natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
poudarja, da je preglednost tesno povezana s pravico do dobrega upravljanja, kot je navedeno v členu 298 PDEU in členu 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah; poudarja, da upravna preglednost zagotavlja demokratični nadzor nad upravnimi nalogami EU, sodelovanje civilne družbe in spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja (člen 15 PDEU);
Stresses that transparency is closely connected with the right of good administration, as referred to in Article 298 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; highlights the fact that administrative transparency guarantees democratic control of EU administrative tasks, the participation of civil society and the promotion of good governance (Article 15 TFEU);
poudarja sedanje pomanjkanje usklajene upravne zakonodaje za institucije, organe, urade in agencije EU, na primer pravil glede izdajanja upravnih odločb, proti katerim je možna pritožba Zadeva
Emphasises the current lack of coherent administrative law for EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, such as rules regarding the delivery of administrative decisions that can be appealed against The
(T-233/09) je razkrila prakso pošiljanja potrdilnih odločb z nepriporočeno, običajno pošto, čeprav je dokaz o datumu prejema bistven za oceno o spoštovanju rokov za uveljavljanje nadaljnjih pravnih sredstev (na sodišču).
case (T-233/09) has revealed that there is a practice of sending confirmatory decisions by unregistered, normal mail, although the proof of date of receipt is essential to evaluate respect for deadlines for seeking further legal (court) remedies.
, ali jasnega koncepta „upravnih nalog“, navedenih v členu 15(3) PDEU; zato poziva institucije EU, naj nujno opredelijo skupno upravno zakonodajo EU v skladu s členom 298 PDEU ter zagotovijo skupno in horizontalno uporabno opredelitev „upravne naloge“, zlasti za Evropsko centralno banko, Evropsko investicijsko banko in Sodišče; poziva Komisijo, naj v zvezi s tem v skladu s členom 225 PDEU sestavi zakonodajni predlog, ki bo med drugim obravnaval vprašanje preglednosti in odgovornosti Komisije v odnosu do pritožnikov, Parlamenta in državljanov v primerih vodenja postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev;
, or a clear concept of ‘administrative tasks’ as mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU; calls, therefore, on the EU institutions to urgently define a common EU administrative law pursuant to Article 298 TFEU, and to provide a common and horizontally applicable definition of an ‘administrative task’, especially for the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Court of Justice; asks the Commission to provide a legislative proposal on this issue, pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, which should, inter alia, address the issue of the transparency and accountability of the Commission's conduct of infringement proceedings vis-à-vis complainants, the Parliament and citizens;
poudarja, da Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 določa stroge roke za obravnavo zahtev za dostop do dokumentov Člena 7 in 8 Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001.
Stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 lays down strict deadlines for handling requests for access to documents Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
; z veliko zaskrbljenostjo opozarja, da jih Komisija ne spoštuje, vključno glede priporočila in strogega ukrepanja evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, na primer v zadevi 676/2008/RT (t.i. zadeva Porsche); obžaluje, da se praksa od zadnjega poročila Parlamenta leta 2009 ni spremenila, kot dokazujeta dve zadevi v obravnavi pred sodiščem, ki so jih predložili
; points out with great concern that the Commission has not respected them, even as regards the recommendation and strict action by the European Ombudsman, for example in case 676/2008/RT (the so called ‘Porsche case’); regrets that since Parliament's last report in 2009 the practice has not changed as illustrated by two pending court cases brought by
ClientEarth in drugi
ClientEarth and Others
opozarja, da so v številnih primerih velike zamude privedle do začetka postopkov pred Sodiščem, utemeljenih na pomanjkanju odziva, ki jim je sledil pozen odziv Komisije, zaradi česar je postal sodni primer neveljaven, zadevni posameznik pa je moral postopek začeti na novo Glej na primer
Points out that in several cases extensive delays have led to proceedings being started before the Court of Justice based on a lack of response, followed by a late Commission response, making the court case void and forcing the individual concerned to start the whole procedure once again See, for example,
Ryanair Ltd. proti Komisiji
Ryanair Ltd. v Commission
(združene zadeve T-494/08, T-500/08 in T-509/08), ter
(joined cases T-494/08 to T-500/08 and T-509/08), and
Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory proti Komisiji
Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
(zadeva T-395/10).
(case T-395/10).
