natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selv om Marokko på nuværende tidspunkt okkuperer en del af Vestsahara, har det ikke internationalt anerkendt suverænitet eller jurisdiktion over området (som bemærket af Den Internationale Domstol i dens udtalelse af 16. oktober 1975), forudsat at, som Kommissionen har bemærket, 2002-udtalelsen fra FN's juridiske rådgiver ikke er juridisk bindende og ikke kan ligestilles med en dom fra Den Internationale Domstol eller en bindende beslutning fra Sikkerhedsrådet.
While Morocco currently occupies part of the Western Sahara, it does not have internationally recognised sovereignty or jurisdiction over the area (as noted by the ICJ in its opinion of 16 October 1975) given that, as the Commission has noted, the 2002 opinion of the UN Legal Advisor is not legally binding and cannot be equated with a judgment of the ICJ or a binding decision of the Security Council.
Ligeledes har Polisario, der er anerkendt som repræsentant for Vestsaharas folk, heller ikke erklæret en eksklusiv økonomisk zone ud for Vestsahara.
Similarly, Polisario, which is recognised as the representatives of the people of the Western Sahara, has not declared an EEZ off the Western Sahara either.
Er Kommissionen enig i, at hvis ingen af disse parter har erklæret jurisdiktion over farvande ud for Vestsaharas kyst, så er disse internationale farvande?
Would the Commission agree that, if neither of these parties has declared jurisdiction over waters off the coast of the Western Sahara, then these are international waters?
Hvis disse er internationale farvande, bedes Kommissionen gøre rede for, hvorfor dens fartøjer fisker i disse internationale farvande under betingelserne i fiskeriaftalen med Marokko.
If these are international waters, could the Commission please explain why its vessels are fishing in these international waters under the terms of the fisheries agreement with Morocco?
Hvorfor betaler Kommissionen Marokko for, at fartøjer, der sejler under EU-flag, kan fiske i internationale farvande?
Why is the Commission paying Morocco so that EU‑flagged vessels can fish in international waters?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4301/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4301/08
Om: NTDTV: En fri fjernsynssender i Kina, der har været slukket i tre uger
Subject: NTDTV: a free television station off the air for three weeks in China
Syv uger før De Olympiske Lege kan millioner af familier i Kina ikke længere modtage satellitsignalerne fra den største uafhængige fjernsynssender på kinesisk, NTDTV.
With the Olympics now seven weeks away, millions of families in China can no longer receive NTDTV, the largest independent Chinese-language satellite television station.
Mandag den 16. juni ca. kl. 18.30 europæisk tid stoppede pludselig udsendelsen af fjernsynssenderen New Tang Dinasty Television (NTDTV) over Asien efter fire års uafbrudt udsendelse. —
On Monday, 16 June, at 18.30, New Tang Dynasty Television (NTDTV) was forced to abruptly cease broadcasting its programmes, transmitted via satellite, covering much of Asia: the signal had been cut off after more than four years of broadcasting. —
Eutelsat Communiations, der er ansvarlig for satellitten, udtalte, at man havde konstateret en uregelmæssighed i W5-satellitten (power generator subsystem) og i samarbejde med satellitproducenten Thales Alenia Space havde man været nødt til at reducere antallet af aktive transpondere (operating transponder) på satellitten. —
Eutelsat Communications, the European satellite operator, has said that a fault occurred in its W5 satellite and it had been compelled as a result to greatly reduce the number of transponders: this had been done in collaboration with the maker of the satellite, Thales Alenia Space. —
Der er nu gået tre uger, og signalet fra NTDTV over Asien er stadig slukket, og vi ved stadig ikke, hvad der har forårsaget denne uregelmæssighed, hvorfor driften af NTDTV blev afbrudt og hvornår den bliver genetableret.
Three weeks have passed, but the NTDTV signal remains blacked out in the whole of Asia, and no information has yet been given about what caused the malfunction or when the signal can be restored.
Normalt er satellitfirmaet ansvarlig for så hurtigt som muligt at finde en erstatningsservice for sine kanaler, når en transponder bliver slukket. —
According to normal business practice, when there is an incident of this kind affecting a transponder, the company responsible for the satellite has to provide alternative services to its customers without delay. —
Organisationen »Reporter Without Borders« (journalister uden grænser) leverer beviset, idet den den 10. juli udsendte en pressemeddelelse med titlen »Kina: Den europæiske satellitdriftsvirksomhed Eutelsat slukker for den uafhængige fjernsynssender på kinesisk NTDTV for at stille Peking tilfreds«.
The proof that the blackout is deliberate has been furnished by Reporters Without Borders in the form of a press release issued on Thursday, 10 July, entitled ‘Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing’.
En afskrift af denne konversation er blevet offentliggjort på websiden www.rsf.org, og der er en audiooptagelse til rådighed for medierne.
A transcript of the incriminating conversation is about to be posted on the organisation’s website (www.rsf.org), and an audio recording is available for the media.
Hvordan vurderer Rådet denne situation i betragtning af, at driftsvirksomheden Eutelsat, som har hovedsæde i Frankrig, ifølge europæisk ret er forpligtet til at overholde principperne vedrørende ligeberettiget adgang, pluralisme og ikkeforskelsbehandling i overensstemmelse med artikel 3 i den konvention, der fastsætter regler om satellitvirksomhedernes drift?
How does the Council view this situation, bearing in mind that Eutelsat, a company established under European law and based in France, has to observe the principles of equal access, pluralism, and non-discrimination in accordance with Article 3 of the convention governing the operations of satellite companies?
Agter Rådet ikke at protestere imod denne overtrædelse af de kinesiske borgeres ret til fri information og opfordrer Eutelsat til at overholde disse bestemmelser og forpligtelserne over for brugerne?
That being the case, does it not believe that it should speak out against this violation of the Chinese people’s right to be freely informed and call upon Eutelsat to comply with the above rules and fulfil its obligations to users?
Rådet har ikke drøftet dette spørgsmål.
The Council has not discussed the matter raised.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4302/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4302/08
Om: Energibeskatning og livskvalitet for Europas borgere
Subject: Energy taxation and quality of life for European citizens
I betragtning af den eksponentielle stigning i prisen på energi og olie samt følgerne af disse stigninger for livskvaliteten for 490 millioner europæiske borgere, bedes Rådet oplyse, hvilke foranstaltninger det agter at træffe med hensyn til energibeskatning både for at sikre alle EU-borgere adgang til energi og mindske virkningerne af energikrisen på europæernes tilværelse og den europæiske økonomi.
Given the steep increase in the cost of energy and oil and the impact thereof on the quality of life of Europe’s 490 million citizens, what energy taxation measures are being envisaged by the Council with a view to ensuring the accessibility of energy for all European citizens and tempering the impact of the energy crisis on the lives of Europeans and the European economy?
Kan det desuden oplyse, om medlemsstaterne overvejer at indføre foranstaltninger til at kompensere for de stigende oliepriser?
Do the Member States intend to introduce measures to offset the increase in oil prices?
Rådet er naturligvis betænkeligt ved de sociale og økonomiske følger af de høje energipriser og vil give de forslag, som Kommissionen har til hensigt at udarbejde herom, al den opmærksomhed, de fortjener.
The Council is obviously concerned by the social and economic effects of energy price levels and will give the proposals which the Commission intends to put forward in this area its full attention.
Det Europæiske Råd opfordrede i juni formandskabet til sammen med Kommissionen at undersøge, om der kan træffes foranstaltninger til at mildne virkningen af pludselige stigninger i olie- og gaspriserne, og hvilke konsekvenser sådanne foranstaltninger vil have, og til at rapportere tilbage inden Det Europæiske Råds møde i oktober.
Moreover, last June the European Council asked the Presidency to examine, in cooperation with the Commission, the feasibility and impact of measures to smooth the effects of sudden oil and and gas price increases and to report back before its October meeting.
Dette arbejde er i gang.
This work is in progress.
Det er i første række op til den enkelte medlemsstat at vedtage nationale fiskale foranstaltninger som reaktion på de stigende oliepriser.
It is primarily for each Member State to adopt national tax measures in response to the rise in the cost of oil.
Rådet modtager ikke oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om sådanne foranstaltninger.
The Council does not receive information from the Member States on these measures.
Rådet erindrer dog om, at man bør undgå fiskale foranstaltninger og andre offentlige indgreb, som vil medføre konkurrenceforvridning på det indre marked.
The Council would recall, in any event, the need to avoid fiscal measures or other public intervention which would result in distortions of competition within the internal market.
Kommissionen har desuden over for Rådet oplyst, at den i henhold til artikel 29 i Rådets direktiv 2003/96/EF om omstrukturering af EF-bestemmelserne for beskatning af energiprodukter og elektricitet arbejder på en revision af direktivet.
The Commission has, moreover, informed the Council that, in accordance with Article 29 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, it is working on a review of the latter.
Dette forslag til direktiv er endnu ikke blevet forelagt for Rådet.
This proposal for a directive has not yet been forwarded to the Council.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4307/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4307/08
De såkaldte Benesdekreter blev vedtaget lige i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrig i Tjekkoslovakiet, og mange af dem var rettet mod at fratage tyske og ungarske borgere deres rettigheder på et kollektivt grundlag.
The so-called Benes decrees were adopted in the immediate aftermath of World War II in Czechoslovakia and many of them were aimed at the deprivation of German and Hungarian citizens’ rights on a collective basis.
Endvidere gav disse dekreter ordre til nationalisering af banker og private forsikringsselskaber.
Moreover some of these decrees ordered the nationalisation of banks and private insurance companies.
Den Slovakiske regering stemte den 20. september 2007 for at bekræfte de såkaldte Benesdekreters ukrænkelighed.
The Slovak Parliament voted on 20 September 2007 to reaffirm the inviolability of the so-called Benes Decrees.
Trods deres åbenlyst udemokratiske og uretfærdige natur er de omfattende dekreter forblevet i kraft i 60 år.
Despite their patently undemocratic and unjust nature, the blanket decrees have remained in effect for 60 years.
De hævngerrige foranstaltninger fortsætter med at have barske nutidige konsekvenser.
The vengeful measures continue to have harsh, current-day consequences.
Den politiske og juridiske genbekræftelse af dekreterne synes således at krænke de grundlæggende principper i fællesskabslovgivningen.
Thus the political and legal reaffirmation of the decrees seems to be violating the fundamental principles of Community law.
I hvilken udstrækning er genbekræftelsen af Benesdekreterne, især stramningen af præsidentdekret 102/1945 vedrørende nationaliseringen af aktieselskabsbanker, acceptabel og forenelig med principperne for den frie markedsøkonomi i EU?
To what extent is the reaffirmation of the Benes decrees, especially the reinforcement of the 102/1945 Presidential edict concerning the nationalisation of banks of stock corporations, acceptable and compatible with the principles of free market economy in the EU?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4308/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4308/08
Om: Brugen af polybromeret diphenylether
Subject: The use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers
Der er ca. 70 forskellige bromerede flammehæmmende midler med vidt forskellige kemiske egenskaber.
There are around 70 different brominated flame retardants, which have widely varying chemical properties.
Kendskabet til dem varierer.
Knowledge of them varies.
Der er fem bromerede flammehæmmende midler, som historisk set er de mest udbredte, og hvorom der er en betydelig viden.
There are five brominated flame retardants that, historically, are the most widely used and about which there is considerable knowledge.
Disse er pentabromodiphenylether, octabromodiphenylether, decabromodiphenylether, tetrabromobisphenol A og hexabromocyclododecan.
These are pentabromodiphenyl ether, octabromodiphenyl ether, decabromodiphenyl ether, tetrabromobisphenol A and hexabromocyclododecane.
Videnskabelig forskning har stemplet penta- og octabromeret diphenylether (BDE) som mulige stoffer med hormonforstyrrende effekt hos mennesker.
Scientific research has labelled penta- and octa- brominated diphenyl ethers (BDEs), as possible endocrine disruptors affecting hormones in humans.
Penta-, octa- og decabromodiphenylether hører til den samme kemiske gruppe af stoffer, polybromeret dispenylether, forkortet PBDE.
Penta-, octa- and decabromodiphenyl ether belong to the same chemical group of substances, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, abbreviated as PBDE.
Alle tre er persistente stoffer, som er vanskelige at nedbryde, mens deres bioakkumulering og toksicitet varierer.
All three are persistent substances that are difficult to break down, while their bioaccumulation and toxicity differ.
I betragtning af at brugen af penta- og octabromodiphenylether allerede er nedtrappet i EU, vil Kommissionen da gøre det til en prioritet også at nedtrappe brugen af decabromodiphenylether?
Considering that the use of penta- and octa- have already been phased out in the European Union, will the Commission make it its priority to also phase out decabromodiphenyl ether?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4309/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4309/08
Om: Anvendelse af EU's miljølovgivning i Bulgarien
Subject: Application of EU environmental legislation in Bulgaria
Ifølge rapporter fra »Royal Society for the Protection of Birds« (RSPB) fremgår det, at Bulgarien ikke har udpeget et tilstrækkeligt antal særligt beskyttede områder som en del af Natura 2000-nettet.
According to reports received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB), it appears that Bulgaria is failing to designate a sufficient number of special protection areas which would form part of the Natura 2000 network.
I rapporterne hævdes det ligeledes, at Bulgarien imødekommer ansøgninger om udvikling af netop de områder, der burde udpeges, hvoraf et af de mest iøjnefaldende steder er Kaliakra ved Sortehavskysten, som er et betydningsfuldt rastested for mange tusinde fugle på træk.
The reports also claim that Bulgaria is granting planning applications for development on the very sites which it should be designating — one of the most prominent being Kaliakra on the Black Sea coast, which is an important migratory stop-over for many thousands of birds.
Trods klager til den bulgarske regering fra det bulgarske modstykke til RSPB og andre bulgarske grupper, der arbejder for naturbevarelse, samt en skriftlig advarsel fra Kommissionen lader det til, at der stadig gives tilladelse til udvikling.
Despite complaints to the Bulgarian Government by the Bulgarian equivalent of the RSPB, and other Bulgarian conservation groups, and a written warning from the European Commission, it would appear that developments are still being permitted.
Hvilke yderligere foranstaltninger træffes og vil der blive truffet for at sikre, at Bulgarien overholder den miljølovgivning, som landet underskrev ved tiltrædelsen, og at landet gennem »kompensationsforanstaltninger« genopretter de naturlokaliteter, der er gået tabt eller blevet beskadiget siden januar 2007?
What further action is and will be taken to ensure that Bulgaria respects the environmental legislation that it signed up to on accession, and that it replaces wildlife sites lost or damaged since January 2007 through ‘compensatory measures’?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4310/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4310/08
Om: Uoverensstemmelser i spillesektoren
Subject: Inconsistencies in the gambling sector
Med Romtraktatens artikel 43 og artikel 49 sikres etableringsfriheden og den frie bevægelighed for tjenesteydelser.
Article 43 and Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome enshrine the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services.
Dette betyder, at en virksomhed, hvis hovedvirksomhed ligger i én medlemsstat, kan tilbyde sine tjenester i en anden uden hindringer.
This means that a company based in one Member State can offer its services in another without hindrance.
Desuden skal medlemsstaternes nationale love være nødvendige, proportionale og ikkediskriminerende, hvilket betyder, at en medlemsstat skal anvende sin lovgivning på samme måde på nationale og ikkenationale virksomheder.
Additionally, Member States’ domestic law must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory, meaning that a Member State must apply its law equally to national and non-national companies.
Der er alvorlige uoverensstemmelser i sektoren for online spil i det indre marked.
There are serious inconsistencies in the online gambling sector in the internal market.
Hvad værre er, kan udenlandske statsmonopoler drage fordel af medlemsstater, der har liberale spillelove, som f.eks. Det Forenede Kongerige, ved at gøre reklame for deres tjenester der, mens de samtidig forhindrer engelske firmaer i at tilbyde deres tjenester på deres hjemmemarkeder.
What is worse is that foreign state monopolies are able to take advantage of Member States that have liberal gambling laws such as the UK by advertising their services there, while simultaneously preventing UK firms from offering their services in their domestic markets.
Disse uensartede spilleregler er klart imod alle de principper, som traktaten skulle beskytte.
Such an unlevel playing-field is clearly against all of the principles that the Treaty was designed to protect.
Der er brug for en stærk indsats fra Kommissionens side, hvis principperne for det indre marked skal bevares.
Strong action is required from the Commission if the principles of the internal market are to be preserved.
Hvad mener Kommissionen om denne uoverensstemmelse?
What view does the Commission take of this inconsistency?
Hvilke forholdsregler vil den tage over for medlemsstater, der ikke overholder loven, og hvornår kan vi forvente, at der sker noget?
What actions is it going to take against offending Member States and when can we expect to see some progress?
Dette er allerede trukket alt for meget i langdrag.
This has already dragged on for too long.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4311/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4311/08
af Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) , Roberta Angelilli (UEN) , Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) og Mario Borghezio (UEN)
by Stefano Zappalà (PPE‑DE) , Roberta Angelilli (UEN) , Mario Mauro (PPE‑DE) and Mario Borghezio (UEN)
Om: Romadag i Rom
Subject: ‘Roma Day’ in Rome
I betragtning af at Europa-Kommissionens repræsentation i Italien arrangerer: —
The Commission Representation in Italy organised: —
en rundbordssamtale den 17. juli ved La Sapienza-universitetet i Rom om romaproblemet, hvor der er indbudt parlamentsmedlemmer, som ikke er repræsentative for samtlige politiske kræfter i Parlamentet, —
a round table on the Roma problem in Rome, held on 17 July at La Sapienza University and attended by invited parliamentary representatives who did not fully reflect the political forces making up Parliament; —
et besøg i romalejrene i Rom den 18. juli og et efterfølgende møde for lukkede døre for at diskutere de heraf følgende problematikker,
a visit to the Roma camps in Rome, which took place on 18 July and was followed by a meeting behind closed doors to discuss related issues.
bedes Kommissionen oplyse: —
Is the Commission aware of these facts?
om den har kendskab til ovenstående —
Was the Mayor of Rome approached in advance?
om man på forhånd har underrettet indenrigsministeriet?
Was the Ministry of the Interior given prior warning?
Såfremt dette ikke er sket, hvilke foranstaltninger agter den at træffe?
If the answer to the above questions is no, what steps does the Commission intend to take?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4312/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4312/08
af Jan Cremers (PSE)
by Jan Cremers (PSE)
Om: Direktiv 91/533/EØF om arbejdsgiverens pligt til at underrette arbejdstageren om vilkårene for arbejdskontrakten eller ansættelsesforholdet
Subject: Directive 91/533/EEC on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship
Det er bl.a. fastsat i direktivet, at »enhver arbejdstager skal modtage et dokument, der indeholder oplysninger om de væsentlige punkter i ansættelseskontrakten eller ansættelsesforholdet«.
The directive also states that ‘it is necessary to establish at Community level the general requirement that every employee must be provided with a document containing information on the essential elements of his contract or employment relationship’.
Direktivet indeholder også en bestemmelse om, at »medlemsstaterne garanterer arbejdstagerne muligheden for at gøre deres rettigheder i henhold til dette direktiv gældende«.
It also requires ‘Member States to guarantee that employees can claim the rights conferred on them by this directive’.
Direktivet finder ligeledes anvendelse på arbejdstagere, der udstationeres midlertidigt, ud fra den betragtning at »i tilfælde af at arbejdstageren udstationeres, skal han udover de væsentlige forhold i arbejdskontrakten eller ansættelsesforholdet have relevante oplysninger om forholdene i forbindelse med denne udstationering«.
The directive also applies to employees working temporarily abroad, on the grounds that ‘in the case of expatriation of the employee, the latter must, in addition to the main terms of his contract or employment relationship, be supplied with relevant information connected with his secondment’.
Direktiv 91/533/EØF er aldrig blevet evalueret, og gennemførelsen i national ret er heller aldrig blevet drøftet.
Directive 91/533/EEC has never been reviewed, although its transposition into national law has been the subject of discussion.
Har Kommissionen kendskab til, om der (på nationalt og/eller europæisk plan) er gennemført undersøgelser af, om den i direktiv 91/533/EØF fastsatte oplysningspligt er overholdt?
Is the European Commission aware of any investigation (at national or European level) into compliance with the obligation to provide information as laid down in Directive 91/533/EEC?
Hvilke resultater har disse undersøgelser i bekræftende fald ført til?
If it is, what were the results of that investigation?
Agter Kommissionen at foretage en nærmere undersøgelse af gennemførelsen af direktiv 91/533/EØF i national ret?
Will the Commission be looking more closely at the transposition into national law of Directive 91/533/EEC?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-4313/08
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4313/08
Om: Direktiv 91/533/EØF som instrument i kampen mod sort arbejde
Subject: Directive 91/533/EEC as an instrument for combating illegal employment
Nylige domme afsagt af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol (Kommissionen mod medlemsstaten Luxembourg) synes dog i alvorlig grad at begrænse mulighederne for at anvende denne informationspligt.
Recent judgments by the European Court of Justice (such as European Commission v Member State of Luxembourg ) appear to seriously constrain the opportunities for enforcing the obligation to inform.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse påhviler det udelukkende oprindelseslandet at kontrollere, om direktiv 91/533/EØF efterleves.
The Court confers the responsibility for monitoring compliance with Directive 91/533/EEC exclusively on the country of origin.
Denne fortolkning kan ikke klart udledes af den oprindelige tekst til direktiv 91/533/EØF.
This interpretation cannot be unambiguously derived from the original wording of Directive 91/533/EEC.