natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Her gennemgik Tomczak en alkometertest (som viste, at han var ædru), hvorefter han fremviste sit medlemskort til Sejm og fik lov til at ringe til det regionale politihovedkvarter i Poznań for at klage over politibetjentenes opførsel.
There, after being breathalysed (which established that he was sober), Mr Tomczak presented his Sejm Member's card and was allowed to call the regional police headquarters in Poznań with a complaint about the police officers' behaviour.
I betragtning af, at Tomczak på daværende tidspunkt var medlem af Sejm, anmodede den offentlige anklager den 13. juni 2000 under henvisning til artikel 17, stk. 1, punkt 10, i strafferetsplejeloven Sejm om tilladelse til at strafforfølge Tomczak i denne sag.
In view of the fact that Mr Tomszac was at the time a Member of the Sejm, on 13 June 2000, in accordance with Article 17(1), point 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the General Public Prosecutor applied to the Sejm for authorisation to hold Mr Tomczak criminally liable in the matter.
Den 1. februar besluttede distriktsanklageren Adam Woźny at henlægge sagen mod Tomczak under henvisning til, at det ikke var muligt at bortvejre tvivlen omkring vidneudsagnene fra de involverede politibetjente.
On 1 February the District Public Prosecutor, Adam Woźny, decided to discontinue the proceedings against Mr Tomczak, on the grounds of irresolvable doubts with regard to the testimonies of police officers involved.
Den 15. oktober 2001 rejste distriktsanklageren Adam Woźny tiltale modTomczak for at have krænket to politibetjente (Sławomir Marek og Jacek Bałamącek) under udøvelsen af deres hverv (hvilket er en overtrædelse af den polske straffelovs artikel 226, stk. 1).
On 15 October 2001 the District Public Prosecutor, Adam Woźny, brought charges against Mr Tomczak of insulting two police officers (Sławomir Marek and Jacek Bałamącek) in the performance of their official duties (constituting an offence under Art. 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code).
Sagen henhører under distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski.
The court having substantive and territorial jurisdiction in the matter is the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court.
Da Tomczak ved tolv på hinanden følgende lejligheder havde undladt at møde for retten, besluttede denne at fortsætte sagen i hans fravær.
As Mr Tomczak failed to appear in Court on twelve consecutive occasions, the Court decided to proceed with the trial in absentia.
Efter at Tomczak den 30. april 2005 havde meddelt, at han ville anmode Europa-Parlamentet om at beskytte hans immunitet, besluttede retten den 30. maj 2005 at stille straffesagen i bero.
After Mr Tomczak informed the Court on 30 April 2005 that he submitted a request for defence of his immunity to the European Parliament, the Court decided on 30 May 2005 to stay the criminal proceedings.
I forlængelse af Europa-Parlamentets beslutning i april 2006 om ikke at beskytte Tomczaks immunitet har retten igen indkaldt Tomczak, men der er indtil nu ikke afsagt nogen dom.
Following the European Parliament's decision in April 2006 not to defend the immunity of Mr Tomczak, the Court has again summoned Mr Tomczak, but no judgment has yet been given.
Han benægter imidlertid, at han skulle have fornærmet polititjenestemænd i funktion, og hævder, at det bevismateriale, der ligger til grund for denne påstand, blev forfalsket for at imødegå hans anklager mod politibetjentene og distriktsanklageren.
He claims that he was not being guilty of offending the police officers on duty and states that evidence proving otherwise was forged in an attempt to respond to his allegations against the police officers as well as the District Prosecutor.
Ifølge Tomczaks opfattelse skulle den offentlige anklager i Polen have indhentet Sejms samtykke til ophævelse af hans immunitet, idet hans eget samtykke til at lade sig retsforfølge (se punkt 2.2. ovenfor) var uden retsvirkning, fordi loven af 9. maj 1996 om udøvelsen af parlamentariske mandat ikke åbner mulighed herfor.
According to Mr Tomczak, the Polish Public Prosecutor should have obtained the Sejm's decision to waive his immunity and his own statement of consent to be held liable (see point 2.2. above) was without effect, as the Act of 9 May 1996 on carrying out the parliamentary mandate did not provide for such a possibility.
Parlamentet har fra Tomczak modtaget en juridisk udtalelse, der gennemgår spørgsmålet om denne tilsyneladende uoverensstemmelse mellem den polske forfatning og den nævnte lov og konkluderer, at en domstol bør tage stilling til, om Sejms og den offentlige anklagers fremgangsmåde var fejlagtig eller ej.
Mr Tomczak has provided the Parliament with a legal opinion that analyses the matter of this apparent contradiction between the Polish Constitution and that Act at the time and concludes that a public court would need to deliver a ruling whether the actions of the Sejm and the Public Prosecutor were fault.
Det er endvidere Tomczaks opfattelse, at eftersom et antal dommere ved distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski (heriblandt viceretspræsidenten, Wojciech Baszczyński) erklærede sig inhabile i den sag, Tomczak rejste mod distriktsanklageren, fordi de havde personlig kontakt med den sagsøgte, kan ingen af dommerne i Ostrów Wielkopolski anses for at være objektive i den foreliggende sag.
Furthermore, Mr Tomczak considers that, as a number of judges from the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski (including the Vice-President of the Court, Wojciech Baszczyński) recused themselves from the case brought by Mr Tomczak against the District Prosecutor on grounds that they had personal contacts with the accused, none of the judges working in Ostrów Wielkopolski can be objective in the present case.
Han peger desuden på det forhold, at Wojciech Baszczyński pålagde retsformanden i denne sag at videreføre denne, selv om den anklagede ikke var til stede, som bevis på den manglende uvildighed i sagsbehandlingen.
He also points to an instruction issued by Wojciech Baszczyński to the judge presiding in the case to proceed with the trial even in the absence of the accused as an evidence of bias in the conduct of the proceedings.
Tomczak klager over, at retten i Ostrów ikke giver ham adgang til sagens akter.
Mr Tomczak complains that the Court in Ostrów does not grant him access to the files of the case.
I henhold til den fremlagte dokumentation blev hans ansøgning om kopier af samtlige sagsakter afvist med den formelle begrundelse, at han havde undladt at præcisere, hvilke dokumenter han ønskede indsigt i.
According to the documents provided, his request for copies of the complete file was rejected by the Court on formal grounds, after Mr Tomczak had failed to specify precisely what documents he requested.
Tomczak mødte derpå personligt op i retten, hvor han fik adgang til akterne "på stedet".
Mr Tomczak then visited the Court personally and was granted access to the files 'on the spot'.
Tomczak hævder ikke desto mindre, at han i betragtning af disse uregelmæssigheder i sagsbehandlingen ikke har nogen garanti for en retfærdig rettergang.
Nevertheless, Mr Tomczak states that those irregularities in the proceedings are such that he cannot be guaranteed a fair trial.
Tomczak anmoder følgelig om, at hans parlamentariske immunitet beskyttes.
In conclusion, Mr Tomczak asks for his parliamentary immunity to be defended.
Enhver anmodning fra et medlem eller et tidligere medlem til formanden om beskyttelse af immunitet og privilegier meddeles på plenarmødet og henvises til det kompetente udvalg.
Any request addressed to the President by a Member or a former Member to defend privileges and immunities shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible.'
Artikel 8, 9 og 10 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter (PPI) .
Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (PPI)
Dommen i en sag vedrørende EF-tjenestemænd pligt til at betale ejendomsskat gjode det klart, at en overtrædelse af bestemmelserne i PPI udgjorde en krænkelse af de forpligtelser, der udspringer af traktaterne (dom af 24. februar 1988 i sag 260/86: Kommissionen mod Belgien , Sml. s. 966).
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988 in Case 260/86 Commission v. Belgium [1988] ECR 966).
a) Anklagerne mod Tomczak vedrører ikke meningsytringer eller stemmeafgivelser foretaget under udøvelsen af hans hverv som MEP, eftersom han ikke var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet på det tidspunkt, hvor begivenhederne fandt sted.
a) The charges brought against Mr Tomczak do not refer to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a MEP, as he was not a Member of Parliament at the moment of the event.
b) Tomczak er på nuværende tidspunkt medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, og den begivenhed, der danner grundlag for retssagen mod ham, fandt sted i hans hjemland, Polen.
b) Mr Tomczak is at present a Member of European Parliament, and the event constituting the basis for the legal proceedings against him took place in Poland, that is his own State.
Det vil være relevant at overveje, hvordan de ovennævnte omstændigheder stemmer overens med de privilegier og immuniteter, der indrømmes i kapitel III, Artikel 8 til 10 b) i PPI:
It is appropriate to consider how the above-mentioned facts and allegations square with the privileges and immunities granted by Chapter III, Articles 8 to10 b) of the PPI:
2) Artikel 9 sikrer medlemmernes ukrænkelighed i forbindelse med meningstilkendegivelser eller stemmeafgivelser foretaget under udøvelsen af deres hverv .
2) Article 9 grants inviolability to Members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
Denne beskyttelse rækker ud over mandatperioden, men er dog altid begrænset til det område, der er klart defineret i artiklen.
This protection extends beyond the duration of the mandate but always in a scope restricted by the clear language of the Article.
Det, der beskyttes, er altså de meningsytringer eller stemmeafgivelser, som medlemmerne foretager i Parlamentet, og endda også når de ikke fysisk er til stede i Parlamentets lokaler, men altid kun når de ene og alene optræder som parlamentarikere.
What is protected is Member's opinions or votes in Parliament or even when they are not physically within the premises of the House, but always when they are acting entirely as parliamentarians.
Tomczak var ikke medlem af Europa-Parlamentet i juni 1999, og artikel 9 finder derfor ikke anvendelse på denne sag.
Mr Tomczak was not a Member of the European Parliament in June 1999, and Article 9 is therefore not applicable to this case.
3) I artikel 10 bestemmelse det, at " under Europa-Parlamentets mødeperioder nyder medlemmerne: a ) på deres eget lands område de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling …"
3) Article 10 declares that [ d ] uring the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament... .
Den parlamentariske immunitet i Polen har nogenlunde samme udstrækning som den, der er sikret i PPI.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in Poland is very similar to that of the immunity provided for in the PPI.
Med hensyn til sådanne aktiviteter kan et medlem kun stilles til ansvar over for Sejm og kan i tilfælde af, at tredjemands rettigheder er blevet krænket,, kun retsforfølges med Sejms samtykke.
Regarding such activities, a Deputy can only be held liable before the Sejm and, in a case where he has infringed the rights of third parties, he may only be proceeded against before a court with the consent of the Sejm.
Fra tidspunktet for meddelelsen af valgresultatet til tidspunktet for mandatets ophør kan et medlem ikke strafforfølges uden Sejms samtykke.
From the day of announcement of the results of the elections until the day of the expiry of his mandate, a Deputy shall not be subjected to criminal liability without the consent of the Sejm.
Et medlem må ikke tilbageholdes eller arresteres uden Sejms samtykke, bortset fra i tilfælde, hvor den pågældende gribes på fersk gerning, eller hvor tilbageholdelse er nødvendig af hensyn til sagens gang.
A Deputy shall be neither detained nor arrested without the consent of the Sejm, except for cases in flagrante delicto and in which his detention is necessary for securing the proper course of proceedings.
Enhver tilbageholdelse skal straks meddeles til Sejms formand, som derpå kan beordre, at medlemmet straks frigives.
Any such detention shall be immediately communicated to the Marshal of the Sejm, who may order an immediate release of the Deputy.
I lyset af ovenstående bør Tomczaks anmodning betragtes som en anmodning til Europa-Parlamentet om at beslutte at begære en suspendering af sagen mod ham, sådan som artikel 105, stk. 3, i den polske forfatning giver mulighed for.
In view of the above, Mr Tomczak's request should be treated as a request for a decision of the European Parliament to ask for suspension of the proceedings against him, as is possible under Art. 105(3) of the Polish Constitution.
Europa-Parlamentet har dermed ret til at vælge, om det vil beskytte eller ikke beskytte Tomczaks formelle immunitet.
The European Parliament has thus the right to defend or not to defend the formal immunity of Mr Tomczak.
Da parlamentarisk immunitet endvidere udgør en del af parlamentets prærogativer, bør denne ret komme til udtryk i en endelig afgørelse, uanset at det pågældende medlem på et senere tidspunkt anmodede Parlamentet om at indstille proceduren.
Moreover, considering that parliamentary immunity constitutes part of the prerogatives of the Parliament, this right should be expressed in a final decision, even if the Member concerned asked the Parliament to cancel the procedure at a later date.
I overensstemmelse med sin etablerede praksis kan Europa-Parlamentet vælge at beskytte immuniteten for et af sine medlemmer, hvis der er grund til at nære mistanke om, at retsforfølgningen har til formål at skade medlemmets politiske virksomhed ( fumus persecutionis ).
Following its established practice, the European Parliament could decide to defend the immunity of one of its Members if a suspicion existed that the prosecution was based on an intention to prejudice the Member's political activities ( fumus persecutionis) .
Der er ingen klare indicier for, at noget sådan skulle være tilfældet i Tomczaks sag.
There is no clear evidence of such kind in the case of Mr Tomczak.
Den grundlæggende omstændighed, at Tomczak i sin bil kørte gennem en ensrettet gade i den forkerte retning, er ikke blevet anfægtet, og spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt beslutningen om at stille sagen i bero skal tilsidesættes, henhører under den regionale anklagemyndigheds retlige beføjelser.
The basic fact that Mr Tomczak drove his car the wrong way down a one-way street is not contested, and overruling a decision to discontinue proceedings is a legal competence of the Regional Prosecutor.
Begge de proceduremæssige afgørelser, som Tomczak har klaget over (vedrørende afholdelsen af en retssag in absentia og adgangen til sagens akter), blev truffet i overensstemmelse med polsk ret.
Both procedural decisions contested by Mr Tomczak (regarding trial in absentia and access to files of the case) were made in accordance with Polish law.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt hans immunitet blev ophævet på behørig vis ved sagens begyndelse eller ej, kan alene efterprøves af en polsk retlig myndighed (i det omfang det overhovedet kan afgøres).
The question whether his immunity was not properly waived at the beginning of the proceedings is a question that can be verified by only the Polish judicial authority (if at all).
Den omstændighed, at den dommer, der behandler sagen, bor i samme by som den anklager, Tomczak tidligere har indgivet klager over, er ikke i sig selv nogen hindring for, at dommeren kan være uvildig.
The fact that the judge presiding in the case lives in the same town as the prosecutor against which Mr Tomczak had previously filed charges does not in itself prevent that judge from acting objectively.
Sidst, men ikke mindst kunne de eventuelle følger i form af en fortabelse af mandatet som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet (ifølge den polske lov om valg til Europa-Parlamentet vil Tomczak miste sin plads i Parlamentet, hvis han kendes skyldig i den påståede lovovertrædelse) ikke have været forudset på det tidspunkt, hvor der rejstes anklage mod Tomczak (eftersom han dengang var medlem af Sejm, og den relevante lov om medlemmer af det nationale parlament indeholder ingen bestemmelser om mandatfortabelse i sådanne tilfælde).
Last, but not least, the possible consequence of losing the mandate of Member of the European Parliament (under the Polish law on elections to the European Parliament, if Mr Tomczak is convicted of committing the alleged offence, he will lose his seat) could not have been envisaged at the time when the charges were brought against Mr Tomczak (as he was a Member of Sejm at that time and the relevant Act relating to members of the national parliament does not contain provisions providing for disqualification in such circumstances).
Følgelig kan dette ikke have været det underliggende motiv til at rejse sagen.
Consequently, this cannot constitute the underlying motive for bringing the proceedings.
Alle de proceduremæssige og materielle spørgsmål, der er rejst i forbindelse med Tomczaks sag, herunder navnlig spørgsmålet om den påståede anvendelse af anstødeligt sprogbrug over for politibetjentene, bør afgøres på objektiv vis af distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski (hvis afgørelse altid vil kunne apelleres).
All the procedural and substantive questions raised in connection with Mr Tomczak's case, and especially the question of the alleged insulting language used against the police officers, should be resolved objectively by the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski (there always being the possibility of appeal).
om beskyttelse af Fællesskabernes finansielle interesser - bekæmpelse af svig - årsberetninger for 2005 - 2006
on Protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual reports 2005 and 2006
om beskyttelse af Fællesskabernes finansielle interesser - bekæmpelse af svig - årsberetninger for 2005 - 2006
on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – fight against fraud – annual reports 2005 and 2006
– der henviser til beslutninger om tidligere årsberetninger fra Kommissionen og Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig (OLAF),
– having regard to its resolutions on previous annual reports of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),
– der henviser til Kommissionens beretning til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet af 12. juli 2006 om beskyttelse af EU’s finansielle interesser - bekæmpelse af svig - årsberetning for 2005 ( KOM(2006)0378 ) samt bilagene ( SEK(2006)0911 og SEK(2006)0912 ),
– having regard to the report of 12 July 2006 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2005’ ( COM(2006)0378 ), including the annexes ( SEC(2006)0911 and SEC(2006)0912 ) thereto,
– der henviser til Kommissionens beretning til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet af 6. juli 2007 om beskyttelse af Fællesskabets finansielle interesser - bekæmpelse af svig - årsberetning for 2006 ( KOM(2007)0390 ) samt bilagene ( SEK(2007)0930 og SEK(2007)0938 ),
– having regard to the report of 6 July 2007 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Protection of the financial interests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2006’ ( COM(2007)0390 ), including the annexes ( SEC(2007)0930 and SEC(2007)0938 ) thereto,
– der henviser til OLAF's aktivitetsrapport for 2005
– having regard to the OLAF Annual Activity Report for 2005
– der henviser til OLAF's aktivitetsrapport for 2006
– having regard to the OLAF Annual Activity Report for 2006
– der henviser til aktivitetsrapport fra Overvågningsudvalget for OLAF for perioden december 2005 til maj 2007
– having regard to the Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee for the period December 2005 to May 2007
– der henviser til Revisionsrettens årsberetning om budgetgennemførelsen i regnskabsåret 2005
– having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005
– der henviser til Revisionsrettens årsberetning om budgetgennemførelsen i regnskabsåret 2006
– having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006
– der henviser til EF-traktatens artikel 276, stk. 3, og artikel 280, stk. 5,
– having regard to Articles 276(3) and 280(5) of the EC Treaty,
– der henviser til Rådets forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 1995/2006 af 13. december 2006 om ændring af forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 1605/2002 om finansforordningen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers almindelige budget
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
– der henviser til Rådets forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 2185/96 af 11. november 1996 om Kommissionens kontrol og inspektion på stedet med henblik på beskyttelse af De Europæiske Fællesskabers finansielle interesser mod svig og andre uregelmæssigheder
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities
– der henviser til betænkning fra Budgetkontroludvalget og udtalelser fra Regionaludviklingsudvalget og Udvalget om Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter ( A6-0009/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Regional Development, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development ( A6‑0009/2008 ),
A. der henviser til det materielle indhold af EF-traktatens artikel 280, stk. 1 og 2,
A. having regard to the substance of Article 280(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty,
B. der henviser til, at finansforordningens artikel 53 b, stk. 2, foreskriver følgende:
B. whereas Article 53(b)(2) of the Financial Regulation provides as follows:
a) konstatere, at de over budgettet finansierede foranstaltninger virkelig er gennemført, og sikre, at de er gennemført korrekt
(a) satisfy themselves that actions financed from the budget are actually carried out and ensure that they are implemented correctly;
Til dette formål foretager medlemsstaterne kontrol og etablerer et effektivt og produktivt internt kontrolsystem (...)".
To that effect, the Member States shall conduct checks and shall put in place an effective and efficient internal control system, (…)." ,
Beløb for indberettede uregelmæssigheder
Amount of irregularities notified
2. kræver, at årsberetningerne om beskyttelse af Fællesskabets finansielle interesser samt Europa-Parlamentets betænkninger på grundlag af disse beretninger sættes på Rådets dagsorden, og at Rådet efterfølgende fremsender sine bemærkninger til Parlamentet og Kommissionen;
Calls for the annual reports on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests and the reports drawn up by Parliament on the basis of those reports to be included on the Council’s agenda, and for the Council subsequently to forward its observations to Parliament and the Commission;
– egne indtægter: 353 millioner EUR, (regnskabsåret 2005: 328,4 millioner EUR, regnskabsåret 2004: 212,4 millioner EUR, regnskabsåret 2003: 269,9 millioner EUR, regnskabsåret 2002: 367 millioner EUR)
– own resources: EUR 353 million (EUR 328,4 million in 2005, EUR 212,4 million in 2004, EUR 269,9 million in 2003 and EUR 367 million in 2002),