natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
at Graziano Debellini, selvstændig erhvervsdrivende fra Padova og stifter af den lokale »Compagnia delle Opere«-forening, ved at læse en artikel i den italienske avis »Il Manifesto« søndag den 6. juli 2008 fandt ud af, at retten i Padova havde indledt en strafferetlig efterforskning af ham; —
On Sunday 6 July 2008, Mr Graziano Debellini (a businessman from Padua and the founder of the local Compagnia delle Opere ) learnt from an article published in the Italian daily newspaper Il Manifesto that he was the subject of a criminal investigation being carried out by the judicial authorities in Padua; —
at dokumenter og procedurer i forbindelse med den igangværende efterforskning var underlagt tavshedspligt, og at Graziano Debellini som følge af pressens ulovlige offentliggørelse af disse blev stillet for en mediedomstol, inden en eventuel retssag mod ham overhovedet var blevet indledt; —
the documents and procedures relating to the investigation were sub judice, yet as a consequence of the illegal release thereof by the press, Mr Debellini was subjected to a media trial even before any legal action had been taken against him; —
at Kommissionen efter høringerne om grønbogen om retssikkerhedsgarantier for mistænkte og tiltalte i straffesager i EU stillede et forslag til rammeafgørelse (KOM(2004)0328) om samme emne, som Europa-Parlamentet afgav positiv udtalelse om med lovgivningsmæssig beslutning P6_TA (2005)0091 EUT C 33E af 9.2.2006, s. 159. ; —
following consultations concerning the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for persons under investigation and persons charged in criminal proceedings, the Commission submitted a proposal for a framework decision (COM(2004)0328) on that same topic, in respect of which the European Parliament expressed a favourable opinion in its legislative resolution P6_TA (2005)0091 OJ C 33E, 9.2.2006, p.
at der i EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder ikke alene er taget højde for retten til en upartisk dommer (artikel 47), men også for uskyldsformodning og forsvarets rettigheder (artikel 48); —
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights refers not only to the right to an impartial judge (Article 47) but also to the presumption of innocence and to respect for the rights of the defence (Article 48); —
at Domstolen i sin nylige retspraksis anerkendte chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder som den europæiske konstruktions inspirationsprincip;
in recent rulings the Court of Justice has recognised the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a principle upon which European integration is based.
mener Kommissionen så ikke, at pressens offentliggørelse af oplysninger om straffesager i strid med forsvarets rettigheder burde straffes som en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten og af EU's grundlæggende principper?
Does the Commission not think that the release via the press — in violation of the rights of the defence — of information relating to criminal proceedings should be punished as a violation of the EU's basic rights and principles?
Hvilke foranstaltninger agter Kommissionen i så fald at træffe for at få de italienske domstole til — ligesom enhver anden national domstol — at overholde fællesskabsretten?
If so, what action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that a country’s judiciary — like any other of its authorities — operates in compliance with EC law?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4193/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4193/08
Om: Spørgsmål i forbindelse med bygningen af den ungarske del af South Stream-gasrørledningen med særligt henblik på EU's konkurrencelovgivning
Subject: Question concerning the construction of the Hungarian section of the South Stream gas pipeline, with particular regard to Community competition law
Den 28. februar 2008 underskrev Ungarn og Rusland en samarbejdsaftale om bygning af en gasrørledning til transport af gas over Republikken Ungarns territorium.
On 28 February 2008, Hungary and Russia signed the ‘cooperation agreement on construction of a gas pipeline to transport gas across the territory of the Republic of Hungary’.
Aftalen vedrører bygningen af den ungarske del af South Stream-gasrørledningen og gælder for mindst 30 år.
The Agreement concerns construction of the section of the South Stream pipeline in Hungary and will be in force for at least 30 years.
I henhold til aftalen vil de to grundlæggere — den ungarske udviklingsbank og Gazprom PLC — efter ungarsk lov etablere et fællesforetagende i Ungarn med 50/50 ejerskab, der skal bygge den ungarske del af rørledningen.
According to the Agreement, a joint enterprise with a 50‑50 % ownership share will be established in Hungary, under Hungarian law, by the two founders — the Hungarian Development Bank and Gazprom PLC — which will construct the Hungarian section of the pipeline.
Mener Kommissionen, at det er i overensstemmelse med EU's konkurrencelovgivning, at den ungarske regering har underskrevet en juridisk bindende international aftale indeholdende de grundlæggende bestemmelser for et fællesforetagende, der udfører alle de funktioner, som en uafhængig økonomisk enhed (med grundlæggere og ejerskabsstruktur) har, uden i forvejen at have underrettet de nationale konkurrencemyndigheder som krævet i den nationale konkurrencelovgivning eller i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 139/2004 af 20. januar 2004 om kontrol med fusioner og virksomhedsovertagelser (afhængig af, om fusionen kan siges at have en fællesskabsdimension)?
Does the Commission consider that the Hungarian Government’s signature of a legally binding international agreement setting out the basic provisions governing a joint enterprise carrying out all the functions of an independent economic entity (with founders and an ownership structure) without previously informing the national competition authorities, as required by national competition legislation or Council Regulation 139/2004/EC of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (depending on whether the concentration qualifies as having a Community dimension), is consistent with Community competition law?
Mener Kommissionen, at bestemmelserne i artikel 3, 5, 9, 10 og 11 er i overensstemmelse med EU's lovgivning om statsstøtte?
Does the Commission think that the provisions of Articles 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 are consistent with Community legislation on state aid?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4194/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4194/08
Om: Spørgsmål i forbindelse med bygningen af den ungarske del af South Stream-gasrørledningen med særligt henblik på EU's momsbestemmelser
Subject: Question concerning the construction of the Hungarian section of the South Stream gas pipeline, with particular regard to EU legislation on value added tax
I henhold til artikel 11 i aftalen lover den ungarske part, at selskabet under gennemførelsen af projektet — dvs. planlægningen, bygningen og driften af rørledningen — vil nyde godt af de mest favorable told- og beskatningsbetingelser.
According to Article 11 of the Agreement, the Hungarian party undertakes that, during implementation of the project — i.e. the planning, construction and operation of the pipeline — the company will benefit from the most favourable customs and tax conditions.
Dette omfatter bl.a. momsfritagelse indtil fristen for indgivelse af momserklæringen for det udstyr og de komponenter, materialer og tjenester, der er brug for til udførelse af arbejdet i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af projektet.
These envisage, among other things, VAT exemption until the deadline for returns for the equipment and components, materials and services necessary for carrying out work during implementation of the project.
Mener Kommissionen, at bestemmelserne i artikel 11 i den aftale, der er nævnt ovenfor, er i overensstemmelse med Rådets direktiv 2006/112/EF af 28. november 2006 om det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem?
Does the Commission think that the provision contained in Article 11 of the Agreement mentioned above is consistent with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?
Hørte den ungarske regering Kommissionen, inden den gav den momsfritagelse, der er beskrevet i artikel 11, og fik den en undtagelse i denne henseende?
Did the Hungarian Government engage in prior consultation with the Commission before granting the VAT exemption described in Article 11, and was it given a derogation in this regard?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4195/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4195/08
Om: Spørgsmål i forbindelse med bygningen af den ungarske del af South Stream-gasrørledningen med særligt henblik på EU-direktiverne vedrørende gasmarkedet
Subject: Question concerning the construction of the Hungarian section of the South Stream gas pipeline, with particular regard to the EU directives on the gas market
Aftalen vedrører bygningen af den ungarske del af South Stream-gasrørledningen og gælder for mindst 30 år.
The Agreement concerns construction of the Hungarian section of the South Stream pipeline and will be in force for at least 30 years.
I henhold til aftalen vil de to grundlæggere — den ungarske udviklingsbank og Gazprom PLC — efter ungarsk lov etablere et fællesforetagende i Ungarn med 50/50 ejerskab, der skal bygge den ungarske del af rørledningen.
According to the Agreement, a joint enterprise with a 50‑50 ownership share will be established in Hungary, under Hungarian law, by the two founders — the Hungarian Development Bank and Gazprom PLC — to construct the Hungarian section of the pipeline.
Mener Kommissionen, at den rørledning, der beskrives i aftalen, kan klassificeres som et »transmissionssystem« og det selskab, der skal registreres efter ungarsk lov, som en »transmissionssystemoperatør« i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv om fælles regler for det indre marked for naturgas?
Does the Commission consider that, pursuant to Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, the pipeline described in the Agreement qualifies as a ‘transmission system’ and the company which is to be registered under Hungarian law as a ‘transmission system operator’?
Mener Kommissionen, at artikel 18 i direktivet bør være gældende for den rørledning, der er beskrevet i aftalen?
Does the Commission think that Article 18 of the directive should be applied to the pipeline described in the Agreement?
Er denne bestemmelse efter Kommissionens opfattelse i overensstemmelse med direktivet og især med direktivets artikel 18?
In the Commission’s opinion, is this provision consistent with the provisions of the directive and in particular with Article 18 of the directive?
I henhold til aftalen har den russiske grundlægger ret til at udnytte hele rørledningens kapacitet.
According to the Agreement, ‘the Russian founder shall have utilisation rights for the total capacity of the pipeline.’
Mener Kommissionen, at denne bestemmelse er i overensstemmelse med direktivet?
Does the Commission think that this provision is consistent with the directive?
Anmodede den ungarske regering, inden den skrev under på aftalen, som er juridisk bindende, om en undtagelse fra direktivet, for så vidt angår tredjeparts adgang?
Did the Hungarian Government request a derogation from the provisions of the directive concerning third party access before signing this provision, which is legally binding?
Handlede den ungarske regering i benægtende fald i overensstemmelse med direktivet, da den skrev under på og godkendte aftalen?
If not, was the Hungarian Government acting in accordance with the directive when it signed and approved the Agreement?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4196/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4196/08
Om: Bedre information i forbindelse med afsætning af fisk
Subject: More information on fish being sold
I forbindelse med den alvorlige situation, som fiskerisektoren befinder sig i på nuværende tidspunkt, er der behov for at øge kontrollen med import af fremmede arter til fællesmarkedet samt sikre størst mulig gennemsigtighed for forbrugeren, hvad angår de produkter, som sælges til forbrug.
In the current major fishing industry crisis foreign imports being sold on the Community market need to be more heavily monitored and consumers need maximum transparency with regard to the products on sale.
I den forbindelse bør der skelnes tydeligt mellem fiskeprodukter, som kommer enten fra EF-flåden, import eller akvakulturen.
We need to differentiate clearly between fish caught by the European fleet, imported fish, and aquacultural products.
Hvordan forholder Kommissionen sig til muligheden for, at der i fiskebutikkerne i EU foretages en klar opdeling, så der anvendes særskilte diske til fisk fra henholdsvis EF-flåden, akvakulturen og import?
How does the Commission view the need to ensure that wild fishery products caught by the European fleet, aquaculture products and imported fish should be totally differentiated from each other and, furthermore, sold at different counters?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4197/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4197/08
Om: Situationen for tidligere ansatte og familiemedlemmer til ofre med tilknytning til uranfabrikken i Andújar (Jaén, Spanien)
Subject: Andújar Uranium Factory (Jaen-Spain): former workers and the families of victims
Ifølge de foreliggende oplysninger er mere end 50 tidligere ansatte på en uranfabrik i Andújar døde af kræft, knogleskørhed, lunge- eller nyreproblemer som følge af, at de på deres arbejdsplads var udsat for ioniserende strålinger, uden at der var truffet passende beskyttelsesforanstaltninger.
The available data indicate that more than 50 Andújar Uranium Factory (AUF) workers have died from cancer, degenerative bone disease or lung and kidney problems, as a result of having been exposed by their work to ionising radiation without adequate protection during the 22 years that the AUF was in operation from 1959 to 1981.
De tidligere ansatte har været igennem omfattende lægeundersøgelser foretaget af rådet for sundhed i Andalusien i et forsøg på at fastslå strålingernes mulige indvirkning på sundheden.
These former workers were all given in-depth medical examinations under the auspices of the Andalucian Autonomous Government’s Ministry of Health, with a view to establishing the possible effects of the radiation on their health.
I 2002 gennemførte hospitalet i Andújar en lignende undersøgelse af 48 tidligere ansatte og 115 familiemedlemmer, og i 2005 blev en tredje undersøgelse iværksat i Granada, som involverede 43 personer.
In 2002, the Andújar hospital carried out a fresh health check on 48 workers and 115 family members, and a third study of 43 patients was carried out in 2005 in Granada.
Undersøgelsernes resultater har bl.a. påvist vejrtrækningsproblemer, hjerte- og nyreproblemer samt tilfælde af svulster.
As a result of these tests, respiratory, cardiac and kidney problems, as well as cases of tumours were detected.
Det spanske ministerium for arbejds- og socialanliggender og rådet for sundhed i Andalusien underskrev i slutningen af februar 2006 en protokol, hvori de fastsatte en fælles handlingsplan i forbindelse med de lægelige vurderinger af fabrikkens tidligere ansatte.
The Spanish Labour and Social Affairs Ministry and the Andalucian Health Ministry signed a protocol at the end of February 2006, committing them to joint action on assessing the state of health of the former AUF workers.
Ministeren forklarede dengang, at initiativet havde til formål at påvise, at 50 arbejderes dødsfald og de sygdomme, der førte dertil, har relation til de ioniserende strålinger, som de tidligere ansatte var udsat for, uden at der var truffet forebyggende og beskyttende foranstaltninger.
The Health Minister explained at the time that this initiative was seeking to show that the deaths of the 50 workers, and the illnesses which caused them, were related to exposure at work to ionising radiation without the requisite prevention and protection.
Til trods for at der er foretaget undersøgelser, der dokumenterer, at der er en årsagsforbindelse, har den kompetente myndighed endnu ikke anerkendt de tidligere ansattes problemer som en erhvervssygdom eller anerkendt de rettigheder, som måtte følge deraf, både for de ansatte og for de afdødes enker og familiemedlemmer.
Despite the fact that conclusive reports exist on the cause-and-effect relationship, the competent body has not yet declared that these former workers suffer from work-related illness, nor recognised the rights accruing there from both for the workers themselves and for the widows and families of those who have died.
Mener Kommissionen ikke på denne baggrund, at de spanske myndigheder skal fremlægge en løsning på dette problem og erstatte de skader, som det er konstateret og bevist, at de tidligere ansatte lider under som følge af deres arbejde på uranfabrikken i Andújar?
Does the Commission not think that the Spanish authorities need to find a solution to this problem, and provide compensation for the identified and proven prejudice suffered by these workers while they were working in the Andújar Uranium Factory?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til lignende tilfælde i andre medlemsstater?
Is the Commission aware of similar situations in any other Member States?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4198/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4198/08
Om: Uheld i Tricastin, Frankrig
Subject: Incident at Tricastin, France
På atomkraftværket i Tricastin, Frankrig, er der sket et uheld, hvor der slap vand ud med et uranindhold på 12 g/l.
An incident took place at the Tricastin nuclear facility in France, involving the leakage of water with a uranium content of approx.
Senere korrigerede Socatri, der driver værket, mængden til 6,25 m 3 , altså ca. 75 kg uran.
Initial reports gave a figure of 30 m 3 ; this was later corrected by Socatri, which operates the plant, to 6.25 m 3 , which corresponds to around 75 kg of uranium.
Socatri er et datterselskab, der ejes 100 % af Eurodif, som driver et stort uranberigelsesanlæg i Tricastin.
Socatri is a 100 % subsidiary of Eurodif, which operates a large uranium enrichment plant at Tricastin.
Dette uheld blev kendt om eftermiddagen den 8. juli 2008.
The leak was discovered during the afternoon of 8 July 2008.
Ifølge atomtilsynsmyndigheden ASN er vandet sluppet ud allerede natten mellem den 7. og 8. juli.
According to the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), the water had already leaked out in the night of 7‑8 July.
Efter denne hændelse er det blevet forbudt at hente vand fra floderne, vande markerne med vand fra floderne og at bade og fiske i floderne i nærheden.
As a consequence of the incident, a ban on water abstraction from local rivers, irrigation of fields using river water and swimming and fishing in local rivers was introduced.
Desuden har man i tre kommuner lukket for den centrale drikkevandsforsyning.
In three municipalities the main drinking water supply was also switched off.
Uheldet blev klassificeret til trin 1 efter INES-skalaen.
The accident was given a rating of 1 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).
Jeg beder i denne forbindelse Kommissionen besvare følgende spørgsmål: 1.
In connection with the above I would like to ask the Commission the following: 1.
Er Kommissionen blevet underrettet af den franske operatør eller tilsynsmyndigheden? 2.
Did the Commission receive notification of the incident from the French operator or supervisory body? 2.
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, fra hvilket tidspunkt de involverede parter og myndighederne kendte til kontaminationen af floderne? 3.
Does the Commission know when the parties concerned and the authorities found out about the contamination of the rivers? 3.
Hvor lang tid gik der mellem, at kontaminationen blev opdaget, offentligheden informeret og beskyttelsesforanstaltningerne og forbuddene iværksat? 4.
How much time elapsed between the discovery of the contamination, the public being notified and the introduction of protective measures and bans? 4.
Fra hvilke anlæg stammer dette meget uranholdige flydende affald? 5.
From which installations did this liquid waste with high uranium content originate? 5.
Ved hvilken aktivitet er dette affald opstået? 6.
What process gave rise to this waste? 6.
Socatri har allerede i 2007 haft en overskridelse af den tilladte årlige emission af radioaktivt kulstof.
In 2007, Socatri recorded emissions of radioactive carbon which were in excess of the permitted annual amount.
Påtænker Kommissionen at kontrollere Frankrigs forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 35 i Euratomtraktaten på den nævnte virksomheds hjemsted?
Does the Commission intend to verify whether France is complying with its obligations under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty at the premises of the Socatri company?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4199/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4199/08
Om: Nedbringelse af fattigdom frem for nedsættelse af fødevareforbrug
Subject: Reduce poverty rather than cut consumption of food
Kan Kommissionen meddele regeringen for Det Forenede Kongerige, at det ville være bedre at nedbringe fattigdommen, særligt blandt pensionister, frem for — som nogle foreslår — at begrænse supermarkedstilbud som »køb en og få en gratis«, der er så vigtige for pensionister og lavindkomstfamilier?
Can the Commission indicate to the Government of the UK that it would be preferable for it to eliminate poverty, especially amongst pensioners, than to restrict, as some suggest, the ‘buy one get one free’ supermarket offers that are so important to pensioners and low-income families?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4200/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4200/08
Om: Fangst og handel med akvariedyr fra havet med henblik på salg i EU
Subject: Collection and trade of ornamental marine species for sale in the EU
Mange typer fisk fanges fra rev og andre havmiljøer i hele verden med henblik på salg til akvariebrug i EU.
A wide variety of marine fish are collected from reefs and other marine environments all over the world in order to supply livestock to the ornamental fish trade throughout the EU.
Træffer Kommissionen på nuværende tidspunkt forholdsregler for at sikre, at fangsten af disse havdyr er bæredygtig og således ikke en trussel for overlevelsen af de fangede individuelle arter eller biodiversiteten i det skrøbelige havmiljø, de fanges i?
Does the Commission take any measures currently to ensure that these marine animals are collected in a sustainable way that does not threaten either the survival of the individual species collected or the biodiversity of the fragile marine environments from where they are caught?
Vil Kommissionen i fremtiden træffe lovgivningsforanstaltninger, der sikrer, at der kun handles med akvariefisk, som kommer fra bæredygtige kilder?
Will the Commission be taking any legislative measures in the future to ensure that the ornamental fish trade only imports marine animals from sustainable sources?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4201/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4201/08
Om: Plasmadonation versus bloddonation
Subject: Plasma vs blood donation
I EU sikrer sameksistensen af systemer for frivillig bloddonation (donoren får ofte belønning, som f.eks. fri fra arbejde eller symbolske godtgørelser), som der udvindes plasma fra, og systemer for frivillig godtgjort plasmadonation (hvor donoren får godtgjort udgifter og ulejlighed som følge af donationen) en passede forsyning af livsvigtige plasmabaserede lægemidler til patienter med behov for det.
In the European Union, a co-existence of voluntary blood donation systems (often proposing rewards to donors, e.g. time off work, tokens) from which plasma is recovered, and voluntary compensated plasma donation systems (where the donor is compensated for the expenses and inconveniences related to the donation) ensures an adequate supply of life-saving, plasma-derived medicinal products to patients in need.
Mit hjemland, Tyskland, er et godt eksempel på, hvordan denne sameksistens bidrager til at sikre en passende plasmaforsyning.
My home state, Germany, is a very good example of how this co-existence contributes to providing appropriate plasma supply.
EU-medlemsstater, der tillader godtgørelse af plasmadonorers tid og udgifter, udgør en betydelig andel af den europæiske plasmaforsyning.
In fact, EU Member States which do allow compensation of plasma donors for their time and the expenses incurred account for a significant proportion of the European supply of plasma.