natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
poudarja, da se je število nadaljnjih primerov stalno povečevalo od leta 2003 in da so bili v letu 2007 OLAF primeri večinoma rešeni s finančnim vračilom ali pravnimi nadaljnjimi priporočili; zaključuje, da to pomeni, da so ugotovitve OLAF-a pozitivne za države članice in institucije EU;
Points out that "follow-up" cases have steadily increased since 2003, and that in 2007 OLAF cases were mainly closed with financial recovery or judicial follow-up recommendations; concludes that this means that OLAF's investigation results are positive for the Member States and the EU institutions;
ugotavlja, da priporočila OLAF-a niso zavezujoča, tako da nacionalni organi neodvisno sprejmejo relevantne odločitve in določajo kazni; je prepričan, da bi ustanovitev urada evropskega javnega tožilca prispevala h rešitvi težav, ki so povezane s čezmejno naravno primerov;
Notes that OLAF's recommendations are not binding, so that national authorities take the relevant decisions and impose sanctions independently; believes that the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor's office would help to overcome difficulties arising from the cross-border nature of cases;
poudarja potrebo po racionalizaciji pravnih instrumentov, saj se opredelitve goljufije, suma goljufije in drugih nepravilnosti prisotne v številnih različnih pravnih instrumentih, navkljub večkratnim pozivom Parlamenta k prenovi pravil za boj proti goljufiji;
Stresses the need for streamlining legal instruments, since the definitions of fraud, suspicions of fraud and other irregularities are scattered across a number of different legal instruments, in spite of repeated calls by Parliament for a recast of the anti-fraud rules;
ugotavlja težave v usposobljenosti držav članic za izvajanje člena 4 in 5 Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 2988/95 z dne 18. decembra 1995 o zaščiti finančnih interesov Skupnosti UL L 312, 23.12.1995, str.
Notes the qualification problem of Member States in applying Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p.
; meni, da bi morala nacionalna sodišča v primeru protislovja prositi Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti za predhodno odločanje;
; considers that in case of ambivalence, national courts should ask the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling;
pozdravlja objavo omenjenega drugega poročila OLAF-a o pregledih na kraju samem in inšpekcijah, ki pripomorejo k ugotavljanju dobre prakse za vsako fazo pregledov ter novo različico priročnika OLAF-a (smernice); poziva Komisijo, da pristojnemu odboru Parlamenta do septembra 2009 posreduje posodobljeno in celovito različico priročnika OLAF-a;
Welcomes the publication of the above-mentioned second report of OLAF on on-the-spot checks and inspections outlining good practices for each stage of checks, as well as the new version of the OLAF Vademecum (guidelines); requests the Commission to send Parliament's competent committee the updated and comprehensive version of OLAF's manual by September 2009;
zagovarja potrebo po bolj jasnih določbah o postopkih in zavezujočih časovnih omejitvah za pristojne organe pri nudenju potrebne pomoči in na splošno bolj zavezujoče določbe za sodelovanje pri opredeljevanju pristojnega nacionalnega organa za nudenje podpore; v želji, da bi se to vprašanje rešilo, vztraja pri koristnosti svojega stališča z dne 20. novembra 2008 o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1073/1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0553 .
Advocates the need for clearer provisions on procedures and binding time limits for competent authorities in providing the assistance required and generally more binding provisions for cooperation identifying the national authority competent to provide assistance; insists, with a view to solving this problem, on the usefulness of its position of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0553 .
poziva Komisijo, da sprejme ustrezne ukrepe, vključno s postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev, proti tistim državam članicam, ki ne pomagajo službam Komisije pri pregledih na kraju samem, kot je opredeljeno v Uredbi Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 2185/96 z dne 11. novembra 1996 o pregledih in inšpekcijah na kraju samem, ki jih opravlja Komisija za zaščito finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti pred goljufijami in drugimi nepravilnostmi UL L 292, 15.11.1996, str.
