natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis der er indført sådanne bevarelsesforanstaltninger, kommer fiskestoppet på de femten dage ikke til at gælde.
Where such conservation measures are in place the 15 days stoppage will not apply.
I den forbindelse vil Kommissionen kunne overveje markedsforanstaltninger med henblik på at reducere efterspørgslen efter glasål.
In this context, the Commission will be able to consider market measures aimed at reducing the market demand for glass eel.
Eventuelle forslag om markedsforanstaltninger med et bevarelsesmål skal være forenelige med EU's internationale forpligtelser på det handelsretlige område.
Any proposal concerning market measures with a conservation objective should be compatible with the Community’s obligations regarding international trade law.
Det vil sige, at EU skal have indført effektive bevarelsesforanstaltninger for sin egen ålebestand, før der indføres handelsforanstaltninger.
This means that, at the time of application of such trade measures, the Community should already have in place effective conservation measures with regard to its own eel stock.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3905/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3905/05
Om: Bedfordshire Farm skovdemonstrationsprojekt
Subject: Bedfordshire Farm Woodland Demonstration Project
Bedfordshire Farm skovdemonstrationsprojekt blev igangsat i 1997 som en metode til at udvide omfanget af skovbrug på landbrugsjord.
The Bedfordshire Farm Woodland Demonstration Project was launched in 1997 as a means of increasing forestry cover on arable land.
I sin tid fik projektet en del omtale gennem de forskellige sponsorer som for eksempel Den Europæiske Union, Bedfordshire Amtsråd, det britiske skovbrugsvæsen og de deltagende landbrugere.
At the time much publicity was given at the time to the project on behalf of the various sponsors who were identified as the European Union, Bedfordshire County Council, the UK Forestry Authority and the participating farmers.
Hvor stor støtte fra EU til dette projekt
Please could you advise what EU funds
1. er blevet bevilget?
1. have been allocated,
2. er blevet udbetalt?
2. have been disbursed,
3. afventer udbetaling til Bedfordshire Amtsråd?
3. still await disbursement to Bedfordshire County Council in relation to this project?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3906/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3906/05
Om: Europarådets europæiske overenskomst om formidling af ansøgninger om retshjælp
Subject: Council of Europe Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid
Tilbydes der hjælp til oversættelse under hele proceduren i forbindelse med Europarådets europæiske overenskomst om formidling af ansøgninger om retshjælp, som alle EU-medlemsstater undtagen Tyskland har undertegnet, eller tilbydes der kun en sådan hjælp, indtil den pågældende medlemsstat har givet tilsagn om fri retshjælp?
With regard to the Council of Europe's ‘European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid’ — to which all Member States of the EU except Germany are signatories — is the translation service provided throughout the entire process, or is it available only until free legal aid has been granted by the Member State concerned?
Kan Rådet bekræfte, at udgifterne til oversættelse afholdes af den medlemsstat, der yder fri retshjælp?
Can the Council verify that the cost of this translation is borne by the Member State which has granted free legal aid?
Hvilke procedurer er der indført for at sikre, at medlemsstaterne følger overenskomstens bestemmelser nøje?
Finally, what procedures are in place to ensure that Member States implement the agreement as drawn up?
Hvis de ikke retter sig efter overenskomsten, hvilke konsekvenser vil det i givet fald få for de pågældende medlemsstater, og hvilke hjælpemidler har ansøgeren eventuelt til sin rådighed i dette tilfælde?
If they do not, what, if any, are the consequences for the Member State and what remedies, if any, are available to the applicant?
Rådet skal hermed oplyse, at de spørgsmål, der rejses, vedrører en overenskomst, der er blevet indgået i Europarådets regi og ikke af Den Europæiske Union.
The Council wishes to point out that the questions asked refer to an agreement which was concluded in the context of the Council of Europe and not at European Union level.
Rådet er derfor ikke i stand til at tilvejebringe de oplysninger, det ærede parlamentsmedlem ønsker.
The Council is therefore not in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3907/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3907/05
Vil Kommissionen oplyse, hvor store udgifter de forskellige generaldirektorater har haft i 2002, 2003 og 2004 til eksterne rådgivere, som har bistået Kommissionen i dens arbejde?
Will the Commission indicate the amounts of money spent in 2002, 2003 and 2004 by the various directorates-general on the employment of external consultants to assist them in their work?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3908/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/05
Om: Adgang til direkte tv-transmission af cricket
Subject: Viewing rights for cricket
Mener Kommissionen ikke — i lyset af at en pay-per-view tv-kanal for nylig har erhvervet alle rettigheder til direkte transmission af cricket — at der bør indføres strengere regler for, hvilke nærmere angivne sportsbegivenheder der skal transmitteres via jordbaseret tv, således at alle får adgang hertil?
In the light of the recent acquisition of all rights to broadcast live cricket by a pay-per-view television channel, does the Commission feel that stronger rules should be adopted so as to regulate what listed sporting events must be shown on terrestrial television and thus may be seen by all?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3909/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3909/05
af Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE) og Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE)
by Stavros Lambrinidis (PSE) and Nikolaos Sifunakis (PSE)
Om: Brugen af mobiltelefoner under flyvninger
Subject: Use of mobile phones on flights
De nylige flyulykker har igen sat fokus på spørgsmålet om flysikkerheden.
Recent plane tragedies have once again brought the issue of air safety to the fore.
I denne forbindelse påpeges det, at luftfartsselskaberne i årevis har forbudt aktivering og brug af mobiltelefoner under flyvningerne.
It should be pointed out in this context that airlines have long banned passengers from switching on or using mobile phones during flights.
For nylig bekendtgjorde to europæiske luftfartsselskaber, at de i den nærmeste fremtid vil tillade, at passagerer bruger mobiltelefonitjenester under deres flyvninger inden for Den Europæiske Union.
Two European airlines recently announced that they would shortly be authorising their passengers to use mobile telephony services during flights within the European Union.
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, hvad der taler for det forbud, der indtil nu har været mod brugen af mobiltelefoner under flyvninger, og på hvilke videnskabelige undersøgelser bygger dette forbud?
Can the Commission outline the arguments in favour of the ban on the use of mobile phones on flights which has been imposed until now, and can it say on what scientific studies that ban is based?
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, hvordan den nye foranstaltning med fri brug af mobiltelefoner under flyvningerne tager højde for de risici, som alle luftfartsselskaber hidtil har betragtet som en prioritet, og hvordan den kan undgå at true flysikkerheden?
More specifically, can it explain how the newly introduced free use of mobile phones during flights avoids the risks which all airlines have faced until now, and why it will not affect the safety of European flights?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3910/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/05
Om: Nederlandske svin døde under transport til Italien
Subject: Death of Netherlands pigs during transport to Italy
Under en transport den 29. juli 2005 af nederlandske svin til Syditalien døde der 69 svin.
During an operation to transport Netherlands pigs to southern Italy on 29 July, 69 pigs died.
Den europæiske lovgivning blev overtrådt seks gange under denne transport: 1) der var ingen foder om bord, 2) der var ingen vand om bord, 3) transporten varede længere end 24 timer, 4) dyrene kunne ikke ligge ned, fordi lastbilen var overlæsset, 5) transporten forårsagede meget stærke lidelser hos dyrene, 6) køreplanen, som var godkendt af de nederlandske myndigheder, var fuldstændig urealistisk.
The transport operation violated European legislation on six counts: (1) there was no feed on board; (2) there was no water on board; (3) the journey took longer than 24 hours; (4) the animals were unable to lie down as the lorry was overloaded; (5) the transport operation caused immense suffering to the animals; (6) the route, which had been approved by the Netherlands authorities, was completely unrealistic.
Der var beregnet en rejsetid på 22 timer til en tur på 1800 km med to stop undervejs til losning af svin.
For a journey of 1800 kilometres, with two stops for unloading piglets, the time estimated to be needed was 22 hours.
Dette er urealistisk, hvilket også fremgår af den omstændighed, at transporten allerede havde været 33 timer undervejs, da lastbilen blev inspiceret i nærheden af Rom.
The fact that the journey had already taken 33 hours when the lorry was inspected near Rome clearly demonstrates how unrealistic this was.
Transporten var på det tidspunkt endnu timer fra Pagani, som var det endelige mål.
At that stage the lorry was still hours away from its ultimate destination, Pagani.
Politiet pålagde herefter chaufføren fem bøder på hver 3098 EUR for de forskellige lovovertrædelser.
The police imposed five fines of EUR 3098 each on the driver for the various breaches of the law.
Ved losningen af de 70 svin viste det sig, at 40 var døde.
During the unloading of the 70 pigs, 40 were found to be dead.
To svin blev aflivet, fordi de var alt for svage.
Two had to be destroyed, as they were so weak.
Chaufføren forklarede, at der allerede var 27 svin døde ved losningen i Norditalien.
The driver stated that 27 animals had already been found dead when the piglets were unloaded in northern Italy.
Det må konkluderes, at den europæiske lovgivning, som ikke er særligt streng, ikke overholdes fuldt ud, hvilket fører til alvorlige misforhold.
It can only be concluded that European legislation, which is not especially strict, is not being properly complied with, leading to serious abuses.
I 2000 havde Kommissionen også allerede selv konkluderet, at de europæiske bestemmelser for transporter af dyr overtrædes systematisk.
In 2000 the European Commission itself concluded that European rules on the transport of animals were being systematically violated.
Som bekendt er der siden da ikke sket de store forbedringer.
Clearly, there has been little improvement since.
Der er adgang til fotos fra transporten under:
Pictures of the transport operation can be seen on:
Hvorledes vil Kommissionen nu garantere, at efterforskningskapaciteten i forbindelse med misforhold som disse styrkes, således at de nationale myndigheder oftere selv vil komme på sporet af sådanne forhold uden intervention fra organisationer, som f.eks.. »Animals' Angels«?
How does the Commission intend to ensure that available capacity for detecting abuses like this one is stepped up, so that national authorities are able to spot them more often by themselves, without the involvement of organisations like Animals' Angels?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3911/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3911/05
Om: Sammensætning af programkomitéen for EU's kampagne til bekæmpelse af diskrimination
Subject: Composition of the Programme Committee for the EU's anti-discrimination campaign
I 2003 startede Kommissionen en såkaldt kampagne til bekæmpelse af diskrimination »Brug forskellene.
In 2003, the Commission launched a so-called anti-discrimination campaign, which it called ‘For Diversity.
Stop diskriminationen«.
Against Discrimination’.
Også et stort antal nationale organisationer såvel som EU-organisationer, som f.eks. arbejdsgiverorganisationer, fagforbund og ikke-statslige organisationer deltager aktivt i kampagnen.
Numerous national and EU organisations, such as employers' organisations, trade unions and NGOs, are also actively involved in the campaign.
De fleste kampagneaktiviteter organiseres ikke centralt fra Bruxelles men nationalt og regionalt i hver enkelt EU-medlemsstat.
Most of the campaign's activities are organised not centrally from Brussels but nationally and regionally in each EU Member State.
Af den pågældende webside fremgår det, at kampagnen til bekæmpelse af diskrimination og informationskampagnen styres af den såkaldte programkomité, der er sammensat af repræsentanter for de nationale regeringer.
On the relevant website I read that the anti-discrimination campaign and the information campaign are being managed by the so-called Programme Committee, which consists of representatives of national governments.
Kommissionen bedes oplyse, hvem der er medlem af denne komité og i hvilken egenskab?
Who are its members, and in what capacity were they appointed to it?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3912/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3912/05
Om: Journalistpris — national dommerkomité — EU's antidiskriminationskampagne
Subject: Journalism award — national panel — EU anti-discrimination campaign
Som led i EU's antidiskriminationskampagne, som blev lanceret i 2003, uddeles der hvert år en journalistpris.
As part of the EU's campaign against discrimination, which was launched in 2003, an award for journalism is made each year.
Formålet med denne pris er »at yde anerkendelse af det arbejde journalister gør for at øge forståelsen af fordelene ved mangfoldighed og bekæmpelsen af diskrimination på arbejdspladsen«.
The purpose of the award is to ‘honour journalists who contribute with their work to a better public understanding of the benefits of diversity and the fight against discrimination in employment’.
I hver EU-medlemsstat evaluerer en »uafhængig« dommerkomité de indsendte bidrag, og i hver kategori (fotojournalistik og artikler) kårer denne jury en national vinder.
In each EU Member State an ‘independent panel’ judges the entries and chooses a national winner in each category (photographs, articles).
Officielt hedder det, at hver national dommerkomité sammensættes af eksperter i antidiskriminationspolitik og alment respekterede journalister.
Officially, each national panel comprises experts in the field of discrimination and respected journalists.
De 25 nationale vinderes bidrag vurderes dernæst af en »uafhængig« europæisk dommerkomité.
The entries from the 25 national winners then go forward to be judged by an ‘ independent’ European panel.
For Belgiens vedkommende består denne dommerkomité bl.a. af Martine Vandemeulebroucke, som er journalist ved den fransksprogede Bruxelles-avis Le Soir, og Manuel Abramowicz, der arbejder ved det såkaldte Center for Lige Muligheder og Modstand mod Racisme.
In the case of Belgium, the panel includes, among others, Mrs Martine Vandemeulebroecke, a journalist on the French‑language Brussels newspaper Le Soir , and Mr Manuel Abramowicz, who works for the so-called Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en Racismebestrijding (Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism).
I sin præsentation anfører Vandemeulebroucke udtrykkeligt, at udviklingen på den ekstreme højrefløj giver hende grund til bekymring, og at medierne spiller en vigtig rolle i udbredelsen af reportager om sikkerhed, indvandring og racisme.
In her presentation, Mrs Vandemeulebroecke expressly stated that she was concerned at the rise of the extreme right and that the media played an important role in disseminating information about security, immigration and racism.
Desuden fremgår det, at Abramowicz er forfatter til forskellige bøger om indvandring, racisme og den ekstreme højrefløj.
Mr Manuel Abramowicz is the author of a number of books on immigration, racism and the extreme right.
Vandemeulebroucke tager ikke kun konstant politisk stilling mod det politiske parti Vlaams Belang, som repræsenterer en fjerdedel af alle flamlændere, men fortolker også en vision om indvandring og sikkerhed, der kun deles af en (ekstrem) venstrefløj.
Mrs Vandemeulebroecke not only continually adopts a political stance opposing the Vlaams Belang party, which represents a quarter of all Flemish people, but also expresses views on immigration and security that are only shared by the (extreme) left.
Finder Kommissionen, at der her er tale om en uafhængig dommerkomité bestående af sagkyndige, som på objektiv og videnskabelig vis beskæftiger sig med diskrimination og årsagerne hertil?
Does the Commission consider this to be an independent panel made up of experts who investigate discrimination and its causes in an objective and scientific way?
Hvordan sammensættes en sådan national dommerkomité?
How are such national panels put together?
Finder Kommissionen det ikke på sin plads med strenge retningslinjer, som sikrer, at kun objektive og politisk neutrale personer indgår i en sådan dommerkomité?
Does the Commission not consider that strict guidelines should be applied ensuring that only objective, politically neutral persons sit on such panels?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3913/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3913/05
Om: Den europæiske jury — journalistpris — EU-kampagne til bekæmpelse af forskelsbehandling
Subject: European jury for the Journalist Award; EU campaign against discrimination
Som et led i EU's kampagne til bekæmpelse af forskelsbehandling, der blev sat i gang i 2003, uddeles der hvert år en journalistpris.
As part of the EU anti-discrimination campaign which was launched in 2003, an annual prize is awarded to journalists.
Formålet med denne pris er »at hædre journalister, som via deres arbejde yder et bidrag til en bedre forståelse blandt offentligheden for fordelene ved forskelligartethed og bekæmpelse af forskelsbehandling på arbejdspladsen«.
The purpose of the award is ‘to honour journalists who contribute with their work to a better public understanding of the benefits of diversity and the fight against discrimination in employment’.
I hver enkelt EU-medlemsstat vurderer en »uafhængig jury« de indsendte bidrag, og i hver kategori (fotos, artikler) vælger denne jury en national vinder.
In each EU Member State, an ‘independent jury’ assesses the submissions and selects a national winner in each category (photographs, articles).
Officielt hedder det, at hver national jury består af eksperter på området inden for forskelsbehandling samt af velrenommerede journalister.
Officially, each national jury is supposed to be made up of experts in the anti-discrimination field and recognised journalists.
De indsendte bidrag fra de 25 nationale vindere vurderes derpå af en »uafhængig« europæisk jury.
The submissions of the 25 national winners are then judged by an ‘independent’ European jury.
Af den relevante webside fremgår det, at Claude Moraes, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, er medlem af den europæiske jury.
On the relevant website I have read that the European jury includes Claude Moraes, MEP.
Claude Moraes er først og fremmest politiker.
Mr Moraes is primarily a politician.
En politiker, som står for meget klare venstreorienterede synspunkter, hvad angår indvandring og multikultur.
His views on immigration and multiculturalism can best be described as belonging to the far left.
Disse synspunkter deles ikke af mange af Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer — taget over hele det politiske spektrum.
Many Members of the European Parliament — over the whole political spectrum — disagree with them.
Kommissionen mindes også om flertallet af europæernes vilje, der afspejles i en opinionsundersøgelse fra marts 2005, som var tilrettelagt af Det Europæiske Observationscenter for Racisme og Fremmedhad, og hvoraf fremgik, at mindst 25 % af indbyggerne i de tidligere 15 medlemsstater afviser det multikulturelle samfund, og at desuden 60 % mener, at det multikulturelle samfund nu også synes at have nået sine grænser.
I would also remind the Commission of the wishes of the majority of people in Europe as reflected in an opinion poll of March 2005 organised by the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, which showed that as many as 25 % of the inhabitants of the old 15 Member States were opposed to the concept of the multicultural society while 60 % of them considered that the multicultural society had really reached its limits.
Moraes står for synspunkter, som går imod det europæiske flertals.
Mr Moraes represents points of view which a majority of Europeans do not accept.
Hvad er retningslinjerne for sammensætningen af dette organ?
What are the guidelines for selecting the European jury?
Mener Kommissionen ikke, at politikere — først og fremmes politikere, hvis synspunkter går imod det europæiske flertals — ikke bør være medlem af en »uafhængig« europæiske jury?
Is it not unacceptable for such an ‘independent’ jury to include politicians, particularly politicians whose views are rejected by the majority of people in Europe?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3914/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3914/05
Om: Omkostninger ved Eurobarometer-undersøgelse af holdningen til den europæiske forfatningstraktat
Subject: Cost of the Eurobarometer survey on the European Constitution
Den europæiske forfatningstraktat blev afvist af næsten 55 % af de fremmødte franske stemmeberettigede og næsten 62 af de fremmødte stemmeberettigede nederlandske vælgere.
Nearly 55 % of people who voted in France and nearly 62 % of those who voted in the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution.
Ifølge Eurobarometer — som har gennemført forskellige undersøgelser af europæernes holdning til den europæiske forfatningstraktat i de forskellige medlemsstater — var ja-siden dog hele tiden meget fremtrædende.
Yet according to Eurobarometer, which carried out various surveys into attitudes to the European Constitution among people in the various EU Member States, the ‘yes’ vote was always very dominant.
I januar 2004: 81 % af franskmændene og 75 % af hollænderne; i juni 2004: 85 % af franskmændene og 72 % af hollænderne.
In January 2004: 81 % of people in France and 75 % of people in the Netherlands; in June 2004: 85 % of people in France and 72 % of people in the Netherlands.
I november 2004 sagde 48 % af franskmændene ja og 17 % nej; 63 % af hollænderne sagde ja og 13 % nej.
In November 2004, 48 % of the French said ‘yes’ and 17 % ‘no’; 63 % of the Dutch said ‘yes’ and 13 % ‘no’.
På webstedet for disse undersøgelser findes resultaterne af tre (opinions)undersøgelser (Eurobarometer, The Future European Constitution, opinionsundersøgelse: januar 2004, offentliggørelse: februar 2004; Eurobarometer, The Future European Constitution, opinionsundersøgelse juni-juli 2004, offentliggørelse: juli 2004; Eurobarometer, The Future Constitutional Treaty: første resultater, opinionsundersøgelse: november 2004, offentliggørelse: januar 2005).
On the relevant website I have found the results of three surveys (Eurobarometer, The Future European Constitution, fieldwork performed in January 2004, findings published in February 2004; Eurobarometer, The Future European Constitution, fieldwork performed in June-July 2004, findings published in July 2004; Eurobarometer, The Future Constitutional Treaty: First Results, fieldwork performed in November 2004, findings published in January 2005).
Efter de to folkeafstemninger foretog Eurobarometer yderligere to efterfølgende undersøgelser og nærmere bestemt af begrundelsen for de nederlandske og franske vælgeres stemmeafgivning (Eurobarometer, La Constitution européenne, sondage post-référendum en France, undersøgelse foretaget den 30. og 31. maj 2005, offentliggørelse: juni 2005; Eurobarometer, The European Constitution, post-referendum survey in The Netherlands, undersøgelse foretaget i tidsrummet mellem den 2. til den 4. juni 2005, offentliggørelse juni 2005).
After the two referendums, Eurobarometer carried out two post-referendum surveys, with the particular aim of establishing the reasons why the Dutch and French had voted in the way that they did (Eurobarometer, The European Constitution: post-referendum survey in France, fieldwork performed on 30 and 31 May 2005, publication: June 2005; Eurobarometer, The European Constitution: post-referendum survey in the Netherlands, fieldwork performed between 2 and 4 June 2005, publication: June 2005).