natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Foranstaltningerne følger, på linje med LEADER-metoden, en integreret territorial strategi, som arbejder med globale tilskud og garanterer en socialt retfærdig fordeling af midlerne.
In keeping with the LEADER method, measures shall be based on an integrated, regional approach which employs global subsidies and guarantees the socially equitable allocation of funding.
Her spiller støtte af lokale partnerskaber mellem det offentlige, den private sektor og frivillige en vigtig rolle.
In that connection, the fostering of local partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors shall play an important role.
Erfaringen fra SAPARD viser, at støtten til LEADER-strategien i komponenten "udvikling af landdistrikter" har en central betydning for at forøge programmernes accept og dermed forbedre tilførslen af midler.
The experience gained with SAPARD shows that the use of the LEADER approach in the Regional Development Component is fundamental to increasing acceptance levels for the programmes and thereby also improving the take-up of funding.
Artikel 9, stk. 2 a (ny)
Article 9, paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) Ansvaret for gennemførelse af komponenten "udvikling af landdistrikter" ligger hos kandidatlandenes ministerier for landbrug og landdistrikter og Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter
(2a) Responsibility for implementing the Regional Development Component shall rest with the ministries of agriculture and rural development in the Candidate Countries and with the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture.
Det er af afgørende betydning, at udformningen af komponenten "udvikling af landdistrikter" muliggør overdragelse til de kompetente myndigheder.
It is essential that the competent authorities should be given the task of shaping the Regional Development Component.
Forslag til Rådets forordning om oprettelse af et instrument til førtiltrædelsesbistand (IAP)
Proposal for a Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre‑accession Assistance (IPA)
Liam Aylward, Béla Glattfelder, Ayuso González, Gábor Harangozó, Milan Horáček, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Anne Laperrouze, Jan Mulder, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Karin Resetarits
Liam Aylward, Béla Glattfelder, Ayuso González, Gábor Harangozó, Milan Horáček, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Anne Laperrouze, Jan Mulder, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Karin Resetarits
Forslag til Rådets forordning om oprettelse af et instrument til førtiltrædelsesbistand (IPA)
The proposal for a Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre–Accession Assistance (IPA)
om anmodning om ophævelse af Tobias Pflügers immunitet
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Tobias Pflüger
– der henviser til anmodning af 29. november 2005 fra Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands justitsministerium om ophævelse af Tobias Pflügers immunitet, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 15. december 2005,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Tobias Pflüger, forwarded by the German Federal Ministry of Justice on 29 November 2005, and announced in plenary sitting on 15 December 2005,
– der har hørt Tobias Pflüger, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3,
– having heard Tobias Pflüger in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til artikel 10 i protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers 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 of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6‑0156/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0156/2006 ),
I. FAKTISKE OMSTÆNDIGHEDER
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Med skrivelse af 22. december 2005 henviste Europa-Parlamentets formand med henblik på behandling i Retsudvalget, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2, en skrivelse af 29. november 2005 fra Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands justitsministerium, hvori der anmodes om ophævelse af medlem af Europa-Parlamentet Tobias Pflügers parlamentariske immunitet i forbindelse med en sag, der behandles af den ledende statsadvokat i München I.
By letter of 22 December 2005 the President of Parliament instructed the Committee on Legal Affairs, for the purposes of Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to consider a covering letter dated 29 November 2005 from the German Federal Ministry of Justice, together with a request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Tobias Pflüger, MEP, in connection with judicial proceedings pending before the Munich I district Chief Public Prosecutor.
I overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2, tog Parlamentet anmodningen til efterretning på plenarmødet den 15. december 2005 og henviste den til Retsudvalget.
In accordance with Rule 6(2) Parliament had taken note of the request at the sitting of 15 December 2005 and referred it to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
I sin anmodning om ophævelse af immuniteten anmoder den ledende statsadvokat i München I om tilladelse til at indlede en straffesag mod medlem af Europa-Parlamentet Tobias Klaus Pflüger, som er sigtet for fornærmelse efter den tyske straffelovs § 185 og § 194, stk. 1, og for forsætlig legemsbeskadigelse efter straffelovens § 223, stk. 1, og § 230, stk. 1, første punktum.