Requests the Commission to take appropriate measures, including infringement proceedings, against those Members States which do not assist its services in carrying out on-the-spot checks as provided for by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p.
ugotavlja, da se izvaja obsežno pravno spremljanje primerov, vendar je dopustnost dokazov, ki jih je zbral OLAF, na nacionalnih sodiščih zelo omejena; cilj je izboljšati pravno podporo za preiskovalno funkcijo OLAF-a; nadalje meni, da bi moral biti Eurojust obveščen o vsakem posredovanju informacij ali končnih poročil pravosodnim organom, če se nanašajo na resne oblike nadnacionalnega kriminala in če sta vpleteni dve ali več držav članic;
Notes that since extensive judicial follow-up of cases has been observed but admissibility of evidence - by the national courts - collected by OLAF is very limited, the aim is to improve the judicial support for the investigative function of OLAF; considers moreover that Eurojust should be informed when information or final case reports are transmitted to the judicial authorities if they concern serious forms of transnational crime and two or more Member States are involved;
obžaluje, da so države članice neustrezno obveščale o ukrepih v zvezi z informacijami oziroma končnimi poročili, ki jih je posredoval OLAF; poziva države članice, da zagotovijo, da njihovi pristojni organi OLAF-u posredujejo poročilo o napredku pri ukrepanju na podlagi informacij oziroma priporočil, ki jim jih posreduje OLAF;
Deplores the inadequate notification by Member States of action taken on information or final case reports transmitted by OLAF; requests the Member States to ensure that their competent authorities forward a report to OLAF on progress made in acting on the information or recommendations forwarded to them by OLAF;
ugotavlja, da imajo nacionalni revizijski organi precejšnje pristojnosti pri reviziji sredstev EU in so prvi vir informacij tako za nacionalne organe kazenskega pregona kot za institucije EU; zato je prepričan, da bi boljše sodelovanje in pretok informacij med nacionalnimi revizijskimi organi, nacionalnimi organi kazenskega pregona in OLAF-om še bolj okrepilo zaščito finančnih interesov Skupnosti;
Notes that the national audit authorities have considerable competencies in audits regarding EU-funds and they provide the first source of information for both national prosecution authorities and EU institutions; believes therefore that maximising the cooperation and information flow between audit authorities, national prosecution authorities and OLAF would further strengthen the protection of the Communities' financial interests;
ugotavlja, da morajo v skladu z zgoraj navedenim stališčem z dne 20. novembra 2008 o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1073/1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF), države članice sistematično obveščati OLAF o spremljanju primerov, ki jim jih je posredoval, zato slednjega poziva, da o tem vprašanju poroča v svojem naslednjem letnem poročilu;
Notes that according to its above-mentioned position of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Member States shall systematically inform OLAF on the follow up of those cases which were transmitted by OLAF to them, therefore asks OLAF to report on this issue in its next annual report;
poudarja, da so službe za usklajevanje boja proti goljufijam (AFCOS) v državah članicah, ki so k EU pristopile po letu 2004, zelo pomembne informacijske in kontaktne točke za OLAF; kljub temu poudarja, da bo dodana vrednost delovanja teh uradov (zlasti kar zadeva poročanje Komisiji o nepravilnostih) minimalna, dokler bodo odvisni od nacionalnih uprav; zato poziva Komisijo, naj pripravi predlog za pristojni parlamentarni odbor glede povečanja vrednosti dela teh uradov in ga tudi obravnava kot potrebnega za izboljšanje sodelovanja z državami kandidatkami;
Points out that the anti-Fraud coordination service (AFCOS) for OLAF in the Member States which acceded to the EU after 2004 are very important information/contact points for OLAF; however points out that so long as these offices are not independent from the national administration, their functional added value is minimal (especially concerning reporting of irregularities to the Commission); therefore invites the Commission to make a proposal to Parliament's competent committee about making the work of these offices more valuable and also considers it necessary to improve collaboration with the candidate countries;
Tobak – Sporazum s podjetjem Philip Morris
Tobacco - Agreement with Philip Morris
obžaluje, da Komisija ni bila zmožna zagotoviti obsežnega poročila po resoluciji Parlamenta z dne 11. oktobra 2007 o posledicah sporazuma med Skupnostjo, državami članicami in podjetjem Philip Morris o stopnjevanju boja proti goljufijam in tihotapljenju cigaret in o napredku, ki je bil dosežen pri izvajanju priporočil preiskovalnega odbora Parlamenta za tranzitni sistem Skupnosti UL C 227 E, 4.9.2008, str.
