natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
poziva Komisijo, naj natančno preuči špekulativne napade (prodajo na kratko, "short-selling") na valute držav članic, ki so pristopile nedavno, in kaj je mogoče storiti, da se prepreči izrazit upad zaupanja v njihove valute in lokalni bančni sistem;
Invites the Commission to examine carefully the speculative attacks (short-selling) on the currencies of the more recently acceded Member States and what might be done to prevent a drastic erosion of confidence in their currencies and the local banking systems;
poziva Komisijo, naj rezultate teh analiz sporoči skupini de Larosière in Odboru za ekonomske in monetarne zadeve Evropskega parlamenta;
Invites the Commission to communicate the results of these analyses to the de Larosière group and to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament;
priznava, da je treba znatno povečati zgornjo mejo za neporavnane zneske iz posojil, ki se odobrijo državam članicam, določeno v Uredbi (ES) št. 332/2002, saj je od njenega sprejetja število držav članic zunaj euroobmočja znatno naraslo; poudarja, da bi to povečanje prav tako izboljšalo prožnost Skupnosti pri odzivanju na nove zahteve za srednjeročno finančno pomoč, na primer zaradi sedanje svetovne finančne krize;
Recognises that it is necessary to increase significantly the ceiling for the outstanding amount in loans to be granted to Member States laid down in Regulation (EC) No 332/2002, given that since its adoption the number of Member States outside the euro area has increased substantially; underlines that such an increase would also enhance the Community’s flexibility in responding to further requests for medium-term financial assistance e.g. in the context of the current global financial crisis;
ugotavlja, da takšno povečanje zgornje meje za posojila ne bi vplivalo na proračun, saj bi posojila vzela Komisija na finančnih trgih, države članice upravičenke pa bi jih morale povrniti; poudarja, da bi samo v primeru, če bi država članica ustavila plačilo dolga, to imelo posledice za proračun;
Notes that there would be no budgetary impact of such an increase in the loan ceiling because the loans would be borrowed by the Commission on the financial markets and the beneficiary Member States would have to repay them; stresses that the only possible budgetary impact would be that arising from a Member State defaulting on its debt;
spominja, da je Parlament pozval, naj Svet vsaki dve leti na podlagi poročila Komisije, po posvetovanju s Parlamentom in po predložitvi mnenja Ekonomsko-finančnega odbora pregleda, ali ustanovljeni aranžma zadovoljuje potrebe, zaradi katerih je bil ustanovljen; sprašuje, ali so bila ta poročila pripravljena od sprejetja uredbe (ES) št. 332/2002;
Recalls that Parliament requested that the Council examine, every two years, on the basis of a report from the Commission, after consulting Parliament and after the delivery of the Economic and Financial Committee’s opinion, whether the facility established met the needs which led to its creation; asks whether such reports have been drawn up since the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 332/2002;
naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, Evropski centralni banki, euroskupini in vladam držav članic.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the Eurogroup and the governments of the Member States.
o okvirnem sklepu Sveta o uporabi evidence podatkov o letalskih potnikih (PNR) za namene kazenskega pregona
on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta o okvirnem sklepu Sveta o uporabi evidence podatkov o letalskih potnikih (PNR) za namene kazenskega pregona
European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes
ob upoštevanju izjave Komisije med pogovori 21. oktobra 2008 po vprašanju za ustni odgovor B6-0476/2008 o predlogu okvirnega sklepa Sveta o uporabi evidence podatkov o potnikih (PNR) za namene kazenskega pregona (KOM(2007)0654),
having regard to the statement by the Commission during the debate of 21 October 2008, following the Oral Question B6-0476/2008 on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes (COM(2007)654),
ob upoštevanju sedanjih razprav v Svetu na ravni ministrov in delovnih skupin o omenjenem predlogu,
having regard to the current debates in the Council at ministerial and working group levels on the above-mentioned proposal,
ob upoštevanju mnenj Agencije za temeljne pravice, Evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov ter delovne skupine iz člena 29 in delovne skupine za policijo in pravosodje,
having regard to the opinions delivered by the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the Article 29 Working Party and Working Party on Police and Justice,
18. , med EU in Kanado Sporazum PNR med EU in Kanado: UL L 82, 21.3.2006, str.