In the request for waiver of immunity the Chief Public Prosecutor is seeking authorisation to commence criminal proceedings against Mr Tobias Klaus Pflüger, MEP, for the suspected offences of insulting behaviour, as defined in Articles 185 and 194(1) of the Penal Code, and deliberate assault and battery, punishable under Articles 223(1) and 230(1)(1) thereof
Straffelovens § 185 lyder således: "Fornærmelse straffes med frihedsberøvelse indtil et år eller med bøde og, såfremt fornærmelsen er begået ved hjælp af en voldelig handling, med frihedsberøvelse indtil to år eller med bøde."
Article 185 of the Penal Code stipulates that: Insulting behaviour is punishable by not more than one year’s imprisonment, or by a fine, or, if the insult was perpetrated by means of a physical act, by not more than two years’ imprisonment or by a fine.
Straffelovens § 194, stk. 1, lyder således: "Der rejses kun påtale for fornærmelse på begæring (…)".
Article 194(1) of the Penal Code stipulates that: Insulting behaviour shall not give rise to proceedings unless a compliant has been lodged.
Straffelovens § 223, stk. 1, lyder således: "Den, som fysisk mishandler en anden person eller tilføjer skade på en anden persons helbred, straffes med frihedsberøvelse indtil fem år eller bøde".
Article 223(1) of the Penal Code stipulates that: Anyone who physically ill-treats another person or damages his or her health shall be punished by not more than five years’ imprisonment or by a fine.
Straffelovens § 230, stk. 1, første punktum, lyder således: "Der rejses kun påtale for forsætlig legemsbeskadigelse efter artikel 223 (…) på begæring, medmindre anklagemyndigheden anser det for nødvendigt at rejse påtale af egen drift, fordi der er en særlig offentlig interesse heri."
The first sentence of Article 230(1) stipulates that: Deliberate assault and battery within the meaning of Article 223 shall not give rise to proceedings unless a complaint has been lodged, except where the criminal prosecution authority considers that it should act of its own motion on account of a particular public interest in criminal proceedings. .
Sigtelsen er baseret på følgende faktiske omstændigheder: Den 12. februar 2005 mellem kl. 11.30 og 17.00 fandt der i anledning af den 41. sikkerhedskonference i München et modarrangement sted under åben himmel med en afsluttende demonstration på Lenbachplatz i München.
The suspicion is based on the following facts: on 12 February 2005, an open-air counter-demonstration was staged between 11.30 and 17.00, to coincide with the 41st Munich Conference on Security Policy, and followed by a closing rally in Lenbachplatz, a Munich square.
Efter at de fredelige deltagere havde forladt arrangementet efter afslutningen heraf ca. kl. 17.00, blev nogle såkaldte autonome og sympatisører til disse på Lenbachplatz og kastede bl.a. flasker mod de tilstedeværende politibetjente.
After the demonstration had ended, at about 17.00, and the peaceful demonstrators had moved away, some ‘extremist elements’ and their sympathisers who had remained in Lenbachplatz started throwing bottles at the cordon of police deployed at the scene.
Ifølge forklaringerne fra de to politibetjente Proske og Michaelis, som har indgivet påtalebegæring, trådte MEP Pflüger frem fra gruppen af moddemonstranter og gik hen til Proske, som indgik i politikæden, og opfordrede ham til at lade ham passere straks.
The two officers who lodged a complaint, Mr Proske and Mr Michaelis, allege that Mr Pflüger moved away from the group of counter-demonstrators, walked up to Mr Proske, who was standing in the cordon, and demanded to be let through immediately.
Efter at Pflüger havde oplyst, at han var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, bad Proske ham om at forevise sit identitetskort, og han forhindrede ham i at komme forbi politikæden.
As Mr Pflüger had claimed to be a Member of the European Parliament, Mr Proske asked to see proof of his status and stopped him from going through the police cordon.
Pflüger truede derpå politibetjentene med at anmelde dem, idet han gjorde gældende, at de ville gøre sig skyldige i en forsætlig tilsidesættelse af gældende ret ("Rechtsbeugung"), hvis de forhindrede ham i at passere.
