo do nesporazuma oziroma nesmiselne napake, ki lahko vpliva na nadaljevanje postopka ocenjevanja, saj je ocenjevalec menil, da je načrt finančno nekonsistenten.
As a result, there was a misunderstanding, or a senseless error, which affected the rest of the assessment procedure because the assessor considered the plan to be financially inconsistent.
Faktor napake je namreč 1000, kar pomeni, da se ocenjevalcu v MS-Excelu pokaže 100 EUR, če je prijavitelj načrtoval za akcijo 100.000 EUR.
Since the mistake involved a factor of 1 000, the assessor read EUR 100 in the Excel table whereas the applicant planned EUR 100 000 for the action.
Ali ima Evropska komisija utemeljene razloge, zaradi katerih vztraja pri zavrnitvi delov omenjenega projekta?
Does the Commission have any substantial reasons for persisting in rejecting parts of this project?
Kot je opisano v navodilih za ocenjevanje predlogov projektov LIFE+ za leto 2007, ki so na voljo na internetu, so ocenjevanje predloga izvedli neodvisni zunanji strokovnjaki, od katerih je vsak dal oceno za vsako od ocenjevalnih meril, objavljenih v navodilih za ocenjevanje.
As described in the Guide for the evaluation of LIFE+ project proposals 2007, which is available on the Internet, the evaluation of the proposal has been carried out independently by external experts, each of which gave a score for each of the evaluation criteria published in the Guide for the evaluation.
Dva strokovnjaka sta neodvisno drug od drugega ugotovila, da ima predlog več pomanjkljivosti, ki ne omogočajo pozitivne ocene.
Two experts concluded independently that the proposal had a number of weaknesses that would not allow for a positive scoring.
Zlasti sta oba strokovnjaka ugotovila, da zadevni predlog ne more biti financiran zaradi njegove pomanjkljive finančne koherentnosti in kakovosti.
In particular, both experts concluded that the proposal in question should not be retained for funding because of its insufficient financial coherence and quality.
Predvsem je preveč dejavnosti v predlogu veljalo za normalne naloge uprave nacionalnega parka, pri čemer so bile le šibko povezane z neposrednim ohranjanjem prioritetnih vrst ali habitatnih tipov oziroma, kadar so bile povezane s prioritetnimi vrstami, niso vključevale nobenih konkretnih izvedbenih dejavnosti.
In particular, too many actions in the proposal were considered as being normal tasks of a national park administration, only weakly related to any direct conservation of priority species or habitat types or, when they related to priority species, did not include any concrete implementation actions.
Komisija želi poudariti, kakor je že pojasnila prijavitelju, da samo vprašanje očitne napake (zaradi razlage decimalnih mest) v znesku, navedenem za potne stroške, ni bilo razlog za zavrnitev prijave.
The Commission points out that, as already explained to the applicant, the issue concerning an obvious error (due to interpretation of the decimal places) in the amount indicated for travel costs was not, in itself, a reason for the rejection of the application.
Nizka ocena finančne kakovosti predloga je bila predvsem posledica nedoslednosti pri načinu predstavitve stroškov dela.
The low rating in financial quality of the proposal was mainly due to inconsistencies in the way in which personnel costs were presented.
Na podlagi naknadne korespondence s prijaviteljem Komisija razume, da je prijavitelj uporabil urne postavke namesto dnevnih in število delovnih ur namesto števila delovnih dni, vendar to ni vpisano v naslove stolpcev v obrazcih, ki jih je prijavitelj predložil.
Based on subsequent correspondence from the applicant, the Commission understands that the applicant has used hourly rates instead of daily rates and number of working hours instead of number of working days, but this is not what is written in the column headings in the forms submitted by the applicant.
Ocenjevanje predlogov lahko temelji le na tistem, kar je v njih napisano, ne pa na mnenju, ki ga posamezni ocenjevalec lahko ima o tem, kaj bi lahko bil vzrok nedoslednosti.
The evaluation of proposals can only be based on what is written on them, not on what the individual evaluators think might be the reason for inconsistencies.
Komisija upa, da so s tem pojasnjeni razlogi za zavrnitev tega predloga.
The Commission hopes that this clarifies the reasons for the rejection of this proposal.
Poleg tega Komisija cenjeno članico obvešča, da je prijavitelj, Triglavski narodni park, v dopisih prek elektronske pošte z dne 10. decembra 2008 priznal, da je bil predlog zavrnjen zaradi nezadostne natančnosti dokumenta, ki je bil predložen Komisiji.
In addition, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the applicant, Triglav National Park, recognised, in an e-mail correspondence of 10 December 2008, that the rejection of the project was due to lack of precision in the document that was submitted to the Commission.
Glede na navedeno šteje Komisija zadevo za zaključeno in z veseljem pričakuje nove predloge za ohranitev naravnih bogastev Triglavskega narodnega parka v prihodnosti.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission considers the matter closed and looks forward to receiving new proposals for conservation of the natural values of the Triglav National Park in the future.
PISNO VPRAŠANJE P-3339/09
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3339/09
Zadeva: Sistem vinjet v Sloveniji
Subject: The vignette system in Slovenia
V Sloveniji trenutno poteka burna razprava o vinjetah, ki jih je uvedla slovenska vlada leta 2008 kot instrument plačila cestnine.
The vignette system which the Slovenian Government introduced in 2008 as a means of paying to use motorways is currently the subject of a heated debate in Slovenia.
Iz informacij s strani medijev in iz sporočila za javnost Evropske komisije z dne 2. oktobra 2008 (IP/08/1446) je razbrati, da naj bi bil vinjetni sistem v Sloveniji domnevno diskriminatoren do tranzitnih uporabnikov slovenskih avtocest.
Information published in the media and the Commission press release of 2 October 2008 (IP/08/1446) suggest that the vignette system in Slovenia may discriminate against transit users of Slovenian motorways.
Da bi slovenskim državljanom in državljankam pojasnili, kaj je res in kaj ni, se na vas obračam z nekaj vprašanji.
In seeking to clarify for Slovenian citizens what is true and what is not, I have a number of questions.
Glede na dejstvo, da se približujejo evropske volitve, kjer si prizadevamo za čim višjo volilno udeležbo in povrnitev zaupanja naših državljanov v EU (to pa je nedvomno povezano z dostopom do informacij), bi vas prosila za odgovor na spodnja vprašanja v najkrajšem možnem času.
In view of the approaching European elections, at which we are striving to achieve maximum participation and the return of citizens’ trust in the EU, something that is undoubtedly connected with access to information, please could you answer the following questions as soon as possible.
Kako in na kakšen način Evropska komisija odloča o diskriminatornosti nekega vinjetnega sistema v državi članici?
How does the Commission decide whether a vignette system in a Member State is discriminatory?
Kaj je pravna podlaga za tovrstno odločanje?
What is the legal basis on which that decision is made?
Kdaj je Evropska komisija prejela odgovor slovenske vlade na uradni opomin?
When did the Commission receive an answer from the Slovenian government to the letter of formal notice?
Za katere nadaljnje korake se je Evropska komisija odločila po prejemu odgovora na uradni opomin?
What further steps has the Commission decided to take following receipt of the response to the letter of formal notice?
Kaj je bil razlog za zamrznitev evropskih kohezijskih sredstev za izgradnjo avtocestnega odseka Slivnica-Draženci?
What was the reason for freezing the cohesion funds for construction of the Slivnica-Draženci motorway section?
Kaj bi morala slovenska vlada narediti, da bi bilo možno ponovno črpati sredstva EU za izgradnjo avtocestnega odseka Slivnica-Draženci?
What would the Slovenian Government have to do to make it possible to draw on EU funds again for the Slivnica-Draženci motorway section?
(9. junij 2009)
(9 June 2009)
Države članice morajo pri določanju sistema pristojbin za uporabo cestne infrastrukture (s cestninami na podlagi prevožene razdalje ali časovnimi vinjetami) spoštovati prepoved vsakršne diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, kot je določeno v členu 12 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in v zadevnih sodbah Evropskega sodišča.
In establishing a charging scheme for the use of road infrastructure (through distance-based tolls or time-based ‘vignettes’) Member States must respect the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, set out in Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and related judgments of the European Court of Justice.
Slovenski organi so odgovor poslali 29. oktobra 2008.
The answer provided by the Slovenian authorities was received on 29 October 2008.
Slovenska vlada je 4. in 8. maja 2009 obvestila Komisijo o svoji odločitvi, da bo spremenila vinjetni sistem.
The Commission has been informed on 4 and 8 May 2009 that the Slovenian government has decided to change its vignette system.
