natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En sikkerhedsvagt informerede min vælger om, at hans flyselskab skulle have oplyst ham om denne procedure og ligeledes skulle den toldfrie butik i Tunesien.
One security agent informed my constituent that his airline should have informed him about this ruling, as should the Tunisian duty-free shop.
Dette var ikke sket.
This had not happened.
Sikkerhedsvagten informerede ham om, at de i Charles De Gaulle-lufthavnen konfiskerer tusindvis af toldfrie varer hver uge, og mente, at denne procedure var velkendt.
The security agent informed him that at Paris CDG they are confiscating thousands of items of duty-free each week and suggested that this ruling was well known.
Indtil den dag havde min vælger aldrig hørt om denne procedure og ved, at de mange andre passagerer, som fik deres toldfrie varer konfiskeret, heller ikke havde hørt om den.
Up until that day my constituent had never heard of this rule and knows the many other passengers who had their duty-free confiscated did not either.
Efter min vælger er kommet hjem og har søgt på internettet, kan han nu lidt bedre forstå, hvorfor hans toldfrie varer blev konfiskeret.
Having returned home and searched online my constituent is now a little clearer as to why his duty-free was confiscated.
Han fandt ud af, at det i juli 2007 blev meddelt, at konfiskeringen af toldfrie varer, der ikke var købt i EU, ville blive lettet.
He saw that in July 2007 announcements were made that the confiscation of non-EU purchased duty-free would be eased.
Efter hans oplevelse lader dette dog ikke til at være tilfældet.
From his experience, however, this seemed not to be the case.
Kommissionen bedes oplyse følgende: 1.
Could the Commission please inform me of: 1.
de juridiske grunde til denne procedure, 2.
the legal reasons behind this ruling, 2.
den nuværende status vedrørende den foreslåede lettelse af proceduren, 3.
the current status with regard to the proposed easing of the ruling, 3.
EU-lufthavnenes udgifter i forbindelse med konfiskering (personale, affaldshåndtering), og 4.
the cost to EU airports of confiscation (staffing, waste management), and 4.
hvad der gøres med de konfiskerede varer i lufthavnene i EU i forhold til genbrug (glas og emballage)?
what is done with the confiscated goods in terms of recycling (glass and packaging) in the airports of the EU?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1414/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/09
Om: Udelukkelse af flybesætningsmedlemmer fra fritagelse for natarbejde
Subject: Non-application of exemption from night work to mobile workers in civil aviation
Det italienske arbejdsministerium har ændret sin holdning med hensyn til at fritage flybesætningsmedlemmer fra natarbejde.
The Italian Ministry of Employment has changed its own position on exemption from night work for mobile workers in civil aviation (flight crew members).
I sit svar på en forespørgsel (nr. 33 af 16. november 2007) havde arbejdsministeriet vurderet den gældende lovgivning og var af den opfattelse, at den sammenfattende lov (lovdekret nr. 151/2001) om orlov til mødre og fædre skulle gælde for denne type personale i betragtning af personalets udelukkelse fra anvendelsesområdet for den gældende lov om arbejdstid (lovdekret nr. 66/2003 om gennemførelse af EU-direktivet om tilrettelæggelse af arbejdstid).
In its reply to a parliamentary question (No 33 of 16 November 2007), the Ministry reviewed the applicable legislation and stated that, while mobile workers in civil aviation were excluded from the scope of the general legislation on working time (Legislative Decree No 66/2003 transposing the European directive on the organisation of working time), they were covered by the provisions of the consolidated legislation on the protection and support of maternity and paternity (Legislative Decree No 151/2001).
I et svar på en senere forespørgsel (nr. 1 af 4. februar 2009) ændrede arbejdsministeriet sin besvarelse under bekvem anvendelse af overtrædelsesprocedure nr. 2006/2228, hvor Italien havde været genstand for en påmindelse på grund af den del af loven, der stadig foreskriver anvendelse af forbuddet mod natarbejde for kvindelige arbejdstagere under graviditet og barnets første leveår, idet arbejdsministeriet hævdede, at der ikke kan anvendes beskyttelsesforanstaltninger for flybesætningsmedlemmer — end ikke med en formulering i henhold til fællesskabslovgivningen om »ikkepligt« til at udføre natarbejde.
In its reply to a later parliamentary question (no 1 of 4 February 2009), citing the letter of formal notice issued in connection with Infringement Procedure No 2006/2228, which takes Italy to task over those provisions of its legislation which prohibit female workers from working at night throughout their pregnancy and the first year of their child's life, the Ministry changed its position, stating that no protective provisions were applicable to flight crew members, not even the ‘exemption from the obligation to work at night’ which met the requirements of Community law.
Med andre ord agter man at beskytte flyvebesætningsmedlemmerne, når natarbejdet medfører sundhedsproblemer, men ikke i forbindelse med graviditet, moderskab, faderskab og børnepasning.
In other words, protection would be extended to flight crew in cases where night work caused health problems, but not on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity or paternity, or the care of children.
Arbejdsministeriet agter nemlig at udelukke, at der i forhold til flybesætningsmedlemmer kan anvendes bestemmelser, ifølge hvilke det fremgår, at »følgende kategorier er ikke forpligtet til at udføre natarbejde: a) kvindelige arbejdstagere, der er moder til et barn under tre år, eller alternativt faderen, når han er arbejdstager og samlevende med hende; b) kvindelige eller mandlige arbejdstagere, når de er det eneste forælder, der er indehaver af forældremyndigheden til et barn under 12 år; … kvindelige eller mandlige arbejdstagere, når de har forsørgerpligt over for en [svært] handicappet person«.
The Ministry of Employment intends to exclude mobile staff in civil aviation from the scope of legislation which provides that ‘the following shall be exempt from the obligation to work at night: (a) a female worker who is the mother of a child under the age of 3 or, alternatively, the male worker who is the father of the child and lives with her; (b) a female or male worker who is the only parent having custody of a child under the age of 12 and lives with him or her; (…) a female or male worker who looks after a dependant with a serious disability’.
Er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at det italienske arbejdsministeriums fortolkning er i strid med direktiv nr. 92/85/EØF, navnlig artikel 1 og 7, om beskyttelse i forbindelse med natarbejde og bevarelse af beskyttelsesniveauet i medlemsstaterne?
Does the Commission consider that the Italian Ministry of Employment’s interpretation of the legislation is contrary to Directive 92/85/EC, and in particular Articles 1 and 7 on the protection of workers in connection with night work and maintaining the level of protection provided in the respective Member States?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1415/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1415/09
Om: Dom fra EF-domstolen i sag C-173/07 om forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004, hvori det bestemmes, at flypassagerer, der afvises ved mellemlandinger som følge af overbooking, har ret til kompensation
Subject: Judgment in Case C‑173/07 of the European Court of Justice concerning Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ruling that denial of boarding to air passengers at intermediate stops creates an entitlement to compensation
Husker Kommissionen mit spørgsmål ( E-5566/08 ) om bortfaldet af sammenhængen mellem pris og afstand i luftfarten og afvisningen af passagerer under mellemlandinger?
Does the Commission recall my question (E‑5566/08) on the disappearance of any relation between price and distance on journeys by air and refusal to take on passengers at intermediate stops?
Er Kommissionen enig med mig i, at artikel 4, stk. 3, i ovennævnte forordning nr. 261/2004 fastsætter, at luftfartsselskaberne skal kompensere passagererne, dersom disse imod deres vilje nægtes adgang til et fly, og at denne kompensation skal ske straks i overensstemmelse med de beløb, der er anført i artikel 7, og at passageren skal tilbydes en anden flyvning (artikel 8) og/eller logi og mad (artikel 9)?
Does the Commission agree that Article 4(3) of the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides that airlines must compensate passengers if they are denied boarding against their will, and that compensation must take place immediately in accordance with the amounts set out in Article 7 and must result in the offer of an alternative flight (Article 8) and/or accommodation and meals (Article 8)?
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at den tidligere eksisterende mulighed for, at en passager kunne nægtes adgang under en mellemlanding på en indirekte flyvning på grundlag af forud fastsatte kontraktbestemmelser i mellemtiden er afskaffet som følge af EF-domstolens dom af 10. juli 2008 i sag C-173/07 (»Emirates Airlines« mod »Direktion für Deutschland«), idet domstolen i afsnit 32-40 giver en definition af begrebet »flyvning« som den mindste udelelige del af en rejse, hvilket dermed også kan gælde for en del mellem to mellemlandinger under en kombineret flyvning?
Can the Commission confirm that the former power to deny a passenger boarding at an intermediate stop on an indirect flight on the grounds of prior contractual conditions now no longer exists as a result of the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 10 July 2008 in Case C‑173/07 ( Emirates Airlines v Direktion für Deutschland ), because in that judgment (grounds 32-40) the Court defines ‘flight’ as the smallest indivisible unit of the journey, which may also be a section between two intermediate stops in an indirect flight?
Betyder den i spørgsmål 4 omhandlede dom fra EF-domstolen, at man med en billet til en længere afstand også kan blive fløjet fra f.eks. A til B, fra B til C eller fra C til D, selv om begyndelsespunktet er A og slutdestinationen D, mens B og C kun er mellemlandinger?
Does the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to in question 4 mean that it is also possible, with a ticket for a longer distance, to fly, for example, from A to B, from B to C or from C to D, even when the ticket has A as its point of departure and D as its destination, while B and C are only intermediate stops?
Er Kommissionen enig i min konklusion, at den »no show«-politik, som nogle luftfartsselskaber har anvendt, ikke længere er tilladt som følge af den i spørgsmål 4 og 5 omhandlede dom, således at en eventuel afvisning i fremtiden medfører en forpligtelse til betaling af kompensation til de afviste passagerer?
Does the Commission agree with my conclusion that the ‘no show’ policy formerly applied by some airlines is no longer permitted as a result of the judgment referred to in questions 4 and 5, and that any denial of boarding will consequently entail in future an obligation to pay compensation to the passengers denied boarding?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1416/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/09
Om: Forholdet mellem de regler, der er fastsat af EU og af Centralkommissionen for Sejlads på Rhinen, og mulighederne for at forhindre, at fragttransporten med flodbåd begrænses unødigt
Subject: Relationship between EU rules and those of the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, and ways of preventing unnecessary restrictions on inland waterways freight transport
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at europæiske aftaler, der stammer fra tiden længe før EU's tilblivelse og forløberne hertil, herunder aftalerne på Wienerkongressen (9.6.1815) og Mannheim-konventionen (17.10.1868), garanterer, at der ikke må lægges hindringer i vejen for fragten på de interne vandveje i Europas forskellige stater, og at denne ikke må forfordeles i forhold til andre transportmåder, samtidig med at denne gamle frihed for skibsfarten på de indre vandveje oven i købet ligger helt på linje med alle aftaler om transport og økonomi, som har forbindelse med det nuværende EU som en »ordning, der sikrer, at konkurrencen inden for det fælles marked ikke fordrejes«?
Can the Commission confirm that European agreements from the period long before the creation of the EU and its predecessors, including those of the Congress of Vienna (9 June 1815) and the Mannheim Convention (17 October 1868) guarantee that transport by inland waterways in the various states of Europe may not be hindered or disadvantaged in relation to other modes of transport, and that this long-standing freedom for inland waterways transport is moreover fully in line with all agreements on transport and economic affairs relating to the present-day EU, such as ‘a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted’?
Er der et modsætningsforhold mellem de obligatoriske krav, som Centralkommissionen for Sejlads på Rhinen (CCR) stiller til skibe, der deltager i fragttransporten, og som i stadig større udstrækning udelukker eksisterende skibstyper og dermed formindsker den samlede kapacitet, og EU's regler, som anses for at have til formål at fremme friheden for disse transportførere?
Is there a conflict between the binding requirements which the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine (CCNR) imposes on vessels participating in freight transport, which increasingly exclude existing types of vessel and thus reduce overall capacity, and the EU rules which are held to have the purpose of promoting the freedom of such transport operators?
Er det acceptabelt, at CCR udelukker bestemte typer mindre og ældre skibe af sikkerhedsgrunde, selv om det ikke statistisk kan påvises, at disse skibe bidrager mere end andre til det årlige antal ulykker (1 dødsulykke om året og 12 tilskadekomne)?
Is it acceptable that the CCNR excludes certain kinds of smaller and older vessels for safety reasons, even though it cannot be statistically proven that such vessels contribute more than others to the annual number of accidents (one fatal accident per year and 12 injured)?
Er det i overensstemmelse med princippet om ligebehandling, at kun skibe fra nye medlemslande er fritaget fra disse regler indtil 2015?
Is it compatible with the principle of equal treatment that only vessels from the new Member States are exempted from this requirement until 2015?
På hvilken anden måde kan klager fra flodbådsrederier over CCR's optræden behandles i modsætning til af CCR selv, som kun kan træffe afgørelse om en klage, idet der internt hersker absolut enstemmighed?
How can complaints by internal waterways transport companies against the action of the CCNR be dealt with other than by the CCNR itself, which has sole authority to decide on the resolution of complaints on which there is internal unanimity?
Ser Kommissionen grundlag for at ændre tingenes tilstand med hensyn til deltagelse i skibsfarten på de interne vandveje i Europa, hvor den nuværende situation i modstrid med ønsket om at fremme miljøvenlige transportmåder fører til, at kapaciteten for transport på de indre vandveje begrænses unødigt, således at det bliver nødvendigt at transportere fragt ad landevejen med lastbiler?
Does the Commission regard the current state of affairs, which — in contrast to its wish to promote environmentally friendly modes of transport — means that the capacity of internal waterways transport is unnecessarily restricted and the need for road haulage by lorry increased, as a reason to alter the situation as regards the requirements for participation in internal waterways transport in Europe?
Hvorledes vil den forhindre, at den faktiske tilstand giver resultater, som afviger stærkt fra den hensigt, der kommer til udtryk i Kommissionens svar på min skriftlige forespørgsel E-6295/08 ?
How will the Commission prevent the actual state of affairs from resulting in an outcome that diverges widely from the intention it expressed in reply to my Question E‑6295/08?
På hvilken måde bidrager EU's beståen til, at den eksisterende flodbådskapacitet ikke unødigt tages ud af brug?
How does the existence of the EU help prevent existing internal waterways capacity from being unnecessarily withdrawn from use?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1418/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/09
(5. marts 2009)
(5 March 2009)
Om: Tilbagelevering af fast ejendom til den græsk-katolske kirke i Rumænien
Subject: Restitution of property to the Greek Catholic Church in Romania
Ifølge kilder har den græsk-katolske kirke i Rumænien siden omkring 1989 arbejdet for at genvinde ejendomsrettighederne til forskellige verdsligt og liturgisk anvendte ejendomme, som de mistede gennem ekspropriation i de foregående årtier under den kommunistiske regering.
It has been reported that since approximately 1989 the Greek Catholic Church in Romania has been endeavouring to reclaim its property rights to a number of properties used for liturgical and secular purposes which had been expropriated in the previous decades under the country’s Communist leadership.
De, der havde fordel af ekspropriationerne, var således foruden den rumænske stat den rumænsk-ortodokse kirke, som indtil i dag har været i besiddelse af størstedelen af de omstridte objekter.
The beneficiary of these expropriations was the Romanian Orthodox Church (alongside the Romanian State), in whose possession the disputed property for the most part remains today.
Først fra august 2004 har der været retslige grundlag, som gør det muligt for religionssamfund at gøre krav på tilbageoverdragelse af liturgisk anvendte bygninger og at indbringe kravene for en domstol.
The legal bases allowing religious communities to claim the restitution of buildings used for the liturgical purposes and to enforce such claims in a court of law have existed only since August 2004.
Tidligere fandtes der blot bestemmelser for verdsligt anvendt fast ejendom, der dog ikke kunne indbringes for de rumænske domstole.
Before that rules existed only for property used for secular purposes, and these could not be enforced in Romanian courts.
Til at afgøre det var der udpeget et blandet udvalg fra den ortodokse og græsk-katolske kirke, der kun opnåede utilstrækkelige resultater.
Decisions were taken by a joint committee consisting of members of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches, but it failed to achieve satisfactory results.
Fordelingen af ejendommene skal igen ske efter antallet af medlemmer i religionssamfundene (det såkaldte proportionalitetsprincip).
Property is once again to be divided according to the number of members of each religious community (the so-called principle of proportionality).
Herved vil den rumænsk-ortodokse kirke blive bedre stillet gennem andre religioners statslige undertrykkelse i årtier, og tilbageoverdragelsen vil rent faktisk være afsluttet.
This would benefit the Romanian Orthodox Church owing to the state repression of other religions over many decades and in effect put an end to the restitution of property.
Det vil ikke være muligt for andre religionssamfund at praktisere deres tro.
It would then be impossible for other religious communities to practise their faith.
Kan Kommissionen meddele, om den på baggrund af disse hændelser anser religionsfriheden i Rumænien for at være overholdt ifølge gældende fællesskabsret?
Can the Commission state whether, against the background of these events, it considers that freedom of religion in Romania is protected according to the acquis of the European Union?
Har Kommissionen planer om i givet fald at lægge pres på Rumænien i denne sag, således at der kan indføres korrekte ejendomsforhold mellem religionssamfundene?
Does the Commission intend to put pressure on Romania in this matter if necessary, in order to ensure that regular property ownership relationships can be restored between the religious communities?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1419/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/09
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, hvornår portalen åbnes igen?
Does the Commission know when it will reopen?
Agter Kommissionen fortsat at fremme digitaliseringen af europæiske værker i medlemsstaterne for at forsyne portalen og øge omfanget af digitale værker inden for de europæiske kulturinstitutioner i 2010?
Will the Commission continue to promote the digitisation of European works in the Member States in order to supply this portal and increase the percentage of digitised works held by European cultural institutions in 2010?
Hvordan mener Kommissionen, at problematikken vedrørende ophavsrettigheder kan løses?
In the Commission's view, how will the copyright problems be resolved?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1420/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/09
Om: Møde om kulturen i Avignon
Subject: Avignon meeting on culture
Jeg har for et par måneder siden gennem medierne fået kendskab til et møde om kulturen i Avignon, som jeg fandt yderst interessant.
According to press reports there was a meeting in Avignon on culture a few months ago, which seemed to me of great interest.
Det overraskede mig imidlertid, at Europa-Parlamentets kulturudvalg ikke var informeret om dette fremragende initiativ.
However, I was surprised that Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education was not informed of this excellent initiative.
Kan Kommissionen på denne baggrund oplyse formålet med mødet, og om der skal afholdes flere?
This being so, could the Commission say what were the aims of the meeting, and whether there will be a follow-up?
Hvilke personer, organisationer og enheder var indbudt?
Which individuals, organisations and other bodies were invited?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1421/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/09
Vi nærmer os 2010, hvor det europæiske område for videregående uddannelse skal gennemføres.
We are in the countdown to 2010, when creation of the European Higher Education Area is due for completion.
Hvordan vurderer Kommissionen medlemsstaternes gennemførelse af bestemmelserne i Bolognaprocessen?
How does the Commission assess implementation of the Bologna Process provisions by the Member States?
Det er op til medlemsstaterne at sikre information og kommunikation vedrørende Bolognaprocessen, men agter Kommissionen på denne baggrund at gennemføre et initiativ eller en oplysningskampagne for at fremme dette område?
Although providing and circulating information on the Bologna Process is a job for the Member States, does the Commission agree that it would be appropriate to carry out some kind of initiative or information campaign to facilitate that task?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-1422/09
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/09
Om: Bahá'í'er i Iran
Subject: Bahá'ís in Iran
Den 11. februar meddelte en iransk embedsmand, at syv bahá'i'er, som er medlem af en ad hoc-ledelsesgruppe for det nationale bahá'i-samfund i Iran ville blive stillet for en revolutionsdomstol.
On 11 February an Iranian official announced that seven Bahá’ís who are members of an ad hoc leadership group for the national Bahá’í community in Iran will be brought to trial before a Revolutionary Court.
EU har gennem formandskabet givet udtryk for dyb bekymring over de alvorlige anklager mod disse syv iranske bahá'i-ledere og over, at de ikke er sikre på at få en retfærdig rettergang.
The European Union, through the Presidency, has expressed deep concern at the grave charges against these seven Iranian Bahá’í leaders and at the fact that they may not receive a fair trial.
Overhovedet for den iranske overordnede anklagemyndighed, Qorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, meddelte den 15. februar, at bevismaterialet viser, at organisationen [Bahá'í'erne] har direkte forbindelser til fjender af den iranske stat, og at medlemmerne forsøger at indsamle oplysninger, udføre infiltrationsaktiviteter og ødelægge folks tro.
The Iranian Prosecutor-General, Qorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, stated on 15 February that ‘available evidence shows that the organisation [Bahá’ís] is directly connected to foreign enemies of the Iranian nations … and their members try to collect information, carry out infiltration activities and destroy people’s belief’.
En repræsentant for det internationale bahá'i-samfund har afvist disse beskyldninger som ubegrundede og opfordret til ubetinget løsladelse af de syv bahá'i-ledere.
A representative of the Bahá’í International Community has rejected these allegations as baseless and called for the seven Bahá’í leaders to be released unconditionally.