natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
meni, da je enoletni rok, ki je v sporočilu naveden za čas od prijave pritožbe do dejanskega uradnega opomina ali odločitve o prijavi, predolg; nadalje opozarja, da se tega roka vedno ne spoštuje, kar pušča pritožnika v nesprejemljivem stanju negotovosti; zato Komisijo poziva, da pošlje uradne opomine državam članicam, ki še ne vključujejo nobenih "pogajanj", kmalu po prijavi pritožbe in da si prizadeva za hiter potek postopka ob točnem upoštevanju rokov, pri čemer so izjeme mogoče le v izrednih primerih;
Notes that the time-limit of one year laid down in the Communication between the registration of a complaint and the actual sending of a letter of formal notice or the decision to shelve the case is too long; notes furthermore that this deadline is not always met, leaving the complainant in a state of unacceptable uncertainty; therefore calls on the Commission to send letters of formal notice, which do not imply any "negotiations" yet with the Member States, within a short period of the registration of the complaint and to strive to move ahead quickly with the procedure on the basis of prompt deadlines from which exemption is possible only in exceptional cases;
poziva vse službe Komisije, da pritožnike – in kjer je primerno tudi vpletene poslance Evropskega parlamenta – ob izteku vsakega predhodno določenega roka v celoti obveščajo o napredku njihovih pritožb (uradni opomin, obrazložitveno mnenje, predložitev Sodišču), da navedejo razloge za njihove odločitve in jih v vseh podrobnostih sporočajo pritožniku, skladno z načeli, navedenimi v sporočilu iz leta 2002, ki pritožniku omogočajo, da predloži dodatne pripombe (takšne informacije morajo, predvsem v primerih, kadar namerava Komisija odgoditi pritožnika, vključevati pojasnila, ki jih predložijo vpletene države članice);
Urges all services of the Commission to keep complainants – and where appropriate also the MEP involved – fully informed of the progress of their complaints at the expiry of each pre-defined deadline (letter of formal notice, reasoned opinion, referral to the Court), to provide reasons for their decisions and to communicate them in full detail to the complainant in accordance with the principles stated in its Communication of 2002, which should allow the complainant to make further observations (such information should include, notably in the cases in which the Commission envisages shelving the complaint, the arguments presented by the Member State involved);
poziva Komisijo, da sprejme posebne postopke, ki bi pritožniku in vpletenim poslancem Evropskega parlamenta omogočili dostop do dokumentacije in vsebine dopisovanja z državo članico;
Calls on the Commission to adopt a specific procedure which would allow the complainant and the MEP involved to have access to the documentation and to the substance of the correspondence exchanged with the Member State;
poziva Komisijo, da zagotovi specifične podatke o upoštevanju rokov, kakor je določeno v njenem internem priročniku o operativnih postopkih, ki jih je mogoče pridobiti le neuradno; ponovno poudarja pomen določanja skrajnih rokov od datuma prijave pritožbe, da se pritožniku zagotovi odgovor ter odpošlje uradni opomin;
Calls on the Commission to provide specific data on compliance with time-limits as set out in its internal Manual of Operational Procedures, which could only be obtained informally; reiterates the importance of setting deadlines from the date of registration of a complaint for providing the complainant with an answer and for sending out a letter of formal notice;
ugotavlja, da so postopki iz člena 228 Pogodbe ES v vsem času od njihove uvedbe le v treh primerih vodili k razsodbam Sodišča; pozdravlja Sporočilo Komisije o uporabi člena 228 Pogodbe ES ( SEC(2005)1658 ), ki pojasnjuje in razvija politiko Komisije, ko od Sodišča zahteva, da naloži periodično plačilo in pavšalni znesek državam članicam, ki ne ravnajo v skladu s sodbo Sodišča;
Notes that, since their inception, proceedings under Article 228 of the EC Treaty have led to judgments of the Court of Justice in only three cases; welcomes the Commission's Communication on the Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (SEC (2005)1658), which clarifies and develops the policy of the Commission in asking the Court of Justice to impose a periodic payment order and a lump sum payment order on a Member State which fails to comply with the judgment of the Court;
poziva Komisijo, da v skladu s svojim sporočilom iz leta 2005 o uporabi člena 228 Pogodbe ES uradno navede, da bodo vsi primeri, za katere že velja uradni opomin, obrazložitvena mnenja iz člena 228 in tudi vsi primeri, za katere zdaj veljajo postopki iz člena 226, predmet nove politike (če niso bili rešeni pred predložitvijo Sodišču);
Asks the Commission formally to specify that, in accordance with its Communication of 2005, all cases already subject to letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions under Article 228, as well as cases currently subject to Article 226 proceedings, will be subject to the new policy (if not resolved before referral to the Court);
opozarja, da morajo peticije, ki so jih posamezniki poslali Komisiji, evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic in ustreznim parlamentarnim odborom, spodbuditi evropske institucije k oceni načina, po katerem se izvaja pravo Skupnosti na nacionalni in evropski ravni;
Recalls that petitions forwarded by individuals to the Commission, to the European Ombudsman and to the relevant parliamentary committees should encourage the European Institutions to assess the way in which Community law is being implemented at national and European level;
ponavlja svoje prepričanje, da so tesno sodelovanje in nadzorni dogovori med Komisijo, Svetom, evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic in ustreznimi parlamentarnimi odbori bistveni za zagotavljanje učinkovitega posredovanja v vseh primerih, ko se je predlagatelj peticije upravičeno pritožil zaradi kršitve prava Skupnosti;
Reiterates its belief that close cooperation and monitoring arrangements between the Commission, the Council, the European Ombudsman and the relevant parliamentary committees are essential in order to ensure effective intervention in all cases where the petitioner has justifiably complained of an infringement of Community law;
vztraja pri tem, da mora Komisija v prihodnjih poročilih navesti podatke, ki bodo natančno prikazali pomemben in izrazit prispevek peticij k nadzoru nad uporabo zakonodaje Skupnosti, in ponovno poudarja zahtevo iz svoje resolucije z dne 9. marca 2004 UL C 102 E, 28.4.2004, str.
Insists that, in its future annual reports, the Commission must present data that accurately reflect the important and distinct contribution made by petitions to the monitoring of the application of Community law, and reiterates the request made in its resolution of 9 March 2004 OJ C 102 E, 28.4.2004, p.
, da se vključi poglavje, izključno namenjeno peticijam;
for the inclusion of a chapter devoted exclusively to petitions;
meni, da je treba postopkovne pravice vlagateljev peticij določiti, kakor je bilo to storjeno za pravice pritožnikov, opredeljene v sporočilu Komisije iz leta 2002; meni, da je treba razjasniti postopkovna vprašanja o vzporedni obravnavi pritožb in peticij ter dodatno izboljšati sodelovanje ustreznih služb, tako da lahko Odbor za peticije zagotovi spoštovanje pravic vlagateljev peticij;
Considers it necessary for the procedural rights of petitioners to be defined in a similar way to the rights of complainants, which were set out in the Commission's Communication of 2002; considers that procedural questions related to the parallel treatment of complaints and petitions need to be clarified and that coordination between the services concerned must be further improved so that the Committee on Petitions can ensure that the rights of petitioners are respected;
iz izkušenj ugotavlja, da se državljani, ki naslovijo peticijo na Parlament, pred nacionalnimi sodišči težko sklicujejo na pravice iz prava Skupnosti in težko pridobijo povračilo izgube ali škode, nastale zaradi kršenja zakonodaje Skupnosti s strani držav članic;
Notes from its experience that it is difficult for citizens petitioning Parliament to invoke rights derived from Community law before national courts and to obtain reparation for loss or damage sustained on account of breaches of Community law by Member States;
obžaluje nepripravljenost Komisije, da bi raziskala domnevne pretekle kršitve zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki so sedaj že urejene, kot na primer peticije v zvezi z družbama "Equitable Life" in "Lloyds of London"; poziva Komisijo, naj razišče primere, kjer naj bi posamezniki zaradi domnevnih napak utrpeli veliko škodo, saj bi lahko rezultati takšnih raziskav državljanom izjemno koristili pri pridobivanju pravic do odškodnine po ustreznih pravnih poteh;
Deplores the Commission's unwillingness to investigate alleged violations of Community law that lie in the past and have since been remedied, such as those raised in the "Equitable Life" and "Lloyd's of London" petitions; urges the Commission to investigate such cases when the alleged failures are said to have caused significant damage to individuals, since the outcome of such investigations could be immensely helpful to citizens in obtaining compensation through the appropriate legal channels;
meni, da je treba najti načine, kako izboljšati postopke med institucijami, da bi evropskim državljanom zagotovili bolj učinkovita izvensodna sredstva poravnave, kot nadgradnjo pravice do peticije, navedene v Pogodbi; s tem v zvezi predlaga, da bi bilo dobro razmisliti o vzpostavitvi organizacije, kot je "SOLVIT", ki bi v okviru Evropskega parlamenta poslancem pomagala pri pravnih vprašanjih;
Considers it necessary to examine ways of improving procedures at an inter-institutional level in order to provide more effective non-judicial means of redress for European citizens, as a corollary to the right of petition contained in the Treaty; suggests in this regard that consideration might be given to the setting-up of a "SOLVIT"-type organisation within the European Parliament whose function it would be to assist Members with casework of a legal nature;
poziva k večjemu sodelovanju med nacionalnimi parlamenti in Evropskim parlamentom ter njihovimi poslanci, da se spodbudi in poveča učinkovit pregled evropskih zadev na nacionalni ravni; meni, da imajo nacionalni parlamenti dragoceno vlogo pri spremljanju uporabe prava Skupnosti, s čimer pomagajo krepiti demokratično zakonitost Unije in jo približajo državljanom;
Calls for increased cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament and their respective parliamentarians, so as to promote and increase effective scrutiny of European matters at national level; considers that national parliaments have a valuable role to play in monitoring the application of Community law, thus helping to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union and bring it closer to the citizens;
zahteva od Komisije, da nacionalnim parlamentom pošlje svoja letna poročila o spremljanju uporabe prava, da takšno uporabo v nacionalnih organih lažje spremljajo;
Urges the Commission to send its annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law to the national parliaments, so that they are better able to monitor such application by the national authorities;
naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, Sodišču, Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic in parlamentom držav članic.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the parliaments of the Member States.
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta o boljši pripravi zakonodaje 2004: uporaba načela subsidiarnosti – dvanajsto letno poročilo ( 2005/2055(INI) )
European Parliament resolution on Better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity – 12th annual report ( 2005/2055(INI) )
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o presoji vplivov z dne 5. junija 2002 ( KOM(2002)0276 ),
having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2002 on impact assessment ( COM(2002)0276 ),
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 5. junija 2002 o akcijskem načrtu "Poenostavitev in izboljšanje zakonodajnega okolja" ( KOM(2002)0278 ),
having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2002 on the Action plan "Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment" ( COM(2002)0278 ),
ob upoštevanju Medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 16. decembra 2003 med Evropskim parlamentom, Svetom in Komisijo o boljši pripravi zakonodaje UL C 321, 31.12.2003, str.
having regard to the Interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 on better lawmaking OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p.
ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 20. aprila 2004 o presoji vplivov zakonodaje Skupnosti in postopka posvetovanja UL C 104 E, 30.4.2004, str.
having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p.
ob upoštevanju sklepov Sveta za konkurenčnost z dne 25. in 26. novembra 2004,
having regard to the conclusions of the Competitiveness Council of 25-26 November 2004,
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 16. marca 2005 z naslovom "Bolje oblikovani predpisi za rast in delovna mesta v Evropski uniji" ( KOM(2005)0097 ),
having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union" of 16 March 2005 ( COM(2005)0097 ),
ob upoštevanju poročila Komisije z dne 21. marca 2005 z naslovom "Boljša priprava zakonodaje 2004" ( KOM(2005)0098 ),
having regard to the Commission report entitled "Better lawmaking 2004" of 21 March 2005 ( COM(2005)0098 ),
ob upoštevanju smernic Evropske komisije za presojo vplivov z dne 15. junija 2005 in prilog k tem smernicam ( SEK(2005)0791 ),
having regard to the Commission's Impact Assessment guidelines of 15 June 2005 and the annexes thereto ( SEC(2005)0791 ),
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 27. septembra 2005 z naslovom "Rezultati preverjanja zakonodajnih predlogov, ki čakajo na obravnavo zakonodajalca" ( KOM(2005)0462 ),
having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the Legislator" of 27 September 2005 ( COM(2005)0462 ),
ob upoštevanju mnenj Evropskega ekonomsko-socialnega odbora o "boljši pripravi zakonodaje" in o tem, "kako izboljšati izvajanje in uveljavljanje zakonodaje EU", z dne 28. septembra 2005 UL C 24, 31.1.2006, str.
having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee opinions on "Better lawmaking" and on "How to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU legislation" of 28 September 2005 3 OJ C 24, 31.1.2006, p.
39 in 52.
39 and p.
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije "o skupni metodologiji EU za presojo administrativnih stroškov, ki izhajajo iz zakonodaje", z dne 21. oktobra 2005 (KOM (2005)0518),
having regard to the Commission communication "on an EU common methodology for assessing administrative costs imposed by legislation" of 21 October 2005 ( COM(2005)0518 ),
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0082/2006 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0082/2006 ),
ker Komisija v sporočilu o bolje oblikovanih predpisih za rast in delovna mesta v Evropski uniji vzpostavlja jasno povezavo med doseganjem lizbonskih ciljev in bolje oblikovanimi predpisi,
whereas, in its Communication on better regulation for growth and jobs in the European Union, the Commission establishes a clear link between achieving the Lisbon objectives and better regulation,
ker bi moralo biti pregledno, jasno, učinkovito in zelo kakovostno zakonodajno okolje prednostni cilj politike Evropske unije,
whereas establishing a transparent, clear, effective and high-quality regulatory environment should be a priority objective of European Union policy,
ker je zakonodajno okolje, v katerem delujejo podjetja, odločilni dejavnik za njihovo konkurenčnost, za trajnostno rast in posledično, za njihovo učinkovitost zaposlovanja,
whereas the regulatory environment in which businesses operate is a determining factor for their competitiveness, for sustainable growth and, consequently, for their employment performance,
ker bi presoja vplivov v okviru nove zakonodaje in poenostavitev obstoječe zakonodaje lahko prispevali k boljši oceni družbenih, gospodarskih in okoljskih vplivov ter vplivov na zdravje ter bi lahko zmanjšali upravno breme, ki škoduje konkurenčnosti evropskih podjetij, zlasti malih in srednjih podjetij (MSP),
whereas impact assessment in the context of new legislation and simplification of existing legislation could contribute to a better evaluation of its social, economic, environmental and health effects and could reduce the administrative burden that undermines the competitiveness of European businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
ker je ugled evropskega zakonodajalca med državljani in podjetji v EU še daleč od želenega, zlasti ker zakonodaja, ki je pogosto rezultat težavnega političnega kompromisa, ni dovolj jasna in je države članice ne morejo ali nočejo pravilno izvajati,
whereas the reputation of the European legislature among citizens and businesses in the EU leaves much to be desired, notably because the legislation, being often a result of difficult political compromise, lacks clarity and Member States are unable or unwilling to implement it correctly,
ker Komisija pri pripravi zakonodaje nekaterim zainteresiranim stranem sicer ponuja možnost, da se odzovejo prek posvetovanja in različnih delovnih skupin, ni pa prave preglednosti glede vsebine teh posvetovanj, sodelujočih in tega, kako je njihove rezultate Komisija upoštevala,
whereas, in the drafting of legislation, the Commission gives some interested parties the opportunity to react, through consultations and various working groups, but whereas there is insufficient transparency concerning the substance of those consultations, the participants and the manner in which the Commission takes the results thereof into account,
ker je Evropski parlament v zgoraj navedeni resoluciji z dne 20. aprila 2004 z veliko večino podprl uporabo presoje vplivov v EU za izboljšanje zakonodaje in ker sta Svet in Komisija v številnih dokumentih poudarila pomen presoje vplivov,
whereas in its above-mentioned resolution of 20 April 2004 the Parliament declared itself, by a large majority, in favour of the use of impact assessment in the EU in order to improve legislation, and whereas the Council and the Commission have underlined the importance of impact assessment in numerous documents,
ker Komisija pri izvajanju presoje vplivov ni dosledna pri uporabi metodologije, zaradi česar niha kakovost presoje vplivov, in ker slednja pogosteje spominja na utemeljitev predloga kot pa na pravo objektivno oceno,
whereas the impact assessment carried out by the Commission does not consistently follow the same methodology and is therefore of varying quality, and whereas the impact assessment often resembles a justification of the proposal rather than an actual objective assessment,
ker je velik delež izvedbene (oziroma sekundarne) zakonodaje sprejet v postopku komitologije brez ustreznega parlamentarnega nadzora ali presoje vplivov,
whereas a great deal of implementing (or secondary) legislation is adopted through the comitology procedure, without proper parliamentary control or impact assessment,
ker je zakonodaja deloma učni proces, pri katerem se je mogoče učiti iz narejenih napak; ker vpliv zakonodaje ni dovolj pregleden in ker so poročila Komisije o izvajanju zakonodaje Skupnosti omejena na izvajanje v državah članicah ter ne nudijo vpogleda v to, ali zakonodaja v praksi dosega zastavljene cilje,
whereas legislation is partly a learning process in which it is possible to learn from mistakes made; whereas the impact of legislation is not made sufficiently transparent and whereas reports by the Commission on the implementation of Community legislation are confined to implementation in the Member States and do not give an insight into whether, in practice, the legislation has met the objectives set,
poudarja, kako nujno je za kakršnokoli sprejeto zakonodajo Skupnosti, da je popolnoma v skladu z načeloma subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti;
Stresses the need for any Community legislation adopted to comply fully with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
podpira željo po izboljšanju evropske zakonodaje z namenom doseči večjo rast in delovna mesta ter poudarja, kako nujen je celovit in skladen pristop pri pobudah za "boljšo pravno ureditev", ki bo podprla tri lizbonske stebre v primeru pomanjkljivega delovanja trga; poudarja, da morajo biti pobude za "boljšo pravno ureditev" izvajane pregledno in demokratično;
Supports the ambition of improving European legislation with a view to enhancing growth and jobs, and stresses the need for an integrated and consistent approach to initiatives on "better regulation", supporting the three Lisbon pillars in case the market fails; stresses that initiatives on "better regulation" must be implemented in a transparent and democratic way;
podpira zakonodajo, ki temelji na načelih in je kakovostno in ne količinsko naravnana: meni, da je razprava o "boljši pravni ureditvi" priložnost za razmislek o tem, da je zakonodaja postopek za doseganje jasno opredeljenih političnih ciljev, ki obvezuje in vključuje vse interesne skupine med vsemi fazami postopka od priprave do izvajanja;
Promotes legislation based on principles and focused on quality rather than quantity; sees the "better regulation" debate as an occasion for reflection on legislation as a process designed to achieve clearly defined policy goals by committing and involving all stakeholders during all phases of the process, from preparation to enforcement;
priporoča, da se program "boljše pravne ureditve" pred širšo uporabo preizkusi na nekaterih področjih in skrbno oceni; meni, da so izkušnje s postopkom Lamfalussy pri zakonodaji o finančnih trgih, zlasti pa dialog med zakonodajalci in udeleženci na trgu, dragocen precedenčni primer za dinamičen zakonodajni postopek;
Recommends that the "better regulation" programme be piloted in certain fields and be carefully assessed before wider use; considers the experience with the Lamfalussy procedure in financial markets legislation, and the dialogue between regulators and market participants, in particular, to be a valuable test case for a dynamic legislative process;
meni, da je postopek Lamfalussy uporaben mehanizem; meni, da je približevanje nadzornih praks ključnega pomena; v zvezi s tem pozdravlja delo odborov 3. stopnje in podpira njihovo zahtevo po ustreznih orodjih; meni, da lahko tam, kjer se nadzornikom omogoči dovolj manevrskega prostora, to odstrani večino bremena tehničnih podrobnosti v zakonodaji in najverjetneje ustvari ustreznejša pravila za dinamičen trg; kljub temu pa poudarja, da to v nobenem primeru ne ukine politične odgovornosti za končne cilje zadevne zakonodaje; vztraja, da bi zakonodajalci morali skrbno spremljati postopek in ponavlja, da morajo biti zakonodajne pravice Parlamenta v celoti upoštevane;
Is of the opinion that the Lamfalussy procedure is a useful mechanism; regards the convergence of supervisory practices as crucial; welcomes the work of the Level 3 committees in this respect and supports the call for an adequate toolbox; believes that, where supervisors are given room for manoeuvre, this removes much of the need for technical detail in legislation and is likely to produce more appropriate rules for a dynamic market; stresses, however, that this can never erode political responsibility for the final objectives of the legislation in question; insists that legislators should carefully monitor the process and reiterates that the legislative rights of Parliament should be fully respected;