natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det første ville skadelidte med de mest alvorlige kvæstelser (dobbeltsidig lammelse osv.) ikke opnå en fyldestgørende dækning (maksimumsbeløbet er 1 mio. EUR), og for det andet ville forsikringsgiverne have et regnskabsteknisk problem med et i princippet ubegrænset erstatningsansvar.
First, accident victims with very severe injuries, such as paraplegia, would not receive sufficient cover with a maximum sum of EUR 1 million, and second, civil liability insurers would have the technical accounting problem of theoretically unlimited liability.
Kommissionens forslag gavner således ingen af parterne.
Hence the Commission proposal serves neither side.
Derfor vil det være hensigtsmæssigt dels at dække de mest alvorlige kvæstelser (med 10 mio. EUR) og dels at begrænse dækningen til dette beløb pr. ulykke.
For this reason it makes sense not only to provide cover for the severest cases, with EUR 10 million, but also to limit cover to that amount for each accident.
Det er sandsynligvis yderst sjældent, at to eller flere personer pådrager sig sådanne meget alvorlige kvæstelser ved samme ulykke.
It ought to be extremely rare for two or more cases of very severe injuries to occur in a single accident.
(Ordføreren har aldrig set eksempler på, at der ved en ulykke er forekommet to eller flere tilfælde af dobbeltsidige lammelser).
(The rapporteur has yet to hear of an accident in which two or more cases of paraplegia have occurred.)
Kommissionens forslag om mindstebeløbet for dækning ved tingsskade er ligeledes utilfredsstillende.
The Commission proposal on the minimum sum insured for damage to property is also unsatisfactory.
Ved ulykker i en tunnel, hvor der ikke kun sker skade på køretøjer, men også på selve tunnellen, ville det mindstebeløb for forsikringsdækning, som Kommissionen foreslår, kun dække en brøkdel af skaderne.
In the case of accidents in a tunnel, for instance, causing damage not only to vehicles but also to the tunnel itself, the minimum sum proposed by the Commission would only cover a fraction of the claim.
Det er en korrekt fremgangsmåde, at forslaget sondrer mellem personskade og tingsskade og opererer med mindstebeløb for forsikringsdækning for begge skadestyper.
It is right for the proposal to separate personal injury and damage to property and provide minimum sums for both.
I ekstreme tilfælde ville et samlet mindstebeløb for forsikringsdækning kunne anvendes alene til dækning af tingsskade.
In extreme cases an overall minimum sum could be depleted solely by the compensation for property damage.
Visse markeders (påståede) problemer kan løses med passende overgangsfrister.
The (alleged) problems in some markets can be solved with appropriate transitional periods.
Artikel 1, stk. 6:
Article 1, paragraph 6:
Hidtil har det ikke været muligt at få erstattet tingsskade gennem garantifondene, fordi man - med rette - frygtede bedrageri i betydeligt omfang.
The compensation of property damage by the guarantee fund has hitherto been excluded because there were, rightly, fears of substantial fraud.
Derfor skal medlemsstaterne også fremover kunne indskrænke eller udelukke erstatning af tingsskade.
So the Member States should continue to be able to restrict compensation for property damage or exclude it altogether.
Denne mulighed finder ikke anvendelse, såfremt skadelidte har lidt væsentlig personskade som følge af den pågældende ulykke, fordi ingen - ifølge forslagets ræsonnement - vil tilføje sig selv alvorlige kvæstelser for penge.
But this option should not be available if the accident victim has sustained significant personal injuries as a result of a single accident because –so runs the proposal’s argument – no one does themself significant injury for the sake of financial reward.
Kommissionens løsningsmodel er korrekt, også selv om det kan være vanskeligt at definere væsentlige personskader.
The Commission’s solution is the right one, even if the definition of significant personal injuries may cause difficulties.
Artikel 4 (ændringer af direktiv 90/232/EØF)
Article 4 (Amendments to Directive 90/232/EEC)
Artikel 4, nr. 2:
Article 4, paragraph 2:
Man må give Kommissionen medhold i, at "svage" trafikanter har behov for særlig beskyttelse.
The Commission deserves support for its view that vulnerable travellers require special protection.
Kommissionen lægger tilsyneladende op til forsikringsdækning i de tilfælde, der betegnes som risikoansvar.
It appears to be making provision for liability cover in cases which are termed liability for exposure to danger.
Risikoansvar er erstatningsansvar for skader, der opstår gennem risici, der teknisk set ikke er fuldstændig kontrollerbare, men som accepteres - f.eks. for motorkøretøjers vedkommende - ud fra almene hensyn.
This form of liability insurance is effective for claims from risks which are not wholly controllable for technical reasons, but which – as in the case of motor vehicles – it is in the general interest to allow.
Man accepterer imidlertid først og fremmest sådanne risici, som berører alle samfundsborgere, af hensyn til netop de personer, der ønsker denne accept for at forfølge egne økonomiske og sociale mål, dvs. indehavere af motorkøretøjer.
The acceptance of such risks, which no one can evade in our society, is also primarily in the interest of the person requesting it in order to pursue economic and social purposes, as in the case of a motor vehicle’s owner.
Det er indehaverne af motorkøretøjer, der har gavn af accepten, og derfor må de uafhængigt af spørgsmålet om fejl eller skyld hæfte for de skader, som uundgåeligt opstår ved brugen af et motorkøretøj ("brugsrisiko").
The owner has the benefit and must therefore, irrespective of fault, accept liability for damage inevitably arising from the operation of a motor vehicle (‘operating risk’).
Det er ikke kun fodgængere og cyklister, der er underlagt de med motorkøretøjer forbundne faremomenter, men alle tredjemænd, som ikke er brugere - herunder passagerer i køretøjet.
Not only pedestrians and cyclists, but all third parties who are not themselves drivers – including the vehicle’s passengers – cannot escape exposure to danger from motor vehicles in the reality of our society.
Bestemmelsens anvendelsesområde bør derfor omfatte alle tredjemænd, som ikke er brugere (ændringsforslag 4).
So the scope of this provision should cover all third parties who are not themselves drivers (Amendment 4).
Det er ikke tilstrækkeligt, at køretøjet blot er "involveret" i ulykken.
The ‘involvement’ of a vehicle in an accident is not sufficient.
Det bør præciseres, at ulykken er sket ved brugen af et køretøj og er blevet forårsaget heraf (ændringsforslag 4).
The text must make clear that the accident happens while a vehicle is being operated, and is caused by the vehicle (Amendment 4).
Det findes ingen saglig begrundelse for kun at lade forpligtelsen til at sørge for forsikringsdækning omfatte personskade og ikke tingsskade (ændringsforslag 4).
For practical reasons it is not possible to justify providing civil liability only for personal injury and not for damage to property (Amendment 4).
Det overlades til medlemsstaterne at tage stilling til, hvad der kan anføres mod et trafikoffer, og hvorvidt en simpel uagtsom adfærd eller først en groft uagtsom adfærd kan mindske erstatningskravet, eller om den person, der har et erstatningsansvar, kan påberåbe sig force majeure, eller at ulykken var uundgåelig.
The answer to the question as to the pleas which accident victims must allow the defence, whether mildly negligent behaviour, or only grossly irresponsible behaviour, can reduce the claim for damages, or the question whether the person required to pay compensation can appeal to a higher court or claim that the accident was an unavoidable event, continues to be left to the law of the Member States.
Det bør præciseres, at forslaget er af forsikringsretlig og ikke af erstatningsretlig karakter (ændringsforslag 4).
The text must make clear that the proposal aims to clarify insurance law and not civil liability law (Amendment 4).
Artikel 4, nr. 4 (direkte krav):
Article 4, paragraph 4 (direct right of action)
Forslaget er et velkomment initiativ.
The proposal is entirely welcome.
Der bør imidlertid gælde en fælles forældelsesfrist for direkte krav (ændringsforslag 4).
But direct right of action should be subject to a uniform period of limitation (Amendment 5).
Desuden må det præciseres med to betragtninger i såvel det fjerde som det femte direktiv om ansvarsforsikring for motorkøretøjer, at direkte krav kan gøres gældende mod forsikringsgiveren i den medlemsstat, hvor skadelidte har sin bopæl (ændringsforslag 17 og 18).
Moreover, two recitals are needed, in both the fourth and the fifth civil liability directives, to make it clear that direct action can be taken against the civil liability insurers in the Member State in which the injured party is resident (Amendments 17 and 18).
Artikel 4, nr. 4 (bureauerne for grønne kort)
Article 4, paragraph 4 (Green Card Bureaux)
Det er fuldstændig overflødigt at overlade det til de skadebehandlingsrepræsentanter, der udpeges i henhold til det fjerde direktiv om motorkøretøjsforsikring, at udføre de opgaver, som hidtil er udført af bureauerne for grønne kort.
It is quite unnecessary to extend the powers of the person responsible for the settlement of claims under the fourth civil liability directive to cases that have hitherto been settled by the Green Card bureaux.
Det er tilstrækkeligt, at de i artikel 4, stk. 6, i det fjerde direktiv om motorkøretøjsforsikring fastsatte regler om procedurer og tidsfrister også kommer til at finde anvendelse på bureauerne for grønne kort.
It is sufficient to apply the rules laid down in Article 4(6) of the fourth directive, on procedures and limitation periods, to the Green Card Bureaux as well.
Nyt forslag (ændringsforslag 7)
New proposal (Amendment 7)
Forslaget om en ny bestemmelse vedrørende aktindsigt er nødvendigt, fordi ofre for ulykker og forsikringsgiverne i mange medlemsstater først sent får adgang til ulykkesrapporter fra politiet, anklagemyndigheden eller andre myndigheder - hvis de overhovedet får adgang til disse rapporter.
The proposal for a new provision on the right to inspect documents is needed because in many Member States accident documentation by the police, public prosecutor or other authorities is not available to accident victims and insurers until a late stage – if at all.
Derved forsinkes afviklingen af skadesager.
This delays the settlement of accident claims.
De foreslåede regler kan ikke afvises under henvisning til kravet om databeskyttelse, eftersom beskyttelsen af skadelidtes interesser har forrang.
The proposed provision cannot be rejected by reference to data protection since the protection of injured parties takes precedence.
It is proposed to introduce, following this point and before the current article 4e, the following provision:
It is proposed to introduce, following this point and before the current article 4e, the following provision:
Article 4 e of the 3rd Motor Insurance directive in the version of the proposal for a 5th Motor Insurance directive:
Article 4 e of the 3 rd Motor Insurance directive in the version of the proposal for a 5 th Motor Insurance directive:
The prescription period for direct right of action in accordance with article 4 d shall be four years.
The prescription period for direct right of action in accordance with article 4 d shall be four years.
The period shall start from the date of the accident.
The period shall start from the date of the accident.
The Member States may provide for a longer prescription period.
The Member States may provide for a longer prescription period.
The prescription period for direct right of action shall be suspended when the injured party submits his claim, either directly to the insurance undertaking covering the person who caused the accident or to his claims representative.
The prescription period for direct right of action shall be suspended when the injured party submits his claim, either directly to the insurance undertaking covering the person who caused the accident or to his claims representative.
The suspension of the prescription period shall apply until the insurance company or its claims representative reject definitively totally or partially the claim for damage and inform the victim at the same time in written form or by durable electronic medium that the suspension of the prescription ends with the service of information.
The suspension of the prescription period shall apply until the insurance company or its claims representative reject definitively totally or partially the claim for damage and inform the victim at the same time in written form or by durable electronic medium that the suspension of the prescription ends with the service of information.
The prescription period shall also be suspended when the injured party submits a claim to the compensation body in the Member State in which he/she resides and until such time as the compensation body ceases to intervene (article 6, paragraph 1 of the 4th Motor Insurance directive.
The prescription period shall also be suspended when the injured party submits a claim to the compensation body in the Member State in which he/she resides and until such time as the compensation body ceases to intervene (article 6, paragraph 1 of the 4 th Motor Insurance directive.
The suspension of the prescription period shall mean that the period during which the prescription is suspended is not taken into account in the prescription period.
The suspension of the prescription period shall mean that the period during which the prescription is suspended is not taken into account in the prescription period.
The insurance undertaking covering the person who caused the accident or his claims representative must inform the injured party without delay in writing or on a durable medium of the prescription of the direct right of action once he/she has declared his/her loss or damage.
The insurance undertaking covering the person who caused the accident or his claims representative must inform the injured party without delay in writing or on a durable medium of the prescription of the direct right of action once he/she has declared his/her loss or damage.
Paragraphs 1 to 5 are applied accordingly for the direct action against the guarantee funds, the Motor Insurers Bureau (Grüne-Karte-Büro) and the competent compensation organism.”
Paragraphs 1 to 5 are applied accordingly for the direct action against the guarantee funds, the Motor Insurers Bureau (Grüne-Karte-Büro) and the competent compensation organism.’
B. Proposals to harmonise the compensation of legal costs
B. Proposals to harmonise the compensation of legal costs
a) In application of article 4 d of the 3rd Motor Insurance directive in the version of the proposal for a 5th Motor Insurance directive, Member States shall ensure that parties injured in an accident caused by a motor vehicle covered by compulsory liability insurance, have direct right of action against the insurer covering the liability of the person causing the accident.
a) In application of article 4 d of the 3 rd Motor Insurance directive in the version of the proposal for a 5 th Motor Insurance directive, Member States shall ensure that parties injured in an accident caused by a motor vehicle covered by compulsory liability insurance, have direct right of action against the insurer covering the liability of the person causing the accident.
It is proposed to complete this provision by adding the following points:
It is proposed to complete this provision by adding the following points:
This direct right of action shall also extend to compensation of legal and other costs incurred by the injured party.
This direct right of action shall also extend to compensation of legal and other costs incurred by the injured party.
Amongst these other costs are fixed general costs, medical and technical assessment costs, out-of-court and in-court lawyers' fees.
Amongst these other costs are fixed general costs, medical and technical assessment costs, out-of-court and in-court lawyers’ fees.
At all events, legal costs are reimbursed if and providing that the injured party wins.
At all events, legal costs are reimbursed if and providing that the injured party wins.
The other legal costs are only indemnified where they are appropriate.
The other legal costs are only indemnified where they are appropriate.
Such is the case if they are in a normal framework and also if they are not disproportionate to the amount of loss/damage properly so-called.
Such is the case if they are in a normal framework and also if they are not disproportionate to the amount of loss/damage properly so-called.
If the injured party and the insurer cannot agree on the appropriate nature of the legal costs incurred, the injured party may approach a court or other competent authority for settling claims which must resolve this issue in accordance with the law applicable, taking into account the letter and the spirit of this provision.
If the injured party and the insurer cannot agree on the appropriate nature of the legal costs incurred, the injured party may approach a court or other competent authority for settling claims which must resolve this issue in accordance with the law applicable, taking into account the letter and the spirit of this provision.
b) Article 4, paragraph 6, of the 4th Motor Insurance directive is modified as follows:
b) Article 4, paragraph 6, of the 4 th Motor Insurance directive is modified as follows:
After the terms "a reasoned offer of compensation", the following subordinate clause should be inserted:
After the terms ‘a reasoned offer of compensation’, the following subordinate clause should be inserted:
"which also includes compensation of the injured party's relevant legal costs.”
‘which also includes compensation of the injured party’s relevant legal costs.’
8. oktober 2003 ENDELIG A5-0347/2003
8 October 2003 FINAL A5-0347/2003
om iværksætterkultur i Europa
on entrepreneurship in Europe - Green Paper
322.026 INDHOLD
322.026 CONTENTS
Med skrivelse af 21. januar 2003 fremsendte Kommissionen sin Grønbog om iværksætterkultur i Europa ( KOM(2003) 27 ) til Europa-Parlamentet, som blev henvist til Udvalget om Industripolitik, Eksterne Økonomiske Forbindelser, Forskning og Energi og til Budgetudvalget, Udvalget om Økonomi og Valutaspørgsmål, Udvalget om Retlige Anliggender og det Indre Marked, Udvalget om Beskæftigelse og Sociale Anliggender, Udvalget om Regionalpolitik, Transport og Turisme og Udvalget om Kultur, Ungdom, Uddannelse, Medier og Sport til orientering.
By letter of 21 January 2003 the Commission forwarded to Parliament its Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe ( COM(2003) 27 ), which had been referred to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport for information.
På mødet den 4. september 2003 meddelte Parlamentets formand, at Udvalget om Industripolitik, Eksterne Økonomiske Forbindelser, Forskning og Energi havde fået tilladelse til at udarbejde en initiativbetænkning om dette emne, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 47, stk. 2, og 163, og at Budgetudvalget, Udvalget om Økonomi og Valutaspørgsmål, Udvalget om Retlige Anliggender og det Indre Marked, Udvalget om Beskæftigelse og Sociale Anliggender, Udvalget om Regionalpolitik, Transport og Turisme og Udvalget om Kultur, Ungdom, Uddannelse, Medier og Sport var udpeget til rådgivende udvalg.
At the sitting of 4 September 2003 the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy had been authorised to draw up an own-initiative report on the subject under Rules 47(2) and 163 and the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport had been asked for their opinions.
På mødet den 20. marts 2003 havde Udvalget om Industripolitik, Eksterne Økonomiske Forbindelser, Forskning og Energi valgt Werner Langen til ordfører.
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy had appointed Werner Langen rapporteur at its meeting of 20 March 2003.
På møder den 10. juni, 9. juli, 26. august og 7. oktober 2003 behandlede udvalget udkastet til betænkning.
The committee considered the draft report at its meetings of 10 June, 9 July, 26 August and 7 October 2003.
På sidstnævnte møde vedtog det forslaget til beslutning (for: 41; imod: 4).
At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 41 votes to 4.
Til stede under afstemningen var: Luis Berenguer Fuster (formand), Peter Michael Mombaur og Yves Piétrasanta (næstformænd), Werner Langen (ordfører), Gordon J. Adam (for Massimo Carraro), Nuala Ahern, Marco Cappato, Gérard Caudron, Nicholas Clegg, Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, Marie-Hélène Descamps (for Sir Robert Atkins), Den Dover (for Giles Bryan Chichester, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Francesco Fiori (for Guido Bodrato), Christos Folias (for Concepció Ferrer), Neena Gill (for Rolf Linkohr), Norbert Glante, Michel Hansenne, Hans Karlsson, Dimitrios Koulourianos (for Konstantinos Alyssandrakis), Caroline Lucas, Eryl Margaret McNally, Erika Mann, Marjo Matikainen-Kallström, Ana Clara Maria Miranda de Lage, Elizabeth Montfort, Bill Newton Dunn (for Elly Plooij-van Gorsel), Angelika Niebler, Giuseppe Nisticò (for Umberto Scapagnini), Seán Ó Neachtain, Reino Paasilinna, Paolo Pastorelli, José Javier Pomés Ruiz (for Jaime Valdivielso de Cué, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Imelda Mary Read, Mechtild Rothe, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Paul Rübig, Konrad K. Schwaiger, Esko Olavi Seppänen, Claude Turmes, W.G. van Velzen, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto, Myrsini Zorba og Olga Zrihen Zaari.
The following were present for the vote: Luis Berenguer Fuster, chairman; Peter Michael Mombaur and Yves Piétrasanta, vice-chairmen; Werner Langen, rapporteur; Gordon J. Adam (for Massimo Carraro), Nuala Ahern, Marco Cappato, Gérard Caudron, Nicholas Clegg, Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, Marie-Hélène Descamps (for Sir Robert Atkins), Den Dover (for Giles Bryan Chichester pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Francesco Fiori (for Guido Bodrato), Christos Folias (for Concepció Ferrer), Neena Gill (for Rolf Linkohr), Norbert Glante, Michel Hansenne, Hans Karlsson, Dimitrios Koulourianos (for Konstantinos Alyssandrakis), Caroline Lucas, Eryl Margaret McNally, Erika Mann, Marjo Matikainen-Kallström, Ana Clara Maria Miranda de Lage, Elizabeth Montfort, Bill Newton Dunn (for Elly Plooij-van Gorsel), Angelika Niebler, Giuseppe Nisticò (for Umberto Scapagnini), Seán Ó Neachtain, Reino Paasilinna, Paolo Pastorelli, José Javier Pomés Ruiz (for Jaime Valdivielso de Cué pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Imelda Mary Read, Mechtild Rothe, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Paul Rübig, Konrad K. Schwaiger, Esko Olavi Seppänen, Claude Turmes, W.G. van Velzen, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto, Myrsini Zorba and Olga Zrihen Zaari.
FORSLAG TIL EUROPA-PARLAMENTETS BESLUTNING om iværksætterkultur i Europa ( KOM(2003) 27 - 2003/2161(INI))
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on entrepreneurship in Europe - Green Paper ( COM(2003) 27 - 2003/2161(INI))
– der henviser til Kommissionens grønbog om iværksætterkultur i Europa ( KOM(2003) 27 ) Endnu ikke offentliggjort i EUT. ,
– having regard to the European Commission's Green Paper on entrepreneurship in Europe ( COM(2003) 27 ) Not yet published in OJ ,
– der henviser til artikel II-16 i udkast til traktat om en forfatning for Europa (frihed til at oprette og drive egen virksomhed),
– having regard to Article II-16 (Freedom to conduct a business) of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,