natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I de fleste tilfælde fandt Parlamentet, at der var tale om hindring af den politiske virksomhed (BRIE), tegn på misbrug i retsforfølgelsen og anklagerens adfærd (MARCHIANI-sagerne), eller at medlemmet blev retsforfulgt, fordi han var medlem af Parlamentet (KORAKAS' sag).
In most cases Parliament found perturbation of a political activity (BRIE), abusive elements in the prosecution process and the conduct of the prosecutor ( MARCHIANI cases), or the consideration that the Member was judicially attacked because he was a MEP ( KORACAS case).
Udvalget skal på den ene side afveje den mistanke, som medlemmet har kastet over de beskyldninger, som de tjekkiske myndigheder har fremsat mod ham, og på den anden side den kendsgerning, at Senatet allerede har ophævet hans immunitet i samme sag, og alle de tilfredsstillende svar og forsikringer, der er blevet afgivet af det tjekkiske justitsministerium, som har samarbejdet fuldstændigt med Retsudvalget.
The committee has to weigh, on one hand, the suspicion cast by the Member on the accusations brought against him by the Czech authorities, and, on the other hand, the fact that the Senate has already waived his immunity in the same case and all the satisfactory responses and assurances furnished by the Minister of Justice, which has fully collaborated with the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Ikke desto mindre er der, som påpeget af dr. Železný, visse aspekter ved sagen (en noget uforholdsmæssig reaktion fra politiets side ved hans arrest, den temmelig uafklarede situation i forbindelse med den anden hovedanklagede, Novotný, en vis politichikane og retssagens varighed), der har krævet en grundig undersøgelse i Udvalget, men som ovenfor nævnt har svaret fra Senatet og forklaringerne fra justitsministeriet gjort ordføreren tilbøjelig til at råde Parlamentet til at ophæve dr. Železnýs immunitet.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Desuden er ingen af de kriterier, der nævnes i punkt 6 og 7 i denne begrundelse, blevet klart påvist i denne sag, hvilket gør det meget vanskeligt at bedømme, om der foreligger fumus persecutionis .
Moreover, none of the criteria set out in point 6 and 7 of this explanatory statement has been clearly established in the present case, which makes it very difficult to appreciate whether there is a fumus persecutionis .
Det er i Parlamentets interesse at anvende princippet om fumus persecutionis med stor forsigtighed, så det ikke betragtes som et parlamentsmedlems privilegium, men som en garanti for Parlamentets uafhængighed.
It is in the interest of Parliament to use the fumus principle very carefully so it is not seen as a privilege of the parliamentarian but a guarantee of Parliament's independence.
I denne komplekse sag kunne det være i Parlamentets interesse at give dr. Železný mulighed for at forsvare sig i de sager, der rejses mod ham.
In this complex case it might be in Parliament interest to allow Dr Zelezný to defend himself in the cases brought against him.
I betragtning af sagens indviklede karakter kunne det imidlertid også være nødvendigt for Parlamentet at sikre dr. Železnýs situation, således at retsforfølgelsen af ham ikke hindrer hans arbejde som MEP.
But, also, and given the convoluted nature of the case, it might be necessary for Parliament to secure the situation of Dr Zelezný so that the proceedings against him do not perturb his work as an MEP.
Karakteren af de forhold, han anklages for, synes ikke at nødvendiggøre sådanne sikkerhedsforanstaltninger.
It does not seem that the nature of the counts brought against him would need such a precautionary measures.
For at sikre, at han ikke hindres i at udføre sit arbejde som medlem af Parlamentet under sin retsforfølgelse, kan Parlamentet bruge den ret, som artikel 7, stk. 4, i forretningsordenen undtagelsesvis giver det.
With a view to ensure that his work as a parliamentarian is not perturbed during the proceedings brought against him, Parliament may use the right exceptionally granted by Rule 7 (4) of the Rules of Procedure.
Det må gøres absolut klart, at dette udelukker enhver form for frihedsberøvelse eller anden foranstaltning, der forhindrer ham i at varetage sit hverv som medlem af Parlamentet, men kun indtil domstolen afsiger sin endelige dom.
It has to be absolutely clear that this precludes any form of detention or any other measure which prevents the Member from performing his duties as a parliamentarian but only until final judgment is given by the Court.
Det vil sige, at når først den endelig dom er afsagt i denne sag, må dr. Železný underkaste sig den på samme måde som enhver anden borger, uden at der er behov for igen at anmode om ophævelse af hans immunitet.
It means that once final judgment is passed in this case, Dr Zelesný will have to face it in the same way as any other citizen without there be any need to request again the waive of his immunity.
