natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V primerih zaščite imunitete ali privilegijev odbor preveri, ali okoliščine predstavljajo upravno ali kako drugo omejitev svobode gibanja poslancev pri potovanju v kraje ali iz krajev zasedanja Parlamenta ali pri izražanju mnenja ali glasovanju v okviru izvrševanja mandata in ali sodijo v okvir člena 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah, ki niso predmet nacionalne zakonodaje, ter predlaga, da se zadevni organ zaprosi, naj sprejme potrebne sklepe.
In cases concerning the defence of immunity or privileges, the committee shall state whether the circumstances constitute an administrative or other restriction imposed on the free movement of Members travelling to or from the place of meeting of Parliament or an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the performance of the mandate or fall within aspects of Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities which are not a matter of national law, and shall make a proposal to invite the authority concerned to draw the necessary conclusions.
Luigi de Magistris se je v svoji zahtevi izrecno skliceval na člena 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije.
Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union were expressly invoked by Luigi De Magistris in his request.
Ob sklicevanju na člen 68 italijanske ustave člena 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti.
With reference to Article 68 of the Italian Constitution, quoted above, Article 9 is not relevant in this case.
Luigi de Magistris se torej opira zgolj na člen 8.
Luigi de Magistris is therefore obviously relying solely on Article 8.
Članka sta bila objavljena v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, saj je bil izvoljen leta 2009 na volitvah v Evropski parlament.
The articles were published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election during the 2009 European Parliament elections.
Vseeno je Sodišče nedavno odredilo, da „izjava poslanca Evropskega parlamenta izven te institucije, zaradi katere je sodno preganjan v svoji državi članici izvora za kaznivo dejanje lažnih obtožb, ne predstavlja mnenja, izraženega med opravljanjem njegovih parlamentarnih nalog , in tako zajetega v imuniteto, ki jo zagotavlja ta določba, razen če ta izjava ni subjektivna ocena, ki ima neposredno, očitno povezavo z opravljanjem teh nalog “
However, the Court has also recently held that ‘a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties ’
Zadeva Patriciello, citirano zgoraj, operativni del. .
Patriciello, cited above, operative part. .
Sodišče je podalo dodatna navodila glede tega, kaj predstavlja takšno povezavo, ko je izjavilo, da bi morala imeti vsaka trditev poslanca „ neposredno povezavo s splošnim interesom, ki ga imajo državljani “, in da bi morala biti takšna povezava očitna
The Court gave further guidance on what constitutes such a connection by stating that any allegations made by a Member would have to be capable of “presenting a direct link with a general interest of concern to citizens ”, and that such a link would thus have to be obvious
Zadeva Patriciello, citirana zgoraj, odstavek 36. (poudarek dodan).
Patriciello, cited above, at paragraph 36. (emphasis added).
Izjave Luigija de Magistrisa v tej zadevi so se nanašale na preiskavo o uporabi sredstev EU, sam pa je v času, ko jih je podal, opravljal funkcijo predsednika Odbora za proračunski nadzor.
The statements made by Luigi de Magistris in this case related to an investigation into the use of EU funds and he held the position of Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control when he made them.
Izjave so bile zato neposredno in očitno povezane s splošnimi interesi, ki zadevajo državljane, in so torej predstavljale mnenje, ki ga je izrazil pri opravljanju svojih nalog poslanca.
The statements were therefore directly and obviously linked with a general interest of concern to citizens and they thus constituted an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties.
V takšnih okoliščinah odbor meni, da dejstva v tej zadevi, kot so prikazana v sodnem pozivu ter v pisnih predložitvah in ustnih izjavah Luigija de Magistrisa Odboru za pravne zadeve, nakazujejo, da imajo trditve Luigija de Magistrisa neposredno, očitno povezavo z opravljanjem njegovih nalog poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
Against this background, the Committee considers that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions and oral presentations to the Committee, indicate that the statements made do have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.
Odbor zato meni, da je Luigi de Magistris z objavo omenjenih člankov opravljal svojo dolžnost poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
The Committee therefore considers that, in publishing the articles in question, Luigi de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties as Member of the European Parliament.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti imunitete poslanca Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament zaščiti poslansko imuniteto Luigija de Magistrisa.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against defending the Member’s immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should defend the parliamentary immunity of Luigi De Magistris.
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luigija de Magistrisa z dne 11. aprila 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 9. maja 2011, za zaščito svoje imunitete v okviru postopka pred sodiščem v Cosenzi v Italiji,
– having regard to the request by Luigi de Magistris of 11 April 2011, announced in plenary on 9 May 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with proceedings pending before the Court of Cosenza, Italy,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije z dne 8. aprila 1965, člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0073/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0073/2012 ),
C. ker je v sodnem pozivu navedeno, da trditve iz te knjige predstavljajo obrekovanje, to pa vodi do zahteve za odškodnino;
C. whereas according to the writ of summons, statements made in that book constitute libel, resulting in a claim for damages;
D. ker je bila knjiga objavljena v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, saj je bil izvoljen leta 2009 na volitvah v Evropski parlament;
D. whereas the book was published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election at the 2009 European Parliament elections;
E. ker se v skladu s členom 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije zoper poslanca Evropskega parlamenta ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti, in ker v skladu s členom 9 tega protokola poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
E. whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties, and whereas, according to Article 9 of that Protocol, Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament;
H. ker dejstva v tej zadevi, kot so prikazana v sodnem pozivu in v pisnih predložitvah Luigija de Magistrisa Odboru za pravne zadeve, nakazujejo, da trditve Luigija de Magistrisa nimajo neposredne, očitne povezave z njegovim opravljanjem nalog poslanca Evropskega parlamenta;
H. whereas the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament;
I. ker Luigi de Magistris z objavo omenjene knjige potemtakem ni opravljal svoje dolžnosti poslanca Evropskega parlamenta;
I. whereas Luigi de Magistris, in publishing the book in question, was therefore not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament;
Na zasedanju 9. maja 2011 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika razglasil, da je 11. aprila 2011 prejel zahtevo Luigija de Magistrisa v zvezi z zaščito njegove poslanske imunitete v povezavi s členoma 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske Unije in s sklicevanjem na člen 68 ustave Republike Italije, ki je bil spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 3 z dne 29. oktobra 1993.
At the sitting of 9 May 2011 the President announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that on 11 April 2011 he had received a request from Mr Luigi de Magistris concerning the defence of his parliamentary immunity with reference to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Union and to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic as amended by Constitutional Law No 3 of 29 October 1993.
Vincenza Bruno Bossio trdi, da trditve na strani 119 zadevne knjige predstavljajo obrekovanje, saj se tam opisuje, kako naj bi dr.
Dr Vincenza Bruno Bossio alleges that statements made on page 119 in the book are seriously defamatory, since Dr. Bossio is described therein as having made various attempts to illegally acquire news about the investigation Luigi de Magistris was conducting.
Luigi de Magistris tudi trdi, da je med kazenskopravno zadevo „Why not“ vodil preiskave, ki so zbudile veliko zanimanje zaradi resne narave kaznivega ravnanja, ki je bilo domnevno prisotno v tej zadevi.
He maintains that he has conducted investigations in the course of the criminal case ‘ Why not ’, which aroused great interest because of the serious nature of the criminal conduct allegedly involved in that case.
Zoper člana Evropskega parlamenta se ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti .
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties .
a. na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament ;
Odbor predlaga obrazložen sklep, ki priporoča sprejetje ali zavrnitev zahteve za odvzem imunitete ali zahteve za zaščito imunitete in privilegijev.
The committee shall make a proposal for a reasoned decision which simply recommends the adoption or rejection of the request for the waiver of immunity or for the defence of immunity and privileges.
Zadevna knjiga je bila objavljena v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, saj je bil izvoljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament leta 2009.
The book in question was published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election during the 2009 European Parliament elections.
Vseeno je Sodišče nedavno odredilo, da „izjava poslanca Evropskega parlamenta izven meja te institucije, zaradi katere je sodno preganjan v svoji državi članici izvora za kaznivo dejanje lažnih obtožb, ne predstavlja mnenja, izraženega med opravljanjem njegovih parlamentarnih nalog , in tako zajetega v imuniteto, ki jo zagotavlja ta določba, razen če ta izjava ni subjektivna ocena, ki ima neposredno, očitno povezavo z opravljanjem teh nalog “
However, the Court has also recently held that ‘a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties ’
Zadeva Patriciello , citirana zgoraj, odstavek 36. (poudarek dodan).
Patriciello, cited above, at paragraph 36. (emphasis added).
Izjave, ki jih je v tem primeru podal Luigi de Magistris, zadevajo domneve o nepravilnem ravnanju tretjih strani v povezavi s kazenskimi preiskavami, ki jih je vodil, preden je postal poslanec Evropskega parlamenta.
The statements made by Luigi de Magistris in this case relate to allegations of improper conduct of third parties in connection with criminal investigations which he was conducting before he became a Member of the European Parliament.
V takšnih okoliščinah odbor meni, da dejstva v tej zadevi, kot so prikazana v sodnem pozivu ter v pisnih predložitvah in ustnih izjavah Luigija de Magistrisa Odboru za pravne zadeve, nakazujejo, da trditve Luigija de Magistrisa nimajo neposredne, očitne povezave z njegovim opravljanjem nalog poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
Against this background, the Committee considers that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions and oral presentations to the Committee, indicate that the statements made do not have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament.
Odbor zato meni, da Luigi de Magistris z objavo omenjene knjige ni opravljal svojih nalog poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
The Committee therefore considers that, in publishing the book in question, Luigi de Magistris was not acting in the performance of his duties as Member of the European Parliament.
Na osnovi zgornjih preudarkov in v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika ter po preučitvi razlogov za in proti zaščiti imunitete poslanca, Odbor za pravne zadeve priporoča, da Evropski parlament ne zaščiti poslanske imunitete Luigija de Magistrisa.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against defending the Member’s immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Luigi De Magistris.
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luigija de Magistrisa z dne 3. maja 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 9. maja 2011, za zaščito svoje imunitete v okviru postopka, ki proti njemu teče pred sodiščem v Milanu v Italiji,
– having regard to the request by Luigi de Magistris of 3 May 2011, announced in plenary on 9 May 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with proceedings pending before the Court of Milan, Italy,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola (št. 7) o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije, priloženega Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije, člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju člena 68 italijanske ustave,
– having regard to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7-0074/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0074/2012 ),
B. ker je zahteva Luigija de Magistrisa povezana s sodnim pozivom, ki je bil zoper njega vložen pri sodišču v Milanu v imenu Giancarla Pittellija v zvezi s trditvami, ki jih Luigi de Magistris navaja v svoji knjigi Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato („Napad na tožilca – Zgodba o hudobnem sodniku“), objavljeni aprila 2010;
B. whereas the request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Milan on behalf of Mr Giancarlo Pittelli in connection with statements made by Luigi de Magistris in his book Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato (‘Attack on the public prosecutor – the story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010;
D. ker je bila knjiga objavljena v času, ko je bil Luigi de Magistris poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, potem ko je bil leta 2009 izvoljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament;
D. whereas the book was published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election at the 2009 European Parliament elections;
E. ker se v skladu s členom 8 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije zoper poslanca Evropskega parlamenta ne sme začeti preiskava, ne sme biti priprt niti se zoper njega ne sme začeti sodni postopek zaradi mnenja ali glasu, ki ga je izrekel pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti, in ker v skladu s členom 9 tega protokola poslanci med zasedanjem Evropskega parlamenta uživajo na ozemlju svoje države imunitete, priznane poslancem parlamenta te države;
E. whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties, and whereas, according to Article 9 of that Protocol Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament;
Na zasedanju 9. maja 2011 je predsednik v skladu s členom 6(3) Poslovnika razglasil, da je 3. maja 2011 prejel zahtevo Luigija de Magistrisa v zvezi z zaščito njegove poslanske imunitete v povezavi s členoma 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske Unije in s sklicevanjem na člen 68 ustave Republike Italije, ki je bil spremenjen z ustavnim zakonom št. 3 z dne 29. oktobra 1993.
At the sitting of 9 May 2011 the President announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that on 3 May 2011 he had received a request from Mr Luigi de Magistris concerning the defence of his parliamentary immunity with reference to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Union and to Article 68 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic as amended by Constitutional Law No 3 of 29 October 1993.
Ozadje zahteve za zaščito je naslednje: Giancarlo Pittelli je pozval Luigija de Magistrisa pred sodišče v Milanu v zvezi s trditvami, ki jih slednji navaja v svoji knjigi Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato („Napad na tožilca – Zgodba o hudobnem sodniku“), objavljeni aprila 2010.
The background to the request for defence is as follows: Mr De Magistris was summoned before the Court of Milan by Mr Giancarlo Pittelli in connection with statements made by Luigi de Magistris in his book ‘ Assalto al PM, storia di un cattivo magistrato ’ (EN: ‘Attack on the public prosecutor - story of a bad magistrate’), which was published in April 2010.
Luigi de Magistris v knjigi razpravlja o kazenskem postopku „ Shock “ v katerega je bil vključen Giancarlo Pittelli v vlogi pravnega zastopnika obtoženca v tej zadevi.
In the book Luigi de Magistris discusses the criminal proceedings ‘ Shock ’, which involved Mr Pittelli in his capacity as the legal counsel for the defendant in that case.
Pitelli trdi, da so navedbe v knjigi na straneh 27, 58-60, 88-90 in 113-114 zanj zelo žaljive, saj ga predstavljajo kot pripadnika mafijske združbe belih ovratnikov, ki vzdržuje neprimerno tesne vezi s sodstvom, poslovneži in politiki, vključno z vpletanjem v kazenske postopke.
Mr Pittelli alleges that statements made on pages 27, 58-60, 88-90 and 113-114 in the book are very offensive to him, since he is presented therein as a member of a white-collar mafia, upholding inappropriately close relationships with the judiciary, businessmen and politicians, including tangling with criminal proceedings.
De Magistris na drugi strani pravi, da je v knjigi zgolj izrazil svoje mnenje o pomembnih zadevah, povezanih z javnim interesom, ter trdi, da je med kazenskopravno zadevo „ Shock “ vodil preiskave, ki so zbudile veliko zanimanje zaradi resne narave kaznivega ravnanja, ki je bilo domnevno prisotno v tej zadevi.
For his part, Luigi de Magistris submits that in the book he expressed his opinion on important matters relating to the public interest and maintains that he has conducted investigations in the course of the criminal case ‘ Shock ’, which aroused great interest because of the serious nature of the criminal conduct allegedly involved in that case.
Knjiga je torej izraz politične dejavnosti poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, ki ima pravico izražati svoje mnenje o zadevah, za katere obstajata legitimni javni interes in zaskrbljenost.
The book therefore constitute an expression of the political activity of an MEP, who has the right to voice his opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern.
Luigi de Magistris se je v svoji zahtevi izrecno skliceval na člena 8 in 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije.
Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union was expressly invoked by Luigi De Magistris in his request.
Zadeva Patriciello , citirano zgoraj, operativni del. .
Patriciello, cited above, operative part. .
– ob upoštevanju zahteve Luigija de Magistrisa z dne 20. julija 2011, razglašene na plenarnem zasedanju 12. septembra 2011, za zaščito njegove imunitete v povezavi s postopkom pred sodiščem v Lamezii v Italiji,
– having regard to the request by Luigi de Magistris of 20 July 2011, announced in plenary on 12 September 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with proceedings pending before the Court of Lamezia, Italy,
– ob upoštevanju členov 8 in 9 Protokola (št. 7) o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropske unije z dne 8. aprila 1965 ter člena 6(2) Akta o volitvah poslancev Evropskega parlamenta s splošnimi neposrednimi volitvami z dne 20. septembra 1976,
– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ( A7–0075/2012 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0075/2012 ),
B. ker je zahteva Luigija de Magistrisa povezana s sodnim pozivom, ki je bil zoper njega vložen pri sodišču v Lamezii v imenu Antonia Saladina v zvezi s trditvami, ki jih je Luigi de Magistris navedel v intervjuju, objavljenem v italijanskem časopisu Il Fatto Quotidiano 9. marca 2011;
B. whereas the request by Luigi de Magistris relates to a writ of summons filed against him before the Court of Lamezia on behalf of Mr Antonio Saladino in connection with statements made by Luigi de Magistris in an interview published in the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano on 9 March 2011;