natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the sitting of 16 November 2006 the President of the European Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Mario Borghezio, MEP, by letter of 8 November 2006, which was duly forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
At the sitting of 16 November 2006 the President of the European Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Mario Borghezio, MEP, by letter of 8 November 2006, which was duly forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The request relates to a civil claim for damages in connection with statements of Mr Mario Borghezio that were published in the press.
The request relates to a civil claim for damages in connection with statements of Mr Mario Borghezio that were published in the press.
The claimant is magistrate at the Civil Court of L’Aquila and seeks to claim compensation for the damage caused to his personal and professional reputation, honour, status and personal dignity by a series of statements, reported in the press, by several politicians of various political background; all of these statements were made in relation to a ruling by the complainant of 22 October 2003 concerning the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of nursery schools and primary schools.
The claimant is magistrate at the Civil Court of L’Aquila and seeks to claim compensation for the damage caused to his personal and professional reputation, honour, status and personal dignity by a series of statements, reported in the press, by several politicians of various political background; all of these statements were made in relation to a ruling by the complainant of 22 October 2003 concerning the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of nursery schools and primary schools.
As regards statements by Mario Borghezio, Il Messaggero of 29 October 2003 (Abruzzo edition, p.
As regards statements by Mario Borghezio, Il Messaggero of 29 October 2003 (Abruzzo edition, p.
34, under the heading ‘We’ll take down the cross today’) published a statement by Mario Borghezio in which, amongst other things, he says: " Judge Montanaro’s ruling is judicial idiocy, a serious attack on the republic, an episode which proves not only that the number of Islamists has grown exponentially but that they are interfering in our national traditions, even in schools ’.
34, under the heading ‘We’ll take down the cross today’) published a statement by Mario Borghezio in which, amongst other things, he says: " Judge Montanaro’s ruling is judicial idiocy, a serious attack on the republic, an episode which proves not only that the number of Islamists has grown exponentially but that they are interfering in our national traditions, even in schools ’.
The claim seeks compensation in a civil proceeding for damage caused by any pecuniary loss resulting from damage to reputation, under Article 2043 CC, for moral prejudice (including ‘moral prejudice’ as pecunia doloris ) meeting the conditions of Article 2059 CC and for a further type of damage, which consists of an attack on and damage to ‘values’ which are protected, i.e. to ‘ personal reputation (in the sense of the reputation an individual has as a human being, in other words honour and status’) (‘injury damage’ ).
The claim seeks compensation in a civil proceeding for damage caused by any pecuniary loss resulting from damage to reputation, under Article 2043 CC, for moral prejudice (including ‘moral prejudice’ as pecunia doloris ) meeting the conditions of Article 2059 CC and for a further type of damage, which consists of an attack on and damage to ‘values’ which are protected, i.e. to ‘ personal reputation (in the sense of the reputation an individual has as a human being, in other words honour and status’) (‘injury damage’ ).
The Court is hereby requested:
The Court is hereby requested:
1) to declare and ascertain that the defendants have infringed the right of the claimant to a personal and professional reputation, and to honour, status and personal dignity;
1) to declare and ascertain that the defendants have infringed the right of the claimant to a personal and professional reputation, and to honour, status and personal dignity;
2) to order each defendant to provide pecuniary redress and compensation for all the damage done to the claimant, as specified above, for a minimum amount of €100 000 (one hundred thousand €) or whatever the court deems equitable, also under Article 1226 of the Civil Code;
2) to order each defendant to provide pecuniary redress and compensation for all the damage done to the claimant, as specified above, for a minimum amount of €100 000 (one hundred thousand €) or whatever the court deems equitable, also under Article 1226 of the Civil Code;
3) to order the publication of the decision in one or more newspapers, under Article 120 CCP,
3) to order the publication of the decision in one or more newspapers, under Article 120 CCP,
TEXTS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
TEXTS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 read as follows:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 read as follows:
"Rule 6 Waiver of immunity:
"Rule 6 Waiver of immunity:
"Rule 7 Procedure on immunity:
"Rule 7 Procedure on immunity:
Since its first five-year legislative period, the European Parliament has ruled on a number of requests for waiver of immunity.
Since its first five-year legislative period, the European Parliament has ruled on a number of requests for waiver of immunity.
From Parliament's debates on these requests some general principles have emerged which were given definitive recognition in the resolution adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 10 March 1987
From Parliament's debates on these requests some general principles have emerged which were given definitive recognition in the resolution adopted by Parliament at its sitting of 10 March 1987
OJ C 99, 13.4.1987, p.44. .
OJ C 99, 13.4.1987, p.44. .
These were based on the report by Mr Donnez on the draft protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities in respect of Members of the European Parliament ( A2-121/86 ).
These were based on the report by Mr Donnez on the draft protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities in respect of Members of the European Parliament ( A2-121/86 ).
It is worth briefly recapitulating some of these principles which are relevant in the present case:
It is worth briefly recapitulating some of these principles which are relevant in the present case:
(a) Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted for the benefit of an individual Member of Parliament, but a guarantee of Parliament's independence and that of its members vis-à-vis other institutions.
(a) Parliamentary immunity is not a privilege granted for the benefit of an individual Member of Parliament, but a guarantee of Parliament's independence and that of its members vis-à-vis other institutions.
(b) Parliamentary immunity exists to protect Members' freedom of expression and freedom of political debate.
(b) Parliamentary immunity exists to protect Members' freedom of expression and freedom of political debate.
Parliament's competent committee has therefore consistently held that it is a fundamental principle that in all cases where the acts of the Member standing accused form part of his or her political activity or are directly related to such activity, immunity will not be waived.
Parliament's competent committee has therefore consistently held that it is a fundamental principle that in all cases where the acts of the Member standing accused form part of his or her political activity or are directly related to such activity, immunity will not be waived.
This includes, for example, expressions of opinion deemed to be covered by a Member's political activity made at demonstrations, at public meetings, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, by signing a political tract and even in a court of law.
This includes, for example, expressions of opinion deemed to be covered by a Member's political activity made at demonstrations, at public meetings, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, by signing a political tract and even in a court of law.
(c) This principle is taken together with other arguments for or against the waiver of immunity, particularly "fumus persecutionis", i.e. the presumption that the prosecution originates in an intention to cause prejudice to the Member's political activities.
(c) This principle is taken together with other arguments for or against the waiver of immunity, particularly "fumus persecutionis", i.e. the presumption that the prosecution originates in an intention to cause prejudice to the Member's political activities.
As it is defined in the explanatory statement of the Donnez report the concept of " fumus persecutionis " means, in essence, that immunity is not waived where the suspicion exists that the prosecution is based on an intention to prejudice the Member's political activities.
As it is defined in the explanatory statement of the Donnez report the concept of " fumus persecutionis " means, in essence, that immunity is not waived where the suspicion exists that the prosecution is based on an intention to prejudice the Member's political activities.
For instance, where proceedings are brought by a political adversary, in the absence of evidence to the contrary immunity will not be waived in so far as the proceedings have to be regarded as intended to harm the Member concerned and not to obtain reparation for damage.
For instance, where proceedings are brought by a political adversary, in the absence of evidence to the contrary immunity will not be waived in so far as the proceedings have to be regarded as intended to harm the Member concerned and not to obtain reparation for damage.
Likewise, where proceedings are brought in circumstances such as to suggest that they have been initiated solely in order to harm the Member concerned, immunity will not be waived.
Likewise, where proceedings are brought in circumstances such as to suggest that they have been initiated solely in order to harm the Member concerned, immunity will not be waived.
According to Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure the Committee's proposal for a decision should simply recommend the adoption or rejection of the request for the defence of immunity and privileges.
According to Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure the Committee's proposal for a decision should simply recommend the adoption or rejection of the request for the defence of immunity and privileges.
The present case has to be examined under Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in connection with the above mentioned principles.
The present case has to be examined under Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in connection with the above mentioned principles.
Article 9 states that "Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties".
Article 9 states that "Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties".
That absolute immunity only applies to "opinions expressed or votes cast by [Members] in the performance of their duties".
That absolute immunity only applies to "opinions expressed or votes cast by [Members] in the performance of their duties".
This provision protects Members not only against criminal proceedings but also against civil proceedings in connection with the expression of an opinion in the performance of their duties, in particular when the amount of the compensation for damages sought is significantly high
This provision protects Members not only against criminal proceedings but also against civil proceedings in connection with the expression of an opinion in the performance of their duties, in particular when the amount of the compensation for damages sought is significantly high
see European Parliament Decisions of 1 July 2003 ( A5-0243/2003 ), 23 September 2003 ( A5-0309/2003 ), 16 December 2003 ( A5-0421/2003 ), 18 March 2004 ( A5-0185/2004 ) and 23 November 2005 ( A6-0331/2005 ) .
see European Parliament Decisions of 1 July 2003 ( A5-0243/2003 ), 23 September 2003 ( A5-0309/2003 ), 16 December 2003 ( A5-0421/2003 ), 18 March 2004 ( A5-0185/2004 ) and 23 November 2005 ( A6-0331/2005 ) .
Parliament has consistently taken it as a fundamental principle that immunity may on no account be waived in cases in which the acts of which a Member stands accused were carried out in the performance of his or her political duties as a Member of the European Parliament or were directly related to such duties
Parliament has consistently taken it as a fundamental principle that immunity may on no account be waived in cases in which the acts of which a Member stands accused were carried out in the performance of his or her political duties as a Member of the European Parliament or were directly related to such duties
see the case concerning the immunity of N.J.Camre, decision of 1 July 2003, 2002/2249(IMM) . .
see the case concerning the immunity of N.J.Camre, decision of 1 July 2003, 2002/2249(IMM) . .
The same principles must apply in the case of a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity
The same principles must apply in the case of a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity
Applying these principles, it should be noted that, when Mr Mario Borghezio expressed his opinion that was published in the press ( Il Messaggero of 29 October 2003) in relation to a judgment of the Civil Court of L’Aquila, he was acting as a politician in the context of a political discussion about the question of the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of nursery schools and primary schools in Italy.
Applying these principles, it should be noted that, when Mr Mario Borghezio expressed his opinion that was published in the press ( Il Messaggero of 29 October 2003) in relation to a judgment of the Civil Court of L’Aquila, he was acting as a politician in the context of a political discussion about the question of the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of nursery schools and primary schools in Italy.
Even though this discussion had a national background, he cannot be said not to have acted in "the performance of his duties" as a Member of the European Parliament.
Even though this discussion had a national background, he cannot be said not to have acted in "the performance of his duties" as a Member of the European Parliament.
It appears from an analysis of the article in question that Mr Borghezio was merely commenting on a matter of public interest.
It appears from an analysis of the article in question that Mr Borghezio was merely commenting on a matter of public interest.
In so doing, he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
In so doing, he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Borghezio be defended.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Borghezio be defended.
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Mario Borghezio
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Mario Borghezio
Request for defence of immunity from* Date of request Date announced in plenary *In one language only
Request for defence of immunity from* Date of request Date announced in plenary *In one language only
Mario Borghezio 8.11.2006 16.11.2006
Mario Borghezio 8.11.2006 16.11.2006
JURI 16.11.2006
JURI 16.11.2006
Aloyzas Sakalas 18.12.2006
Aloyzas Sakalas 18.12.2006
8 5 0
8 5 0
Carlo Casini, Cristian Dumitrescu, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Manuel Medina Ortega, Hartmut Nassauer, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Diana Wallis, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Carlo Casini, Cristian Dumitrescu, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Manuel Medina Ortega, Hartmut Nassauer, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Diana Wallis, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Gintaras Didžiokas, Eugenijus Maldeikis
Gintaras Didžiokas, Eugenijus Maldeikis
PE 386.528v03-00
PE 386.528v03-00
ПРОЕКТ НА ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛНА РЕЗОЛЮЦИЯ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ....5
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION............................5
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................11
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.....................................................................................11
относно предложението за регламент на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно относно общностна програма за етикетиране съобразно с енергийната ефективност на офисното оборудване (преработено)
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment (recast)
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията към Европейския парламент и към Съвета ( COM(2006)0576 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2006)0576 )
– като взе предвид член 251, параграф 2 и член 175, параграф 1 от Договора за ЕО, съгласно които предложението му е представено от Комисията ( C6‑0329/2006 ),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0329/2006 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисия по промишленост, изследвания и енергетика ( A6‑0234/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0234/2007 ),
(3) Improving the energy efficiency of office equipment contributes to improving the competitiveness of the Community and the security of its energy supply and to protecting the environment.
