natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
a) på deres eget lands område de immuniteter, der tilstås medlemmerne af deres lands lovgivende forsamling
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament,
Gr æsk lovgivning
Greek Law
Artikel 62 i den græske forfatning lyder således:
Article 62 of the Constitution of Greece reads as follows:
" Et parlamentsmedlem kan under sit mandat ikke retsforfølges, fastholdes eller fængsles eller berøves sin frihed uden parlamentets samtykke.
" During the parliamentary term the Members of Parliament shall not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined without prior leave granted by Parliament.
Ligeledes kan et medlem af et opløst parlament ikke retsforfølges for politiske strafbare handlinger i perioden mellem opløsningen af det gamle parlament og de nye medlemmers overtagelse af deres parlamentariske mandat.
Likewise, a member of a dissolved Parliament shall not be prosecuted for political crimes during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and the declaration of the election of the members of the new Parliament.
Det betragtes som afslag på samtykke, hvis Parlamentet ikke træffer afgørelse inden for tre måneder fra den dato, hvor anklagemyndighedens anmodning om retsforfølgning blev sendt til formanden .
Leave shall be deemed not granted if Parliament does not decide within three months of the date the request for prosecution by the public prosecutor was transmitted to the Speaker.
Fristen på tre måneder suspenderes under Parlamentets pauser.
The three month limit is suspended during the Parliament's recess.
På grundlag af ovenstående betragtninger, i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2, i forretningsordenen og efter at have overvejet argumenterne for og imod ophævelse af medlemmets immunitet, anbefaler Retsudvalget, at Parlamentet ophæver Georgios Toussas' parlamentariske immunitet.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against waiving the Member’s immunity, recommends that the European Parliament should waive the parliamentary immunity of Georgios Toussas.
om anmodning om beskyttelse af Viktor Uspaskichs immunitet og privilegier
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Viktor Uspaskich
– 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 til 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 . ,
– der har hørt Viktor Uspaskich den 10. oktober 2011, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 7, stk. 3,
– having heard Viktor Uspaskich on 10 October 2011, in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– der henviser til artikel 7 og 9 i protokollen af 8. april 1965 vedrørende Den Europæiske Unions privilegier og immuniteter samt artikel 6, stk. 2, i akten af 20. september 1976 om almindelige direkte valg af medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet,
– having regard to Articles 7 and 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
2008 I, s. 7929, og sag T-42/06, Gollnisch mod Parlamentet. ,
Gollnisch v. Parliament . ,
– der henviser til bestemmelserne i artikel 62 i Republikken Litauens forfatning,
– having regard to the provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
– der henviser til Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 om at ophæve Viktor Uspaskichs immunitet
– having regard to Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 to waive Viktor Uspaskich’s immunity
Vedtagne tekster, P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
Texts adopted , P7_TA(2010)0296 . ,
– der henviser til betænkning fra Retsudvalget ( A7-0411/2011 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A7-0411/2011 ),
A. der henviser til, at anmodningerne fra Viktor Uspaskich af henholdsvis 5. og 11. april 2011 bør behandles samlet, da de vedrører samme retsforfølgning;
A. whereas it is appropriate to deal with the requests made by Viktor Uspaskich on 5 and 11 April 2011 together since they relate to the same legal proceedings;
B. der henviser til, at der er anlagt straffesag mod Viktor Uspaskich, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, som ved Vilnius' regionale straffedomstol er tiltalt efter artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 222, stk. 1, artikel 220, stk. 1, artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 220, stk. 1, artikel 205, stk. 1, og artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 205, stk. 1, i den litauiske straffelov;
B. 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;
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’;
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 parlamentets 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 or arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted, without the consent of the Parliament;
E. der 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 under the general procedure for personal insult or slander;
F. der henviser til, at Viktor Uspaskich i det væsentlige er anklaget for overtrædelser vedrørende falsk bogføring i forbindelse med finansiering af et politisk parti i en periode, inden han blev valgt til Europa-Parlamentet;
F. whereas Viktor Uspaskich is charged essentially with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament;
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;
H. der henviser til, at Viktor Uspaskich den 28. oktober 2010 anlagde sag ved Retten med påstand om annullation af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010, men trak søgsmålet tilbage i juli 2011;
H. whereas on 28 October 2010 Viktor Uspaskich brought an action for the annulment of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 in the General Court, only to withdraw it in July 2011;
I. der henviser til, at Victor Uspaskich i sin skrivelse af 5. april 2011, hvori han anmoder om beskyttelse af sin immunitet, gør gældende, at den straffesag, de litauiske myndigheder har anlagt, forhindrer ham i eller gør det vanskeligt for ham at udøve sit parlamentariske hverv ved at begrænse hans bevægelsesfrihed i strid med artikel 7 i protokollen om privilegier og immuniteter;
I. whereas in his letter of 5 April 2011 requesting the defence of his immunity Viktor Uspaskich claims that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Lithuanian authorities prevent him from performing, or make it difficult for him to perform, his parliamentary duties by restraining his freedom of movement contrary to Article 7 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities;
J. der henviser til, at formålet med protokollens artikel 7 er at beskytte Parlamentets medlemmer mod andre begrænsninger i deres bevægelsesfrihed end judicielle begrænsninger, og at artiklen således ikke indeholder en immunitet, men et privilegium, og ikke beskytter mod judicielle begrænsninger af medlemmernes bevægelsesfrihed
J. whereas Article 7 of the Protocol has the function of protecting Members against restrictions on their freedom of movement, other than judicial restrictions, and consequently contains not an immunity but a privilege, and does not protect against judicial restrictions on Members’ freedom of movement
K. der henviser til, at Parlamentet derfor ikke kan imødekomme Viktor Uspaskichs anmodning af 5. april 2011 om beskyttelse af hans immunitet på grundlag af protokollens artikel 7;
K. whereas, consequently, it is impossible for Parliament to accede to Viktor Uspaskich’s request of 5 April 2011 to defend his immunity on the basis of Article 7 of the Protocol;
L. der henviser til, at Viktor Uspaskich i sin skrivelse af 11. april 2011 anmoder om genoptagelse af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 under henvisning til påståede nye faktiske oplysninger fra WikiLeaks, som efter hans opfattelse viser, at han har været offer for fumus persecutionis;
L. whereas in his letter of 11 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich requests the revision of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 on the grounds of alleged new facts raised by WikiLeaks, which he maintains show he was the victim of fumus persecutionis ;
M. der henviser til, at denne anmodning bør forkastes, da det ikke er blevet dokumenteret, at der er tilstrækkelig forbindelse mellem de påståede nye faktiske oplysninger og retsforfølgningen af Viktor Uspaskich for falsk bogføring;
M. whereas this claim should be rejected on the grounds that no sufficient nexus has been established between the alleged new facts and the bringing of proceedings against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting;
N. der endvidere henviser til – og dette gælder også for Viktor Uspaskichs påstand om, at afgørelsen af 7. september 2010 indebærer en tilsidesættelse af hans grundlæggende ret til forsvar og af EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder – at anmodningen om fornyet prøvelse af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010 ikke udgør en anmodning om beskyttelse af hans immunitet og privilegier som omhandlet i forretningsordenens artikel 6 og 7;
N. whereas in addition – and this applies also to Viktor Uspaskich’s claim that his fundamental right of defence and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights were violated in taking the decision of 7 September 2010 –, the application for a review of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 does not constitute a request for the defence of his immunity and privileges within the meaning of Rules 6 and 7;
Den 14. juli 2009 anmodede Republikken Litauens øverste offentlige anklager om ophævelse Viktor Uspaskichs parlamentariske immunitet.
On 14 July 2009 the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich.
På mødet den 7. oktober 2009 meddelte formanden i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 2, at han havde modtaget en skrivelse fra de litauiske retslige myndigheder den 14. juli 2009 om ophævelse af Uspaskichs parlamentariske immunitet.
At the sitting of 7 October 2009 the President announced, under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a letter sent by the Lithuanian judicial authorities on 14 July 2009 requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Uspaskich.
Republikken Litauens øverste offentlige anklager modtog ved en afgørelse truffet af Vilnius' regionale domstol den 9. juni 2009 instrukser om at anmode Europa-Parlamentet om at ophæve sit medlem Viktor Uspaskichs parlamentariske immunitet, idet der var blevet indledt en strafferetssag imod ham i forbindelse med sag nr. 1-38/2009, for at retssagen mod ham kunne fortsætte, og de restriktioner, som retten havde pålagt ham som en sikkerhedsforanstaltning, kunne iværksættes.
The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania was instructed, by decision of the Regional Court of Vilnius of 29 June 2009, to ask the European Parliament to waive the immunity of its Member Viktor Uspaskich, against whom criminal proceedings have been brought in Case No 1-38/2009, in order that the criminal proceedings initiated against him may go ahead and the bail order made against him by the court as a precautionary measure may be enforced.
Viktor Uspaskich er ved Vilnius' regionale straffedomstol tiltalt efter artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 222, stk. 1, artikel 220, stk. 1, artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 220, stk. 1, artikel 205, stk. 1, og artikel 24, stk. 4, sammenholdt med artikel 205, stk. 1, i den litauiske straffelov.
Viktor Uspaskich is accused in 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.
Sagen imod Viktor Uspaskich drejer sig om, at han i Vilnius mellem den 13. juli 2004 og den 17. maj 2006 som formand for Arbejderpartiet, idet han handlede i forståelse med andre personer med henblik på at a) forsøge at finansiere et politisk parti, nemlig Arbejderpartiet, illegalt og b) unddrage sig effektivt tilsyn med finansieringen af partiet og dets politiske kampagner, ledte en organiseret gruppe oprettet af dette parti med henblik på at forøve en række kriminelle handlinger.
The case against Viktor Uspaskich is that, in Vilnius between 13 July 2004 and 17 May 2006, as chair of the Labour Party, acting in concert with others for the purposes of (a) attempting to finance a political party – namely the Labour Party – illegally and (b) evading proper supervision of the financing of the party and its political campaigns, he directed an organised group created by them in order to perpetrate a number of criminal offences.
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.
Den 9. december 2008 vedtog det litauiske parlament (Seimas) at ophæve Uspaskichs immunitet i relation til samme retssag.
On 9 December 2008, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) agreed to waive the immunity of Mr Uspaskich in respect of the same proceedings.
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.
Som følge af høringen skrev formanden for Retsudvalget den 2. februar 2010 til Parlamentets formand og anmodede ham om at få opklaret følgende spørgsmål hos de litauiske myndigheder:
As a result of that hearing, the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs wrote to the President of Parliament on 2 February 2010 asking him to clarify the following questions with the Lithuanian authorities:
· Det ser ud til, at afgørelsen fra Vilnius' regionale domstol af 29. juni 2009, hvorved Litauens øverste offentlige anklager blev instrueret om at anmode om ophævelse af immuniteten, blev truffet af en enkelt dommer.
● It seems that the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 29 June 2009 that instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Lithuania to request the waiver of the immunity, was adopted by a single judge.
Er dette foreneligt med litauisk lov?
Is this compatible with Lithuanian law?
· Vilnius' regionale domstol pålagde den 29. april 2008 Viktor Uspaskich at betale en kaution på 1 500 000 LTL (ca. 436 000 EUR) som en sikkerhedsforanstaltning.
● On 29 April 2008, the Vilnius Regional Court ordered Viktor Uspaskich to pay bail amounting to LTL 1.500.000 (approximately EUR 436.000) as a precautionary measure.
Viktor Uspaskich hævdede over for udvalget, at den sanktion, han ville blive pålagt, hvis han skulle tabe sagen, er en bøde på blot 14 000 EUR.
Viktor Uspaskich claimed before the Committee that the sanction which could be imposed on him should he lose the case is a fine of only 14.000 Euro.
Han gjorde gældende, at kautionen var uforholdsmæssig stor og ulovlig efter litauisk ret.
He argued that bail was disproportionate and illegal under Lithuanian law.
De litauiske myndigheder svarede udførligt den 27. april 2010.
The Lithuanian authorities replied in detail on 27 April 2010.
Den 2. september 2009 hørte Retsudvalget Uspaskich endnu en gang.
On 2 September 2009, the Committee on Legal Affairs heard Mr Uspaskich for a second time.
Den 7. september 2010 besluttede Europa-Parlamentet at ophæve Viktor Uspaskichs immunitet (P7-TA (2010)0296) med følgende begrundelse:
On 7 September 2010, the European Parliament decided to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (P7-TA (2010)0296) on the following grounds:
"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,
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
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".
Efterfølgende fastslog Parlamentet på plenarmødet den 9. september 2010, at en anmodning fra Uspaskich om beskyttelse af hans immunitet ikke tjente noget formål, med den begrundelse, at anmodningen vedrørte den samme straffesag, som immuniteten var blevet ophævet for.
Subsequently, at the plenary session of 9 September 2010, Parliament declared that a request made by Mr Uspaskich for the defence of his immunity was to no purpose on the ground that the request related to the same criminal proceedings for which immunity had been waived.
Uspaskich blev orienteret herom ved skrivelse af 20. september 2010.
Mr Uspaskich was informed by letter of 20 September 2010.
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
Den 17. december 2010 besluttede Rettens præsident, at en begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler (om udsættelse af gennemførelsen af Parlamentets afgørelse af 7. september 2010) ikke kunne tages til følge.
In the course of the proceedings, on 17 December 2010, the President of the General Court dismissed an application for interim measures ( i.e. for the suspension of the application of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010)
Uspaskich appellerede præsidentens kendelse (sag C-66/11 P (R)).
Mr Uspaskich appealed against the order of the President (Case C-66/11 P (R)).
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").
Formanden henviste anmodningen til Retsudvalget i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 6, stk. 3, ved skrivelse af 27. maj 2011.
The President referred the request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 6(3), by letter of 27 May 2011.