natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(d) načelo kdor izgubi, plača:
(d) loser pays principle:
– ne morejo se voditi postopki, če je tožnik zaradi pomanjkanja finančnih sredstev brez pooblaščenca; poleg tega pravdne stroške in s tem procesno tveganje nosi stranka, ki izgubi; določitev predpisov za kritje stroškov je v pristojnosti držav članic;
– there may be no action if the claimant is defenceless as a result of a lack of financial means; moreover the procedural costs, and hence the risk, involved in legal action are to be borne by the party which loses the case; it is a matter for the Member States to lay down rules on the allocation of costs in this context;
– države članice ne bodo uporabljale strožjih pogojev za kolektivne tožbe zaradi kršitev prava EU kot so tiste, ki se uporabljajo za kršitve nacionalnega prava držav članic;
– Member States will not apply more restrictive conditions to the collective redress cases arising from the infringement of EU law than those applied to cases arising from the infringement of national law;
– nobeno od načel iz horizontalnega okvira ne bo preprečevalo sprejetja dodatnih ukrepov za zagotovitev, da je pravo EU popolnoma učinkovito;
– none of the principles laid out in the horizontal framework will prevent the adoption of further measures to ensure that EU law is fully effective;
24. meni, da lahko učinkovit sistem kolektivnih tožb dejansko spodbudi razvoj alternativnih mehanizmov reševanja sporov, in sicer s spodbujanjem strank, da hitro in zunaj sodišča rešijo nasprotja;
Believes that an effective system of collective redress could in fact stimulate the development of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms by creating an incentive for the parties to solve their disputes quickly out of court;
26. poudarja, da bi bilo treba vsak zakonodajni instrument, ki ga v zvezi s kolektivnimi tožbami na področju konkurence predlaga Komisija, nemudoma sprejeti, in sicer izključno z rednim zakonodajnim postopkom;
Emphasises that any legislative instrument proposed by the Commission pertaining to collective redress in the field of competition should be adopted without further delay and only under the ordinary legislative procedure;
Sophie Auconie, Philippe De Backer, Saïd El Khadraoui, Olle Ludvigsson, Thomas Mann, Andreas Schwab, Teodoros Skilakakis (Theodoros Skylakakis)
Sophie Auconie, Philippe De Backer, Saïd El Khadraoui, Olle Ludvigsson, Thomas Mann, Andreas Schwab, Theodoros Skylakakis
Usklajenemu pristopu h kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom naproti
on Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress
A. 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,
A. 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;
B. 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,
B. whereas, when a group of citizens are victims of the same infringement, individual lawsuits may not constitute an effective means to stop unlawful practices or to obtain compensation, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison with the litigation costs;
C. ker posebna raziskava Eurobarometra „Državljani Evropske unije in dostop do pravnega varstva“, opravljena oktobra 2004 v državah EU-15, kaže, da spora ne bo sodno reševal vsak peti potrošnik, če bo spor vreden manj kot 1000 evrov, vsak drugi potrošnik pa, če bo spor vreden manj kot 200 evrov,
C. whereas, according to the Special Eurobarometer survey ‘European Union Citizens and Access to Justice’ of October 2004, which was carried out in the EU-15 Member States, one out of five consumers, and one out of two consumers, will not go to court for disputes amounting to less than EUR 1 000 and EUR 200 respectively;
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 svoje pravice braniti na sodišču, če bi se lahko pridružili skupinski tožbi,
D. whereas, according to the Flash Eurobarometer ‘Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection’ of March 2011, 79 % of European consumers state that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action, as this would be beneficial in terms of costs and effectiveness;
E. 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;
E. 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;
F. ker javno izvrševanje predpisov tako, da se kršitve preprečijo in se naloži denarna kazen, samo po sebi potrošnikom ne zagotavlja odškodnine za škodo, ki so jo utrpeli,
F. whereas public enforcement by way of stopping infringements and imposing fines does not in itself enable consumers to be compensated for damage suffered;
G. ker je doslej šestnajst držav članic v svoj pravni sistem vključilo mehanizme kolektivnih pravnih sredstev, ki pa se med seboj zelo razlikujejo glede področja uporabe, značilnosti postopka (pravni interes, vrsta oškodovancev, vrsta postopka (postopek opt-in/opt-out ), financiranje ali vloga mehanizmov alternativnega reševanja sporov vzporedno z uveljavljanjem odškodnin s pravnimi sredstvi) in učinkovitosti, s čimer so dejansko povzročile pravno razdrobljenost na ravni EU,
G. whereas sixteen Member States have so far introduced collective redress mechanisms in their legal systems, with wide differences in terms of scope, procedural characteristics (legal standing, categories of victims, type of procedure (opt-in/opt-out), financing or the role played by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in parallel to judicial redress) and effectiveness, creating a true legal patchwork at EU level;
H. 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 vpletenih strani;
H. whereas bundling of the 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;
I. ker lahko sistem, ki temelji na skupinskih tožbah, koristno dopolni individualno pravno varstvo, vendar ga ne more nadomestiti;
I. whereas a system based on collective legal actions can usefully supplement, but is no substitute for, individual legal protection;
J. 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;
J. 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;
Potreba po okviru EU
The need for an EU framework
7. poudarja, da to stanje vodi k precejšnji diskriminaciji pri dostopu do sodnega varstva, kar škodi notranjemu trgu, saj se potrošniki obravnavajo različno glede na kraj njihovega bivališča;
Emphasises that this situation is leading to significant discrimination in access to justice, to the detriment of the internal market, as consumers are being treated differently depending on their place of residence;
10. zato poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi ukrepe, ki bodo po možnosti vključevali zakonodajni predlog za vzpostavitev skladnega vseevropskega mehanizma kolektivnih pravnih sredstev na področju varstva potrošnikov v čezmejnih zadevah, predlog pa bo temeljil na skupnih načelih in zaščitnih ukrepih, osnovanih na pravni tradiciji EU in pravnih redih vseh 27 držav članic in bo v skladu z načeli solidarnosti in sorazmernosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji;
Calls on the Commission, therefore, to submit measures, including possibly a legislative proposal establishing an EU-wide coherent collective redress mechanism in the field of consumer protection, applicable to cross-border cases, on the basis of a set of common principles and safeguards inspired by the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States, and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union;
12. poudarja, da je napočil čas za usklajen nastop EU pri vzpostavljanju skupnega okvira na področju kolektivnih pravnih sredstev, saj nekatere države članice prav zdaj razmišljajo o možnih bistvenih reformah mehanizmov kolektivnih pravnih sredstev, nekatere druge pa o njihovi uvedbi;
Stresses that momentum for a coherent EU action for the establishment of a common framework in the field of collective redress is also arising because certain Member States are currently considering possibilities for introducing substantial reforms concerning their collective redress schemes, while others are currently considering introducing such schemes;
Splošna načela – močna varovala za preprečevanje zlorab sodnih sporov
General principles − strong safeguards against abusive litigation
14. poudarja, da je treba, kjer je to le mogoče, odločno spodbujati reševanje sporov z dialogom med vpletenimi strankami, na sodni spor pa je treba gledati kot na skrajno rešitev; poziva poslovni sektor, naj prizna, da so prostovoljne pobude za dejansko izplačilo odškodnine potrošnikom v njegovem najboljšem interesu, saj se s tem prepreči začetek sodnega spora; poudarja, da so lahko mehanizmi alternativnega reševanja sporov za stranke hitrejša in cenejša rešitev ter so kot dopolnilo sodnemu reševanju sporov, s katerim se ne izključujejo; vendar ugotavlja, da so v obstoječih sistemih alternativnega reševanja sporov v EU velike sektorske in geografske vrzeli;
Emphasises that early settlement of disputes through dialogue among the parties concerned must be strongly encouraged where possible, and that court litigation must be viewed as the last resort; calls on the business community to recognise that it is in their best interests to take voluntary initiatives to effectively compensate consumers in order to avoid entering into litigation procedures; stresses that mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may provide parties with a faster and cheaper solution and play a role complementary to, and not mutually exclusive of, judicial redress; notes, however, that there are currently significant – sector-specific and geographical − gaps in the existing ADR systems in the EU;
16. poudarja, da bi moral učinkovit sistem kolektivnih pravnih sredstev v razumnem roku priti do poštenih in primernih rešitev, ki bi zagotavljale pravno varnost in spoštovale pravice vseh strank v postopku; meni, da mora pristop EU h kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom vključevati možnost pritožbe na odločbo sodišča v določenem roku;
Underlines that an effective collective redress system should be capable of delivering legally certain, fair and adequate outcomes within a reasonable timeframe, while respecting the rights of all parties involved; considers that the EU approach to collective redress should include the possibility to appeal the Court’s decision within a specific timeframe;
19. 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 doslednega upoštevanja domneve nedolžnosti ne smejo neupravičeno škodovati ugledu strank;
Calls on the Member States to put in place efficient mechanisms ensuring that a maximum of victims are informed and made aware of their rights and obligations, in particular when those are domiciled in several Member States, whilst avoiding unduly harming the reputation of the party concerned, in order to scrupulously respect the principle of the presumption of innocence;
