natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
opominja Komisijo, da že omenjeno sporočilo z dne 20. marca 2002 o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami prava EU vsebuje postopkovne korake, ki jih Komisija pri urejanju svoje diskrecijske pravice ocenjuje kot sprejemljive, zaradi česar ne bi smelo biti nobenih zadržkov pri oblikovanju uredbe na osnovi tega instrumenta; je seznanjen z namero Komisije, da to sporočilo znova preuči; poziva Komisijo, naj v zvezi s postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev ne uporablja nezavezujočih aktov, temveč naj predlaga uredbo, da bo Parlament pri tako bistvenem elementu pravnega reda EU v polni meri udeležen kot sozakonodajalec;
Reminds the Commission that the above-mentioned Communication of 20 March 2002 concerning the relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of EU law contains procedural steps that the Commission finds acceptable in respect of regulating its discretion and that there should therefore be no obstacle to basing a regulation on this instrument; notes the Commission's intention to review that communication; urges the Commission not to make use of soft law when dealing with the infringement procedure but to propose a regulation in order for Parliament to be fully involved as co-legislator in such an essential element of the EU's legal order;
ugotavlja zlasti, da namerava Komisija pregledati svojo splošno politiko evidentiranja pritožb in odnosov s pritožniki glede na izkušnje z novimi metodami, ki se pravkar preskušajo; je zaskrbljen nad tem, da se je Komisija odpovedala uporabi postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev kot glavnega orodja za zagotavljanje tega, da države članice pravočasno in pravilno izvajajo pravo Unije; poudarja, da je to naloga, ki je bila Komisiji predpisana s pogodbami in od katere ni mogoče enostransko odstopiti; poziva Komisijo, naj s skladnimi podatki, in sicer s podrobnimi podatki iz obdobja pred projektom „EU pilot“ in po njem, dokaže navedeni uspeh teh novih metod ter naj v novo uredbo vključi načela in pogoje za evidentiranje pritožb ter ostale pravice pritožnikov;
Notes in particular that the Commission plans a review of its general policy on the registration of complaints and relations with complainants in the light of experience of the new methods now being tested; is worried about the Commission's renouncement of the use of the infringement procedure as an essential tool to ensure that Member States apply Union law in a timely and correct way; underlines that this is a duty imposed upon the Commission by the Treaties which cannot be unilaterally renounced; urges the Commission to prove, by means of consistent data, the declared success of those ‘new methods’ with detailed pre- and post-EU Pilot data and to include in the future regulation principles and conditions for the registration of complaints and any other complainant's rights;
pozdravlja novi element, vsebovan v členu 260 PDEU, ki Komisiji dopušča, da Sodišče, kateremu predloži zadevo v skladu s členom 258 PDEU, zaprosi, da državi članici naloži denarno kazen zaradi poznega prenosa direktive, poziva Komisijo, naj za zagotovitev večje preglednosti posreduje informacije o uporabi te nove diskrecijske pravice;
Welcomes the new element contained in Article 260 TFEU which allows the Commission to ask the Court of Justice to impose financial sanctions on a Member State for late transposition of a directive when bringing a case before the Court under Article 258 TFEU; calls on the Commission to provide information on the use of this new discretionary power, with a view to guaranteeing greater transparency;
ocenjuje kot nujno, da Komisija to sredstvo in vsa druga sredstva uporabi za zagotovitev tega, da države članice zakonodajo Unije prenesejo pravočasno in pravilno, zlasti ko gre za okoljske primere;
Considers it of the utmost importance that the Commission should use this and all other possible means to guarantee that Member States transpose Union legislation in a timely and correct way, especially with reference to environmental cases;
poudarja, da je pravočasen prenos direktiv EU bistven za gladko delovanje enotnega trga v korist potrošnikov in podjetij v Evropski uniji; pozdravlja napredek, ki je bil storjen za dosego tega cilja, vendar ostaja zaskrbljen zaradi velikega števila začetih postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi poznega prenosa direktiv;
Stresses that timely transposition of EU directives is essential for the smooth functioning of the single market for the benefit of consumers and enterprises in the EU; welcomes the progress made towards this goal, but remains concerned about the high number of infringement cases opened for late transposition of directives;
podpira pobude držav članic za optimizacijo prenosa direktiv o enotnem trgu, vključno z uvedbo ustreznih pobud za pristojne oddelke in vzpostavitvijo sistemov opozarjanja pred iztekom roka za prenos;
Endorses the initiatives taken by Member States to optimise the transposition of single market directives, including establishing appropriate incentives for the relevant departments and setting up warning systems when the transposition deadline is approaching;
poziva Komisijo, naj na podlagi svojega priporočila z 29. junija 2009 o ukrepih za izboljšanje delovanja enotnega trga nadaljuje spodbujanje najboljših praks pri prenosu zakonodaje o enotnem trgu UL L 176, 7.7.2009, str.