Virkningen af artikel 7, stk. 4, i forretningsordenen er, at immuniteten ophæves, og retssagen således kan gå videre, men at der ikke er mulighed for at gennemføre nogen foranstaltning, der kan hindre medlemmet i at udøve sit hverv, før der afsiges endelig dom.
The effect of Rule 7 (4) is that immunity is waived and so the proceedings may go on, but no measure hampering the Member from performing his duties is allowed until the final sentence is passed.
Endelig dom omfatter også enhver form for appel, indtil alle appelmuligheder er udtømt.
Final sentence also covers any appeal until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.
På grundlag af ovenstående betragtninger, jf. artikel 7, stk. 1 og 2 i forretningsordenen, og efter at have overvejet argumenterne for og imod ophævelse af immunitet, anbefaler Retsudvalget, at Parlamentet ophæver Vladimír Železnýs parlamentariske immunitet, under den forudsætning at ophævelsen af den parlamentariske immunitet udelukkende skal vedrøre den strafferetlige forfølgelse, og at dr. Železný, så længe der ikke er afsagt endelig dom, ikke kan udsættes for nogen form for frihedsberøvelse, fængsling eller anden foranstaltning, der ville forhindre ham i at varetage sit mandat.
In the light of the above considerations, pursuant Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for and against waiving immunity, the JURI recommends that the EP waive Mr Vladimir Zelezný's parliamentary immunity, subject to the condition that the waiver of immunity shall apply solely to the prosecution proceedings and that, until such time as final sentence is given, Dr Zelesný must be immune from any form of detention or remand or any other measure which prevents him from performing the duties attaching to his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament.
Anmodning om ophævelse af Vladimír Železný’ immunitet
Request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný
Anmodning om ophævelse af immunitet Fremsendt af Dato for anmodningen Dato for meddelelse på plenarmødet
Request for waiver from Date of request Date announced in plenary
Prague Metropolitan Court 30.8.2004 13.9.2004
Prague Metropolitan Court 30.8.2004 13.9.2004
− der henviser til anmodning af 27. august 2004 (sag nr. KZv 2153/2001-2728) fra anklagemyndigheden i Prag om ophævelse af Vladimír Železnýs immunitet, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 16. december 2004,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný in file number KZv 2153/2001-2728, forwarded by Prague Public Prosecutor on 27 August 2004, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 December 2004,
− der henviser til Vladimír Železnýs anmodning om beskyttelse af immunitet i forbindelse med en straffesag, der er rejst af anklagemyndigheden i Prag - der blev givet meddelelse om denne anmodning på plenarmødet den 16. november 2004,
– having regard to the request to defend his immunity presented by Vladimír Železný in connection with criminal proceedings brought by the Prague Public Prosecutor, and announced in plenary sitting on of 16 November 2004,
− der i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3, har hørt Vladimír Železný, som anmodede om, at hans parlamentariske immunitet ikke blev ophævet,
– having heard Vladimír Železný in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure, who requested that his parliamentary immunity not be waived,
− der henviser til artikel 10 i protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende Det Europæiske Fællesskabs privilegier og immuniteter samt artikel 6, stk. 2, i akten af 20. september 1976 om almindelige direkte valg af medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet,
– having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
− der henviser til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstols domme af 12. maj 1964 og 10. juli 1986
– having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986
− der henviser til artikel 27 i Den Tjekkiske Republiks forfatning,
– having regard to Article 27 of the constitution of the Czech Republic,
− der henviser til forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2, og artikel 7,
– having regard to Rules 6(2) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
− der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6‑0290/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0290/2005 ),
2. pålægger sin formand straks at sende denne afgørelse og det kompetente udvalgs betænkning til Den Tjekkiske Republiks kompetente myndighed.
Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of the committee responsible to the appropriate authority of the Czech Republic.
På mødet den 16. december 2004 meddelte formanden, at han havde modtaget en skrivelse fra anklagemyndigheden i Prag med en anmodning om ophævelse af dr. Vladimír Železnýs parlamentariske immunitet i forbindelse med sag nr. KZv 2153/2001-2728 i anklagemyndighedens register.
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný, in respect of file number KZv 2153/2001-2728 in the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
I overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2, henviste formanden anmodningen til Retsudvalget.
In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Anmodningen blev forelagt Parlamentets formand af anklagemyndigheden i Prag.
The application (suplicatoire) was submitted by the Prague Public Prosecutor to the President of Parliament.
Retsudvalget fastslog i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 7, at anklagemyndigheden i Prag havde kompetence til at indgive en sådan anmodning.
Pursuant to Rule 7(7) the Committee on Legal Affairs considered that the Prague Public Prosecutor was the appropriate authority to submit the application.
Anklagemyndigheden anmoder om ophævelse af parlamentarisk immunitet i forbindelse med den ovennævnte sag under henvisning til, at dr. Železný formodes at have begået handlinger, der har karakter af bedrageri over for en kreditor i 1999 og 2000.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting fraud on a creditor in 1999 and 2000.
Han formodes at "have begået de strafbare handlinger sammen med andre personer i den hensigt at forhindre opfyldelse af en fordring fra CME Media Enterprises B.V."
He is believed to "have committed the criminal acts jointly with other persons with the intention of frustrating satisfaction of a claim of CME Media Enterprises B.V."
Anmodningen indeholder en detaljeret redegørelse for de handlinger, der har givet anledning til den foreliggende straffesag, og som vedrører artikel 256, stk. 1, litra c), og 256, stk. 4, i den tjekkiske straffelov eller udgør et forsøg på at begå en sådan forbrydelse i henhold til den tjekkiske straffelovs artikel 8, stk. 1.
The application explains in detail the acts which have given rise to the prosecution in question and relate to Section 256 (1), item c), 256 (4) of the Criminal Code of the Czech Republic or an attempt to commit such crime under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Code.
Anmodningen indeholder en detaljeret redegørelse for de nærmere omstændigheder ved straffesagen mod dr. Železný (Meddelelse til Medlemmerne 1/2005).
The application explains in detail the circumstances of Dr Zelezný's prosecution (Notice to Members 1/ 2005 ) .
I anmodningen understreges det, at dr. Vladimír Železný i november 2002 under straffesagen blev valgt ind i det tjekkiske Senat.
In the application it is stressed that, in November 2002, during the criminal prosecution, Dr. Vladimir Zelezný was elected a Senator of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
Efter anmodning fra den politimyndighed, der stod for efterforskningen, gav det tjekkiske Senat sit samtykke til straffesagen mod dr. Železný i januar 2003.
Following the request of the police in charge of the investigation, the Senate granted its consent to the criminal prosecution of Dr Zelezný in January 2003.
I henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3, blev dr. Železný hørt af Retsudvalget.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezný was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Ved denne høring forklarede dr. Železný udvalget, hvordan han opfattede sin situation i hjemlandet.
At this hearing Dr Zelezný informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
Det tjekkiske Senat ophævede tilsyneladende dr. Železnýs parlamentariske immunitet for de samme handlinger som dem, der udgør begrundelsen for den foreliggende anmodning.
The Senate waived the parliamentary immunity of Mr Zelezný apparently for the same acts as those considered at the present request.
Under høringen i udvalget forklarede dr. Železný, at han havde været udsat for politisk chikane og offentlig intimidering i de sidste seks år.
At his appearance, Dr Zelezný declared that he had been a victim of political harassment and public intimidation for the last six years.
Han henviste også til to af de sager, som politiet i øjeblikket efterforsker (den første sag er omhandlet i denne betænkning).
He also mentioned two of the cases that the police is currently investigating (the first of them is dealt with in this report).
I sin skriftlige redegørelse påpeger dr. Železný, at politiets efterforskning om ham med overlæg er blevet trukket i langdrag i årevis som led i en strategi for at forhindre politiske modstandere i at udøve fair politisk konkurrence.
In his written declaration, Dr. Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Justitsministeren har besvaret en række spørgsmål fra Retsudvalget og har i denne forbindelse givet en forklaring på de fleste bemærkninger fra dr. Železný og har samtidig erklæret sig for overbevist om, at de myndigheder, der står for straffesagen mod dr. Železný, har handlet efter loven og ikke på nogen måde har ladet sig påvirke af regeringen eller dens medlemmer.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, explains most of the observations made by Dr Zelezný and expressed its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
Det er som nævnt i afsnit II C således conditio sine qua non for at ophæve immuniteten , at der ikke foreligger nogen form for fumus persecutionis.
The non existence of any fumus is conditio sine qua non for waiving immunity. as mentioned in Part II C.
Ikke desto mindre er der, som påpeget af dr. Železný, visse aspekter ved sagen (en noget uforholdsmæssig reaktion fra politiets side ved hans arrest, den temmelig uafklarede situation i forbindelse med den anden hovedanklagede, Novotný, en vis politichikane og retssagens varighed), der har krævet en grundig undersøgelse i Udvalget, men som ovenfor nævnt har svaret fra Senatet og forklaringerne fra justitsministeriet gjort ordføreren tilbøjelig til at råde Parlamentet til at ophæve dr. Železnýs immunitet.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case presented by the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Prague Public Prosecutor 27.8.2004 16.12.2004
Prague Public Prosecutor 27.8.2004 16.12.2004
− der henviser til anmodning af 27. august 2004 (sag nr. KZv 295/2003-243) fra anklagemyndigheden i Prag om ophævelse af Vladimír Železnýs immunitet, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 16. december 2004,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný in file number KZv 295/2003-243, forwarded by Prague Public Prosecutor on 27 August 2004, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 December 2004,
− der henviser til Vladimír Železnýs anmodning om beskyttelse af immunitet i forbindelse med en straffesag, der er rejst af anklagemyndigheden i Prag - der blev givet meddelelse om denne anmodning på plenarmødet den 16. november 2004,
– having regard to the request to defend his immunity presented by Vladimír Železný in connection with criminal proceedings brought by the Prague Public Prosecutor, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 November 2004,
− der henviser til artikel 27 i Den Tjekkiske Republiks forfatning,
– having regard to Article 27 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic,
− der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6‑0291/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0291/2005 ),
På mødet den 16. december 2004 meddelte formanden, at han havde modtaget en skrivelse fra anklagemyndigheden i Prag med en anmodning om ophævelse af dr. Vladimír Železnýs parlamentariske immunitet i forbindelse med sag nr. KZv 295/2003-243 i anklagemyndighedens register.
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný in respect of file number KZv 295/2003-243 of the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney Office.
Anklagemyndigheden anmoder om ophævelse af parlamentarisk immunitet i forbindelse med den ovennævnte sag under henvisning til, at dr. Železný formodes at have begået handlinger, der har karakter af unddragelse af skatter, afgifter og andre bidrag i henhold til den tjekkiske straffelovs artikel 148, stk. 1 og 3, i tiden frem til den 31. december 1997, og at have medvirket til strafbare handlinger i henhold til straffelovens artikel 9, stk. 2.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting evasion of taxes, duties and other contributions under Section 148(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code up to 31 December 1997 and to had acted as an accomplice under Section 9(2) of the Criminal Code.
Efterforskningen foretages af kriminalpolitiets afdeling for korruption og økonomisk kriminalitet.
The investigation is being carried out by the corruption and financial crime unit of the criminal police.
Anklagemyndigheden i Prag, som har det overordnede ansvar for forundersøgelsen, anmoder om, at dr. Železný's immunitet ophæves.
The Prague Public Prosecutor's Office, which is charged with the supervision of the pre-trial proceedings, is requesting that Dr. Zelesný's immunity be waived.
Anmodningen fra anklagemyndigheden indeholder en detaljeret redegørelse for politiets anklager mod dr. Železný (Meddelelse til medlemmerne 2/2005).
The application from the Prosecutor's Office explains in detail the charges brought by the police against Dr. Zelezný ( Notice to Members 2/2005).
Anklagemyndigheden understreger, at dr. Železný i november 2003 under straffesagen blev valgt ind i det tjekkiske Senat.
It is stressed by the Prosecutor that, in November 2003, during the course of the criminal proceedings, Dr Zelezný was elected Senator .
Efter anmodning fra den kompetente politimyndighed vedtog senatet den 23. januar 2003 at ophæve dr. Železný's immunitet og tillade en straffesag mod medlemmet.
At the request of the Police authority, the Senate voted on 23 January 2003 to waive Dr. Zelezný's immunity and agreed to criminal proceedings against the Member.
I henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3, blev dr. Železný hørt af Retsudvalget.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezny was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Ved denne høring forklarede dr. Železný udvalget, hvordan han opfattede sin situation i hjemlandet.
At this hearing Dr Zelezny informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
I sin skriftlige redegørelse påpeger dr. Železný, at politiets efterforskning om ham med overlæg er blevet trukket i langdrag i årevis som led i en strategi for at forhindre politiske modstandere i at udøve fair politisk konkurrence.
In his written declaration, Dr Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Ikke desto mindre er der, som påpeget af dr. Železný, visse aspekter ved sagen (en noget uforholdsmæssig reaktion fra politiets side ved hans arrest, den temmelig uafklarede situation i forbindelse med den anden hovedanklagede, Novotný, en vis politichikane og retssagens varighed), der har krævet en grundig undersøgelse i Udvalget, men som ovenfor nævnt har svaret fra Senatet og forklaringerne fra justitsministeriet gjort ordføreren tilbøjelig til at råde Parlamentet til at ophæve dr. Železnýs immunitet.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný (some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case brought before the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
om Rådets sjette årsberetning om våbeneksport udarbejdet i henhold til punkt 8 i de operative bestemmelser i adfærdskodeksen for våbeneksport i Den Europæiske Union
on the Council's Sixth Annual Report according to Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports
UDTALELSE fra Udviklingsudvalget ......................................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on Development ......................................................16
– der henviser til Rådets sjette årsberetning vedtaget den 11. november 2004
- having regard to the Council’s Sixth Annual Report adopted on 11 November 2004