natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ugotavlja, da je za obtožence zaželena poravnava "enkrat za vselej", da bi zmanjšali negotovost in preobsežne gospodarske učinke, ki bi lahko vplivali na zaposlene, dobavitelje, podizvajalce in druge nedolžne strani; poziva k oceni in morebitni uvedbi postopka izvensodne poravnave za množične odškodninske zahtevke, ki ga lahko sproži katera koli stran pred začetkom pravne tožbe ali ga odredi sodišče, pred katerega je bila vložena tožba; meni, da bi takšen postopek poravnave moral težiti k izvensodni poravnavi spora, ob pridobitvi sodne odobritve poravnalnega sporazuma, ki je lahko zavezujoča za vse žrtve, ki so bile udeležene v postopku poravnave; poudarja, da ta postopek ne sme po nepotrebnem podaljšati postopkov ali spodbujati nepoštene poravnave zahtevkov; poziva Komisijo, naj si prizadeva za doseganje večje gotovosti, vključno z oceno, ali naj bodo poznejši tožniki načeloma upravičeni le do izida takšnega poravnalnega postopka;
Notes that achieving a once-and-for-all settlement for defendants is desirable to reduce uncertainty and exaggerated economic effects that are capable of impacting on employees, suppliers, subcontractors and other innocent parties; calls for an evaluation and a possible introduction of an out-of-court settlement procedure for mass claims that can either be initiated by the parties before taking legal action or that can be ordered by the court before which an action is brought; considers that such a settlement procedure should aim for an out-of-court settlement of the dispute, subject to seeking judicial approval of a settlement agreement, which can be declared binding upon all the victims who have participated in the settlement procedure; stresses that such a procedure must neither entail an undue prolongation of proceedings, nor promote the unfair settlement of claims; calls for the Commission to seek ways of achieving greater certainty including evaluating whether any subsequent claimants should, in principle, be expected to benefit from no more than the outcome of such a settlement procedure;
meni, da je treba neposrednim in posrednim kupcem, ki se odločijo vložiti posamične ali nadaljnje tožbe, omogočiti individualno, skupinsko ali reprezentativno tožbo, ki se lahko sproži tudi v obliki "testnega" primera, vendar pa mora za preprečevanje večkratnih tožb iste stranke glede iste kršitve pa mora v primeru, da stran izbere eno od teh tožb, to pomeniti prepoved uporabe drugih vrst tožb, pa naj bo to istočasno ali naknadno; meni, da če različne strani sprožijo ločene postopke, jih je treba poskusiti združiti ali obravnavati zaporedno;
Takes the view that direct and indirect purchasers should have available to them, for the prosecution of their stand-alone or follow-up claims, individual, collective or representative actions, which can also be brought in the form of a 'test' case, but that in order to avoid multiple actions by a single party for the same cause of action, the selection of one such action should preclude a party from participating in another, either simultaneously or subsequently; considers that in the event that different parties launch separate actions, attempts should be made for those actions to be joined or tried in sequence;
meni, da morajo države članice za preprečitev nepoštenih sodnih procesov državnim organom, kot je varuh človekovih pravic, ali kvalificiranim subjektom, kot so združenja potrošnikov, v skladu s členom 3 Direktive 98/27/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. maja 1998 o opustitvenih tožbah zaradi varstva interesa potrošnikov UL L 166, 11.6.1998, str.
Takes the view that in order to avoid abusive litigation the power to prosecute in representative actions should be made available in the Member States to state bodies such as the Ombudsman or to qualified entities such as consumer associations in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p.
