natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Namen mora biti jasno in ozko omejen na podlagi jasnih pravnih opredelitev iz Okvirnega sklepa Sveta št. 2002/475/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o boju proti terorizmu in Okvirnega sklepa Sveta št. 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje.
The purpose must be limited clearly and strictly on the basis of clear legal definitions based on definitions in Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism and in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant).
Za prenos se lahko uporablja izključno metoda „push“ (letalska družba organu prosilcu tretje države posreduje prečiščene podatke), namesto metode „pull“ (kjer ima tretja država neposreden dostop do evropskih podatkovnih baz).
The method of transfer must be only "push" (i.e., filtered data to be transmitted by airlines to the requesting authorities of third countries) instead of "pull" (whereby third countries have direct access to European databases).
Podatkov PNR se v nobenem primeru ne sme uporabiti za podatkovno rudarjenje ali profiliranje.
PNR data shall in no circumstances be used for data mining or profiling.
Nadaljnji prenos podatkov države prejemnice v tretje države mora biti skladen s standardi EU o varstvu podatkov, kar se ugotovi s posebnimi ocenami primernosti.
The onward transfer of data by the recipient country to third countries must be in line with EU standards on data protection, to be established by a specific adequacy finding;
Rezultati so nemudoma na voljo pristojnim organom EU in držav članic (vzajemnost).
Results must be immediately shared with the relevant authorities of the EU and of the Member States (reciprocity).
Pravna podlaga sklepa Sveta mora vključevati člen 16 PDEU.
The legal basis of the Council Decision concluding the agreement must include Article 16 TFEU.
Večina teh meril je bila vključena v pogajalsko pooblastilo, ki ga je sprejel Svet.
Most of these criteria have been included in the negotiating mandate adopted by the Council.
Evropski parlament je po teh merilih ocenil novi osnutek sporazuma PNR med EU in Avstralijo.
The European Parliament has assessed the new draft EU-Australia PNR Agreement against these criteria.
Ugotovil je, da je bila večina teh meril zadovoljivo izpolnjena in bo torej odobril sklenitev sporazuma.
The European Parliament has concluded that many of the criteria have been fulfilled to a satisfactory level, and it will therefore give its consent to the conclusion of the Agreement.
Evropski parlament je pozitivno ocenil naslednje točke:
The European Parliament gives a positive assessment of the following points:
- Opredelitev namena je bil znatno poostrena, saj vključuje samo namen preprečevanja, odkrivanja, preiskovanja in pregona terorističnih ali hudih mednarodnih kaznivih dejanj.
- The purpose definition has been considerably tightened, to include only the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious transnational crime.
Oba izraza sta v sporazumu jasno opredeljena na podlagi ustreznih instrumentov EU.
Clear definitions of both terms are provided for in the Agreement, on the basis of the relevant EU instruments.
Z natančnim opazovanjem uporabe sporazuma se bo pokazalo, ali je opredelitev namena dovolj natančna in ne omogoča uporabe podatkov PNR v druge namene.
Close monitoring of the application of the Agreement will have to demonstrate that the purpose definition is sufficiently precise, and does not leave room for using PNR for other purposes.
- Za prenos podatkov se uporablja samo metoda „push“, najvišje število načrtovanih prenosov podatkov na let pa je pet;
- The method of transfer of the data is push only, with a maximum of five scheduled transfers per flight.
- Sporazum predvideva izmenjavo relevantnih in ustreznih analitičnih podatkov z zadevnimi državami članicami, Evropolom in Eurojustom takoj, ko je to možno.
- The Agreement foresees sharing of relevant and appropriate analytical information, as soon as practicable, to the Member States concerned, or to Europol and Eurojust.
- Državljani EU so upravičeni do učinkovitih administrativnih in pravnih sredstev v Avstraliji, zagotoviti pa je treba zaščitne ukrepe za varstvo podatkov glede dostopanja, popravka, izbrisa in varnosti podatkov.
- EU citizens have a right to effective administrative and judicial redress in Australia, and data protection safeguards concerning access, rectification, erasure, and data security are ensured.
Poudariti pa je treba, da številna merila niso bila v celoti izpolnjena in da ostajajo še številni pomisleki.
However, it must be pointed out that a number of criteria have not been met in full, and that a number of concerns remain.
Ti so pomembni tudi za sporazume PNR z drugimi tretjimi državami.
These concerns are also relevant for PNR agreements with other third countries.
