natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Var der nogen sammenhæng mellem det forhold, at fru L. var medlem af OLAF‑udvælgelseskomitéen, og instruksen fra OLAF's kontorchef, hr. P., til OLAF‑efterforskeren, hr. A., om at afslutte undersøgelsen vedrørende fru L. hurtigst muligt?
Did the position of Ms L as a member of the pre-selection panel in OLAF have anything to do with the instruction from OLAF Head of Unit Mr P to OLAF investigator Mr A to finish the enquiry concerning Ms L as soon as possible?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4615/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4615/07
Om: Vildledende svar vedrørende OLAF's ønske om ransagning af en journalists kontor og private hjem
Subject: Misleading reply concerning OLAF's wish to have the offices and private house of a journalist raided
Brüner understregede, at »OLAF aldrig har anmodet de belgiske myndigheder om at ransage hr. Tillacks kontor og private hjem«.
Mr Brüner reiterated that ‘OLAF has never requested that the Belgian authorities raid the house and office of Mr Tillack’.
I skrivelsen af 11. februar 2004 fra OLAF til de tyske og belgiske retsmyndigheder anmodede OLAF imidlertid om, at der blev indledt straffesager i begge lande parallelt.
However, in the correspondence dated 11 February 2004, between OLAF and the German and Belgian judicial authorities, OLAF requested the opening of criminal proceedings, to be performed in parallel in both countries.
OLAF tilbød i den pågældende skrivelse at koordinere »beispielsweise zeitgleich durchgeführte Durchsuchungen« (foreslåede samtidige ransagninger) forestået af de tyske og belgiske retsmyndigheder.
In that correspondence, OLAF offered to coordinate ‘beispielsweise zeitgleich durchgeführte Durchsuchungen’ (suggested raids to be performed simultaneously) to be executed by both the German and Belgian judicial authorities.
I OLAF's »Strafanzeige« (anmeldelse) til anklagemyndigheden i Hamburg af samme dato anfører OLAF's direktør, hr. Perduca, på vegne af OLAF, at de også allerede havde drøftet indledningen af »parallele Vorgehen« (parallelle retssager) ved anklagemyndigheden i Bruxelles og Hamburg (tilsyneladende med henvisning til ovennævnte foreslåede ransagninger i begge byer) under et møde mellem OLAF‑tjenestemænd og statsanklageren i Bruxelles, hr. Thoreau.
In the OLAF ‘Strafanzeige’ (criminal report for the Public Prosecutor) for the Hamburg Prosecutor of that date, OLAF director Mr Perduca says on behalf of OLAF that they had already also discussed the ‘parallele Vorgehen’ (parallel criminal proceedings) of the Prosecutors in Brussels and Hamburg (apparently referring to the abovementioned intended raids in both cities) in a meeting of OLAF officials with Brussels Prosecutor Thoreau.
Kommissionen kan indhente en kopi af begge OLAF's anmodninger til de belgiske og tyske retsmyndigheder hos OLAF, således at Kommissionen kan foretage sin egen vurdering.
The Commission can receive from OLAF a copy of both of OLAF's requests to the Belgian and German judicial authorities, so that the Commission can judge for itself.
Hvis OLAF ikke ønsker at videregive disse oplysninger til Kommissionen, fremsender jeg naturligvis meget gerne selv en kopi af disse dokumenter til Kommissionen.
If OLAF does not want to transmit this information to the Commission I am of course very happy to provide the Commission with copies of these documents myself.
Mener Kommissionen i lyset af ovenstående, at det svar, som hr. Brüners gav i sin skrivelse til undertegnede, muligvis ikke er fuldstændig korrekt, og at det muligvis rent faktisk er en lille smule vildledende?
In the light of the abovementioned facts, does the Commission consider that the reply that Mr Brüner gave in his letter to me may not have been entirely correct and may in fact even have been a little bit misleading?
Hvilke følger får det for en generaldirektør, hvis den pågældende som svar på forespørgsler fra et af Europa‑Parlamentets medlemmer tilsyneladende udarbejder skrivelser, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med sandheden, og som endog kan anses for at være lidt vildledende?
What are the consequences for a Director-General if, in answer to questions from an MEP, he appears to write letters that are not in tune with the truth and could even be considered to be slightly misleading?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4616/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4616/07
Om: OLAF's tvivlsomme bestikkelsesanklage mod en journalist
Subject: Questionable bribery claim by OLAF against journalist
Jeg modtog to eksemplarer af OLAF's høringer af Joachim Gross, som dengang var talsmand for den tyske kommissær fru Schreyer.
I received copies of two hearings by OLAF of Joachim Gross, who at that time was spokesperson for German Commissioner Ms Schreyer.
Den ene høring blev afholdt den 9. december 2002 og startede kl. 15, og den anden blev afholdt den 6. januar 2004 og varede fra kl. 14.30 til 16.
One hearing was held on 9 December 2002 and started at 3 pm and the other was held on 6 January 2004 and lasted from 2.30 until 4 pm.
Ved disse høringer fortalte hr. Gross OLAF, at han har mistanke om, at journalisten hr. Tillack fra det tyske ugeblad Stern muligvis har betalt i alt 8 000 (DM eller EUR) til en eller flere EU‑tjenestemænd til gengæld for oplysninger.
In these hearings, Mr Gross tells OLAF that he suspects that a journalist Hans-Martin Tillack, of the German weekly Stern, may have paid in total 8000 (DM or euro) to one or several EC officials for information.
Gross sagde, at han havde hørt om dette fra en anden Stern‑medarbejder omkring den 20. marts 2002.
Gross said that he heard this from another Stern collaborator on about 20 March 2002.
Ved den første høring ønskede han ikke at opgive navnet på sin kilde.
In the first hearing he does not want to give the name of his source.
Ved den anden høring satte han navn på sin kilde, men sagde ligeledes, at kilden formentlig ikke vil bekræfte sine udsagn over for OLAF.
In the second hearing he names his source but also indicates that this source will probably not confirm what he said to OLAF.
Jeg modtog også en ordret udskrift af et interview med Joachim Gross, som en dansk journalist foretog den 9. juni 2004.
I also received a verbatim transcript of an interview of Joachim Gross by a Danish journalist that took place on 9 June 2004.
I dette interview bekræftede hr. Gross, at kilden til hans oplysninger på det skarpeste benægter at have sagt de ting, som hr. Gross tilskrev ham ved OLAF‑høringerne.
In that interview Mr Gross confirms that the source of his information denies firmly ever having said the things that Mr Gross attributed to him during the OLAF hearings.
Der findes ligeledes et internt OLAF‑notat fra direktør Ilett til generaldirektør Brüner dateret den 22. marts 2002, hvori man beskriver de interne drøftelser i OLAF, efter at man havde modtaget oplysningerne om hr. Tillack.
There is also an internal OLAF note from Director Ilett to Director-General Mr Brüner dated 22 March 2002, describing the internal OLAF discussions after having received the indications on Mr Tillack.
Notatet fra hr. Ilett bekræfter, at oplysningerne ikke er pålidelige og ikke kan betragtes som bevis.
The note by Mr Ilett affirms that the information is not solid and does not provide any proof.
Disse fire dokumenter er en indikation af, at der ikke var noget velfunderet grundlag for mistankerne om bestikkelse mod journalisten Hans-Martin Tillack.
These four documents are an indication that there was no sound basis for the suspicions of bribery against journalist Hans-Martin Tillack.
Mener Kommissionen i forbindelse med de fire ovennævnte dokumenter, at det vil være nyttigt, at det disciplinære direktorat IDOC indleder en intern undersøgelse med henblik på at fastslå, hvilken rolle de forskellige aktører inden for Kommissionen og OLAF har spillet i forbindelse med fremlæggelsen (eller opfindelsen?) af »beviser« for en bestikkelsesanklage mod en journalist, der var i besiddelse af oplysninger om interne uregelmæssigheder i OLAF?