Regrets that the Commission was unable to provide a comprehensive report on the follow-up to Parliament's resolution of 11 October 2007 on the implications of the agreement between the Community, Member States and Philip Morris on intensifying the fight against fraud and cigarette smuggling and progress made in implementing the recommendations of Parliament's Committee of Inquiry into the Community Transit System OJ C 227 E, 4.9.2008, p.
in zlasti njenega odstavka 49, v katerem izrecno poziva Komisijo, da objavi takšno poročilo do konca leta 2008; pričakuje, da bo Komisija predložila poročilo do konca postopka za podelitev razrešnice za proračunsko leto 2007;
, and in particular paragraph 49 thereof, which explicitly asked the Commission to publish such a report by the end of 2008; expects that the Commission will come forward with this report before the end of the discharge procedure for the financial year 2007;
ne more sprejeti, da je Skupnost v okviru sporazuma Philip Morris in Japan Tobacco prejela sredstva v višini 1,65 milijarde EUR za boj proti goljufiji, Komisija pa je 90 % teh poslala naravnost ministrstvom za finance držav članic, namesto da bi oblikovala skupen pristop; poziva Svet in Komisijo, da s Parlamentom sestavita tristransko delovno skupino, ki bo poiskala ustrezne rešitve za bolj smotrno in boljšo uporabo tega in podobnih prihodkov Unije; meni, da je nesprejemljivo, da Unija v času gospodarske recesije glob, ki znašajo več milijard evrov in ki jih plačujejo velika podjetja, ker so kršila evropska pravila o konkurenci v škodo evropskih potrošnikov, ne uporabi za spodbujanje gospodarstva, kar bi koristilo brezposelnim, in/ali za pomoč državam v razvoju, ki jih bo kriza najbolj prizadela, pač pa jih preprosto nakazuje v nacionalne blagajne;
Cannot accept that, whereas under the Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco agreements the Community received USD 1,65 billion for the fight against fraud, instead of setting up a common approach, the Commission sent some 90% of this money un-earmarked straight to the Ministers of Finance of the Member States; calls on the Council and the Commission to set up a tripartite working group with Parliament to find adequate solutions to make wise and better use of this and similar income of the Union; finds it unacceptable that in times of economic downturn billions of Euro of fines, paid by major companies who violated European competition rules to the detriment of European consumers, are not used by the Union to stimulate the economy to the benefit of the unemployed and /or to help developing countries who will suffer most under the crisis, but instead are simply sent to the national treasuries;
Organizirani kriminal
Organised crime
pozdravlja objavo sporočila Komisije z dne 20. novembra 2008 o donosih organiziranega kriminala ( KOM(2008)0766 ), ki se ukvarja s konfiskacijo in povrnitvijo zneskov, ter se strinja s Komisijo, da je konfiskacija eden od najbolj učinkovitih načinov boja proti organiziranemu kriminalu in da je treba sprejeti ukrepe za povečanje omejenega števila konfiskacijskih primerov in skromnih zneskov, ki so bili povrnjeni;
Welcomes the publication of the Commission Communication of 20 November 2008 on proceeds of organised crime ( COM(2008)0766 ), which deals with the confiscation and recovery of crime, and agrees with the Commission that confiscation is one of the most effective ways to fight organised crime and that measures should be put in place in order to increase the limited number of confiscation cases and the modest amounts recovered;
poudarja, da je treba nujno vzpostaviti prikladne in učinkovite mehanizme za zamrznitev in zaseg sredstev v tujini, zato je treba razmisliti o prenovitvi obstoječega pravnega okvira EU; poudarja, da je treba čim prej izvesti Sklep Sveta 2007/845/PNZ, s čimer bo zagotovljeno, da bodo vse države članice vzpostavile ali imenovale urade za odvzem premoženjske koristi;
Underlines that it is essential to have in place expedient and effective mechanisms to freeze and confiscate assets abroad and therefore a recasting of the existing EU legal framework should be considered; stresses that Council Decision 2007/845/JHA should be implemented, as a matter of urgency, in order to ensure that all Member States set up or designate Asset Recovery Offices (AROs);
znova poziva Komisijo, naj Parlamentu posreduje podrobno analizo sistema oziroma sistemov, s katerimi združbe organiziranega kriminala ogrožajo finančne interese Skupnosti; meni, da je vsakoletna Europolova ocena nevarnosti na področju organiziranega kriminala (OCTA) sicer koristna, vendar ne zadostuje;
Reiterates its call on the Commission to provide Parliament with a detailed analysis of the system or systems used by organised crime to undermine the Communities' financial interest; finds the yearly Europol Organized Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) useful, but not sufficient in this respect;
obžaluje dejstvo, da Konvencija o zaščiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti iz leta 1995 in njuna protokola iz leta 1996 in 2007 še vedno niso bili ratificirani s strani Češke republike, Madžarske, Malte in Poljske in da eden od protokolov ni bil ratificiran s strani Estonije in Italije ter da so nastale težave pri prenosu določb v sedmih državah članicah;
Deplores the fact that the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities" Financial Interests of 1995 and its protocols of 1996 and 2007 have still not been ratified by the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Poland, that one of the two protocols has not been ratified by Estonia and Italy and that in seven Member States the transposition of the provisions has shortcomings;
naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti, Računskemu sodišču, nadzornemu odboru OLAF-a ter OLAF-u.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, the OLAF Supervisory Committee and OLAF.
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 24. aprila 2009 o parlamentarni imuniteti na Poljskem ( 2008/2232(INI) )
European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on parliamentary immunity in Poland ( 2008/2232(INI) )
ob upoštevanju členov 9 in 10 Protokola z dne 8. aprila 1965 o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti,
having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities,
ob upoštevanju člena 12(3) Akta z dne 20. septembra 1976 o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami,
having regard to Article 12(3) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
ob upoštevanju člena 105 ustave Republike Poljske z dne 2. aprila 1997,
having regard to Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997,
ob upoštevanju člena 7b poljskega zakona o izvrševanju mandata poslanca ali senatorja z dne 9. maja 1996,
having regard to Article 7b of the Polish Law of 9 May 1996 on the performance of the mandate of deputy or senator,
ob upoštevanju členov 9 in 142 poljskega zakona o volitvah v Evropski parlament z dne 23. januarja 2004,
having regard to Articles 9 and 142 of the Polish Law of 23 January 2004 on elections to the European Parliament,
ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 23. junija 2005 o spremembi odločitve z dne 4. junija 2003 o sprejetju Statuta poslancev Evropskega parlamenta UL C 133, 8.6.2006, str.
having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2005 on the amendment of the decision of 4 June 2003 on the adoption of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament OJ C 133 E, 8.6.2006, p.
ob upoštevanju členov 6, 7 in 45 svojega Poslovnika,
having regard to Rules 6, 7 and 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A6-0205/2009 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6-0205/2009 ),
ker sta v sedanjem parlamentarnem mandatu Parlament in Odbor za pravne zadeve kot pristojni odbor obravnavala zahteve za odvzem imunitete poslancem, izvoljenim na Poljskem, pri tem pa naletela na določene težave pri razlagi zakonskih določb, ki bi se lahko uporabljale v primeru teh poslancev,
whereas, in the current parliamentary term, Parliament and its Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, have considered requests for waiver of the immunity of Members elected in Poland and have come up against certain difficulties in the interpretation of provisions of law that might be applicable in the case of those Members,
ker se te določbe uporabljajo tudi za poslance Evropskega parlamenta, izvoljene na Poljskem, vendar se v zvezi z dopustnostjo takšnih zahtev porajajo zapletena vprašanja glede Poslovnika, zlasti člena 6(2), ki se nanaša na "pristojni organ",
whereas those provisions also apply to Members of the European Parliament elected in Poland, yet the admissibility of such requests raises difficult questions having regard to the Rules of Procedure, and in particular Rule 6(2) which refers to the "competent authority",
ker je po členu 7(7) Poslovnika pristojni odbor odgovoren za preverjanje dopustnosti zahtev za odvzem imunitete, vključno z vprašanjem pristojnosti nacionalnih organov, da predložijo takšne zahteve; ker pa bi se moral po obstoječih določbah očiten konflikt med ustreznimi določbami poljske zakonodaje in Poslovnika v zvezi s tem rešiti tako, da bi se zahteve za odvzem imunitete, ki jih vložijo posamezniki, štele kot nedopustne,
whereas under Rule 7(7) of the Rules of Procedure the responsible committee is competent to verify the admissibility of a request for waiver of immunity, including the question of the competence of the national authority to submit such a request; whereas, however, under the existing provisions the manifest conflict in this regard between the relevant provisions of Polish law and the Rules of Procedure would have to be resolved by regarding as inadmissible requests for waiver of immunity submitted by private persons,
ker je namen člena 6(2) zagotoviti, da Parlament prejme zahteve zgolj v postopkih, katerim so namenili pozornost organi države članice; ker ta člen tudi zagotavlja Parlamentu, da so zahteve za odvzem imunitete, ki jih prejme, v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, tako glede vsebine kot postopka, kar služi kot nadaljnje jamstvo, da bo Parlament pri sprejemanju odločitve v svojih postopkih o imuniteti upošteval tako nacionalno zakonodajo države članice kot svoje posebne pravice; ker se na koncept "organa" jasno sklicujejo druge določbe členov 6 in 7 v zvezi s postopki o imuniteti,
whereas the purpose of Rule 6(2) is to guarantee that Parliament receives only requests in proceedings that have received the attention of the authorities of a Member State; whereas it also guarantees for Parliament that requests for waiver of immunity which are received by it comply with national law as regards both substance and procedure, which in turn serves as a further guarantee that, in reaching its decision in its procedures on immunities, Parliament observes both the national law of a Member State and its own prerogatives; whereas the concept of "authority" is clearly referred to in other provisions of Rules 6 and 7 in the context of the procedures on immunity,
ker ne bi bilo dovolj, če bi se zahteve za odvzem imunitete, ki jih vložijo posamezniki, štele kot nedopustne, saj bi to lahko posegalo v njihove pravice v sodnih postopkih in tožilcem za nekatera kazniva dejanja onemogočilo, da bi zahtevali odvzem imunitete; ker bi se to lahko zdelo kot spodbujanje nepravične in neenakopravne obravnave prijaviteljev,
whereas to regard requests for waiver of immunity made by private persons as inadmissible would be unsatisfactory in that it could interfere with their rights in judicial proceedings and preclude prosecutors of some offences from being able to request waiver of immunity; whereas this could be regarded as giving rise to unjust and unequal treatment of applicants,
ker pa bi morale biti države članice tiste, ki sprejmejo določbe za izvajanje teh pravic v zvezi s poslanci Evropskega parlamenta, glede na pravila in postopke, ki urejajo njegovo delovanje,
whereas, however, it should be for the Member States to make provision for the exercise of such rights with regard to Members of the European Parliament in the light of the rules and procedures governing its functioning,
ker je bilo 25 držav članic s pismi z dne 29. septembra 2004 in 9. marca 2005 v skladu s členom 7(12) pozvanih, naj navedejo, kateri organi so pristojni za predložitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete poslanca; ker so se doslej odzvale le Avstrija, Belgija, Ciper, Češka republika, Danska, Estonija, Finska, Grčija, Italija, Litva, Madžarska, Nemčija, Nizozemska, Portugalska, Slovenija, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo,
whereas, by letters of 29 September 2004 and 9 March 2005, 25 Member States were invited, pursuant to Rule 7(12), to indicate which authorities are competent to present a request for waiver of a Member's immunity; whereas to date only Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK have responded,
ker je pristojni odbor v svojih razpravah obravnaval tudi vprašanje morebitnih posledic odvzema imunitete v primeru poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, izvoljenih na Poljskem,
whereas in its debates the responsible committee also addressed the question of the possible consequences of a waiver of immunity in the case of Members of the European Parliament elected in Poland,
ker bi v primeru, da sodišče poslanca spozna za krivega in je kaznovan za naklepno kaznivo dejanje, ki se preganja po uradni dolžnosti, takšen odvzem lahko pomenil avtomatično izgubo pasivne volilne pravice, kar bi potem povzročilo, da poslanec izgubi svoj sedež,
whereas, in the event that the Member is found guilty by the court and punished for an intentional offence prosecuted by public prosecution, such waiver might result in the automatic loss of his or her eligibility, which would result in turn in the Member losing his or her seat,