natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 7., 8. og 9. januar 2010 var byen Rosarno (Calabria, Italien) skueplads for voldsomme sammenstød mellem indvandrere — sæsonarbejdere i landbrugssektoren — og dele af lokalbefolkningen.
On 7, 8 and 9 January 2010 the town of Rosarno (Calabria) was the scene of violent confrontations between immigrants — seasonal agricultural workers — and some elements of the local population.
Ifølge presserapporter blev to indvandrere såret af skud, mens andre blev ramt af stokkeslag eller sten, således at der i alt var tale om 37 sårede.
According to reports in the press, two immigrants sustained gunshot wounds and others were beaten up or pelted with stones, as a result of which 37 people were injured.
Efterfølgende blev 250 indvandrere deporteret til andre dele af Italien.
250 migrant workers were subsequently moved to other parts of Italy.
Årsagen til oprøret var de umenneskelige forhold, som indvandrerne måtte arbejde under og, mere specifikt, at et par af disse indvandrere forudgående var blevet såret af lokale kriminelle, som skaffer illegal arbejdskraft til landbrugssektoren.
The unrest was sparked off by the inhumane conditions to which the migrant workers were subjected and, more specifically, the fact that a couple of them had been attacked by local criminals involved in supplying undeclared workers to work in the fields.
Indvandrerne i Rosarno er, som i mange andre dele af Syditalien, ofre for udnyttelse, racisme og vold og lever under usle forhold.
The migrant workers in Rosarno, as in many other areas of southern Italy, are subject to exploitation, racism and acts of violence and live in appalling conditions.
Hvad agter Rådet at foretage sig for at styrke politikkerne vedrørende lovlig indvandring i EU, beskyttelsen af legale og illegale indvandrere mod udnyttelse og racisme og bekæmpelsen af organiseret kriminalitet?
What does the Council intend to do to strengthen the policy on legal immigration pursued in the EU, better protect legal and illegal immigrants against exploitation and racism and step up the fight against organised crime?
Hvorledes har Italien gennemført ovennævnte fællesskabsbestemmelser?
To what extent has Italy implemented the Community legislation referred to above?
Det ærede medlems opmærksomhed henledes på, at fristen for gennemførelsen af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2009/52/EF af 18. juni 2009 EUT L 168 af 30.6.2009, s. 24. udløber den 20. juli 2011.
The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that the deadline for the transposition of Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p.
I kapitel 6.1.6 hedder det, at: » Det er vigtigt at sikre, at gennemførelsen af de nyligt vedtagne instrumenter vedrørende tilbagesendelse og sanktioner mod arbejdsgivere samt de gældende tilbagetagelsesaftaler overvåges nøje for at sikre deres effektive anvendelse. «.
Under Chapter 6.1.6 it is stated that: ‘It is important to ensure that the implementation of the newly adopted instruments in the area of return and sanctions against employers, as well as the readmission agreements in force, is closely monitored in order to ensure their effective application.’.
Som det ærede medlem bemærker, har Rådet vedtaget en række retlige instrumenter med henblik på at bekæmpe racisme, fremmedhad og organiseret kriminalitet.
As the Honourable Member notes, the Council has adopted a number of legal instruments with a view to combating racism, xenophobia and organised crime.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 17, stk. 1, i TEU fører Kommissionen tilsyn med gennemførelsen af EU‑retten under Den Europæiske Unions Domstols kontrol.
In accordance with Article 17(1) TEU, the Commission oversees the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0573/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/10
Om: Sagen om Sergej Magnitskij
Subject: The case of Sergei Magnitsky
De russiske myndigheder har endnu en gang krænket menneskerettighederne, og det skal fordømmes.
The Russian authorities have once again committed gross violations of human rights.
Den 16. november 2009 døde Sergej Magnitskij i et russisk fængsel.
On 16 November 2009, Sergei Magnitsky died in a Russian prison.
Han var jurist og blev arresteret efter at have aflagt vidnesbyrd om, at embedsmænd fra indenrigsministeriet havde medvirket til svindel med penge fra Firestone Duncan.
He was a lawyer who had been arrested for stating that high-level officials in the Ministry of the Interior were guilty of embezzling funds from the law and audit firm Firestone Duncan.
