natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad vil Kommissionen gøre for at rette op på dette misforhold?
What will the Commission do to remedy this undesirable state of affairs?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6860/2010
Question for written answer E-6860/2010
Om: Udviklingen i udgifterne til pension
Subject: Changes in pension costs
Hvad udgør den gennemsnitlige pension i 2010 for de af Kommissionens medarbejdere, som er omfattet af vedtægten?
What is the average pension for Commission staff covered by the Staff Regulations in 2010?
Hvor stor var den faktisk udbetalte laveste pension pr. måned den 1. juli 2010, og hvor stor var den højeste?
What was the lowest pension actually paid per month as at 1 July 2010, and what was the highest?
Hvor mange pensionsmodtagere var der i Kommissionen pr. 1. juli 2010, og hvor mange var der i de andre institutioner?
How many people were drawing pensions as at 1 July 2010 in the Commission, and how many in other institutions?
Hvor mange pensionsberettigede vil der ifølge Kommissionens vurdering være ved udgangen af henholdsvis 2013, 2017 og 2020?
How many pensioners does the Commission estimate there will be by the end of 2013, and how many in 2017 and 2020?
Hvilke udgifter til pensioner anslår Kommissionen for 2013, 2017 og 2020?
What are the Commission's pension cost estimates for 2013, 2017 and 2020?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6861/2010
Question for written answer E-6861/2010
Om: Artikel af 6. august 2010
Subject: Report of 6 August 2010
I en artikel på http://www.lobbycontrol.de af 6. august 2010 gøres der opmærksom på, at Günter Verheugen, tidligere EU‑industrikommissær, nu er bestyrelsesmedlem i Fleishman-Hillard, et internationalt lobbyagentur.
A report of 6 August 2010 on http://www.lobbycontrol.de indicated that Günter Verheugen, former Commissioner for Industry, has now become a member of the advisory board at Fleishman-Hillard, an international lobbying agency.
Har det etiske ad hoc-udvalg, som i tvivlstilfælde tager stilling til, om der kunne opstå en interessekonflikt, mødtes for at drøfte Günter Verheugens nye funktion?
Has the Ad Hoc Ethics Committee — which rules on potential conflicts of interest — met to decide whether Günter Verheugen can keep his new job?
Hvis udvalget har mødtes, hvordan lyder dommen og begrundelsen for afgørelsen da?
If the committee has met, what verdict did it reach and why?
Hvordan begrundes det, at udvalget ikke har mødtes?
If not, why has the committee not met?
Kan Kommissionen nævne et par eksempler, hvor en kommissær kunne nægtes ansættelse, eller hvor ansættelsen kun ville blive godkendt på visse betingelser?
Can the Commission give some examples of cases in which a Commissioner might be prevented from taking up a post or would be allowed to do so only subject to certain conditions?
Hvordan definerer Kommissionen eller det etiske udvalg en interessekonflikt mellem det hverv, som kommissæren har udøvet, og hans efterfølgende ansættelse?
How does the Commission or the Ethics Committee define a conflict of interests between the duties carried out by a Commissioner in that capacity and his or her subsequent employment?
Hvem træffer afgørelse om mulige interessekonflikter og efter hvilke regler og normer?
Who takes a decision on possible conflicts of interest and in accordance with which rules and standards?
Findes der skriftlige regler for, hvordan det kan konstateres, om der foreligger en interessekonflikt?
Are there any formal written rules on how to determine whether a conflict of interests may arise?
I hvilket tilfælde ville der opstå en interessekonflikt for Kommissionen?
From the Commission's point of view, when would a conflict of interests arise?
Nævn og beskriv venligst et par eksempler!
Please give some detailed examples.
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6862/2010
Question for written answer E-6862/2010
Om: »Groupement des cercles de loisirs«
Subject: ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’
I sit svar på forespørgsel E‑3301/10 henviser Kommissionen til støtten til fritidsklubber på 50 000 EUR i 2010.
In its reply to my Question E‑3301/10, the Commission referred to the provision of EUR 50 000 in funding for leisure clubs in 2010.
Dette beløb udbetales til sammenslutningen »Groupement des cercles de loisirs«, som efterfølgende fordeler midlerne til de enkelte foreninger.
This sum is transferred to the organisation ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’ which then distributes the funding to the individual clubs.
Hvor stor var den samlede støtte i 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 og 2000?
How much funding was provided in total in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000?
Hvor længe har sammenslutningen »Groupement des cercles de loisirs« været ansvarlig for fordelingen af midlerne?
Since when has the ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’ been responsible for allocating funding?
Hvilke yderligere sammenslutninger eller organisationer er eller har været ansvarlige for fordelingen af disse midler?
Which organisations are or were then responsible for allocating funding?
Hvilket kriterium lå til grund for Kommissionens valg af sammenslutningen »Groupement des cercles de loisirs« som partner for fordelingen af midlerne til fritidsklubber?
On the basis of what criterion did the Commission select the ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’ as the organisation to be responsible for allocating leisure club funding?
Hvilke øvrige partnere indgik i udvælgelsesproceduren?
What other organisations were in the running?
Hvilke midler blev »EU‑Golf Club« tildelt i 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 og 2000?
What funding was given to the EU Golf Club in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000?
Hvilke midler blev »CNCE — Cercle nautique des Communautés européennes« tildelt i 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 og 2000?
What funding was given to the European Communities Sailing Club (CNCE) in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000?
Får foreningen »Eurosingles« tilskud fra sammenslutningen »Groupement des cercles de loisirs«?
Does the ‘Eurosingles’ club receive subsidies from the ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’?
Hvilke fritidsforeninger får tilskud?
Which leisure clubs receive subsidies?
Hvor stort var tilskuddet til de respektive foreninger i 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 og 2000?
How much did the clubs concerned receive in subsidies in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000?
Hvor store er de årlige økonomiske tilskud til hver enkelt forening (2010‑2000)?
How much has each individual club received in allowances per year (2000 to 2010)?
Efter hvilket kriterium ydes der støtte til en forening?
On the basis of what criterion does a club receive funding?
Efter hvilket kriterium fastlægges tilskuddets størrelse til den enkelte forening?
On the basis of what criterion is the amount of subsidies to be paid to each individual club set?
Hvem kontrollerer arbejdet i »Groupement des cercles de loisirs«?
Who oversees the work of the ‘Groupement des cercles de loisirs’?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6863/2010
Question for written answer E-6863/2010
Ifølge en artikel på www.zeit.de af 19. august 2010 har Østrig udviklet sig til Europas »udvisningsknudepunkt«.
According to an article on www.zeit.de dated 19 August 2010 Austria has become Europe's ‘deportation hub’.
Stadig flere charterfly med afviste asylansøgere letter fra lufthavnen Wien-Schwechat.
More and more charter flights carrying rejected asylum‑seekers are taking off from Vienna-Schwechat airport.
Ifølge udtalelser fra Oluyemi Olawale Ogundele, formand for National Association of Nigerian Community Austria, bliver stadig flere personer »tilbagesendt« til lande, som ikke er deres hjemland.
Oluyemi Olawale Ogundele, president of the National Association of Nigerian Community Austria, claims that, instead of being ‘repatriated’ to their country of origin, people continue to be deported to other countries.
Disse flyvninger finansieres af Frontex.
These flights are financed by Frontex.
Er Kommissionen bekendt med, at personer ikke bliver udvist til deres hjemland, men til andre lande?
Is the Commission aware of the fact that people are not being deported to their country of origin, but to other countries?
Hvad gør Kommissionen for at sikre, at de berørte personer rent faktisk bliver udvist til deres hjemland og ikke til et andet land?
What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the people concerned are in fact deported to their country of origin, and not to another country?
Hvad gør Kommissionen i de tilfælde, hvor personer ikke er blevet udvist til deres hjemland, men til et andet land?
What steps is the Commission taking in cases where people are not deported to their own country, but to another country?
Hvad vil Kommissionen gøre i fremtiden for at garantere en korrekt udvisning?
What steps will the Commission take in future to guarantee that deportation is carried out in accordance with the rules?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6864/2010
Question for written answer E-6864/2010
Om: Europols bestyrelse
Subject: Europol's Management Board
I Europols bestyrelse sidder der et medlem af Kommissionen.
A seat on Europol's Management Board is reserved for a Member of the Commission.
Hvem er dette medlem?
Who is the Commissioner concerned?
Efter hvilken procedure udvælger Kommissionen dette medlem?
How is he or she selected?
Hvem er suppleant for medlemmet i tilfælde af forfald?
Who stands in if he or she is unable to attend meetings?
Hvem er de øvrige medlemmer af Europols bestyrelse, hvem er suppleanter for dem i tilfælde af forfald?
Who are the other members of Europol's Management Board, and who stands in for them if they cannot attend meetings?
Hvilken funktion udøver medlemmerne af Europols bestyrelse ud over denne opgave?
What positions do the members of Europol's Management Board hold in addition to their role on the board?
Hvilke afgørelser er der truffet af bestyrelsen hidtil, hvor Kommissionens repræsentant har stemt imod den vedtagne beslutning?
What decisions have been taken by the Management Board which the Commission representative voted against?
Hvorfor stemte kommissionsmedlemmet imod disse beslutninger?
Why did the Commission member vote against?
I hvilke tilfælde er kommissionsmedlemmet kommet med forslag til beslutninger, som der ikke var tilslutning til?
In which cases has the Commission representative put forward proposals for decisions which were not approved?
Hvorfor kunne der ikke skabes det nødvendige flertal i disse tilfælde?
Why was the necessary majority not secured in these cases?
I hvilke tilfælde er et forslag fra kommissionsmedlemmet blevet gennemført?
In which cases has a proposal made by the Commission representative been implemented?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6865/2010
Question for written answer E-6865/2010
Den 27. november 2009 blev der under forsæde af Frontex afholdt det første møde mellem 15 medlemsstater, som deltager i Eurosurs andet pilotprojekt.
An initial meeting of the 15 Member States taking part in the second Eurosur pilot project was held on 27 November 2009, under the chairmanship of Frontex.
Projektet skal starte i andet halvår af 2010.
The project was due to start in the second half of 2010.
Er projektet startet?
Has the project already started?
Hvis ikke, hvornår skal det starte?
If not, when will it start?
Hvad er projektets indhold?
What is the nature of this project?
Hvilke udgifter er forbundet med dette pilotprojekt?
What costs does the pilot project entail?
Hvem finansierer dette pilotprojekt og med hvilke andele?
Who is financing which aspects of the pilot project?
Hvordan vurderer Kommissionen de fremskridt, der hidtil er gjort i Eurosurprojektet?
How does the Commission assess the progress made so far with the Eurosur project?
Hvordan vurderer Kommissionen samarbejdet med medlemsstaterne og Frontex?
How does the Commission assess the level of cooperation between the Member States and Frontex?
Hvem kontrollerer databeskyttelsen i projektet?
Who oversees data protection in connection with the project?
Hvorvidt skal der behandles biometriske oplysninger som led i projektet?
To what extent will biometric data be processed as part of this project?
Vil der blive anvendt irisscannere i projektet?
Will iris scanners be used in this project?
Hvis ja, fra hvilket firma?
If so, which companies will operate them?
Skal der arbejdes med irisscannere som led i Eurosur?
Will iris scanners be used in the Eurosur project?
Hvis ja, hvilket firma fremstiller disse scannere og den nødvendige behandlingssoftware?
If so, which companies will manufacture the scanners and the necessary processing software?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6866/2010
Question for written answer E-6866/2010
I den mexicanske by Leon afprøve brugen af irisscannere i hele byen.
The city-wide use of iris scanners is being trialled in Leon, Mexico.
Hvordan bedømmer Kommissionen sådanne projekter?
What view does the Commission take of projects of this kind?
I hvilke projekter testes der for øjeblikket irisscannere i EU?
What projects are currently being carried out in the EU in order to test iris scanners?
Har Kommissionen planer om at anvende irisscannere i fremtiden, f.eks. i forbindelse med grænseovervågning?
Does the Commission plan to use iris scanners in future, for example in connection with border controls?
Har Kommissionen planer om at anvende irisscannere som led i den interne sikkerhed?
Does the Commission plan to use iris scanners in future in the field of internal security?
Hvordan vurderer Kommissionen mulighederne og perspektiverne forbundet med irisscannere som led i den interne sikkerhed?
How does the Commission assess the scope and prospects for using iris scanners in the field of internal security?
Er brugen af irisscannere ifølge Kommissionen forbundet med risici?
Does the Commission see any dangers in using iris scanners?
I hvilke EU‑agenturer er der planer om at anvende irisscannere?
Which EU agencies plan to use iris scanners?
I hvilke EU‑agenturer anvendes der allerede en irisscanner?
Which EU agencies already use iris scanners?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6867/2010
Question for written answer E-6867/2010
Om: Tyske statsborgeres selvangivelse i Østrig
Subject: Income tax declaration by a German national in Austria
En tysk statsborger har i over 15 år udlejet en lille lejlighed i Spittal i Østrig.
A German national has been renting out a small apartment in Spittal, Austria, for more than fifteen years.
Hun har hvert år indsendt en selvangivelse, men skulle på grund af det lille beløb på ca. 2 500 EUR ikke betale indkomstskat.
She has filled in a tax declaration each year but, since the sum in question is only about EUR 2 500, has never been required to pay income tax.
I forbindelse med hendes selvangivelse for 2009 lagde skattemyndighederne i Spittal i medfør af § 102, stk. 3, i den østrigske lov om indkomstskat et standardbeløb på 9 000 EUR til, så der i alt skulle betales skat af godt 11 200 EUR.
When she filed her tax declaration for 2009, the Spittal tax office added on the estimated sum of EUR 9 000 under paragraph 102(3) of the Income Tax Law, so that approximately EUR 11 200 was to be taxed.
Der skulle dermed betales 69,79 EUR i indkomstskat for 2009.
This meant that income tax amounting to EUR 69.79 was payable for 2009.
Det fremgår af et svar fra den daværende kommissær Kovács fra 2007, at det tillagte beløb er udtryk for en teknisk justering, som ikke tillægges, hvis hele eller næsten hele den skattepligtiges indkomst hidrører fra østrigske kilder.
An answer dating from 2007 from the then Commissioner Kovacs states that the addition is attributable to a technical adjustment, which is not carried out if all, or virtually all, the taxpayer’s income is derived from Austrian sources.
Jeg spørger derfor Kommissionen om følgende: 1.
I would therefore like to ask the Commission the following questions: 1.
Er denne fremgangsmåde hos de ansvarlige skattemyndigheder og anvendelsen af § 102, stk. 3, i den østrigske lov om indkomstskat forenelig med EU‑lovgivningen? 2.
Are the action of the tax office concerned and the application of paragraph 102(3) of the Income Tax Law compatible with EC law? 2.
Er det foreneligt med EU‑lovgivningen, at der her foreligger en åbenbar skattemæssig forskelsbehandling af tyske og østrigske statsborgere? 3.
Is the obviously unequal treatment of German and Austrian nationals in this instance compatible with EC law? 3.
Hvilke løsningsforslag vil Kommissionen komme med for at gribe ind over for denne forskelsbehandling?
What proposals will the Commission make in order to put a stop to this unequal treatment?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6868/2010
Question for written answer E-6868/2010
Om: Μanglende anvendelse af forordning (EF) nr. 998/2003, 882/2004, 388/2010 og direktiv 92/95/ΕØF om handel med kæledyr
Subject: Failure to implement Regulations Nos 998/03/ΕC, 882/04/ΕC, 388/10/ΕC and Directive 92/95/EEC on trade in pets
Borgere og dyreværnsorganisationer protesterer i publikationer over den ulovlige eksport af kæledyr fra Grækenland til andre lande i EU.
Complaints have been raised in various publications and from citizens and animal welfare organisations about the illegal exportation of pets from Greece to other Member States of the EU.
Nærmere bestemt protesterer de over, at privatpersoner og foreninger ændrer herreløse dyrs status til privatejede, idet de dermed overtræder den nationale lovgivning om handel med herreløse dyr, der i henhold til lov 3170/03 tilhører kommuner og landkommuner, og i samarbejde med foreninger i andre EU‑medlemslande eksporterer dem til ukendt formål for at udnytte dem kommercielt.
The main point of the complaints is that private individuals and associations appropriate stray animals, in breach of national legislation on the handling of stray animals which, pursuant to Law 3170/03, belong to the local authorities, and, in cooperation with associations in other Member States, export them to unknown destinations for commercial exploitation.
Anvendes ovennævnte forordninger og EU‑direktiv i tilstrækkelig grad af såvel de græske myndigheder som af myndighederne i de andre medlemslande? 2.
whether the Greek authorities and other Member States' authorities are implementing the above EU Regulations and Directive in an adequate manner, and 2.
Hvilke yderlige initiativer påtænker den at iværksætte for at få standset den illegale eksport og kommercielle udnyttelse af kæledyr i landene i EU?
what other initiatives it will take to put an end to the illegal exportation and commercial exploitation of pets in EU Member States?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6869/2010
Question for written answer E-6869/2010
Om: Ebrahim Hamidi
Subject: Ebrahim Hamidi
En 18‑årig iraner, Ebrahim Hamidi, blev dømt til døden den 21. juni 2010 anklaget for et uspecificeret seksuelt angreb på en anden mand.
An 18-year-old Iranian, Ebrahim Hamidi, was sentenced to death on 21 June 2010 on charges of an unspecified sexual assault on another man.
Efter tre dages varetægtsfængsling tilstod Ebrahim Hamidi, angiveligt under totur.
After three days in detention Mr Hamidi confessed to the crime, allegedly under torture.
Han afventer nu hængning, på trods af at hans anklager har indrømmet, at han løj, og har trukket anklagen om angreb tilbage.
He is now awaiting hanging, despite his accuser admitting that he lied and withdrawing his accusation of assault.
Irans højesteret har to gange afvist provinsdomstolens afgørelse og dødsdom og har beordret en ny undersøgelse af sagen.
The Supreme Court of Iran has twice rejected the provincial court’s guilty verdict and death sentence and ordered a re-examination of the case.
Den lokale domstol i den østlige Aserbajdsjanprovins har dog set bort fra denne afgørelse.
However, this ruling has been ignored by the local judiciary in East Azerbaijan province.
Har Kommissionen givet udtryk for bekymring over for de iranske myndigheder over den forestående henrettelse af denne mand?
Has the Commission raised concerns over the impending execution of this man with the Iranian authorities?
I benægtende fald, vil den nu gøre det så hurtigt som muligt?
If not, will it now do so as a matter of urgency?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6870/2010
Question for written answer E-6870/2010
Om: Det Forende Kongeriges omkostningsbesparende tiltags forenelighed med EU‑lovgivningen i forbindelse med sprogtolkning
Subject: Compatibility with EC law of UK cost-saving measures for language interpretation
En vælger fra London har skrevet og klaget over Det Forenede Kongeriges justitsministeriums beslutning om at afskaffe den nationale aftale om tolkes engagement i straffesager, det nationale register for tolke inden for offentlig tjeneste, NRPSI og NRCPD, registret for behørigt kvalificerede tegnsprogstolke.
A London constituent has written and complained regarding the UK Ministry of Justice’s decision to abolish the National Agreement on the Engagement of Interpreters in Criminal Proceedings, the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, NRPSI and the NRCPD, the register of suitably qualified sign language interpreters.
Disse tiltag er angiveligt blevet foretaget af den koalitionsregering i Det Forende Kongerige af hensyn til forbedret effektivitet og omkostningsbesparelser på et tidspunkt, hvor der træffes nødvendige besparelsesforanstaltninger og foretages nedskæringer i Det Forende Kongeriges offentlige udgifter.
These measures having been presumably taken by the new UK coalition government for reasons of improved efficiency and costs savings at a time of necessary austerity measures and cuts in UK public expenditure.
Min vælger har dog henvist til en mulig overtrædelse af EU‑direktivet om minimumsstandarder inden for tolkning og oversættelse, som er påkrævet i alle medlemsstandarder, for udenlandske borgere, der er genstand for straffesager, som jeg mener, Det Forende Kongerige allerede har gennemført i den nationale lovgivning, og hun har også henvist til en mulig overtrædelse af artikel 5 og 6 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention, gennemført i Det Forenede Kongeriges menneskerettighedslov i 1998.
However, my constituent has cited a possible breach of the EU directive on the minimum standards on interpretation and translation required in all EU Member States for foreign nationals subject to criminal justice proceedings, which I believe the UK may have already transposed into UK domestic law, and she has also cited a possible breach of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, enacted by the UK Human Rights Act 1998.
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at den nye regering i Det Forenede Kongeriges beslutning om at udføre disse omkostningsbesparende foranstaltninger udelukkende er truffet som en sag, der falder ind under dens kompetence, og at de alternative og mere omkostningsbesparende foranstaltninger, som Det Forenede Kongeriges justitsministerium nu har foreslået, fuldt ud opfylder EU‑lovgivningens krav om at tilvejebringe passende tolkefaciliteter for udenlandske borgere, der er berørt af straffesager?
Can the Commission confirm that the new UK government‘s decision to enact these cost savings measures is taken exclusively as a matter that falls within its competence and that the UK Ministry of Justice‘s alternative and more cost-efficient measures now proposed fully address the requirements of EC law to provide adequate interpretation facilities for foreign nationals affected by criminal proceedings?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-6872/2010
Question for written answer E-6872/2010
Om: Undersøgelse af FRONTEX
Subject: Frontex inquiry