natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Udvalget kan afgive en begrundet udtalelse om den pågældende myndigheds kompetence og om, hvorvidt anmodningen kan tages under behandling, men udtaler sig under ingen omstændigheder om skyldspørgsmålet 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. (...)
The committee may offer a reasoned opinion about the competence of the authority in question and about the admissibility of the request, but 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. (...)
Luigi de Magistris påberåbte sig i sin anmodning udtrykkelig artikel 8 i protokollen vedrørende Den Europæiske Unions privilegier og immuniteter.
Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union was expressly invoked by Luigi De Magistris in his request.
Pressemeddelelserne blev offentliggjort på et tidspunkt, hvor Luigi de Magistris var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet efter at have opnået valg ved Europavalget i 2009.
The press releases were published at a time when Luigi de Magistris was a Member of the European Parliament, following his election during the 2009 European Parliament elections.
I henhold til Parlamentets faste praksis udgør den omstændighed, at en retssag er af civil- eller forvaltningsretlig karakter eller indeholder visse civil- eller forvaltningsretlige aspekter, ikke i sig selv nogen hindring for, at beskyttelsen i den ovennævnte artikel kan gøres gældende.
In accordance with Parliament’s established practice, the fact that the legal proceedings are of a civil or administrative law nature, or contain certain aspects falling under civil or administrative law, does not per se prevent the immunity afforded by that article from applying.
Som Domstolen har fastslået, kan omfanget af den absolutte immunitet i protokollens artikel 8 "kun fastlægges på grundlag af fællesskabsretten"
As the Court of Justice has held, the scope of the absolute immunity provided for in Article 8 ‘must be established on the basis of Community law alone’
Marra-dommen, jf. ovenfor, præmis 26. .
Marra , cited above, at paragraph 26. .
Domstolen har imidlertid for nylig også fastslået, at "en erklæring, der afgives af en europaparlamentariker uden for Europa-Parlamentet, og som giver anledning til en straffesag om bagvaskelse i dennes oprindelsesmedlemsstat, alene udgør en meningstilkendegivelse, der fremsættes under udøvelsen af det parlamentariske hverv , som henhører under immuniteten i henhold til denne bestemmelse, såfremt denne erklæring udtrykker en subjektiv bedømmelse, der har en direkte og klar forbindelse til udøvelsen af dette hverv "
However, the Court has also recently held that ‘a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties ’
Patriciello-dommen, jf. ovenfor, konklusionen. (ordførerens fremhævelse).
Patriciello, cited above, operative part. (emphasis added).
Udvalget finder, at sagens omstændigheder, som de fremgår af stævningen og af det skriftlige materiale, Luigi de Magistris har fremlagt for Retsudvalget, tyder på, at de fremsatte udtalelser rent faktisk har en direkte og klar forbindelse til Luigi de Magistris' udøvelse af sit hverv som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, ikke mindst fordi de offentliggjorte oplysninger relaterer til en supplerende skriftlig forespørgsel til Kommissionen.
Against this background, the Committee considers that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Luigi de Magistris’s written submissions to the Committee, indicate that the statements made do have a direct, obvious connection with Luigi de Magistris’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, in particular since the published information relates to a follow-up written question to the European Commission.
Udvalget konkluderer derfor, at Luigi de Magistris udsendte pressemeddelelserne som led i udøvelsen af sit hverv som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet.
The Committee therefore considers that, in publishing the press releases in question, Luigi de Magistris was acting in the performance of his duties as Member of the European Parliament.
På grundlag af ovenstående betragtninger, i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 3, i forretningsordenen og efter at have overvejet argumenterne for og imod beskyttelse af medlemmets immunitet, anbefaler Retsudvalget, at Parlamentet beskytter Luigi de Magistris' parlamentariske immunitet.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against defending the Member’s immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should defend the parliamentary immunity of Luigi De Magistris.
– der henviser til anmodning af 5. april 2011 fra Viktor Uspaskich om beskyttelse af hans immunitet, hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 9. maj 2011, og hans anmodning af 11. april 2011 om fornyet prøvelse af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 om at ophæve hans immunitet
– having regard to the request by Viktor Uspaskich for defence of his immunity of 5 April 2011, announced in plenary sitting on 9 May 2011, and to his request of 11 April 2011, announced in plenary sitting on 4 July 2011, for a review of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 to waive his immunity
Vedtagne tekster, P7_TA(2010)0296 . , hvorom der blev givet meddelelse på plenarmødet den 4. juli 2011,
Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
Vedtagne tekster, P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A7-0413/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0413/2011 ),
C. der henviser til, at Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer i henhold til artikel 9 i protokollen om Den Europæiske Unions privilegier og immuniteter under Parlamentets sessioner på deres eget lands område nyder de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling, og at immunitet ikke kan påberåbes af et medlem, som gribes på fersk gerning, og ikke kan hindre Europa-Parlamentets ret til at ophæve et af dets medlemmers immunitet;
C. whereas, according to Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, during the sessions of the European Parliament its Members enjoy ‘in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament’, whereas ‘immunity cannot be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its members’;
G. der henviser til, at Parlamentet den 7. september 2010 ophævede Viktor Uspaskichs parlamentariske immunitet med den begrundelse, at der ikke var blevet forelagt noget klart bevis på, at der foreligger fumus persecutionis, og at de overtrædelser, som Viktor Uspaskich sigtes for, ikke havde noget at gøre med hans aktiviteter som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet;
G. whereas on 7 September 2010 Parliament waived Viktor Uspaskich’s immunity, considering that no cogent evidence had been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and that the offences with which Viktor Uspaskich is charged had nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament;
Viktor Uspaskich, som i henhold til artikel 21 i Republikken Litauens regnskabslov var ansvarlig for at organisere partiets regnskabsføring og handlede til fordel for Arbejderpartiet og i dette partis interesse som juridisk person, anklages af de litauiske myndigheder for at have beordret en person til at føre "dobbelt" regnskab for Arbejderpartiet i foråret 2004.
Viktor Uspaskich - who was responsible, under Article 21 of the Accounting Act of the Republic of Lithuania, for organising the keeping of the party’s accounts and was acting for the benefit and in the interests of the Labour Party as a legal person - is accused by the Lithuanian authorities of having instructed a person to undertake ‘double’ bookkeeping for the Labour Party in Spring 2004.
Det bør endvidere bemærkes, at Uspaskich ikke var medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, da de omhandlede overtrædelser angiveligt blev begået.
It should be noted in addition that Mr Uspaskich was not Member of the European Parliament at the time when the offences of which he stands accused were allegedly committed.
Den 27. januar 2010 blev Uspaskich hørt i overensstemmelse med artikel 7 i Parlamentets forretningsorden.
On 27 January 2010 Mr Uspaskich was heard in accordance with Article 7 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
"A. der henviser til, at der er anlagt straffesag mod Viktor Uspaskich, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, som er anklaget i den verserende retssag i Vilnius' regionale straffedomstol under artikel 24, stk. 4, i forbindelse med artikel 222, stk. 1, artikel 220, stk. 1; artikel 24, stk. 4, i forbindelse med artikel 220, stk. 1, artikel 205, stk. 1 og artikel 24, stk. 4 i forbindelse med artikel 205, stk. 1, i den litauiske strafferet,
‘ A. whereas criminal proceedings have been brought against Viktor Uspaskich, Member of the European Parliament, who is accused in the proceedings pending in the Vilnius Regional Court of criminal offences under Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Lithuanian Criminal Code,
B. der henviser til, at Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer i henhold til artikel 9 i protokollen om Den Europæiske Unions privilegier og immuniteter under Parlamentets mødeperioder på deres eget lands område nyder de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling, og at immunitet ikke kan påberåbes af et medlem, som gribes på fersk gerning, og kan ikke hindre Europa-Parlamentets ret til at ophæve et af dets medlemmers immunitet,
B. whereas, according to Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members enjoy in the territory of their own State the immunities accorded to Member s of their Parliament , whereas immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and whereas this does not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members,
D. der henviser til, at et medlem af det nationale parlament (Seimas) i henhold til artikel 62 i Republikken Litauens forfatning ikke kan holdes strafferetligt ansvarlig, arresteres eller på anden vis udsættes for frihedsberøvelse uden Seimas' samtykke ,
D. whereas, according to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (the Seimas) may not be held criminally liable, arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Parliament,
E. d er henviser til, at det i artikel 62 endvidere er fastlagt, at et medlem af Seimas ikke kan retsforfølges for sin stemmeafgivelse eller sine taler i Seimas, selvom han kan drages til ansvar i overensstemmelse med den generelle procedure for personlige injurier eller bagvaskelse,
E. whereas Article 62 goes on to provide that a Member of the Seimas may not be persecuted for his voting or his speeches at the Seimas, although he may be held liable according to the general procedure for personal insult or slander,
G. der henviser til, at der ikke er blevet forelagt noget klart bevis på, at der foreligger »fumus persecutionis« (tendentiøs forfølgelse fra myndigheders side), og at de overtrædelser, som Uspaskich sigtes for, ikke har noget at gøre med hans aktiviteter som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet ".
G. whereas no cogent evidence has been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which Mr Uspaskich is charged have nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament ’ .
Den 28. oktober 2010 anlagde Uspaskich sag ved Retten med påstand om annullation af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 og om en erstatning på 10 000 EUR for ikke-økonomisk skade, og sagen blev registreret som sag T-507/10
On 28 October 2010, Mr Uspaskich brought an action in the General Court for the annulment of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 and for damages of EUR 10 000 for non-material damage, which was placed on the cause list as Case T-507/10
På mødet den 9. maj 2011 meddelte Parlamentets formand, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 3, at han den 5. april 2011 havde modtaget en anmodning fra Viktor Uspaskich om beskyttelse af hans immunitet og privilegier under henvisning til artikel 7 i protokollen om privilegier og immuniteter (herefter "anmodningen af 5. april 2011").
At the sitting of 9 May 2011 the President of the Parliament announced, under Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a request from Mr Viktor Uspaskich on 5 April 2011 calling for his immunity and privileges to be defended in relation to Article 7 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (hereinafter ‘the request of 5 April 2011’).
Den 1. juni 2011 sendte Parlamentets formand Retsudvalget en anden skrivelse fra Uspaskich af 11.april om genoptagelse af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 (P7_TA 2010/0296), hvorved hans immunitet blev ophævet.
Subsequently, on 1 June 2011, the President of the Parliament transmitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs a second letter of Mr Uspaskich of 11 April concerning a review of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 No (P7_TA 2010/0296) which waived his immunity.
Formanden anmodede udvalget om "at se på denne skrivelse ved den først givne lejlighed og underrette mig om resultatet af drøftelserne i Retsudvalget" .
The President asked the committee ‘ to take this item into consideration at the earliest convenience and subsequently inform me about the outcome of discussions in the Committee on Legal Affairs ’ .
På koordinatorernes møde den 20. juni 2011 oplyste Rapkay, at han havde modtaget en besked fra Uspaskich om, at han havde besluttet at trække sit søgsmål mod Europa-Parlamentet ved Retten tilbage af følgende årsag:
At the coordinators’ meeting of 20 June 2011, Mr Rapkay made it known that he had received a message from Mr Uspaskich informing him that he had decided to withdraw his claim against the European Parliament in the General Court for the following reason:
Han havde "anmodet Europa-Parlamentet, dvs. JURI-koordinatorerne , om at tage afgørelsen om at ophæve immuniteten i min sag op til fornyet overvejelse.
He had ‘ asked the European Parliament, i.e. JURI coordinators to reconsider the decision on waiver of immunity in my case.
Den 9. april 2011 afslørede Wiki L eaks e n hemmelig not e fra den amerikanske ambassade i Vilnius, hvori det nævnes, at den litauiske regerings statssekretær havde orienteret amerikanske diplomater om, at Litauens regering var ved at "arrangere" min udvisning fra Litauen på grund af min etniske oprindelse (etnisk russer er ensbetydende med russisk spion).
On 9 April 2011 WikiLeaks disclosed a secret note of the USA Embassy in Vilnius, where it is stated that State Secretary of the Government of Lithuania had informed the American diplomats the Government of Lithuania ‘ engineered ’ expelling me from Lithuania on the ground of my ethnic origin (ethnic Russian means Russian spy).
Der vedlægges 2 bilag: min skrivelse til EU-Rettens præsident om, at sagen trækkes tilbage, og kvitteringen fra postvæsenet, der bekræfter, at skrivelsen rent faktisk er blevet sendt. "
Please find 2 documents attached: my letter withdrawing the claim addressed to the President of the EU General Court, and the confirmation from the post that the letter has been indeed sent.
Parlamentets formand foretog denne meddelelse den 4. juni 2011 (herefter "anmodningen af 11. april 2011").
The President of Parliament duly made the announcement on 4 July 2011 (hereinafter ‘the request of 11 April 2011’).
Samme dag meddelte Retten Juridisk Tjeneste, at Uspaskichs stævning var blevet trukket tilbage (denne gang forskriftsmæssigt, på litauisk (processproget) og af hans advokat).
On the same day, the Legal Service was notified by the Court of the withdrawal of Mr Uspaskich’s application (this time done properly, in Lithuanian (the language of the case) and by his lawyer).
Appellen af kendelsen om, at Uspaskichs begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler ikke kunne tages til følge, er herefter uden genstand.
The appeal against the order dismissing Mr Uspaskich’s request for interim measures is consequently to no purpose.
I sin anmodning af 5. april 2011 beder Uspaskich om beskyttelse af hans immunitet i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 3, i Parlamentets forretningsorden.
In his request of 5 April 2011, Mr Uspaskich calls for his immunity to be defended pursuant to Rule 6(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
Han gør gældende, at angrebet har ført til en "krænkelse af et aspekt af min immunitet som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, nemlig privilegiet bevægelsesfrihed, som er garanteret ved artikel 7 i protokollen om privilegier og immuniteter" .
He claims that this attack has resulted in a ‘ violation of an aspect of my immunity as a Member of the European Parliament: the privilege of freedom of movement, which is guaranteed by Article 7 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities ’ .
Han gør nærmere bestemt gældende, at den tidsplan for retsmøderne, Vilnius' regionale domstol har vedtaget, forhindrer ham i at deltage i møder i Europa-Parlamentet "f.eks. mandag morgen" (faktisk fremgår det klart af Uspaskichs yderligere bemærkninger, at han hævder, at retsmøderne er planlagt til at finde sted hver torsdag, hvilket betyder, at han mister onsdag, torsdag og fredag som arbejdsdage i Europa-Parlamentet.
More specifically, he contends that the timetable of hearings adopted by the Vilnius Regional Court prevents him from attending meetings at the European Parliament ‘for example on Monday morning’ (in point of fact it is clear from Mr Uspaskich’s further submissions that he is claiming that the hearings are scheduled to be held every Thursday, which causes him to lose Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as working days at the European Parliament.
Han klager over, at Retsudvalget ikke gav ham lejlighed til at se eller fremsætte bemærkninger til forslaget til afgørelse, inden det blev vedtaget, og at der blev sendt spørgsmål til Litauens øverste offentlige anklager uden hans viden.
He complains that the Legal Affairs Committee did not give him the opportunity to see or comment on the draft decision before it was adopted and that questions were sent to Lithuania’s Chief Public Prosecutor without his knowledge.
Artikel 7 lyder således: " Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer er hverken administrativt eller på anden måde undergivet nogen begrænsning i deres bevægelsesfrihed på vej til eller fra Europa-Parlamentets mødested.
Article 7 provides that ‘ No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of Members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
" […]det følger af protokollens artikel 8 [nu artikel 7], stk. 1, at medlemsstaterne er afskåret fra bl.a. ved den praksis, de følger på beskatningsområdet, at pålægge parlamentsmedlemmerne administrative restriktioner i deres bevægelsesfrihed (Domstolens dom af 15.9.1981, sag 208/80, Bruce of Donington, Sml. s. 2205, præmis 14).
‘ the effect of the first paragraph of Article 8 [now Article 7] of the Protocol is to prohibit Member States from imposing, inter alia by their practices in matters of taxation, administrative restrictions on the free movement of Members (Case 208/80 Bruce of Donington [1981] ECR 2205, paragraph 14).
49 Det skal imidlertid understreges, at selv om disse restriktioner ikke er udtømmende opregnet i protokollens artikel 8, stk. 1 – som vedrører administrative begrænsninger eller andre af de begrænsninger, som parlamentsmedlemmerne »på anden måde« er undergivet – omfatter restriktionerne ikke begrænsninger som følge af retsforfølgning, da disse er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for artikel 10 [nu artikel 9] , som fastlægger den retlige ordning, der gælder for immuniteter, hvorunder ikke henhører det særlige anvendelsesområde for de meningstilkendegivelser og stemmeafgivelser, som parlamentsmedlemmerne foretager som led i udøvelsen af deres funktioner, og som er omhandlet i artikel 9 [nu artikel 8].
49 However, those restrictions, although not listed comprehensively by the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Protocol, which refers to administrative ‘ or other ’ restrictions, do not include restrictions arising out of legal proceedings since such restrictions fall within the scope of Article 10 [now Article 9] , which sets out the legal regime governing immunities, except in the specific area, provided for in Article 9 [now Article 8], of opinions expressed or votes cast by Members in the performance of their duties.
Ifølge protokollens artikel 10, stk. 1, litra a), tilkommer der endvidere i samme periode parlamentsmedlemmerne de immuniteter på deres eget lands område, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling, hvoraf nogle beskytter medlemmerne af de nationale parlamenter mod retsforfølgning.
Likewise, under subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol, Members enjoy, during the same period, in the territory of their own States, the immunities accorded to Member s of their parliaments, some of which protect Member s of national parliaments from legal proceedings to which they may be subject.
52 Da det ikke er gjort gældende, at risiciene for indgreb i Motes udøvelse af hans funktioner som parlamentsmedlem skyldtes begrænsninger af en anden karakter end dem, som beroede på retsforfølgningen iværksat af de retshåndhævende myndigheder i hans oprindelsesstat, må det fastslås, at Parlamentet ikke har gjort sig skyldig i nogen retsvildfarelse ved at beslutte at ophæve Motes immunitet uden at udtale sig hverken om det privilegium, der tilkom ham som medlem af Parlamentet, eller at bestemme, at artikel 8 var tilsidesat i det foreliggende tilfælde ."
52 As it has not been asserted that the risks of interference with the exercise by Mr Mote of his parliamentary functions were constituted by restrictions of a kind other than those stemming from the proceedings brought by the law enforcement authorities of his Member State of origin, it must be concluded that the Parliament did not err in law when it decided to waive Mr Mote ’ s immunity without ruling on the privilege which was granted to him in his capacity as a Member or deciding that Article 8 of the Protocol had been infringed in the present case. ’
I de anførte præmisser bemærkede Retten blot som en faktisk konstatering, at sagen mod Mote som planlagt ikke ville kollidere med Parlamentets mødeperiode.
In the paragraphs cited, the General Court merely observed as a finding of fact that the trial as planned of Mr Mote would not interfere with Parliament’s part session.
I sagen Mote mod Parlamentet fastslog Retten klart, at protokollens artikel 7 ikke indeholder en immunitet, men et privilegium, og ikke beskytter mod judicielle begrænsninger af medlemmernes bevægelsesfrihed.
In Mote v. Parliament , the General Court clearly held that Article 7 of the Protocol does not contain an immunity but a privilege and does not protect against judicial restrictions on Members’ freedom of movement.