Evropski parlament je ugotovil, da naslednja merila niso bila v celoti izpolnjena:
The European Parliament notes that the following criteria have not been met in full:
- Profiliranje ni izrecno omenjeno v sporazumu, ni pa tudi izrecno izključeno.
- There is no specific mention of profiling in the Agreement, but it is not specifically excluded either.
Kljub večkrat ponovljenim zahtevam Evropska komisija noče podati pravno opredelitev profiliranja in podobnih avtomatiziranih metod iskanja.
Despite repeated requests, the European Commission has refused to provide a legal definition of profiling and similar automated search methods.
- Zdi se, da so pravila o nadaljnjem prenosu na splošno v skladu s standardi EU o varstvu podatkov, zlasti s priloženo izjavo, ki jo je zahteval Svet.
- The rules on onward transfer seem broadly in line with EU data protection standards, in particular with the appended statement requested by the Council.
Vendar je še vedno nekaj pomislekov, ali so določbe o nadaljnjem prenosu ustrezne.
However, there are still concerns whether the provisions regarding onward transfer are adequate.
Z natančnim spremljanjem uporabe sporazuma se bo pokazalo, ali je potrebno te določbe še dodatno zaostriti.
Close monitoring of the application of the Agreement will have to show if a further tightening of those provisions is needed.
Evropski parlamenti ima še naslednje pomisleke:
The European Parliament has the following remaining concerns:
- Evropska komisija je le delno in nezadovoljivo dokazala potrebo po množičnem zbiranju in hrambi podatkov ter njuno sorazmernost.
- The European Commission has only partially and insufficiently demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of the mass collection and storage of data.
Za nekatere namene je bila uporaba podatkov PNR pojasnjena z naključno zbranimi dokazi in obiski delegacij Evropskega parlamenta na kraju samem.
Anecdotal evidence and on site visits by delegations of the European Parliament have clarified the use of PNR for some purposes.
Vendar pa še ni bila podana podrobna utemeljitev vsakega navedenega namena (boj proti terorizmu in hudim mednarodnim kaznivim dejanjem) in vsake posamezne metode obdelave (reaktivne, v stvarnem času in proaktivne), kot je zaprosili Evropski parlament.
However, the detailed justification for each of the stated purposes (counter terrorism and fighting serious transnational crime) and for each of the methods of processing (re-actively, real time and pro-actively), as requested by the European Parliament, has yet to be given.
- Dana ni bila nikakršna utemeljitev za dolgoročno hrambo določljivih podatkov vseh potnikov.
- In this respect, no justification has been given for the long term storage of identifiable data of all travellers.
Zdi se, da je obdobje hrambe 5 let in pol let precej naključno in ni utemeljeno s posebnimi dokazi.
The retention period of 5,5 years appears to be fairly random, and not based on specific evidence.
To je v nasprotju s pravnimi zahtevami o potrebnosti in sorazmernosti ter z ustrezno sodno prakso, zlasti s sodbami nacionalnih ustavnih sodišč o sorazmernosti dolgoročne množične hrambe osebnih podatkov, kadar ne obstaja sum ali ni bila podana prijava.
This is in conflict with legal requirements of necessity and proportionality, and with relevant jurisprudence, notably rulings by national constitutional courts on the proportionality of long term mass storage of personal data, in the absence of any suspicion or charge.
Zato se pričakuje, da Svet ne bo mogel odobriti sporazuma soglasno, saj se bo morebiti ena ali več držav članic vzdržala glasovanja ali bila proti.
For this reason it is expected that the Council will be unable to approve the Agreement with unanimity, as one or more Member States may abstain or vote against.
To kaže, da je vprašanje zapleteno.
This demonstrates that the issue is problematic.
- Evropska komisija ni dovolj raziskala drugih, manj vsiljivih možnosti, na primer uporabo podatkov ESTA ali API, za prepoznavanje sumljivih oseb.
- The European Commission has insufficiently explored alternative, less intrusive measures, for example the use of API or ESTA data for the identification of suspects.
- Evropska komisija ni zahtevala mnenja Agencije Evropske unije za temeljne pravice o tem sporazumu z Avstralijo.
- The European Commission has failed to request an opinion of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency on the specific agreement with Australia.
Prav tako ni upoštevala vseh priporočil Evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov, niti ni pojasnila, zakaj določena priporočila niso bila upoštevana.
The European Commission has not taken on board all the recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor, nor explained why certain recommendations have not been taken on board.
- V vsakem primeru bi morala biti ustrezna pravna podlaga predvsem člen 16 PDEU (o varstvu podatkov).
- The appropriate legal basis for the Agreement should be, in any case primarily, Art 16 TFEU (on data protection).