Under den to måneder lange arrest blev han chikaneret, tortureret og presset til at trække det aflagte vidneudsagn tilbage.
During the 12 months he was in custody he was harassed, tortured and forced to withdraw his testimony.
Uafhængige medicinske eksperter fik ikke lov til at undersøge liget.
Independent medical experts were not allowed to perform a post-mortem.
Indenrigsministeriet udsendte en erklæring om, at Sergej Magnitskijs skyld var bevist, samt at anholdelsen skyldtes, at han ikke ville tilstå de gerninger, han var anklaget for.
The Ministry of the Interior issued a statement saying that Sergei Magnitsky had been proven guilty, and that he had been arrested because he had not admitted to the offences he had been charged with.
I Sergej Magnitskijs sag har Rusland krænket mange artikler i konventionen til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, herunder forbuddet mod tortur, retten til en retfærdig proces, adgang til effektive retsmidler, forbud mod udnyttelse af lovgivningen og grænserne for anvendelse af begrænsninger i lovgivningen.
In the Sergei Magnitsky case, Russia has violated many articles of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, the right to an effective remedy, the prohibition of abuse of rights, and the limitation on the use of restrictions on rights.
Jeg vil gerne spørge, hvad Kommissionen har til hensigt at gøre for at påvirke Rusland, så landet respekterer bestemmelserne i de internationale konventioner samt de grundlæggende menneskerettigheder.
What does the Commission intend to do to ensure Russia upholds the provisions of international conventions as well as basic human rights?
Vil Sergej Magnitskijs død blive berørt i forbindelse med den næste runde af forhandlingerne om menneskerettighederne i Rusland?
Will the death of Sergei Magnitsky be brought up at the next round of negotiations on human rights in Russia?
Kommer den samarbejdsaftale mellem EU og Rusland, der forhandles om i øjeblikket, til at indeholde konkrete regler for overholdelse af menneskerettighederne?
Will the cooperation agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and Russia contain specific provisions as regards upholding human rights?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0574/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/10
Om: Kriminel lavalder
Subject: Age of criminal responsibility
I Danmark er det igennem en længere periode blevet diskuteret, hvorvidt den kriminelle lavalder skal sættes ned eller fastholdes på det nuværende aldersniveau.
There has been discussion in Denmark for some time as to whether the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered or maintained as it currently is.
Kan Rådet redegøre for, hvilken kriminel lavalder der er gældende i de 27 medlemsstater?
Can the Council say what the age of criminal responsibility is in the 27 Member States?
Hvad er begrundelsen for det valgte alderstrin?
What is the basis for the choice of age?
Hvad vurderer Rådet, det kan have af betydning eller retsvirkning at være barn og ikke voksen i forhold til kriminalitet?
In the Council's view, what is the significance or legal effect of being a child and not an adult in relation to criminality?
Kan Rådet desuden oplyse, om spørgsmålet har været drøftet på fællesskabsplan, eventuelt i et forum under den åbne koordinationsmetode?
Can the Council also say whether this matter has been discussed at Community level, possibly in a forum organised under the open coordination method?
Anser Rådet temaet for egnet til drøftelse på fællesskabsplan, eventuelt under anvendelse af den åbne koordinationsmetode?
Does the Council consider the matter suitable for discussion at Community level, possibly using the open coordination method?
Den kriminelle lavalder er et spørgsmål, der henhører under national kompetence, hvorfor Rådet aldrig har drøftet emnet.
The age of criminal liability being a matter of national competence, the Council has never discussed this issue.
Spørgsmålet om den kriminelle lavalder er dog blevet nævnt i nogle evalueringsrapporter udarbejdet i forbindelse med den såkaldte peerevaluering vedrørende gennemførelse og anvendelse af den europæiske arrestordre i henhold til fælles aktion 97/827/RIA EFT L 344 af 15.12.1997, s. 7 . .
However, the issue of the age of criminal liability has been mentioned in some evaluation reports drawn up in the context of the so-called peer evaluation set up under Joint Action 97/827/JHA OJ L 344, 15.12.1997, p.
Evalueringsrapporterne er offentliggjort og kan ses på Rådets websted.
The evaluation reports have been made public and may be consulted on the Council website.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0575/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0575/10
Kan Kommissionen redegøre for, hvilken kriminel lavalder der er gældende i de 27 medlemsstater?
Can the Commission say what the age of criminal responsibility is in the 27 Member States?
Hvad vurderer Kommissionen, det kan have af betydning eller retsvirkning at være barn og ikke voksen i forhold til kriminalitet?
In the Commission's view, what is the significance or legal effect of being a child and not an adult in relation to criminality?
Kan Kommissionen desuden oplyse, om spørgsmålet har været drøftet på fællesskabsplan, eventuelt i et forum under den åbne koordinationsmetode?
Can the Commission also say whether this matter has been discussed at Community level, possibly in a forum organised under the open coordination method?
Anser Kommissionen temaet for egnet til drøftelse på fællesskabsplan, eventuelt under anvendelse af den åbne koordinationsmetode?
Does the Commission consider the matter suitable for discussion at Community level, possibly using the open coordination method?
(25. marts 2010)
(25 March 2010)
Europarådets Ministerkomité vedtog den 5. november 2008 henstilling CM/Rec(2008)11 om de europæiske regler for unge lovovertrædere, der er underlagt sanktioner eller foranstaltninger.
On 5 November 2008, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures.
Tabel 1 i bemærkningerne til denne henstilling, som kan findes på Europarådets hjemmeside http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/prisons_and_alternatives/Commentary_Rec_2008_11E.pdf , indeholder en sammenligning af den kriminelle lavalder i Europa.
In Table 1 to the Commentary to this recommendation, there is a comparison of the age of criminal responsibility in Europe, which is available on the website of the Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_cooperation/prisons_and_alternatives/Commentary_Rec_2008_11E.pdf .
Kommissionen kan ikke redegøre for valget af den kriminelle lavalder i de forskellige medlemsstater.
The Commission is not in the position to give any explanations on the choice of the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the different Member States.
Kommissionen har ikke gjort nogen særlig indsats for at fremme vedtagelsen af en fælles kriminel lavalder i EU.
The Commission has not taken any specific action in order to promote the adoption of a common minimum age of criminal responsibility in the European Union.
Det er helt op til de enkelte medlemsstater at fastsætte den kriminelle lavalder.
The age of criminal responsibility is entirely a question for the Member States to decide.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0576/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/10
Om: IPCC og afsmeltningen af Himalayas gletsjere
Subject: IPCC and melting of Himalayan glaciers
Finder Kommissionen, at dette forhold svækker IPCC's troværdighed som leverandør af kvalificeret beslutningsgrundlag for regeringer og Kommissionen selv, og vil den søge alternativer hertil, eventuelt i form af et alternativt, (politisk) uafhængigt klimapanel? 2.
Does the Commission consider that these circumstances undermine the IPCC's credibility as a provider of an expert basis for decision-making by governments and the Commission itself and will it seek alternatives thereto, possibly in the form of an alternative, (politically) independent climate panel?
Finder Kommissionen, at sagen bør føre til, at IPCC's formand, Rajendra Pachauri, nedlægger sit mandat, efter at denne over for Indiens miljøminister, Jairam Ramesh, der i bekymring over IPCC's påstand om, at gletsjerne ville være væk i år 2035, søgte en »second opinion«, hvis resultat i 2009 var, at man ikke kunne bekræfte IPCC's apokalyptiske visioner, arrogant afviste den indiske regering og dens miljøminister med ordene: »Vi har en meget klar idé om, hvad der foregår.
Does the Commission consider that the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, should resign over this affair, given that when the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh — concerned at the IPCC's claim that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 — sought a second opinion in 2009, which was unable to confirm the IPCC's apocalyptic visions, Mr Pachauri arrogantly dismissed the Indian Government and its Environment Minister with the comment ‘We have a very clear idea what is going on.
Er Kommissionen enig i, at ovenstående karakteristik uden større vanskelighed kan anvendes på IPCC's egne oplysninger og forudsigelser i denne sag, eller at de med formand Rajendra Pachauris eget prægnante udtryk er »voodoo science«?
Does the Commission agree that the above description could easily apply to the IPCC's own information and predictions in this matter or, to use the pithy expression employed by the chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, himself, that this is all ‘voodoo science’?
Samlet svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Máire Geoghegan-Quinn
Joint answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission
Skriftlige forespørgsler : E-0576/10 , E-0579/10 , E-0577/10
Written questions : E-0576/10 , E-0579/10 , E-0577/10
(7. april 2010)
(7 April 2010)
Kommissionen baserer sin klimapolitik på solide videnskabelige bidrag, som det bl.a. leveres af Det Mellemstatslige Panel om Klimaændringer (IPCC), der vurderer al videnskabelig, teknisk og socioøkonomisk information, som er relevant for at forstå farerne ved klimaændringer.
The Commission bases its climate policy on solid scientific input such as the one provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assesses all the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risks of climate change.
Der er samstemmende enighed om IPCC's vurderinger blandt tusinder af forskere på verdensplan, og vurderingerne er baseret på fagfællebedømt forskning samt adskillige analysemetoder og datasæt.
The assessments of the IPCC represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, based on peer-reviewed research and multiple lines of analysis and datasets.
Objektiviteten sikres ved den brede og åbne, videnskabelige bedømmelse og ved det fælles ansvar for rapporten.
Objectivity is ensured by the broad and open review process and shared responsibility for the report.
IPCC har klarlagt, at analysen fra klimaforskningsenheden på University of East Anglia grundlæggende er korrekt, og at den ulovlige hacking af privat emailkorrespondance mellem forskere ikke har ændret på, at hovedkonklusionerne i den fjerde vurderingsrapport er gyldige og solidt funderede.
The IPCC has clarified that the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit analysis is substantially correct and that the illegal hacking of private communications between scientists had not impacted the validity and robustness of the key findings of the 4th Assessment report.
University of East Anglia har meddelt, at der vil blive foretaget en uafhængig undersøgelse.
An independent review was announced by the University of East Anglia.
IPCC har anerkendt, at en bestemt kilde i analysen af afsmeltningen af Himalayabjergkædens gletsjere ikke blev anvendt i overensstemmelse med deres egne retningslinjer, og de har undskyldt for dette.
The IPCC has acknowledged that one particular source, used in their analysis of the melting of Himalayan glaciers, was not in compliance with their rules of procedure and they have apologised.
Dette er en ansvarlig reaktion.
This is a responsible reaction.
Imidlertid kan denne uheldige fejl ikke underminere den store og overvældende bevismængde, som er samlet i IPCC's rapporter (og efterfølgende undersøgelser), og som fremhæver menneskelige handlingers effekt på klimaet, herunder gletsjere og viser, at der er behov for øjeblikkelig handling for at bekæmpe klimaændringerne.
This unfortunate error however, does not undermine the large and overwhelming body of evidence gathered in the IPCC reports (and studies thereafter) that highlight the impact of human actions on climate, including on glaciers and show the need for urgent action to combat climate change.
IPCC's sekretariat har forelagt regeringerne et forslag om at oprette et uafhængigt udvalg af anerkendte eksperter for at vurdere IPCC's procedurer og undersøge om, der er behov for ændringer i procedurerne i forbindelse med forberedelserne til den femte vurderingsrapport.
The IPCC Secretariat has conveyed a proposal to governments to set-up an independent committee of distinguished experts in order to evaluate means by which IPCC procedures must be implemented and examine any changes in procedures that may be required in view of the preparations of the 5th Assessment Report.
Baseret på ovenstående ser Kommissionen i øjeblikket ingen grund til at ændre grundlaget for sin klimapolitik.
Based on the above, the Commission currently sees no reason for changing the basis for its climate policy.
Analyserne er offentligt tilgængelige på Kommissionens websted for konsekvensanalyser.
They are publicly available on the Commission's impact assessment website.
Kommissionen vil selvfølgelig fortsat nøje følge det videnskabelige arbejde, og den er parat til at revidere sin politik hvis, og når, det bliver nødvendigt.
The Commission will of course continue to pay close attention to all scientific work undertaken and stands ready to review its policies if and when necessary.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0577/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0577/10
Om: IPCC's arbejdsmetoder i lyset af Himalaya- og Climategate-skandalerne
Subject: IPCC's working methods in the light of the Himalaya and ‘climategate’ scandals
Det er på det seneste kommet frem, at FN's Klimapanel, IPCC, i en delrapport (arbejdsgruppe 2, 2007) har gættet 315 år galt i sin forudsigelse om bortsmeltning af Himalaya-bjergkædens gletsjere.
It has recently emerged that an interim report produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, (working group 2, 2007) was 315 years out in its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away.
Allerede i 2008 beskrev seniorforsker Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen i det danske ugeblad Ingeniøren (se link), hvordan konklusioner og anbefalinger fra IPCC er et resultat af konsensustilpasninger, afstemninger, »korrektion« og politisk justering (særligt i det såkaldte »Summary for policy makers«, der følger med en IPCC-rapport).
As early as 2008, senior researcher Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen wrote in the Danish journal Ingeniøren (see link) that IPCC conclusions and recommendations are the result of endeavours to achieve consensus, adaptations, ‘correction’ and political adjustment (particularly in the ‘Summary for policy-makers’ which accompanies an IPCC report).
Finder Kommissionen dette betryggende — nu også set i lyset af Himalaya- og Climategate-skandalerne?
Does the Commission find this reassuring, particularly in the light of the Himalaya and ‘climategate’ scandals?
Og er Kommissionen enig i, at også klimaforskning må hvile på forskningsresultater og grundvidenskabelig stringens frem for politisk ønsketænkning, og er Kommissionen specielt enig i, at IPCC's anbefalinger efter de seneste skandaler ikke længere kan stå alene, men må suppleres med alternativer, hvor også naturgivne, astronomiske forhold (f.eks. solaktivitet, kosmisk stråling, magnetfelter, albedo) inddrages med langt større vægt end hidtil — eventuelt i form af et egentligt alternativt klimapanel?
Does the Commission agree that climate research must also be based on research results and scientific rigour rather than political wishful thinking and does the Commission agree, in particular, that, following the latest scandals, the IPCC's recommendations cannot stand in their own right but must be supplemented by alternatives which take far greater account than hitherto of natural and astronomical conditions (e.g. solar activity, cosmic radiation, magnetic fields, albedo), possibly in the form of an actual alternative energy panel?
Giver de seneste skandaler endelig Kommissionen grundlag for at revurdere baggrunden for sin klimapolitik?
Do the latest scandals finally provide a basis for the Commission to review the background to its climate policy?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0578/10
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0578/10
Om: FN's Klimapanel
Subject: UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Er Rådet enigt i, at FN's Klimapanel, IPCC, efter den seneste tids afsløringer (Climategate og Himalaya-sagen) nu er så skandaliseret, at IPCC's formand må træde tilbage og panelets grundlag, arbejdsmetoder og procedurer gennemgås, som den førende canadiske klimaforsker og medforfatter til IPCC's perioderapporter, Andrew Weaver, nu kræver (se link)?
Does the Council agree that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is now so discredited following recent revelations (‘climategate’ and the Himalayas affair) that its chairman should resign and the panel's basis, working methods and procedures should be overhauled, as the leading Canadian climate researcher and co-author of the IPCC's periodic reports, Andrew Weaver, is now demanding (see link)?
Er Rådet endvidere enigt i, at IPCC har udviklet sig til at være et instrument for en bestemt — og ikke universelt anerkendt — klimapolitik frem for at være et uafhængigt og rådgivende videnskabeligt organ, og at IPCC som helhed derfor må nedlægges i sin nuværende form?
Does the Council also agree that the IPCC has developed into an instrument of a specific — and not universally recognised — climate policy rather than being an independent, advisory scientific body and that, therefore, the entire IPCC should be abolished in its present form?
Det Mellemstatslige Panel om Klimaændringer (IPCC) blev oprettet i 1989 af Den Meteorologiske Verdensorganisation og De Forenede Nationers Miljøprogram.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1989 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme.
Siden oprettelsen har det udsendt fire evalueringsrapporter om den nuværende situation med hensyn til klimaændringer og de potentielle miljømæssige og socioøkonomiske konsekvenser.
Since its establishment it has issued four Assessment Reports on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences.