natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 the revision 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.
Fra i dag af er min retssag mod Parlamentet trukket tilbage, og der er ikke noget, der forhindrer Parlamentet at tage sagen op igen.
Starting from today, there is no more proceedings of mine versus the Parliament, and nothing stops the Parliament from considering the issue once again.
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."
Udvalgets koordinatorer besluttede derfor at anmode Parlamentets formand om at sørge for, at sagen blev meddelt på plenarmødet og henvist til udvalget i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 3.
Accordingly, the committee's coordinators decided to ask the President of Parliament to arrange for this matter to be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee pursuant to Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
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).
Sagen blev slettet af registeret ved Rettens kendelse af 3. august 2011.
The case was removed from the register by order of the General Court of 3 August 2011.
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.
Uspaskich blev hørt i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3, den 10. oktober 2011.
Mr Uspaskich was heard in accordance with Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure on 10 October 2011.
Anmodningen om beskyttelse af immuniteten
The requests for defence of immunity
a) Anmodningen af 5. april 2011
(a) The request of 5 April 2011
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 beskylder Republikken Litauen for at foretage et koordineret angreb på ham og det litauiske arbejderparti.
He accuses the Republic of Lithuania of conducting a coordinated attack on him and the Lithuanian Labour Party.
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 ville foretrække, at retsmøderne blev planlagt til mandag morgen hver uge).
He would prefer the hearings to be scheduled for Monday morning each week).
Uspaskich gør under henvisning til Rettens præsidents kendelse af 16. marts 2007 i sag T-345/05 R, V. mod Parlamentet
Mr Uspaskich, citing the order of the President of the General Court of 16 March 2007 in Case T-345/05 R V. v Parliament
Uspaskich hævder endvidere, at han ikke fik nogen reel chance for at fremføre sit synspunkt, inden Parlamentet vedtog afgørelsen om at ophæve hans immunitet.
Mr Uspaskich further maintains that he did not have the chance to put forward his point of view effectively before Parliament adopted the decision waiving his immunity.
Dette er efter hans opfattelse en krænkelse af artikel 41 i EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder
In his contention, this constitutes a violation of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights
Enhver har ret til at få sin sag behandlet uvildigt, retfærdigt og inden for en rimelig frist af Unionens institutioner, organer, kontorer og agenturer.
Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union .
c) pligt for forvaltningen til at begrunde sine beslutninger. og en krænkelse af hans grundlæggende ret til forsvar.
(c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. and a violation of his fundamental right of defence.
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.
På det mere detaljerede plan klager Uspaskich over, at Parlamentet ophævede hans immunitet ud fra den fejlagtige opfattelse, at immuniteten efter litauisk ret skulle ophæves, fordi de påståede lovovertrædelser blev begået, inden han blev valgt til Europa-Parlamentet, og ikke har forbindelse til hans virksomhed som MEP.
At a more detailed level, Mr Uspaskich complains that Parliament waived his immunity under the erroneous impression that under Lithuanian law immunity had to be waived because the alleged offences were committed before he was elected to the European Parliament and are not linked to his activities as an MEP.
Han er endvidere utilfreds med, at Parlamentet ikke tog hensyn til hans påstand om politisk forfølgelse og ikke anvendte reglen om fumus persecutionis i hans tilfælde.
He further complains that Parliament ignored his allegations of political persecution and did not apply fumus persecutionis in his case.
b) Anmodningen af 11. april 2011
(b) The request of 11 April 2011
I sin anden skrivelse af 11. april 2011 anfører Uspaskich, at WikiLeaks den 9. april offentliggjorde en diplomatisk note fra oktober 2006 fra den amerikanske ambassade i Vilnius til USA's udenrigsministerium, hvori det nævnes, at statssekretæren i det litauiske udenrigsministerium bekræftede, at forfølgelsen af det litauiske arbejderparti var tilrettelagt af den litauiske regering, fordi man havde mistanke om, at Uspaskich havde forbindelse med den russiske udenrigsefterretningstjeneste.
In his second letter of 11 April 2011, Mr Uspaskich states that on 9 April WikiLeaks made public a diplomatic note of the United States Embassy in Vilnius of October 2006 addressed to the US State Department, in which it is mentioned that the State Secretary at the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the persecution of the Lithuanian Labour Party was organised by the Lithuanian Government, owing to the suspicion that Mr Uspaskich had relations with the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.
Uspaskich gør gældende, at noten beviser, at han er offer for politisk forfølgelse, og at det var en fejl, at Europa-Parlamentet ikke anvendte reglen om fumus persecutionis og ophævede hans immunitet.
Mr Uspaskich contends that this note proves that he is the victim of political persecution and that, in waiving his immunity, the European Parliament erroneously failed to apply fumus persecutionis .
Af disse grunde anmoder Viktor Uspaskich om genoptagelse af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2
On those grounds, Viktor Uspaskich requests the revision of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 on the basis of Rule 6(2)
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. , eller subsidiært i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 3
Any request addressed to the President by a competent authority of a Member State that the immunity of a Member be waived shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible . or, in the alternative, on the basis of Rule 6(3)
Enhver anmodning fra et medlem eller et tidligere medlem til formanden om beskyttelse af immunitet og privilegier 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. .
Retlig vurdering
Legal Analysis
For så vidt angår det i skrivelsen af 5. april 2011 fremsatte krav om beskyttelse af immuniteten med den begrundelse, at den straffesag, de litauiske myndigheder har anlagt, forhindrer ham i eller gør det vanskeligt for ham at udøve sit parlamentariske hverv og begrænser hans bevægelsesfrihed som garanteret ved artikel 7 i protokollen om EU's privilegier og immuniteter
As regards the claim made in his letter of 5 April 2011 for the defence of his immunity on the ground that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Lithuanian authorities prevent him from performing, or make it difficult for him to perform, his parliamentary duties, and restrain his freedom of movement, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union
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.
a) af deres egen regering samme lettelser, som tilstås højere tjenestemænd, der begiver sig til udlandet i midlertidigt officielt hverv b) af de øvrige medlemsstaters regeringer samme lettelser, som tilstås repræsentanter fra fremmede regeringer i midlertidigt officielt hverv .” , bør der henvises til dommen af 15. oktober 2008 i sag T‑345/05, Mote mod Parlamentet
(a) by their own governments, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions; (b) by the governments of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions . , reference should be made to the judgment of 15 October 2008 in Case T‑345/05 Mote v. Parliament
Det er værd at citere dommens præmis 48 ff. i deres helhed:
Paragraph 48 et seq. of that judgment are worth citing in extenso :
" […]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).
Som det angives i denne bestemmelse, er formålet med privilegiet at sikre Parlamentets medlemmer bevægelsesfrihed til eller fra Parlamentets mødested .
As that provision states, the privilege is intended to ensure that Members may exercise their freedom to travel to or from the place of meeting of the Parliament.
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.
Det er udtrykkeligt nævnt i protokollens artikel 10, stk. 1, litra b), at parlamentsmedlemmerne bl.a. er fritaget for retsforfølgning på en anden medlemsstats område under Parlamentets mødeperiode.
Legal proceedings are expressly mentioned by subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol as being among the restrictions from which the Member is immune, in the territory of any Member State other than his own, during the sessions of the Parliament.
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 members of their parliaments, some of which protect members of national parliaments from legal proceedings to which they may be subject.
Endelig bestemmes det i artikel 10, stk. 2, at parlamentsmedlemmerne er dækket af immuniteten på vej til eller fra Parlamentets mødested.
Lastly, the second paragraph of Article 10 provides that immunity likewise applies to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Parliament.
Denne bestemmelse, der ligesom protokollens artikel 8, stk. 1, beskytter parlamentsmedlemmerne mod indgreb i deres bevægelsesfrihed, bekræfter, at de begrænsninger, som er nævnt i den sidste bestemmelse, ikke omfatter alle de indgreb i parlamentsmedlemmernes bevægelsesfrihed, som kan tænkes, og at retsforfølgning må anses for at være omfattet af den retlige ordning, som er fastsat i artikel 10, således som det fremgår af de tidligere gennemgåede bestemmelser i denne artikel .