Mr Pflüger then threatened to sue the officers present on the grounds that they were breaking the law by refusing to let him through.
Da Pflüger fortsat ikke legitimerede sig, lagde Proske sin venstre arm på Pflügers højre skulder for at tydeliggøre, at han skulle fjerne sig fra politikæden.
Since Mr Pflüger had failed to prove his identity, Mr Proske put his left arm on Mr Pflüger’s right shoulder to indicate that he should move away from the police cordon.
Pflüger slog derpå betjentens arm væk og truede ham med at anmelde ham for legemsbeskadigelse.
Mr Pflüger wrenched the police officer’s arm away and threatened to sue him for assault and battery.
En anden politibetjent, Michaelis, kom hen til Pflüger og anmodede ham endnu en gang om at legitimere sig, men Pflüger nægtede igen at gøre det.
Another officer, Mr Michaelis, then intervened and again asked Mr Pflüger to prove his identity, which Mr Pflüger again refused to do.
Til sidst kaldte han betjentene Proske og Michaelis for "røvhul" og "idiot" for at krænke deres ære.
In the end, Mr Pflüger resorted to name-calling (‘arseholes’ and ‘dickheads’), thus insulting the dignity of the two police officers.
Retsudvalget hørte Pflüger på mødet den 21. marts 2006.
The Committee on Legal Affairs heard Mr Pflüger at its meeting of 21 March 2006.
Pflüger bestred fremstillingen af de faktiske omstændigheder og fremlagde en erklæring fra sin advokat angående de faktiske omstændigheder.
Mr Pflüger denied the above account and produced a statement by his lawyer giving a different version of events.
Ifølge erklæringen er de faktiske omstændigheder følgende:
According to the statement, what happened was as follows:
"Min klient deltog den 12. februar 2005 som led i sit hverv som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet i modarrangementer til den såkaldte sikkerhedskonference i München.
On 12 February 2005 my client, a Member of the European Parliament, took part in that capacity in counter-demonstrations staged in Munich on the occasion of the Munich Conference on Security Policy.
Han overværede i den forbindelse anholdelsen af en person, som forinden havde deltaget i en musikoptræden.
He witnessed the arrest of a person who had been among those performing music shortly before.
Anholdelsen blev efter hans opfattelse foretaget på en yderst brutal måde, uden at det forekom nødvendigt.
He considered that excessive force has been used for no apparent reason.
Den anholdte person blev revet væk fra åstedet og blev afskærmet af en politikæde.
The arrested person was dragged away from the scene of the incident and hidden from view by a line of police officers.
Min klient forsøgte at komme i kontakt med den ledende politibetjent, der var ansvarlig for anholdelsen, for at få at vide, hvad grunden til den pågældende optræden var, og for at forhindre yderligere uretmæssig behandling af den anholdte.
To find out the reason for the police action and save the arrested person from further unlawful treatment, my client attempted to approach the officer in charge.
Min klient forlangte i dette øjemed under henvisning til sin status som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet over for de tilstedeværende politibetjente, at de skulle lade ham komme hen til den anholdte.
To that end he stated that he was a Member of the European Parliament and insisted that he be allowed to see the arrested person.
Han viste herved tydeligt og synligt sit MEP-legitimationsbevis.
He showed his Member’s pass in such a way that it was clearly visible.
Det tog politibetjentene imidlertid ingen notits af, og de nægtede ham både at komme i kontakt med den anholdte og at få oplysninger om hændelsesforløbet i forbindelse med anholdelsen.
The police officers, however, took no notice of any kind and refused both to let my client speak to the arrested person and to comment on the conduct of the arrest.
Eftersom min klient ikke ville acceptere dette, da hans rettigheder som MEP dermed blev tilsidesat, opfordrede han de tilstedeværende betjente til at oplyse deres navne, idet han agtede at klage over deres adfærd.
Since my client was unwilling to tolerate this infringement of the rights that he enjoys as a Member of the European Parliament, he called on the officers present to give him their names and told them that he intended to complain about their behaviour.
Denne opfordring blev imidlertid ikke efterkommet.
His request went unheeded.
Alle de politibetjente, han henvendte sig til, nægtede at sørge for en sådan identifikation.
Every officer addressed refused to give any indication that would have served to identify him.
Det blev også fortsat nægtet at anerkende min klients rettigheder som MEP.
In addition, my client continued to be denied his rights as a Member of Parliament.
Politibetjentens påstand om, at min klient voldsomt skulle have slået en politibetjents arm væk, som han havde fået "lagt på skulderen", er forkert.
One police officer maintains that my client pushed aside another officer who had put his arm on my client’s shoulder.
Det samme gælder påstanden om, at min klient skulle have fornærmet de tilstedeværende politibetjente med ordene "røvhul" og "idiot" - det er det pure opspind.
That assertion is incorrect; and the allegation that my client insulted the officers at the scene by calling them ‘arseholes’ and ‘dickheads’ is likewise pure fabrication.
I den spændte situation kom det til diskussioner, men min klient gjorde sig ikke skyldig i nogen fornærmelser i den forbindelse. (…)"
Words were exchanged in the heat of the moment, but my client did not utter terms of abuse.
BESTEMMELSER OG GENERELLE BEMÆRKNINGER OM EP-MEDLEMMERNES IMMUNITET
TEXTS GOVERNING, AND GENERAL REMARKS ON, THE IMMUNITY ACCORDED TO MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Artikel 9 og 10 i protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter lyder således:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities read as follows:
"Artikel 9
‘Article 9
a) på deres eget lands område de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling,
(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
b) på en anden medlemsstats område fritagelse for enhver form for tilbageholdelse og retsforfølgning.
(b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Europa-Parlamentets procedure er fastsat i forretningsordenens artikel 6 og 7.
The procedure applicable to the European Parliament proper is governed by Rules 6 and 7 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
De relevante bestemmelser har følgende ordlyd:
The relevant provisions are worded as follows:
Formålet med den parlamentariske immunitet
Purpose of immunity
Den parlamentariske immunitet er ikke et privilegium, der tildeles det ene eller det andet medlem af Parlamentet, men en garanti for Parlamentets og dets medlemmers uafhængighed i forhold til andre myndigheder.
Immunity is not a privilege granted to any one Member of Parliament, but rather safeguards the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities.
Tidsmæssig begrænsning af immuniteten
Extent of the duration of immunity
Domstolen har i to omgange foretaget en fortolkning af ordene "under Europa-Parlamentets mødeperioder" i artikel 10 i protokollen om De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter.
The Court of Justice has twice been called upon to interpret the words ‘During the sessions of the European Parliament’ appearing in Article 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities.
Det følger desuden af selve den parlamentariske immunitets formål, at immuniteten strækker sig over hele mandatets varighed, uanset om det drejer sig om indledning af retsforfølgning, efterforskningsforanstaltninger, fuldbyrdelsesforanstaltninger, allerede afsagte domme eller appel- eller kassationsprocedurer.
Furthermore, its purpose implies per se that immunity must apply to Members for the entire duration of their term of office, whether a case concerning it relates to the institution of proceedings, steps to be taken in a judicial investigation, enforcement measures, judgments already delivered, or appeal proceedings or actions to have a judgment set aside.
Den europæiske parlamentariske immunitets uafhængige karakter i forhold til national parlamentarisk immunitet
Independent force of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament in relation to the immunity accorded to members of national parliaments
Den omstændighed, at artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter henviser til de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af de nationale lovgivende forsamlinger, betyder ikke, at Europa-Parlamentet ikke har kompetence til at udfærdige sine egne regler vedrørende ophævelsen af parlamentarisk immunitet.
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, point (a), of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not debar the European Parliament from laying down its own rules on waiver of immunity.
Parlamentets afgørelser har gradvis skabt et sammenhængende europaparlamentarisk immunitetsbegreb, der principielt er uafhængigt af forskellig praksis i de nationale lovgivende forsamlinger.
Parliament’s decisions have served gradually to shape a coherent concept of immunity specific to the European Parliament, which in principle applies independently of the various practices employed in the national parliaments.
På den måde undgås forskelsbehandling af medlemmerne på grundlag af nationalitet.
This ensures that Members are not treated differently according to their nationality.
Selv om der tages hensyn til den immunitet, der foreligger i henhold til national lov, anvender Europa-Parlamentet sine egne ensartede principper, når det tager stilling til, hvorvidt et medlems immunitet skal ophæves.
Consequently, even if the immunity accorded by national law is taken into consideration, the European Parliament observes its own unchanging principles in order to determine whether or not a Member’s immunity should be waived.
Parlamentarisk immunitet eksisterer for at beskytte medlemmernes ytringsfrihed og den frie politiske debat.
Immunity is intended to protect the freedom which Members have to express their opinions and engage in political debate.
Parlamentets kompetente udvalg har derfor vedvarende anført, at det er et grundlæggende princip, at immuniteten i alle de tilfælde, hvor et anklaget medlems handlinger udgør en del af hans eller hendes politiske virksomhed eller direkte er forbundet med en sådan virksomhed, ikke vil blive ophævet.
The committee responsible for dealing with the matter has therefore always proceeded according to the basic principle that whenever incriminated actions fall under the heading of, or are related directly to, a Member’s political activity, immunity is not waived.
Dette omfatter f.eks. meningstilkendegivelser, der antages at være omfattet af et medlems politiske virksomhed, og som er afgivet ved demonstrationer eller offentlige møder, i politiske tidsskrifter, i pressen, i en bog, i fjernsynet, ved underskrivelse af en politisk pjece og endda under en retssag.
Cases in the above category include, for example, those in which opinions deemed to form part of a Member’s political activity are expressed during demonstrations, at public rallies, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, through the act of signing a political tract, or even before a court of law.
Dette princip skal ses i sammenhæng med andre argumenter for eller imod ophævelse af immuniteten, navnlig "fumus persecutionis", dvs. formodningen om, at retsforfølgelsen hidrører fra et ønske om at skade medlemmets politiske virksomhed.
In addition to this principle, there are other considerations which militate in favour of or against waiver of immunity, in particular the ‘fumus persecutionis’ , that is to say, the presumption that criminal proceedings stem from an intention to damage a Member’s political activity.
Som det er defineret i Donnez-betænkningens begrundelse, betyder "fumus persecutionis"-begrebet i det væsentlige, at immuniteten ikke ophæves, når der foreligger en mistanke om, at retsforfølgelsen har til hensigt at skade medlemmets politiske virksomhed.
As indicated in the explanatory statement contained in the Donnez report, the concept of fumus persecutionis means essentially that immunity is not waived when it is suspected that criminal proceedings are intended at bottom to undermine the political activity of the Member concerned.
Når der f.eks. er foretaget retsskridt af en politisk modstander, skal immuniteten i mangel af bevis på det modsatte ikke ophæves, idet det skal antages, at retsskridtet er foretaget for at skade det pågældende medlem og ikke for at opnå skadeserstatning.
It follows that, barring evidence to the contrary, when proceedings are instituted by a political opponent, immunity is not waived if there is a compelling reason to believe that the aim of the prosecution is to harm the Member in question and not to right a wrong.
Ligeledes skal immuniteten ikke ophæves, såfremt der er foretaget retsskridt under omstændigheder, der vækker en formodning om, at retsskridtet udelukkende er indledt for at skade det pågældende medlem.
Similarly, when the circumstances in which proceedings have been commenced are such as to suggest that the sole purpose is to harm a Member, immunity is not waived.
De handlinger, der foreholdes Tobias Pflüger, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet med tysk statsborgerskab, er begået på Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands territorium.
The actions of which Mr Pflüger, a German Member of the European Parliament, is accused were committed on German territory.
Tobias Pflüger nyder derfor godt af de immuniteter, der er indrømmet medlemmerne af den tyske Forbundsdag ifølge artikel 46 i Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands grundlov ( Grundgesetz ), der har følgende ordlyd:
Mr Pflüger thus enjoys the immunities accorded to members of the Bundestag in the form deriving from Article 46 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz) , which reads as follows: