natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9097/2010
Question for written answer E-9097/2010
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som gerne vil se mere effektive foranstaltninger til at bekæmpe børnepornografi.
I have been contacted by a constituent who would like to see more effective action to tackle child pornography.
Min vælger mener, at det i dag er ulovligt at downloade børnepornografi, men det er stadig lovligt at se det.
My constituent believes that it is currently illegal to download child pornography, but still legal to view it.
Hun ønsker, at den britiske regering og andre EU-medlemsstater skal gøre det forbudt at se sådant materiale, dog med en undtagelse for politiefterforskere, der aktivt forfølger lovovertrædere, som har gemt pornografiske billeder på deres computere.
She would like to see the British Government and other EU Member States outlaw the viewing of such material, with an exemption for police detectives who are actively tracking offenders who have stored pornographic images on their computers.
Har Kommissionen planer om et forbud mod at se børnepornografi, undtagen i forbindelse med retssager?
Does the Commission have any plans to outlaw the viewing of child pornography, except during legal proceedings?
Hvad gør Kommissionen for at bekæmpe downloading og distribution af seksuelle billeder af børn?
What is it doing to tackle the downloading and distribution of sexual images of children?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9098/2010
Question for written answer E-9098/2010
Om: Buskmænd i Central Kalahari-vildtreservatet i Botswana
Subject: Bushmen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en af mine vælgere, som har rejst spørgsmålet om situationen for de 5 000 gana-, gwi- og tsilabuskmænd i Central Kalahari-vildtreservatet i Botswana.
I have been contacted by a constituent who has raised the plight of the 5 000 Gana, Gwi and Tsila bushmen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana.
Min vælger har sendt mig en artikel, hvoraf det fremgår, at der i begyndelsen af 1980'erne blev fundet diamanter i reservatet, og at regeringen derfor beordrede de buskmænd, der levede der, til at forlade området.
My constituent sent me an article which explained that in the early 1980s, diamonds were discovered in the reserve and, as a result, the government ordered the bushmen living there to leave.
I 1997, 2002 og 2005 fandt der tre store forflytninger sted, og næsten alle buskmændene blev tvunget ud af området.
In 1997, 2002 and 2005 there were three big clearances and virtually all the bushmen were forced off the land.
Deres vandforsyning blev taget fra dem, deres hjem blev demonteret, og deres skoler og hospitaler blev lukket.
Their water supply was taken away, their homes were dismantled and their school and hospital were closed.
Derefter blev de truet og ført bort på lastbiler.
Then they were threatened and taken away in trucks.
Buskmændene blev genhuset i lejre uden for reservatet, har ikke mulighed for at jage, og bliver anholdt og slået, hvis de alligevel jager.
The bushmen were resettled in camps outside the reserve, are not able to hunt and are arrested and beaten when they do hunt.
Det hævdes i artiklen, at over 50 buskmænd er blevet arresteret for at jage for at skaffe mad til deres familier, så de nu er afhængige af ydelser fra regeringen, og de er ramt af alkoholisme, kedsomhed, depression og sygdomme som tuberkulose og hiv.
The story claims that more than 50 bushmen were arrested for hunting to feed their families, so that they are now dependent on government handouts and are afflicted by alcoholism, boredom, depression and illnesses such as tuberculosis and HIV.
Det hævdes også i artiklen, at selv om buskmændene i 2006 fik rettens ord for, at de havde ret til at vende tilbage til deres land, har regeringen gjort, hvad den kunne, for at gøre denne tilbagevenden umulig, herunder forbudt dem at benytte en vandboring og at tage deres små gedeflokke med tilbage til reservatet.
The article claims that although in 2006 the bushmen won in court the right to return to their land the government has done everything it can to make their return impossible, including banning them from using a water borehole and from taking their small herds of goats back on to the reserve.
Uden denne adgang til vand må buskmændene kæmpe for at overleve.
Without this access to water, the bushmen are struggling to survive.
Buskmændene har anlagt sag mod regeringen igen for at opnå adgang til deres vandboring.
The bushmen have launched further litigation against the government in a bid to gain access to their borehole.
Der blev afholdt en høring i juni 2010, men dommeren afviste deres anmodning.
A hearing was held in June 2010, but the judge later dismissed their application.
Det berettes også, at regeringen, samtidig med at den nægter buskmændene adgang til vand, har foretaget nye vandboringer kun til vildtet og givet et safariselskab, Wilderness Safaris, tilladelse til at åbne en turistlejr i reservatet.
The report also says that as well as depriving the bushmen of access to water, the government has drilled new boreholes for wildlife only and allowed a safari company, Wilderness Safaris, to open a tourist camp in the reserve.
Gæsterne kan nu sidde ved swimmingpoolen og nippe til deres cocktails, mens buskmændene ved siden af kæmper for at finde vand nok til at overleve.
Guests can now sip cocktails by the swimming pool while the nearby bushmen struggle to find enough water to survive.
Er Kommissionen bekendt med situationen for buskmændene i Central Kalahari-vildtreservatet i Botswana?
Is the Commission aware of the plight of the bushmen of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana?
Hvilket pres lægger den på regeringen i Botswana for at give buskmændene ret til at vende tilbage til deres forfædres land, med adgang til vand og frihed til at jage?
What pressure is it exerting on the Government of Botswana to allow the bushmen to return to their ancestral land, with access to water and the freedom to hunt?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9099/2010
Question for written answer E-9099/2010
Om: Erstatning fra Easyjet
Subject: Easyjet compensation
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som gerne vil vide, om flyselskabet Easyjet bryder EU-lovgivningen.
I have been contacted by a constituent who would like to know if the airline Easyjet is in breach of EC law.
I septembe 2008 fløj min vælger og en ven fra Det Forenede Kongerige til Algarve i Portugal med Easyjet.
In September 2008 my constituent and a friend flew from the UK to the Algarve in Portugal with EasyJet.
Der var ingen problemer på udturen, men hjemrejseflyet blev aflyst af Easyjet mindre end seks timer før den planlagte afgangstid, uden at der blev givet nogen begrundelse.
While there were no problems with the outbound flight, the return flight was cancelled by EasyJet less than six hours before the scheduled departure time, with no reason given.
Min vælger blev kontaktet via e-mail, men ikke telefonisk, selv om han havde givet flyselskabet sine kontaktoplysninger.
My constituent was contacted by e-mail but not by phone, despite having given his contact details to the airline.
Da han ankom til lufthavnen, kunne han ikke finde noget Easyjetpersonale eller få nogen brugbare oplysninger på flyselskabets hjemmeside eller fra dets såkaldte helpline.
When he arrived at the airport, he could not find any EasyJet staff or obtain any useful information on the airline’s website or from its so-called helpline.
Heldigvis havde min vælger sin blackberrytelefon på sig, men mange kunder ankom til lufthavnen helt uvidende om aflysningen.
Fortunately, my constituent had his blackberry with him, but many customers turned up at the airport completely unaware of the cancellation.
Da min vælger og hans ven skulle møde på arbejde den følgende dag, lykkedes det dem uden hjælp fra Easyjet at booke pladser på et andet fly.
Since my constituent and his friend had to be at work the next day, with no help from EasyJet they managed to book seats on another flight.
Der var ikke andre Easyjetfly til rådighed før to dage senere, og de kunne derfor ikke overføre deres booking.
There were no other EasyJet flights available until two days later and thus they could not transfer their booking.
De måtte derfor flyve med et andet flyselskab til Leeds/Bradford-lufthavnen, overnatte i Newcastle og rejse tilbage til Maidenhead næste dag med toget.
They therefore had to take a flight with another airline to Leeds/Bradford airport, stay overnight in Newcastle that evening and then travel back to Maidenhead the next day by train.
De forlangte derefter erstatning for uundgåelige rejseudgifter på ialt 618,41 engelske pund.
They then sought to claim unavoidable travel expenses totalling GBP 618.41.
Min vælger fastholder, at han kun forlanger erstatning for uundgåelige udgifter og ikke forlanger erstatning for visse poster, som han ville være berettiget til at få erstattet.
My constituent is adamant that he is only claiming unavoidable expenses, and is not claiming for certain items in respect of which he would be entitled to reimbursement.
Det er netop denne situation, min vælger og hans ven var ude for.
This is exactly the scenario applicable to my constituent and his friend.
Easyjet nægter imidlertid at erstatte det fulde beløb og tilbyder ca. 260 engelske pund, hvilket er mindre end 50 % af det fulde beløb.
However, EasyJet is refusing to reimburse the full amount, offering approximately GBP 260, which is less than 50 % of the full amount.
Min vælger har skrevet til Easyjets hovedkontor, herunder til direktøren, men har ikke modtaget svar.
My constituent has written to the EasyJet Head Office, including the Chief Executive, but failed to receive a reply.
Easyjets helpline koster 10 pence pr. minut, men tilbyder ikke hjælp.
The EasyJet helpline charges 10p per minute, but offers no help.
Imidlertid anfører Easyjet i en skrivelse en begrundelse for ikke at erstatte det fulde beløb, nemlig den omstændighed, at fordi »Easyjet er et lavprisselskab, må vi sætte grænser for det beløb, vi kan refundere til Dem«.
However, in one piece of correspondence from Easyjet, the airline gives as a reason for not reimbursing the full amount the fact that because ‘Easyjet is a low budget airline we must put limits on the amount of money we can refund you’.
Mener Kommissionen, at Easyjet overtræder Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 om fælles bestemmelser om kompensation og bistand til luftfartspassagerer ved boardingafvisning og ved aflysning eller lange forsinkelser og om ophævelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 295/91?
Does the Commission believe that in this case Easyjet is in violation of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91?
Hvordan agter Kommissionen i bekræftende fald at skride ind over for Easyjet?
If so, what action does it plan to take against EasyJet?
Ifølge artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 om luftfartspassagerers rettigheder har medlemsstaterne pligt til at udpege et eller flere nationale håndhævelsesorganer, der har ansvaret for anvendelse og håndhævelse af denne forordning.
Under Article 16.1. of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passengers rights, each Member State has the obligation to designate one or more National Enforcement Bodies (NEB) responsible for the application and enforcement of the regulation.
Disse nationale håndhævelsesorganer har til opgave at kontrollere, om luftfartsselskaber følger forordningens bestemmelser, og kan pålægge sanktioner ved manglende overholdelse.
These national bodies are in charge of controlling whether airlines comply with the regulation and can impose sanction for non-compliance.
Ifølge forordningens artikel 16, stk. 2, er de nationale håndhævelsesorganer også ansvarlige for at behandle klager fra borgerne.
According to Article 16.2. of the regulation, the NEB are also in charge of handling complaints from citizens.
Kommissionen kan ikke behandle klager fra passagerer eller undersøge deres individuelle sager, og den kan heller ikke sanktionere luftfartsselskaber, som ikke opfylder forordningens bestemmelser.
The Commission cannot itself handle complaints from passengers and examine their individual cases, nor can it impose any penalties on carriers which do not comply with the regulation.
Enhver påstand om, at et luftfartsselskab har overtrådt forordning 261/2004, skal indgives til og analyseres af den kompetente nationale håndhævelsesmyndighed eller af den kompetente nationale domstol.
Each case of alleged infringement of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 by an airline has to be taken to the attention of and analysed by the competent NEB or by the competent national court.
Kommissionens rolle består i at kontrollere, at medlemsstaterne anvender og håndhæver EU‑lovgivningen på korrekt vis.
The Commission's role is to control that EC law is correctly implemented and enforced by the Member States.
Kommissionen overvåger derfor medlemsstaternes aktiviteter og verificerer effektiviteten af de foranstaltninger, de træffer over for luftfartsselskaber, som tilsyneladende ikke respekterer deres forpligtelser i henhold til forordningen.
Therefore, the Commission monitors the activities of the Member States to verify the effectiveness of the measures they take against airlines which do not seem to respect their obligations under the regulation.
I tilfælde af hændelser ligger ansvaret for behandlingen hos det nationale håndhævelsesorgan i den medlemsstat, hvor hændelsen fandt sted.
In case of an incident the responsible NEB is the one in the Member State where the incident happened.
Det er derfor i den sag, som det ærede medlem henviser til, det nationale håndhævelsesorgan i Portugal, Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil (INAC), som har kompetence til at behandle passagerens klage og undersøge vedkommendes sag.
Therefore, in the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the NEB in Portugal, the Instituto Nacional de Aviação Civil (INAC), is competent to handle the passenger's complaint and to examine his case.
Kommissionen har derfor allerede videregivet oplysningerne i den skriftlige forespørgsel til INAC med henblik på en passende behandling på grundlag af det dossier, som Deres berørte vælger kunne forelægge.
The Commission has therefore already transferred the information contained in the written question to INAC for appropriate treatment, on the basis of the file that could be submitted to it by your concerned constituent.
Derudover kan det nationale håndhævelsesorgan i den medlemsstat, som udstedte luftfartsselskabets licens, også koordinere en fælles aktion blandt nationale håndhævelsesorganer i de lande, hvori et sådant selskab opererer, for at konfrontere dette luftfartsselskab med andre nationale håndhævelsesmyndigheders oplysninger om manglende efterlevelse for derigennem at bestyrke anmodningen om at indstille misligholdelsen.
Furthermore, the NEB of the Member State of the licence of an air carrier might also coordinate a joint action of NEB, on whose territory a non-compliant carrier operates, to confront this particular carrier with information about non-compliance provided by other NEBs in order to strengthen the request to discontinue the misconduct.
Det Forenede Kongeriges nationale håndhævelsesorgan har tidligere samarbejdet med Kommissionen om en sådan nylig fælles aktion, bl.a. med sigte på det selskab, der er nævnt i den skriftlige forespørgsel, og som følge heraf gav selskabet løfte om og gennemførte afhjælpende foranstaltninger.
The United Kingdom NEB has in the past liasied with the Commission about such a joint action undertaken recently in particular as regards the company mentioned in the written question, who, as a result, promised and undertook measures of improvement.
Kommissionen er i løbende kontakt med de nationale håndhævelsesorganer og tilrettelægger regelmæssigt møder med hele nettet af nationale håndhævelsesorganer samt bilaterale møder for at harmonisere håndhævelsen af forordningen og klagebehandlingen i alle medlemsstater.
The Commission is in constant contact with NEB and organises regular meetings with the whole NEB network as well as bilateral meetings in order to harmonise enforcement of the regulation as well as complaint handling in all Member States.
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9100/2010
Question for written answer E-9100/2010
Om: Ejendom i Republikken Irland
Subject: Property in the Republic of Ireland
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en af mine vælgere, som er i færd med at købe en ejendom i Wicklow i Republikken Irland.
I have been contacted by a constituent who is buying a property in Wicklow in the Republic of Ireland.
Han oplyser, at lokale vedtægter forbyder enhver, som ikke er født i Wicklow, at renovere ejendomme og udøve sin ejendomsret på andre måder.
My constituent tells me that local county by-laws prohibit anyone born outside Wicklow from renovating properties and exercising their property rights in other ways.
1. om dette er tilladt i henhold til EU-lovgivningen, og
Could the Commission confirm if: 1.
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9101/2010
Question for written answer E-9101/2010
Om: Krav om erstatning fra KLM
Subject: Claim for expenses from KLM
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som oplyser, at han og hans hustru strandede i Venedig i april som følge af forstyrrelserne i forbindelse med askeskyen.
I have been contacted by a constituent who has informed me that he and his wife were stranded in Venice in April owing to the disruption caused by the volcanic ash cloud.
Min vælger skulle flyve hjem til Storbritannien med KLM fredag den 16. april, men på grund af askeskyen kunne han først flyve torsdag den 22. april.
My constituent was due to fly back to Britain with KLM on Friday, 16 April but owing to the volcanic ash cloud he was unable to do so until Thursday, 22 April.
Min vælger har forlangt erstatning fra KLM for de ekstra udgifter, han har haft, i henhold til flyselskabets forpligtelser i henhold til forordning 261/2004.
My constituent has tried to claim a refund from KLM for the extra expenses that he incurred, in keeping with airlines’ obligations under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
KLM har imidlertid afvist at erstatte hans udgifter og vil kun betale for overnatning den første nat op til højst 150 euro.
However, KLM has refused to refund his expenses and will only pay for the first night's accommodation, up to a maximum of EUR 150.
Han har også oplyst, at han har rejst spørgsmålet over for de nationale repræsentationsorganer i Nederlandene og Italien, men det umiddelbare svar er, at det vil tage mindst seks uger at få et svar, og at de ikke har juridisk beføjelse til at tvinge KLM til at gøre noget.
He has also informed me that he has raised the issue with the national representative bodies in the Netherlands and Italy, but the initial feedback is that it will take at least six weeks to get a response and that they have no legal power to force KLM to do anything.
oplyse hvad min vælger kan gøre for at sikre, at han modtager sin erstatning fra KLM, i henhold til EU-lovgivningen? 2.
state what course of action my constituent can take to ensure that he receives his expenses from KLM, in keeping with EC law? 2.
oplyse, hvilke skridt den agter at tage over for KLM for brud på EU-lovgivningen?
advise on what action it plans to take against KLM for breach of EC law?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9102/2010
Question for written answer E-9102/2010
Om: Forbud mod kængurukød
Subject: Ban on kangaroo meat
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som mener, at der er planer om at forbyde kængurukød i EU.
I have been contacted by a constituent who believes that there is currently a plan to ban kangaroo meat in the EU.
2. at de involverede kænguruer ikke lider
the kangaroo meat industry is entirely free range; 2.
3. at hele dyret anvendes til menneskeføde eller dyrefoder, og huden anvendes til skind
the kangaroos involved do not suffer; 3.
4. at kødet er meget magert og 98 % fedtfrit
all the animal is used for human consumption or animal feed and the skin is used for leather; 4.
5. at kængurukødbranchen er strengt reguleret
the meat is very lean and 98 % fat-free; 5.
6. at de fleste arter er beskyttet mod jagt
the kangaroo meat industry is heavily regulated; 6.
Min vælger tilføjer, at branchen skaber en betydelig indkomst for den australske økonomi og over 4 000 jobs.
My constituent adds that the industry generates considerable revenue for the Australian economy and supports over 4 000 jobs.
Kan Kommissionen på baggrund af disse oplysninger bekræfte
Given this information, could the Commission confirm: —
begrundelsen for et eventuelt forslag om forbud?
the justification for any proposed ban?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9103/2010
Question for written answer E-9103/2010
Om: Delfiner i Tyrkiet
Subject: Dolphins in Turkey
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som er bekymret for to delfiner, kaldet Misha og Tom, som holdes i en swimmingpool i Fethiye i Tyrkiet.
I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned about the plight of two dolphins, called Misha and Tom, who are being kept in a swimming pool in Fethiye, Turkey.
Min vælger har også oplyst, at dette giver anledning til stor bekymring hos feriegæster og lokale, som ønsker, at delfinerne bliver sluppet ud i havet igen.
My constituent has also told me that this is a matter of great concern to holidaymakers and local people, who would like to see the dolphins released back into the sea.
Er Kommissionen bekendt med disse to delfiners sag?
Is the Commission aware of the case of these two dolphins?
Hvis det er tilfældet, hvilket pres vil Kommissionen da lægge på den tyrkiske regering for at forbedre dyrenes velfærd?
If so, what pressure does it intend to exert on the Turkish Government to improve their welfare?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-9104/2010
Question for written answer E-9104/2010
Om: Society of British Interior Design (SBID)
Subject: Society of British Interior Design (SBID)
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som gerne ville forelægge mig sit forsøg på at få ændret den tilladte beskrivelse af en »interior designer« i Storbritannien, så den kommer i overensstemmelse med de tilsvarende professionelle kvalifikationer og den tilsvarende rolle i resten af Europa.
I have been contacted by a constituent who would like to present her case for a change in the permitted description of an ‘interior designer’ in Britain to fall in line with the description of the same job skills and role in the rest of Europe.
Min vælger oplyser, at titlerne på de fleste professioner, f.eks. arkitekter, ingeniører og læger, er beskyttet i Det Forenede Kongerige.
My constituent informs me that in the UK the title of most professions, such as architects, engineers and doctors, is protected.
Imidlertid er beskrivelsen af »interior designers« og deres profession ikke beskyttet i Det Forenede Kongerige.
However, the description and profession of ‘interior designer’ is not protected in the UK.
Det betyder, at enhver kan kalde sig designer, så ukvalificerede, uuddannede amatører kan kalde sig »interior designers« på samme måde som en kvalificeret designer med en eksamen gør.
This allows anyone to describe themselves as a designer, allowing unqualified, untrained amateurs to describe themselves as ‘interior designers’ in the same way as a qualified designer with a degree does.
Min vælger mener, at så længe der ikke foreligger en ordentlig definition, vil designerne ikke kunne højne fagets standard eller opnå ordentlige uddannelsesmæssige kvalifikationer, og denne manglende definition vil kunne udsætte forbrugerne for unødvendige risici.
My constituent believes that without a proper definition, designers will not raise the standard of the profession, not seek the proper educational qualifications and might expose the consumer to unnecessary risks through lack of definition.