natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der vil blive givet bevillinger til medfinansiering i AVS-landene af energi-relaterede projekter, som har til formål at bekæmpe fattigdommen i disse lande.
Grants will be offered to co-fund energy-related projects located in ACP countries which would help alleviate poverty in those countries.
Dette initiativs mål er tydeligvis meget lig VFEEVE's mål, og det er vigtigt, at disse to initiativer støtter hinanden.
Clearly the objectives of this initiative are very similar to GEEREF´s, and it is important that the two initiatives work in tandem.
Også Verdensbanken og de regionale udviklingsbanker investerer stadig større beløb i projekter om vedvarende energi og effektiv energiudnyttelse.
Similarly the World Bank and Regional Development Banks are investing increasingly significant sums into renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
Verdensbanken anfører at have investeret 680 millioner dollars i sådanne projekter i 2006.
The World Bank claims to have invested $680 million into such projects in 2006.
Hver af de regionale udviklingsbanker er ved at opbygge deres egne finansieringsprogrammer.
Each of the Regional Development Banks are developing their own funding programmes.
Som allerede fastslået er det vigtigt, at VFEEVE's arbejde fungerer side om side med disse stadigt voksende lånefaciliteter.
Again, it is important that GEEREF works in harmony with these growing facilities.
UDTALELSE fra Udviklingsudvalget(*)
OPINION of the Committee on Development (*)
UDTALELSE fra Udvalget om Miljø, Folkesundhed og Fødevaresikkerhed(*)
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (*)
om verdensfonden for energieffektivitet og vedvarende energi
on the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund
3. mener, at fonden ikke bør tilgodese bestemte teknologier inden for vedvarende energi og effektiv energiudnyttelse, men snarere bør skabe de rette betingelser for, at markedet selv udvælger de mest miljøvenlige, sikre og omkostningseffektive løsninger; understreger dog betydningen af, at der foretages indgående evalueringer med hensyn til miljø, vugge-til-grav-emissioner af drivhusgasser samt sundhed og sociale forhold, således at fondens integritet opretholdes; mener under alle omstændigheder, at fonden ikke bør støtte produktion af biobrændstoffer bestemt til eksport;
Considers that the fund should not favour any particular renewable energy or energy efficiency technology, but should rather create the right conditions to enable the market to choose the most environmentally sound, safe and cost-effective solutions; stresses, however, the importance of conducting thorough environmental, lifecycle greenhouse gas emission, social and health impact assessments on the beneficiaries in order to guarantee the integrity of the fund; in any event considers that the fund should not support agrofuel production for export;
6. opfordrer Kommissionen til at undersøge mulighederne for at forøge fonden i forbindelse med en fremtidig ordning efter 2012 under FN's rammekonvention om klimaændringer, idet der tages hensyn til, at bæredygtig energi i udviklingslandene vil være afgørende for at nå målene i denne konvention;
Invites the Commission to explore ways of enlarging the fund in the future context of a post-2012 regime under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking into account that sustainable energy in developing countries will be crucial to achieving the objective of this convention;
om anmodning om beskyttelse af Claudio Favas immunitet og privilegier
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Claudio Fava
– der henviser til anmodning af 29. maj 2007 fra Claudio Fava om beskyttelse af hans immunitet i forbindelse med en civil sag ved retten i Marsala, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 6. juni 2007,
– having regard to the request by Claudio Fava for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings brought against him before the Marsala Civil Court, of 29 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 6 June 2007,
– der har hørt Claudio Fava, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3,
– having heard Claudio Fava in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6‑0007/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0007/2008 ),
På mødet den 6. juni 2007 meddelte Parlamentets formand, at han havde modtaget en anmodning om beskyttelse af Claudio Favas parlamentariske immunitet med skrivelse af 29. maj 2007, som var videresendt til Retsudvalget, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 3.
At the sitting of 6 June 2007, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Claudio Fava by letter of 29 May 2007, which was forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs, pursuant to Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Anmodningen vedrører et civilt søgsmål, som David Salvatore Costa har anlagt mod Claudio Fava samt en række andre sagsøgte, og som for øjeblikket behandles ved retten i Marsala.
The request relates to civil proceedings brought by Mr David Salvatore Costa against Mr Fava, along with other defendants, which are currently pending before the Civil Court of Marsala.
Med stævning af 22. februar 2007 indstævnede David Salvatore Costa Claudio Fava samt en række andre sagsøgte ved retten med krav om, at de in solidum eller hver for sig tilpligtes at betale det beløb, som retten finder retfærdigt som erstatning for udtalelser fremført den 16. november 2006 i tv-udsendelsen "Annozero", der blev sendt på den statslige fjernsynskanal RAI 2, og som denne aften beskæftigede sig med Sicilien.
By writ of summons of 22 February 2007, Mr Costa summoned Claudio Fava and the other defendants to appear before the Court in order to answer to a claim for them to be ordered to pay, jointly and severally or individually, such amount as the Court should consider just as compensation for statements they made on 16 November 2006 during the TV programme ‘Annozero’ broadcast by the State television channel RAI 2 , which, that evening, was devoted to Sicily.
Blandt udsendelsens gæster var regeringslederen for regionen Sicilien, Salvatore Cuffaro, og Claudio Fava.
Among the guests on the programme were the President of the Region, Mr Salvatore Cuffaro, and Mr Fava.
Ifølge Costas stævning hengav Fava sig i udsendelsens sidste del i forbindelse med et voldsomt udfald mod Cuffaro i et beregnende tonefald til at komme med usammenhængende, ærekrænkende og bagvaskende påstande om Costa, der i øvrigt ikke var til stede.
According to Mr Costa's writ of summons, in the final part of the programme, Mr Fava, after violently hurling abuse at Mr Cuffaro, in a theatrical tone, wildly launched slanderous and defamatory accusations against Mr Costa, who was, moreover, not present during the debate.
Fava påstod især følgende: "For lidt siden blev der talt om nogle regionsministre, der var blevet arresteret.
In particular, Mr Fava stated as follows: ‘ A while ago we were talking about a number of councillors who have been arrested.
Vi taler om en regionsminister, der blev arresteret, fordi han i sin valgkamp sammen med sig i sin ministerbil havde en mafioso, der er gået under jorden, og fragtede ham med rundt til valgmøderne for at bede om stemmer.
We are talking about a councillor who was arrested because he was accompanied in his official car, during his electoral campaign, by a Mafia fugitive from justice whom he took to meetings to ask for votes.
Har det noget med at tage en person for at være en anden at gøre?
Do we think this was a misunderstanding?
Med at han ikke havde forstået, hvem det var, han havde siddende ved siden af sig?
That he had not known who was sitting next to him?
Det er formatet af regionalregeringspolitik på Sicilien.
This is what the government’s policy in Sicily is like.
Og det var (her henvendte han sig direkte til Cuffaro med pegefingeren i vejret) en af dine regionsministre.
And it was one of your councillors (said while directly pointing at Mr Cuffaro) !
Sådanne sager ville jeg forvente at høre fra regionens regeringsleder, fordi det er dig (Cuffaro) , der burde sige, at det er ubegribeligt, at en regionsminister har en forbryder, der skjuler sig, med til sin valgkamp."
And I would expect to be hearing these things from the President of the Region, because it should be you (Mr Cuffaro) who says that it is inconceivable that a councillor should take a fugitive around with him on his electoral campaign....’
Herefter bemærkede Cuffaro, at han ikke vidste, hvem Fava talte om, og at det ikke forekom ham, at der var nogen ministre, der førte valgkamp, hvortil Fava resolut svarede: "Minister Costa.
After Mr Cuffaro observed that he did not know who Mr Fava was talking about and that, as far as he knew, there were no councillors on the electoral campaign in question, Mr Fava promptly countered: ‘ Councillor Costa.
David Costa."
David Costa ’.
BESTEMMELSER OG GENERELLE BETRAGTNINGER OM EUROPA-PARLAMENTETS MEDLEMMERS IMMUNITET
LAW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Artikel 9 og 10 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter af 8. april 1965 har følgende ordlyd:
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, read as follows:
Artikel 9
Article 9:
Artikel 10
Article 10:
Artikel 6 - Ophævelse af immunitet
Rule 6 - Waiver of immunity:
Artikel 7 - Procedurer vedrørende immunitet
Rule 7 - Procedure on immunity:
Udtrykkene "retsligt forfølges" og "retsforfølgning" i hhv. artikel 9 og 10 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter er traditionelt blevet fortolket således, at de udelukkende dækker strafferetlige søgsmål.
The expression 'legal proceedings' used in Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities has traditionally been interpreted as covering only criminal proceedings.
Da ingen af de seks oprindelige medlemsstater i De Europæiske Fællesskaber, som tog stilling til ordlyden i disse artikler, yder immunitet til deres egne nationale parlamentsmedlemmer i forbindelse med retsforfølgning i civile søgsmål, har det virkelig været vanskeligt troværdigt at argumentere for, at repræsentanterne for disse seks medlemsstater havde til hensigt at yde medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet privilegier, som var mere omfattende end de privilegier, der blev tilstået medlemmerne af deres egne nationale parlamenter.
Indeed, since none of the six founding Member States of the European Communities which considered the wording of those articles grant immunity to their national parliamentarians in connection with civil proceedings, it has been difficult to give credence to the notion that the representatives of those six Member States intended to grant Members of the European Parliament privileges which were broader in scope than those accorded to their own national parliamentarians.
Indtil september 2003 havde denne restriktive fortolkning, som begrænser anvendelsesområdet for de omhandlede bestemmelser til strafferetlige søgsmål, også sine fortalere i Europa-Parlamentet.
Until September 2003, the restrictive interpretation limiting the scope of the provisions in question to criminal proceedings also had its proponents in Parliament.
I marts 1987 gik Europa-Parlamentet så vidt som til at foreslå en ændring til et udkast fra Kommissionen til revision af protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter med henblik på at tydeliggøre den omhandlede bestemmelse ved udtrykkeligt at begrænse parlamentsmedlemmernes immunitet til retsforfølgning i strafferetlige søgsmål og sager, hvor der er tale om berøvelse eller begrænsning af deres personlige frihed
In March 1987, Parliament went so far as to propose an amendment to the Commission draft text revising the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities with a view to clarifying the provision in question by expressly restricting the immunity of MEPs to criminal proceedings and measures involving the withdrawal or restriction of individual freedom
Se Donnez-betænkningen, A2-0121/86 . .
See the Donnez report, A2-0121/86 . .
Derudover synes stk. 4 og 7 i den gældende udgave af artikel 7 i Europa-Parlamentets forretningsorden at understøtte denne fortolkning yderligere, idet der i disse stykker udtrykkeligt henvises til "strafferetlig forfølgelse" af det pågældende parlamentsmedlem.
Furthermore, paragraphs 4 and 7 of the current version of Rule 7 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure seem to lend further weight to that interpretation by making explicit reference to 'prosecution proceedings' and to the 'prosecution' of the Member concerned.
Ikke desto mindre besluttede Europa-Parlamentet den 23. september 2003 for første gang at opretholde et parlamentsmedlems immunitet i et civilretligt søgsmål
However, on 23 September 2003 Parliament decided, for the first time, to uphold the immunity of a Member in civil proceedings
Se A5-0309/03 , Sakellariou. .
See A5-0309/03 , Sakellariou. .
Efterfølgende er der blevet truffet mange andre lignende afgørelser i sager omhandlende civilretlige søgsmål
Subsequently, many other similar decisions were taken in other cases involving civil proceedings
Se A5-0421/03 , Gargani; A5-0184/04 , Schulz; A5-0185/04 , Lehne; A5-0281/04 , Bossi; A6-0449/07 , Brunetta. .
See A5-0421/03 , Gargani; A5-0184/04 , Schulz; A5-0185/04 , Lehne; A5-0281/04 , Bossi; A6-0449/07 , Brunetta. .
Som følge heraf skal udtrykkene "retsligt forfølges" og "retsforfølgning" i de ovennævnte bestemmelser i protokollen i dag fortolkes således, at de dækker ethvert forsøg på at få tilkendt et erstatningskrav med karakter af bod gennem et civilt søgsmål.
Accordingly, the reference to 'legal proceedings' in the above provisions of the Protocol must today be interpreted as covering any attempt to secure punitive damages by means of civil proceedings.
Anvendelse på den aktuelle sag
Application to the case in point
Som der fremgår ovenfor, foreskriver artikel 9 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter, at medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet nyder fuldstændig immunitet mod retsforfølgning "på grund af meningstilkendegivelser […] under udøvelsen af deres hverv" .
As seen above, Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
I de udtalelser, der gengives i den stævning, sagsøgeren har indgivet, kommenterede Fava rent faktisk blot offentlige emner.
As a matter of fact, in his statements reported by the writ of summons filed by the claimant, Mr Fava merely commented on facts in the public domain.
Ved at beskrive og kritisere, hvad der efter hans mening udgjorde afvigelser inden for valgkampagnen på Sicilien, udøvede han sit hverv som medlem af Parlamentet, idet han tilkendegav sin mening om et spørgsmål af almen interesse for sine vælgere.
In describing and criticising what in his views were deviations of the electoral campaign in Sicily , he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
På grundlag af ovenstående betragtninger og under hensyn til argumenterne for og imod beskyttelse af immuniteten henstiller Retsudvalget til, at Claudio Favas immunitet beskyttes.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Claudio Fava should be defended.
– der henviser til anmodning af 21. maj 2007 fra Witold Tomczak om beskyttelse af hans immunitet i forbindelse med straffesagen mod ham ved distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski i Polen, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 24. maj 2007,
– having regard to the request by Witold Tomczak for defence of his immunity in connection with the criminal case conducted by the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland, made on 21 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 24 May 2007,
– der har hørt Witold Tomczak (den 4. oktober 2007), jf. forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3,
– having heard Witold Tomczak on 4 October 2007 in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6-0008/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0008/2008 ),
A. der henviser til, at Witold Tomczak blev valgt til det polske parlament (Sejm) den 21. september 1997 og den 23. september 2001; der henviser til, at han efter undertegnelsen af tiltrædelsestraktaten den 16. april 2003 blev observatør i Europa-Parlamentet; der henviser til, at han var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet fra den 1. maj til den 19. juli 2004; der henviser til, at han blev valgt til Europa-Parlamentet den 13. juni 2004, og at hans mandat i det polske parlament ophørte den 16. juni 2004,
A. whereas Witold Tomczak was elected to the Polish Parliament (Sejm) on 21 September 1997 and on 23 September 2001; whereas after the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003 he became an Observer; whereas he was a Member of the European Parliament from 1 May 2004 until 19 July 2004; whereas he was elected to the European Parliament on 13 June 2004 and his term of office in the Polish Parliament expired on 16 June 2004,
B. der henviser til, at Witold Tomczak er anklaget for den 26. juni 1999 i Ostrów Wielpolski at have fornærmet to politibetjente under udøvelsen af deres hverv, hvilket er en overtrædelse af artikel 226, stk. 1, i den polske straffelov; der henviser til, at distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski, efter at Witold Tomczak gentagne gange var udeblevet fra retsmøderne, den 10. januar 2005 i overensstemmelse med artikel 377, stk. 3, i den polske strafferetsplejelov besluttede at fortsætte sagsbehandlingen i hans fravær,
B. whereas Witold Tomczak is charged with insulting two police officers in the performance of their duties in Ostrów Wielkopolski on 26 June 1999 in breach of Article 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code; whereas after a number of failures by Witold Tomczak to appear at the hearings, the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski decided on 10 January 2005, in accordance with Article 377(3) of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, to proceed with the trial in absentia,
C. der henviser til artikel 9 i den polske lov af 23. januar 2004 om valg til Europa-Parlamentet, ifølge hvilken " en person er valgbar ved valg til Europa-Parlamentet afholdt i Republikken Polen, hvis den pågældende […] ikke er blevet dømt for en forsætligt begået lovovertrædelse …"; der henviser til, at det i samme lovs artikel 142, stk. 1(1), bestemmes, at " hvis et medlem af Europa-Parlamentet mister sin valgbarhed, bortfalder vedkommendes mandat "; der henviser til, at der ikke findes en tilsvarende bestemmelse i den polske lov af 12. april 2001 om valg til Republikken Polens Sejm og Senat (det polske parlament),
C. whereas, in accordance with Article 9 of the Act of 23 January 2004 on elections to the European Parliament, " A person shall be eligible for elections to the European Parliament held in the Republic of Poland if he or she [...] has not been convicted of a crime committed intentionally and prosecuted by indictment ... " ; whereas Article 142, paragraph 1(1) of that Act states that " The forfeiture of a seat of a Member of the European Parliament shall be a result of forfeiture of eligibility "; whereas no such provisions exist in the Act of 12 April 2001 on elections to the Sejm and Senat of the Republic of Poland (the Polish parliament),
