natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I juni 2006 udsendte Londons politi retningslinjer for bedste praksis, der fortsat tillader insulin-krævende diabetikere at køre, hvis de opfylder strenge kriterier, og beslutningen herom tages i fællesskab.
In June 2006 the Metropolitan Police issued best practice guidelines that continue to allow insulin diabetic drivers the right to continue to drive where they meet rigorous ongoing criteria and the decision is a joint one.
Vil Kommissionen tage disse retningslinjer i betragtning i forbindelse med sin revision af kravene til egnethed til at have kørekort?
Will the Commission take these guidelines into consideration in its review of driving licence fitness?
Kan Kommissionen endvidere gøre rede for tidsplanen og den procedure, der skal anvendes i forbindelse med revisionen af direktiv 91/­439/­EØF?
Can the Commission also outline the timetable and procedure for reviewing Directive 91/439/EEC?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4312/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4312/06
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4313/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4313/06
Betragter Kommissionen den beslutning, som Deutsche Oper i Berlin har truffet om ikke at opføre Mozarts opera Idomeneo af frygt for reaktionerne fra islamiske ekstremister, som censur?
Does the Commission regard as censorship the decision of Berlin’s Deutsche Oper not to show Mozart’s opera Idomeneo because it feared a backlash from Islamic extremists?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4314/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4314/06
Om: Undertrykkelse af ytringsfriheden i Tyrkiet — igen
Subject: Denial of free speech in Turkey, again
Hvordan har den tyrkiske regering reageret?
What was its response?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4315/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4315/06
Hvorledes kan et vestligt EU-­land acceptere en arrestordre udstedt af Rumænien eller Bulgarien, når man ved, at retsvæsenet i begge disse lande er gennemsyret af korruption?
How could any western EU country accept an arrest warrant issued by Romania or Bulgaria when we know that the legal system in both countries is riddled with corruption?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4316/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4316/06
Om: Uberettiget blokering af grænsetrafikken mellem Italien og Schweiz
Subject: Unjustified blocking of Italy-Switzerland border crossing
Schweiz har indgået en traktat med EU om tiltrædelse af Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde.
Switzerland is linked to the EU by a Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Area.
Et af de grundlæggende elementer i EU-­traktaterne er den fri bevægelse af mennesker og varer.
One of the founding principles of the EU Treaties is freedom of movement for persons and goods.
Den frie færdsel over Alperne er af grundlæggende betydning for den italienske, franske og tyske økonomi og mene generelt for Mellemeuropa.
Free transit at Alpine crossings is vital to the Italian, French and German economies, and more generally to central Europe.
Samarbejdet mellem alle EU-­staterne og de stater, der har indgået tiltrædelsestraktater, er altid blevet opmuntret.
Cooperation has always been encouraged between all EU Member States and countries linked to them through treaties of accession.
Det er meget farligt for trafikanterne — det være sig kommercielle trafikanter eller fritidstrafikanter — hvis der indføres pludselige og ubegrundede blokeringer ved medlemsstaternes grænser.
The unexpected and unjustified blocking of border crossings between Member States is extremely dangerous for road users, both commercial and non-commercial.
Rådet bedes besvare følgende spørgsmål: 6.
Given the above, will the Council answer the following: —
Mener det, der er tale om overtrædelser af ovennævnte traktat, da Schweiz vilkårligt blokerede motorvejsgrænsen Como-Brogeda den 26. september 2006, hvorved der opstod en trafikprop på 20 km og den kommercielle trafik samt pendeltrafikken led betydelig skade? 7.
Does it consider that this constitutes a violation of the aforementioned treaty since Switzerland arbitrarily blocked off the motorway border crossing between Como and Brogeda on 26 September 2006, causing a 20 km tailback and serious inconvenience to commercial traffic and commuters? —
Agter det at indtage en fast holdning til det skete, især i betragtning af at Schweiz ikke blot er tilsluttet Det europæiske økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, men også opkræver en afgift på den tunge trafik afpasset efter ydelserne? 8.
Will it take a firm stance on this incident, especially in view of the fact that Switzerland not only belongs to the European Economic Area but also requires vehicles to pay a tax on heavy goods traffic based on motor power? —
Agter det at anslå værdien af ovennævnte afgift og anmode Schweiz om tilbagebetaling af ovennævnte afgift til de erhvervsdrivende?
Will it evaluate and claim repayment from Switzerland of this tax for the users concerned?
Rådet er aldrig blevet gjort opmærksom på de problemer, det ærede medlem har rejst.
The issues raised by the Honourable Member in his questions have never been brought to the attention of the Council.
I 1992 forkastede det schweiziske folk ved en folkeafstemning schweizisk deltagelse i Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde.
In 1992 the Swiss people rejected by referendum Swiss participation in the European Economic Area.
Begge aftaler trådte i kraft den 1. juni 2002.
Both agreements entered into force on 1 June 2002 Ibid., p.
Begge aftaler indeholder bestemmelser om nedsættelse af blandede udvalg bestående af repræsentanter for de kontraherende parter, der er ansvarlige for forvaltningen og den korrekte anvendelse af aftalerne Artikel 51 i aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Det Schweiziske Forbund om godstransport og personbefordring med jernbane og ad landevej og artikel 14 i aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Det Schweiziske Forbund på den anden side om fri bevægelighed for personer. .
Both agreements provide for the establishment of Joint Committees made up of representatives of the Contracting Parties, which are responsible for the management and proper application of the agreements Article 51 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road and Article 14 of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons. .
I artikel 54 i aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Det Schweiziske Forbund om godstransport og personbefordring med jernbane og ad landevej hedder det desuden eksplicit, at:
Moreover, Article 54 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road explicitly provides that:
» Afgørelse af tvister
Settlement of disputes
Alle oplysninger, på grundlag af hvilke Det Blandede Udvalg kan behandle sagen grundigt og finde en acceptabel løsning, forelægges dette udvalg.
The Joint Committee shall be provided with all relevant information for an in-depth examination of the situation with a view to finding an acceptable solution.
Det Blandede Udvalg undersøger alle muligheder for at sikre aftalens fortsatte gennemførelse.«
To that end, the Joint Committee shall be required to examine all possibilities for maintaining the good functioning of this Agreement.
Disse blandede udvalg vil derfor være det rette forum til drøftelse af det spørgsmål, som det ærede parlamentsmedlem har rejst.
These Joint Committees should therefore be the appropriate forum to discuss the question raised by the Honourable Member.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4317/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4317/06
Den 19. juli 2006 indledte Europa-Kommissionen en traktatbrudsprocedure efter klage af 27. maj 2005 fra den italienske forbrugerbeskyttelsesforening »Altroconsumo« mod Republikken Italien.
On 9 July 2006 the Commission opened infringement proceedings in response to a complaint lodged against the Italian State on 27 May 2005 by the Italian consumer organisation Altroconsumo.
Som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, men især som europæisk borger, har jeg gentagne gange anmodet de pågældende institutioner om en kopi af svaret fra den italienske regering, der skulle indsendes senest den 19. september.
In my capacity as an MEP and, above all, a European citizen, I have repeatedly asked the relevant institutions for a copy of the Italian Government's reply, which was to have been submitted by 19 September.
Kan Kommissionen besvare følgende spørgsmål: 1.
Given the above, would the Commission answer the following: —
Af hensyn til gennemskueligheden i de europæiske institutioners akter er det da lovligt, hvis de kompetente myndigheder ikke fremsender den krævede information? 2.
In the light of transparency requirements regarding the activities of the European institutions, is it lawful for the relevant services not to provide the information requested? —
Hvilke foranstaltninger agter Kommissionen at træffe over for Republikken Italien? 3.
What action does it intend to take vis-à -vis the Italian State? —
Agter Kommissionen, inden den indbringer sagen for Domstolen, at give den italienske regering tid, og i bekræftende fald hvor lang tid, til at revidere de love, der klages over?
Before taking the matter before the Court of Justice, does it intend to give the Italian Government time to review the laws being challenged, and if so, how much time?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4318/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4318/06
Om: Overtagelse af virksomheder for lånte penge alene med det formål at lade de mest givtige grene overleve og sælge disse med stor gevinst
Subject: Acquisition of businesses with borrowed funds with the sole purpose of allowing only the most profitable parts to survive and selling them at the highest profit
Følger Kommissionen væksten i investorer med risikovillig kapital, »hedge funds« og »private equity investors«, der stadig oftere for lånte penge opkøber virksomheder med det formål at overtage kontrollen med aktionærernes generalforsamlinger og derved opnå, at de mindst givtige virksomhedsgrene lukkes eller frasælges, hvorefter børskursen på de resterende mest givtige dele skrues så højt op som muligt for at sælge dem — eventuelt opsplittet — til de højstbydende?
Is the Commission monitoring the rise of venture capitalists, hedge funds or private equity investors, which are increasingly often buying up businesses with borrowed funds with the aim of gaining control of shareholders’ assemblies in order to close or sell off the least profitable parts, following which the valuation of the remaining, most profitable parts is raised as much as possible in order to be sold — sometimes separately — to the highest bidders?
Hvordan vurderer Kommissionen det forhold, at megen beskæftigelse på denne måde forsvinder i sektorer, der ikke leverer de højeste gevinster, men dog er rentable og opfylder et samfundsbehov, og at de produkter, der fremstilles dér, i stadig højere grad må importeres fra lande uden for Europa?
What is the Commission’s view of the fact that this leads to the disappearance of many jobs in sectors that are not the most lucrative but that are viable and that meet a need in society, and that the products that were made in those sectors increasingly need to be imported from outside Europe?
Hvordan bedømmer Kommissionen den omstændighed, at industrigrupper, der kunne sprede risikoen over flere sektorer, som følge af denne tendens splittes, hvilket medfører, at de overlevende selvstændige dele har mindre overlevelseschancer, hvis et givet marked bryder sammen?
What is the Commission’s view of the fact that industrial conglomerates able to spread risk over several sectors are dismantled, as a result of which the remaining separate parts of the business have less chance of survival in the event of disruption to a section of the market?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, at De Nederlandse Bank (DNB) er bekymret over, at de penge, kapitalfondene låner for at finansiere overtagelser, ofte opføres som gæld i balancen for det overtagne bytte, og at sådanne virksomheder ikke længere vil være i stand til at betale renter og afdrag på deres gæld, hvis renten fortsat stiger?
Is the Commission aware of the concerns of the Netherlands central bank, De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), that the money that the speculative investment funds lend to finance takeovers is often taken on as debt by the company being taken over and that such businesses are no longer in a position to pay interest or pay off the debt while the interest rate continues to rise?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, at det beløb, de europæiske kapitalfonde rejste i 2005 hos deres långivere, steg til 72 mia. EUR, og at beløbet i 2006 vil ligge langt over dette, og at de banker, der har udlånt disse penge, kan komme i vanskeligheder under de forhold, der er beskrevet i spørgsmål 4, og at der derved kan opstå en sneboldvirkning?
Is the Commission aware that the total amount obtained by European speculative investment funds from their backers in 2005 was EUR 72000 million, that this amount will be surpassed in 2006 and that the circumstances set out in question 4 above could also place the banks that have lent money into difficulties, giving rise to a snowball effect?
Hvad bidrager Kommissionen med til at imødegå eller bremse denne udvikling i betragtning af de negative følger for produktionsvirksomheders fortsatte eksistens, beskæftigelsen, afhængigheden af import og bankers overlevelse?
What does the Commission intend to do to counter or to put a stop to this trend, given the negative consequences in terms of business continuity, employment, dependence on imports and the ability of banks to survive?
Hvilken rolle forventer den i den forbindelse, at de enkelte EU-medlemsstater skal spille, og hvilken rolle mener den selv at kunne spille?
What role does the Commission expect the Member States individually to play and what role does the Commission itself intend to play?
Kilde: Det nederlandske ugeblad »Elsevier« af 16. september 2006.
Source: the Dutch weekly publication ‘Elsevier’, 16 September 2006.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4319/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4319/06
Om: Det kraftigt asbestforurenede mexicanske skib »Otapan«, der blev afvist til ophugning i Tyrkiet, og de nederlandske myndigheders forudgående rolle
Subject: The Mexican ship the Otapan , which is contaminated with large quantities of asbestos and was refused for scrap in Turkey, and the preceding role of the Netherlands authorities
Har Kommissionen kendskab til forholdene omkring skibet »Otapan«, der har ligget i Amsterdams havn i årevis på grund af en stor mængde asbest, det er vanskeligt at fjerne, og som Tyrkiet sommeren 2006 afviste som skrotskib — også efter at Nederlandene havde tilbudt kompensationsbetaling — fordi den tyrkiske regering blev overrasket over, at der viste sig at være 54 gange mere asbest om bord, end den nederlandske regering havde oplyst?
Is the Commission aware of the sequence of events involving the ship the Otapan , which has lain in dock in Amsterdam for a number of years on account of the presence of large quantities of difficult-to-remove asbestos and which was refused for scrap in Turkey in summer 2006 — even after the offer by the Netherlands to pay compensation — because the Turkish Government was surprised to discover that there appeared to be over 54 times as much asbestos on board as had been declared by the Government of the Netherlands?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, at aftalen omtalt i spørgsmål 2 ikke alene omfattede Amsterdams kommune, men også Nederlandenes nationale myndigheder i form af inspektionstjenesten i Ministeriet for Boliger, Fysisk Planlægning og Miljø, der helt klart især var interesseret i, at skibet hurtigt forsvandt fra Nederlandene, og at man på det tidspunkt allerede kendte den virkelige mængde asbest ( 54000 kg), hvilket man senere søgte at skjule for Tyrkiet?
Is the Commission aware that the discussions referred to in question 2 above not only involved the city of Amsterdam but also the national authorities of the Netherlands in the form of the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, which was apparently concerned above all with the swift removal of the ship from the Netherlands, while it appears that the real amount of asbestos on board ( 54000 kg), which was subsequently not communicated to Turkey, was also known at that time?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, at en dommer i Amsterdam tildelte den nederlandske stat ejendomsretten til »Otapan«, fordi restværdien af jernet efter skrotningen ville være lavere end udgifterne til at fjerne asbesten, således at ikke den mexicanske ejer, men Nederlandene blev ansvarlig?
Is the Commission aware that a judge in Amsterdam deemed the Otapan to be the property of the Netherlands state because the remaining value of the iron after scrap would be lower than the cost of removing the asbestos, meaning that the Netherlands — and not the Mexican shipowner — was responsible for it?
Er disse forhold i overensstemmelse med den rolle, der forventes af myndigheder i EU?
Is this course of events in keeping with the role expected of authorities within the EU?
Har Kommissionen kendskab til andre lignede tilfælde af bedrag i forbindelse med skrotskibe?
Is the Commission aware of similar cases of deception relating to the scrapping of ships?
Hvordan forebygger Kommissionen, at lokale, regionale og nationale myndigheder i EU på ny medvirker til uansvarlig fjernelse af asbest fra deres område?
How will the Commission prevent local, regional and national authorities within the EU from again giving their cooperation to the irresponsible removal asbestos from their territory?
Kilde: TV Nederland 1, nyhedsmagasinet »Éen Vandaag« af 28. september 2006.
Source: TV Nederland 1, news programme ‘Eén Vandaag’, 28 September 2006.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4320/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4320/06
Om: Lovbestemmelser for forskning i og salg af naturprodukter
Subject: Legal framework for research into and sale of natural products
Der er i forskellige lande, navnlig Portugal, forskningslaboratorier, der arbejder på området for naturprodukter: fytologiske og homøopatiske produkter samt flydende ekstrakter etc., der hævder at have vanskeligheder med de lovbestemmelser, der gælder for deres aktiviteter, især hvad angår salg af disse naturprodukter.
In various countries, including Portugal, research laboratories working in the sphere of natural products (plant based, homeopathic, liquid extracts, etc.) claim the experience difficulties with regard to the legal framework for their activities, and especially with regard to marketing the natural products in question.
Kan Kommissionen give oplysninger vedrørende de eksisterende lovbestemmelser på området for forskning i og markedsføring af denne type naturprodukter?
What is the current legal framework for research into and marketing of natural products of this kind?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4321/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4321/06
Om: »Ureglementeret« eller »ulovlig« plantning af vinplanter
Subject: ‘Irregular’ and ‘illegal’ vineyard planting
Kommissionen henviser i punkt 7 i sin meddelelse til Rådet og Parlamentet under titlen »Mod en bæredygtig europæisk vinsektor« vedrørende reformen af den fælles markedsordning for vin til »ureglementerede« og »ulovlige« beplantninger.
In its communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the reform of the COM in wine: ‘Towards a sustainable European wine sector’, the Commission speaks in point 7 of ‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’ plantings.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4322/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4322/06
Om: Langsomme udbetalinger af godtgørelser for videnskabelige projekter
Subject: Delays in payments for scientific projects
Forskere har i løbet af de sidste år gentagne gange kontaktet mig som følge af Kommissionens langsommelighed med at foretage udbetalinger for videnskabelige projekter.
In recent years, researchers have repeatedly contacted me about the Commission's slowness in making payments relating to scientific projects.
Det skaber navnlig problemer i de tilfælde, når Kommissionen inviterer forskere eller videnskabsfolk til Bruxelles for at vurdere videnskabelige projekter.
Particular problems are caused by situations in which researchers or scientists come to Brussels at the invitation of the Commission, for example to evaluate scientific projects.
De betaler udgifterne til flyrejse og hotel og udfører deres arbejde, men kan blive nødt til at vente adskillige måneder, inden Kommissionen udbetaler godtgørelse for disse udgifter og det udførte arbejde.
They pay for their flight and hotel and do their work but may then have to wait for months before the Commission reimburses these costs and pays for their work.
Kommissionen har f.eks. endnu ikke ved udgangen af september 2006 udbetalt godtgørelser for de evalueringer, der blev foretaget i april 2006.
To take one example, at the end of September 2006 the Commission still has not paid for evaluations performed in April 2006.
En ventetid på over fem måneder er uacceptabel, og Kommissionens praksis har medført, at mange er kommet i økonomiske vanskeligheder.
A delay of more than five months is unreasonable: the Commission's conduct has caused financial problems to many people.
Nutidens topvidenskabsfolk nyder ikke nødvendigvis godt af toplønninger, og de har ikke råd til at lade pengene stå på Kommissionens konti.
Nowadays, leading scientists do not necessarily earn such huge salaries that they can afford to leave money which is due to them in the Commission's bank accounts.
Kommissionen optager ved hjælp af sin praksis lån hos borgerne, når den ikke er i stand til at opfylde sine forpligtelser inden for en rimelig frist.
In this way the Commission is in effect taking loans from individuals, as it fails to carry out its obligations within a reasonable period.
Kommissionen betaler dog ikke renter af lånet.
However, it does not pay interest on these loans.
Hvilke foranstaltninger vil Kommissionen træffe for at rette op på dette misforhold?
What will the Commission do to remedy this scandalous situation?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4327/06
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4327/06
af Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL) og Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL)
by Willy Meyer Pleite (GUE/NGL) and Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL)
Om: Politiets mishandling af mindreårige (Madrid, Spanien)
Subject: Police ill-treatment of minors (Madrid, Spain)
Klager over mishandling af varetægtsfængslede mindreårige giver i visse EU-­lande anledning til bekymring.
Accusations that minors are being ill-treated in police custody are a source of concern in several EU countries.
De hævder, at de før og efter anholdelsen blev sparket og slået med knipler, og at de blev lagt i håndjern og hånet af uropolitiet.
They claim that, during and after their arrest, they were kicked, beaten with batons, handcuffed and insulted by the anti-riot police.
I henhold til deres vidneudsagn skete det samme på politistationen, og ifølge Amnesty International blev forældrene desuden ikke underrettet om, at deres børn sad varetægtsfængslet.
The same treatment was meted out at the police station and furthermore, the boys’ arrest was not reported to their parents, according to Amnesty International information.
Offentligheden er bekymret over, at de politifolk, der gør sig skyldige i mishandling (fysisk eller psykisk) af anholdte, sjældent bliver retsforfulgt, bortset fra hvis offeret afgår ved døden.
There is public concern, because police officers who ill-treat detainees (both physically and psychologically) are seldom brought to book, except when the victims die.
Efterforskningerne er hverken hurtige, udtømmende eller objektive.
The investigations are neither prompt, exhaustive nor impartial.
I visse tilfælde ser det ud til, at hvis politiet bliver draget til ansvar, nyder de i et stort omfang straffrihed.
In some cases, unjustified police behaviour appears to enjoy a high degree of impunity.