Vendar pa navedeni člen ni vključen v pravno podlago, pač pa je samo na splošno omenjen v preambuli.
However, it is not included in the legal base, but and only a general, non binding reference is included in the pre-amble.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj in kot je navedel Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov v svojem mnenju z dne 15. julija 2011, je namen sporazuma zagotoviti, da bo prenos podatkov v skladu s standardi EU o varstvu podatkov.
As stated above - and as stated by the European Data Protection Supervisor in its opinion of 15 July 2011, the purpose of the Agreement is to ensure that the transfer of data is in line with EU data protection standards.
Sporazum zato ne bi smel temeljiti samo na členih 82(1)(d) in 87(2)(a), pač pa tudi na členu 16 PDEU.
Therefore, the Agreement should not be based on Article 82(1)(d) and Article 87(2)(a), but on Article 16 TFEU.
Če je namen sodelovanje med policijo in pravosodjem, potem bi se lahko EU odločila proti zbiranju podatkov PNR v Avstraliji.
If the purpose were police-judicial cooperation, then the EU could theoretically decide against the collection of PNR data by Australia.
Toda to je suverena odločitev tretje države.
But this is a sovereign decision by a third country.
Ne gre za politiko EU, saj EU ne odloča o tem.
Therefore, it is not EU policy as it is not for the EU to decide.
Izbrana pravna podlaga je očitno napačna.
The chosen legal base is clearly not the correct one.
Evropski parlament je v javnih razpravah po sprejemu resolucij zaprosil za dodatne postopkovne zaščitne ukrepe v zvezi s sodelovanjem med institucijami EU.
In public debates following the adoption of the resolutions, the European Parliament asked for further procedural safeguards regarding the cooperation between the EU institutions.
Evropski parlament je v zvezi z izvajanjem člena 218 PDEU o sklenitvi mednarodnih sporazumov in uporabo člena 23 (reševanje sporov in prenehanje izvajanja sporazuma) in člena 25 (ukinitev) sporazuma PNR med EU in Avstralijo zaprosil Evropsko komisijo, naj se javno zaveže, da bo na njegovo zahtevo podala predlog za prekinitev izvajanja ali ukinitev sporazuma.
With regard to the implementation of Art 218 TFEU on the conclusion of international agreements, and the application of Article 23 (dispute resolution and suspension of the Agreement) and Article 25 (termination) of the EU-Australia PNR Agreement, the European Parliament notably asked a public commitment by the European Commission to submit proposals for the suspension or termination of the Agreement, upon a request by the European Parliament.
Evropska komisija je to zagotovila v javni izjavi na plenarnem zasedanju Evropskega parlament 4. julija 2011.
The European Commission has given this assurance in a public statement during the plenary session of the European Parliament on 4 July 2011.
Komisijo se naproša, da z izmenjavo pisem med predsedniki obeh institucij potrdi to svojo zavezo.
The Commission is asked to confirm this commitment by an exchange of letters between the Presidents of the two institutions.
Jan Albrecht, Rui Tavares, Judith Sargentini, Gabriele Zimmer in Mikael Gustafsson
Jan Albrecht, Rui Tavares, Judith Sargentini, Gabriele Zimmer and Mikael Gustafsson
Sporazum med EU in Avstralijo o prenosu podatkov PNR ne izpolnjuje jamstev, ki jih je v svojih prejšnjih resolucijah zahteval Evropski parlament.
The EU-Australia agreement on transfer of PNR data does not meet the guarantees requested by the EP in its previous resolutions.
Ta jamstva so bila resnična rdeča nit.
These guarantees were real red lines.
Komisija ni niti predstavila stvarnih dokazov, ki bi podpirali trditev, da je shranjevanje in obdelava podatkov PNR za namene kazenskega pregona potrebno in sorazmerno, niti ni resno raziskala manj vsiljivih možnosti.
The Commission has neither presented factual evidence supporting the claim that storage and processing of PNR for law enforcement purposes is necessary and proportionate, nor has it seriously explored less intrusive alternatives.
Sporazum predvideva neupravičeno obdobje petih let in pol za shranjevanje podatkov.
The agreement foresees an unjustified storage period of 5, 5 years.
Komisija je prezrla poziv Parlamenta, naj zaprosi Agencijo za temeljne pravice za mnenje o tem sporazumu z vidika temeljnih pravic.
The Commission has ignored Parliament's request to ask the Fundamental Rights Agency for an opinion on the fundamental rights dimension of the agreement.
Pomisleki, ki so jih glede sporazuma PNR z ZDA in glede tovrstnih (PNR) podatkov Evropske unije izrazile Agencija za temeljne pravice ter pravni službi Sveta in Komisije, veljajo tudi za sporazum z Avstralijo.
Nevertheless, the concerns raised by the Fundamental Rights Agency and by the legal services of both Council and Commission on the PNR agreement with the United States and on EU-PNR apply to the agreement with Australia.
Poudarjamo našo zavezo sodelovanju z Avstralijo in ostalimi tretjimi državami v boju proti terorizmu, vseeno pa menimo, da se posplošeno shranjevanje in obdelava podatkov vseh potnikov iz evidence podatkov o potnikih ne sklada z našo predstavo odprte družbe.
We stress our commitment to cooperate with Australia and other third countries in the fight against terrorism, but believe the blanket retention and processing of passenger name record data of all passengers is incompatible with our vision of an open society.
o osnutku sklepa Sveta o sklenitvi sporazuma med Evropsko unijo in Avstralijo o obdelavi in prenosu podatkov iz evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR) s strani letalskih prevoznikov avstralski carinski in mejni službi
on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Evropska unija se zaveda, da je izmenjava informacij ključna prvina v boju proti terorizmu, zato je leta 2008 z Avstralijo podpisala sporazum o obdelavi in prenosu podatkov iz evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR).
Recognising that information sharing is a fundamental element of combating terrorism, the EU signed an agreement with Australia in 2008 on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data.
Sporazum je odtlej v začasni uporabi.
The agreement has been provisionally applicable since.
Evropski parlament je 5. maja 2010 v resoluciji sprejel odločitev, da ne bo soglašal z dokončno sklenitvijo sporazuma o obdelavi in prenosu podatkov iz evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR) in je zaprosil za ponovna pogajanja o sporazumu na podlagi določenih meril.
On 5 May 2010, the European Parliament decided in a resolution not to give its consent to the final conclusion of the PNR agreement and requested a re-negotiation of the agreement on the basis of certain criteria.
Parlament se je pri tem skliceval na svojo odločenost za boj proti terorizmu kot ključni sestavini zunanjega delovanja Evropske unije in za nadaljevanje proaktivne politike preprečevanja, izrazil pa je tudi potrebo po varovanju temeljnih pravic in zagotavljanju spoštovanja pravice državljanov EU do zasebnosti v skladu z ustreznimi predpisi EU.
While Parliament has recalled its determination to fight terrorism as a key component of European external action and to pursue a pro-active policy of prevention, it also expressed the need to protect fundamental rights and to ensure respect for the privacy of EU citizens in compliance with relevant EU norms.
Pozval je, naj se z novim sporazumom med drugim vzpostavijo ustrezni mehanizmi za neodvisen sodni nadzor, v skladu z metodo „push“ uredi, da se bodo podatki iz evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR) uporabljali samo za namene kazenskega pregona in varnosti v primeru terorističnih napadov ter prepove uporaba podatkov za podatkovno rudarjenje in profiliranje v vseh okoliščinah.
It called for a new agreement to introduce, inter alia, appropriate mechanisms for independent judicial oversight, to set out arrangements – in accordance with the PUSH method - on the use of PNR data only for law enforcement and security purposes in cases of terrorist offences as well as to prohibit in all circumstances the use of data for mining and profiling.
Po ponovnih pogajanjih osnutek sporazuma vsebuje številne zaščitne ukrepe za prenos in obdelavo podatkov iz evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR): med drugim zagotavlja posameznikom pravico, da dostopajo do svojih podatkov v tej evidenci, zahtevajo njihove popravke, da poiščejo sodno varstvo, da se ne obdelujejo občutljivi podatki in da se za vsako kršitev varnosti podatkov uporabljajo učinkovite kazni.
The re-negotiated draft agreement contains several new safeguards on the transfer and processing of PNR data: rights are provided, among others, to access his or her PNR data, to seek the rectification of his or her PNR data, to be protected by judicial redress, not to process sensitive data and to make any breach of data security subject to effective sanctions.
Z novim osnutkom so bili okrepljeni drugi zaščitni ukrepi, na primer da se lahko podatki sporočijo organom v tretjih državah samo v skladu z določenimi merili.
Other safeguards have been reinforced by the new draft text like, for instance, that data can only be transferred to third country authorities pursuant to specific criteria.
Namen preprečevanja, odkrivanja, preiskovanja in kaznovanja terorističnih dejanj je bil poostren in podrobneje določen.
The purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences was made stricter and set out in more detail.
