natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I en beslutning vedtaget den 9. oktober 2003 opfordrer Europa-Parlamentet Kommissionen til: "på grundlag af forslagene fremsat af den gruppe, som er omtalt i artikel 29 i direktiv 95/46/EF, straks at fastsætte, hvilke oplysninger der legitimt kan videregives af luftfartsselskaber og/eller edb-informationssystemer til tredjeparter, forudsat at:
In a resolution of 9 October 2003 European Parliament resolution of 9 October 3 2003 on transfer of personal data by airlines in the case of transatlantic flights: state of negotiations with the USA. , Parliament called on the Commission: ‘forthwith to determine, within the limits outlined by the working party set up under Directive 95/46/EC, what data may legitimately be transferred by airlines and/or computerised information systems to third parties, and under what conditions, provided that:
- der ikke diskrimineres mod personer, som ikke er amerikanske statsborgere, og oplysninger ikke opbevares ud over varigheden af en passagers ophold på amerikansk territorium,
- there is no discrimination against non-US passengers and no retention of data beyond the length of a passenger’s stay on US territory,
- passagerer bliver underrettet ved køb af deres billet og giver deres informerede samtykke til videregivelse af sådanne oplysninger til USA,
- passengers are provided with full and accurate information before purchasing their ticket and give their informed consent regarding the transfer of such data to the USA,
- passagerer har adgang til en hurtig og effektiv klageprocedure, såfremt der skulle opstå problemer".
- passengers have access to a swift and efficient appeals procedure, should any problem arise’.
I lyset af den aktuelle forhandlingssituation må man i hvert fald konstatere, at man langt fra overholder de af Europa-Parlamentet formulerede krav og den europæiske lovgivning på området.
Given the current state of negotiations, the least one can say is that Parliament’s requests and the need to comply with EU legislation in this area are far from having been met.
Siden vedtagelsen af direktiv 2002/58/EF om behandling af personoplysninger og beskyttelse af privatlivets fred i den elektroniske kommunikationssektor kan medlemsstaterne "vedtage retsforskrifter om lagring af data i en begrænset periode, hvis det er begrundet" med sikkerhedshensyn eller til brug for kriminalitetsbekæmpelse.
Since the adoption of Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, Member States are now authorised to ‘adopt legislative measures providing for the retention of data for a limited period justified’ on grounds of security and crime prevention.
Magtudvidelse for efterretningstjenesterne
Extension of powers of intelligence services
I den sammenhæng vedtog RIA-Rådet ved dets samling den 8. maj 2003 konklusioner om opsporing af brug af taletidskort til mobiltelefoner med henblik på at lette strafferetlige efterforskninger, hvori Rådet navnlig fastslår, "at indførelse i overensstemmelse med principperne for et demokratisk samfund af midler til at opspore brug af taletidskort til mobiltelefon vil give medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder bedre muligheder for at efterforske grove forbrydelser."
In this connection, at its meeting of 8 May 2003, the Council adopted conclusions on the tracing of the use of prepaid mobile telephone cards, in order to facilitate criminal investigations, in which it considers that ‘the introduction, in accordance with the principles of a democratic society, of means of tracing the use of prepaid mobile telephone cards would provide Member States’ competent authorities with better means for investigations into serious offences’.
RIA-Rådet godkendte den 6. november et operativt projekt benævnt "Multinationale ad hoc-hold til udveksling af oplysninger om terrorister".
More recently, on 6 November, the Council approved an operational project entitled ‘multinational ad hoc teams for exchanging information on terrorists - start of activities’.
"Holdene skal stadig ifølge Rådet bestå af specialister fra de myndigheder, der har ansvaret for terrorismebekæmpelse, og skal pålægges særlige opgaver, der indebærer efterforskning af påståede medlemmer af terroristgrupper og støttenetværk.
These teams will, according to the Council, ‘consist of specialists from the authorities responsible for fighting terrorism and be entrusted with the specific task of carrying out investigations into alleged members of terrorist groups and support networks’.
De vil også under overholdelse af national lovgivning kunne anvende alle eksisterende efterforskningsteknikker i forebyggende øjemed i fasen forud for begåelsen af en forbrydelse med henblik på indsamling og udveksling af information."
They will also be able to make use of the whole range of inquiry methods, with due respect for national law, for preventive and pre-judicial purposes, with a view to gathering and exchanging information.
I Det Forenede Kongerige skal "Youth Justice Board's Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme" (ISSP), der har været i kraft siden sommeren 2001, og som sætter unge under streng elektronisk overvågning, udvides til at omfatte hele landet.
In the United Kingdom, the Youth Justice Board’s Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) which has been in force since the summer of 2001, providing for close surveillance of young people, including electronic surveillance, is to be extended nationally.
I en pressemeddelelse offentliggjort den 25. juni 2003 under titlen "High-tech tools to fight crimes of tomorrow" annoncerede den britiske indenrigsminister desuden udvikling af databanker med fingeraftryk og dna-prøver for alle anholdte.
Moreover, in a media release published on 25 June 2003 and entitled ‘High-tech tools to fight crimes of tomorrow’, the British Home Secretary announced that a fingerprint and DNA database was being developed for use on all persons arrested.
"Enhver har ret til ytringsfrihed.
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
Denne ret omfatter meningsfrihed og frihed til at modtage eller meddele oplysninger eller tanker uden indblanding fra offentlig myndighed og uden hensyn til landegrænser.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
Mediefrihed og mediernes pluralisme respekteres."
The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.’
I oktober 2003 offentliggjorde Reportere Uden Grænser (RUG) deres anden liste om pressefrihed på verdensplan, som er afslørende i flere henseender.
In October 2003, Reporters without borders (RWB) published its second world freedom of the press scoreboard, which is informative in several respects.
På grundlag af denne undersøgelse baseret på oplysninger fra journalister, forskere, jurister og forkæmpere for menneskerettighederne fastslår RUG, at niveauet for pressefrihed ikke altid afhænger af et lands økonomiske udviklingsniveau.
From the survey’s findings, based on the information provided by journalists, researchers, lawyers and human rights’ activists, RWB notes that a country’s degree of freedom of the press is not necessarily related to its level of economic development.
Således ligger nogle af verdens fattigste lande såsom Benin og Madagaskar blandt de 50 første på denne liste på i alt 166 lande, hvorimod et land som Italien ligger på 53. pladsen, som det sidste af de europæiske lande.
For instance, some of the poorest countries in the world, such as Benin and Madagascar, are among the top 50 in this list of 166 countries, whereas Italy is 53rd, the worst-placed European country.
RUG har kigget nærmere på sagen omkring Italien i forbindelse med en undersøgelse benævnt "Interessekonflikter i medierne: den italienske afvigelse" Undersøgelse udgivet i april 2003. .
RWB has looked more specifically at the case of Italy in a survey entitled ‘A media conflict of interest: anomaly in Italy’ Survey published in April 2003. .
RUG minder i denne sammenhæng om, at den nuværende italienske regeringschef ikke bare står i spidsen for et medieimperium bestående af en af landets største pressekoncerner (Mondadori) og tre private tv-stationer (Mediaset), men at han som formand for Rådet desuden har store indflydelsesmuligheder på det offentlige tv i Italien (RAI).
RWB points out, in this context, that Italy’s current prime minister is not only the head of a media empire made up of one of the biggest press groups in the country (Mondadori) and three commercial television stations (Mediaset) but also has considerable power, as prime minister, to influence Italian state-owned television (RAI).
Denne magtstilling styrkes af distributionssystemet for jordfrekvenser til analoge tv-sendere, hvor den italienske forfatningsdomstol slog fast, at dette var i strid med forfatningen Dom nr. 466 af 20. november 2002, nævnt i netværksrapporten 2002. .
This hegemony is strengthened by the system of distribution of analogue terrestrial broadcasting frequencies, which was deemed incompatible with the Constitution by the Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No 466 of 20 November 2002, quoted in the 2002 network report. .
Men som RUG påpeger, deler RAI og Mediaset ca. 93 % af tv-reklameindtægterne - heraf går 63 % til Mediaset - således at "vanskeligheden ved at få adgang til markedet i lang tid fremover vil være den største hindring for, at der kan opstå nye operatører i den audiovisuelle sektor".
As indicated by RWB, RAI and Mediaset account for around 93% of TV advertising income - of which 63% is taken by Mediaset - so that ‘the difficulty of breaking into this market is likely to continue to be the main obstacle to the emergence of new broadcasters’.
Som Europarådets parlamentariske forsamling fastslog i januar 2003, findes der i Italien "en trussel for mediernes pluralisme, hvis ikke der indføres tydelige sikkerhedsforanstaltninger", hvilket desuden er et "dårligt eksempel" for de "unge demokratier."
As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated in January 2003, there is thus in Italy ‘a threat to media pluralism unless clear safeguards are in place’, and this ‘sets a poor example for young democracies’ Recommendation 1589 (2003), paragraph 12. .
For en mere tilbundsgående analyse af mediesituationen i Italien, henvises der til rapportens konklusioner.
A more detailed analysis of the media situation in Italy can therefore be found in this report.
RUG påpeger endvidere Spaniens relativt dårlige placering (42. plads).
RWB has also highlighted Spain’s relatively poor ranking (42nd).
RUG forklarer denne situation med to særskilte faktorer: På den ene side er der truslerne, som journalisterne i Baskerlandet hyppigt udsættes for, og de bliver sat under pres fra terrororganisationen ETA, som forhindrer dem i at udføre deres arbejde frit, og på den anden side findes der de forebyggende foranstaltninger inden for kampen mod terrorisme, der navnlig rettes mod den basiske avis Egunkaria, der som en sikkerhedsforanstaltning blev lukket i februar 2003.
RWB explains this situation by referring to the frequent threats against journalists in the Basque country, who are subjected to pressure from the ETA terrorist organisation, preventing them from freely carrying out their work.
Ifølge Amnesty International (AI) blev denne foranstaltning i henhold til antiterrorlovgivningen fulgt op af anholdelsen af 10 ledere, journalister og medarbejdere fra avisen på grund af deres påståede forbindelser til ETA.
RWB strongly condemns the murderous violence inflicted on journalists who do not share ETA’s pro-independence stance and recalls, in this context, that around 100 Spanish journalists are currently threatened by ETA and, as a result, are given official and private protection.
Samtlige anholdte blev holdt hemmeligt varetægtsfængslet i overensstemmelse med denne antiterrorlovgivning.
RWB nevertheless points out that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with due respect for the right to inform and to be informed.
I den anledning gentog AI sin modstand over for denne form for fængsling, som gør det lettere at behandle de fængslede dårligt.
As regards the preventive measures taken as part of action against terrorism, RWB highlights those taken against the Basque newspaper Egunkaria, which was closed down in February 2003 as a precaution.
RUG erindrer imidlertid om, at "bekæmpelsen af terrorisme skal ske under iagttagelse af retten til at give og modtage meddelelser".
On this occasion AI reiterated its opposition to this form of detention, which facilitates the use of ill-treatment.
Det er denne ret til at modtage meddelelser, som synes at være blevet krænket i forbindelse med generalstrejken i juni 2002 i Spanien.
This right to be informed would seem to have been violated during the general strike in June 2002 in Spain.
La Audiencia Nacional (centraldomstolen i Spanien for visse særlige straffe-, forvaltnings- og arbejdsretlige sager) skulle således behandle en klage indgivet af arbejdernes fagforening (CCOO) mod den store offentlige spanske tv-station TV1.
The Audiencia Nacional court was thus asked to examine a complaint lodged against TV1, the main Spanish state-owned channel by the CCOO trade union.
Denne fagforening besluttede at reagere imod den måde, hvorpå nyhedsudsendelserne fremstillede kendsgerningerne, herunder ved at benægte generalstrejken og ved næsten kun at interviewe strejkens modstandere.
This trade union had decided to protest at the way in which TV news programmes had presented events, in particular by rejecting the general strike and virtually confining interviews to opponents to the strike.
Og det bemærkelsesværdige var, at domstolene for første gang i spansk tv's historie dømte RTVE til at gå til åben bekendelse ved at udsende en pressemeddelelse om "krænkelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder for strejke og fagforeningsfrihed som følge af behandlingen af informationer under generalstrejken" Le Monde , udgave af 29.10.2003. .
It is significant that, for the first time in the history of Spanish television, the courts condemned RTVE to make amendments by issuing a news release ‘for violation of the fundamental rights to industrial action and trade union freedom, following the treatment of information during the general strike’ Le Monde , issue of 29 October 2003. .
Der er flere gange siden generalstrejken blevet rejst tvivl om de offentlige spanske tv-stationers objektivitet, navnlig i forbindelse med oliekatastrofen fra olietankeren Prestige og under Irak-konflikten.
