natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det såkaldte E1-­projekt til udvidelse af Ma'ale Adumim afvises definitivt.
The so-called E1 project to extend Ma'ale Adumim is deemed totally unacceptable.
(Donald Macintyre, »Secret EU report launches scathing attack on Israel«, The Independent, 25. november 2005).
(Donald Macintyre, ‘Secret EU report launches scathing attack on Israel’, The Independent , 25 November 2005).
I november 2005 nedlagde udenrigsministrene veto mod offentliggørelse af denne rapport, men den 12. december 2005 behandledes den på ny af EU's udenrigsministre (Lisbeth Kirk, »Secret EU report slams Israeli Jerusalem policy«, EUobserver.com, 25. november 2005).
In November 2005 the Foreign Affairs Ministers vetoed the publication of this report but they are due to discuss the report again on 12 December 2005 (Lisbeth Kirk, ‘Secret EU report slams Israeli Jerusalem policy’, EUobserver.com, 25 November 2005).
Hvilke diplomater har udarbejdet denne rapport?
Which diplomats drew up this report?
Hvilke institutioner og personer (uanset på hvilket område) er hørt under udarbejdelsen af denne rapport?
What organisations and individuals (in whatever area) were consulted during the drafting of the report?
Har der været en form for institutionaliserede drøftelser?
Was there any form of institutionalised consultation?
Har den israelske regering haft mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger til denne rapport, inden den fik »definitiv status«?
Did the Israeli Government have the opportunity to make observations on the report before it was finalised?
Fremsættes der i denne rapport en henstilling til palæstinenserne om officielt at anerkende det jødiske samfunds historiske forbindelse til Jerusalem?
Did the report make any recommendations to the Palestinians that they should officially recognise the Jewish community's historic link with Jerusalem?
Henvises der i denne rapport til den palæstinensiske afvisning af den israelske premierminister Ehud Baraks indrømmelser i 2000?
Did the report mention the Palestinian rejection of the concessions granted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000?
Skriftlige forespørgsler : E-4654/05 , E-0089/06 , E-4864/05
Written questions : E-4654/05 , E-0089/06 , E-4864/05
Det emne, der rejses i de ærede parlamentsmedlemmers forespørgsler, blev taget op af statssekretær Hans Winkler i hans indlæg på Europa-Parlamentets plenarmøde den 1. februar 2006 og af udenrigsminister Jack Straw på pressekonferencen efter samlingen i Rådet (almindelige anliggender og eksterne forbindelser) den 12. december 2005.
The subject of the questions raised by the Honourable Members was addressed by State Secretary Hans Winkler in his intervention on the occasion of the European Parliament's plenary of 1 February 2006 as well as by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at the Press Conference following the Council meeting on General Affairs and External Relations of 12 December 2005.
De relevante rådsorganer var af Rådet blevet pålagt at forelægge en detaljeret EU-­analyse om Østjerusalem på grundlag af bidrag fra EU-­missionerne i Jerusalem og Ramallah.
Relevant Council bodies were tasked by the Council with submitting a detailed EU analysis on East Jerusalem based on contributions from EU missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah.
Rådet besluttede, at denne EU-­analyse ikke skulle offentliggøres, og at EU i stedet skulle fortsætte med kraftigt at protestere over for Israels regering i denne sag.
The Council decided that this EU analysis would not be published and that the EU would instead continue to make strong representations to the Government of Israel about the matter.
Statssekretær Hans Winkler oplyste over for Europa-Parlamentet, at der i mellemtiden var blevet foretaget to demarcher: en demarche fra EU-­trojkaen til det israelske udenrigsministerium og en demarche fra formandskabet til de største israelske partier henholdsvis den 19. og den 23. december 2005.
State Minister Winkler informed the European Parliament that two demarches were lodged in the meantime: an EU Troïka demarche in the Israeli Foreign Ministry and a Presidency demarche on the main Israeli parties on 19 and 23 December 2005 respectively.
På baggrund af beslutningen om ikke at offentliggøre EU-­analysen er Rådet ikke i stand til at føje noget yderligere til de oplysninger, der er blevet givet i ovennævnte indlæg eller i svar på forespørgsler fra medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet.
Against the background of its decision not to publish this EU analysis, the Council is in no position to add any further information to that which was given in the abovementioned interventions or answers to questions of Members of the European Parliament.
Rådet er bevidst om alle aspekter af spørgsmålet om Østjerusalem.
The Council remains aware of all aspects of the issue of East Jerusalem.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4655/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4655/05
Om: Offentlighed i lovgivningsprocessen i Rådet
Subject: Public legislative process in the Council
I en særlig rapport af 4. oktober 2005 til Europa-Parlamentet (udarbejdet efter en klage fra Elmer Brok, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet) fastslog Den Europæiske Ombudsmand, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, at samlingerne i Rådet bør være offentlige, også når Rådet udarbejder lovgivning.
In a special report of 4 October 2005 to the European Parliament (drawn up in response to a complaint by Mr Brok, Member of the European Parliament), the European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros said that meetings of the Council should be held in public even when the Council is enacting legislation.
Ifølge ombudsmanden må Rådet blot ændre sin forretningsorden (særlig rapport fra Den Europæiske Ombudsmand til Europa-Parlamentet efter forslag til henstilling til Rådet for Den Europæiske Union i klage 2395/­2003/­GG, 4. oktober 2005).
According to Mr Diamandouros, all that needs to be done would be for Council to amend its Rules of Procedure (Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG, 4 October 2005).
I denne forbindelse bør der også henvises til artikel I-50, stk. 2, i udkastet til forfatning for Europa, som klart fastslår: »Europa-Parlamentets møder er offentlige, og det gælder også Ministerrådets samlinger, når det behandler og vedtager lovgivningsforslag«.
In this context, reference should also be made to Article I-50(2) of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which clearly says that ‘the European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act’.
Denne traktat er ganske vist så godt som død, men blev i sin tid undertegnet af repræsentanter for alle medlemsstater.
Although this Treaty is as good as dead, at the time it was signed by representatives of all the Member States.
Vil Rådet følge denne rapport og ombudsmandens henstillinger og ændre sin forretningsorden som krævet?
Will the Council go along with Mr Diamandouros' report and recommendations and make the required changes to its Rules of Procedure?
Hvad er i benægtende fald den konkrete årsag til ikke at gøre det?
If not, what are the exact reasons for not doing so?
Og hvorledes vil Rådet begrunde denne nægtelse i lyset af artikel I-50, stk. 2, i udkastet til forfatning for Europa, som alle medlemsstater har godkendt?
How does the Council justify this refusal in the light of Article I‑50(2) of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which was approved by all the Member States?
Som svar på spørgsmålet fra det ærede parlamentsmedlem vil Rådet gerne henvise til sit svar på skriftlig forespørgsel nr. E-­3934/­05.
In reply to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would refer to its reply to Written Question E‑3934/05 .
Som allerede påpeget i det pågældende svar er vedtagelse — og ændring — af Rådets forretningsorden, der er baseret på EF-­traktatens artikel 207, stk. 3, ikke en administrativ handling, der kan have karakter af fejl eller forsømmelse; det er snarere et institutionelt og politisk anliggende og falder således uden for ombudsmandens mandat.
As already pointed out in that reply, the adoption of — as well as any amendment to — the Council's rules of procedure, based on Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty, is not an act of ‘(mal)administration’, but rather an institutional and political matter, which, consequently, falls outside the scope of the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Rådet er af den opfattelse, at dets forretningsorden er i fuld overensstemmelse med de eksisterende traktater.
The Council is of the view that its rules of procedure are in full conformity with the existing Treaties.
Som det ærede parlamentsmedlem måske ved, vedtog Rådet den 21. december 2005 en række konklusioner om mere åbenhed og gennemsigtighed i Rådet
As the Honourable Member may know, the Council on 21 December 2005 adopted a set of conclusions on improving openness and transparency in the Council.
Når Rådet handler i henhold til den fælles beslutningsprocedure, er dets drøftelser ifølge den nye praksis tilgængelige for offentligheden i forbindelse med
Thus, under the new practice, when the Council acts under the co-decision procedure, its deliberations are open to the public with regard to: —
alle Rådets afsluttende forhandlinger, dvs. alle drøftelser på rådsniveau, der finder sted, når de andre institutioner eller organer har afgivet udtalelse Andre debatter om spørgsmål, der er omfattet af den fælles beslutningsprocedure (på mellemliggende stadier) kan, når det er relevant, også gøres tilgængelige for offentligheden.
all of the Council's final deliberations, i.e. all discussions at Council level which take place once the other institutions or bodies have delivered their opinions Other Council deliberations on items which come under the co-decision procedure (at intermediate stages) may also, where appropriate, be open to the public. ;
afstemningen, idet resultatet af den vises på den tv-­skærm, der transmitterer afstemningen til offentligheden.
the vote, the result of which is displayed on the screen which relays the vote to the public.
Rådet har desuden besluttet: —
Moreover, the Council has decided to: —
at holde flere offentlige debatter om andre væsentlige nye lovgivningsforslag end dem, der er omfattet af den fælles beslutningsprocedure
hold more public debates on other major new legislative proposals (items other than those which come under the co-decision procedure);
at holde flere offentlige debatter om ikke-lovgivningsmæssige punkter i relation til vigtige spørgsmål, der vedrører EU's og dets borgeres interesser.
hold more public debates on non‑legislative items concerning important issues which affect the interests of the Union and its citizens.
Konklusionerne fastslår endvidere, at for at sikre offentligheden størst mulig adgang vil alle offentlige debatter og forhandlinger og offentlige afstemninger om spørgsmål, der er omfattet af den fælles beslutningsprocedure, fra sommeren 2006 blive transmitteret på alle sprog gennem videostreaming på Rådets websted.
The conclusions further state that, in order to ensure as wide an access as possible to the general public, all public debates and deliberations, as well as public votes on co-decision items, will be broadcast in all languages through video-streaming on the Council’s Internet website from the summer of 2006.
Med vedtagelsen af disse konklusioner har Rådet besluttet at lade ovennævnte foranstaltninger træde i kraft med øjeblikkelig virkning.
When adopting these conclusions, the Council decided to give immediate effect to the measures referred to above.
Under det østrigske og det finske formandskab vil Rådet foretage en vurdering af, hvordan disse foranstaltninger fungerer, og i lyset af denne vurdering vil det overveje alle muligheder for yderligere at forbedre åbenheden og gennemsigtigheden, bl.a. en eventuel ændring af forretningsordenen.
During the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies, the Council will assess the functioning of these measures, and in the light of this assessment consider all possible options for further improving openness and transparency, including, inter alia , the possibility of amending its rules of procedure.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4656/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4656/05
Den 28. juli 2005 undertegnede EU og Marokko en ny fiskeriaftale, der skal træde i kraft i marts 2006 og gælde i fire år.
The EU and Morocco signed a new fisheries agreement on 28 July 2005, which enters into force in March 2006 and is to last for four years.
I bytte for tildeling af store kvoter til europæiske fiskerfartøjer i landets territorialfarvand får Marokko en finansiel kompensation på 144 mio. EUR.
Morocco will receive financial compensation of 144 million euros for giving large quotas to European trawlers in its territorial waters.
Navnlig spaniere og portugisere profiterer af denne foranstaltning.
It is primarily Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who will benefit from these measures.
Også territorialfarvandet tilhørende det besatte Vestsahara skulle være omfattet af denne aftale.
The agreement apparently also covers the territorial waters of the occupied Western Sahara.
Heri fastslås det, at Marokko ikke er den retmæssige administrative myndighed over Vestsahara (»Morocco-EU fisheries deal finally renewed«, Afrol News, 28. juli 2005).
That opinion stated that Morocco is not the legitimate administrative authority for Western Sahara (‘Morocco-EU fisheries deal finally renewed’, Afrol News , 28 July 2005).
USA har eksplicit udelukket Vestsahara fra sin frihandelsaftale med Marokko.
The United States has explicitly excluded Western Sahara from its free-trade agreement with Morocco.
Marokko og Vestsahara har aftalt, at der i fremtiden under FN-­kontrol skal afholdes en folkeafstemning, men denne er gentagne gange blevet udsat.
Both Morocco and Western Sahara have agreed that at some stage a referendum should be held in the area under UN supervision, but this has repeatedly been postponed.
Er Vestsaharas territorialfarvand — med dettes fiskebestande — faktisk omfattet af aftalen?
Are the territorial waters of Western Sahara, and their fish stocks, in fact included in the agreement?
Er denne aftale i så fald ikke i modstrid med FN-­udtalelsen?
If so, is this agreement not at odds with the UN opinion?
Forholder det sig i så fald ikke sådan, at fiskeriaftalen legaliserer Marokkos ulovlige besættelse af Vestsahara og i endnu højere grad vanskeliggør afholdelse af en folkeafstemning?
Is it not then the case that the fisheries agreement legalises the illegal occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco and makes the holding of a referendum even more difficult?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4657/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4657/05
Om: Menneskerettighedskrænkelser i Tunesien
Subject: Human rights violations in Tunisia
Ifølge forskellige arabiske diplomater var den tunesiske præsident, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, ikke til stede på topmødet mellem EU og Middelhavslandene den 27.-­28. november 2005, fordi han ikke ønskede at høre EU-­kritik om menneskerettigheder og ytringsfrihed (Teresa Küchler, Terror definition causes trouble at EU-Mediterranean summit (EUobserver.com, 28. november 2005).
According to various Arab diplomats, the Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, preferred not to attend the Euro-Mediterranean summit on 27-28 November 2005 rather than be lectured by the Europeans on democracy, human rights and freedom of expression (Teresa Küchler, Terror definition causes trouble at EU-Mediterranean summit (EUobserver.com, 28 November 2005).
Situationen i Tunesien på dette område er bekymrende.
The human rights situation in Tunisia gives cause for serious concern.
Ironisk nok blev FN's topmøde om informationssamfundet i november 2005 afholdt i Tunesien.
Ironically enough, the UN Summit on the information society took place in Tunisia in November 2005.
Mens pressefrihed, internet og ytringsfrihed var de centrale spørgsmål på dette topmøde, hindredes forskellige tunesiske organisationer, der kæmper for presse- og ytringsfrihed, i at komme til orde. (»Never again Tunisia«, Afrol News, 18. november 2005).
While freedom of the press, the Internet and freedom of expression were central issues at this summit, all manner of Tunisian organisations campaigning for press freedom and freedom of expression were prevented from making statements (‘Never again Tunisia’, Afrol News , 18 November 2005).
Den bekymrende situation i Tunesien er allerede blevet taget op flere gange.
The worrying situation in Tunisia has been raised on numerous occasions in the past.
Lige inden associeringsrådet med Tunesien i februar 2005 overdrog den internationale sammenslutning af forlæggere (IPA) EU en lang liste over bøger, der er forbudt i Tunesien.
On the eve of the EU-Tunisia Association Council Meeting in February 2005, the International Publishers' Association (IPA) handed over a long list of Tunisian banned books to the EU.
Der henvistes til, at bøger forbydes, websteder blokeres og de statslige medier dominerer i Tunesien. (»Total censorship remains in place in Tunisia«, Afrol News, 2. februar 2005).
It was pointed out that in Tunisia books are prohibited, websites blocked and the state media are in a dominant position (‘Total censorship remains in place in Tunisia’, Afrol News , 2 February 2005).
EU har med Tunesien indgået en associeringsaftale, hvori der indgår en bindende menneskerettighedsklausul.
The EU has an association agreement with Tunisia containing a legally binding human rights clause.
Naboskabshandlingsprogrammet for Tunesien trådte i kraft den 4. juli 2005.
The neighbourhood action plan for Tunisia came into force on 4 July 2005.
Det indeholder en række foranstaltninger på menneskerettighedsområdet.
It contains a series of measures on human rights.
Tunesien forpligter sig med denne handlingsplan til at fremme demokrati og menneskerettigheder.
Under the plan Tunisia is committed to promoting democracy and human rights.
Hvorledes vil Kommissionen reagere på den tunesiske præsidents fravær på topmødet?
How will the Commission react to the Tunisian President’s absence from the summit?
Finder Kommissionen, at situationen i Tunesien er en overtrædelse af associeringsaftalen og naboskabshandlingsprogrammet?
Does the Commission consider that the situation in Tunisia is a breach of the association agreement and the neighbourhood action plan?
Hvilke skridt vil den i bekræftende fald træffe?
If so, what action does it intend to take?
Hvor store finansielle midler er der allerede over MEDA-programmet og via Den Europæiske Investeringsbank investeret i projekter og andre aktiviteter på områderne menneskerettigheder, det civile samfund og demokrati?
What financial resources have already been invested through the MEDA programme and by the European Investment Bank in projects and other measures in the area of human rights, civil society and democracy?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4658/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4658/05
Om: Reform af EU's sukkermarked
Subject: Reform of the EU sugar market
Den 24. november meddelte den britiske miljø- og landbrugsminister, Margaret Beckett, og kommissæren for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter, Mariann Fischer Boel, at EU's landbrugsministre var nået til enighed om reformen af sukkermarkedet.
On 24 November the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, and the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel, announced that the EU Ministers for Agriculture had reached agreement on the reform of the sugar market.
Rådets beslutningsproces på dette område er baseret på proceduren med høring af Europa-Parlamentet.
The Council decision-making process in this matter is based on the consultation procedure with the European Parliament.
Parlamentet vil sandsynligvis først vedtage sin udtalelse herom på plenarforsamlingen i januar 2006.
Parliament will most probably not adopt its opinion on the matter until its part-session in January 2006.
Hvorledes vil forslagene i Parlamentets udtalelse kunne realiseres, når Rådet allerede har truffet beslutning om den fremtidige udformning af EU's sukkermarked?
How are the suggestions set out in Parliament's opinion to be put to good use when the Council has already decided on the shape that the reform of the EU sugar market is to take?
(1. juni 2006)
(1 June 2006)
Efter at Europa-Parlamentet havde afgivet udtalelse den 19. januar 2006, nåede Rådet til enighed om reformen af sukkermarkedet på samlingen den 20. februar 2006.
Further to the delivery of the European Parliament opinion on 19 January 2006, the Council reached agreement on the reform of the sugar market at its session on 20 February 2006.
I overensstemmelse med landbrugsminister Josef Prölls tilsagn i Udvalget om Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter den 25. januar 2006 blev Europa‑Parlamentets udtalelse behandlet indgående i Rådet forud for vedtagelsen af forordningerne.
In line with the commitment given by Minister Pröll in his appearance before the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 25 January 2006, the European Parliament's opinion was indeed examined closely by Council before the regulations were adopted.
Der mindes om, at Rådet på den samling i november 2005, som det ærede medlem nævner, kun nåede til enighed om en generel indstilling vedrørende reformen med forbehold af Europa‑Parlamentets udtalelse.
It is recalled that at the Council meeting in November 2005 referred to by the Honourable Member, the Council agreed only on a general approach to the reform, without prejudice to the opinion of the Parliament.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4659/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4659/05
Om: Mandelson om investeringer i vand
Subject: Mandelson on investment in water
På den moderate EU-parlamentariker Christofer Fjellners weblog beskrives der under den 24. november 2005 et privat møde, som fandt sted mellem Peter Mandelson og medlemmer af højregruppen PPE.
On 24 November 2005, the moderate MEP Christoffer Fjellner described in his blog a private meeting which had taken place between Peter Mandelson and members of the rightwing PPE Group.
Af teksten fremgår det, at Mandelson under mødet spontant sagde, »at fattige lande må åbne deres markeder for investeringer i vand, hvilket er højst kontroversielt«.
He wrote that during the meeting Mandelson had spontaneously stated that ‘poor countries must open their markets for investment in water, something which is highly controversial’.
Samtidig kan man på Generaldirektoratet for Handels hjemmeside læse følgende i afsnittet om GATS-overenskomsten: »EU requests do not touch on the issue of access to (water) ressources and in no way undermine or reduce governments' ability to regulate pricing, availability and affordability of water supplies as they choose«.
At the same time it is possible to read the following in the GATS section of the Trade DG's own home page: ‘EU requests do not touch on the issue of access to (water) resources and in no way undermine or reduce governments’ ability to regulate pricing, availability and affordability of water supplies as they choose'.
Disse to udtalelser forekommer paradoksale.
These two different statements may be regarded as paradoxical.
Har Christoffer Fjellner misforstået Peter Mandelson, eller er kommentaren et udtryk for, at Kommissionen har ændret sin holdning i spørgsmålet om krav om deregulering af vandsektoren i fattige lande?
Did Christoffer Fjellner misunderstand Peter Mandelson, or does the comment indicate that the Commission has changed its position on the issue of requiring poor countries to deregulate their water industries?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4662/05
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4662/05
Om: Udledning af ubehandlet spildevand i Las Palmas på Gran Canaria (Spanien)
Subject: Dumping of untreated sewage into the sea at Las Palmas (Gran Canaria, Spain)
Las Palmas kommune på Gran Canaria har i gentagne tilfælde overtrådt artikel 4 i direktiv 91/271/EF, som ændret ved direktiv 98/­15/­EF om rensning af byspildevand.
The municipal council of Las Palmas (Gran Canaria, Spain) is in persistent breach of Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EC, as amended by Directive 98/15/EC, which regulates the discharge of urban waste water.
I henhold til direktivet skal der foretages en passende rensning af spildevand fra byområder.
The directive makes it compulsory to subject urban waste water to a proper treatment process.