Poročevalka se zavzema za sporazum, ki bi okrepil skupen boj Evropske unije in Avstralije proti terorizmu v interesu varnosti njunih državljanov, ob sočasnem spoštovanju njihovih pravic in pravne države.
The rapporteur is committed to an agreement which would reinforce the common fight of the EU and Australia against terrorism in the interests of the security of their citizens, while upholding their rights and the rule of law.
Sporazum mora biti skladen s širšo svetovno in regionalno strategijo boja proti terorizmu in del strategije EU za boj proti terorizmu, saj so podatki iz evidence podatkov o potnikih pomemben instrument v boju proti terorističnim dejanjem.
The agreement should fit into a wider global and regional agenda on the fight against terrorism and be part of the EU's counter-terrorism strategy since PNR data are an important instrument in combating terrorist offences.
Glede na zgoraj navedene prvine poročevalka meni, da novi sporazum nudi okvir za skupen boj proti terorizmu in hkrati zagotavlja, da bodo pravice oseb, na katere se nanaša, spoštovane.
Considering the above elements, the rapporteur is of the view that the new agreement provides a framework to jointly combat terrorism and to ensure at the same time that the rights of persons subject to the agreement will be respected.
Odbor za zunanje zadeve poziva Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da Parlamentu predlaga, naj da svoje soglasje.
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose that Parliament give its consent.
Gabriele Albertini, Bastiaan Belder, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Michael Gahler, Marietta Gianaku (Marietta Giannakou), Ana Gomes, Richard Howitt, Anna Ibrisagic, Jelko Kacin, Ioanis Kasulidis (Ioannis Kasoulides), Evgeni Kirilov, Maria Eleni Kopa (Maria Eleni Koppa), Andrej Kovačev (Andrey Kovatchev), Paweł Robert Kowal, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Eduard Kukan, Vytautas Landsbergis, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Barry Madlener, Mario Mauro, Kiriakos Mavronikolas (Kyriakos Mavronikolas), Willy Meyer, Francisco José Millán Mon, Alexander Mirsky, Norica Nicolai, Kristiina Ojuland, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Bernd Posselt, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Cristian Dan Preda, Libor Rouček, Tokia Saïfi, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Werner Schulz, Marek Siwiec, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Sir Graham Watson
Gabriele Albertini, Bastiaan Belder, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Michael Gahler, Marietta Giannakou, Ana Gomes, Richard Howitt, Anna Ibrisagic, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Evgeni Kirilov, Maria Eleni Koppa, Andrey Kovatchev, Paweł Robert Kowal, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Eduard Kukan, Vytautas Landsbergis, Ryszard Antoni Legutko, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Barry Madlener, Mario Mauro, Kyriakos Mavronikolas, Willy Meyer, Francisco José Millán Mon, Alexander Mirsky, Norica Nicolai, Kristiina Ojuland, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Bernd Posselt, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Cristian Dan Preda, Libor Rouček, Tokia Saïfi, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Werner Schulz, Marek Siwiec, Inese Vaidere, Geoffrey Van Orden, Sir Graham Watson
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Rita Borsellino, Simon Busuttil, Philip Claeys, Carlos Coelho, Tanja Fajon, Hélène Flautre, Kinga Göncz, Ágnes Hankiss, Anna Hedh, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Monica Luisa Macovei, Véronique Mathieu, Claude Moraes, Jan Mulder, Georgios Papanikolau (Georgios Papanikolaou), Carmen Romero López, Judith Sargentini, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Rui Tavares, Axel Voss, Auke Zijlstra
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Rita Borsellino, Simon Busuttil, Philip Claeys, Carlos Coelho, Tanja Fajon, Hélène Flautre, Kinga Göncz, Ágnes Hankiss, Anna Hedh, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Monica Luisa Macovei, Véronique Mathieu, Claude Moraes, Jan Mulder, Georgios Papanikolaou, Carmen Romero López, Judith Sargentini, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Rui Tavares, Axel Voss, Auke Zijlstra
Edit Bauer, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Dimitrios Drucas (Dimitrios Droutsas), Ana Gomes
Edit Bauer, Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Dimitrios Droutsas, Ana Gomes
MNENJE Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov .........................15
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 14
o trgovinskih ovirah in ovirah za naložbe
on trade and investment barriers
– ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o tehničnih ovirah v trgovini (sporazum o TBT), ki je bil sprejet leta 1994 kot del urugvajskega kroga pogajanj v okviru STO
– having regard to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) adopted in 1994 as part of the Uruguay Round of WTO negotiations