The impartiality of Spanish state-owned channels has been challenged on several occasions since the general strike, in particular at the time of the Prestige oil spill and the Iraqi conflict.
Irak-konflikten medførte i øvrigt, at den offentlige mening på uforskammet vis blev ført bag lyset, hvilket det er vanskeligt at forbigå i tavshed, når man taler om grundlæggende rettigheder.
The war in Iraq also gave rise to a shameless deception of public opinion, which can hardly be ignored when discussing the issue of fundamental rights.
Den britiske regering gjorde sig skyldig i at videregive manipulerede informationer til pressen for at berettige udløsningen af en konflikt i Irak, hvilket er en decideret nægtelse af borgernes ret til at blive informeret om begrundelserne og spørgsmålene bag de vigtige beslutninger, deres regeringer træffer, med henblik på selv at kunne tage stilling til disse.
The way in which manipulated information was passed on to the media by the British Government in order to justify the start of the war constitutes a denial of citizens’ rights to be informed of the reasons and implications for major decisions taken by their government in order to form their own opinion.
Når man fratager vælgerne denne mulighed, kan man spørge sig selv, om ikke man er med til at undergrave et af demokratiets fundamenter.
Depriving the electorate of this possibility is surely tantamount to undermining one of the very foundations of democracy.
Det samme spørgsmål gør sig gældende i forbindelse med kildebeskyttelse.
The same question may be asked about the protection of sources.
Det Europæiske Journalistforbund fastslår således, at der er blevet vedtaget og anvendt en række juridiske bestemmelser i forbindelse med "krigen mod terrorisme", som sommetider krænker journalisternes rettigheder.
The European Federation of Journalists has noted that a whole raft of legislation has been passed and enacted in response to the ‘war against terrorism’ that directly undermines the rights of journalists.
Ifølge dette forbund, "udgør dette pres en risiko for journalisternes traditionelle rettigheder over for myndighederne, især i deres rolle som "vagthund" www.ifj-europe.org: "Beskyttelse af kilder". .
In the EFJ’s view, ‘this pressure threatens a fundamental shift in the traditional rights of journalists vis-à-vis the authorities and their ability to perform their watchdog role’ www.ifg-europe.org: ‘Protection of sources’. .
I ovennævnte henstilling Henstilling 1589 (2003), punkt 10. beklagede Europarådets parlamentariske forsamling også, at "domstolene i visse vesteuropæiske lande fortsat krænker journalisternes ret til at beskytte deres informationskilder, og dette på trods af retspraksis ved Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol" (EMRD).
In its aforementioned recommendation Recommendation 1589 (2003), paragraph 10. , the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe deplored the fact that ‘in certain West European countries, courts continue to violate the right of journalists to protect their sources of information, and this despite the case law of the European Court of Human Rights’.
EMRD afsagde i 2003 på ny en dom om krænkelse af journalistens ret til kildehemmeligholdelse og bekræfter entydigt dette princips gyldighed Sag Ernst m.v. mod Belgien (33400/96) af 15.7.2003. .
In 2003, the ECHR gave a further ruling condemning a violation of the confidentiality of a journalist’s sources and unequivocally reaffirming the validity of this principle Case of Ernst and others v. Belgium (33400/96) of 15 July 2003. .
I forbindelse med en sag for fire belgiske journalister, hvis kontorer og hjem var blevet ransaget i 1995, skulle EMRD træffe afgørelse vedrørende klagen fra sagsøgerne, der gjorde indsigelse mod de manglende oplysninger om årsagerne til, formålet med og betydningen af de af dommeren pålagte foranstaltninger.
The ECHR was asked for a ruling on an application from four Belgian journalists whose offices and homes had been searched in 1995 and who had complained that they had not been given relevant information concerning the reasons for, and aims and scope of, the measures ordered by the investigating judge.
Journalisterne havde fremført, at de omfattende ransagninger af 23. juni 1995 havde tilsidesat journalisternes ret til hemmeligholdelse af kilder i modstrid med artikel 10 i konventionen samt retten til beskyttelse af privatlivet og hjemmets fred.
They argued that the massive searches carried out on 23 June 1995 had violated the confidentiality of journalists’ sources of information, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, and their right to respect for their home and private life.
I en dom af 15. juli 2003 fandt EMRD, at de omtvistede ransagninger var et indgreb i sagsøgernes ytringsfrihed, og domstolen erindrede om, at indførelsen af begrænsninger for kildefortrolighed kræver en dybdegående undersøgelse.
In its judgment of 15 July 2003, the ECHR ruled that the searches constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and reiterated that limitations on the confidentiality of journalist sources called for the most careful scrutiny.
Det Internationale Journalistforbund (IJF) glæder sig over denne dom om beskyttelse af kilder og vurderer, at denne afgørelse vil få indvirkning på alle europæiske journalisters arbejde.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) welcomed this ruling in favour of the protection of sources, considering that this decision would have repercussions on the work of all journalists in Europe.
Den belgiske journalistforening (AGJPB) mener dog, at der er behov for at indføre en specifik lovgivning, der har til formål at beskytte kilders hemmeligholdelse.
However, the Belgian General Association of Professional Journalists felt that specific legislation to protect the confidentiality of sources would be necessary.
Den tyske forfatningsdomstol afsagde dog en dom i marts 2003, som går i retning af en ophævelse af kilders hemmeligholdelse i sager, der betragtes som "alvorlige".
The German Constitutional Court, on the other hand, delivered a judgment in March 2003 allowing the confidentiality of sources to be waived in cases deemed to be ‘serious’.
I forbindelse med to søgsmål fra tyske journalister, der havde indgivet en klage, efter at de var blevet sat under opsyn af politiet, fandt domstolen, at undersøgelsesdommeren i sådanne tilfælde kunne give politiet tilladelse til at aflytte journalisternes telefonsamtaler.
Having received two complaints from German journalists who had been placed under surveillance by the police, it considered that, in such cases, the investigating judge could authorise the police to trace journalists’ phone calls.
Som RUG helt rigtigt påpeger, er problemet, at der mangler en præcis definition af begrebet "alvorlighed", som derfor giver plads til en farlig fortolkning af loven og medfører, at journalistens undersøgelsesarbejde drages i tvivl.
As RWB rightly points out, ‘the lack of a precise definition of what constitutes a “serious” case leaves open the possibility of a dangerous interpretation of the law and a real threat to the profession of investigative journalist’.
Her er der altså en situation, der skal findes en løsning på.
This highlights a problem which would need to be remedied.
En anden situation, hvor det også vil være på sin plads at finde frem til en løsning, vedrører fastholdelsen af forældede bestemmelser på medieområdet.
Another situation which needs remedying is that resulting from the continued existence of archaic legislation on the media.
I den forbindelse afholdt RUG og OSCE's repræsentant for mediernes frihed en rundbordskonference den 24. og 25. november 2003 i Paris, hvor man vedtog henstillinger til at afkriminalisere injurier og afskaffe lovene om ærekrænkelse, som ligger til grund for mange overtrædelser af pressefriheden i Europa.
In this context, a round-table discussion was held in Paris on 24 and 25 November 2003 by RWB and the OSCE Representative for Media Freedom, at which recommendations were adopted to decriminalise defamation and abolish libel laws which are responsible for many violations of freedom of the press in Europe.
I et brev fra juni 2003 stilet til den franske justitsminister krævede RUG ophævelsen af visse lignende bestemmelser i Frankrig, nemlig presseloven fra 1881, der giver indenrigsministeren mulighed for at forbyde udbredelse, distribution og salg af publikationer på fremmedsprog eller publikationer fra udlandet affattet på fransk i Frankrig, og loven fra 1881 om ærekrænkelse af en udenlandsk statschef.
In a letter written in June 2003 to the French minister of Justice, RWB called for the repeal of some of this legislation in France: the 1881 law on the press, which allows the Minister of the Interior to ban the circulation, distribution and sale in France of foreign language publications or French language publications from abroad, and the 1881 law on offending a foreign Head of State.
Domstolen fandt nemlig, at man med denne overtrædelse ender med at give statschefer en folkeretlig status, som ikke længere er i tråd med praksis og de nuværende politiske forestillinger.
The Court considered that the application of Article 36 was liable to confer on Heads of State a special status that derogated from the general law and could not be reconciled with modern practice and political conceptions.
Appelretten i Paris omstødte imidlertid denne dom ved at erklære ærekrænkelsen i denne sag legitim.
The Paris Court of Appeal, however, reversed this judgement by proclaiming the legitimacy of the conviction under paragraph 36.