natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvilken form for støtte agter Kommissionen at yde Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien med henblik på at sikre udtryksfriheden?
What kind of support will the Commission provide to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in guaranteeing freedom of expression?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2114/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/06
Om: Skadelidtes ret til beskyttelse i Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien
Subject: Victims’ rights to protection in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Hvad angår skadelidtes ret til beskyttelse, anvendte domstolene i Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien i almindelighed ikke den særlige metode, som består i afhøring af vidner uden for retssalen.
With respect to victims’ right to protection, courts in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have not generally applied the special method of questioning witnesses outside the courtroom.
Kun i et enkelt tilfælde foregik vidneafhøringen i 2005 ved hjælp af en videokonference, hvor sagsøgte/­tiltalte og tilhørerne i retssalen ikke havde mulighed for at se, men kun lytte til vidneafhøringen.
Only in one case in 2005 was the questioning of a witness conducted by means of video conference, whereby the defendant and the court audience were not allowed to watch and could only listen to the testimony.
I intet tilfælde beordrede retten, at sagsøgte/­tiltalte blev ført ud af retssalen under en vidneafhøring.
In not one case did the court order the defendant to be taken out of the courtroom during a witness testimony.
Hertil kommer, at skadelidte, der optrådte som vidner, i mange tilfælde ikke var blevet informeret om deres ret til ikke at besvare visse spørgsmål, og det lod til, at mange vidner ikke var klar over deres ret til ikke at afgive personoplysninger.
Moreover, in several cases, victims who appeared as witnesses were not informed about their right not to answer certain questions, and many witnesses did not appear familiar with their right not to disclose personal data.
Programmerne for beskyttelse af vidner virkede ikke effektivt.
The programme for witness protection did not operate effectively.
Hvilke foranstaltninger agter regeringen for Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien at træffe for at sikre skadelidte retten til beskyttelse i landet?
What measures will be taken by the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to guarantee victims’ right to protection in the country?
Hvilken form for støtte agter Kommissionen at yde Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien med henblik på at sikre skadelidte retten til beskyttelse?
What kind of support will the Commission provide to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in guaranteeing victims’ right to protection?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2115/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/06
Om: Tilbageholdelser baseret på såkaldte politikendelser i Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien
Subject: Detention based on so-called police order in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
I 2005 fortsatte politiet i Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien med at foretage tilbageholdelser baseret på såkaldte politikendelser, dvs. at tilbageholdelserne alene godkendtes af overordnede politifolk.
In 2005 police in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continued to carry out detentions based on so-called police order, i.e. detentions that were authorised solely by police commanding officers.
Antallet af sådanne tilbageholdelser faldt dog en smule i forhold til tidligere år.
The number of such detentions, however, decreased somewhat from previous years.
Politimyndighederne afviste klager over, at disse tilbageholdelser udgjorde arrestationer, idet de hævdede, at sager, hvor borgere blev »eskorteret« til politistationen og tilbageholdt i et kortere tidsrum — som i praksis kunne være på op til 24 timer — ikke kunne betegnes som frihedsberøvelse.
Police authorities rejected claims that these detentions amounted to arrests, saying that cases in which citizens were ‘forcefully escorted’ to police stations and kept for a short period of time — which in practice could mean up to 24 hours — did not qualify as deprivation of liberty.
Regeringen godkendte stiltiende denne praksis, mens den blev kraftigt kritiseret af ngo'erne.
The government tacitly approved of this practice, but it was strongly criticised by NGOs.
Kampagnen startede positivt og medførte en betydelig forbedring i kampen imod gadekriminalitet.
The campaign started out in a positive manner and brought about a noticeable improvement in the fight against street crime.
Men efter en episode, hvor to såkaldte Alpha-betjente blev gennemtævet under tjenesten i september, ændredes kampagnens strategi, og almindelige borgere, som ikke var involveret i nogen form for kriminalitet, blev også skydeskive.
However, following an incident in which two so-called Alpha policemen were beaten up on duty in September, the approach of the campaign changed, and ordinary citizens who were not involved in any crime also became targets.
Således blev almindelige borgere helt vilkårligt »eskorteret« til politistationen til afhøring.
Hence, on arbitrary grounds, ordinary citizens were ‘forcefully escorted’ to police stations for interrogation.
Der blev indgivet et større antal klager over sådanne arrestationer, men ingen af disse var endnu behandlet ved årets udgang.
A large number of complaints were filed about such arrests, but all of these had yet to be investigated at the end of the year.
Som følge af den offentlige kritik aftog denne praksis hurtigt.
As a result of public criticism this new practice quickly waned.
Hvilke foranstaltninger agter regeringen for Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien at træffe for at standse tilbageholdelser, der er baseret på såkaldte politikendelser?
What measures will be taken by the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to stop detentions based on so-called police order in the country?
Hvilken form for støtte agter Kommissionen at yde Den Tidligere Jugoslaviske Republik Makedonien med henblik på at standse tilbageholdelser, der er baseret på såkaldte politikendelser?
What kind of support will the Commission provide to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to stop detentions based on so-called police order in the country?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2117/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2117/06
Om: Gennemførelsen af nationale foranstaltninger for sameksistens mellem genetisk modificerede afgrøder og konventionelt og økologisk landbrug
Subject: Measures relating to coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops
I forbindelse med rapporten om gennemførelsen af nationale foranstaltninger for sameksistens måtte Kommissionen indrømme, at der var store problemer.
In its report on the implementation of national measures on coexistence, the Commission was obliged to concede that there are major problems in connection with coexistence.
Hidtil har f.eks. kun 4 medlemsstater og nogle få østrigske delstater truffet sameksistensforanstaltninger.
Only four Member States and a few Austrian Länder have to date adopted coexistence measures.
Disse er endvidere vidt forskellige, som det fremgår af de forskellige krav til isoleringsafstand.
Moreover, these differ very considerably, as the various rules on segregation distances show.
Endvidere findes der ikke en eneste grænseoverskridende sameksistensforanstaltning.
And there are no cross-border coexistence measures at all.
Er Kommissionen enig i, at der ikke må gives tilladelse til dyrkning af GM-­afgrøder, før der er truffet sikkerhedsforanstaltninger?
Does the Commission agree that, as long as there are no protection measures, no GM crops may be permitted to be grown?
Hvorledes agter Kommissionen i fremtiden at sikre, at GM-­planters sameksistensevne allerede undersøges i forbindelse med godkendelsen?
How does the Commission intend to ensure in future that the ability of GM crops to coexist is already examined at the time of authorisation?
Er Kommissionen ikke enig i, at de hidtil manglende grænseoverskridende sameksistensforanstaltninger i allerhøjeste grad taler for, at der forelægges forslag til regulering på EU-­plan for at forhindre en forurening med GM-­teknik?
Does the Commission not consider that the current lack of cross-border coexistence measures is an imperative argument in favour of submitting proposals for EU‑wide rules in order to prevent contamination with genetically‑engineered material?
I rapporten indrømmer Kommissionen for første gang helt klart, at der kan opstå et økonomisk tab ved blanding af GM-­afgrøder og ikke-GM-­afgrøder.
In its report, the Commission clearly concedes for the first time that the mixing of non‑GM crops and GM material results in economic damage.
Hvorfor undlader Kommissionen alligevel at foreslå erstatningsbestemmelser på EU-­plan?
Why is the Commission not, nonetheless, proposing EU‑wide rules on liability?
Mener Kommissionen, at der er risiko for økonomisk tab ved blanding af GM-­afgrøder og ikke-GM-­afgrøder, selv om grænsen for, hvornår fødevarer skal mærkes (0,9 %), ikke er overskredet?
Does the Commission consider that the mixing of non‑GM crops and GM material also poses a risk of economic damage below the 0.9 % threshold above which labelling of foodstuffs is compulsory?
I januar 2005 gik det ansvarlige kommissionsmedlem, Fischer-Boel, ind for, at der skulle vedtages et rammedirektiv om GM-­afgrøder.
In January 2005 Mrs Fischer-Boel, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture, advocated the adoption of framework legislation on the growing of genetically modified crops.
Hvordan forklarer Kommissionen, at den i rapporten fra april 2006 afslutningsvis konkluderer, at den ikke er i stand til at stille forslag til et sådant rammedirektiv?
How does the Commission explain the fact that, in its April 2006 report, it concludes that it is not in a position to propose framework legislation in this area?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2118/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2118/06
Om: Godkendelse af GM-­majs MON863 — mangler konstateret i ekspertudtalelser (tillægsspørgsmål)
Subject: Approval of MON 863 genetically modified maize — shortcomings identified in expert reports (additional questions)
I sit svar af 20.12.2005 kunne Kommissionen ikke svare konkret på min forespørgsel P-­4154/­05, men kom kun undvigende ind på mine spørgsmål.
When replying to my Question P‑4154/05 of 20 December 2005, the Commission failed to be specific and gave only evasive answers.
Kommissionen henviser til den videnskabelige udtalelse og en supplerende erklæring fra Den Europæiske Fødevareautoritet (EFSA), men må indrømme, at den ikke råder over et pålideligt resultat, som kunne dokumentere eventuelle mangler ved undersøgelsen af de foderforsøg, der indgår i sagen.
It referred to the scientific opinion and a supplementary statement issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), adding that it did not have at its disposal ‘any reliable finding proving possible shortcomings in the analysis of the feeding trials submitted as part of the dossier’.
I to udtalelser, som Greenpeace har forelagt, konstateres der imidlertid væsentlige mangler ved Monsantos statistiske evaluering af MON863-foderforsøgene.
Two expert reports submitted by Greenpeace have, however, identified serious shortcomings in the statistical analysis of the MON 863 feeding trials carried out by Monsanto.
Derfor følgende tillægsspørgsmål: 1.
I therefore wish to ask the following additional questions: 1.
Sensitiviteten (»assay sensitivity«) blev ikke kontrolleret.
Assay sensitivity was not tested.
Kan Kommissionen redegøre for, hvorfor dette ikke skete? 2.
Could the Commission explain why not? 2.
Efterfølgende blev væsentlige forskelle vurderet som værende irrelevante.
Significant disparities were deemed irrelevant after the event.
Hvordan forklarer Kommissionen dette? 3.
How does the Commission explain that fact? 3.
Undersøgelsen blev evalueret som superioritetsstudie, men burde have været evalueret som ækvivalensstudie.
The findings were incorrectly assessed in the form of a superiority study, rather than an equivalence study.
Hvorfor krævede Kommissionen ikke dette? 4.
Why did the Commission not demand that they be assessed as an equivalence study? 4.
Der blev indført supplerende forsøgsgrupper, der kunne anvendes til at tilsløre faktiske virkninger.
Additional test groups were introduced in a way likely to disguise actual effects.
Hvorfor krævede Kommissionen ikke en nærmere redegørelse fra ansøger? 5.
Why did the Commission not ask the applicant for an explanation? 5.
Der blev anvendt falske statistiske metoder.
Incorrect statistical methods were employed.
Hvorfor påtalte Kommissionen ikke dette forhold? 6.
Why did the Commission not raise objections? 6.
Væsentlige biologiske virkninger blev overset.
Significant biological effects failed to be identified.
Har Kommissionen påtalt dette?
Has the Commission criticised this?
Blev der krævet yderligere undersøgelser for at tage hensyn til biologiske virkninger?
Have further analyses been demanded in order to take account of biological effects?
På hvilken måde blev der taget hensyn til eventuelle langtidsvirkninger, forsigtighedsprincippet og den videnskabelige usikkerhed?
In what way have possible long-term effects, the precautionary principle and scientific uncertainty been taken into account?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2119/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2119/06
Om: Slovenien lokker Peugeot væk fra Det Forenede Kongerige
Subject: Slovakia entices Peugeot away from UK
Hvordan vil Kommissionen retfærdiggøre, at den slovenske regering har anvendt 105 mio. EUR af offentlige midler til at lokke Peugeot til at udvide sin bilproduktion i Trnava, når den direkte konsekvens er lukning af Peugeot-fabrikken i Det Forenede Kongerige?
How does the Commission justify the provision of EUR 105 million of public money by the Slovak Government to entice Peugeot to expand its car production in Trnava, when the direct consequence is the closure of the Peugeot plant in the UK?
Hvor stor en del af denne finansiering er hentet fra EU-­tilskud til Slovenien?
How much of that funding was drawn from EU grants to Slovakia?
Selv om det er forståeligt, at et kommercielt pres flytter arbejdspladser fra et sted til det andet, er det noget andet, når regeringer bruger offentlige midler til at forstærke et sådant pres.
Whilst commercial pressures that move jobs from one place to another are understandable, the use of public money by governments to aggravate such pressures is something else.
Mener Kommissionen, at en sådan handling begået af en medlemsstat mod en anden er acceptabel?
Does the Commission think that such activities by one Member State against another are acceptable?
Hvis ja, med hvilken begrundelse?
If so, on what grounds?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2120/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/06
Om: Valuta ved olietransaktioner
Subject: Oil transaction currency
Kommissionen er sikkert opmærksom på de fordele, som den amerikanske økonomi opnår ved, at OPEC-transaktioner vedrørende olie hovedsagelig gennemføres i amerikanske dollars uanset transaktionens placering eller de kontraherende parter.
The Commission will be aware of the benefit to the economy of the United States from the fact that OPEC transactions over oil are in the main conducted in US dollars regardless of location of the transaction or contracting parties.
Kommissionen er sikkert også klar over, at et stigende antal lande gennemfører transaktionerne i euro, eller undersøger muligheden herfor, som en fast politik snarere end som enkeltstående handelstransaktioner.
The Commission will also be aware that an increasing number of countries are, or are examining the benefits to them of, transacting instead in euros as a matter of policy rather than individual commercial transactions.
Har Kommissionen foretaget en analyse af, hvilke lande der har truffet en politisk beslutning om at foretage transaktioner i euro i stedet for i amerikanske dollars, og kan vi i bekræftende fald få en liste?
Has the Commission carried out any analysis of which countries have taken a policy decision to transact in euros rather than US dollars, and if so can it list them?
Kan Kommissionen sige, hvornår beslutningerne blev truffet, og noget om værdien af de transaktioner, der efterfølgende er indgået?
Can the Commission state when the decisions were taken and the value of transactions subsequently entered into?
Har Kommissionen foretaget en analyse af fordelene for den amerikanske økonomi ved, at de fleste olietransaktioner foregår i amerikanske dollars, og har den foretaget en tilsvarende vurdering af fordelene for den europæiske økonomi, hvis et stigende antal lande skulle beslutte at gennemføre transaktioner i euro?
Has the Commission made any analysis of the benefit to the US economy of most oil transactions being in US dollars, and has it made any similar assessment of the advantages to the European economy should increasing numbers of states decide to transact in euros?
Har Kommissionen foretaget en vurdering af de potentielle fordele for den europæiske økonomi, hvis alle OPEC-transaktioner foregik i euro, samt hvilke virkninger dette ville have på verdenshandelen i almindelighed?
Has the Commission made any assessment of what the potential benefit to the European economy would be if all OPEC transactions were to be denominated in euros and what impact this would have on world trade in general?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2121/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/06
Om: Hovedvej i Malawi
Subject: Malawian highway
Er Kommissionen klar over, at regeringen i Malawi har anvendt midler, den har modtaget fra Den Europæiske Union, til at anlægge en hovedvej, der skal opkaldes efter Zimbabwes præsident Robert Gabriel Mugabe?
Is the Commission aware that European Union funds have been received and used by the Government of Malawi to build a highway which will be named after President Robert Gabriel Mugabe of Zimbabwe?
Eftersom EU er imod alle former for overtrædelser af menneskerettighederne og i lyset af Zimbabwes horrible historie på menneskerettighedsområdet, hvor f.eks. de mest konservative skøn fra FN tyder på, at 700000 mennesker blevet fordrevet i Zimbabwe (for manges vedkommende med fatale konsekvenser), kan Kommissionen da retfærdiggøre denne anvendelse af EU-­midler, der kan betragtes som støtte til hr. Mugabes Zanu/­PF-­regering?
Since the EU is against all abuses of human rights and given the horrific human rights record in Zimbabwe, for example, the United Nations’ most conservative estimate is of 700000 people being displaced in Zimbabwe (many of whom will suffer fatal consequences as a result), could the Commission offer a justification for this use of EU funds, which could be considered as a promotion of Mr Mugabe's Zanu/PF Government?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2122/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2122/06
Om: Ophør af forretningsforbindelser for medlem af Europa-Kommissionen, Kroes
Subject: Termination of the business interests of Commissioner Kroes
I det nederlandske dagblad NRC Handelsblad af 19. april 2006 erklærede fru Kroes, medlem af Europa-Kommissionen, at hun havde nedlagt al sin forretningsvirksomhed.
On 19 April 2006, the Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad quoted the European Commissioner Mrs Kroes as having said: ‘I have surrendered all my business activities.
Der havde dog i nogen tid været arbejdet på at bringe kautionen til ophør.
But work has been continuing for a long time on termination of the suretyship.
Hun siger endelig, at hun personligt overhovedet ikke beskæftiger sig med det.
I am not involved in that at all.’
I den forbindelse er der tale om økonomiske forbindelser til ejendomsmægler Dirk-Jan Paarlberg, som mistænkes for kriminelle gøremål.
This is a reference to financial links with the real estate entrepreneur Dirk-Jan Paarlberg, who is suspected of criminal activities.
Paarlberg kautionerede i 2001 personligt for et lån på 6,8 mio. EUR, som fru Kroes havde optaget til køb af kontorlokaler.
In 2001 he personally stood surety for the mortgage of EUR 6.8 million which Mrs Kroes had taken out to buy office premises.
Den 18. april 2006 fortalte fru Kroes journalisten fra avisen NRC-­Handelsblad via sekretæren i sit kabinet, at kautionen var bragt til ophør.
On 18 April 2006, Mrs Kroes informed the journalist via the secretary of her private office that ‘the suretyship had been terminated’.
Det fremgår altså af avisartiklen, at fru Kroes på det tidspunkt, da hun tiltrådte sit embede som kommissionsmedlem, stadig havde forretningsforbindelser med hr. Paarlberg, som mistænkes for pengevask.
Thus the newspaper article indicates that when she took office as a Commissioner, Mrs Kroes still had business links with Paarlberg, who is suspected of money laundering.
Hun var i tæt kontakt med Paarlberg og havde til og med 2004 ligeledes et kontor i en af hans ejendomme.
She had close contacts with Paarlberg, and until 2004 also had an office in one of his properties.
Kan Kommissionen af- eller bekræfte disse oplysninger?
Can the Commission either refute or confirm these reports?
Kan Kommissionen ligeledes oplyse, om forretningsforbindelsen mellem medlemmet af Europa-Kommissionen, fru Kroes, og ejendomsmægleren rent faktisk blev bragt til ophør, og hvis svaret er ja, hvornår?
Can it indicate whether these business links between Commissioner Kroes and the real estate entrepreneur have really been terminated, and if so, when?
Inden hun tiltrådte sit embede i 2004, havde fru Kroes i en høring forsikret Europa-Parlamentet om, at hun allerede havde indstillet samtlige forretningsforbindelser.
Even before her appointment in 2004, Mrs Kroes had assured the EP during a hearing that she had already terminated all her business interests.
Europa-Parlamentet har ved fru Kroes' tiltrædelse som medlem af Europa-Kommissionen i betragtning af embedets karakter insisteret på en så stor omhu som muligt ved omgangen med interessekonflikter samt på en anvendelse af de højeste etiske kriterier.
When Commissioner Kroes was appointed, the European Parliament urged that, in view of the nature of the office, the greatest possible care should be taken to avoid any conflicts of interest and to uphold ‘the highest possible ethical standard’.
Sidstnævnte havde fru Kroes selv formuleret i sin tale i Parlamentet (november 2004).
The last point was made in these precise terms by Mrs Kroes herself in her address to Parliament (November 2004).
Fru Kroes har desuden meddelt, at kommissionsformand Barroso i tilfælde af mistanke om en interessekonflikt bør beskæftige sig med dette på grundlag af en protokol.
Mrs Kroes has also indicated that, in cases where any suspicion of a conflict of interests might arise, such matters are referred to the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, on the basis of a protocol.
Ud fra dette synspunkt er det derfor yderst skødeløst, at fru Kroes først for nylig har bragt sine forretningsforbindelser med Paarlberg til ophør.
In this light it is therefore very negligent of Mrs Kroes to have only recently severed her business relationship with Paarlberg.
Deler Kommissionen den opfattelse, at ovennævnte interessekonflikt er skadelig for fru Kroes' stilling, så meget desto mere som Paarlberg, en af de største ejendomsmæglere i Nederlandene, betragtes som medlem af en kriminel organisation af anklagemyndigheden?
Does the Commission agree that the abovementioned conflict of interests is damaging to Mrs Kroes's position, particularly as Paarlberg — one of the biggest investors in real estate in the Netherlands — is regarded by the Public Prosecutions Department as being a member of a criminal organisation?
Deler Kommissionen den opfattelse, at fru Kroes har handlet imod ånden i aftalerne med Parlamentet?
Does the Commission agree that Mrs Kroes has violated the spirit of the agreements with Parliament?
Hvilke konsekvenser agter Kommissionen at drage i den anledning?
What action will the Commission take on this account?
(Kilde: Joep Dohmen, NRC-Handelblad, den 19. april 2006)
Source: Joep Dohmen, NRC-Handelsblad , 19 April 2006.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2129/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/06
Om: Pornografiske websites med sadistisk indhold og EU's reaktion
Subject: Sadistic pornographic websites and the EU's response