21. poudarja, da mora biti v primeru čezmejnih sporov zastopniku (javnemu organu ali pooblaščeni potrošniški organizaciji) omogočeno, da zastopa oškodovance iz drugih držav članic, ki so se k skupinski tožbi priključili v kateri koli drugi državi članici;
Stresses that, in the case of cross-border disputes, the representative entity (public authority or authorised consumer organisation) should be able to represent victims from other Member States who have joined the collective redress procedure in any Member State;
Vloga sodišča in pomen obveščanja
The role of the Court and the importance of information
23. meni, da bi sodišče poleg tega moralo zagotoviti pravično razdelitev odškodnine ter preveriti pravičnost ureditve financiranja; poudarja, da bi nadzorni sistemi sodišča in zahteve glede sorazmernosti obtožence varovale pred zlorabo sistema;
Considers that the court should also ensure that the compensation is fairly distributed and check if funding arrangements are fair; stresses that court control mechanisms and proportionality requirements would protect defendants against abuse of the system;
25. poudarja, da je za dostopnost in učinkovitost postopka zelo pomembno obveščanje o skupinskih tožbah, saj morajo potrošniki vedeti, da so utrpeli škodo zaradi istega nezakonitega ravnanja in da je vložena skupinska tožba, četudi v drugi državi članici; poudarja ključno vlogo, ki jo pri posredovanju informacij čim večjemu številu ljudi, zlasti najranljivejšim potrošnikom, lahko imajo potrošniške organizacije in evropska mreža centrov za varstvo potrošnikov;
Emphasises that the provision of information about collective actions plays a major role in the accessibility and the effectiveness of the procedure as consumers need to be aware that they have been the victims of the same illegal practice and that there is a collective action launched, including in another Member State; stresses the key role that consumer organisations and the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) can play in passing on the information to as many people as possible, in particular the most vulnerable consumers;
27. meni, da morajo države članice za praktično izvedljivost skupinskih tožb zagotoviti ustrezne mehanizme financiranja v skladu z nacionalnimi predpisi, ti mehanizmi pa morajo biti oblikovani tako, da na eni strani ne bodo spodbujali vlaganja neutemeljenih tožb, na drugi pa bodo državljani in podjetja, zlasti mala in srednja, vseeno lahko uveljavljali pravico do dostopa do sodnega varstva, tudi če nimajo dovolj finančnih sredstev;
Affirms that, in order to make collective actions practically possible, Member States should ensure that adequate funding mechanisms are made available in accordance with national arrangements and designed in such a way as, on the one hand, not to encourage the bringing of actions that are not well‑founded and, on the other hand, to prevent citizens from being denied access to justice because they do not have sufficient financial resources;
o osnutku sklepa Sveta o sklenitvi Dogovora v imenu Unije med Evropsko unijo ter Republiko Islandijo, Kneževino Lihtenštajn, Kraljevino Norveško in Švicarsko konfederacijo o sodelovanju teh držav pri delu odborov, ki Evropski komisiji pomagajo pri izvajanju njenih izvršilnih pooblastil v zvezi z izvajanjem, uporabo in razvojem schengenskega pravnega reda
on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis
IZID KONČNEGA GLASOVANJA V ODBORU.....................................................................5
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE...........................................................................6
– ob upoštevanju osnutka sklepa Sveta (07763/2010),
– having regard to the draft Council decision (07763/2010),
– ob upoštevanju osnutka dogovora med Evropsko unijo ter Republiko Islandijo, Kneževino Lihtenštajn, Kraljevino Norveško in Švicarsko konfederacijo o sodelovanju teh držav pri delu odborov, ki Evropski komisiji pomagajo pri izvajanju njenih izvršilnih pooblastil v zvezi z izvajanjem, uporabo in razvojem schengenskega pravnega reda (07763/2010), in popravka opombe 1 k členu 5(1) dogovora (13573/2011),
– having regard to the draft Arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (07763/2010) and to the corrigendum to Article 5(1), footnote 1 of the Arrangement (13573/2011),
– ob upoštevanju prošnje za odobritev, ki jo je Svet podal v skladu s členi 74, 77, 79 in točko (a) drugega pododstavka člena 218(6) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (C7 0272/2011),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 74, 77, 79 and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( C7‑0272/2011 ),
– ob upoštevanju priporočila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A7-0013/2012 ),
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A7-0013/2012 ),
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Sonia Alfano, Roberta Angelilli, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski, Philip Claeys, Frank Engel, Kinga Gál, Kinga Göncz, Nathalie Griesbeck, Sylvie Guillaume, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Timothy Kirkhope, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Svetoslav Hristov Malinov, Véronique Mathieu, Anthea McIntyre, Nuno Melo, Louis Michel, Antigoni Papadopulu (Antigoni Papadopoulou), Georgios Papanikolau (Georgios Papanikolaou), Carmen Romero López, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Renate Sommer, Kiriakos Triantafilidis (Kyriacos Triantaphyllides), Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Renate Weber, Josef Weidenholzer, Auke Zijlstra
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Sonia Alfano, Roberta Angelilli, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski, Philip Claeys, Frank Engel, Kinga Gál, Kinga Göncz, Nathalie Griesbeck, Sylvie Guillaume, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Timothy Kirkhope, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Svetoslav Hristov Malinov, Véronique Mathieu, Anthea McIntyre, Nuno Melo, Louis Michel, Antigoni Papadopoulou, Georgios Papanikolaou, Carmen Romero López, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Renate Sommer, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Renate Weber, Josef Weidenholzer, Auke Zijlstra
Elena Oana Antonescu, Michael Cashman, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Ioan Enciu, Nadja Hirsch, Stanimir Ilčev (Stanimir Ilchev), Franziska Keller, Jean Lambert, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Marija Nedelčeva (Mariya Nedelcheva), Hubert Pirker, Zuzana Roithová, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Kārlis Šadurskis, Bogusław Sonik, Cecilia Wikström
Elena Oana Antonescu, Michael Cashman, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Ioan Enciu, Nadja Hirsch, Stanimir Ilchev, Franziska Keller, Jean Lambert, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Mariya Nedelcheva, Hubert Pirker, Zuzana Roithová, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Kārlis Šadurskis, Bogusław Sonik, Cecilia Wikström
o letnem davčnem poročilu
on the Annual Tax Report
– – ob upoštevanju sporočila Evropske komisije z naslovom „Dvojno obdavčevanje na enotnem trgu“ ( COM(2011)0712 ) in predloga za prenovitev direktive Sveta o obrestih in licenčninah ( COM(2011)0714 ),
– having regard to the Communication from the European Commission ‘Double taxation in the single market’ ( COM(2011)0712 , and to the Proposal (recast) for a Council Directive on interest and royalty payments ( COM(2011)0714 ,
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o odstranjevanju čezmejnih davčnih ovir za državljane EU ( COM(2010)0769 ),
– having regard to the Commission’s Communication on removing cross-border tax obstacles for EU citizens ( COM(2010)0769 ),
– ob upoštevanju delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije, priloženega sporočilu Komisije o odstranjevanju čezmejnih davčnih ovir za državljane EU ( SEK(2010)1576 ),
– having regard to the Commission’s Staff Working Document accompanying the Commission’s Communication on removing cross-border tax obstacles for EU citizens ( SEC(2010)1576 ),
– ob upoštevanju delovnega dokumenta služb Komisije o odzivih med posvetovanjem Komisije o konvencijah o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja in notranjem trgu: Konkretni primeri dvojnega obdavčevanja ( SEC(2011)0467 ,
– having regard to the Commission’s Staff Working Document on the responses received in the course of the Commission’s consultation on double taxation conventions and the internal market: Factual example of double taxation cases ( SEC(2011)0467 ),
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o zaključku prvega evropskega semestra za usklajevanje gospodarskih politik: smernice za nacionalne politike v obdobju 2011–2012 ( COM(2011)0400 ),
– having regard to the Commission’s Communication on Concluding the first European semester of economic policy coordination: Guidance for national policies in 2011-2012, ( COM(2011)0400 ),
– ob upoštevanju skupnega pisma z dne 17. avgusta 2011, ki sta ga predsednik Republike Francije Nicolas Sarkozy in nemška kanclerka Angela Merkel poslala predsedniku Evropskega sveta Hermanu Van Rompuyu,
– having regard to the joint letter of 17 August 2011from Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic, and Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, to Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council,
– ob upoštevanju publikacije Organizacije za ekonomsko sodelovanje in razvoj (OECD) „Izkoriščanje izgub podjetja z agresivnim davčnim načrtovanjem“, 2011
– having regard to the OECD publication ‘Corporate Loss Utilisation through Aggressive Tax Planning’, 2011
– ob upoštevanju informacijskega dokumenta „Kako učinkovit in upravičen je evropski semester?
– having regard to the briefing paper ‘How effective and legitimate is the European Semester?
Krepitev vloge Evropskega parlamenta“
Increasing the role of the European Parliament’
– ob upoštevanju brošure Komisije z naslovom „Trendi obdavčenja v Evropski uniji“ (izdaja 2011)
– having regard to the Commission publication ‘Taxation Trends in the EU’ (2011 Edition)
– ob upoštevanju publikacije OECD o trendih pri davku na potrošnjo za leto 2010
– having regard to the OECD Consumption Tax Trends 2010
– ob upoštevanju poročila Maria Montija o novi strategiji za enotni trg, 2010,
– having regard to the Mario Monti report on a new strategy for the single market, 2010,