natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 2004 to 19 July, when the first sitting of the Parliament elected in June 2004 took place.
Da han var blevet valgt til Europa-Parlamentet ved det polske Europavalg, der afholdtes den 13. juni 2004, ophørte hans mandat i Sejm pr. 16. juni 2004, da valgresultatet blev bekendtgjort.
As he was elected to the European Parliament in elections taking place in Poland on 13 June 2004, he became a Member of the EP and his term of office in Sejm ended with effect on the 16 June 2004, when the election results were announced.
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 April 1999, Mr Witold Tomczak was driving his car in Ostrów Wielkopolski, with the passengers being his three sons (Mikołaj, Dominik and Tymoteusz), Ms Krystyna Kubiak and her daughter Maria.
Nogle minutter efter midnat var de på vej hen ad den ensrettede Gimnazjalna-gade i den forkerte retning.
A few minutes after midnight, they were driving the wrong way down a one-way 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 un-marked car blocked their way and one policeman (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 betegnes som 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 content of 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 policemen (Sławomir Marek and Radosław Gmur) forced him out of the car, handcuffed him and took to the local police station.
Efter at have gennemgået en alkometertest (som viste, at han var ædru), fremviste Tomczak sit medlemskort til Sejm og fik lov til at ringe til det regionale politihovedkvarter i Poznań for at klage over de lokale politifolks opførsel.
There, after he was given a breathalyser test (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 on the local policemen behaviour.
Efter at være blevet ført tilbage til sin bil kørte han selv til politistationen i Ostrów, hvor han havde en telefonsamtale med distriktsanklagerens kontor.
After being taken back to his car, he drove to the police station in Ostrów himself and had a telephone conversation with the district public prosecutor's office.
Efterforskningen af sagen indledtes den 30. juni 1999 af distriktsanklageren i Ostrów Wielkopolski.
The investigation was opened on 30 June 1999 by the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Public Prosecutor's Office.
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 the latter 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.
Anmodningen blev imidlertid ikke behandlet af Sejm, efter at Tomczak den 4. oktober 2000 havde forelagt Sejms formand en erklæring i henhold til den polske forfatnings artikel 105, stk. 4, om, at han indvilgede i at lade sig retsforfølge for de lovovertrædelser, sagen drejede sig om.
However, this application was not considered by the Sejm as a result of Mr Tomczak submitting to the President of the Sejm on 4 October 2000 a statement pursuant to Article 105(4) of the Polish Constitution to the effect that he agreed to be held liable for the offences forming the subject of the proceedings.
I lyset af denne erklæring og af en ansøgning af 9. november 2000 til justitsministeriet, hvori Tomczak henviste til den på daværende tidspunkt store arbejdsbyrde i Sejm, besluttede den nationale offentlige anklager at henvise sagen til den regionale anklagemyndighed i Warszawa.
Following that statement and having considered Mr Tomczak's application of 9 November 2000 to the Ministry of Justice, in which Mr Tomczak alluded to the heavy workload within the Sejm at the time, the National Public Prosecutor decided to refer the matter to the Warsaw Regional Public Prosecutor's Office.
Selve sagsbehandlingen blev efterfølgende af den regionale anklagemyndighed henvist til distriktsanklageren i Warszawa-Praga Północ.
By decision of the Warsaw regional public prosecutor, responsibility for prosecuting the proceedings was assigned to the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Public Prosecutor.
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 policemen involved.
På grundlag af en formel klage fra en af disse blev denne beslutning tilsidesat af den regionale anklagemyndighed den 30. marts 2001.
After a formal complaint was made by one of the latter, this decision was overruled by the Regional Prosecutor on 30 March 2001.
Den 15. oktober 2001 rejste distriktsanklageren Adam Woźny tiltale mod Tomczak 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 policemen (Sławomir Marek and Jacek Bałamącek) in the performance of their official duties (constituting an offence under Art. 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code).
Den materielle og territoriale kompetence i sagen indehaves af distriktsdomstolen i Ostrów Wielkopolski.
The material and territorial jurisdiction in the matter is held by the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court.
Da Tomczak tolv gange i træk havde undladt at møde for retten, besluttede retten at fortsætte sagen i hans fravær.
As Mr Tomczak has not appeared in Court for twelve consecutive times, the Court decided to proceed with the trial in absentia.
Efter at Tomczak den 30. april 2005 havde oplyst retten om, at han ville anmode Europa-Parlamentet om beskyttelse af 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 suspend the criminal proceedings.
Tomczak bestrider ikke, at han kørte ad en ensrettet gade i den forkerte retning..
Mr Tomczak does not contest driving the wrong way down a one-way street.
Han klager over, at den første politibil, der blokerede vejen for ham, var uden politikendetegn, og at den mand, der kom hen til ham, ikke legitimerede sig og heller ikke oplyste om navn og rang, som han var forpligtet til i henhold til de gældende regler for vejkontrol.
He complains that the first police car that blocked his way was unmarked and that the man who approached him did not present his identity documents; neither stated his name and rank, as is the obligation according to the relevant decree regulating the road-traffic checks.
Desuden insisterer Tomczak på, at det tydeligt fremgik af mærkningen på hans bil, at den tilhørte et parlamentsmedlem, at passagererne i bilen kan bevidne, at den formodede politimand opførte sig mistænkeligt, hvilket var grunden til, at han kørte bort.
Moreover, Mr Tomczak insists that his car was clearly marked as belonging to a Member of Parliament and that the passengers of his car bear witness to the suspicious behaviour of the supposed policeman, for the reason of which he drove off.
Tomczak hævder endvidere, at de politibetjente, der standsede ham den næste gang, var berusede, og at de overfaldt og mishandlede ham, og han har som dokumentation herfor fremlagt et resumé af en lægeundersøgelse foretaget den 26. juni 1999.
Mr Tomczak also claims that the policemen that stopped him for the second time, were acting under the influence of alcohol and that they have assaulted him and mal-treated, in evidence of which he provided a summary of medical examination done on 26 June 1999.
Heri beskrives nogle lettere kvæstelser af Tomczaks krop, som skal være forårsaget af politibetjentenes fysiske magtanvendelse.
This document describes minor damage to the body of Mr Tomczak, which was the result of the force used by the policemen.
Tomczak nægter sig skyldig i at have fornærmet polititjenestemænd i funktion og hævder, at bevismateriale, der peger i den modsatte retning, blev manipuleret for at imødegå hans anklager mod politibetjentene samt den vagthavende anklager, hvis passivitet førte til, at resultaterne af de alkometertest, der blev foretaget på politibetjentene, gik tabt.
Mr Tomczak claims 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 policemen as well as the duty prosecutor, whose idleness led to the loss of breathalyser tests' results of the policemen.
Tomczak mener, at det forhold, at distriktsanklageren Adam Woźny traf to forskellige beslutninger (beslutningen af 01.02.2001 om at henlægge sagen og beslutningen af 15.10.2001 om at rejse sigtelse), samt de oplysninger, som blev modtaget direkte fra ham selv, peger i retning af et politisk pres i processen.
Mr Tomczak considers that two different decisions of the same District Public Prosecutor Adam Woźny (decision of 01.02.2001 to discontinue proceedings and indictment of 15.10.2001), as well as the information received from him directly, point to political pressure in the proceedings.
Han har endvidere forelagt Parlamentet nyhedsrapporter, ifølge hvilke den nationale anklager Karol Napierski (som underskrev skrivelsen fra de polske myndigheder til Retsudvalget) trådte tilbage på det tidspunkt, hvor der blev dannet en ny centrum-højre-regering efter valget i september 2005.
He also provided the Parliament with news-releases about the retirement of the national prosecutor Karol Napierski (who signed the letter from the Polish authorities to the Committee on Legal Affairs), at the time of establishment of the new centre-right government, created after the elections in September 2005.
Tomczak hævder, der i betragtning af uregelmæssighederne i sagen ikke er nogen garanti for en retfærdig rettergang.
In effect, Mr Tomczak states that the irregularities in the proceedings cannot guarantee a fair trial.
Ifølge Tomczak 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.
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 (vide 2.2. above) was without effect.
Tomczak har forelagt Parlamentet en juridisk udtalelse, ifølge hvilken et medlem af det polske parlament ikke har nogen mulighed for at indvilge i at lade sig strafforfølge, hvis anklagerne vedrører den pågældendes virke "i Parlamentet" (navnlig i forbindelse meningsytringer).
Mr Tomczak has provided the Parliament with a legal opinion that it is not possible for a Member of Polish Parliament to agree to be held liable in a criminal trial, if the charges are made with regard to his/her activity 'in the Parliament' (esp. because of the opinions expressed).
Tomczak anmoder altså om, at hans parlamentariske immunitet beskyttes.
In conclusion, Mr Tomczak asks for the defense of his parliamentary immunity.
Han har efterfølgende, dagen før afstemningen i Retsudvalget, trukket sin anmodning tilbage.
He subsequently withdrew that request a day before the vote in Committee on Legal Affairs.
De relevante bestemmelser i forretningsordenen er artikel 6 og 6a, navnlig stk. 1 og 3 i artikel 6:
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 6 and 6a, in particular Rule 6(1) and (3):
Enhver anmodning fra en kompetent myndighed i en medlemsstat til formanden om ophævelse af et medlems immunitet 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.'
Da Parlamentets formand fandt, at Witold Tomczak havde indledt proceduren for beskyttelse af hans immunitet som fastlagt i forretningsordenen, blev der givet meddelelse om anmodningen i Parlamentet.
As the President of Parliament considered that Witold Tomczak had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
De formelle forudsætninger for henvisning af sagen til Retsudvalget er derfor opfyldt.
The formal requirements have therefore been met for the matter to be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
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)
Protokollerne knyttet til de oprindelige traktater er en del af den primære fællesskabsret og har samme retlige status som selve traktaterne.
The protocols annexed to the original Treaties form part of primary Community law and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.
Disse artikler har følgende ordlyd:
Those articles read as follows:
For at kunne vurdere, om der eventuelt er sket krænkelse af PPI, kan man med fordel erindre sig følgende relevante fakta :
In order to assess the possible infringement of the PPI, it is useful to call to mind the following pertinent facts :
a) Anklagerne mod Tomczak vedrører ikke hans meningsytringer eller stemmeafgivelser 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 the 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 distriktsdomstol, som behandler sagen, har i lyset heraf stillet sagen i bero og spurgt anklageren, om han agter at anmode Parlamentet om ophævelse af Tomczaks immunitet.
b) Mr Tomczak is at present a Member of European Parliament and taking that under consideration, the District Court dealing with the case has suspended the proceedings and asked the prosecutor whether he will ask the Parliament for the waiver of Mr Tomczak's immunity.
Det vil være relevant at overveje, hvordan de ovennævnte omstændigheder stemmer overens med de privilegier og immuniteter, der indrømmes i kapitel III, Artikel 8 til10 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:
1) Artikel 8, stk. 1, giver MEP'er ret til fri bevægelighed (i forhold til told- og valutakontrol), når de er på vej til eller fra Europa-Parlamentets mødested.
1) Article 8, first paragraph grants MEPs the privilege of free movement (in respect of customs and exchange control) when travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Denne beskyttelse nyder medlemmerne kun i deres mandatperiode.
This protection is granted only to Members during the period of their mandate.
Skrivelserne fra Tomczak gør ikke krav på dette privilegium, og det finder da helt klart heller ikke anvendelse på denne sag.
The letters of Mr Tomczak do not claim this privilege and it is clearly not applicable.
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-cut language of the Article.
Beskyttelsen omfatter således meningsytringer eller stemmeafgivelser, som medlemmerne foretager i Parlamentet, og endda også, selv om de ikke fysisk er til stede i Parlamentets lokaler, men kun når de optræder fuldt og helt som parlamentarikere.
Protected are 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 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 gælder for EP og bygger på PPI.
The scope of the parliamentary immunity in Poland is very similar to the one that serves the functioning of the EP, based on the PPI.
Artikel 105 i den polske forfatning har følgende ordlyd:
Art. 105 of the Polish Constitution reads as follows:
Et medlem kan ikke i løbet af sin mandatperiode eller efter dettes udløb retsforfølges for aktiviteter, der falder inden for rammerne for et medlems mandat.
A Deputy shall not be held liable for activities performed within the scope of a Deputy's mandate during the term thereof nor following expiry thereof.
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 .
En straffesag, som er indledt mod en person forud for den pågældendes valg til medlem af Sejm, skal på anmodning af Sejm stilles i bero, indtil mandatet ophører.
Criminal proceedings instituted against a person before the day of his election as Deputy, shall be suspended at the request of the Sejm until the time of expiry of the mandate.
I sådanne tilfælde forlænges forældelsesfristen for straffesager tilsvarende.
In such instance, the statute of limitation with respect to criminal proceedings shall be extended for the equivalent time.
Et medlem kan indvilge i at lade sig strafforfølge.
A Deputy may consent to be brought to criminal liability.
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.
De nærmere principper og procedurer for strafforfølgning af medlemmer fastlægges ved lov.
Detailed principles of and procedures for bringing Deputies to criminal liability shall be specified by statute.
Den nationale anklagemyndighed er af den opfattelse, at det ikke er nødvendigt at anmode om ophævelse af Tomczaks immunitet, og at domstolens beslutning af 30. maj 2005 om at stille sagen i bero er grundløs.
The National Public Prosecutor's Office takes the view that the request for the waiver of Mr Tomczak's immunity is not necessary and that the Court decision of 30 May 2005 to suspend the proceedings is unfounded.
I skrivelsen af 04.10.2005 henvises til den polske forfatningsdomstols afgørelse fra 28. november 2001 (referencenr.
The letter of 04.10.2005 makes reference to the Polish Constitutional Court ruling from 28 November 2001 (reference No.
K 36/2001), ifølge hvilken kravet om en forudgående tilladelse fra Sejm eller Senatet til at videreføre en straffesag, som er indledt mod en person forud for denne valg til Sejm eller Senatet er i strid med artikel 105, stk. 3, i den polske forfatning.
K 36/2001), in which it found the requirement that authorisation be obtained from the Sejm or Senate to continue criminal proceedings initiated against an individual prior to his election as a Member of the Sejm or the Senate to be in breach of Article 105(3) of the Polish Constitution.
Den nationale anklagemyndighed mente derfor, at eftersom straffesagen mod Tomczak var påbegyndt, inden han blev valgt til Europa-Parlamentet, samt på grundlag af bestemmelsen i artikel 10, litra a), i PPI, at det ikke var nødvendigt at anmode om Europa-Parlamentets tilladelse til at videreføre sagen mod Tomczak.
The National Prosecutor considered that given that the criminal proceedings against Mr Tomczak were initiated prior to his election as a Member of the European Parliament, and on the basis of the provisions of Article 10(a) of the PPI, authorisation from the European Parliament to continue the proceedings against Mr Tomczak is unnecessary.
I lyset af ovenstående kan Tomczaks første skrivelse behandles som en appel til Europa-Parlamentet om at anmode om en suspendering af sagen mod ham, sådan som artikel 105, stk. 3, i den polske forfatning giver mulighed for.
Taking the above under consideration, Mr Tomczak's first letter can be treated as a request for a decision of the European Parliament to ask for suspension of the proceedings against him, as possible under Art. 105(3) of the Polish Constitution.
Europa-Parlamentet har dermed ret til at vælge, om det vil beskytte Tomczaks formelle immunitet eller ej.
The European Parliament has thus the right to defend or not to defend the formal immunity of Mr Tomczak..