With regard to the above four documents, does the Commission believe that it would be useful to open an internal investigation by the disciplinary directorate IDOC in order to establish what the role was of the various actors in the Commission and OLAF when presenting (or putting together) ‘evidence’ for a bribery claim against a journalist who was in possession of information on internal OLAF irregularities?
Hvis Kommissionen ikke er besiddelse af nogle af disse dokumenter, kan OLAF stille dem til rådighed for Kommissionen.
If the Commission is not in possession of any of these documents, OLAF can provide these to the Commission.
Hvis OLAF ikke er villig til at udlevere kopier af disse dokumenter, er jeg villig til selv at stille dem til rådighed for Kommissionen.
If OLAF is not willing to provide such copies, I am willing to supply these copies to the Commission myself.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4617/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4617/07
Om: Opfølgning på Den Europæiske Ombudsmands henstillinger i forbindelse med en klage over OLAF
Subject: Follow up on recommendations by the European Ombudsman in a complaint against OLAF
Den 12. maj 2005 fremlagde Den Europæiske Ombudsmand en særlig beretning om OLAF's, Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig, behandling af påstandene om bestikkelse rettet mod den tyske journalist Hans-Martin Tillack.
On 12 May 2005, the European Ombudsman issued a special report on the treatment by the EU’s anti-fraud office OLAF of the bribery allegations against German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack.
Ombudsmanden skriver i sin beretning, at OLAF har nægtet at følge Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling om at anerkende, at OLAF har fremlagt forkerte og vildledende erklæringer for Ombudsmanden i forbindelse med dennes undersøgelse af kontorets behandling af journalisten.
The Ombudsman writes in his report that OLAF has rejected a draft recommendation from the Ombudsman that it should acknowledge that it made incorrect and misleading statements in its submissions to the Ombudsman during his inquiry into the anti-fraud office's behaviour towards the journalist.
Ombudsmanden mener f.eks., at OLAF's erklæring i brev af 24. marts 2003 om, at kontoret havde modtaget »oplysninger fra pålidelige kilder, herunder fra medlemmer af Europa‑Parlamentet, om at dokumenterne muligvis var blevet udleveret imod betaling«, tilsyneladende er forkerte.
For instance, the Ombudsman considers that OLAF's statement, in its letter of 24 March 2003, that it had received ‘information from reliable sources, including members of the European Parliament, that a payment may have been made for the documents’ appears to have been incorrect.
(Note PvB: Der var rent faktisk kun tale om én kilde, der efterfølgende viste sig at være mindre pålidelig).
(Note PvB: In fact there was only one source that afterwards appeared to be less reliable).
Ombudsmanden mente derfor, at sagen skulle forelægges Europa‑Parlamentet.
The Ombudsman therefore considers that the matter should be put before the European Parliament.
Den 14. juni 2006 påberåber Parlamentet sig imidlertid en »sub judice‑situation«, hvilket betyder, at Parlamentet ikke kan drøfte Ombudsmandens beretning.
However, on 14 June 2006 sub judice status was invoked by the Parliament which prevented the Ombudsman report being discussed in Parliament.
Selv om der ikke længere er tale om en verserende sag, idet Domstolen traf sin afgørelse i oktober 2006, har Parlamentets Udvalg for Andragender ikke fået grønt lys fra Parlamentets Præsidium til at gå videre med sagen.
Although the sub judice is no longer valid, as the European Court issued its ruling in October 2006, Parliament's Petitions Committee has not received a green light from the EP's presidium to pursue the case.
Den 24. maj 2005 udtalte Kommissionens næstformand, Margot Wallström, under en pressekonference, at Ombudsmandens beretning skulle undersøges med henblik på at få klarhed over, om OLAF havde behandlet sagen forkert.
On 24 May 2005 at a press conference, Commission Vice-President Wallström said that the Ombudsman's report had to be studied, whether or not OLAF had mishandled the case.
Hvilke konklusioner drog Kommissionen efter læsningen af beretningen af Ombudsmandens meget alvorlige resultater?
What conclusions has the Commission drawn from the very serious findings of the Ombudsman after having studied his report?
Hvilke foranstaltninger har Kommissionen truffet på baggrund af Ombudsmandens yderst alvorlige konklusioner for at sikre, at de fejl eller forsømmelser, der er sket i OLAF, er blevet eller vil blive rettet?
Following the extreme gravity of the Ombudsman’s conclusions, what actions have been taken by the European Commission to ensure that the situation of maladministration within OLAF has been or will be improved?
Mener Kommissionen, at det forhold, at Parlamentet endnu ikke har udtalt sig om Ombudsmandens beretning, indvirker på dens muligheder for at bruge Ombudsmandens beretning i forbindelse med forbedringen af dens egen tjenestegren, OLAF?
Does the Commission consider that the fact that Parliament has not yet expressed itself on the Ombudsman's report, is relevant for its possibilities of using the Ombudsman's report as input to improve the processes of its internal department OLAF?
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand har ingen retsbeføjelser og kan ikke træffe bindende afgørelser.
The European Ombudsman has no judicial powers and cannot issue binding decisions.
Hvis konklusionerne i Ombudsmandens undersøgelse er meget alvorlige, kan Ombudsmanden i sin beretning i yderste tilfælde henstille, at Europa‑Parlamentet afgiver en udtalelse.
If the findings of an Ombudsman's enquiry are very serious, the Ombudsman can, as an ultimate measure, recommend the European Parliament to issue an opinion on his report.
Vil Kommissionen i lyset heraf og som led i opfyldelsen af sine forpligtelser som vogter af EU‑traktaterne og de institutionelle procedurer være villig til formelt af spørge Parlamentet om, hvorfor det ikke har reageret på Ombudsmandens anmodning om at behandle hans beretning og afgive en udtalelse herom?
With this in mind, would the Commission, in its duty as guardian of the EU Treaties and interinstitutional procedures, be prepared to formally ask Parliament why it has not responded to the Ombudsman's request to discuss his report and issue an opinion on it?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4618/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4618/07
Om: En ansøgers indsendelse af vildledende dokumenter i en procedure for udvælgelse af midlertidigt ansatte i OLAF
Subject: Submission by a candidate of misleading documents in an OLAF temporary staff selection procedure
I 2006 afholdt man en udvælgelsesprocedure for midlertidigt ansatte i OLAF.
In 2006 a selection procedure took place for temporary agents in OLAF.
Grunden hertil skulle være, at denne ansøger skulle have indsendt dokumentation med det samme efternavn, men som ikke var udtryk for hans egen erfaring.
The reason for this is allegedly that this candidate submitted supporting documents carrying the same family name but not reflecting his own experience.
Ansøgeren skulle ikke have givet tilstrækkelige svar på de spørgsmål, han blev stillet under den mundtlige eksamensrunde.
This candidate allegedly did not give sufficient answers to the questions posed to him during the oral examination.
Ansøgeren skulle have henvist til en aftale indgået med generaldirektøren for OLAF om hans udvælgelse som midlertidigt ansat.
Allegedly this candidate referred to an agreement with the OLAF Director-General concerning his appointment as a temporary agent.
Trods indvendinger fra et eller flere medlemmer af udvælgelseskomitéen skulle ansøgeren være blevet stående på listen over passende ansøgere efter afslutningen af udvælgelsesproceduren.
Despite objections from one or more members of the selection panel, this candidate was allegedly kept on the list of suitable candidates after completing the selection procedure.
Kommissionen bedes foretage undersøgelser i OLAF for at finde ud af, om dette virkelig skete og redegøre herfor til OLAF's Overvågningsudvalg samt til Parlamentets Budgetkontroludvalg.
Can the Commission make enquiries in OLAF to find out whether this incident actually took place and report on this to the Supervisory Committee of OLAF as well as to the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament?
Hvis Kommissionen ikke er i stand til at få nærmere oplysninger om denne hændelse, er jeg villig til at give Kommissionens undersøgelses- og disciplinærkontor, IDOC, nærmere oplysninger om formanden for udvælgelseskomitéen, om et notat, der findes om denne sag, og navnet på den pågældende belgiske ansøger.
If the Commission is not able to identify the details of this incident I am willing to provide the Commission’s Disciplinary Office IDOC with the details of the president of the Selection Panel, the details of a note that exists on this case and the name of the Belgian candidate in question.
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at denne ansøger indtil videre ikke er blevet udpeget til den midlertidige stilling i lønklasse A, han venter på?
Can the Commission confirm that so far, this candidate has not been appointed to the temporary A‑grade post he is waiting for?
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, om der blev givet udtryk for modstand mod udpegelsen af denne ansøger, f.eks. fra personalerepræsentanter, på grund af hans påståede manglende erfaring og utilstrækkelige præstation under udvælgelsesproceduren?
Can the Commission confirm whether there was any opposition expressed against the appointment of this candidate, for instance by staff representatives, for reasons of his alleged lack of experience and his alleged insufficient performance during the selection process?
Kommissionen bedes forklare, hvorfor denne ansøger blev stående på listen over egnede ansøgere på trods af hans påståede manglende erfaring og utilstrækkelige præstation under udvælgelsesproceduren.
Can the Commission explain why this candidate was still kept on the list of suitable candidates despite his alleged lack of experience and his alleged insufficient performance during the selection process?
Kunne grunden til dette være, at der rent faktisk var indgået en aftale mellem denne ansøger og generaldirektøren for OLAF?
Could the reason for this be that indeed there was an agreement between this candidate and the Director-General of OLAF?
Kommissionen bedes oplyse, om OLAF har indledt en undersøgelse af denne sag.
Can the Commission inform me whether OLAF started an investigation into this case?
Det drejer sig om en midlertidigt ansat, der skulle have fremlagt forfalskede sagsakter indeholdende vildledende dokumenter, som denne ansøger skulle have bekræftet som værende i overensstemmelse med sandheden.
This case would concern a temporary official who, in an OLAF procedure, submitted a falsified file containing misleading documents that the candidate certified as being true.
Er Kommissionen nu, i betragtning af at OLAF er en tjenestegren i Kommissionen, indstillet på at indlede en undersøgelse af denne sag, der enten skal gennemføres af Kommissionens særlige undersøgelses- og disciplinærkontor (IDOC), som blev oprettet med dette formål, eller af et andet uafhængigt organ, således at beskyldningerne kan blive vurderet af specialister, som ikke hører under generaldirektøren for OLAF?
Considering the fact that OLAF is a Commission department, is the Commission willing to open an enquiry into this case, to be performed by either the specialist department (IDOC) that was created for this purpose in the European Commission, or by another independent body, in order that the allegations can be assessed by specialists not subordinate to the Director-General of OLAF?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4619/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4619/07
Om: Notat til ansatte i OLAF om pligt til indberetning af uregelmæssigheder
Subject: Instruction to OLAF staff on their duty to report irregularities
I formandspapiret fra OLAF's Overvågningsudvalg (SCO) af 11. og 12. marts 2003 anføres det, at generaldirektøren for OLAF, hr. Brüner, skrev et notat til alle ansatte i OLAF, som informerede dem om deres pligt til at indberette uregelmæssigheder, de blev bekendt med under udførelsen af deres opgaver som ansat i OLAF.
The ‘Feuille de Présidence’ of the Supervisory Committee of OLAF (SCO) dated 11 and 12 March 2003, states that OLAF Director-General Mr Brüner wrote an instruction to all OLAF staff informing them of their duty to report any irregularities that they became aware of in the exercise of their duties as OLAF officials.
I henhold til dette referat fra SCO informerede hr. Brüner dem om, at ud over at indberette til deres foresatte, OLAF eller Revisionsretten kunne de også opfylde deres pligt ved at indberette deres viden om uregelmæssigheder til formanden for SCO.
According to these minutes of the SCO, Mr Brüner informed them that besides reporting to their hierarchy, OLAF or to the European Court of Auditors, they could also fulfil their duty by reporting their knowledge of irregularities to the president of the SCO.
Kommissionen bedes oplyse, om hr. Brüner virkelig skrev et sådant notat til sit personale.
Can the European Commission inform me whether Mr Brüner indeed wrote such a note to his staff?
Gælder dette notat stadigvæk, eller findes der et nyere notat fra hr. Brüner til hans personale om pligten til at indberette uregelmæssigheder?
Is this instruction still valid or is there a more recent instruction from Mr Brüner to his staff on their duty to report irregularities?
Kommissionen bedes fremsende en kopi af dette notat til mig.
Could the Commission supply me with a copy of this instruction?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4620/07
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4620/07
Om: Trussel mod OLAF's operationelle uafhængighed i forhold til princippet om demokratisk kontrol på alle niveauer
Subject: Threat to OLAF's operational independence versus the principle of democratic control at all levels
Meningen blev forstået.«
The point was understood.’
I en e-mail af 23. februar 2007 meddeler formanden for Kommissionens personalerepræsentation generaldirektøren for OLAF, hr. Brüner, at han er foruroliget over, at der er tegn på uregelmæssigheder, som skulle være foregået i forbindelse med udvælgelsesproceduren for to direktørstillinger i OLAF.
In an e-mail of 23 February 2007, the president of the European Commission staff representation communicates to the Director-General of OLAF, Mr Brüner, that he is alarmed by indications of irregularities that allegedly occurred during the selection process for two directors' posts in OLAF.
Personalerepræsentanten foreslår hr. Brüner at undersøge omstændighederne.
The staff representative suggests to Mr Brüner an investigation into the facts.
Den 27. februar svarer hr. Brüner EF‑personalerepræsentanten, at han ikke mener, at der er grundlag for en undersøgelse af den foreslåede art. Hr.
On 27 February, Mr Brüner replies to the EC staff representative that he does not consider that there are any grounds for an investigation of the kind suggested by him.
Brüner ville, da det vedrører gennemførelsen af undersøgelser, betragte dette som en trussel mod OLAF's operationelle uafhængighed.
Mr Brüner would regard this, so far as it is related to the conduct of investigations, as a threat to OLAF's operational independence.
Kommissær Kallas forklarede, at Kommissionen formelt har ret til at indlede disciplinærsager mod ansatte i OLAF.
Commissioner Kallas explained that formally the right exists for the European Commission to open disciplinary proceedings against OLAF staff.
I praksis er det imidlertid ikke let at indlede en sådan sag, da det normalt sætter OLAF's operationelle uafhængighed i forhold til Kommissionen på spil.
In practice such action is not easily taken, as it would normally risk the operational independence of OLAF vis-à-vis the European Commission.
Af ovennævnte citater fremgår det, at nødvendigheden af OLAF's operationelle uafhængighed kan være blevet til et mantra, som OLAF kan påberåbe sig, når det ønsker at forhindre, at andre får indsigt i interne OLAF‑forhold.
From the above quotes it is apparent that the necessity of OLAF’s operational independence may have become a mantra that OLAF could invoke when it wants to block insight into internal OLAF matters.
OLAF er imidlertid stadig en intern afdeling af Kommissionen.
However, OLAF is still an internal Commission department.