18. , the EU-Canada PNR agreement EU Canada PNR agreement: OJ L 82, 21.3.2006, p.
15. in med EU in Avstralijo Sporazum PNR med EU in Avstralijo: UL L213, 8.8.2008, str.
15. and the EU-Australia PNR agreement EU Australia PNR agreement: OJ L213, 8.8.2008, p.
opozarja, da morajo institucije EU in države članice spoštovati načela varovanja podatkov, kot je poudarjeno v členu 8 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, v členih 7 in 52 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, členu 286 Pogodbe o Evropsku uniji, členu 5 Konvencije za o varstvu posameznikov pri avtomatski obdelavi osebnih podatkov ter na drugi stopnji Direktivo 95/46/ES in Okvirni sklep Sveta o zaščiti osebnih podatkov, ki se obdelujejo v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah (16069/2007 – http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=CNS/2005/02022005/0202(CNS)),
recalling that data protection principles to be respected by the EU institutions and Member States are outlined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Articles 7 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 286 of the EC Treaty, Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Data and, at secondary level, Directive 95/46 and the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (16069/2007 – http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=CNS/2005/02022005/0202(CNS)),
opozarja, da mora vsa nova evropska zakonodaja spoštovati načeli sorazmernosti in subsidiarnosti, kot je poudarjeno v členu 5 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in njenega protokola 30,
recalling that any new European legislation should comply with the proportionality and subsidiarity criteria, as outlined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Protocol 30 thereof,
priznava, da je treba okrepiti sodelovanje pri boju proti terorizmu in resnim kaznivim dejanjem na evropski in mednarodni ravni; potrjuje, da sta zbiranje in predelava podatkov lahko dragoceni orodji za namene kazenskega pregona;
Acknowledges the need for stronger cooperation at European level and internationally in the fight against terrorism and serious crime; recognises that the collection and processing of data can be a valuable tool for law enforcement purposes;
meni, da morajo organi kazenskega pregona imeti na voljo vse, kar potrebujejo za ustrezno izvajanje svojih nalog, tudi dostop do podatkov; vendar poudarja, da je treba potrebo po teh ukrepih, njihov obseg in enotnost pri doseganju ciljev prepričljivo zagovarjati, saj imajo občuten vpliv na osebno življenjsko sfero evropskih državljanov ter poudarja, da je treba vzpostaviti učinkovito varovanje zasebnosti in pravno varnost; meni, da je ta predpogoj nujen za dosego potrebne politične sprejemljivosti ukrepa, za katerega bi državljani lahko menili, da neupravičeno posega v njihovo zasebnost;
Takes the view that law enforcement authorities should be provided with all the tools they need to adequately carry out their tasks, including access to data; underlines however, that since such measures have a considerable impact on the personal life sphere of European citizens, their justification in terms of necessity, proportionality and unity with a view to reaching their stated objectives needs to be convincingly substantiated, and stresses that effective safeguards for privacy and legal protection must be put in place; believes that this is a precondition for lending the necessary political legitimacy to a measure citizens may view as an inappropriate intrusion on their privacy;
obžaluje, da oblika in obrazložitev predloga Komisije ponujata pomanjkljivo pravno varnost pri skladnosti s Konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin in Listino o temeljnih pravicah, kar tudi postavlja pod vprašaj ustreznost vloge Parlamenta pri zakonodajnem postopku; opozarja, da so isti pomisleki glede pomanjkanja pravne varnosti:
Regrets that the Commission proposal's formulation and justification have left so many legal uncertainties with respect to compatibility with the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as its legal basis, which has raised questions as to the appropriate role for Parliament in the legislative procedure; notes that the same concerns regarding the proposal's lack of legal certainty:
– izraženi v mnenjih Agencije za temeljne pravice, Evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov ter delovne skupine iz člena 29 in delovne skupine za policijo in pravosodje;
– are raised in the opinions delivered by the Fundamental Rights Agency, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Article 29 Working Party and Working Party on Police and Justice;
– zahtevajo od Sveta, da obsežno pregleda morebitne izide in vplive prihodnjih evropskih pobud na tem področju, vključi veliko količino dodatnih informacij, tudi zgoraj omenjena mnenja;
– require the Council to make a substantial review of the possible scope and impact of a future European initiative in this domain, and incorporate significant amounts of additional information, including the above-mentioned opinions;
meni, da bo pod temi pogoji Parlament podal svoje uradno mnenje v skladu s postopkom posvetovanja po tem, ko bodo vprašanja, ki jih postavlja v svoji resoluciji, ustrezno obravnavana in ko bo na voljo najmanjša potrebna količina informacij;
Considers that under these conditions Parliament reserves its formal opinion under the formal consultation procedure until the concerns raised in this resolution are properly addressed and the minimum information necessary is provided;
še naprej izraža močne zadržke glede potrebnosti in dodane vrednosti predloga za ustanovitev evropske sheme za evidenco podatkov o letalskih potnikih in njenih varoval, ne glede na dosedanje ustne in pisne obrazložitve in pojasnitve Komisije in Sveta; nadalje ugotavlja, da se na mnoga vprašanja, ki so jih je sprožili Parlament, delovna skupina iz člena 29 za policijo in pravosodje, Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov in Agencije za temeljne pravice, ni ustrezno odgovorilo;
Maintains its strong reservations as to the necessity and added value of the proposal for the establishment of an EU PNR scheme and the safeguards contained therein, notwithstanding the explanations and clarifications given by the Commission and Council thus far, either orally or in writing; observes, furthermore, that many of the questions raised by Parliament, the Article 29 Working Party and Working Party on Police and Justice, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the Fundamental Rights Agency have not been satisfactorily answered;
se strinja z mnenjem Agencije za temeljne pravice, da samo dejstvo, da zasebna podjetja zbirajo komercialne podatke in da bi ti lahko bili uporabni tudi pri varnostnih vprašanjih, ne zadostuje, da se jih tudi uporablja, če se lahko dosežejo enaki ali boljši rezultati z izboljšavo vzajemne pravne pomoči med organi kazenskega pregona;
Shares the Fundamental Rights Agency's view that the mere fact that commercial data are collected by private companies and could be useful also for security purposes is not a sufficient reason to exploit them if the same or even better results could be obtained by improving mutual legal assistance between law enforcement authorities;
poziva Svet, naj v primeru, da namerava nadaljevati s preučevanjem besedila Komisije, upošteva priporočila iz te resolucije in ustrezno opraviči pogoje nujne družbene potrebe, kar bi ta nov ukrep lahko naredilo za „nujnega“, kot je navedeno členu 8 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin; meni, da so to najnujnejši pogoji za uvedbo evropske sheme za evidenco podatkov o letalskih potnikih; je pripravljen prispevati in sodelovati pri teh dejavnostih na vseh ravneh;
Invites the Council, if it intends to continue the examination of the Commission text, to take in account the recommendations in this resolution and to duly justify the conditions of pressing social need which could make this new EU intervention 'necessary', as required under Article 8 of the ECHR; considers these the minimum conditions for the introduction of an EU PNR scheme to be supported; is ready to contribute and participate in this work at all levels;
ponovno poziva, da se pojasni odnos med uporabo evidence podatkov o letalskih potnikih in drugimi ukrepi, kot so direktiva API (Direktiva 2004/82/ES), predlagani sistem vstopa in izstopa, elektronski sistem za odobritev potovanj, biometrija v potnih listih in vizumih, sistema SIS in VIS, Uredba EU 2320/2002 ter varovanje nacionalnih meja; z obžalovanjem ugotavlja, da je izvedba nekaterih navedenih ukrepov občutno odložena, in meni, da bi celostna ocena trenutnega sodelovanja na področju mehanizmov sodelovanja pri varnosti EU in schengenskega sporazuma ter orodij za zagotavljanje varnosti letalskega prometa in zunanjih meja ter boja proti terorizmu lahko pripomogli k oceni dodane vrednosti predlagane sheme za evidenco podatkov o letalskih potnikih;
Reiterates its calls for clarification of the relation between the use of PNR and other measures such as the API Directive (Directive 2004/82/EC), the proposed Entry-Exit scheme, the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, biometrics in passports and visa, SIS, VIS, EU Regulation 2320/2002, and national border protection schemes; notes with regret that the implementation of some of these measures has been considerably delayed and considers that a full and systematic evaluation of the current EU and Schengen security cooperation mechanisms and tools aimed at ensuring aviation security, protecting external borders and fighting terrorism could help assess the added value of the proposed EU PNR;
opozarja, da pogovori o ustrezni pravni podlagi predloga še vedno potekajo, in ponovno ugotavlja, da v skladu s členom 47 pogodbe o EU morajo zakonodajne ukrepe v okviru sodnega in policijskega sodelovanja spremljati ustrezni spremljevalni ukrepi Skupnosti znotraj prvega stebra, ki se jih sprejme po postopku soodločanja s Parlamentom, zlasti tisti, ki opredeljujejo obseg obveznosti gospodarskih subjektov Glej zlasti mnenje pravne službe Sveta na to temo in mnenje generalnega pravobranilca iz dne 14. oktobra 2008 v primeru C-301/06, Irska proti Evrpskemu parlamentu in Svetu Evropske unije, glede direkitve o hrambi podatkov. ;
Recalls that a debate on the appropriate legal basis for the proposal is still open and reiterates that, according to Article 47 of the EU Treaty, legislative measures in the framework of judicial and police cooperation should be accompanied by the necessary accompanying Community measures to be adopted in codecision with Parliament on all first-pillar aspects, particularly those defining the scope of the obligations to be fulfilled by economic operators See, in particular, the Council Legal Service opinion on this subject and the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered on 14 October 2008 on Case C-301/06, placecountry-regionIreland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union on the Data Retention Directive. ;
opozarja, da je Sodišče evropskih skupnosti v Luxembourgu že oporekalo sporazumu o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih med EU in ZDA zaradi neustrezne prave podlage; zato poziva Komisijo, naj natančno preuči, ali je pravna podlaga ustrezna;
Recalls that the European Court of Justice in country-regionplaceLuxembourg already challenged the EU-US PNR agreement on grounds of a wrong legal basis; calls therefore on the Commission to examine carefully which legal basis is appropriate;
meni, da pri morajo nacionalni parlamenti v celoti sodelovati pri postopkih vlaganja nove zakonodaje, saj predlog vpliva tako na državljane kot tudi na pravni red držav članic;
Considers that, in connection with the tabling of the new legislation, national parliaments must be fully involved in the legislative process, given the impact of the proposal on both citizens and the national legal orders of the Member States;
poudarja, da bi morebitna prihodnja zakonodaja, ki bi uvedla evropski sistem o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih kot nov okvir za politično sodelovanje v EU, morala vsebovati revizijsko klavzulo in določbe za redne preglede izvajanja, uporabe, učinkovitosti in napak pri varnosti; meni, da je treba nacionalne parlamente, delovno skupino iz člena 29 za policijo in pravosodje in Agencijo za temeljne pravice povabiti, da sodelujejo pri reviziji in ocenjevanju; zato meni, da bi morala nova zakonodaja imeti klavzulo o časovni omejitvi veljavnosti;
Underlines that possible future legislation establishing an EU PNR as a new framework for EU police cooperation should contain a review clause and provisions for periodic evaluation of implementation, application, usefulness and breaches of safeguards; considers that the national parliaments, the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party and the Fundamental Rights Agency should be invited to play a role in both review and evaluation; considers, therefore, that the new legislation should include a sunset clause;
v zvezi s tem poudarja, da nosi vsaka država članica začetno odgovornost za zbiranje podatkov o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih in njihovo varnost; poudarja, da je varovanje obvezno, ko se ti podatki posredujejo, izmenjujejo ali prenašajo v ali med državami članicami; zato meni, da mora biti dostop do podatkov o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih, ki jih izmenjujejo države članice, strogo omejen na organe, ki sodelujejo v boju proti terorizmu in organiziranemu kriminalu; meni, da se lahko drugim agencijam za kazenski pregon sodno odobri dostop do teh podatkov;
Underlines, in this context, that each Member State bears the initial responsibility for the collection of such PNR data and the protection thereof; stresses that safeguards are mandatory, when such PNR data are transmitted, exchanged or transferred to or with other Member States; takes the view, therefore, that access to PNR data exchanged between Member States should be strictly limited to those authorities that deal with counter terrorism and organised crime; considers that other law enforcement agencies may be granted access subject to judicial approval;
z zaskrbljenostjo ugotavlja, da potreba po ukrepanju Skupnosti še ni bila dovolj jasno izražena; v zvezi s tem oporeka zahtevi Komisije, da se za začetni cilj postavi usklajevanje nacionalnih shem, ker le malo držav članic ima sistem za uporabo podatkov iz evidence podatkov o letalskih potnikih za organe kazenskega pregona in za druge namena, ali načrt zanj; zato meni, da predlog Evropske komisije ne bi dosegel uskladitve nacionalnih sistemov (saj ne obstajajo), ampak bi zgolj ustvaril obveznost za vse države članice, da tak sistem ustvarijo;
Notes with concern that the need for Community action has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated; in this connection, questions the claim by the Commission that the stated aim of the proposal is harmonisation of national schemes, when only a few Member States have a system for the use of PNR data for law enforcement and other purposes, or plans for such a scheme; considers, therefore, that the EC proposal does not harmonise national systems (as they are non existent), but merely creates the obligation for all Member States to set up a system;
ugotavlja, da Komisija predlaga decentralizirano shemo, kar pomeni, da je evropska dodana vrednost še manj jasna;
Notes that the Commission is proposing a 'decentralised' scheme, which means that the European added value is even less clear;
opozarja, da člen 8 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin in členi 52 Listine o temeljnih pravicah EU zahtevata, da se tako velik poseg v varnost varovanja osebnih podatkov zakonsko opravičen z družbeno nujo, zakonsko podprt in sorazmeren z želenim ciljem, ki mora biti nujen in resničen za demokratično družbo; v zvezi s tem obžaluje dejstvo, da cilj tega poudarjenega policijskega sodelovanja ni omejen na področja boja proti terorizmu in organiziranemu kriminalu;
Recalls that Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU require that such a massive intrusion in the right to the protection of personal data be legitimate and justified by a pressing social need, provided for by the law and proportionate to the end pursued, which must be necessary and genuine in a democratic society; in this connection, deplores the fact that the purpose of this envisaged police cooperation measure is not limited to issues like combating terrorism and organised crime;
izraža zaskrbljenost, da bo predlog v resnici dal organom kazenskega pregona neomejen dostop do vseh podatkov; poudarja, da Komisija ne kaže potrebe po novih organih kazenskega pregona, niti da je ta cilj možno doseči z manj dalekosežnimi ukrepi; ne strinja se z dejstvom, da ni podatkov o tem, kako pride do tega, da obstoječi organi kazenskega pregona ne pridejo do potrebnih podatkov ter kje in kdaj so ti imeli organi dokazano premajhne pristojnosti za doseganje omenjenega cilja; zahteva, da se spodaj našteti obstoječi ukrepi še enkrat pregledajo pred začetkom razvoja evropskega sistema o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih;
Is concerned that the proposal in essence gives law enforcement authorities warrantless access to all data; points; points out that the Commission does not demonstrate the need for new law enforcement powers, nor that this goal cannot be achieved with less far reaching measures; criticises the fact that there is no information on how existing law enforcement powers fall short of what is needed, and where and when the authorities have demonstrably lacked the powers they need for the stated purpose; requests that a review of the existing measures mentioned below take place before further developing an EU PNR system;
ugotavlja, da je Komisija izjavila, da je EU lahko dostopila do ustreznih podatkov o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih in dosegla svoje zmogljivosti v namen kazenskega pregona, a poudarja, da še vedno ne obstajajo dokazi za to izjavo, saj:
Notes the Commission's claim that 'the EU has been able to assess the value of PNR data and to realise its potential for law enforcement purposes', but stresses that to date there is no evidence to substantiate this claim, given that:
– so vsi dokazi, ki so bili doslej pridobljeni v ZDA nepotrjeni in ZDA nikoli niso dokončno dokazale, da je treba veliko in redno uporabljati podatke o evidenci podatkov o letalskih potnikih v boju proti terorizmu in organiziranemu kriminalu,
– any evidence so far provided by the country-regionUScountry-region is anecdotal and the placeUS has never conclusively proven that the massive and systematic use of PNR data is necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime,
– je bila opravljena samo ena skupna revizija sporazuma med EU in ZDA, ki je samo ocenila izvajanje, ne pa tudi rezultatov;
– there has only been one joint review of the US-EU PNR agreement, which only assessed the implementation, not the results;