natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[D] en offentlige anklager i Dendermonde har indledt en strafferetlig undersøgelse angående det belgiske medlem af Europa-Parlamentet Frank Arthur Hyppolite Vanhecke, ... som er mistænkt for at have overtrådt artikel 1, stk. 3, nr. 2, i lov af 30. juli 1981 om straf for visse handlinger inspireret af racisme eller fremmedhad (som ændret ved lov af 10. maj 2007).
[T]he Dendermonde Public Prosecutor has opened a criminal investigation into Mr Frank Arthur Hyppolite Vanhecke, .... a Belgian Member of the European Parliament, on suspicion of violating Article 1(3)(2) of the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts Inspired by Racism or Xenophobia (as amended by the Law of 10 May 2007).
De faktiske omstændigheder, der danner grundlag for undersøgelsen, kan beskrives således:
The facts on which it is based may be outlined as follows:
Den 3. november 2005 indgav Sint-Niklaas kommunes magistrat en klage mod den person, der havde skrevet, udgivet, trykt eller distribueret artiklen "Det, der ikke måtte komme frem i pressen" i bladet Vlaams Belang-Krant, nr. 2, Sint-Niklaas-udgaven, april-maj-juni 2005.
On 3 November 2005, the Municipal Executive of the town of Sint-Niklaas lodged a complaint against the writer, the publisher, the printer or the distributor of the article 'What you were not allowed to read in the press' in the Vlaams Belang Newspaper, No 2, Sint-Niklaas edition, of April-May-June 2005.
Retsgrundlaget for klagen var artikel 1, stk. 3, nr. 2, i lov af 30. juli 1981 om straf for visse handlinger inspireret af racisme eller fremmedhad.
The legal basis for the complaint was Article 1(3)(2) of the Law of 30 July 1981 on the Punishment of Certain Acts Inspired by Racism or Xenophobia.
Den omhandlede artikel i Vlaams Belang's blad drejede sig om en strid, der var opstået i forbindelse med skændingen af gravsten på kirkegården i Tereken mellem den 29. marts og den 5. april 2005, hvor Vlaams Belang fremhævede det forhold, at gerningsmændene angiveligt var unge mennesker af udenlandsk oprindelse.
The article in question in Vlaams Belang's newspaper concerned the controversy which had arisen over the desecration of gravestones in Tereken churchyard between 29 March and 5 April 2005, in which connection Vlaams Belang highlighted the alleged fact that the culprits were young people of foreign origin.
I artiklen bruges ordet "udenlandsk" i forbindelse med en udtalelse om, at "(…) en kultur, der ikke længere har nogen respekt for de døde og for en anden tros symboler, er en kultur, der er blevet afsporet (…)", og det skrives i artiklen, at "det ville være forkert at kaste et diskret slør" over disse handlinger.
In this article the term 'foreign' is linked to the statement '(…) a culture which no longer has any respect for the dead and for the symbols of a different faith is a culture which has become derailed (…)', and the article said that 'it would not be right to draw a discreet veil' over these actions.
I virkeligheden var gerningsmændene tilsyneladende ikke af udenlandsk oprindelse, men er derimod blevet identificeret som fire indfødte mindreårige fra to flamske familier.
In reality the culprits were apparently not of foreign origin but were identified as four minors of indigenous origin from two Flemish families.
Den 30. juni 2005 indgav Sint-Niklaas kommunes magistrat en formel klage til Centret for Lige Muligheder og Modstand mod Racisme.
On 30 June 2005, the Municipal Executive of the town of Sint-Niklaas lodged a formal complaint with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism.
Den 30. september 2005 afgav Centret for Lige Muligheder og Modstand mod Racisme tilsyneladende en udtalelse over for Sint-Niklaas kommunes magistrat, som dannede grundlag for beslutningen om at indgive en klage til den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde.
On 30 September 2005 the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism apparently delivered an opinion to the Municipal Executive of Sint-Niklaas on the basis of which it was decided to lodge a complaint with the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor.
Den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde indledte en undersøgelse med særlig henvisning til princippet om successivt (alternativt og ikke fælles) ansvar i henhold til artikel 25 i den koordinerede forfatning.