(3) Improving the energy efficiency of office equipment contributes to improving the competitiveness of the Community and the security of its energy supply and to protecting the environment.
(3) Подобряването на енергийната ефективност на офисното оборудване допринася за подобряване на конкурентноспособността на Общността и сигурността на нейните енергийни доставки, както и за защитата на околната среда и потребителите.
(3) Improving the energy efficiency of office equipment contributes to improving the competitiveness of the Community and the security of its energy supply and to protecting the environment and consumers .
It has to be made clear that apart from the overall energy and environmental benefit, the consumer has a strong motive to choose energy efficient office equipment, also because of the important financial benefit resulting from the reduction of energy consumption the consumer has to pay for.
It has to be made clear that apart from the overall energy and environmental benefit, the consumer has a strong motive to choose energy efficient office equipment, also because of the important financial benefit resulting from the reduction of energy consumption the consumer has to pay for.
(13) The Energy Star label is used worldwide.
(13) The Energy Star label is used worldwide.
In order to influence the requirements of the Energy Star labelling scheme, the Community should participate in this labelling scheme and in drawing up the necessary technical specifications.
In order to influence the requirements of the Energy Star labelling scheme, the Community should participate in this labelling scheme and in drawing up the necessary technical specifications.
When setting the technical criteria together with the US Environmental Protection Agency the Commission should aim at ambitious levels of energy efficiency.
When setting the technical criteria together with the US Environmental Protection Agency the Commission should aim at ambitious levels of energy efficiency.
(13) Етикетът „Енергийна звезда“ се използва в световен мащаб.
(13) The Energy Star label is used worldwide.
За да може да оказва влияние върху изискванията на схемата за етикетиране „Енергийна звезда“, Общността следва да участва в гореспоменатата схема за етикетиране и в изготвянето на необходимите технически спецификации.
In order to influence the requirements of the Energy Star labelling scheme, the Community should participate in this labelling scheme and in drawing up the necessary technical specifications.
При определянето на технически критерии, съвместно с Агенцията за защита на околната среда на САЩ, Комисията следва да се стреми към високо равнище на енергийна ефективност, с оглед на общностната политика за енергийна ефективност и нейните цели в тази област.
When setting the technical criteria together with the US Environmental Protection Agency the Commission should aim at ambitious levels of energy efficiency , in view of the Community's policy of energy efficiency and its energy-efficiency targets .
Energy efficiency is one of European Union’s main energy policies expressed in numerous EC documents.
Energy efficiency is one of European Union’s main energy policies expressed in numerous EC documents.
The Energy Star regulation must be tuned to the abovementioned energy efficiency policies and targets set by the EU.
The Energy Star regulation must be tuned to the abovementioned energy efficiency policies and targets set by the EU.
The decision to authorise an applicant to become a programme participant shall be taken by the Commission, after verifying that the applicant has agreed to comply with the Common Logo user guideline contained in Annex B to the Agreement.
The decision to authorise an applicant to become a programme participant shall be taken by the Commission, after verifying that the applicant has agreed to comply with the Common Logo user guideline contained in Annex B to the Agreement.
The Commission shall publish on the internet an updated list of programme participants.
The Commission shall publish on the internet an updated list of programme participants.
Решението да се разреши на определен кандидат да стане участник в програмата се взема от Комисията, след като се установи, че кандидатът е съгласен да спазва указанията за използване на „Общо лого“, съдържащи се в Приложение Б към Споразумението.
The decision to authorise an applicant to become a programme participant shall be taken by the Commission, after verifying that the applicant has agreed to comply with the Common Logo user guideline contained in Annex B to the Agreement.
Комисията публикува в интернет актуализиран списък на участниците в програмата и го съобщава редовно на държавите-членки.
The Commission shall publish on the internet an updated list of programme participants and shall transmit it to the Member States regularly.
Notifying Member States of the participants of the Programme is an easy and very low cost action (e.g. sending an e-mail with the list of participants attached), but is possibly an action with great impact on keeping the Member States updated and aware.
Notifying Member States of the participants of the Programme is an easy and very low cost action (e.g. sending an e-mail with the list of participants attached), but is possibly an action with great impact on keeping the Member States updated and aware.