The existence of that provision, which, like the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Protocol, protects Members against interference with their freedom of movement, confirms that the restrictions mentioned by the first paragraph of Article 8 do not include all possible interference with the freedom of movement of Members and that, as shown by the provisions of Article 10 examined above, legal proceedings must be regarded as being covered by the legal regime established by Article 10.
51 Formålet med protokollens artikel 8 er at beskytte Parlamentets medlemmer mod andre begrænsninger i deres bevægelsesfrihed end judicielle begrænsninger .
51 Article 8 of the Protocol has the function of protecting Members against restrictions on their freedom of movement, other than judicial restrictions.
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."
Fremhævelser tilføjet.
Emphasis supplied.
Det skal bemærkes, at Rettens præsidents kendelse af 16. marts 2007 i sag T-345/05 R, V. mod Parlamentet
It should be noted that the order of the President of the General Court of 16 March 2007 in Case T-345/05 R V. v Parliament
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.
Parlamentet kan derfor ikke imødekomme Uspaskichs anmodning af 5. april 2011 om beskyttelse af hans immunitet på grundlag af protokollens artikel 7.
Consequently, it is impossible for Parliament to accede to Mr Uspaskich's request of 5 April 2011 to defend his immunity on the basis of Article 7 of the Protocol.
Under alle omstændigheder er den umiddelbare årsag til, at Uspaskich angiveligt ikke kan deltage i møder i Parlamentet på onsdage, torsdage og fredage, ikke det forhold, at Parlamentet ophævede hans immunitet, men den litauiske domstols afgørelse.
In any event, the proximate cause of Mr Uspaskich's alleged inability to attend meetings at Parliament on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays is not the fact that Parliament waived his immunity, but the decision of the Lithuanian Court.
Det rette forum for en anfægtelse af den afgørelse er domstolene i Litauen eller i Luxembourg.
The proper place to attack that decision is in court in Lithuania or in Luxembourg.
Ikke desto mindre foreslår ordføreren, at Parlamentets formand bliver bedt om at skrive til de litauiske myndigheder og anmode dem om at sikre, at retssagen mod Uspaskich så vidt muligt bliver tilrettelagt på en sådan måde, at det ikke griber ind i hans arbejde som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet.
Notwithstanding this, the rapporteur proposes that the President of Parliament be asked to write to the Lithuanian authorities requesting them to ensure that the trial of Mr Uspaskich is organised as far as possible in such a way as not to interfere with his work as a Member of the European Parliament.
Uspaskich gør endvidere gældende, at Retsudvalget med vedtagelsen af afgørelse nr. P7_TA(2010)0296 tilsidesatte hans "ret til forsvar - retten til at fremkomme med sine synspunkter, inden der træffes en afgørelse vedrørende ham, som kan forvolde ham skade".
Mr Uspaskich further claims that, in adopting Decision No P7_TA(2010)0296 , the Committee on Legal Affairs breached his "right of defence – the right to present his point of view before a decision is taken concerning him which may cause him damage".
Han klager endvidere over, at han ikke fik lejlighed til at se eller fremsætte bemærkninger til udvalgets forslag til afgørelse, og at der blev sendt spørgsmål til Litauens øverste offentlige anklager uden hans vidende.
He then goes on to complain that he was given no opportunity to see or comment on the committee's draft decision and that questions were sent to Lithuania’s Chief Public Prosecutor without his knowledge.
Han var derfor ikke i stand til at fremsætte bemærkninger hertil.
Consequently, he was unable to comment on them.
Han anfører, at det forhold, at han ikke fik forslaget til afgørelse at se, ikke alene er en tilsidesættelse af hans grundlæggende ret til forsvar og af artikel 41, stk. 1, og stk. 2, litra a) og b)
He contends that the refusal to allow him to see the draft decision not only violated his fundamental right of defence and Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (b)
Enhver har ret til at få sin sag behandlet uvildigt, retfærdigt og inden for en rimelig frist af Unionens institutioner, organer, kontorer og agenturer.
Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union .
a) retten for enhver til at blive hørt, inden der træffes en individuel foranstaltning over for ham eller hende, som måtte berøre vedkommende negativt
a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
b) retten for enhver til aktindsigt i de akter, der vedrører ham eller hende, under iagttagelse af legitime fortrolighedshensyn samt tavshedspligt og sagernes fortrolighed
b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy;