natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Konklusionen var, at forbrugerne ikke har tilstrækkelig tillid til grænseoverskridende handel, og at udgifterne til at overholde forskellige forbrugerbeskyttelsesregler får de erhvervsdrivende til at afstå fra at udbyde deres produkter på tværs af grænserne.
It concluded that consumers are not confident enough to shop cross-border and that the cost of compliance with diverging consumer protection regulations deters businesses from cross-border trade.
I forbindelse med gennemgangen undersøgte Kommissionen de aftalemæssige konsekvenser af, at en erhvervsdrivende undlader at give forbrugeren oplysninger om aftalevilkårene, herunder om prisen.
Within the review, the Commission has examined the contractual consequences of the trader omitting to provide the consumer with contractual information, including price.
For at afhjælpe situationen vedtog Kommissionen den 8. oktober 2008 et forslag til direktiv om forbrugerrettigheder KOM(2008)0614 endelig. .
In order to remedy the situation, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on consumer rights on 8 October 2008 COM(2008)614 final. .
Ifølge dette forslag er forbrugeren ikke forpligtet til at betale yderligere omkostninger, som han ikke er blevet ordentligt oplyst om inden aftalens indgåelse.
According to this proposal, the consumer shall not be required to pay any additional charges of which he has not been properly informed before concluding the contract.
Hvis den erhvervsdrivende har modtaget betaling for yderligere omkostninger fra forbrugeren, f.eks. ved hjælp af »forud afkrydsede felter« på den hjemmeside, han bruger til at sælge sine produkter fra, har forbrugeren desuden ret til at få denne betaling refunderet.
Furthermore, if the trader has obtained payment from the consumer of additional charges e.g. by means of ‘pre-ticked boxes’ on the website he uses to sell his products, then the consumer will be entitled to reimbursement of this payment.
I lighed med direktivet om urimelige kontraktvilkår omhandler forslaget aftalevilkår, der medfører, at en tidsbestemt aftale automatisk forlænges, hvis forbrugeren ikke har givet udtryk for ønske om det modsatte og har en lang opsigelsesfrist ved udgangen af hver forlængelsesperiode.
As the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, the proposal refers to contract terms according to which a fixed-term contract is automatically renewed where the consumer does not indicate otherwise and has to give a long notice to terminate the contract at the end of each renewal period.
I henhold til forslaget formodes sådanne vilkår at være urimelige, medmindre den erhvervsdrivende beviser det modsatte.
Under the proposal such terms are presumed to be unfair unless the trader proves otherwise.
Forslaget er for øjeblikket til behandling i Rådet og Parlamentet.
This proposal is currently being discussed in the Council and the Parliament.
Dertil kommer, at direktivet om urimelig handelspraksis Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2005/29/EF af 11. maj 2005 om virksomheders urimelige handelspraksis over for forbrugerne på det indre marked og om ændring af Rådets direktiv 84/450/EØF og Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/7/EF, 98/27/EF og 2002/65/EF og Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2006/2004 (direktivet om urimelig handelspraksis) (EUT L 149 af 11.6.2005). indebærer en fuld harmonisering af medlemsstaternes regler om urimelig handelspraksis, herunder vildledende og aggressiv handelspraksis.
Furthermore, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (‘UCP’) Directive 2005/29/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005. fully harmonises the Member States' rules on unfair commercial practices, including misleading and aggressive practices.
Det fastsættes, at erhvervsdrivende skal drive handel i overensstemmelse med kravene om erhvervsmæssig diligenspligt, og at de ikke må give forbrugeren urigtige, usandfærdige eller ufuldstændige oplysninger om en lang række forhold, der ikke kun omfatter prisen.
It requires that traders operate in accordance with the requirements of professional diligence and that they do not provide the consumer with false, untruthful or incomplete information on a wide range of elements including, but not limited, to the price.
Mere specifikt er det i direktivet fastsat, at eventuelle byrdefulde eller uforholdsmæssigt omfattende hindringer af ikke-kontraktuel karakter, som den erhvervsdrivende opstiller for forbrugere, der ønsker at ophæve en kontrakt eller at vælge et andet produkt eller en anden erhvervsdrivende, kan udgøre en urimelig handelspraksis Artikel 9, litra d), i direktiv 2005/29/EF. .
More specifically, the directive provides that any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barriers imposed by the trader on consumers wishing to terminate the contract or switch to another product or trader may constitute an unfair commercial practice Article 9 (d) of Directive 2005/29/EC. .
Den praksis at gøre det alt for besværligt for forbrugerne at annullere et abonnement kan derfor være omfattet af direktivet.
Making it excessively difficult for consumers to cancel subscriptions may therefore fall under the directive.
Det bør sluttelig nævnes, at det er de nationale myndigheder og domstole, der fra sag til sag skal vurdere, om en bestemt praksis eller et bestemt vilkår er forbudt i henhold til direktivet om urimelig handelspraksis eller direktivet om urimelige kontraktvilkår.
Finally, it should be noted that it is for national authorities and courts to assess on a case-by-case basis whether a specific practice or term would be prohibited by Unfair Commercial Practices Directive or the Unfair Contract Terms Directive.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5090/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5090/09
Om: EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder i forhold til national lovgivning
Subject: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to national legislation
Det var glædeligt, at EU-kommissær Margot Wallstrøm på AFCO-mødet den 6.oktober 2009 bemærkede, at chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder kun har virkning, »when memberstates apply legislation« (når medlemsstater anvender lovgivningen).
At the AFCO meeting on 6 October 2009 Commissioner Margot Wallström made the welcome comment that the Charter of Fundamental Rights can have an effect only ‘when Member States apply legislation’.
Det antages, at der hermed menes, at chartret kun finder anvendelse på EU-lovgivning og ikke som sådan kan anvendes på nationale retsakter.
Presumably, that means that the charter can be applied only to EU legislation and not, as such, to Member State legislation.
I den forbindelse opfordres kommissæren til at tilkendegive sin holdning til, at Europa-Parlamentet for nylig, med udgangspunkt i chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder, har udtrykt kritik af de ændringer, som det litauiske parlament i juli i år har gennemført i lov om beskyttelse af mindreårige.
In this connection, the Commissioner is requested to set out her position on Parliament's recent criticism, based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the amendments adopted in July this year by the Lithuanian Parliament to the law on the protection of minors.
Den ændrede lov forbyder »offentlig information som propaganderer for homoseksuelle forhold« fra ethvert sted, som børn kan få adgang til, da det kan have en »skadelig virkning på udviklingen af mindreårige«.
The amended law bans, in all places to which children may have access, ‘the public circulation of information promoting homosexual relations’, since that ‘may have a detrimental effect on the development of minors’.
Der er ikke tale om en EU-retsakt, men national lov.
This is not EU legislation; rather, it is a national law.
Vil Kommissionen på denne baggrund redegøre for, hvorfor chartret finder anvendelse?
In the light of this, can the Commission say why the charter is applicable?
(26. november 2009)
(26 November 2009)
Det samme afspejles i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder (»chartret«). .
This is also reflected in Article 51§1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). .
Som næstformand Jacques Barrot forklarede den 16. september 2009 under Europa-Parlamentets debat om den litauiske lov mod skadelig påvirkning fra offentlig information, falder den nationale lovgivning på området delvist ind under fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde.
As explained by Vice-President Barrot during the debate on the Lithuanian Law against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information which took place in the European Parliament on 16 September 2009, the national legislation at stake partially falls within the scope of application of European Law.
Konkret vedrører den områder, som dækkes af direktivet om udøvelse af tv- og radiospredningsvirksomhed Rådets direktiv 89/552/EØF af 3. oktober 1989 om samordning af visse love og administrative bestemmelser i medlemsstaterne vedrørende udøvelse af tv- radiospredningsvirksomhed. og direktivet om elektronisk handel (2000/31) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2000/31/EF af 8. juni 2000 om visse retlige aspekter af informationssamfundstjenester, navnlig elektronisk handel, i det indre marked. .
More concretely, it touches upon areas covered by the audiovisual media services directive Directive 89/552/CE of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provisions of audiovisual media services. and the E-commerce directive (2000/31) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market. .
