natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En fransk dommer ville ikke henvise til udenlandsk retspraksis eller udenlandske redegørelser på grund af risikoen for unøjagtigheder eller misforståelser, som kunne få meget alvorlige konsekvenser for enkeltpersoner.
A French judge would not refer to foreign jurisprudence or commentary because of the risk of imprecision or misunderstanding which could have very serious consequences for individuals.
Endelig fandt en anden dommer det meget vanskeligt at anvende udenlandsk ret udpeget i henhold til de relevante lovvalgsregler.
Finally, another judge had real difficulties in applying foreign law when that law was designated by the relevant conflict rules.
Mange dommere fra de "nye" medlemsstater, navnlig Polen, Slovenien og Ungarn, klagede over, at ikke al Domstolens retspraksis var blevet oversat til deres sprog før tiltrædelsen.
Many judges from "new" Member States, in particular Poland, Slovenia and Hungary, complained that not all ECJ case-law prior to accession had been translated into their language.
Flere dommere fra de "nye" medlemsstater var ikke klar over, at fællesskabsretten og navnlig Domstolens retspraksis overhovedet fandtes på deres eget sprog.
Several judges from "new" Member States were not aware that any of the acquis , and in particular that ECJ case-law existed in their own language.
Et betragteligt antal dommere fra et bredt udsnit af medlemsstaterne kommenterede spørgsmålet om oversættelse af domme.
A substantial number of judges from a wide variety of Member States commented on the question of translation of judgments.
Mange dommere udtrykte bekymring over den tid, det tog, inden alle sprogversioner af Domstolens domme eller generaladvokatens forslag til afgørelse var tilgængelige.
Many judges expressed concern at the time it took for all linguistic versions of an ECJ judgment or Advocate General Opinion to be available.
Talrige dommere mente ikke, at kvaliteten eller troværdigheden af oversættelserne af fællesskabsretsakter eller retspraksis til deres sprog var tilstrækkelig høj.
Numerous judges considered the quality or reliability of translations of Community acts or case-law into their language to be inadequate.
En tysk dommer bemærkede også visse uoverensstemmelser mellem sprogversioner af den samme fællesskabsretsakt.
A German judge also noted certain discrepancies between linguistic versions of a same Community act.
Flere dommere havde betydelige vanskeligheder ved at sammenligne forskellige sprogversioner af en fællesskabsretsakt i forbindelse med fortolkningsspørgsmål, når de ville se, om der var behov for at anmode om en præjudiciel afgørelse.
Several judges had substantial difficulties in comparing different language versions of a Community act for interpretation purposes, to see whether there existed a need to make a preliminary reference.
Bredden og kvaliteten af denne sammenligning vil afhænge af dommerens sprogkundskaber.
The breadth and quality of this comparative exercise will depend on the judge's linguistic capacity.
Flere dommere henviste til sådanne sammenligninger og konkluderede, at de ikke var i stand til at foretage dem på meningsfuld vis (se også det relaterede afsnit 4(g)( ix )).
Several judges referred to this exercise, concluding that they were unable to carry it out meaningfully (see also section 4(g)( ix ) on a related point).
Nogle få dommere nævnte, at det var problematisk, at akademiske redegørelser vedrørende fællesskabsretten ikke var tilgængelige på deres sprog.
A few judges mentioned the unavailability of academic commentaries on Community law in their language to be problematic.
Flere specifikke informationskilder blev nævnt, bl.a. nyhedsbrevet fra EU-kontoret OHMI
Several specific items of information were finally referred to, such as the newsletter of an EU agency (the OHMI
Nyhedsbrevet findes på adressen
The newsletter is available at
http://oami.europa.eu/en/office/press/default.htm . og visse redegørelser fra Kommissionen vedrørende forslag til retsakter.
http://oami.europa.eu/en/office/press/default.htm . ) or certain explanations provided by the Commission of legislative proposals.
Ser man bort fra spørgsmålet om oversættelse, mente mange dommere, at det vanskeligste ved adgangen til fællesskabsretten var dens udformning.
Setting aside the issue of translation, many judges considered that what made access to Community law the most difficult was the way it was framed.
En dommer kommenterede, at uklarheden i fællesskabsretten generelt gjorde det vanskeligt at anvende den ved de nationale domstole.
One judge commented that the obscurity of Community law in general made it difficult to apply in national courts.
Der blev fremsat en lignende kommentar vedrørende stilen i Domstolens domme og navnlig i begrundelsen, som ikke altid blev forstået fuldt ud af de nationale dommere (se afsnit 7 nedenfor).
A similar comment was made more insistently in respect of the style of the ECJ's judgments, and in particular the reasoning or justification which was not always clearly understood by national judges (see section 7 below).
I gennemsnit havde kun 20 % af de adspurgte deltaget i mindst et sprogkursus, som vedrørte juridiske emner.
On average, only 20% of respondents had participated in at least one language course covering legal issues.
Dette tal synes at skjule visse skævheder medlemsstaterne imellem, hvilket fremgår af diagrammet nedenfor.
This figure would seem to hide certain discrepancies between Member States, as can be seen in the chart below.
Kun elleve medlemsstater blev medtaget i diagrammet ovenfor, eftersom antallet af svar fra de resterende medlemsstater ikke blev betragtet som tilstrækkeligt stort til at tegne et pålideligt billede.
Eleven Member States were taken into account in the above chart, as the number of responses from the remaining Member States was not considered sufficient to provide reliable data.
Det fremgår af de tilgængelige oplysninger, at deltagelsesprocenten for sådanne juridiske sprogkurser er forholdsvis lav i alle medlemsstater (under 40 %), at den er lav for de fleste - men ikke alle - medlemsstater, der tiltrådte i 2004, og at den er meget lav (under 10 %) for Rumænien og Bulgarien.
It appears from the data available that participation rates at such legal linguistic courses remains relatively limited in all Member States (below 40%), that it is low for most but not all Member States having acceded in 2004, and that it is very low (less than 10%) for Romania and Bulgaria.
Diagrammet ovenfor viser, at et stort flertal af de adspurgte, som havde studeret udenlandsk juridisk terminologi, gjorde det på et universitet og typisk under deres jurastudier.
The above chart shows that a large majority of respondents who studied foreign legal terminology did so at university, generally during their law studies.
En betydelig del af dem tog sådanne kurser, mens de læste på et universitet i en anden medlemsstat, eksempelvis som led i Erasmusprogrammet eller et LLM-program.
A substantial proportion of these people studied such courses whilst at a university in a Member State other than their own, for example, as part of the Erasmus programme or on an LLM programme.
Et lille mindretal (6 %) deltog i kurser, som ikke blev udbudt af et universitet, det nationale ministerium eller et juridisk uddannelsesinstitut.
A small minority (6%) attended courses which were not provided by a University, their national ministry or a judicial training body.
Disse "andre" kurser blev udbudt af British Council, Goethe-Instituttet, Det Europæiske Retsakademi, Det Europæiske Netværk for Uddannelse af Dommere og Anklagere, PHARE og i et enkelt tilfælde en privatlærer.
Such "other" courses were provided by the British Council, the Goethe Institute, the European Law Academy, the European Judicial Training Network, PHARE, and in one case, by a private teacher.
Engelsk var det mest efterspurgte sprog (53 %) og fransk det andet større sprog (37 %).
English was the most sought-after language (53%), with French being the other major language (37%).
Nogle dommere tog kurser i spansk og tysk (4 % hver), mens andre sprog kun sjældent forekom (se nedenfor).
Some judges took courses in Spanish and German (4% each), with other languages appearing only very rarely (see below).
61 % af de adspurgte havde aldrig deltaget i et europæisk uddannelsesprogram eller i et nationalt uddannelsesprogram i fællesskabsret.
61% of respondents had never attended a European training programme or any national training programme concerning Community law.
33 % af de adspurgte havde deltaget i et nationalt uddannelsesprogram i fællesskabsret.
33% of respondents had attended a national training programme concerning Community law.
14 % af de adspurgte havde deltaget i et program afholdt af en europæisk instans.
14% of respondents had attended a programme organised by a European body.
Endelig havde 10 % af de adspurgte både deltaget i kurser afholdt af nationale myndigheder og kurser afholdt af en europæisk instans.
Finally, 10% of respondents had attended courses organised both by national authorities and courses organised by a European body.
Der var en klar forbindelse mellem deltagelsen i nationale og europæiske uddannelseskurser.
A clear link existed between the attendance of national and European training courses.
Dommere, som havde deltaget i et kursus afholdt af en national myndighed, havde større tendens til også at have deltaget i kurser afholdt af europæiske instanser.
Judges that had attended a course organised by a national authority were more likely to also have attended courses organised by European bodies.
Seminarer og uddannelseskurser afholdt af Det Europæiske Retsakademi i Trier blev oftest nævnt.
Seminars and training courses organised by the European Law Academy in Trier were most cited.
Det Europæiske Netværk for Uddannelse af Dommere og Anklagere og dets udvekslingsprogram blev også tit nævnt, mens adskillige dommere fra de "nye" medlemsstater havde deltaget i TAIEX- og PHARE-programmer (se nedenfor).
The European Judicial Training Network and its exchange programme for judges came up often, whilst several judges from "new" Member States attended TAIEX and PHARE programmes (see below).
Flere dommere rejste spørgsmålet om omkostninger, og et stort flertal mente ikke, at sådanne kurser måtte medføre personlige økonomiske byrder for dommerne.
Several judges raised the question of cost, and a large majority considered that such courses must not entail any personal financial burden for the judges concerned.
En tysk dommer mente, at dækning af udelukkende rejse- og opholdsudgifter var utilstrækkeligt, eftersom uddannelseskurset i sig selv var dyrt.
One German judge considered that covering travel and accommodation costs alone was insufficient as the training course itself was expensive.
Bemærk: Denne opdeling er kun vejledende, eftersom ERA har afholdt et stort antal seminarer på vegne af TAIEX og PHARE for bl.a. de "nye" medlemsstater.
Note: this classification is purely indicative, given that ERA has organised a large number of seminars on behalf of TAIEX and PHARE for the “new” Member States, for example.
Et klart flertal af de adspurgte dommere (54 %) følte sig fortrolige med proceduren for præjudiciel forelæggelse for Domstolen.
A clear majority of responding judges (54%) considered themselves familiar with the procedure to refer to the European Court of Justice.
Det fremgår imidlertid også, at de adspurgte i dobbelt så mange tilfælde betragtede sig selv som ubekendt med proceduren (32 %) i forhold til at betragte sig selv som meget fortrolig med proceduren (14 %).
However, it also appears that respondents were twice as likely to consider themselves unfamiliar with the procedure (32%), as they were to consider themselves very familiar with it (14%).
Der forekommer at være store forskelle mellem de forskellige medlemsstater.
There would appear to exist wide discrepancies between the different Member States.
I eksempelvis Bulgarien, Belgien og Frankrig betragtede langt størsteparten af de adspurgte (henholdsvis 84 %, 87 % og 94 %) sig selv som ubekendt med den præjudicielle procedure.
In Bulgaria, Belgium and France for instance, the vast majority of respondents (84%, 87% and 94% respectively) considered themselves unfamiliar with the preliminary ruling procedure.
I Østrig, Tjekkiet og Tyskland var ukendskabet til proceduren mindst (henholdsvis 12 %, 13 % og 18 % svarede, at de "intet kendskab" havde).
Austrian, Czech and German respondents considered themselves the least unfamiliar with the procedure (12%, 13% and 18% of "unfamiliar" responses respectively).
123 af de adspurgte dommere svarede, at de havde foretaget minimum en anmodning om en præjudiciel afgørelse i løbet af deres professionelle karriere.
123 responding judges claimed to have made at least one reference for a preliminary ruling in the course of their professional career.
Det svarer til lige godt 5 % af det samlede antal svar.
This equates to slightly more than 5% of the total number of responses.
Dette tal fordelte sig ulige mellem medlemsstaterne med Ungarn som den eneste "nye" medlemsstat repræsenteret (seks anmodninger).
This figure was divided unequally amongst the Member States, with Hungary being the only "new" Member State represented, with six references.
Flere dommere havde overvejet at fremsende en anmodning, og en dommer ved en social domstol havde undladt at gøre det, fordi parterne var bekymret for, at det ville forlænge retsprocessen unødigt.
Several judges had considered making a reference, and one judge in a social court had refrained from doing so because the parties were concerned that this would unduly lengthen the proceedings.
To andre dommere ved en ret i første instans havde gerne villet indgive en anmodning til Domstolen, men var ikke i stand til at gøre det på grund af begrænsningerne i Domstolens kompetence, jf. EF-traktatens afsnit IV, navnlig vedrørende spørgsmål om indvandring.
Two other judges in a first instance court were keen to make a reference to the ECJ, but could not do so because of the limitations on the ECJ's jurisdiction under Title IV EC, in particular concerning questions of immigration.
Som det fremgår af diagrammet nedenfor, gav de fleste af de adspurgte et forholdsvist detaljeret svar på dette spørgsmål.
Most respondents were relatively detailed in their answers on this point, as can be seen in the chart below.
Den præjudicielle procedures gennemsnitlige varighed var 18,5 måneder.
The average length of the preliminary ruling procedure was 18,5 months.