D. der henviser til, at Witold Tomczak en gang tidligere (29. april 2005) har anmodet Europa-Parlamentet om at beskytte hans immunitet i denne straffesag, og at Parlamentet i den forbindelse på plenarmødet den 4. april 2006 besluttede ikke at forsvare Tomczaks immunitet, uagtet at han forud for plenarmødet havde fremsendt en skrivelse, hvori han tilkendegav at ville trække sin anmodning om beskyttelse af immunitet tilbage,
D. whereas Witold Tomczak had previously (on 29 April 2005) asked Parliament to defend his immunity in these criminal proceedings; whereas Parliament decided in plenary on 4 April 2006 not to defend his immunity, even though Mr Tomczak had sent a letter prior to the plenary sitting by which he purported to withdraw his earlier application for defence of his immunity,
E. der henviser til Witold Tomczaks påstand om, at den dommer, der behandler sagen, ikke er uvildig, og at muligheden for at afholde retssagen in absentia strider mod princippet om uskyldsformodning,
E. whereas Witold Tomczak claims that the judge presiding in the case is not objective, and that the possibility of holding the trial in absentia infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence,
F. der henviser til Witold Tomczaks klage over, at distriktsdomstolen ikke vil give ham adgang til sagens akter, og at straffesagen mod ham ikke er uvildig, fordi han har anfægtet lovligheden af det lokale politis og den lokale anklagers handlemåde,
F. whereas Witold Tomczak complains that the District Court is not granting him access to the files in the case and that the criminal proceedings against him are biased because he sought to challenge the legality of the actions of local police and the local prosecutor,
G. der henviser til, at Witold Tomczak på grundlag af de foreliggende oplysninger ikke er beskyttet af parlamentarisk immunitet i forbindelse med nogen af de påstande, som er forelagt for Europa-Parlamentets formand,
G. whereas, on the basis of the information obtained, Witold Tomczak is not protected by parliamentary immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President of the European Parliament,
Efter at Sejm havde udnævnt ham til observatør ved Europa-Parlamentet efter undertegnelsen af tiltrædelsestraktaten den 16. april 2003, blev Tomczak medlem af EP for perioden 1. maj – 1. juli 2004, hvor den første samling i det Parlament, som var valgt i juni 2004, fandt sted.
Having been delegated by the Sejm as an Observer to the European Parliament after the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003, Mr Tomczak became a Member of the EP for the period from 1 May to 19 July 2004, when the first sitting of the Parliament elected in June 2004 took place.
Sent om aftenen den 25. april 1999 var Witold Tomczak i bil på vej gennem byen Ostrów Wielkopolski med sine tre sønner (Mikołaj, Dominik og Tymoteusz), fr. Krystyna Kubiak og dennes datter Maria som passagerer.
On late evening on 25 June 1999, Mr Witold Tomczak was driving his car in Ostrów Wielkopolski with his three sons (Mikołaj, Dominik and Tymoteusz), Ms Krystyna Kubiak and her daughter Maria as passengers.
Kort efter midnat kørte de ad den ensrettede Gimnazjalna-gade i den forkerte retning.
A few minutes after midnight, they were driving the wrong way down a one-way steett, Gimnazjalna Street.
En politipatrulje i en civil bil blokerede vejen, og en politibetjent (Sławomir Marek) gik hen til Tomczaks bil ved førersiden.
A police patrol in an unmarked car blocked their way and one police officer (Sławomir Marek) approached Mr Tomczak's car from the driver's side.
Efter et kort tidsrum (indholdet af de to mænds samtale er omdiskuteret, navnlig hvad angår påstanden om, at bilens fører anvendte ”hvad der normalt anses for at være anstødeligt sprogbrug”) kørte Tomczak derfra og blev senere (hvor kun hans tre sønner var med i bilen) igen stoppet, denne gang af tre politibiler i Kościuszki-gade.
After a short while (the substance of the exchange between the two men is disputed, especially with regard to the charge that the driver was using 'what is generally deemed to be insulting language') Mr Tomczak drove away and was later (when only his sons were the passengers) stopped again by three police cars on Kościuszki Street.
Da Tomczak nægtede at vise legitimation, blev han af to politibetjente (Sławomir Marek og Radosław Gmur) tvunget ud af bilen, iført håndjern og taget med til den lokale politistation.
As Mr Tomczak refused to present his documents, two police officers (Sławomir Marek and Radosław Gmur) forced him out of the car, handcuffed him and took to the local police station.