Calls on the Commission to continue promoting ‘best practices’ in the transposition of single market legislation, building on its recommendation of 29 June 2009 on measures to improve the functioning of the single market OJ L 176, 7.7.2009, p.
ugotavlja, da imajo nacionalna sodišča bistveno vlogo pri uporabi prava EU in v celoti podpira prizadevanja EU, da okrepi in uskladi usposabljanje za nacionalne sodnike, pravosodne delavce, uradnike in javne uslužbence v nacionalnih upravah;
Notes that the national courts play a vital role in applying EU law and fully supports the EU's efforts to enhance and coordinate judicial training for national judges, legal professionals, officials and civil servants in the national administrations;
poudarja, da ima Komisija sicer prav, ko poudarja, da so v primeru kršitve prava EU dolžni ukrepati predvsem pravosodni organi držav članic, vendar pa imajo državljani pogosto znatne težave v zvezi s postopki pred nacionalnimi sodišči, ki so lahko predragi ali predolgi; zato meni, da bi bilo treba slediti smernicam iz stockholmskega programa;
Stresses that, whilst the Commission is correct in pointing out that it is primarily the duty of Member States' judicial systems to act on infringements of EU law, citizens often face considerable difficulties stemming from national court procedures, which can prove expensive or too lengthy; considers, therefore, that the guidelines laid down in the Stockholm Programme should be followed;
ugotavlja, da je možnost državljanov, podjetij in civilne družbe za začetek postopkov v zvezi z uporabo prava EU pred organi upravnega nadzora in sodišči v državah članicah ločena in neodvisna od postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, ki jih vodi Komisija, in z njimi ni v nasprotju;
Notes that the possibility for citizens, enterprises or civil society interests to bring their own proceedings before Member States' administrative review bodies, courts or tribunals concerning the application of EU law is separate, independent and not in contradiction with the conduct of infringement proceedings by the Commission;
obžaluje dejstvo, da je preveč postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, ki so zelo dolgi ali so pozno začeti pri Sodišču; poziva države članice in Komisijo, naj povečajo svoja prizadevanja za rešitev postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev in prosi Komisijo, da prednostno razvrsti kršitve v različnih sektorjih na bolj sistematičen in preglednejši način;
Regrets that too many infringement procedures take a long time to be closed or brought before the Court of Justice; calls on the Member States and the Commission to intensify their efforts to resolve infringement procedures and asks the Commission to prioritise infringements in different sectors in a more systematic and transparent manner;
je zaskrbljen zaradi velikega števila kršitev na področjih priznanja strokovnih kvalifikacij, storitev in javnih naročil; meni, da bi bilo koristno dodatno razjasniti zakonodajni okvir na teh področjih, da bi nacionalnim organom pomagali pri njegovem izvajanju;
Is concerned about the high number of infringements in the fields of recognition of professional qualifications, services and public procurement; is of the opinion that further clarification of the legal framework in these fields would be useful in order to help national authorities with the implementation process;
pozdravlja vzpostavitev javne podatkovne baze o zakonodaji in sodni praksi na področju nepoštene poslovne prakse; meni, da bi bilo treba razmisliti o takih pobudah tudi na drugih področjih;
Welcomes the creation of a public database of legislation and case-law in the field of unfair commercial practices; takes the view that similar initiatives should be considered in other areas;
poudarja pomen sistema SOLVIT, ki evropskim potrošnikom in podjetjem pomaga uveljavljati njihove pravice na enotnem trgu; pozdravlja napredek, ki je bil dosežen pri izboljšanju delovanja sistema SOLVIT, ter poziva Komisijo in države članice, naj ga še dodatno okrepijo;
Recalls the importance of SOLVIT in helping EU consumers and businesses enjoy their rights in the single market; welcomes the progress made in improving the functioning of SOLVIT and calls on the Commission and the Member States to reinforce it further;
meni, da je pomembno, da so državljani bolj celovito in na praktičen način informirani o svojih pravicah na enotnem trgu; podpira nadaljnji razvoj portala Your Europe;
Considers it important to inform EU citizens more fully, and in a practical manner, about their rights in the single market; supports the further development of the Your Europe portal;
poudarja, da so sodni postopki dragi in od potrošnikov in podjetij terjajo preveč časa, hkrati pa predstavljajo zelo veliko breme za sodišča EU in nacionalna sodišča, ki so že tako preobremenjena; poudarja pomen, ki ga imajo za odpravo teh bremen ustrezni mehanizmi alternativnega reševanja sporov;
Points out that judicial proceedings are costly and time-consuming for both individuals and businesses and represent a significant burden on EU and national courts, which are already overloaded; underlines the importance of preventive measures and proper alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in order to reduce this burden;
poudarja, da državljani, organizacije civilne družbe in podjetja še naprej uporabljajo mehanizem vlaganja peticij predvsem zato, da poročajo o nespoštovanju prava EU ter se čezenj pritožijo, pri čemer se to največkrat nanaša na okolje in notranji trg, pogosto pa tudi na področja prostega gibanja, temeljnih pravic in državljanstva;
Points out that the petition mechanism continues to be used by citizens, civil society organisations and enterprises mainly to report on, and complain about, non-compliance with EU law by Member State authorities on different levels, the main issues invoked being related to the environment and the internal market, with freedom of movement, fundamental rights and citizenship featuring prominently;
meni, da mnoge peticije omenjajo Listino o temeljnih pravicah, kljub temu, da se ta ne uporablja za akte držav članic, medtem ko druge omenjajo vrednote, na katerih temelji EU; je zaskrbljen, da se državljani čutijo zavedene o dejanskem področju uporabe listine, in meni, da je zelo pomembno pojasniti področje uporabe in izvrševanja Listine o temeljnih pravicah; poudarja, da je treba načelo subsidiarnosti, ki je temelj Evropske unije, ustrezno obrazložiti, da se zagotovi, da državljani ne bodo zmedeni o uporabi Listine;
Considers that many petitions refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even when the Charter is not applicable to Member States' acts, whilst others invoke the values on which the EU is founded; is concerned that citizens feel misled about the actual scope of application of the Charter, and considers it highly important to clarify the scope of applicability and enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; stresses that the subsidiarity principle, which is a basic pillar of the European Union, needs to be properly explained to ensure that citizens are not confused about the Charter's applicability;
pozdravlja, da 27. letno poročilo vsebuje poseben razdelek o peticijah, kakor je zaprosil Parlament, v katerem je Komisija razčlenila prejete nove peticije in ugotovila, da „čeprav večina peticij ne zadeva kršitev, pa vsebujejo uporabne informacije za Parlament in Komisijo o interesih državljanov“;
Welcomes the specific section on petitions contained in the 27th annual report, as requested by Parliament, in which the Commission gives a breakdown of new petitions received and states that ‘even if most petitions do not concern infringements they provide Parliament and Commission with useful information on citizens’ concerns‘;
zahteva, da Svet v skladu s svojo izjavo iz točke 34 Medinstitucionalnega sporazuma o boljši pripravi zakonodaje od držav članic zahteva, naj oblikujejo in objavijo razpredelnice, ki bodo prikazovale ujemanje med direktivami in nacionalnimi ukrepi za prenos zakonodaje; poudarja, da imajo takšne razpredelnice bistveno vlogo pri tem, da bo lahko Komisija učinkovito spremljala uporabo ukrepov v vseh državah članicah;
Demands that the Council, in accordance with its own statement in point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, require Member States to draw up and publish tables illustrating the correlation between directives and national transposition measures; stresses that such tables are essential in order for the Commission to be able to monitor implementation measures in all Member States effectively;
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 14. septembra 2011 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov (člen 104(7) Poslovnika) za leti 2009 in 2010 ( 2010/2294(INI) )
European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2011 on public access to documents (Rule 104(7)) for the years 2009-2010 ( 2010/2294(INI) )
ob upoštevanju členov 1, 10 in 16 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (PEU) in členov 15 in 298 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU),
having regard to Articles 1, 10 and 16 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1367/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. septembra 2006 o uporabi določb aarhuške konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah v institucijah in organih Skupnosti UL L 264, 25.9.2006, str.
having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p.
ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča Evropske unije in Splošnega sodišča o dostopu do dokumentov, še zlasti sodb Sodišča v zadevah
having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the General Court on access to documents, and notably to the judgments of the Court in the cases of
(združeni zadevi C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P) Sodba z dne 1. julija 2008 v združenih zadevah C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P,
(joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P) Judgment of 1 July 2008 in joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P
Švedska in Turco proti Svetu
, Sweden and Turco v Council
(zadeva C-28/08) Sodba z dne 29. junija 2010 v zadevi C-28/08 P,
(case C-28/08) Judgment of 29 June 2010 in case C-28/08 P,
Komisija proti Bavarian Lager
Commission v Bavarian Lager
, še ni objavljena v ZOdl.
, not yet published in the ECR.
(združeni zadevi C-92/09 in C-93/09) Sodba z dne 9. novembra 2010 v združenih zadevah C-92/09 P in C-93/09 P,
(joined cases C-92/09 and C-93/09) Judgment of 9 November 2010 in joined cases C-92/09 P and C-93/09 P,
Volker in Markus Schecke GbR in Hartmut Eifert proti Land Hessen
Volker und Markus ScheckeGbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen
(C-139/07 P) Sodba z dne 29. junija 2010 v zadevi C-139/07 P,
(C-139/07 P) Judgment of 29 June 2010 in case C-139/07 P,
Komisija proti Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau,
Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau
še ni objavljena v ZOdl.
, not yet published in the ECR.
(združene zadeve C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P in C-532/07 P) Sodba z dne 21. septembra 2010 v združenih zadevah C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P in C-532/07 P,
(joined cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P) Judgment of 21 September 2010 in joined cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P,
Švedska in API proti Komisiji
Sweden, and API v Commission
, ter sodb Splošnega sodišča v zadevah
, and to the judgments of the General Court in the cases of
(T-233/09) Sodba z dne 22. marca 2010 v zadevi T-233/09,
(T-233/09) Judgment of 22 March 201 in case T-233/09,
Access Info Europe proti Svetu
Access Info Europe v Council
(zadeva T-403/05) Sodba z dne 9. septembra 2008 v zadevi T-403/05,
(case T-403/05) Judgment of 9 September 2008 in case T-403/05
MyTravel proti Komisiji
, MyTravel v Commission
(zadevi T-121/05 in T-166/05) Sodba z dne 11. marca 2009 v zadevi T-121/05,
(cases T-121/05 and T-166/05) Judgment of 11 March 2009 in case T-121/05,
Borax Europe proti Komisiji
Borax Europe v Commission
(zadeva T-439/08) Sodba z dne 21. oktobra 2010 v zadevi T-439/08,
(case T-439/08) Judgment of 21 October 2010 in case T-439/08,
Agapiou Joséphidès proti Komisiji in EACEA
Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA
(združeni zadevi T-355/04 in T-446/04) Sodba z dne 19. januarja 2010 v združenih zadevah T-355/03 in T-446/04,
(joined cases T-355/04 and T-446/04) Judgment of 19 January 2010 in joined cases T-355/04 and T-446/04,
Co-Frutta proti Komisiji
Co-Frutta v Commission
(zadeva T-380/04) Sodba z dne 30. januarja 2008 v zadevi T-380/04,
(case T-380/04) Judgment of 30 January 2008 in Case T-380/04,
Terezakis proti Komisiji
Terezakis v Commission
(zadeva T-111/07) Sodba z dne 7. julija 2010 v zadevi T-111/07,
(case T-111/07) Judgment of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07,
Agrofert Holding proti Komisiji
Agrofert Holding v Commission
(zadeva T-237/05) Sodba z dne 9. junija 2010 v zadevi T-237/05,
(case T-237/05) Judgment of 9 June 2010 in Case T-237/05,
Éditions Jacob proti Komisiji
Éditions Jacob v Commission
ob upoštevanju dejavnosti in dokumentov, ki sta jih pripravila evropski varuh človekovih pravic in evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov, prvi glede vprašanja dostopa do dokumentov, drugi pa glede ustreznega ravnotežja med preglednostjo in varstvom podatkov,
having regard to the activities and documents produced by the European Ombudsman on the issue of access to documents, as well as by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) regarding the fair balance between transparency and data protection,
ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije z dne 20. marca 2011 o uredbi Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije ( KOM(2011)0137 ),
having regard to the Commission proposal of 20 March 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents ( COM(2011)0137 ),
ob upoštevanju Konvencije UNECE iz leta 1998 o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah (aarhuška konvencija),
having regard to the 1998 UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention),
ob upoštevanju Konvencije Sveta Evrope o dostopu do uradnih dokumentov iz leta 2008,
having regard to the 2008 Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents,
ob upoštevanju letnih poročil Sveta, Komisije in Evropskega parlamenta o dostopu do dokumentov za leti 2009 in 2010 v skladu s členom 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001,
having regard to the Annual Reports for 2009 and 2010 from the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on access to documents, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,
ob upoštevanju Okvirnega sporazuma iz leta 2010 o odnosih med Evropskim parlamentom in Evropsko komisijo UL L 304, 20.11.2010, str.
having regard to the 2010 Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p.
ob upoštevanju Medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 20. novembra 2002 med Evropskim parlamentom in Svetom o dostopu Evropskega parlamenta do informacij Sveta s področja varnostne in obrambne politike, ki so občutljive narave UL C 298, 30.11.2002, str.
having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy OJ C 298, 30.11.2002, p.
ob upoštevanju svojih prejšnjih resolucij z dne 14. januarja 2009 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije UL C 46 E, 24.2.2010, str.
having regard to its previous resolutions of 14 January 2009 on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents OJ C 46 E, 24.2.2010, p.
, 25. novembra 2010 o letnem poročilu o dejavnostih Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2009 Sprejeta besedila, P7_TA(2010)0435 .
, 25 November 2010 on the annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2009 Texts Adopted, P7_TA(2010)0435 .
, 17. decembra 2009 o potrebnem izboljšanju pravnega okvira o dostopu do dokumentov po začetku veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe, Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 UL C 286 E, 22.10.2010, str.
, and 17 December 2009 on improvements needed to the legal framework for access to documents following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 OJ C 286 E, 22.10.2010, p.
ob upoštevanju členov 48 in 104(7) Poslovnika,
having regard to Rule 48 and Rule 104(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve ( A7-0245/2011 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A7-0245/2011 ),
ker je Lizbonska pogodba uvedla nov ustavni okvir za institucionalno preglednost EU v smislu odprte, učinkovite in neodvisne evropske uprave (člen 298 PDEU), saj je uvedla robustno temeljno pravico do dostopa do dokumentov institucij, organov, uradov in agencij EU; ker je treba to pravico, ki jo Pogodba priznava ne le državljanom Unije, temveč vsem fizičnim in pravnim osebam s stalnim prebivališčem v državah članicah, uveljavljati ob upoštevanju splošnih načel in omejitev (zaradi varovanja nekaterih javnih in zasebnih interesov), ki jih določajo uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (člen 15 PDEU),
whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduced a new constitutional framework of EU institutional transparency, with a view to an open, efficient and independent European administration (Article 298 TFEU), by establishing a firm fundamental right of access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; whereas this right is afforded by the Treaty not only to EU citizens but also to any natural or legal person residing in a Member State, and should be exercised in compliance with the general principles and limits (set with a view to protecting certain public or private interests) laid down by the regulations adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Article 15 TFEU),
ker zdaj na splošno velja, da mora biti dostop do zakonodajnih dokumentov popoln, izjeme glede nezakonodajnih dokumentov je treba omejiti, ta pristopa pa se medsebojno ne smeta ovirati,
whereas it is now a general rule that access to legislative documents should be fully provided, while exceptions regarding non-legislative documents should be narrowed, and whereas the two approaches should not undermine each other,