; poziva Komisijo, naj dosledno spoštuje roke, določene v Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001; predlaga uvedbo ukrepov, na primer obveznosti objave dokumentov, če so ti roki kršeni;
; calls on the Commission to fully respect the deadlines set in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; suggests introducing consequences, such as the obligation to publish the documents, if the deadlines are not respected;
poziva, naj letna poročila, ki se pripravijo in objavijo skladno s členom 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, vsebujejo izračun povprečnega časa, porabljenega za obravnavo prošenj, kot je določeno v poročilu Sveta o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov za leto 2009;
Calls for annual reports prepared and published in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to contain a calculation of the average time taken to handle applications, as provided for in the Council report on access to documents for 2009;
opozarja, da sta v dobrem upravljanju koncepta „dostop do dokumentov“ in „dostop do informacij“ združena; poziva k spremembi sedanje zakonodaje, da bi člena 6(2) in (4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 glede razčiščevanja zahtev in pomoči državljanom uporabljali za primere zahtev po informacijah, kadar obstajajo dokumenti, ki so pomembni za take zahteve;
Reminds that good governance connects the concepts of ‘access to documents’ and ‘access to information’; calls for a change in the current legislation applying Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as regards clarification of requests and assistance to the citizen, to cases of a ‘request for information’ where documents exist which are relevant to such a request;
opozarja, da preglednost ni le vprašanje pasivnih odzivov institucij, organov, uradov in agencij EU, temveč zahteva tudi proaktivni pristop, kar je že večkrat poudaril tudi evropski varuh človekovih pravic; poziva institucije EU, naj na svojih spletnih straneh omogočijo javnosti privzet dostop do čim več kategorij dokumentov (vključno s proračuni in seznami pogodb o javnih naročilih, dodeljenih v zadnjih treh letih); poudarja, da proaktiven pristop lahko prepreči nepotrebne pravdne spore, ki ne pomenijo le neučinkovite porabe denarja davkoplačevalcev, temveč povzročajo nepotrebne zamude, stroške in bremena za osebe, ki zaprosijo za dostop;
Recalls that transparency is not only a matter of passive reactions by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, but also requires a proactive approach, as emphasised several times by the European Ombudsman; calls on the EU institutions to make as many categories of document as possible publicly accessible by default on their Internet sites (including budgets and lists of public procurement contracts awarded over the last three years); stresses that a proactive approach can prevent unnecessary litigation, which results in tax-payers' money being spent inefficiently, as well as causing unnecessary delays, costs and burdens for those requesting access;
poziva Komisijo, naj zagotovi preglednost pri upravljanju evropskih sredstev, in sicer z objavo istih kategorij informacij o vseh prejemnikih teh sredstev na enem spletnem mestu in v enem od delovnih jezikov EU;
Calls upon the Commission to ensure transparency in the administration of European funds by publication of the same categories of information on a single website, in one of the EU working languages, regarding all beneficiaries of those funds;
meni, da bi bilo treba v vseh generalnih direktoratih ali odgovarjajočih enotah institucij ustvariti središča za dostop do dokumentov in zanje zagotoviti ustrezno usposabljanje, da bi oblikovali najboljšo možno proaktivno politiko, kar najbolj učinkovito ocenjevali prošnje ter zagotovili popolno spoštovanje vseh rokov, določenih v Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001;
Considers that focal points as regards access to documents should be created, and proper training of officials provided in each DG or corresponding unit of the institutions, in order to create the best possible proactive policy, to evaluate requests in the most efficient way and to ensure that all deadlines laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fully respected;
ponovno zatrjuje, da bi moral biti Parlament na čelu proaktivnega pristopa k zagotavljanju javnosti, preglednosti, odprtosti in dostopa do dokumentov; v zvezi s tem poudarja uspeh spletnih prenosov zaslišanj, sej odborov in plenarnih zasedanj; verjame, da bi to moralo postati pravilo in da bi bilo treba razširiti zakonodajni observatorij (OEIL), da bi vključeval vse uradne jezike EU in informacije tako na ravni odborov kot plenarnih zasedanj, kot so predlogi sprememb, mnenja drugih odborov, mnenja pravne službe, glasovalni seznami, poimenska glasovanja, prisotnost poslancev EP in poslancev, ki se udeležijo glasovanja, medinstitucionalna pisma, imena poročevalcev v senci, funkcijo iskanja po besedi, večjezikovno iskanje, roke za vložitev dokumentov, RSS-vire, razlago zakonodajnega postopka, povezave do prenosov razprav prek spleta itd., da se državljanom zagotovi polna obveščenost in dostop do dokumentov in povzetkov za večjezične povzetke državljanov o zakonodajnih predlogih in povzetke obstoječe zakonodaje EU (SCADPLUS), za katere bi bilo treba ponuditi tudi ustrezne funkcije, ki omogočajo iskanje in pregledovanje;