Det er ikke muligt at sammenligne dette tal med Domstolens egne statistikker i sine årsrapporter, fordi nogle af de forelæggelser, som dommerne nævnte i deres svar, stammer tilbage fra 1980'erne og frem.
This figure is impossible to compare to the ECJ's own statistics, as contained in its annual reports, because some of the references taken into account by judges in their responses to the present survey date back to the 1980s and beyond.
Den gennemsnitlige varighed her er ca. halvanden måned kortere end det senest tilgængelige gennemsnit for afsluttede sager fra Domstolen (19,8 måneder i 2006)
The average obtained here is about one and a half months less than the latest available average for completed cases from the ECJ (19,8 months in 2006).
Domstolens årsrapport 2006, tabel 8, s. 89. .
Court of Justice, Annual report 2006, table 8 at p.87.
Én forelæggelse tog det over 35 måneder at behandle, mens otte sager blev afsluttet inden for et år.
One referral lasted more than 35 months, whereas in eight cases was completed within a year.
På spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de betragtede en bestemt del af den præjudicielle procedure som uforholdsmæssig lang, svarede de fleste dommere (43 %) nej.
When asked whether they considered any specific part of the preliminary reference procedure to be excessively long, most judges (43%) responded negatively.
Et stort antal dommere (36 %) mente, at proceduren som helhed var for langvarig, og en dommer fra Det Forenede Kongerige anførte, at forklaringen kunne være, at Domstolen var overbebyrdet.
A substantial number of judges (36%) considered that the procedure as a whole was too lengthy, one judge from the United Kingdom stating that this could be explained by the fact that the ECJ was overworked.
Både en svensk og en tysk dommer forventede, at proceduren ville være langvarig, fordi spørgsmålene i sig selv var meget lange og komplekse.
Both a Swedish and a German judge expected the reference to be lengthy because the questions asked were themselves very long and complex.
Går man over til svarene vedrørende de enkelte dele af proceduren, var den mest kritiserede del den mundtlige procedure, som både blev fremhævet af en finsk og en tysk dommer.
Turning to the answers relating to specific parts of the procedure, the most criticised part was the oral procedure, highlighted both by a Finnish and by a German judge.
En tysk forvaltningsdommer kritiserede længden af den periode, hvor medlemsstater kan fremsætte deres skriftlige bemærkninger.
One German administrative judge criticised the length of the period within which Member States can present their written observations.
Endelig blev en af de adspurgtes forelæggelse forsinket på grund af to på hinanden følgende ændringer i anvisningen af hans sag inden for Domstolens afdelingsstruktur.
Finally, one respondent's reference was delayed by two successive changes in the allocation of his case within the Court of Justice's chamber structure.
Kun et lille mindretal af dommere (11 %), som havde erfaring med den præjudicielle procedure, anførte, at deres spørgsmål i en vis udstrækning var blevet omformuleret af Domstolen.
Only a small minority of judges (11%) who had experienced a preliminary ruling procedure stated that their questions were reformulated to some extent by the Court of Justice.
To dommeres spørgsmål var blevet fuldstændig omformuleret, og en dommer fra Det Forenede Kongerige fandt omformuleringen alt for voldsom.
Two judges' questions were completely reformulated, and one judge from the United Kingdom considered this reformulation excessive.
Yderligere fire anmodninger var kun blevet omformuleret i mindre grad.
Four further references were only slightly reformulated.
I en sag mente dommeren, at betydningen af spørgsmålet var blevet bedre fremhævet af Domstolens omformulering.
In one case, the judge considered that the meaning of the question was further highlighted by the ECJ's reformulation.
I en anden sag slog Domstolen to spørgsmål sammen til et.
In another case, the ECJ combined two questions into one.
60 % af de dommere, som havde forelagt Domstolen et spørgsmål, følte, at de havde vejledning til at formulere deres spørgsmål, mens 40 % ikke følte, at de havde sådan vejledning.
60% of referring judges considered that they had guidance to formulate their reference whereas 40% did not.
Blandt dem, som ikke havde nogen vejledning, mente fire dommere, at vejledning hverken var nødvendig eller relevant.
Among those who had no guidance, four judges considered that guidance was neither necessary nor appropriate.
De af de adspurgte, som søgte vejledning, gjorde det på forskellige måder.
Those respondents who did seek guidance did so in a number of ways.
Den mest populære kilde til vejledning var andre kolleger ved dommerens domstol (29 %).
The most popular source of guidance was other colleagues within the judge's court (29%).
Domstolens websted og Domstolens orientering om proceduren (15 %), uddannelse (13 %), tekstbøger og akademiske skrifter (13 %) var alle relativt populære.
The Court of Justice's website and the Court's notice on the matter (15%), training (13%), textbooks and academic writings (13%) were all relatively popular.
Andre kilder, som blev nævnt, var Domstolens egen retspraksis (10 %), parternes forelæggelser (6 %), retspraksis fra nationale højesteretter (4 %), tidligere personlig erfaring (4 %), en specialdommer eller rådgiver ved retten (4 %) og endelig justitsministeriet (2 %).
Further sources cited were the ECJ's own case-law (10%), the parties' submissions (6%), case-law from national supreme courts (4%), past personal experience (4%), a specialised judge or advisor in the court (4%), and finally the justice ministry (2%).
Et betydeligt antal dommere søgte vejledning fra en kombination af ovennævnte kilder.
A substantial number of judges sought guidance from a combination of the above sources.
Et stort flertal af de adspurgte (89 %) fandt, at Domstolens afgørelser uden videre kunne anvendes på sagens faktiske omstændigheder og dermed gav mulighed for en forholdsvis uproblematisk afslutning af den præjudicielle procedure.
A large majority of respondents (89%) found the ECJ's ruling readily applicable to the facts of the case, thus enabling a reasonably unproblematic conclusion to the preliminary reference procedure.
En dommer mente, at afgørelsen var så klar, at sagsomkostningerne var det eneste, der skulle fastlægges på nationalt plan.
One judge considered that the judgment was so clear that only the costs were left to be decided at national level.
Et mindretal (11 %) følte ikke, at afgørelsen gav mulighed for at træffe en klar afgørelse på nationalt plan.
A minority (11%) did not feel that the judgment enabled a clear decision at national level.
En dommer betragtede svaret som fuldstændig ubrugeligt, og en anden anførte, at Domstolen specifikt havde undladt at behandle et afgørende og eksplicit spørgsmål.
One judge considered the answer completely unusable, and another stated that a crucial and explicit question had specifically been left aside by the ECJ.
En anden dommer mente, at det var bedst at stille enkle spørgsmål til Domstolen ("ja/nej"-spørgsmål) for at undgå tvetydige svar, som ville være vanskelige at anvende på sagens faktiske omstændigheder.
Another judge considered that it was best to ask straightforward questions to the ECJ ("yes/no" questions) in order to avoid ambiguous answers which would be difficult to apply to the facts of the case.
I tre sager førte afgørelsen til en ændring i eller en ophævelse af national lovgivning, mens de nationale dommere i to sager anførte, at deres korrekte anvendelse af den præjudicielle afgørelse senere var blevet omstødt ved en appelsag.
In three cases, the ruling led to a change in, or abolition of, national legislation, whereas in two other cases, the national judges considered that their correct application of the preliminary ruling was later overturned on appeal.
En dommer betragtede dette som et "generationsmæssigt problem", at appelretten eller højesteret ikke i tilstrækkelig grad anerkender fællesskabsrettens forrang.
One judge considered this to be a "generational problem", with appeal or supreme courts not giving sufficient recognition to the primacy of Community law.
I en anden sag blev der indgået et udenretligt forlig, som fjernede behovet for at anvende den præjudicielle afgørelse.
One further case saw an out-of-court settlement which removed any need to apply the preliminary ruling.
Endelig indgav parterne i yderligere to sager flere oplysninger efter Domstolens afgørelse, hvilket medførte, at den ikke kunne anvendes på de faktiske omstændigheder.
Finally, the parties in two further cases submitted further facts after the ECJ's ruling, making it inapplicable on the facts.
Dette afsnit skal betragtes særskilt og ikke sammen med afsnittene ovenfor (4(b)-(f)).
This section must be distinguished from the sections above (4(b)-(f)).
Rent faktisk forsøgte alle de adspurgte dommere at komme med forslag til forbedringer af proceduren, uanset om de havde forelagt et spørgsmål eller ej.
Indeed here, suggestions for improvement to the procedure were sought from all responding judges, irrespective of whether they had made a reference or not.
210 modtagne svar blev inddelt i forskellige temaer, som er uddybet nedenfor.
The 210 answers received have been classified in different themes which are further developed below.
Som det fremgår af diagrammet på side 30, opfordrede dommerne hovedsageligt til mere uddannelse og bedre adgang til oplysninger om proceduren (42 %).
As can be seen in the chart on p.19, judges mainly called for more training and better access to information on the procedure (42%).
Et meget stort antal af de adspurgte (24 %) kritiserede procedurens varighed.
A very large number of respondents (24%) criticised the length of the procedure.