Ko bodo znane podrobnosti nameravanih sprememb, jih bo Komisija ocenila.
Once the details of the intended changes are known, they will be assessed by the Commission.
Komisija je proti Sloveniji sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev, ker je na avtocestah uporabljala vinjete na diskriminatoren način, saj je Komisija menila, da velik projekt „Avtocesta A4: Slivnica – Gruškovje: Slivnica – Draženci“ ni skladen z drugimi politikami Skupnosti.
Since the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Slovenia for applying vignettes on its motorways in a discriminatory manner, the Commission considered the consistency of the major project ‘Motorway A4: Slivnica — Gruškovje: Slivnica — Draženci’ with other community policies as not fulfilled.
Postopek za odobritev projekta je bilo treba v skladu s členom 41 Uredbe 1083/2006 Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1083/2006 z dne 11. julija 2006 o splošnih določbah o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj, Evropskem socialnem skladu in Kohezijskem skladu in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1260/1999, UL L 210, 31.7.2006. prekiniti.
According to Article 41 of Regulation 1083/2006 Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, OJ L 210, 31.7.2006. , the approval process for the project had to be interrupted.
Vendar Komisija do zdaj ni zamrznila sredstev za avtocestne projekte v Sloveniji.
Nevertheless, the Commission has so far not frozen funds on motorway projects in Slovenia.
Dne 6. maja 2009 je od slovenskih organov prejela zahtevek za prvo vmesno plačilo za programsko obdobje 2007–2013.
The Commission has just received on 6 May 2009 a first interim payment request from the Slovene authorities for the Programming period 2007‑13.
Komisija ima v pravnem smislu na voljo dva meseca, da izvede plačilo.
The Commission has legally two months time to process to the payment.
Glede na nedavne spremembe člena 78 Uredbe 1083/2006 odobritev velikih projektov ni več predpogoj za plačila.
Following a recent modification of Article 78 of Regulation 1083/2006, the approval of major projects is not anymore pre-condition for payments.
Vendar lahko Komisija v skladu s členom 86 Uredbe 1083/2006 izvrši zahtevek za plačilo v zvezi z avtocestnimi projekti samo, če sektor ni predmet utemeljenega mnenja.
However, according to Article 86 of Regulation 1083/2006, the Commission can only execute payment requests related to projects in the motorway sector as long as the sector is not subject to a reasoned opinion.
Razmere, zaradi katerih je bil sprožen postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev, je treba izboljšati tako, da se uvedejo cenovno sorazmerne kratkoročne vinjete.
The situation that called for opening the infringement procedure has to be remedied by introducing proportionately-priced short-term vignettes.
PISNO VPRAŠANJE P-4357/09
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4357/09
Zadeva: Gradnja plinskih terminalov v Tržaškem zalivu
Subject: Construction of gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste
Zagotavljanje varne in zanesljive dobave energije je ena prednostnih nalog skupne evropske energetske politike.
Ensuring safe and reliable energy supplies is one of the priorities of the common European energy policy.
Tesno je povezana z vlaganji v nove infrastrukturne objekte, še posebej v primeru čezmejnih projektov.
It is closely associated with investment in new infrastructure, particularly in the case of cross-border projects.
Večkrat se pojavlja tudi problem sprejemljivosti posameznih objektov za javnost in druga sporna vprašanja, kot je na primer vpliv objektov na ekosistem in na zdravje ljudi.
There is also frequently a problem with the public acceptability of individual installations and other contentious issues, such as the impact of installations on the ecosystem and human health.
Eden takšnih projektov, kjer se pojavlja mnogo vprašanj, dvomov in nejasnosti, je načrtovana gradnja plinskih terminalov v Tržaškem zalivu.
One such project which is raising many questions, doubts and uncertainties is the planned construction of gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste.
Že septembra 2006 je Evropska komisija podala odgovor na pisno vprašanje ( H-0671/06 ), ki sem ga zastavila o gradnji plinskih terminalov v Tržaškem zalivu.
Back in September 2006 the Commission replied to the written question (H‑0671/06) that I submitted on the construction of gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste.
Letos je slovensko javnost znova vznemirilo dejstvo, da Italija še vedno ni poslala Sloveniji vseh potrebnih dokumentov.
This year, the Slovene public has once again been disturbed by the fact that Italy has still not sent Slovenia all the necessary documents.
Poleg tega v javnosti glasno odmevajo očitki organizacije Alpe Adria Green, da podatki v študiji niso pravilni.
In addition, the complaints by the Alpe Adria Green organisation that the data in the study is not correct are receiving wide public attention.
Na tej stopnji bi želela prejeti odgovore na sledeča vprašanja: 1.
At this stage I should like to receive answers to the following questions: 1.
Kaj je rezultat preučevanja Evropske komisije (glej odgovor na pisno vprašanje H-0671/06 )? 2.
What is the result of the Commission's assessment (see reply to Written Question H‑0671/06)? 2.
Ali je Evropska komisija ugotovila, da je bilo pravo Skupnosti kršeno? 3.
Has the Commission ascertained that there has been a breach of Community law? 3.
Ali Evropska Komisija predvideva kakršnekoli organizacijske spremembe, da bo lahko ukrepala, še preden problemi izbruhnejo v javnosti?
Does the Commission envisage any organisational changes so that it could act even before problems break out into the public domain?
To je z vidika umeščanja objektov v prostor in z vidika sprejemljivosti za prebivalstvo nujno potrebno.
This is urgently needed with regard to the siting of installations and with regard to public acceptability.
1. in 2.
1 and 2.
Potem ko je bil podan odgovor na ustno vprašanje H-0671/06 Pisni odgovor z dne 5.9.2006 - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp. , je Komisija preverila informacije o predlaganih strukturah za ponovno uplinjanje na območju Trsta, kot so jih predložile različne strani, pri čemer ni ugotovila kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti.
In the period after Oral Question H‑0671/06 Written reply on 5.9.2006 — http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp was answered, the Commission has been assessing information concerning the proposed regasification plants in the Trieste area submitted by various parties, and concluded that no breach of Community law could be identified.
Na podlagi Direktive 85/337/EGS, kakor je bila spremenjena UL L 175, 5.7.1985, str.
Indeed an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out for this project under Directive 85/337/EEC as amended OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p.
40 ; UL L 73, 14.3.1997, str.
40; OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p.
5 ; UL L 156, 25.6.2003 . („Direktiva PVO“), je bila namreč za ta projekt opravljena presoja vplivov na okolje (PVO) vključno s čezmejnimi posvetovanji s Slovenijo.
5; OJ L 156, 25.6.2003. (the ‘EIA Directive’), including transboundary consultations with Slovenia.
Na tej stopnji niso bile ugotovljene kršitve določb navedene direktive.
At this stage, no breach of the provisions of this directive has been identified.
Komisija trenutno ne predvideva organizacijskih sprememb na področju presoj vplivov na okolje ali druge sorodne zakonodaje, ki ureja tovrstne projekte, saj meni, da so obstoječi pravni predpisi na tem področju zadovoljivi.
The Commission does not envisage for the time being any organisational changes in the field of environmental impact assessment or other related legislation covering projects of this type, considering that the current legal panoply is satisfactory in this field.
PISNO VPRAŠANJE P-0868/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0868/10
Zadeva: Vprašanje Evropski komisiji o stanju narodnih manjšin po Evropi
Subject: Situation concerning ethnic minorities in Europe
Bogastvo EU je v različnosti.
The EU’s wealth lies in its diversity.
Evropa je polna manjšin, njen pomemben del so narodne manjšine.
Europe is full of minorities; a large proportion of them are ethnic minorities.
Kar 8 % prebivalstva EU predstavljajo avtohtone manjšine, še dodatnih 6,5 % je priseljenskih manjšin.
As much as 8 % of the EU population comprises indigenous minorities, and a further 6.5 % are immigrant minorities.
Pred zadnjima dvema širitvama so morale države kandidatke dokazati, da izpolnjujejo merila o pravicah narodnih manjšin.
Prior to the last two enlargements the candidate countries were required to demonstrate that they fulfilled the criteria on the rights of minorities.
Obratno pa države, ki so že bile članice Evropske unije, niso bile izpostavljene nadzoru o tem, kakšna je njihova politika in odnos do manjšin.
But countries that were already members of the Union were not subject to supervision of their policy and attitude towards minorities.
Zato je bilo obstoječe stanje neenakopravno in s tem možen razlog za slabšanje medsosedskih odnosov med državami članicami.
So the existing situation was unequal, and, as such, a possible reason for the deterioration in relations between neighbouring Member States.