På disse områder finder chartret altså anvendelse.
In these areas, the Charter applies.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5091/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5091/09
Om: Europa-Kommissionen og folkeafstemninger
Subject: The Commission and referenda
Ifølge BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6225710.stm) erklærede kommissionsformanden i et interview på BBC News den 21.juni 2007 med overskriften »EC boss argues against referendum«: »Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6225710.stm), the Commission President stated the following on 21 June 2007 in a BBC News interview headlined ‘EC boss argues against referendum’: ‘Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world.
Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world.
Do the British people consider Parliament the back door?
Do the British people consider Parliament the back door?
Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door?
Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door?
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world?
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world?
I don't consider Parliament the back door.«
I don't consider Parliament the back door.’
Vil Kommissionen på den baggrund fastholde det af kommissær Wallström fremførte synspunkt fra AFCO-mødet den 6.oktober 2009, at Kommissionen og dens formand ikke har søgt at påvirke medlemslandene til ikke at holde folkeafstemninger om EU-traktaterne?
In the light of this, does the Commission propose to keep to the position expressed by Commissioner Wallström at the AFCO meeting on 6 October 2009 that the Commission and its President have not attempted to persuade Member States not to hold referenda on EU treaties?
(27. november 2009)
(27 November 2009)
Kommissionen tilslutter sig fuldt ud det synspunkt, som kommissæren for interinstitutionelle relationer og kommunikationsstrategi gav udtryk for på mødet den 6. oktober 2009 i Udvalget om Konstitutionelle Anliggender (AFCO), nemlig at hverken Kommissionen eller dens formand har forsøgt at påvirke medlemsstaterne til ikke at afholde folkeafstemninger om EU‑traktaterne.
The Commission fully stands by the position expressed by the Commissioner responsible for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy at Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) meeting on 6 October 2009 that neither the Commission nor its President have attempted to persuade Member States not to hold referenda on EU treaties.
De enkelte medlemsstaters godkendelse af en EU‑traktat afhænger alene af deres forfatning.
Approval by each Member State of any EU Treaty is exclusively subject to their respective constitutional requirements.
Med hensyn til Det Forenede Kongeriges beslutning om, hvorvidt der skulle afholdes folkeafstemning, gjorde formanden det klart, at dette var en national beslutning.
Regarding the decision of the United Kingdom as to whether or not to hold a referendum, the President made it clear that the decision was a domestic one.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5092/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5092/09
af Rita Borsellino (S&D)
by Rita Borsellino (S-D)
I forbindelse med Stockholmprogrammet har det svenske formandskab med rette givet udtryk for sit ønske om at træffe foranstaltninger på europæisk plan for at støtte ofrene for organiseret kriminalitet.
As part of the Stockholm programme, the Swedish Presidency has rightly expressed its desire to prepare measures at European level to support the victims of organised crime.
Mener Kommissionen ikke i den forbindelse, at det foruden ofrene er nødvendigt at beskytte vidnerne, dvs. dem, som ikke har begået nogen forbrydelse, men som bringer deres liv i fare for at tjene retsvæsenet og anmelde den organiserede kriminalitet?
In this regard, does the Commission not consider that, as well as for victims, protection should also be provided for witnesses who, although they have not committed any crime, put their own lives at risk in order to serve justice and to testify against organised crime?
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, om den i løbet af kort tid agter at stille forslag om foranstaltninger, der harmoniserer vidnernes status på europæisk plan?
Can the Commission indicate whether it intends to come forward with a proposal containing measures to standardise the status of such witnesses at European level?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5097/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5097/09
af Oldřich Vlasák (ECR)
by Oldřich Vlasák (ECR)
Om: ALE's deltagelse i dialogen mellem arbejdsmarkedets parter i jernbanesektoren
Subject: Participation by the ALE in social dialogue in the railways sector
Siden 2005 har ALE (Autonome Lokomotivführer-Gewerkschaften Europas – de uafhængige europæiske fagforeninger for lokomotivførere), som mere end 100 000 medlemmer fra 16 europæiske medlemsorganisationer er tilknyttet, søgt anerkendelse som en fuldgyldig deltager i dialogen mellem arbejdsmarkedets parter i jernbanesektoren.
Since 2005, the ALE (Autonome Lokomotivführer-Gewerkschaften Europas — Independent Train Drivers’ Trade Unions of Europe), to which over 100 000 members from 16 European member organisations are affiliated, has been seeking recognition as a full social partner in the social dialogue in the railways sector.
På trods af langtrukne forhandlinger med Kommissionen og med European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), som er det eneste organ, der repræsenterer jernbanearbejdernes interesser i Sektordialogudvalget for Jernbaner, har det endnu ikke været muligt at finde et kompromis, som gør, at ALE kan repræsentere sine medlemmers interesser direkte.
Despite long drawn-out negotiations with the European Commission and with the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), which is the only body representing rail workers’ interests on the Railways Sectoral Dialogue Committee, it has not yet proved possible to find a compromise whereby the ALE can directly represent the interests of its members.
Mener Kommissionen, at denne situation er tilfredsstillende?
Does the European Commission consider this situation to be satisfactory?
Hvordan kan Kommissionen bidrage til at fremme dialogen mellem parterne for at sikre, at ETF, som kun repræsenterer 80 % af de ansatte i den europæiske jernbanesektor, ikke har monopol på beslutningstagningen?
How can the European Commission contribute to facilitating dialogue between the parties so as to ensure that the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF), which represents only 80 % of employees in the European railways sector, does not have a monopoly on decision-making?
Vil det være muligt, at ALE bliver hørt direkte af Kommissionen i spørgsmål vedrørende f.eks. arbejdstider i forbindelse med grænseoverskridende transport, mindstekrav til lokomotivføreres kvalifikationer samt eksamener for lokomotivførere eller foranstaltninger til at supplere og præcisere de aktuelle EU-direktiver om lokomotivførerlicenser, som alle berører ALE's medlemmer direkte?
Will it be possible for the ALE to be consulted directly by the European Commission on matters for discussion such as working time conditions in cross-border transport, minimum qualifications for train drivers and the undergoing of drivers’ examinations, or measures to supplement and render more specific the current EU directives on train drivers' licences, all of which directly concern the ALE’s members?
Vil det være muligt, at ALE giver udtryk for, forsvarer og udbreder divergerende synspunkter i Sektordialogudvalget for Jernbaner?
Will it be possible for the ALE to express, defend and disseminate divergent views in the Railways Sectoral Dialogue Committee?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5098/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5098/09
af Ole Christensen (S&D)
by Ole Christensen (S-D)
Om: Sikring af, at erstatningsbeløb betales, når et firma fra en medlemsstat er dømt til at betale en erstatning eller en bøde i en anden medlemsstat
Subject: Ensuring that payment is actually made when a firm from one Member State is fined or ordered to pay compensation in another Member State
De seneste par år er der faldet flere domme ved den danske arbejdsret, hvor østeuropæiske firmaer er blevet pålagt at betale erstatning til medarbejdere i Danmark.
In recent years several rulings have been made under Danish labour law ordering East European firms to pay compensation to employees in Denmark.
Dommene er i mange tilfælde faldet, fordi østeuropæiske firmaer har brudt indgåede overenskomster og underbetalt medarbejderne.
In many cases these rulings were made because the East European firms had broken agreements or underpaid their employees.
Østeuropæiske byggefirmaer skylder pt. op mod 15,5 millioner danske kroner til medarbejdere, der har været ansat i Danmark.
East European building firms currently owe some DKK 15.5 million to workers they employed in Denmark.
Hvordan kan det sikres, at et firma fra en medlemsstat, som er dømt til at betale en erstatning eller en bøde i en anden medlemsstat, rent faktisk betaler?
How can it be ensured that a firm from one Member State which is fined or ordered to pay compensation in another Member State, actually pays?
Det spørgsmål, som det ærede medlem har rejst, synes at ligne de spørgsmål, som er rejst i medlemmets skriftlige forespørgsel P‑0911/08 og i den skriftlige forespørgsel E‑2969/08 fra Erik Meijer http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=DA .
The issue raised by the Honourable Member seems to be similar to the issues raised in his Written Question P‑0911/08 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp and Written Question E‑2969/08 ( 1 ) by Mr Meijer.
Mangelen på præcise oplysninger gør det vanskeligt at udtale sig detaljeret om den situation, det ærede medlem henviser til.
The lack of precise information makes it difficult to comment in detail on the situation referred to the Honourable Member.
Kommissionen skal derfor opfordre derfor det ærede medlem til at fremlægge flere faktuelle oplysninger til udbygning af disse alvorlige beskyldninger.
The Commission, therefore, invites the Honourable Member to provide further factual elements underlying these serious allegations.
Kommissionen skal imidlertid gøre opmærksom på, at artikel 33, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 44/2001 Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 44/2001 af 22. december 2000 om rettens kompetence og om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser på det civil‑ og handelsretlige område, EFT L 12 af 16.1.2001 . giver enhver berettiget part mulighed for konkret at få fastslået, at en udenlandsk retsafgørelse skal anerkendes, hvis han/hun ønsker at påberåbe sig en sådan anerkendelse i en sag.
However, the Commission recalls that Article 33(2) of Regulation 44/2001 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001. offers any interested party the possibility to apply specifically for recognition of a foreign judgment if he/she wishes to raise such recognition as the principal issue in a dispute.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5099/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5099/09
Om: Reach-forordningen: forsinkelser i forbindelse med indlevering af registreringsdossiererne
Subject: REACH Regulation: delays in submitting registration files
EU's Reach-forordning (1907/2006) anfører, at der den 1. december 2010 skulle være indleveret ca. 9 000 registreringsdossierer til Det Europæiske Kemikalieagentur for kemikalier, som der produceres eller importeres mere end 1 000 t af årligt.
The European Reach Regulation (EC/907/2006) stipulates that by 1 December 2010 some 9 000 registration files for chemical substances whose volume of manufacture or importation exceeds 1 000 tonnes per annum should have been submitted to the European Chemicals Agency.
På nuværende tidspunkt er der imidlertid kun blevet indleveret 1 500.
At the moment, however, only 1 500 files have been registered.
Er disse forsinkelser udtryk for eventuelle driftsvanskeligheder i Det Europæiske Kemikalieagentur?
Are these delays a sign of possible operating difficulties on the part of the European Chemicals Agency?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5100/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5100/09
af Enikő Győri (PPE)
by Enikő Győri (PPE)
Om: Forsinkede betalinger
Subject: Late payments
Kan denne ungarske praksis, nemlig at staten meget ofte først betaler sine regninger for leverede ydelser efter tre til seks måneder, anses for at være i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten?
Does the Hungarian practice whereby the State very often only honours its debts 3 to 6 months after the performance for which the payment is a counterpart accord with Community law?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-5101/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-5101/09
Om: SMV'ers deltagelse i offentlige indkøbsprocedurer
Subject: Participation of SMEs in public procurement procedures
I Vesteuropa tildeles langt størstedelen af offentlige indkøbsaftaler til nationale virksomheder (f.eks. har udenlandske virksomheder kun fået 5 % af de offentlige indkøbsaftaler i Sverige, 10 % i Tyskland og 25 % i Irland).
In Western Europe an overwhelming proportion of public procurement contracts are won by national firms (for example the percentage of successful foreign firms in public procurement procedures is 5 % in Sweden, 10 % in Germany and 25 % in Ireland).
På den anden side er det i Ungarn kun en tredjedel af de offentlige indkøbsaftaler, der tildeles til ungarske små og mellemstore virksomheder (SMV'er), ligesom de udenlandske multinationale virksomheder, der får aftalen, i mange tilfælde overlader opfyldelsen af den til en national underleverandør, som ofte er netop den, der tabte i indkøbsproceduren, til en lavere pris.
On the other hand, in Hungary only one third of public procurement contracts are won by Hungarian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and what is more in many cases the foreign multinational which wins the contract entrusts the performance of the contract for a lower price to some national subcontractor, often precisely the one which lost out in the public procurement procedure.