natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
se podeli Komisiji pod pogoji iz tega člena
is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article
Pooblastilo za sprejemanje delegiranih aktov iz člena 6 se prenese na Komisijo za obdobje petih let z začetkom ….
The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 6 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from the …
Komisija pripravi poročilo o prenosu pooblastila najpozneje devet mesecev pred iztekom pet-letnega obdobja.
The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period.
Pooblastilo iz člena 6 lahko Evropski parlament ali Svet kadar koli prekličeta.
The delegation of power referred to in Article 6 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council.
Z odločitvijo o preklicu pooblastila pooblastilo iz navedene odločitve preneha veljati.
A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision.
Delegirani akt, sprejet v skladu s členom 6, začnejo veljati samo, če niti Evropski parlament niti Svet ne nasprotuje delegiranemu aktu v roku dveh mesecev od uradnega sporočila o aktu Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu ali če sta pred iztekom omenjenega roka tako Evropski parlament kot tudi Svet uradno obvestila Komisijo, da ne nameravata nasprotovati sprejetju aktov.
A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 6 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object.
Navedeni rok se na pobudo Evropskega parlamenta ali Sveta podaljša za dva meseca.
That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.
Določbe odstavka 1, prvega pododstavka odstavka 3 in odstavkov 4 ter 5 člena 8 se začnejo uporabljati šest mesecev po datumu, na katerega je Komisija sprejela zadevne izvedbene akte iz odstavkov 2 in 6 tega člena.
Paragraph 1, the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 8 shall apply with effect from six months after the date on which the Commission adopts the relevant implementing acts referred to in paragraphs 2 and 6 of that Article.
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 14. septembra 2011 o 27. letnem poročilu o spremljanju uporabe prava EU (2009) ( 2011/2027(INI) )
European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2011 on the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009) ( 2011/2027(INI) )
ob upoštevanju 27. letnega poročila o spremljanju uporabe prava EU (2009) ( KOM(2010)0538 ),
having regard to the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009) ( COM(2010)0538 ),
ob upoštevanju delovnih dokumentov osebja Komisije SEK(2010)1143 in SEK(2010)1144 ,
having regard to Commission staff working documents ( SEC(2010)1143 ) and ( SEC(2010)1144 ),
ob upoštevanju ocenjevalnega poročila Komisije o sistemu „EU pilot“ ( KOM(2010)0070 ),
having regard to the report from the Commission entitled ‘EU Pilot Evaluation Report’ ( COM(2010)0070 ),
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije o izvajanju člena 260(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije ( SEK(2010)1371 ),
having regard to the Commission Communication on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU ( SEC(2010)1371 ),
ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 5. septembra 2007 z naslovom „Evropa rezultatov – uporaba prava Skupnosti“ ( KOM(2007)0502 ),
having regard to the Commission Communication of 5 September 2007 entitled ‘A Europe of results – applying Community law’ ( COM(2007)0502 ),
ob upoštevanju svoje resolucije z dne 25. novembra 2010 o 26. letnem poročilu Komisije o spremljanju uporabe prava Evropske unije (2008) Sprejeta besedila, P7_TA(2010)0437 .
having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on the twenty-sixth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2008) Texts adopted P7_TA(2010)0437 .
ob upoštevanju odgovora Komisije na njegovo resolucijo z dne 25. novembra 2010 o 26. letnem poročilu o spremljanju uporabe prava Evropske unije (2008),
having regard to the Commission's reply to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on the twenty-sixth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2008),
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za pravne zadeve ter mnenj Odbora za notranji trg in varstvo potrošnikov in Odbora za peticije ( A7-0249/2011 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Petitions ( A7-0249/2011 ),
ker je 1. decembra 2009 začela veljati Lizbonska pogodba, ki je uvedla številne nove pravne podlage, katerih namen je lažje izvajanje, uporaba in izvrševanje prava EU,
whereas the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009 and introduced a number of new legal bases intended to facilitate the implementation, application and enforcement of EU law,
ker v skladu s členom 298 PDEU institucije, organe, urade in agencije Unije pri izvajanju njihovih nalog podpira odprta, učinkovita in neodvisna evropska uprava,
whereas according to Article 298 TFEU, in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration,
meni, da člen 17 PEU opredeljuje temeljno vlogo Komisije kot varuhinje pogodb; v tem smislu so pooblastila in dolžnosti Komisije za začetek postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti državi članici, ki ni izpolnila obveznosti iz pogodb, vključno z obveznostmi, povezanimi s temeljnimi pravicami državljanov, mejnik v pravnem redu EU in so skladna s konceptom Unije, ki temelji na vladavini prava;
Takes the view that Article 17 TEU defines the fundamental role of the Commission as that of ‘guardian of the Treaties’; in this context, the Commission's power and duty to bring infringement proceedings against a Member State that has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, including obligations in relation to fundamental rights of citizens, is a cornerstone of the EU's legal order and as such is consistent with the concept of a Union based on the rule of law;
poudarja temeljni pomen, ki ga ima vladavina prava za legitimnost vsakršne oblike upravljanja in vodenja ter za resnično demokracijo, v kateri so posebni ukrepi skladni z veljavnimi splošnimi pravili, pa tudi za predvidljivost in objektivno utemeljene odločitve in kot jamstvo državljanom, da lahko polno in učinkovito uživajo svoje zakonite pravice;
Emphasises the fundamental importance of the rule of law as a condition not only for the legitimacy of any form of governance and administration and for genuine democracy in which specific actions comply with the general norms laid down, but also for the predictability and objective soundness of decisions, and as a guarantee that citizens can fully and effectively enjoy their rights as provided by law;
poudarja, da 27. letno poročilo o spremljanju uporabe prava EU prikazuje, da je Komisija kljub upadu števila postopkov ugotavljanja kršitev, ki jih je začela, konec leta 2009 vseeno obravnavala 2900 pritožb in postopkov ugotavljanja kršitev in da so države članice v več kot polovici primerov še vedno zamujale s prenosom direktiv, kar še zdaleč ni zadovoljivo in za kar so odgovorni predvsem organi držav članic;
Stresses that the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of EU law shows that, despite a fall in the number of infringement cases opened by the Commission, it was still dealing with around 2 900 complaints and infringement files at the end of 2009, and that Member States were still behind schedule with their transposition of directives in more than half of the cases, a situation which is far from satisfactory and for which the Member States' authorities bear most of the responsibility;
ugotavlja, da je postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev sestavljen iz dveh delov: upravnega postopka (preiskava) in sodnega postopka pred Sodiščem; meni, da igrajo v upravnem delu državljani kot pritožniki bistveno vlogo pri zagotavljanju skladnosti prava Unije na terenu, kar je Komisija ponovno potrdila v omenjenem sporočilu z dne 20. marca 2002; zato meni, da je treba nujno zagotoviti preglednost, pravičnost in zanesljivost postopkov, ki državljane pooblaščajo, da odkrivajo kršitve prava Unije in nanje opozarjajo Komisijo;
Notes that the infringement procedure consists of two phases: the administrative (investigation) stage and the judicial stage before the Court of Justice; considers that the role of citizens as complainants is vital in the administrative phase when it comes to ensuring compliance with Union law on the ground, which is again acknowledged by the Commission in its above-mentioned Communication of 20 March 2002; considers it therefore of paramount importance to guarantee transparency, fairness and reliability of the procedures that empower citizens to detect infringements of Union law and to bring these to the Commission's attention;
ugotavlja, da poskuša Komisija prek projekta „EU pilot“ okrepiti zaveze, sodelovanje in partnerstvo z državami članicami Ocenjevalno poročilo sistema „EU pilot“, str.
Notes that through the EU Pilot Project the Commission is aiming to increase ‘commitment, cooperation and partnership between the Commission and Member States’ EU Pilot Evaluation Report, p.
in v tesnem sodelovanju z nacionalnimi upravami preučuje, kako izvajati pravo EU; meni, da ta pobuda delno ustreza novi potrebi, ki je nastala s sprejetjem Lizbonske pogodbe, in sicer po sodelovanju med vsemi institucijami Evropske unije, vendar spodbuja Komisijo, naj jamči državljanom, da bodo vedno vključeni pri obravnavi skladnosti s pravom EU;
and is considering, in close cooperation with national administrations, how to deal with the application of EU law; considers that this initiative partially responds to the new need for cooperation between all institutions of the European Union following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, but urges the Commission to guarantee that citizens are always included when dealing with compliance with EU law;
ugotavlja, da se po eni strani zdi, kot da imajo državljani poglavitno vlogo pri zagotavljanju spoštovanja zakonodajo EU v praksi Glej zgoraj omenjeno sporočilo z dne 20. marca 2002, str.
