natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Bevillingerne til anlægget skal tilsyneladende stamme fra fonden for underudviklede områder (Fondo Aree Sottosviluppate — FAS).
It even seems that the funding for the plant is to come from the Fondo Aree Sottosviluppate — FAS (‘Fund for Underdeveloped Areas’).
Er Kommissionen bekendt med FAS?
Is the Commission aware of the existence of the FAS?
Spiller Kommissionen en særlig rolle i FAS?
Does it play a specific role in the FAS?
Mener Kommissionen ikke, at anvendelsen af en sådan fond er uhensigtsmæssig i Montevetranos tilfælde, da opførelsen af et forbrændingsanlæg i området vil være til stor skade for de lokale kvalitetsproduktioner?
Does it not feel, in the case of the Montevetrano area, that use of that Fund to be quite inappropriate and that the construction of an incinerator there might in fact be irremediably prejudicial to valuable local products?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2229/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/08
Om: Import af containere med varer fra oversøiske lande, der er behandlet med giftgasser, og sundhedsrisici for de mennesker, der arbejder med dem i havne, landtransport og distribution
Subject: Imports from overseas of container-loads of goods which have been treated with poisonous gases, and dangers to the health of the people working with them in ports, overland transport and distribution
Er Kommissionen bekendt med, at der er voksende opmærksomhed i Nederlandene om methylbromid og fosfin, giftgasser, som bruges til at beskytte containere, der transporteres ad søvejen, og som indeholder fødevarer, legetøj, madrasser, sko og beklædning fra Asien eller Sydamerika beregnet til import, mod insekter?
Is the Commission aware of the growing attention being devoted in the Netherlands to methyl bromide and phosphene, poisonous gases which are used to protect containers transported by sea containing food, toys, mattresses, shoes and clothing from Asia or South America, intended for importation, against insects?
Er Kommissionen opmærksom på, at de mennesker, der behandler disse varer, med større sandsynlighed kommer i kontakt med giftgasser end forbrugerne og det mere intensivt?
Is the Commission aware that people who process these goods are more likely to come into contact with poisonous gases, and to do so more intensively, than consumers?
Er Kommissionen klar over, at to personer kom alvorligt til skade efter at være kommet i kontakt med giftgas i nærheden af Rotterdams havn, og at en person ombord på et britisk skib døde efter at have inhaleret fosfin?
Is the Commission aware of the two people who were seriously injured after coming into contact with poisonous gas near the port of Rotterdam, and of the death of one person on board a British ship who inhaled phosphene?
Hvor mange lignende ulykker i andre europæiske havne har man kendskab til?
How many similar accidents are known to have happened at other European ports?
Hvor mange containere, som er blevet gasset, kommer ind i EU hvert år?
How many containers on which gas has been used enter the EU each year?
Hvor mange af disse ledsages af fragtbreve, som advarer om disse farer?
How many of them are accompanied by consignment notes and labels which warn of the dangers?
Hvad gør Kommissionen for at forhindre, at varer og fødevarer, der er forurenet med giftgasser, kommer ind på EU-markedet?
What is the Commission doing to prevent goods and food which are contaminated with poisonous gases from entering the EU market?
Yder EU's regler beskyttelse mod disse farlige transporter?
Do EU rules afford protection against this hazardous transport?
Rettes der henvendelse til afsenderne om dette?
Are consignors tackled on the subject?
Findes der sanktioner for at transportere varer i gassede containere?
Are there any penalties for transporting goods in gassed containers?
Hvem pålægger disse sanktioner?
Who imposes them?
Hvilken holdning indtager Kommissionen til Nederlandenes beslutning om at ophøre med de ekstra inspektioner, der blev indført, efter at man fandt toksiner i madrasser til »Beter Bed« i 2007?
What view does the Commission take of the decision by the Netherlands to terminate the extra inspections which were introduced after toxins were found in mattresses for ‘Beter Bed’ in 2007?
Er Kommissionen klar over, at Nederlandene har frigivet containere med forurenet kakaosmør i stedet for at lade dem destruere som farligt affald, selv om fedtstofferne holder på gasserne i lang tid?
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands has released containers containing contaminated cocoa butter instead of having them destroyed as hazardous waste, although fats retain the gases for a long time?
Hvordan er dette foreneligt med Montrealprotokollen?
How can this be reconciled with the Montreal Protocol?
Hvilke desinfektionsmidler anser Kommissionen for at være mindst skadelige?
What fumigants does the Commission consider to be the least harmful?
Hvilke alternativer findes der til desinfektion?
What alternatives to fumigation exist?
Hvilke foranstaltninger vil Kommissionen indføre imod dumpning af poser med fosfin til søs inden ankomsten til europæiske havne?
What measures will the Commission take against the dumping of bags of phosphene at sea before arrival in European ports?
Har havnene ikke egnede modtagefaciliteter til dem?
Do ports not have suitable collection facilities for them?
Hvordan kan denne situation ændres?
How will this situation change?
Hvorfor er sikkerhedsbestemmelserne for arbejdstagere (brug af beskyttelsestøj osv.) i de pågældende virksomheder langt mindre strenge end for embedsmænd, der skal foretage inspektioner, f.eks. toldembedsmænd?
Why are the safety rules for workers (use of protective clothing, etc.) at the businesses concerned far less stringent than those for officials carrying out inspections, such as customs officers?
Vil Kommissionen træffe foranstaltninger, der kan føre til en situation, hvor mangel på advarselsmærker altid medfører en pligt til en udluftningspause og til anvendelse af alle andre sikkerhedsforanstaltninger for gassede containere?
Will the Commission take measures to bring about a situation in which the absence of warning stickers always compulsorily leads to a venting interval being observed, as well as the application of all other safety measures for gassed containers?
Vil Kommissionen for at beskytte sundheden hos arbejdstagere, der håndterer dette gods, indføre foranstaltninger for at afstedkomme en situation, hvor disse containere altid skal mærkes, f.eks. så gas-fri containere forsynes med en grøn mærkat, mens containere, der er blevet gasset, forsynes med en rød mærkat?
In order to protect the health of the workers involved with these cargoes, will the Commission take measures to bring about a situation in which these containers always have to be labelled, for example in which gas-free containers bear a green sticker while containers which have been gassed bear a red one?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2230/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2230/08
Om: Brug af flammehæmmende midler
Subject: Use of flame retardants
Der findes regler for brugen af flammehæmmende midler i offentlige bygninger som hoteller, skoler og hospitaler.
Rules exist on the use of flame retardants in public buildings, such as hotels, schools and hospitals.
I disse bygninger skal der anvendes flammehæmmende midler for at sikre, at en eventuel brand ikke kan brede sig hurtigt.
In these buildings, flame retardants must be used to ensure that, if a fire breaks out, it cannot spread rapidly.
Selv om der findes en europæisk standard (EN 13773) for flammehæmmende midler, har mange lande stadig egne standarder for disse midler.
Although there is a European standard (EN 13773) for flame retardants, many countries still have their own standards for them.
Det er derfor tvivlsomt, hvorvidt den europæiske standard overholdes.
It is therefore questionable whether the European standard is complied with.
Så vidt jeg har hørt, anvendes der ofte stoffer, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med brandbeskyttelsesstandarderne i de pågældende lande.
From what I have heard, substances are often used which do not comply with fire standards in the countries concerned.
I mange tilfælde udstedes der også certifikater, der er vagt formuleret og ikke dækker flammehæmmende midler.
In many cases certificates are also issued which are vague and do not relate to flame retardants.
For at garantere sikkerheden for brugerne af disse stoffer og besøgende i sådanne bygninger og dermed sikre overholdelsen af den europæiske standard EN 13773, bør følgende spørgsmål besvares: 1.
In order to guarantee safety for consumers of these substances and visitors to such buildings and thus ensure compliance with European standard EN 13773, the following questions therefore arise: 1.
Har Kommissionen kendskab til disse situationer på nationalt plan?
Is the Commission aware of these national situations?
Har Kommissionen nogen statistikker for disse situationer?
Does the Commission have any statistics concerning them?
Hvis Kommissionen er opmærksom på denne situation, hvilke foranstaltninger vil den da træffe for at løse problemerne? 2.
If the Commission is aware of this situation, will it take action to deal with it? 2.
Hvordan overvåger Kommissionen overholdelsen af den europæiske standard EN 13773? 3.
How does the Commission monitor compliance with European standard EN 13773? 3.
Er Kommissionen opmærksom på de flammehæmmende egenskaber ved mange almindelige mærker af flammehæmmere?
Is the Commission aware of the flame-retardant characteristics of many common brands of flame retardants?
Ved Kommissionen, om og i hvilken udstrækning de flammehæmmende egenskaber ved mange almindelige mærker forbliver intakte ved afslutningen af produktionsprocessen?
Does the Commission know whether, and to what extent, the flame-retardant characteristics of many common brands remain intact at the end of the production process?
Mener Kommissionen, at de nationale inspektionstjenester bør overvåge dette ved begyndelsen eller slutningen af produktionsprocessen? 4.
Does the Commission consider that national inspection services ought to monitor this at the beginning or the end of the production process? 4.
Er bevarelsen af forskellige nationale standarder for flammehæmmere den rette fremgangsmåde på det fælles indre marked i Europa?
Is the retention of different national standards for flame retardants the right approach in a single European internal market?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2231/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/08
Om: Vold imod børn på institutioner til anbringelse af unge — statistikker
Subject: Violence against children in institutions for the detention of young people — statistics
Den nederlandske afdeling af Defence for Children International har foretaget en undersøgelse i samarbejde med Howard League for Penal Reform (Det Forenede Kongerige) samt den belgiske og franske afdeling af Defence for Children International af den risiko for at blive udsat for vold, f.eks. fra personalet eller medfanger, samt selvskader, som unge anbragt på institutioner er udsat for.
The Netherlands branch of Defence for Children International has carried out research, in cooperation with the Howard League for Penal Reform (United Kingdom) and the Belgian and French branches of Defence for Children International into the risk which young people in detention run of being confronted with violence, for example from staff or fellow detainees, as well as self-harming.
Undersøgelsen blev afsluttet med offentliggørelsen den 5. marts 2008 af en rapport med titlen »Violence against Children in Conflict with the Law« (for yderligere oplysninger henvises til www.defenceforchildren.nl ).
The research concluded with the publication, on 5 March 2008, of a report, ‘Violence against Children in Conflict with the Law’ (for further information see www.defenceforchildren.nl).
I øjeblikket indeholder de officielle statistikker knap nok nogen oplysninger om vold imod børn på lukkede institutioner.
At present the official statistics published by government bodies hardly provide any information about violence against children in closed institutions.
For at opnå flere og bedre oplysninger om situationen med henblik på at forbedre politikken og lovgivningen samt for at foretage komparative undersøgelser er det vigtigt, at dataindsamlingen forbedres og harmoniseres.
In order to obtain more and better information about the situation, with a view to improving policy and legislation, as well as carrying out comparative research, it is very important that the gathering of data should be improved and harmonised.
I rapporten foreslås der 12 indikatorer, som kan anvendes sammen med Unicefs og FN's Kontor for Narkotikakontrol og Kriminalitetsforebyggelses nye indikatorer for retssystemets behandling af unge.
The report proposes 12 indicators which could be used in conjunction with the recent juvenile justice indicators of Unicef and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
Er Kommissionen enig i, at det er meget vigtigt, at unge, der anbringes på lukkede institutioner under statslige instansers kontrol, kan være sikre der?
Does the Commission agree that it is very important that young people who have been assigned to closed institutions under the supervision of government bodies should be safe there?
Hvis det er tilfældet, agter den så at reagere på forslagene i rapporten, og vil den informere mig om disse foranstaltninger?
If so, does it intend to take any action on the proposals in the report and will it inform me about this action?
Hvis ikke, vil den da gennemgå rapporten og efterfølgende informere mig om den mulige opfølgning?
If not, will it study the report and then inform me about the possible follow-up?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2234/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/08
Om: Udeladelse af europæiske borgeres modersmål
Subject: Omission of European citizens' mother tongues
I et af afsnittene i denne formular skal ansøgeren vælge sit modersmål fra en rullemenu, hvor der er anført de 23 officielle EU-sprog samt andre sprog såsom arabisk, islandsk, albansk, russisk, tyrkisk og serbisk.
In one of the sections of this form, for identification purposes, interested parties have to indicate their mother tongue out of a list on which languages other than the 23 official EU languages appear, e.g. Arabic, Icelandic, Albanian, Russian, Turkish or Serbian.
Derimod figurerer egentlige europæiske sprog som catalansk, galicisk og baskisk ikke på listen, selv om disse sprog er modersmål for millioner af europæiske borgere.
By contrast, genuinely European languages like Catalan, Galician and Basque, which are the mother tongues of millions of EU citizens, do not appear.
Mener Kommissionen ikke, som fortaler for flersprogethed, at det er passende at garantere anerkendelse af den aktuelle sprogsituation i Unionen ved at tillade europæiske statsborgere og personer med fast bopæl i ovennævnte lande at oplyse deres modersmål på europæiske institutioners officielle formularer?
Does the Commission, as defender of multilingualism, not consider it appropriate to guarantee recognition of the actual language situation in the European Union by allowing European citizens and residents to state their mother tongue on the European institutions' official forms?
Vil Kommissionen ændre sine onlineformularer på en sådan måde, at de sproglige rettigheder for europæiske statsborgere og folk med fast bopæl i ovennævnte lande garanteres?
Will the Commission modify its online forms to make them suitable for the purpose of identifying interested parties, and thus ensure that millions of European citizens are able to provide a correct indication of their mother tongue?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2235/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/08
Om: Pastor Fernando Kutino
Subject: Pastor Fernando Kutino
Vil Kommissionen venligst oplyse, om den har kendskab til sagerne vedrørende pastor Fernando Kutino, Timothee Bompere og Junior Nganda, der blev arresteret i Den Demokratiske Republik Congo i maj 2006 og idømt 20 års fængsel?
Would the Commission please clarify whether it is aware of the cases of Pastor Fernando Kutino, Timothee Bompere and Junior Nganda, who were arrested in May 2006 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Beviserne mod dem og omstændighederne omkring rettergangen har skabt omfattende bekymring.
There has been widespread concern expressed about the evidence brought against them, and about the manner in which the trial was conducted.
Sagen blev genoptaget i december 2007, hovedsageligt takket være den internationale interesse for sagen.
The trial was reopened in December 2007, in large part due to international concern about the case.
Vil Kommissionen oplyse, om den har kendskab til påstandene om, at der er blevet anvendt tortur over for Nganda?
Would the Commission confirm whether it is aware of allegations of torture in the treatment of Mr Nganda?
Har Kommissionen i henhold til EU's retningslinjer for brug af tortur truffet nogen foranstaltninger over for den congolesiske regering for få denne til at erkende, at oplysninger fremskaffet ved tortur ikke kan bruges som bevis?
Has the Commission, under EU Guidelines on the Use of Torture, made representations on behalf of Mr Nganda and urged the Congolese government to recognise that information obtained under torture should not be used as evidence?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2236/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/08
Om: Pensionsforpligtelserne tælles stadig dobbelt — 2
Subject: Pension liabilities still being double-counted — Mark 2
Der opstod som sædvanligt flere spørgsmål, end dem der blev besvaret, efter kommissærens svar på den skriftlige forespørgsel E-0555/08 .
The Commissioner's answer to my Written Question E‑0555/08 as usual raises more questions than it answers.
Selv hvis Dalia Grybauskaitė har ret, hvorfor er Kommissionens pensionsforpligtelser for medarbejdere så høje?
Even if Mrs Grybauskaitė is correct, why is the Commission's pension's liability for staff so high?
Ud fra de tal, der nu er til rådighed, fremgår, at hver medarbejder har en individuel pensionspulje på mere end en million euro (måske i virkeligheden højere endnu) ud over deres egne bidrag.
From the figures now available it appears that every member of staff has a separate pension pot of more than one million euros (perhaps substantially more), over and above the contributions they themselves made.
Er dette sandt?
Is this correct?
Hvis ikke, hvad er det korrekte antal pensionerede medarbejdere og antal medarbejdere på pensionsordninger, der stadig arbejder?
If not, what are the correct figures for the numbers of staff on pension and those still working for a pension?
Hvordan vil disse tal se ud om hhv. fem og ti år?
What are those figures estimated to be in five, and ten, years' time?
Består disse pensioner både af EU-midler og af egne midler?
Also, are these pensions a combination of Commission-supported and self-supported funds?
Baseres de på slutlønnen eller de indbetalte beløb?
Are they based on final salary or money purchase?
Hvad og hvor er de aktiver, der dækker en del af disse forpligtelser?
What and where is the asset that represents a portion of these liabilities?
Hvor er de beløb, der skal dække pensionsforpligtelserne, når debitorsummen (der skulle betales af nationalstaterne) er blevet fjernet fra regnskaberne (langt om længe)?
The debtor sum (what nation states were liable to pay) has been eliminated from the accounts (at last), but where now is the cash to meet these pension liabilities as they fall due?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2237/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/08
Om: Opsplitning af busruter — 2
Subject: Splitting bus routes — Mark 2
Kommissærens svar på min forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-0381/08 er ikke i overensstemmelse med realiteterne.
The Commissioner's reply to my Written Question E‑0381/08 does not accord with the facts.
Dette er fuldstændig misvisende, måske fordi han ikke kender til de reelle forhold.
Frankly, it is misleading, perhaps because he is ignorant of the facts.
For formålet med denne forordning kan vel næppe have været andet end at føre ændringer med sig?
Indeed, what could its purpose have been other than to effect change?
Busselskaberne har været nødsaget til at ændre køre- og vagtplaner for at kunne overholde hviletidsbestemmelserne.
Bus companies have had to re-schedule timetables and working shifts to comply with rest period requirements.
Og arbejdstagerne bryder sig ikke om disse bestemmelser, da det begrænser deres indkomst.
Workers don't like them since they restrict income.
De forlader derfor denne branche for at søge mod bedre betalte job.
As a result, they are leaving the industry to find better-paid work elsewhere.
Busser har siden januar 2008 ligeledes skullet anvende fartskrivere, som busser med rutekørsel ellers hidtil har været fritaget fra.
Also, since January 2008 buses have been obliged to fit tachographs, from which timetabled bus services were previously exempted.
Dette har øget driftsomkostningerne.
This has added to operating costs.
Passagererne bryder sig heller ikke om disse ændringer, da bestemmelserne har splittet deres busruter op.
Passengers don't like these changes either, since they destroy single-route services.
Nettovirkningen har været betydelige gener for selskaber og passagerer i Det Forenede Kongerige, uden at det har givet dem nogen mærkbare fordele.
The net effect has been to cause huge inconvenience to companies and passengers alike in the UK without any discernible benefits.
Var det kommissærens formål at skabe dette besvær med bestemmelsen?
Is that combination of trouble what the Commissioner intended?
Alle disse problemer er opstået på grund af den vilkårlige indførelse af disse bestemmelser på rejser over 50 km.
All of these problems derive from the arbitrary imposition of these regulations on journeys over 50 kilometres.
Er kommissionæren enig i, at det virker som om, at der med indførelsen af disse ændringer slet ikke er blevet taget højde for den måde, busser i landdistrikter i Det Forenede Kongerige fungerer på, idet mange af ruterne er lidt længere end de 50 km?
Does the Commissioner agree that these changes appear to have ignored completely the nature of rural bus services in the UK, many of which are somewhat longer without being excessively so?
Hvis ja, hvilke foranstaltninger agter kommissæren at træffe for at ændre situationen?
If so, what action does he now plan to rectify matters?
Hvordan forener kommissæren endelig disse bestemmelser med det faktum, at Europa-Parlamentet for tiden beder sine egne chauffører om at have 16-timers arbejdsdage, 5 dage om ugen?
Finally, how does the Commissioner reconcile these regulations with the fact that the European Parliament is currently asking its own drivers to work a 16-hour day, five days a week?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-2238/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/08
Om: Den fælles beslutningsprocedure og nationalstaterne — 2
Subject: Co-decision process and the nation states — Mark 2
I svaret på den skriftlige forespørgsel E-0359/08 hævdes det, at der ingen forskel vil være mellem den fælles beslutningsprocedure og andre fællesskabslovgivningsprocesser med hensyn til medlemsstaternes kompetencer til gennemførelse af direktiver på nationalt lovgivningsmæssigt plan.
The answer to Written Question E‑0359/08 claims that there will be ‘no difference between the codecision process and other EU legislative processes in terms of the competences of Member States to transpose the resulting directives into national law’, which entirely misses the point of my question.
Lad mig udtrykke det klart.
Let me be clear.
Hvorfor fastslås det klart på side 22 i Europa-Parlamentets nye udgave af guiden »Forlig og Fælles Beslutningstagning«, at der vil komme betydelige ændringer, hvis og når Lissabontraktaten ratificeres?
Why is it that the European Parliament's new version of the booklet on Conciliations and Codecision states clearly on page 22 that there will be significant changes if and when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.
Hvor i Lissabontraktaten har EU bemyndigelse til at retfærdiggøre dette sidste punkt?
Where precisely in the Lisbon Treaty does the EU seize the powers to justify the last paragraph?
Er Kommissionen ikke enig i, at der her er tale om betydelige ændringer?
Does the Commission not agree that these are substantial changes?