Reiterates that Parliament should be at the forefront of the proactive approach on publicity, transparency, openness and access to documents; highlights in that regard the success of webstreaming of hearings and committee meetings in addition to plenary sittings, and believes that this should become the norm and that the Legislative Observatory (OEIL) should be expanded even further to include all EU official languages and information, both at committee and plenary level, such as amendments, opinions from other committees, Legal Service opinions, voting lists, roll call votes, present and voting MEPs, interinstitutional letters, names of shadow rapporteurs, a ‘search by word’ function, multilingual search, tabling deadlines, RSS feeds, an explanation of the legislative procedure, links to webstreamed discussions, etc., to ensure a full cycle of information for citizens, giving access to the documents as well to multilingual citizens' summaries of legislative proposals and summaries of existing EU legislation (SCADPLUS), for which adequate search and browsing facilities as described should be offered as well;
opozarja, kako pomembno je varovati neodvisnost mandatov poslancev Evropskega parlamenta; hkrati verjame, da mora biti pregledno delo drugih uradnih organov Parlamenta (na primer konference predsednikov, predsedstva Poslovnik Parlamenta ( P6_TA(2009)0359 ) na primer od leta 2009 ne vsebuje več seznama dokumentov Parlamenta, ki so neposredno dostopni javnosti, namesto tega poslovnik pristojnost za oblikovanje takega seznama podeljuje predsedstvu (člen 104(3)).
Recalls the importance of protecting the independence of MEPs' mandates; believes at the same time that transparency has to apply to the work of Parliament's official bodies (such as the Conference of Presidents, the Bureau For example, since 2009 Parliament's Rules of Procedure ( P6_TA(2009)0359 ) have no longer included a list of EP documents directly accessible to the public but now give the Bureau the prerogative to establish such a list (Rule 104(3)).
in kvestorjev), pa tudi dejavnosti poslancev EP, na primer njihovo delovanje pri parlamentarnem delu in prisotnosti na sejah pod pogoji, ki jih je v svoji resoluciji z dne 14. januarja 2009 zahteval Parlament; meni, da je treba vprašanje nadomestil in stroškov poslancev EP obravnavati pregledno, hkrati pa v celoti spoštovati pravila o varstvu podatkov;
and the Quaestors) and to MEPs' activities, such as participation in parliamentary work and parliamentary attendance, under the terms requested by Parliament in its resolution of 14 January 2009; considers that the question of MEPs' allowances should be dealt with in a transparent way, while fully respecting personal data protection rules;
meni, da bi se preglednost na ravni EU morala zrcaliti v državah članicah, ko te prenašajo zakonodajo EU v nacionalno, zlasti z oblikovanjem korelacijskih tabel in črpanjem iz, med drugim, zgledov najboljše prakse v zvezi s preglednostjo storitev e-Parlamenta in e-uprave;
Considers that transparency at EU level should be mirrored by Member States when transposing EU legislation into national law, notably by establishing correlation tables, drawing, inter alia, on best practice in terms of e-Parliament and e-government transparency;
poudarja, da oblasti držav članic na splošno ne upoštevajo pravice državljanov do dostopa do informacij, in zato poziva Komisijo, naj ob upoštevanju načela dobrega upravljanja preuči določbe držav članic o dostopu do dokumentov in jih podpira pri pripravljanju čim bolj preglednih predpisov, ki spodbujajo dostop državljanov do dokumentov;
Stresses that citizens' right to information is generally not complied with by the Member States' authorities and therefore calls on the Commission – taking into account the principle of good governance – to study the Member States' provisions on access to documents and to encourage them to draw up maximally transparent rules promoting citizens' access to documents;
ugotavlja nekatere izboljšave v registrih Sveta, vendar opozarja, da še vedno primanjkuje usklajevanja in medobratovalnosti med institucijami, saj ne obstaja noben skupen informacijski model za njihove registre, ki bi državljanom omogočal, da bi potrebne dokumente in informacije našli na eni točki ter da bi uporabljali skupen iskalnik, ki bi bil celovito povezan zlasti z zakonodajnim observatorijem (OEIL), kjer bi bili združeni dokumenti posameznega zakonodajnega postopka;
Notes some improvements in the registers of the Council, but points to the continuing lack of coordination and interoperability among the institutions, as no common information model for their registers exists which would allow citizens to find the necessary documents and the information they include at a ‘single point’ or to use a common search engine integrally connected, notably, to the Legislative Observatory (OEIL), where documents pertaining to one legislative procedure are grouped together;
poziva Svet in Komisijo k pogajanju s Parlamentom, da bi spremenili skupno izjavo o postopku soodločanja in medinstitucionalni sporazum o boljši pripravi zakonodaje; se zavezuje, da bo medtem spremenil svoj poslovnik, vključno s priloženim kodeksom ravnanja pri pogajanjih glede soodločanja, da bi ta načela postala v celoti zavezujoča;
Calls on the Council and the Commission to negotiate with Parliament on amending the joint declaration on the codecision procedure and the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making to this end; commits itself, in the interim, to amending its rules of procedure, including the annexed code of conduct on codecision negotiations, to give full binding effect to these principles;
meni, da bi moral medinstitucionalni odbor, ki je bil ustanovljen na podlagi člena 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, delovati intenzivneje in poročati pristojnim odborom o obravnavanih vprašanjih, o stališčih, ki jih zagovarja Parlament, o problematičnih vprašanjih, ki so jih odprle druge institucije, kot tudi o morebitnih doseženih rezultatih; zato ga poziva, naj se sestaja bolj redno, vsekakor pa vsaj enkrat letno, ter naj notranje razprave in posvetovanja odpre za javnost, obenem pa naj spodbuja in upošteva predloge civilne družbe in evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov; meni, da bi odbor moral sodelovati pri letnem „revizijskem“ poročilu o preglednosti in odprtosti v EU, ki bi ga pripravil evropski varuh človekovih pravic; poziva ga, naj nujno obravnava vprašanja, navedena v tej resoluciji;
Considers that the Interinstitutional Committee established by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should work more intensely and report to the competent committees on the issues discussed, the positions Parliament defends, the problematic issues raised by other institutions and the results achieved, if any; calls on it, therefore, to meet more regularly, and in any event at least once a year, and to open internal discussions and deliberations by ensuring that they are public and inviting and considering submissions from civil society and the European Data Protection Supervisor; the committee should work on an annual ‘audit’ report on transparency and openness in the EU, which should be prepared by the European Ombudsman; calls on it to address as a matter of urgency the issues mentioned in this resolution;
Sklep Evropskega parlamenta z dne 14. septembra 2011 o spremembi členov 106 in 192 ter Priloge XVII Poslovnika Parlamenta ( 2010/2231(REG) )
European Parliament decision of 14 September 2011 on amendment of Rules 106 and 192 of, and Annex XVII to, Parliament's Rules of Procedure ( 2010/2231(REG) )
ob upoštevanju predlogov za spremembo Poslovnika ( B7-0480/2010 , B7-0481/2010 in B7-0482/2010 ),
having regard to the proposals for amendment of its Rules of Procedure ( B7-0480/2010 , B7-0481/2010 and B7-0482/2010 ),
ob upoštevanju Okvirnega sporazuma o odnosih med Evropskim parlamentom in Evropsko komisijo UL L 304, 20.11.2010, str.
having regard to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p.
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za ustavne zadeve ( A7-0240/2011 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ( A7-0240/2011 ),
ker je Parlament februarja 2010 Komisijo potrdil po okrepljenem postopku predstavitev, ki je omogočil odprto, pošteno in dosledno oceno predlagane Komisije kot celote,
whereas the approval of the Commission by Parliament in February 2010 was based on an enhanced process of hearings which ensured that the entire Commission-designate was assessed in an open, fair and consistent manner,
ker je postopek potrditve vseeno privedel do ugotovitve, da so dodatne spremembe v sodelovanju s Komisijo potrebne in zaželene,
whereas, nevertheless, conclusions can be drawn from the approval process, in collaboration with the Commission, which suggest that further modifications are both necessary and desirable,
sprejema sklep o spremembi svojega poslovnika, kakor je določeno v nadaljevanju;
Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown below;
Predsednik lahko pozove novoizvoljenega predsednika Komisije, naj Parlament obvesti o tem, kako je v skladu s svojimi političnimi smernicami znotraj predlaganega kolegija komisarjev porazdelil pristojnosti za posamezna delovna področja;
The President may invite the President-elect of the Commission to inform Parliament about the allocation of portfolio responsibilities in the proposed College of Commissioners in accordance with his or her political guidelines.
je vabljen Svet v celoti
shall be invited to attend.
Novoizvoljeni predsednik Komisije predstavi kolegij komisarjev in njihov program na seji Parlamenta, na katero
The President-elect shall present the college of Commissioners and their programme at a sitting of Parliament which
sta vabljena predsednik Evropskega sveta in predsednik Sveta
the President of the European Council and the President of the Council
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka a – pododstavek 3
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point a – subparagraph 3
Izjave o interesih kandidatov za komisarje se pošljejo v pregled odboru, pristojnemun za pravne zadeve.
The declarations of interest of the Commissioners-designate shall be sent for scrutiny to the committee responsible for legal affairs.
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka b – pododstavek 2
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 2
konferenca predsednikov
by the Conference of Presidents
na priporočilo
on a recommendation of
(i) če se delovno področje kandidata za komisarja ujema s pristojnostmi enega odbora, se kandidat predstavi le pred tem odborom
(i) if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls within the remit of a single committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard by that committee alone
(pristojni odbor)
(the committee responsible)
(ii) če se delovno področje kandidata za komisarja v podobnem razmerju ujema s pristojnostmi več odborov, se kandidat predstavi pred vsemi temi odbori hkrati
(ii) if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls more or less equally within the remit of more than one committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard jointly by those committees
(skupni odbori)
(joint committees)
(iii) če se delovno področje kandidata za komisarja pretežno ujema s pristojnostmi enega parlamentarnega odbora in le v manjši meri s pristojnostmi enega ali več drugih odborov, se kandidat predstavi pred glavnim pristojnim odborom
(iii) if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls mainly within the remit of one committee and only to a small extent within the remit of at least one other committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard by the committee mainly responsible,
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka b – pododstavek 4
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 4
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka b – pododstavek 5
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 5
Za vsako predstavitev se predvidijo tri ure .
Each hearing shall be scheduled to last three hours.
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka b – pododstavek 6
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point b – subparagraph 6
Kandidate za komisarja se povabi, da podajo uvodno ustno izjavo, ki ne traja več kot
Commissioners-designate shall be invited to make an opening oral statement of no longer than
dvajset minut
20 minutes
petnajst minut
15 minutes
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka c – pododstavek 1
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 1
posnetek predstavitev je javnosti na voljo v štiriindvajsetih urah.
recording of the hearings shall be made available for the public record within 24 hours.
(Besedilo se prestavi na konec odstavka 1, točka b)
(Text to be moved to the end of paragraph 1, point b)
se sestanejo takoj po predstavitvi, da pripravijo oceno posameznih kandidatov za komisarja.
shall meet without delay after the hearing to evaluate the individual Commissioners-designate.
so pozvani, da izjavijo, ali so kandidati za komisarja po njihovem mnenju primerni za člane kolegija in za izvajanje posebnih nalog, ki so jim bile dodeljene.
shall be invited to state whether, in their opinion, the Commissioners-designate are qualified both to be members of the College and to carry out the particular duties they have been assigned.
posamezni odbor
committee is
za vsako od teh dveh točk, predsednik
both of those points, its Chair shall,
odbora kot zadnjo rešitev predlaga tajno glasovanje o teh dveh odločitvah.
as a last resort, put the two decisions to the vote by secret ballot.
odbora kot zadnjo rešitev predlaga tajno glasovanje o teh dveh odločitvah.
put the two decisions to the vote by secret ballot.
Priloga XVII – odstavek 1 – točka c – pododstavek 3
Annex XVII – paragraph 1 – point c – subparagraph 3
Novoizvoljeni predsednik Komisije predstavi celoten kolegij kandidatov za komisarje in njihov program na seji Parlamenta, na katero
The President-elect of the Commission shall present the whole College of Commissioners-designate and their programme at a sitting of Parliament which the
sta vabljena predsednik Evropskega sveta in predsednik Sveta
President of the European Council and the President of the Council