Notes that on the one hand citizens are portrayed as having an essential role in ensuring compliance with EU law on the ground See the Commission's above-mentioned communication of 20 March 2002, p.
, po drugi strani pa so v projektu „EU pilot“ še v večji meri izključeni iz nadaljnjih postopkov; meni, da bi se bilo treba izogniti temu s tem, da se pilotni projekt obravnava kot alternativna oblika mediacije, v kateri so državljani polno udeleženi in vključeni kot začetni pritožnik; meni, da bi to bolje odražalo cilje pogodb, da se „odločitve sprejemajo čim bolj javno in v kar najtesnejši povezavi z državljani“ (člen 1 PEU), da institucije Unije „pri svojem delu kar najbolj upoštevajo načelo javnosti delovanja“ (člen 15 PDEU) in da „Unija pri vseh svojih dejavnostih upošteva načelo enakosti svojih državljanov, ki so deležni enake obravnave s strani njenih institucij“ (člen 9 PEU);
, whilst on the other – in EU Pilot – they risk being further excluded from any subsequent procedure; considers that this outcome should be avoided by treating the Pilot as a ‘mediation’-type alternative in which citizens are fully involved and integrated as the initiating complainant; takes the view that this would better reflect the Treaty aims that ‘decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 1 TEU), that ‘the Union institutions ... shall conduct their work as openly as possible’ (Article 15 TFEU) and that ‘[I]n all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions’ (Article 9 TEU);
je seznanjen s številom peticij, za katere ni možno najti rešitve po sekundarni zakonodaji EU ali določb Pogodb, ki se uporabljajo neposredno, ki pa vendarle kažejo na kršitve načel, ki so zahtevana za vstop v Unijo in ki ustrezajo vrednotam, določenim v členu 2 PEU, pri čimer člen 7 PEU ureja postopke za spoštovanje teh vrednot;
Notes the number of petitions for which no solution can be provided under EU secondary legislation or directly applicable treaty norms, but which nevertheless indicate violations of the principles required for entering the Union that correspond to the values laid down in Article 2 TEU, with Article 7 TEU regulating the procedures for upholding these values;
opozarja, da mora Komisija v postopkih za ugotavljanje kršitev pri uporabi diskrecijske pravice, ki ji je dodeljena s pogodbami, upoštevati zahteve po preglednosti in odprtosti ter načelo sorazmernosti, pri čemer ne sme nikoli ogroziti prvega cilja te pravice, to je zagotavljanje pravočasne in pravilne uporabe prava Unije; ponavlja, da je absolutna diskrecija, skupaj z absolutnim pomanjkanjem preglednosti, v temeljnem nasprotju s pravno državo Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta z dne 25. novembra 2010 o 26. letnem poročilu o spremljanju uporabe prava Evropske unije (2008) ( P7_TA(2010)0437 ).
Notes that the discretionary power conferred by the Treaties upon the Commission in dealing with the infringement process must respect the rule of law, the requirement of transparency and openness and the principle of proportionality and must never endanger the very first aim of that power, which is to guarantee timely and correct application of Union law; reiterates that ‘absolute discretion coupled with an absolute lack of transparency is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law’ European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2010 on the 26th Annual Report on Monitoring the application of European Union law (2008) ( P7_TA(2010)0437 ).
poziva Komisijo, naj v postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev vnese več preglednosti in naj državljane karseda hitro in na ustrezen način obvešča o ukrepih, ki so sledili njihovim zahtevam; poziva Komisijo, naj določi obdobje, v katerem morajo države članice izpolniti pogoje iz sodbe Sodišča;
Asks the Commission to bring more transparency into ongoing infringement procedures and to inform EU citizens as soon as possible, and in an appropriate manner, of the action taken on their requests; encourages the Commission to propose a benchmark for the Member States' compliance with Court of Justice rulings;
ugotavlja, da je Komisija za uspešno delovanje projekta „EU pilot“ v praksi vzpostavila zaupno podatkovno bazo, ki služi za komuniciranje med službami Komisije in organi držav članic; ponovno izpostavlja pomanjkanje preglednosti v odnosu do pritožnikov v sistemu „EU pilot“ in ponavlja zahtevo Parlamenta, naj se mu omogoči dostop do podatkovne baze, kjer so zbrane vse pritožbe, da bo lahko bolje nadzoroval vlogo Komisije kot varuhinje pogodb;
Notes that in order to make the EU Pilot operational, the Commission has created a confidential on-line database for communication between Commission services and Member State authorities; reiterates the lack of transparency vis-à-vis complainants in the EU Pilot and Parliament's request to be given access to the database where all complaints are collected in order to enable it to perform its role of scrutiny of the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties;
pozdravlja zaveze Komisije, vendar meni, da so potrebna dodatna prizadevanja vseh vpletenih strani – držav članic, Komisije, Sveta in Parlamenta –, da bi Unija in njen notranji trg postala oprijemljiva resničnost za državljane, njihove organizacije in podjetja;
Welcomes the Commission's commitments, but considers that further efforts are needed by all concerned – Member States, the Commission, the Council and Parliament – in order to make the Union and its internal market a tangible reality for citizens, their organisations and enterprises;
meni, da bi lahko pobuda „EU pilot“ prispevala k reševanju težav, ki jih imajo posamezniki in podjetja na enotnem trgu in poziva Komisijo, naj jo s 24 razširi na 27 držav članic;
Takes the view that the ‘EU Pilot’ initiative might make a contribution to solving problems faced by individuals and businesses in the single market and calls on the Commission to extend the initiative's coverage from 24 to 27 Member States;
pozdravlja, da Komisija poudarja potrebo po uspešnejšem preprečevanju kršitev z uporabo vseh orodij, ki so na voljo, ter zagotavljanjem zadostnih sredstev;
Welcomes the Commission's emphasis on the need to improve the prevention of infringements by using all existing tools and ensuring that sufficient means are available;
poudarja, da bi ohranjanje doslednosti pri izvrševanju prava EU s strani držav članic ter zagotavljanje vloge Sodišča v zvezi s tem zahtevalo, da bi Komisija opravila temeljito preiskavo in po potrebi začela postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev, ko peticija ali pritožba zadeva nepripravljenost nacionalnega sodišča, da zahteva predhodno odločanje, kadar bi to v skladu s pogodbami in pravnim redom moralo storiti;
Emphasises that preserving consistency in the application of EU law by the Member States and ensuring the role of the Court of Justice in this respect would require that the Commission carefully investigate and, if necessary, initiate infringement proceedings when a petition or complaint is directed against a refusal by a national court to request a preliminary ruling when it would have been obliged to do so under the treaties and the acquis;
pozdravlja dejstvo, da se je z uporabo metode pilotskega projekta skrajšalo obdobje, potrebno za preiskovanje domnevnih kršitev, vendar meni, da mora Komisija Parlamentu pojasniti in posredovati dodatne podatke, da bo lahko presodil o uspešnosti te metode s stališča njenega dejanske spoštovanja v državah članicah;
Welcomes the shorter timeframes needed for investigating alleged infringements through use of the pilot project method, but considers that clarification and further information is needed from the Commission in order for Parliament to be able to judge the success of this method from the point of view of actual compliance by Member States;
ugotavlja, da so v odgovoru Komisije na njegovo resolucijo z dne 25. novembra 2010 omenjeni le tisti primeri Sodišča Sodbe Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-105/95,
Notes that in the Commission's reply to its resolution of 25 November 2010, reference is made only to Court cases Judgments of the General Court in Case T-105/95
WWF Združeno kraljestvo proti Komisiji
WWF UK v Commission
, [1997] ECR II-313, in zadevi T191/99,
[1997] ECR II-313 and in Case T-191/99
Petrie in drugi proti Komisiji
Petrie and Others v Commission
, ki potrjujejo potrebo po tem, da Komisija zagotavlja zaupnost dokumentov, ki se nanašajo na postopke za ugotavljanje kršitev in preiskave pred začetkom teh postopkov; opozarja Komisijo, da Sodišče v teh zadevah nikoli ni zanikalo tega, da je dostop do dokumentov mogoče utemeljiti s prevladujočim javnim interesom; dodaja še, da je varuh človekovih pravic glede izdaje dokumentov, povezanih s postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev, podal pozitivno mnenje Glej http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10096/html.bookmark.
