natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Er det Kommissionen bekendt, at udenlandske rejsebuschauffører, der tages i en færdselsforseelse, f.eks. at køre for hurtigt, med for kort afstand til den forankørende eller benytte en frakørsel, der har været benyttet i umindelige tider, ind til et motorvejscafeteria, men hvor køretøjer over 7,5 t for kort tid siden blev pålagt uventede begrænsninger (eksempelvis motorvej A3 (E31) ved Weibersbrunn i Spessart), i nogle tilfælde modtager et brev, hvori de bliver bedt om at fremsende deres kørekort (ikke en kopi, men originalen) til det »Zentrale Bussgeldstelle im Polizeiverwaltungsamt« eller et »Ordnungsamt« i Tyskland, og at dette også forekommer, selv om der er færre klip end de 18, der som bekendt fører til, at kørekortet erklæres ugyldigt?
Is the Commission aware that some foreign coach drivers caught committing a traffic offence, such as exceeding the speed limit, not maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle in front or taking the normal access road to a motorway restaurant which has newly been made subject to restrictions concerning vehicles with a weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes (as on the motorway A3 [E31] near Weibersbrunn in the Spessart) receive letters asking them to forward their driving licences (originals, not copies) to a central fines office in the police administration or a local police office in Germany, and that they are also required to do this even if they have fewer than 18 penalty points on their licences, the figure which leads to a licence being declared invalid?
Er det tilladt for en EU-medlemsstat at afkræve dokumenter, som af en myndighed i en anden medlemsstat (også) er udstedt til brug i hjemlandet, og tilbageholde disse på ubestemt tid?
Does an EU Member State have the power to require drivers to surrender documents issued by an official body in another Member State, documents which they also need when driving in that country, and to keep them for an indefinite period?
Er det Kommissionen bekendt, at det i forbindelse med den i spørgsmål 1 og 2 omtalte fremsendelse af kørekortet til Tyskland, også i de tilfælde, hvor det ikke er meningen, at dette kørekort skal inddrages midlertidigt som straf i form af kørselsforbud, ikke i forvejen er klart, hvornår dette kørekort returneres, hvilket har til følge, at den pågældende chauffør i en ukendt periode er ude af stand til, også uden for Tyskland, at udøve sit erhverv, og at denne chauffør heller ikke længere lovligt kan køre i en personbil og heller ikke kan opretholde forsikringen på en sådan bil?
Is the Commission aware that in the cases referred to in questions 1 and 2, involving the surrendering of a driving licence to the authorities in Germany, and even if the aim is not to retain the licence temporarily in order to impose a driving ban as a penalty, it is not clear in advance when the licence will be returned, with the result that the drivers concerned are unable to exercise their profession for an indefinite period, both in Germany and elsewhere, and cannot legally drive their own car or renew their car insurance?
Er det Kommissionen bekendt, at udenlandske erhvervschauffører under deres ture gennem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland er nødsaget til at medbringe store kontante summer, hvilket øger risikoen for overfald, fordi bøderne, der ofte er på hundredvis af euro, som politiet opkræver af udenlandske rejsebuschauffører, ikke kan afregnes på stedet med mobilt pinkodeudstyr, men udelukkende kontant?
Is the Commission aware that when driving in the Federal Republic of Germany foreign professional drivers are required to carry large amounts of cash with them, thereby increasing the chances of being robbed, because the fines, often amounting to hundreds of euros, which the police impose on foreign coach drivers can generally not be paid using portable credit card processing terminals, but only in cash?
Er det Kommissionen bekendt, at siden 2008 har buschauffører og passagerer fået et klart indtryk af, at udenlandske busser bliver kontrolleret meget strengere end tyske, og at der aldrig reageres på spørgsmål til dette?
Is the Commission aware that since 2008 both drivers and passengers have gained the strong impression that foreign coaches are subject to much more stringent checks than German coaches and that questions about this have gone unanswered?
Hvordan kan det eksisterende EU bidrage til, at chauffører, som under deres ture over landegrænserne uden for deres medlemsstat, ved hjælp af bedre information, mere kundevenlig form for betaling af bøder samt gennemsigtige procedurer med hensyn til kørekort, ikke bliver yderligere forfordelt?
What contribution can the EU make, through the more effective provision of information, to the introduction of more customer-friendly payment arrangements for fines and transparent procedures concerning driving licences so as to ensure that drivers fined during cross-border journeys outside their own Member State are not further disadvantaged?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0790/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/09
Om: Effektiviteten af selvregulering ved registrering og sletning af lobbypraksisser, hvad angår synligheden i offentligheden af interessegrupper, som øver indflydelse på beslutningstagningen
Subject: Effectiveness of self-regulation in connection with the registration of lobbyists and abolition of lobbying practices with a view to raising the public profile of interest groups which influence decision-making
Kender Kommissionen rapporten »Commissioner Lobby Register Fails Transparency Test«, udarbejdet af Alter-EU i januar 2009, hvoraf man kan udlede, at advokat- og lobbykontorer samt public affairs-kontorer i stort omfang boykotter det frivillige lobbyregister?
Is the Commission aware of the January 2009 report entitled ‘Commission Lobby Register Fails Transparency Test’, drawn up by Alter-EU, which reveals that law, lobbying and public affairs firms are boycotting the Commission's voluntary register of lobbyists en masse?
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at 85 % af SEAP-medlemmerne (individuelle lobbyister) boykotter registret, og at tre fjerdedele af EPACA-medlemmerne (sammenslutning af de 34 største lobbykontorer) mangler i registret?
Can the Commission confirm that 85 % of SEAP members (individual lobbyists) are boycotting the register and that three-quarters of EPACA members (an organisation representing the 34 largest lobbying firms) are not included in the register?
Hvorfor kalder Kommissionen registret »et forsøg«, men ser bort fra et måltal, som kan udtrykke dets effektivitet, mens Kommissionen i sin pressemeddelelse af 22. december 2008 meddelte, at 700 lobbykontorer deltog, hvoraf 458 er blandt de 2 600 kontorer, som man antager er aktive i Bruxelles?
Why does the Commission describe the register as ‘an experiment’ whilst refusing to set a target for the number of registrations which would prove its effectiveness, even though, in a press report of 22 December 2008, it stated that 700 lobby firms had registered, of which 458 are among the 2 600 firms which are said to be active in Brussels?
Hvilket succeskriterium bruger Kommissionen i sin vurdering »en god start«?
What yardstick led the Commission to use the phrase ‘a good start’ in connection with the register?
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at den sletter lobbyvirksomheder, som holder oplysninger tilbage, fra listen, sådan som det fremgik den 15. januar 2009, hvor den slettede data fra Gplus, som var så ærlig at give meddelelse om, at dens kundeliste var ufuldstændig?
Can the Commission confirm that it removes from the list lobbying firms which withhold information, just as on 15 January 2009 it apparently erased the data concerning Gplus, which was honest enough to point out that its client list was incomplete?
Vil Kommissionen indrømme, at virksomheder, der mangler, faktisk udgør en sortliste?
Will the Commission admit that firms not included have effectively been blacklisted?
Gør Kommissionen forskel mellem »fjerne« og »midlertidigt fjerne«, sådan som Gplus fortolkede det?
Does the Commission draw a distinction between ‘remove’ and ‘temporarily remove’, as suggested by Gplus?
Hvori ligger forskellen?
What is the difference?
Betragter Kommissionen lobbyisters fjernelse fra listen som en sanktion?
Does the Commission regard removal from the list as a penalty to be imposed on lobbyists?
Hvorfor anser Kommissionen foranstaltningen for at være effektiv, når lobbyister set ud fra deres adfærd ikke selv ønsker at stå på listen?
Why does the Commission regard this measure as effective, given that to judge from their own attitude lobbyists themselves have no wish to secure inclusion on it?
Hvorfor afviser Kommissionen at anspore vrangvillige lobbykontorer til at offentliggøre deres oplysninger?
Why is the Commission refusing to insist that uncooperative lobbying firms make information about themselves public?
Hvordan bedømmer Kommissionen værdien og troværdigheden af de således indhentede data og af deres anvendelighed i relation til Kommissionens mål: »at informere borgerne om de generelle eller specifikke interesser, der påvirker beslutningstagningen i EU-institutionerne, og de ressourcer, der bruges hertil«?
How does the Commission assess the value and the truthfulness of the information included in the register thus far and its relevance to its stated objective: ‘inform the public which general or specific interest groups influence the decision-making process of the European institutions and what budget they have for that purpose’?
I hvilket år mener Kommissionen, at dette vil være opnået?
When does the Commission expect to achieve that objective?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0791/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/09
Om: Forhindring af, at der gives privilegier til lobbyister, der nægter at lade sig registrere i det frivillige lobbyregister, samt muligheder for en mere gennemsigtig registrering
Subject: Cutting the privileges of lobbyists who refuse to register voluntarily and the scope for more transparent registration arrangements
Hvordan kan det efter Kommissionens mening begrundes, at der er forskel mellem lobbyister og almindelige borgere, hvor en lobbyist ikke juridisk, men i hvert fald faktisk gør krav på flere EU-faciliteter?
In the Commission’s view, what is the justification for the distinction made between lobbyists and ordinary members of the public, whereby in de facto if not de jure terms lobbyists can claim a broader range of privileges from the EU?
Kan Kommissionen forklare, hvorfor ikke alle lobbyister fra nederlandske statsretlige organer er optaget i lobbyregisteret?
Can the Commission explain why not all lobbyists working on behalf of Netherlands public-law bodies have been included in the register of lobbyists?
Betyder deres fravær, at de i virkeligheden er sortlistede?
Does their absence mean that they have been blacklisted?
Har Kommissionen overvejet som incitament at fratage de ikkeregistrerede lobbykontorer de faciliteter, som de for nærværende nyder godt af, såsom invitationer til receptioner og møder, administrativ hjælp, informationsformidling og adgangskort?
Is the Commission considering using the withdrawal of privileges which they currently enjoy, such as invitations to receptions and meetings, official assistance, the provision of information and access passes, as an incentive to persuade lobbyists who have not registered to do so?
Eller vil Kommissionen give fordele til lobbyister, som går ind for åbenhed?
Or does it intend to offer lobbyists who practise transparency favourable treatment?
Vil Kommissionen forbedre sit registers digitale søgbarhed, så det opfylder de grundlæggende krav til digital tilgængelighed, egnethed til »downloadning«, navigeringslethed, datasammenligning, filtrerbarhed, brugen af synonymer eller navnegenkendelse samt til angivelse af betegnelsen »af nyere dato« eller af en dato for ændring, så borgere f.eks. ikke behøver at kontrollere alle navne for at udelukke, at en organisation alligevel optræder på Kommissionens liste under en for dem ukendt betegnelse?
Does the Commission intend to improve the digital searchability of its register so that it meets the basic requirements relating to digital accessibility, ‘downloadability’, ease of navigation, data comparability, the use of filters, the use of synonyms or name recognition functions and use of the indication ‘recent’ or the indication of a revision date, so that, for example, members of the public are not forced to check all the names in order to make sure that an organisation has not been included in the register under a name which is unknown to them?
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at det 7. »European Business Summit« den 26. og 27. marts 2009 i Bruxelles har meddelt, at denne »dialog mellem EU-beslutningstagere og interessenter« har sikret sig Kommissionens moralske støtte, kan benytte Kommissionens logo, et hyperlink, portrættet af Kommissionens formand Barroso og deltagelse af medlemmer af Kommissionen?
Can the Commission confirm that the seventh ‘European Business Summit’ to be held on 26 and 27 March 2009 in Brussels is being advertised on the basis that this ‘dialogue between EU decision-makers and business leaders’ has the Commission’s moral support, can use the Commission logo, a hyperlink and a picture of President Barroso, and that 11 Commissioners will take part?
Er det Kommissionen bekendt, at der i dette møde deltager virksomheder som Heineken, Philips og Shell, som indtil videre boykotter Kommissionens lobbyregister?
Is the Commission aware that this meeting will be attended by firms such as Heineken, Philips and Shell which have thus far boycotted the register of lobbyists?
Finder Kommissionen, at opretholdelse af kontakter med ikkeregistrerede virksomheder bør holdes på et forretningsmæssigt minimum, og at Kommissionens aktive deltagelse i dette arrangement skaffer dem en uønsket legitimitet?
Does the Commission take the view that contacts with non-registered firms should be kept to a businesslike minimum and that its active involvement in this event is lending them unwarranted legitimacy?
Er Kommissionen i bekræftende fald indstillet på at benytte den frigjorte tid i kalenderen til at deltage i møder hos f.eks. »Friends of the Earth«, en miljøorganisation, som i slutningen af 2008 forgæves anmodede om Kommissionens tilstedeværelse ved et arrangement, som organisationen havde tilrettelagt?
If so, is the Commission prepared to use available dates in its schedule to attend meetings of, for example, Friends of the Earth, an environmental organisation which, in late 2008, called in vain on the Commission to attend an event it was organising?
Er Kommissionen indstillet på at offentliggøre sit svar på det pågældende brev fra »Friends of the Earth« af 21. januar 2009?
Is the Commission prepared to publish its answer to the letter on this matter sent by Friends of the Earth on 21 January 2009?
Overvejer Kommissionen på forhånd at nægte de tidligere medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet, som »via svingdøren« vender tilbage, adgang til særlige lobbyfaciliteter, medmindre de lader sig registrere?
Is the Commission considering denying former MEPs who return ‘through the back door’ as lobbyists access to special privileges if they are not registered?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0792/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/09
Om: Skattemæssige incitamenter og præmier for elektriske køretøjer
Subject: Tax incentives and premiums for electric vehicles
I hovedparten af EU-medlemsstaterne gives skattemæssige incitamenter og præmier ved køb af energiøkonomiske køretøjer med lav emission.
In the majority of EU Member States tax incentives and premiums are granted to purchasers of energy-saving and low-emission vehicles.
Mærkeligt nok kommer elektriske fartøjer (små bybiler, knallerter mv.) slet ikke i betragtning i denne sammenhæng.
Strangely enough, electric vehicles (compact urban cars, mopeds, etc.) do not usually qualify for these.
Det bør imidlertid anbefales navnlig for at stimulere salget af elektriske knallerter, da knallerter, som kører på fossile brændstoffer, udsender relativt mange skadelige stoffer.
However, stimulating sales of electric mopeds in particular is to be recommended, because mopeds that run on fossil fuels emit relatively large quantities of pollutants.
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, hvilke medlemsstater der har de bedste modeller for finansielle incitamenter til elektriske køretøjer?
Can the Commission say which Member States have the best models of financial incentives for electric vehicles?
Og kan Kommissionen ligeledes formulere henstillinger til de nationale myndigheder?
And can the Commission also make recommendations on the subject to the national governments?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0793/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/09
af Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE)
by Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE)
Om: Den nordeuropæiske gasledning
Subject: Nord Stream gas pipeline
Bygningen af gasledningen vedrører også EU's energisikkerhed og internationale forhold.
The building of the pipeline is also linked to matters such as the European Union's energy security and its international relations.
Energisikkerheden skal behandles som et nøgleelement for EU's overordnede sikkerhed.
Energy security must be seen as a key element of the Union's overall security.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0794/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/09
Om: Gennemførelse af den europæiske lovgivning om statsstøtte til biobrændstoffer i Republikken Bulgarien
Subject: Implementation of European legislation concerning state aid for biofuels in the Republic of Bulgaria
I henhold til artikel 32, punkt 7, og afsnit 2, punkt 4, i lov om punktafgifter og afgiftsoplag er punktafgiftssatsen for biodiesel, der hører ind under KN-kode 38249091 , og for bioethanol, der hører ind under KN-kode 22072000 , 0 bulgarske lev pr. 1 000 liter.
According to Article 32, point 7 and subparagraph 2, point 4 of the Excise and Tax Warehouses Act, the rate of excise duty for biodiesel falling within CN code 38249091 and for bioethanol falling within CN code 22072000 is 0 BGN per 1 000 litres.
Er denne nulafgiftssats at opfatte som statsstøtte i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 87?
Does this zero rate of excise duty constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty?
Har Republikken Bulgarien anmeldt en sådan støtte?
Has the Republic of Bulgaria submitted a notification concerning the granting of such aid?
Er Republikken Bulgarien berettiget til at indføre en nulafgiftssats for biobrændstoffer uden at opfylde den generelle forordnings anmeldelsespligt?
Is the Republic of Bulgaria allowed to impose a zero rate of excise duty on biofuels without having to fulfil the notification requirement under the general Regulation?
Hvis ikke Republikken Bulgarien har indsendt en anmeldelse til Kommissionen og ikke gennemfører den generelle forordning, er der da tale om en krænkelse af EU-lovgivningen?
If the Republic of Bulgaria has not notified the European Commission and does not implement the general Regulation, is it in breach of EC law?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0795/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/09
Om: EU-støtte til reklame for køb af tulipaner i Danmark, Sverige og Finland
Subject: EU aid for advertisements for the sale of tulips in Denmark, Sweden and Finland
Vil Kommissionen give en forklaring på, hvorfor EU-midler bruges til at finansiere en reklamekampagne for at købe tulipaner, som netop nu finder sted i Danmark?
Will the Commission explain why EU funds are being used to finance an advertising campaign for the purchase of tulips currently under way in Denmark?
Hvem gavner det — ud over blomsterproducenter og -butikker — at spendere 2,4 mio. DKK på at opfordre til køb af tulipaner i Danmark, Sverige og Finland samt et tilsvarende beløb til en kommende kampagne i 2010?
Who is benefiting — apart from flower growers and florists — from DKK 2.4 million being spent on encouragement to buy tulips in Denmark, Sweden and Finland, plus an equivalent sum on a forthcoming campaign in 2010?
(31. marts 2009)
(31 March 2009)
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3/2008 Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3/2008 af 17. december 2007 om oplysningskampagner og salgsfremstød for landbrugsprodukter på det indre marked og i tredjelande.
Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 of 17 December 2007 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries.
EUT L 3 af 5.1.2008. om oplysningskampagner og salgsfremstød for landbrugsprodukter på det indre marked og i tredjelande blev vedtaget for at udvikle en sammenhængende politik for oplysningskampagner og salgsfremstød for landbrugsprodukter og de metoder, de produceres efter, og for landbrugsfødevarer.
OJ L 3, 5.1.2008. on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal markets and in third countries was adopted in order to develop a coherent information and promotion policy for agricultural products and their method of production as well as for food products based on agricultural products.
Den kampagne, der henvises til i dette spørgsmål, indgår i denne sammenhæng.
The campaign referred to in this question takes place in this context.
Den er i overensstemmelse med et konkret behov for at fremme disse produkter i Sverige, Danmark og Finland grundet markedssituationen i disse lande.
It answers to a concrete need of promotion of those products, justified on the basis of their market situation in the targeted countries, namely Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
Kampagnen er blevet foreslået af en nederlandsk producentsammenslutning og består af et sammenhængende sæt oplysningskampagner og salgsfremstød, som skal gennemføres over tre år med et budget på 1,33 mio. EUR.
This campaign has been proposed by a Dutch producers association and consists of a coherent set of information and promotion actions to be developed for a three-year period of time with a budget of EUR 1.33 million.
Den ene halvdel af budgettet finansieres af den forslagsstillende producentorganisation, og den anden halvdel finansieres af EU.
Half of this budget is financed by the proposing producers association and the other half is funded by the European Union.
Kampagnen startede i 2008.
The campaign started in 2008.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-0796/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/09
Om: Virusangreb på europæiske forbrugeres internetbank
Subject: Virus attack on European consumers' Internet bank
Det danske nyhedsbureau Ritzau beskrev den 29. januar 2009, hvordan et virusangreb i Skandinavien er blevet sporet til Rusland.
On 29 January 2009, the Danish news agency, Ritzau, described how a virus attack in Scandinavia had been traced to Russia.
8.000 danske bankkunder er blevet ramt af angrebet, hvis formål er at hente fortrolige oplysninger om privatpersoner.
8 000 Danish bank customers were affected by the attack, the purpose of which was to obtain confidential information about private individuals.
Det er ikke første gang, virusangreb mod europæiske forbrugere har kunnet spores til Rusland, men angrebene bliver mere og mere sofistikerede, og eftersom europæiske forbrugere i stigende grad benytter internettet til at sende fortrolige oplysninger, bør sikkerheden på internettet være en topprioritet i EU's arbejde med at sikre borgernes grundlæggende rettigheder, herunder databeskyttelsesreglerne.
It is not the first time that virus attacks on European consumers have been traced to Russia but the attacks are becoming more and more sophisticated and, since European consumers are increasingly using the Internet to transmit confidential information, Internet security should be a top priority in the EU's efforts to secure citizens' fundamental rights, including data protection rules.
Er Kommissionen opmærksom på de gentagne angreb, hvor russiske hackere henter oplysninger om europæiske forbrugere, som anvender internettet til banktransaktioner, indberetning af skatteoplysninger og udveksling af fortrolige oplysninger?
Is the Commission aware of the repeated attacks by Russian hackers to obtain information about European consumers who use the Internet for bank transactions, reporting tax information and exchanging confidential data?