natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Foranstaltninger vedrørende afskedigede arbejdstagere vil blive truffet både af de enkelte medlemsstater og af Fællesskabet.
Actions towards redundant workers will be dealt with by both the Member State and the Community.
Med henblik på at videregive korrekte oplysninger til arbejdstagere bør dette samarbejde omtales i informationsmateriale og lignende skrivelser om Globaliseringsfonden.
In order to provide workers with correct information this co-operation should be mentioned in information and publications on the EGF.
Såfremt Kommissionen på grundlag af vurderingen omhandlet i artikel 5, stk. 5, konkluderer, at betingelserne for økonomisk støtte efter denne forordning er opfyldt, iværksætter den snarest proceduren i artikel 12.
Where, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5(5), the Commission has concluded that the conditions for a financial contribution under this Regulation are met ; it shall initiate the procedure set out in Article 12 as soon as possible .
Såfremt Kommissionen på grundlag af vurderingen omhandlet i artikel 5, stk. 5, konkluderer, at betingelserne for økonomisk støtte efter denne forordning er opfyldt, iværksætter den proceduren i artikel 12.
Where, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5(5), the Commission has concluded that the conditions for a financial contribution under this Regulation are met ; it shall initiate the procedure set out in Article 12.
Proceduren bør indledes øjeblikkeligt og ikke være underlagt den vilkårlighed, som ligger i udtrykket "snarest".
The procedure should be initiated immediately and should not be subject to the arbitrary decision implied by the expression 'as soon as possible'.
Hvis de økonomiske midler, som fortsat er tilgængelige for fonden et givet år, ikke er tilstrækkelige til at dække den økonomiske bistand, der anses for at være nødvendig, når der forelægges et forslag om anvendelse af artikel 5, kan Kommissionen foreslå Europa-Parlamentet, der varetager budgetkontrollen, at forskellen finansieres gennem yderligere bevillinger afsat til fonden for de to følgende år.
If, where a proposal has been submitted pursuant to Article 5, the remaining financial resources available for the EFG in that year are not sufficient to cover the amount of financial assistance considered necessary, the Commission may propose to the European Parliament, which exercises budgetary control, that the difference be financed through additional EFG appropriations relating to the two following years.
Der bør indføres bestemmelser om en sådan mekanisme, eftersom der gælder tilsvarende ordninger for Den Europæiske Unions Solidaritetsfond.
Provision should be made for this mechanism in the light of the corresponding arrangements for the European Union Solidarity Fund.
Rapporten skal især indeholde oplysninger om indgivne ansøgninger, vedtagne beslutninger, støttede foranstaltninger og om afviklingen af den tildelte finansielle støtte og de opnåede resultater .
The report shall in particular contain information relating to applications submitted, Decisions adopted, actions funded and the winding-up of financial contribution made as well as to the results achieved .
Artikel 20, 1. afsnit
Article 20
Hvis det konstateres, at Globaliseringsfondens målsætninger ikke opfyldes på grundlag af det årlige beløb, der er til rådighed, foreslår Kommissionen en justering af fonden.
Where it is found that EGF objectives are not being met with the available annual amount, the Commission shall propose a readjustment.
Fondens resultater bør evalueres for at fastslå, hvorvidt det beløb, der er til rådighed, er tilstrækkeligt til at opfylde de målsætninger, der er opstillet for fonden.
The performance of the Fund must be evaluated in order to establish to what extent the amount available is sufficient to meet the objectives for which this Fund was created.
Edit Bauer, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Mihael Brejc, Françoise Castex, Anne E. Jensen, Lasse Lehtinen, Jamila Madeira, Luca Romagnoli, Elisabeth Schroedter, Gabriele Stauner, Patrizia Toia, Anja Weisgerber
Edit Bauer, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Mihael Brejc, Françoise Castex, Anne E. Jensen, Lasse Lehtinen, Jamila Madeira, Luca Romagnoli, Elisabeth Schroedter, Gabriele Stauner, Patrizia Toia, Anja Weisgerber
om anmodning om beskyttelse af Gérard Onestas immunitet og privilegier
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Gérard Onesta
– der henviser til anmodning af 17. maj 2006 fra Monica Frassoni om beskyttelse af Gérard Onestas immunitet i forbindelse med en straffesag ved appelretten for straffesager, 3. afdeling, Toulouse, Frankrig, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 31. maj 2006,
– having regard to the request by Monica Frassoni for defence of the immunity of Gérard Onesta in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against the latter before the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Toulouse, France, made on 17 May 2006, announced in plenary sitting on 31 May 2006,
– der har hørt Gérard Onesta, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3,
– having heard Gérard Onesta in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til artikel 26 i Den Franske Republiks forfatning,
– having regard to Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6‑0386/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0386/2006 ),
A. der henviser til, at Gérard Onesta er medlem af Europa-Parlamentet og blev valgt ved det sjette direkte valg den 10.-13. juni 2004, og at Parlamentet prøvede hans mandat den 14. december 2004
A. whereas Gérard Onesta is a Member of the European Parliament who was elected in the sixth direct elections of 10 to 13 June 2004 and whereas his credentials were verified by Parliament on 14 December 2004
Artikel 10 i protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter. ,
Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965. ,
C. der henviser til, at den relevante bestemmelse i denne sag er den franske forfatnings artikel 26, stk. 2, hvori det hedder, at medlemmer af Parlamentet ikke i strafferetligt øjemed kan udsættes for anholdelse eller nogen som helst anden frihedsberøvende eller frihedsindskrænkende foranstaltning uden tilladelse fra præsidiet for den forsamling, som medlemmet tilhører, og at denne tilladelse ikke er påkrævet, hvis den pågældende gribes på fersk gerning, eller hvis der foreligger en endelig domfældelse,
C. whereas the provision applicable to the case in question is Article 26, second subparagraph, of the French Constitution, pursuant to which no Member of Parliament shall be arrested for a serious crime or other major offence, nor shall he be subjected to any other custodial or semi-custodial measure, without the authorization of the Bureau of the assembly of which he is a member; whereas such authorization shall not be required in the case of a serious crime or other major offence committed flagrante delicto or a final sentence,
D. der henviser til, at appelretten for straffesager i Toulouse idømte Gérard Onesta tre måneders fængsel, hvilket var en strengere straf end den, der blev idømt den anden tiltalte, og at retten begrundede denne forskel med, at Gérard Onesta som medlem af et parlament i højere grad end andre borgere havde mulighed for at komme til orde i politiske forummer, navnlig med støtte fra andre valgte medlemmer af hans parti, hans gruppe i forsamlingen og, om fornødent, medierne, da han ifølge den franske ret er ekspert i kommunikationens kunst,
D. whereas the Court of Criminal Appeals of Toulouse sentenced Gérard Onesta to three months' imprisonment, thus applying a stricter sanction than the one reserved to the other accused and whereas the self same court justified this different decision by stating that, in his capacity as Member of a Parliament, Gérard Onesta had, more so than any other citizen, the means available to make his voice heard in political fora, in particular with the support of other elected members of his party, his group in the Assembly and, if necessary, the media, as he is, according to the French court, an expert in the art of communication,
E. der henviser til, at det forhold, at Gérard Onesta straffes hårdere alene på baggrund af hans status som medlem af et parlament, er en klar diskriminering af valgte politikere, for så vidt som de ikke synes at have ret til at deltage i offentlige demonstrationer på samme måde som andre borgere, eftersom de har andre og mere effektive udtryksmuligheder, hvilket ville føre til den uacceptable konklusion, at parlamentsmedlemmer kun må handle i politiske forsamlinger og uden for disse forummer har færre rettigheder og udtryksformer end andre borgere,
E. whereas punishing Gérard Onesta more severely only in view of his status as Member of a Parliament constitutes a clear discrimination against elected politicians, in so far as it seems that, since they have other and more effective means of expression, they are not permitted to engage in public demonstrations in the same way as other citizens and whereas this would therefore entail the unacceptable conclusion that Members of a Parliament are only allowed to act in political assemblies and that, outside those fora, they enjoy fewer rights and means of expression than any other citizen,
F. der henviser til, at de franske myndigheders diskriminerende anvendelse af proceduren for personer, der gribes på fersk gerning, alene i forhold til parlamentsmedlemmer - udvalgt blandt mere end 400 involverede personer - udgør et proceduremisbrug, der udelukkende har til formål at omgå protokollen om privilegier og immuniteter,
F. whereas the French authorities' discriminatory use of "fraglante delicto" against Members of Parliament alone - selected from more that 400 persons involved - constitutes an abuse of procedure with the sole purpose of circumventing the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
G. der henviser til, at Gérard Onesta fastholder, at han havde til hensigt at henlede opmærksomheden på, at EF-Domstolen havde dømt Frankrig for manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 2001/18/EF, som Europa-Parlamentet har vedtaget,
G. whereas Mr Onesta maintains that his intention was to draw attention to the fact that the European Court of Justice found against France for failing to transpose the directive 2001/18/CE adopted by European Parliament,
H. der henviser til, at sagen er yderst delikat og dens konsekvenser for Europa-Parlamentets prærogativer uacceptable, da den franske rets diskriminerende holdning og det deraf følgende politiske indgreb i Gérard Onestas borgerrettigheder er meget beklagelige,
H. whereas the issue at stake is extremely delicate and its consequences for the prerogatives of the European Parliament are unacceptable, as the discriminatory attitude of the French court and the resulting political prejudice to Gérard Onesta's civil rights are to be strongly deplored,
I. der henviser til, at Gérard Onesta efter at have udtømt sine nationale retsmidler under alle omstændigheder har ret til at indbringe sagen for Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol i Strasbourg, og at Europa-Parlamentet allerede overvejer støtteforanstaltninger,
I. whereas, after exhausting his domestic remedies, Mr Onesta is in any case entitled to bring his case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg , and the European Parliament is already considering supportive measures,
J. der henviser til, at ethvert tilfælde af politisk forfølgelse af et af Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer er et angreb på dets integritet som en politisk institution, der er demokratisk valgt af Europas befolkninger, og er udtryk for foragt for Parlamentet, og at Europa-Parlamentet som demokratisk institution er forpligtet til at forsvare sine prærogativer med alle de midler, det har til rådighed,
J. whereas any case of political persecution of one of its Members is an attack on the integrity of the European Parliament as a political institution, democratically elected by the peoples of Europe, and amounts to a contempt of Parliament and whereas, as a democratic institution, the European Parliament is bound to defend its prerogatives using all the means at its disposal,
1. beklager, at protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter i sin nuværende form ikke giver Europa-Parlamentet muligheder for at træffe bindende foranstaltninger med henblik på at beskytte Gérard Onesta, og vedtager derfor ikke at beskytte hans immunitet.
1 Regrets that, as it stands, the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not afford the European Parliament the means of taking binding action in order to protect Gérard Onesta and therefore decides not to defend his immunity.
Den 25. juli 2005 samlede ca. 400 mennesker sig i Menville (en landsby i nærheden af den franske by Toulouse), hvor de agtede at demonstrere mod genmodificerede fødevarer og ødelagde en majsmark på ca. 13.000 m 2 .
On 25 July 2005, about 400 people gathered in Menville (a village near the French city of Toulouse), where they intended to demonstrate against genetically modified food and destroyed a field of maize measuring about 13.000 sq.m.
På trods af det store antal deltagere besluttede anklagerne i Toulouse alene at rejse tiltale mod ni demonstranter, hvoraf to, Gérard Onesta, MEP, og Noël Mamère, parlamentsmedlem, blev tiltalt efter den særlige procedure, der finder anvendelse på straffelovovertrædere, der gribes på fersk gerning.
Notwithstanding the participation of such a large number of people, the prosecutors of Toulouse decided to incriminate nine demonstrators only, two of whom, Gérard Onesta, MEP and Noël Mamère, MP, were submitted to the special procedure applicable to offenders found in the act of committing a crime.
Ved dom af 15. november 2005 idømte appelretten for straffesager i Toulouse, 3. afdeling ( troisième Chambre des appels correctionnels ), hvis kompetence sagen henhørte under, Gérard Onesta tre måneders fængsel og pålagde ham at betale sagens omkostninger, at betale en godtgørelse til de forurettede parter og betale de forurettede parters sagsomkostninger, herunder udgifter til advokatbistand.