, which would confirm the need for the Commission to ensure the confidentiality of documents which relate to infringement proceedings and pre-infringement proceeding investigations; reminds the Commission that the Court of Justice has never denied in those cases that an overriding public interest might well justify access to documents; also notes that the Ombudsman has showed a positive approach to the release of documents related to infringement procedures See http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10096/html.bookmark.
meni, da bi se lahko omogočil boljši dostop do podatkov iz dosjejev postopkov ugotavljanja kršitev, ne da bi se s tem ogrozilo namen preiskave, in da prevladujoči javni interes verjetno upravičuje dostop do njih, zlasti v primerih, ko lahko pride do škode za zdravje ljudi in nepopravljive škode za okolje; bi pozdravil olajšanje dostopa do že tako javno dostopnih podatkov iz dosjejev postopkov ugotavljanja kršitev;
Considers that greater access to information on infringement files could be provided without jeopardising the purpose of the investigation and that an overriding public interest might well justify access to these files, particularly in cases where human health and irreversible damage to the environment may be at stake; would welcome also the facilitation of access to already publicly available information on infringement files;
znova poziva Komisijo, naj oblikuje postopkovna pravila v obliki uredbe v skladu z novo pravno podlago iz člena 298 PDEU, ki določa različne vidike postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, med njimi obvestila, zavezujoče roke, pravico do zaslišanja, dolžnost obrazložitve in pravico vsake osebe do vpogleda v svoj spis, da bi tako okrepili pravice državljanov in zagotovili preglednost;
Calls therefore once again on the Commission to propose a procedural law in the form of a regulation under the new legal basis of Article 298 TFEU, setting out the various aspects of the infringement procedure, including notifications, binding time-limits, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons and the right for every person to have access to her/ his file, in order to reinforce citizens' rights and guarantee transparency;
je seznanjen, da je navzkrižje interesov organov odločanja omenjeno v mnogih peticijah, in odločno podpira sprejetje uredbe EU o upravnih postopkih, ki mora vključevati tudi splošna načela za postopke ugotavljanja kršitev;
Notes that many petitions refer to conflicts of interest among decision-makers and strongly supports the adoption of a regulation on EU administrative procedures which should also include general principles on infringement proceedings;
je seznanjen z odgovorom Komisije na prošnjo Parlamenta po oblikovanju postopkovnih pravil, v katerem je Komisija izrazila dvom o možnostih za sprejetje nove zakonodaje na osnovi člena 298 PDEU, in sicer zaradi diskrecijske pravice, ki ji je s pogodbami dodeljena za urejanje načinov vodenja postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev in z njimi povezanih dejavnosti za pravilno uporabo prava EU; je prepričan, da postopkovna pravila ne bi nikakor omejila diskrecijske pravice Komisije, temveč bi samo zagotovila, da bi Komisija pri njenem uveljavljanju spoštovala načela odprte, učinkovite in neodvisne evropske uprave, kot to določata člen 298 PDEU in člen 41 Listine EU o temeljnih pravicah.
Notes in this context the Commission's reply to Parliament's request for a procedural law in which it expresses doubts about the possibility of adopting any future regulation based on Article 298 TFEU because of the discretionary power conferred by the Treaties upon the Commission ‘to organise the way in which it manages infringement proceedings and related work to ensure the correct application of EU law’; is convinced that such a procedural law would not in any way limit the discretional power of the Commission but would only guarantee that when exercising its power the Commission would respect the principles for ‘an open, efficient and independent European administration’ as referred to in Article 298 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
pozdravlja odločitev Odbora za pravne zadeve, da vključi peticijo št. 1028/2009, ki poziva k zavezujočim predpisom za postopke ugotavljanja kršitev, v delo delovne skupine, ki jo je ustanovil na podlagi člena 298 PDEU;
Welcomes the decision of the Committee on Legal Affairs to include Petition 1028/2009 calling for binding norms on infringement proceedings in the work of the Working Group it has set up on Article 298 TFEU;