The Dendermonde Public Prosecutor launched an investigation, with particular reference to the principle of successive (alternative rather than joint) responsibility provided for by Article 25 of the Coordinated Constitution.
Det var oprindelig umuligt at identificere de personer, der havde henholdsvis skrevet, trykt og distribueret artiklen.
Initially, it was impossible to identify the writer, the printer or the distributor.
Dette var baggrunden for, at den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde oprindeligt kun agtede at retsforfølge Frank Vanhecke, og undersøgelsen blev således afsluttet den 21. november 2006.
It was for these reasons that the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor initially proposed to prosecute only Frank Vanhecke, and the investigation was thus concluded on 21 November 2006.
Den 27. november 2006 modtog den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde imidlertid en skrivelse fra Frank Vanheckes advokat med en anmodning om en supplerende undersøgelse og en tilkendegivelse af, at man agtede at samarbejde.
However, on 27 November 2006 the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor received a letter from Mr Frank Vanhecke's counsel with a request for a supplementary investigation and a statement of intention to cooperate.
Nærmest samtidig modtog den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde en besked fra Forbundspolitiet om, at man havde fået en henvendelse med oplysning om, at forfatteren af den omhandlede artikel var villig til at afgive forklaring.
Virtually simultaneously, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor also received a message from the Federal CID saying that they had been contacted with the information that the writer of the article in question was willing to report for questioning.
Den 27. november 2006 besluttede den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde at indlede en yderligere undersøgelse under hensyntagen til disse forhold.
By instruction of 27 November 2006, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor ordered a further investigation, taking account of these facts.
Under den videre undersøgelse kom det frem, at en person ved navn Marc Van De Velde havde meldt sig som forfatter af artiklen.
The subsequent investigation revealed that a person called Marc Van De Velde reported as the author.
En afhøring af ham og en undersøgelse af hans pc syntes delvis at bekræfte, at han havde skrevet en del af artiklen.
His questioning and an examination of his PC seemed partially to confirm that he was the writer of part of the article.
Han havde imidlertid ikke skrevet artiklens fjerde og femte afsnit og overskriften.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the article and the title, however, were not written by him.
Det var under den videre undersøgelse ikke muligt at få bekræftet, hvem der havde skrevet de belastende fjerde og femte afsnit i artiklen og dens overskrift, herunder følgende passage, som skal fremhæves: "(…) Det måtte dog ikke komme frem, at gerningsmændene, som alle var unge teenagere, var af udenlandsk oprindelse (…)".
In the course of the subsequent investigation it was not possible to ascertain who was the author of the incriminating fourth and fifth paragraphs of the article and its title, including the passage, which should be noted: '(…) what people were not allowed to know, however, is that the offenders, all of whom were young teenagers, were of foreign origin (…)'.
Ifølge den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde forbliver Frank Vanhecke indtil videre strafferetligt ansvarlig for de pågældende afsnit som den ansvarlige udgiver.
It seems to the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor that so far Mr Frank Vanhecke remains responsible under the criminal law for those sections, as the editor or publisher responsible.
Ud fra ovenstående betragtninger agter den offentlige anklager i Dendermonde at rejse tiltale mod Frank Vanhecke på grund af den i indledningen nævnte artikel (se også vedlagte uddrag af stævningen).
In view of the above considerations, the Dendermonde Public Prosecutor proposes to order that Mr Frank Vanhecke be summoned to appear before the Magistrate's Court pursuant to the article cited at the beginning of this report (see also the attached draft of the summons).
På baggrund af Vanheckes status er det en forudsætning for en sådan retsforfølgning, at hans parlamentariske immunitet er blevet ophævet.
In view of Mr Vanhecke's status, such a prosecution would only be possible after his parliamentary immunity had been waived.
Vanheckes bemærkninger
Submissions made by Mr Vanhecke
Vanhecke gjorde under høringen gældende, at der forelå fumus persecutionis .
At the hearing, Mr Vanhecke submitted that there was fumus persecutionis .
For det første var byens borgmester socialist, og retsforfølgelsen var motiveret af antagonisme over for personer, der arbejdede for en opsplitning af den belgiske stat.
First, the Mayor of the town was a socialist and the prosecution was motivated by antagonism to persons who advocated a break-up of the Belgian State.
For det andet var retsforfølgelsen blevet gennemført ekstremt hurtigt efter belgiske standarder.
Secondly, the prosecution had been conducted extremely fast by Belgian standards.
For det tredje var det i en fransksproget avis, der berettede om sagen, blevet tilkendegivet, at hvis Europa-Parlamentet nægtede at ophæve Vanheckes immunitet, ville sagen blive afsluttet (selv om artiklens forfatter var kendt).
Thirdly, a French-language newspaper stated, in reporting on the case, that if the European Parliament refused to waive Mr Vanhecke's immunity, the case would be dropped (even though the author of the article was known).
Vanhecke anførte endvidere, at han i henhold til artikel 25 i den belgiske forfatning
Mr Vanhecke also stated that, under Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution
Artikel 25 i den belgiske forfatning:
Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution:
Pressen er fri; der kan aldrig indføres censur; der kan ikke kræves sikkerhedsstillelse fra forfattere, udgivere eller trykkere.
The press is free; censorship can never be established; security from authors, publishers or printers cannot be demanded.
Hvis forfatteren er kendt og bosiddende i Belgien, kan hverken udgiveren, trykkeren eller distributøren retsforfølges. som ansvarlig udgiver ikke kunne retsforfølges, når forfatteren var kendt og bosiddende i Belgien.
When the author is known and resident in Belgium , neither the publisher, nor the printer, nor the distributor can be prosecuted. , he, as responsible editor, could not be prosecuted where the author was known and resident in Belgium.
Han havde ikke skrevet eller ændret artiklen eller anmodet andre om at gøre det.
He had not written or altered the article or commissioned anyone to do so.
Han var den ansvarlige udgiver af cirka 200 lokale blade.
He was the responsible editor of some 200 local newspapers.
For så vidt angår den omhandlede artikel var både forfatteren og den person, der havde ansvaret for ændringen af den, kendte og bosiddende i Belgien.
In the case of the article in question, both the author and the person responsible for amending it were known and resident in Belgium.
Vanhecke påpegede endvidere, at han havde udsendt og omdelt en tilbagekaldelse af artiklen.
Mr Vanhecke further pointed out that he had issued and distributed a retraction of the article.
For det første findes denne sag ikke at være omfattet af protokollens artikel 9, da det ikke indgår i en MEP's hverv at være ansvarlig udgiver af et nationalt partiblad.
It is considered in the first place that this case is not covered by Article 9 of the Protocol in that an MEP's duties do not include acting as responsible editor for a national party newspaper.
Sagen skal derfor vurderes på grundlag af artikel 10, dvs. i lyset af belgisk ret og Retsudvalgets faste praksis.
Consequently, the case falls to be considered under Article 10, namely in the light of Belgian law and the consolidated practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Den belgiske forfatnings artikel 58 finder ikke anvendelse af samme grunde som protokollens artikel 9.
Article 58 of the Belgian Constitution is excluded on the same grounds as Article 9 of the Protocol.
Der skal derfor tages stilling til, om immuniteten kan ophæves af nogen af de af Vanhecke fremførte grunde.
It is therefore necessary to consider whether immunity could be waived on any of the grounds raised by Mr Vanhecke.
Det skal for det første bemærkes, at der ikke er blevet ført tilstrækkeligt bevis for, at der foreligger fumus persecutionis .
In the first place, it must be stated that sufficient evidence of fumus persecutionis has not been adduced.
Det er ikke usædvanligt at drage chefredaktøren til ansvar for indholdet af blade, og det forhold, at den lokale borgmester er socialist, giver ikke tilstrækkeligt grundlag for at gære gældende, at anklagen er politisk begrundet.
It is not unusual to attribute responsibility for the content of newspapers to the editor-in-chief and the fact that the local mayor is a socialist is not enough to make out an allegation that the charge was politically motivated.
For det andet bemærkes, at hvis de personer, der skrev og ændrede den omhandlede artikel, faktisk er kendte og bosiddende i Belgien, er det muligt, at Vanhecke er fuldstændig beskyttet efter belgisk ret.
Secondly, it is observed that if the persons who wrote and amended the article in question are indeed known and resident in Belgium, it is possible that Mr Vanhecke has a complete defence under Belgian law.
Desuden har Vanhecke åbenbart udgivet og omdelt en tilbagekaldelse af den omhandlede artikel.
Moreover, it appears that Mr Vanhecke issued and distributed a retraction of the article in question.
Det skal dog understreges, at det ligger uden for rammerne af Retsudvalgets kompetence at tage stilling til de faktiske omstændigheder eller vurdere, om anklagen er berettiget.
It is stressed, however, that it is not within the competence of the Committee on Legal Affairs to make findings of facts or assess the merits of the charge.
Det fremgår klart af forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 7, at Retsudvalget under ingen omstændigheder udtaler sig om skyldsspørgsmålet eller om det hensigtsmæssige i en strafferetlig forfølgelse på grundlag af de udtalelser eller handlinger, som medlemmet tillægges, selv ikke i tilfælde, hvor udvalget gennem prøvelsen af anmodningen opnår grundigt kendskab til selve sagen.
Rule 7(7) of the Rules of Procedure makes it plain that the Legal Affairs Committee shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case.
I lyset af ovenstående betragtninger og i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 1 og 2, anbefaler Retsudvalget, efter at have overvejet argumenterne for og imod ophævelse af immuniteten, at Europa-Parlamentet ophæver Frank Vanheckes parlamentariske immunitet.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, and pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for and against waiving immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament waive Mr Frank Vanhecke's parliamentary immunity.
om anmodning om ophævelse af Massimo D'Alemas immunitet
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Massimo D'Alema
– der henviser til anmodning af 30. maj 2008 fra anklagemyndigheden ved retten i Milano om ophævelse af Massimo D'Alemas immunitet, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 16. juni 2008,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Massimo D'Alema, forwarded by the Public Prosecution Service at the Court of Milan on 30 May 2008, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 June 2008,
– der henviser til forretningsordenens artikel 6 og 7,
– having regard to Rules 6 and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A6-0422/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0422/2008 ),
I en skrivelse af 28. maj 2008 til Europa-Parlamentets formand, Hans-Gert Pöttering, anmodede anklagemyndigheden ved retten i Milano om tilladelse til i forbindelse med en straffesag at gøre brug af ”indirekte” aflyttede telefonsamtaler mellem en mistænkt og et tidligere medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, Massimo D ' Alema .
By letter of 28 May 2008 to Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, the Public Prosecution Service at the Court of Milan applied for authorisation to use in criminal proceedings 'indirect' telephone conversations between an individual under investigation and the former Member of the European Parliament, Massimo D'Alema .
Den pågældende straffesag, registreret som nr. 19195/2005, drejer sig om et overtagelsesforsøg mod Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, i hvilken forbindelse en gruppe personer mistænkes for at have overtrådt italiensk lovgivning vedrørende markedsmanipulation og insiderhandel, hvorfor de pågældende er gjort til genstand for efterforskning og retsforfølgning i henhold til artikel 185 og 184 i lovdekret nr. 58 fra 1998.
The criminal proceedings in question (19195/2005) concern the attempted takeover of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, in connection with which a group of persons suspected of having violated Italian legal provisions laying down penalties for the offences of market manipulation and insider trading, as established in Articles 185 and 184 of Decree Law No 58, 1998 (Consolidated Law on Finance), have been placed under investigation and brought to trial.
I forbindelse med forundersøgelser blev der foretaget telefonaflytninger i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne herom i den italienske strafferetsplejelov.
During the preliminary investigations, telephone intercepts were carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.
Blandt de optagne aflytninger findes der samtaler mellem de mistænkte og visse italienske parlamentsmedlemmer, heriblandt Massimo D'Alema, som på daværende tidspunkt var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet.
The calls intercepted included conversations between the persons under investigation and a number of Italian members of parliament, including Massimo D'Alema, who was a Member of the European Parliament at the time.
Det drejer sig altså om indirekte aflytninger af parlamentsmedlemmer, der har kommunikeret med andre brugere af telefonnettet, der var genstand for en direkte, forskriftsmæssig aflytning.
They thus constituted 'indirect' intercepts of conversations between members of parliament and individuals whose calls were being lawfully intercepted.
Ifølge artikel 4 i lov 140/2003 kan italienske parlamentsmedlemmer kun gøres til genstand for direkte aflytninger , hvis det italienske parlament på forhånd har givet tilladelse hertil.
Article 4 of Italian Law 140/2003 provides that direct intercepts of conversations involving members of the Italian Parliament require prior authorisation by that parliament.
Hvad angår indirekte aflytninger , beordrer den ansvarlige undersøgelsesdommer ifølge artikel 6, stk. 1, i lov 140/2003, evt. på begæring af sagens parter eller det berørte parlamentsmedlem, sådanne aflytninger destrueret, hvis han finder, at de er uden betydning for den pågældende straffesag.
As regards indirect intercepts , Article 6(1) of Law 140/2003 provides that the examining magistrate shall, including on application by the parties or the member of parliament concerned, order their destruction where he or she considers them not to be relevant to the criminal proceedings.
Hvis dommeren derimod på begæring af en af sagens parter finder det nødvendigt og væsentligt at gøre brug af aflytningerne, skal han anmode om tilladelse hertil i det kammer, som den pågældende er eller var medlem af, jf. stk. 2 i den nævnte artikel 6.
Where, however, on application by a party to the proceedings, the magistrate deems their use to be relevant and necessary, he or she must seek authorisation from the House in which the member of parliament sits or sat , as established in Article 6(2) of the above law .
Den 20. juli 2007 anmodede undersøgelsesdommer Clementina Forleo Deputeretkammeret (for D'Alemas, Fassinos og Cicus vedkommende) og Senatet (for La Torres og Cominciolis vedkommende) om tilladelse til at anvende de ovennævnte aflytninger.
On 20 July 2007 the examining magistrate, Clementina Forleo, applied to the Chamber of Deputies (in respect of the members D'Alema , Fassino and Cicu) and to the Senate (in respect of senators La Torre and Comincioli) for authorisation to use the aforementioned intercepts.
I oktober 2007 erklærede Deputeretkammeret sig inkompetent med hensyn til Massimo D' Alema , da han på tidspunktet for de aflyttede samtaler var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet .
In October 2007, the Chamber of Deputies stated that it was not competent to deal with the matter relating to Massimo D'Alema in that , when the conversations were intercepted, Mr D'Alema was a Member of the European Parliament .
Som følge af denne afgørelse fra Deputeretkammeret har anklagemyndigheden i Milano rettet henvendelse til Europa-Parlamentet for at anmode om tilladelse til at anvende de indirekte aflytninger af Massimo D' Alema .
Further to that decision of the Chamber of Deputies, the Milan Public Prosecution Service has applied to the European Parliament for authorisation to use the indirect intercepts involving Massimo D'Alema .
LOVGIVNINGEN OG GENERELLE BETRAGTNINGER OM EUROPA-PARLAMENTETS MEDLEMMERS IMMUNITET
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Artikel 9 og 10 i protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers privilegier og immuniteter har følgende ordlyd
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (PPI)
De protokoller, der er knyttet til traktaterne, er en del af den primære fællesskabsret og har samme retlige status som traktaterne.
The protocols annexed to the Treaties form part of Community primary law and have the same legal status as the Treaties proper.
Dommen i en sag vedrørende EF-tjenestemænds pligt til at betale ejendomsskat har gjort det klart, at en overtrædelse af protokollens bestemmelser udgør en krænkelse af de forpligtelser, der følger af traktaterne (dom af 24. februar 1988, sag 260/86 Kommissionen mod Belgien, , Sml. s. 966). :
A Court of Justice judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials in respect of property tax clearly provides that any violation of the PPI is equivalent to a violation of the obligations deriving from the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium, Case 280/86 [1988], ECR 955). read:
Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer kan hverken eftersøges, tilbageholdes eller retsligt forfølges på grund af meningstilkendegivelser eller stemmeafgivelser under udøvelsen af deres hverv.
Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties .
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;
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.
Proceduren i Europa-Parlamentet er fastsat i forretningsordenens artikel 6 og 7.
The procedural arrangements within the European Parliament are governed by Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure.
Det drejer sig om følgende bestemmelser:
The relevant provisions are:
Artikel 6 – Ophævelse af immunitet:
Rule 6 – Waiver of immunity