priznati pravico do reprezentativne tožbe in da pride "ad hoc" pooblastilo za take reprezentativne tožbe v poštev predvsem za trgovinska združenja, ki uveljavljajo odškodninske tožbe podjetij;
, and that an ad-hoc authorisation to pursue such representative actions should primarily be considered for trade associations which arrange proceedings for actions for damages for companies;
zahteva, da sme pri skupinski tožbi sodelovati le natančno določena skupina posameznikov, katerih identifikacijo v primeru skupinske tožbe po načelu prostovoljnega sodelovanja in identifikacijo v primeru reprezentativne tožbe, ki jo sprožijo kvalificirani subjekti, ki so bili predhodno določeni ali so dobili "ad hoc" pooblastilo, je treba brez nepotrebnega zamujanja opraviti v natančno določenem časovnem obdobju in ob upoštevanju obstoječe zakonodaje, v kateri je določen poznejši datum; poudarja, da je treba povrniti le dejansko nastalo škodo, in zahteva, da se v primeru uspešne tožbe pripadajoča odškodnina izplača identificiranemu krogu posameznikov ali njihovemu zastopniku, kvalificirani subjekt pa prejme povrnjene kvečjemu stroške, ki so nastali med postopkom, ne more pa biti posredni ali neposredni zastopnik za prejem odškodnine;
Asks that only a clearly delimited group of people be eligible to take part in collective redress actions, and that the identification of the members of that group in the case of a collective opt-in claim and the identification in the case of representative actions brought by qualified entities that where designated in advance or authorised on an ad hoc basis must take place within a clear period of time without unnecessary delay while complying with existing legislation that provides for a later date; stresses that only the damage actually suffered should be compensated; notes that in the case of a successful action the compensation sought must be paid to the identified group of people or their nominee and that qualified entities may be compensated only for the costs they have incurred in the course of pursuing the action and may not, either directly or indirectly, be a nominee to receive damages;
poudarja, da v primeru uspešne posamične tožbe ni izključen naknadni uradni pregon zaradi kršitve konkurenčnega prava ES; ponovno poudarja, da se za spodbujanje podjetij k čim hitrejšemu in čim bolj učinkovitemu izplačilu odškodnine žrtvam nezakonitega ravnanja poziva organe za konkurenco, naj pri odmeri globe, ki bo naložena toženemu podjetju, upoštevajo izplačano odškodnino ali odškodnino, ki bo izplačana, vendar ugotavlja, da to ne sme vplivati na pravico žrtve do polne odškodnine za utrpelo škodo ali na potrebo po ohranjanju odvračalnega učinka glob in da zaradi tega ne sme priti do daljše in negotove dokončnosti poravnave za podjetja; poziva Svet in zlasti Komisijo, naj v Uredbo (ES) št. 1/2003 vključita navedena načela v zvezi z globo ter jih še izboljšata in natančno določita, da bi bila skladna z zahtevami splošnih pravnih načel;
Stresses that in the event of a successful stand-alone claim, subsequent proceedings by the authorities for a breach of the EC competition rules are not excluded; also reiterates that in order to encourage undertakings to compensate the victims of illicit behaviour as quickly and effectively as possible, the competition authorities are asked to take account of the compensation paid or to be paid when determining the fine that is to be imposed upon the defendant undertaking; notes that this should, however, not interfere either with the victim's right to full compensation of the damage suffered or with the need to maintain the deterrent objective of fines, and that it should not result in lengthy and uncertain settlement finality for companies; calls on the Council and the Commission explicitly to incorporate into Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 those fining principles and further improve and specify them in order to comply with the requirements of the general legal principles;
opaža, da obstaja potreba po prima facie ocenjevanju izpolnjevanja pogojev za skupinsko tožbo v začetni fazi, in poudarja da tožniki v skupinskih pravnih tožbah ne smejo biti v boljšem ali slabšem položaju kot tožniki individualnih tožb; v okviru mehanizmov kolektivnih pravnih sredstev poziva k uporabi načela, po katerem mora tožeča stranka dokazati svoje očitke, razen če veljavno nacionalno pravo predvideva olajšanje dokaznega bremena ali lažji dostop do informacij in dokazov, ki so v lasti toženca;
Observes that some prima facie assessment of the merits of a collective action should form a preliminary stage and stresses that claimants in collective redress actions must not be in a better or worse position than individual claimants; calls for the application in the context of collective redress mechanisms of the principle that the party bringing the action must provide evidence for its claim, subject to the applicable national law providing for a lighter burden of proof or easier access to information and evidence held by the defendant;
zahteva, da Komisija po končani preiskavi žrtvam kršitev konkurenčnega prava ES omogoči dostop do informacij, potrebnih za vložitev odškodninske tožbe, in poudarja, da člen 255 Pogodbe ES in Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 opredeljujeta pravico do dostopa do dokumentacije institucij, ki smejo dostop zavrniti le pod pogoji, določenimi v navedeni uredbi, in zlasti v členu 4 te uredbe; zato meni, da mora Komisija ustrezno razlagati Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001 ali pa predlagati spremembo navedene uredbe; poudarja, da morajo uradni organi pri odobritvi vpogleda v dokumentacijo nameniti posebno pozornost zaščiti poslovne in gospodarske tajnosti toženca ali tretjih strani, ter ugotavlja, da so potrebne smernice za obravnavo prošenj za prizanesljivost;
Calls for the Commission to be required, in the follow-up to an investigation, to allow victims of breaches of the EC competition rules access to the necessary information for prosecuting actions for damages and stresses that Article 255 of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provide for a right of access to documents of the institutions, which may be refused only under the conditions set out in that Regulation, notably in Article 4 thereof; considers, therefore, that the Commission must interpret Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 accordingly, or propose an amendment thereof; stresses that when the authorities grant access to documents, particular attention must be paid to protecting business and company secrecy of the defendant or third parties and notes that guidelines are needed regarding the treatment of leniency applications;
meni, da odločitev nacionalnega organa za konkurenco v eni državi članici ne bi smela biti obvezujoča za nacionalna sodišča drugih držav članic, brez poseganja v predpise, ki določajo obvezujoči učinek odločitev, ki jih je za enako kršitev sprejela članica Evropske mreže za konkurenco ob upoštevanju člena 81 ali 82 Pogodbe; ugotavlja, da bi morali programi za usposabljanje in izmenjavo omogočiti konvergenco odločitev z namenom, da sprejetje odločitev drugega organa za konkurenco postane pravilo;
Believes that a national court should not be bound by a decision of the national competition authority of another Member State without prejudice to rules that provide for the binding effect of decisions that were adopted by a member of the European Competition Network, applying Articles 81 or 82 of the Treaty and in relation to the same subject-matter; observes that training and exchange programmes should lead to the convergence of decisions so that acceptance of another national competition authority's decision should become the norm;
poudarja, da mora biti namerno ravnanje vedno predpogoj za odškodninsko tožbo in da mora biti kršitev konkurenčnega prava ES storjena vsaj iz malomarnosti, razen če v nacionalnem pravu obstaja predpostavka ali ovrgljiva predpostavka krivde v primeru kršitve konkurenčnega prava ES, s katero se zagotovi dosledno in skladno izvrševanje konkurenčnega prava;
Stresses that a culpable act must always be a prerequisite for an action for damages, and that a breach of the EC competition rules must, at the least, be negligent unless national law provides that there is an automatic implication or rebuttable presumption of fault in the case of a breach of the EC competition rules, ensuring the consistent and coherent enforcement of competition law;
pozdravlja odločitev, da je cilj odškodnine povrniti izgubo in izpad dobička, vključno s presežnimi stroški in obrestmi, in zahteva, da se ta opredelitev odškodnine za mehanizme kolektivnih pravnih sredstev določi tudi na ravni Skupnosti;
Welcomes the fact that compensation is designed to make good losses and lost profit, including overcharges and interest, and calls for this definition of damages to be established for collective redress mechanisms at Community level;
pozdravlja prizadevanja Komisije za oblikovanje neobvezujočega orientacijskega okvira za izračun odškodnine, ki bi lahko uporabno vključil smernice o informacijah, zahtevanih pri pripravi izračunov, in njihovi uporabi v okviru mehanizmov za alternativno reševanje sporov, ko je to mogoče;
Welcomes the Commission's work on a non-binding guidance framework for the calculation of damages which could usefully include guidance on the information required to establish the calculation and their application in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms whenever possible;
ugotavlja, da je oblikovanje skupnega pristopa Skupnosti za prenos koristno, ter se strinja z dopustnostjo obrambe prenosa in poudarja, da mora dokaze za to obrambo vedno priskrbeti toženec, pri čemer lahko sodišča sežejo po preizkušenih nacionalnih predpisih glede povezave med vzročnostjo in odgovornostjo, da v posameznem primeru dosežejo pravico; predlaga, naj se pripravijo smernice, ki določajo, v kolikšni meri se lahko posredni kupec in zlasti zadnji posredni kupec zanese na ovrgljivo predpostavko, da so se nezakoniti povečani stroški v celoti prenesli na raven posrednega kupca;
Notes that developing a common Community approach to passing on has merit and approves the admissibility of passing on as a defence, that evidence for such a defence must always be provided by the defendant, and that the courts have the option of recourse to established national rules on the link between causality and liability in order to reach just decisions in individual cases; suggests that guidelines be proposed concerning the extent to which the indirect purchaser and, in particular, the last indirect purchaser may rely on the rebuttable presumption that an illegal overcharge was passed down in its entirety to the level of that indirect purchaser;
pozdravlja odločitev, da se zastaralni rok v primeru trajne ali ponavljajoče se kršitve konkurenčnega prava začne s prenehanjem kršitve ali upravičeno pričakovanim odkritjem kršitve s strani žrtve, pri čemer se upošteva poznejši datum; poudarja, da so predpisi v zvezi z zastaralnimi roki namenjeni tudi pravni varnosti in da mora v primeru odsotnosti javnih ali zasebnih tožb veljati zastaralni rok 5 let; pozdravlja tudi odločitev, da se trajanje zastaralnega roka za posamične tožbe določi v skladu s pravom določene države članice, in zahteva, da mora enako veljati tudi za nadaljnje tožbe; ugotavlja, da se ne sme posegati v zakone držav članic, ki določajo prekinitev zastaralnega roka;
Welcomes the fact that in the case of continuous or repeated infringements, limitation periods are to begin on the day when the infringement ceases or when the victim can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the infringement, whichever the later; stresses that rules on limitation periods also serve to create legal certainty and that in the event of a failure to bring a public or private action, a limitation period of five years must apply; also welcomes the fact that the limitation period for stand-alone actions is to be based on national law, and calls for this to apply also to follow-up actions; notes that Member States' laws regulating the suspension or interruption of the limitation period are not to be affected;
pozdravlja odločitev, da države članice same določijo pravila za porazdelitev stroškov; državam članicam prepušča odločitev, ali bodo preprečile, da bi nesorazmerja glede razpoložljivih sredstev med tožnikom in tožencem v sodnem postopku ovirala vlaganje dobro utemeljenih odškodninskih tožb, in ugotavlja, da je treba dostop do pravne varnosti uravnotežiti tudi s strogimi ukrepi za preprečevanje zlorab, na primer v obliki neresnih in nadležnih tožb ali tožb z namenom izsiljevanja;
Welcomes the fact that the Member States are to determine their own rules on the allocation of costs; considers that it is for the Member States to evaluate whether or not to ensure that the asymmetry of resources between the complainant and the defendant in legal proceedings does not deter the bringing of well-founded actions for damages and observes that access to justice must also be balanced by strong measures to prevent abuse by, inter alia, frivolous, vexatious or 'blackmailing' actions;
poudarja, da izvajanje programa prizanesljivosti pomembno prispeva k odkrivanju kršitev kartelnega prava, kar omogoča zasebne tožbe, in poziva k proučitvi načinov ohranjanja privlačnosti prošenj za navedeni program; poudarja, da kljub temu, da je izvajanje programa prizanesljivosti pomembno, je popolna oprostitev prič od skupne in individualne odgovornosti v nasprotju s sistemom, zato takšno oprostitev odločno zavrača, ker škoduje številnim oškodovancem kršitev konkurenčnega prava ES;
Points out that the application of the leniency programme makes a major contribution towards uncovering cartels, thus enabling private actions for damages to be brought in the first place and calls for ways of maintaining the attractiveness of the application for leniency programme to be examined; stresses that despite the importance of the application of the leniency programme, full exemption of cooperative witnesses from joint and several liability is contrary to the system and rejects such exemption categorically as prejudicial to many victims of breaches of the EC competition rules;
poziva Komisijo, naj se izogne opustitvi sodnih postopkov o kartelih in konkurenci ter vse tiste, ki so pomembni, ustrezno zaključi in sprejme jasne odločitve, da ne bi ovirala, ampak spodbujala pravico žrtev do sprožitve odškodninskih tožb;
Calls on the Commission, in order not to undermine but to facilitate the right of victims to bring actions for damages, as a priority, to avoid abandoning cartel and competition proceedings and to bring all those that are significant to a proper conclusion with a clear decision;
poudarja, da mora biti Parlament v okviru postopka soodločanja udeležen pri vseh zakonodajnih pobudah na področju kolektivnih pravnih sredstev;
Insists that Parliament must be involved, in the framework of the codecision procedure, in any legislative initiative in the area of collective redress;
poziva, naj bo pred kakršnim koli zakonodajnim predlogom izvedena analiza stroškov in koristi;
Calls for any legislative proposal to be preceded by an independent cost-benefit analysis.
naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, vladam in parlamentom držav članic ter socialnim partnerjem na ravni Skupnosti.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the social partners at Community level.
Zakonodajna resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 26. marca 2009 o predlogu Uredbe Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1290/2005 o financiranju skupne kmetijske politike in Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode ("Uredba o enotni SUT") v zvezi z razdeljevanjem hrane najbolj ogroženim osebam v Skupnosti ( KOM(2008)0563 – C6-0353/2008 – 2008/0183(CNS) )
European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) as regards food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community ( COM(2008)0563 – C6-0353/2008 – 2008/0183(CNS) )
ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu ( KOM(2008)0563 ),
having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council ( COM(2008)0563 ),
ob upoštevanju člena 37 Pogodbe ES, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C6-0353/2008 ),
having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C6-0353/2008 ),
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja in mnenja Odbora za regionalni razvoj ( A6-0091/2009 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development ( A6-0091/2009 ),
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 3730/87 z dne 10. decembra 1987 o splošnih pravilih za dobavo hrane iz intervencijskih zalog imenovanim organizacijam za razdeljevanje najbolj ogroženim osebam v Skupnosti, pozneje razveljavljena in vključena v Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007, je več kot dve desetletji zagotavljala zanesljiv vir hrane za razdeljevanje najbolj ogroženim osebam v Skupnosti.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, subsequently repealed and integrated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, has provided a reliable source of food for distribution to the most deprived persons of the Community for more than two decades.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 3730/87 z dne 10. decembra 1987 o splošnih pravilih za dobavo hrane iz intervencijskih zalog imenovanim organizacijam za razdeljevanje najbolj ogroženim osebam v Skupnosti, pozneje razveljavljena in vključena v Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007, je več kot dve desetletji zagotavljala zanesljiv vir hrane za razdeljevanje najbolj ogroženim osebam v Skupnosti
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, subsequently repealed and integrated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/ 2007, has provided a reliable source of food for distribution to the most deprived persons of the Community for more than two decades
ter pozitivno prispevala h koheziji regij EU z zmanjševanjem gospodarskih in socialnih razlik med neenako razvitimi regijami
and has positively contributed to the cohesion of EU regions by reducing economic and social disparities between regions which have different levels of development
Cilji skupne kmetijske politike (SKP), kot so opredeljeni v členu 33(1) Pogodbe, vključujejo stabilizacijo trgov in zagotavljanje, da je preskrba potrošnikom dostopna po primernih cenah.
The objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as defined in Article 33(1) of the Treaty include stabilising the markets as well as ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
Sedanji program razdeljevanja hrane se zanaša na razdeljevanje proizvodov iz intervencijskih zalog Skupnosti, začasno dopolnjenih z nakupi na trgu.
The current food distribution scheme relies on the distribution of products from Community intervention stocks supplemented, on a temporary basis, by purchases on the market.
Vendar so
However, successive reforms of the CAP
razpoložljivih proizvodov.
range of products available.
čedalje večje napetosti na svetovnem trgu kmetijskih surovin ter postopna ukinitev ukrepov za usmerjanje proizvodnje in za shranjevanje v sklopu zaporednih reform SKP omajale zadostno prehransko samopreskrbo Unije z vidika kakovosti in
increasing strains in the world market for primary agricultural products and the phasing out of tools for the orientation of production and stocks applied under
razpoložljivih proizvodov
range of products available