By decision of 15 November 2005, the third chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Toulouse (in French, troisième Chambre des appels correctionnels ), within whose competence this issue lay, sentenced Mr Onesta to a period of imprisonment of three months and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings, to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties and to refund to the aggrieved parties the costs of joining the proceedings and of legal representation therein.
En af de tiltalte blev frifundet, mens de øvrige blev idømt mellem to og fire måneders fængsel, ligesom de blev dømt til at betale godtgørelse og sagsomkostninger til de forurettede parter.
While one accused was acquitted, the others were sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from two to four months, in addition to the obligation of compensating and refunding the aggrieved parties.
Den 22. marts 2006 skrev Monica Frassoni, MEP, et brev til formand Borrell for at gøre opmærksom på den selvmodsigende og åbenlyst diskriminerende holdning, den nævnte ret indtog over for Gérard Onesta (og over for Noël Mamère).
On 22 March 2006, Ms Monica Frassoni, MEP, wrote a letter to President Borrell in order to denounce the contradictory and apparently discriminatory attitude held by the above-mentioned court against Mr Onesta (and, as far as he was concerned, against Mr Mamère).
Formand Borrell sendte dette brev til Retsudvalget for at få spørgsmålet undersøgt indgående.
President Borrell then transmitted this letter to the committee on legal affairs to ensure an in-depth analysis of this issue.
I sit brev understregede Monica Frassoni følgende:
In her letter, Ms Frassoni highlighted that:
· Kun 9 ud af 400 demonstranter blev retsforfulgt, og kun to af dem (Gérard Onesta, MEP, and Noël Mamère, parlamentsmedlem) blev tiltalt efter "fersk gerning"-proceduren under påskud af, at det kun var disse to, der umiddelbart var blevet identificeret, selv om den mere kendte José Bové var til stede.
· only 9 demonstrators out of 400 were prosecuted and only two of them (Mr Onesta, MEP, and Mr Mamère, MP) were submitted to the “caught-in-the-act” procedure, under the pretext that only these two had been immediately identified, notwithstanding the presence of the better-known José Bové;
· Kun Gérard Onesta og Noël Mamère blev idømt en længere fængselsstraf end alle de øvrige tiltalte, bortset fra José Bové, som retten betragtede som en vaneforbryder.
· only Mr Onesta, MEP, and Mr Mamère, MP, were sentenced to a period of imprisonment longer than the one applied to all the other accused, except for Mr Bové, who was considered as an habitual offender by the court;
· Som begrundelse for at dømme Gérard Onesta og Noël Mamère bemærkede den franske ret, at de " som medlemmer af et parlament i højere grad end andre borgere havde mulighed for at komme til orde i politiske forummer, navnlig med støtte fra andre valgte medlemmer af deres parti, deres gruppe i forsamlingen og, om fornødent, medierne, da de er eksperter i kommunikationens kunst" .
· in order to justify the conviction of Mr Onesta and Mr Mamère, the French court stated that “in their capacity as Members of Parliament, more so than any other citizens, they had the means available to make their voices heard in political fora, in particular with the support of other elected members of their party, their group in the Assembly and, if necessary, the media, being experts in the art of communication” ;
· Appelretten for straffesager i Toulouse tilsidesatte de franske domstoles sædvanlige praksis vedrørende lignende demonstrationer, hvor de tiltalte altid er blevet frifundet, fordi de er blevet anset for at have handlet for at undgå fare ( état de nécessité ).
· the Court of Criminal Appeals of Toulouse contradicted the traditional approach of French courts as regards similar demonstrations, where the accused had always been acquitted because they were deemed to have acted in the need to avoid danger (in French, état de nécessité ).
Ifølge Monica Frassoni viser disse forhold klart, at retten besluttede at straffe Gérard Onesta og Noël Mamère, udelukkende fordi de var parlamentsmedlemmer, hvilket afslører en forudindtaget og diskriminerende holdning.
According to Ms Frassoni, all these elements are sufficiently clear to admit that the above-mentioned court decided to punish Mr Onesta and Mr Mamère more seriously just in the view of their capacity of parliamentarians, thus revealing a biased and discriminatory attitude.
Endelig sendte Monica Frassoni den 16. maj 2006 i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 3, endnu en skrivelse til formand Borrell, hvori hun officielt anmodede om beskyttelse af Gérard Onestas privilegier og immuniteter.
Finally, on 16 May 2006, pursuant to Rule 6 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, Mrs Frassoni wrote a new letter to President Borrell, officially asking for the defence of privileges and immunities of Mr Onesta.
Gérard Onesta tilsluttede sig i sidste ende Monica Frassonis initiativ, og der blev formelt givet meddelelse om proceduren på plenarmødet den 31. maj 2006.
The latter eventually agreed with Mrs Frassoni's initiative and the formal announce of such a procedure was given during the plenary sitting of 31 May 2006.
Artikel 9 og 10 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter
As known, Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities (PPI)(
De protokoller, der er knyttet til de oprindelige traktater, er en del af den primære fællesskabsret og har samme retlige status som traktaterne selv.
() The protocols annexed to the original Treaties form part of primary Community law and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt artikel 9 finder anvendelse, skal det bemærkes, at anklagerne mod Gérard Onesta ikke vedrører meningstilkendegivelser eller stemmeafgivelser under udøvelsen af hans hverv som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet: Ifølge de principper, der er opstillet i så henseende, og Retsudvalgets praksis dækker ansvarsfriheden i henhold til protokollens artikel 9 kun "meningstilkendegivelser" og "stemmeafgivelser" og ikke fysiske handlinger, selv om de har til formål at tilkendegive en mening .
As for the applicability of Article 9, it must be remarked that the charges brought against Mr Onesta do not refer to the opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a member of the European Parliament: according to the doctrine developed in this respect and to the practice followed by the Committee on Legal Affairs, the non-liability provided by Article 9 of the PPI only covers 'opinions' and 'votes' and not physical acts, even if the latter intend to express an opinion.
Rækkevidden af den parlamentariske immunitet i Frankrig er meget lig den, der gælder i henhold til protokollen og skal sikre, at EP kan fungere.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in France is very similar to the one that serves the functioning of the EP, based on the PPI.
Den franske forfatnings artikel 26 lyder således:
Article 26 of the French Constitution reads as follows:
Medlemmer af Parlamentet kan ikke i strafferetligt øjemed udsættes for anholdelse eller nogen som helst anden frihedsberøvende eller frihedsindskrænkende foranstaltning uden tilladelse fra præsidiet for den forsamling, som medlemmet tilhører.
No Member of Parliament shall be arrested for a serious crime or other major offence, nor shall he be subjected to any other custodial or semi-custodial measure, without the authorization of the Bureau of the assembly of which he is a member.
Denne tilladelse er ikke påkrævet, hvis den pågældende gribes på fersk gerning, eller hvis der foreligger en endelig domfældelse.
Such authorization shall not be required in the case of a serious crime or other major offence committed flagrante delicto or a final sentence.
Det må på baggrund af ovenstående og de tilgængelige dokumenter konkluderes, at Gérard Onestas sag ud fra et retligt synspunkt ikke kan betragtes som en sag om immunitet , der skal beskyttes af Europa-Parlamentet.
On the grounds of the above-mentioned elements and of the available documents, it has to be concluded that, from a legal point of view, Mr Onesta’s case cannot be regarded as a case of immunity to be defended by the European Parliament.
Sagen er i sidste ende i det hele undergivet fransk lovgivning .
Ultimately, Mr Onesta's case entirely falls under French legislation .
Den franske forfatnings artikel 26 kan i det konkrete tilfælde ikke bringe Gérard Onestas prærogativer som parlamentsmedlem i fare : For det første vil han ikke blive udsat for nogen form for frihedsberøvende foranstaltning, da fuldbyrdelsen af hans dom vil blive udsat i henhold til betingelserne i den franske straffelovs artikel 132-29 til 132-38, og for det andet er sagen ikke omfattet af den franske forfatnings artikel 26, selv om han også er blevet dømt til at betale et beløb til de civile parter.
Concretely, the abovementioned Article 26 of French Constitution cannot endanger Mr Onesta's prerogatives as a parliamentarian : firstly, he will not be subjected to any custodial measure, as his conviction has been suspended under the conditions laid down by Articles 132-29 to 132-38 of the French criminal code; secondly, although he has also been sentenced to pay a sum to the civil parties, this case is not covered by Article 26 of French Constitution.