natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvorledes agter Kommissionen at forene de forskellige aspekter, der er tale om, navnlig hvad angår fastsættelsen af enhedstariffens niveau, således at den ikke får virkninger for produktionen af EF-bananer? 2.
how it proposes to reconcile the various issues at stake, in particular the level of the flat-rate levy, so as not to affect Community banana production adversely; 2.
Hvorledes agter Kommissionen at tage højde for de særlige forhold for bananproducenterne i regionerne i den yderste periferi?
how it intends to safeguard the special situation of banana producers in the outermost regions in the general context of protecting European banana producers, and whether any specific measure is envisaged for the particular and different situations of the outermost regions; 3.
Er der planer om særlige foranstaltninger med henblik på de særlige og forskelligartede forhold i regionerne i den yderste periferi? 3.
how it intends to define, as of 2006, the system of compensation for producers unable to market their products;
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3273/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3273/04
Om: Pålideligheden af en kilde til en påstand i en OLAF-undersøgelse
Subject: Reliability of a source of an allegation in an OLAF investigation
Den 11. februar 2004 skrev Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig til retsmyndighederne i Belgien og Hamborg, at en pålidelig kilde havde informeret Kontoret om en bestikkelsessag, hvor en journalist hævdedes at have sikret sig fortrolige dokumenter mod betaling.
On 11 February 2004, the European Anti-Fraud Office wrote to the Belgian and Hamburg Courts to the effect that a reliable source had informed the Office about a bribery case in which a journalist had allegedly secured confidential documents in return for money.
Den påstået »pålidelige« kilde har tilsyneladende fremsat tre forskellige udtalelser om de forhold, der skulle ligge til grund for påstanden, hvis de var sande..
The allegedly trustworthy source appears to have made three different statements about the facts that would, if true, underpin the allegation:
Version 1: Ifølge en officiel udtalelse ringede en navngiven tidligere kollega og ven ham op og fortalte ham, at journalisten skulle have betalt ham 8000 (euro eller D-mark) nogle dage før kilden spiste middag med talsmanden for Kontoret for Bekæmpelse af Svig.
Version 1: According to an official statement, a named former colleague and friend telephoned him and said that the journalist had paid him 8000 (euros or Deutschmarks) a few days before the source dined with the Anti-Fraud Office's spokesman.
Version 2: Ifølge to avisartikler i juni 2004 skulle en anden kollega have fortalt ham, at journalisten havde betalt 8000 (euro eller D-mark).
Version 2: According to two newspaper articles published in June 2004, another colleague told him that the journalist had paid him 8000 (euros or Deutschmarks).
Kilden skulle derpå have ringet til sin tidligere kollega for at finde ud af, om det var sandt, at det blad, de alle tre enten arbejdede eller havde arbejdet for, i almindelighed betalte for oplysninger - uden at nævne den specifikke journalist eller henvise til et specifikt eksempel.
The source then telephoned his former colleague to ascertain whether it was true, as a general rule, that the magazine for which all three either worked or had worked paid for information - but without naming the specific journalist or referring to a specific instance.
Version 3: I en erklæring på tro og love for domstolen i Hamborg skulle kilden, Joachim Gross, have talt med sin »kilde« over telefonen og spurgt ham, om bladet Stern stadig havde for vane at betale sine informationskilder, men denne påståede »kilde« stod stadig bag historien om de 8000 (euro eller D-mark).
Version 3: In an affidavit to the Hamburg Court, the source, Joachim Gross, spoke to his alleged source on the telephone and asked him whether it was still customary for Stern magazine to pay its sources of information, but that alleged source was still behind the 8000 (euros or Deutschmarks) story.
I punkt 2.2.2 i OLAF's femte virksomhedsberetning står der, at antallet af interne undersøgelser blev reduceret, fordi der blev anvendt strengere kriterier til at vurdere modtagne oplysninger.
Paragraph 2.2.2 of OLAF's fifth activity report states that the number of internal investigations was reduced because of the application of stricter criteria for the assessment of incoming information.
Kan Kommissionen forklare, på hvilket grundlag den betragtede denne meddeler som troværdig?
Can the Commission indicate the basis on which it regarded this informer as trustworthy?
Er Kommissionen enig i, at troværdigheden hos den tidligere kommissionstjenestemand, som stod bag påstanden, er blevet alvorligt draget i tvivl af Landgericht Hamburg, som afsagde dom den 15. september 2004?
Would the Commission agree that the credibility of the former Commission official who was behind the allegation has been seriously compromised by the judgment of the Landgericht Hamburg which was handed down on 15 September 2004?
Hvorfor blev denne kilde ledsaget af en tjenestemand fra GD ADMIN?
Why was this source accompanied by a DG Administration official?
Betyder dette, at han fremsatte sine påstande på Kommissionens vegne?
Does this mean that he made his allegation on behalf of the Commission?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3274/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3274/04
Om: Deponering af forurenet opmudringsslam i Rhinen
Subject: Dumping of polluted dredging spoil in the Rhine
Ved den fransk-tyske dæmning i Rhinen ved Iffezheim træffes der forberedelser til at fylde dæmningen op med 300.000 m3 forurenet opmudringsslam, hvori der skulle befinde sig 40-50 kg sedimenter, som er forurenet med hexaclorbenzen (HCB).
At the Franco-German dam in the Rhine at Iffezheim, preparations are being made to cover the dam with 300000 m3 of polluted dredging spoil, which is said to include 40-50 kg of sediment contaminated with HCB (hexachlorobenzene).
Ved en tidligere aktion under en oversvømmelse i 1999 blev der i Nederlandene fundet forhøjede koncentrationer af HCB fra Iffezheim, og der blev konstateret indvirkninger på miljøet i prøver med forhøjede koncentrationer af HCB (i forbindelse med flyvestøv)
On an earlier occasion, when HCB was spread during a flood in 1999, higher than normal concentrations of HCBs from Iffezheim were found in the Netherlands and samples containing higher than normal concentrations of HCB (attached to entrained dust) were found to have ecological impacts.
Har Kommissionen kendskab til den gennemførte aktion?
Is the Commission aware of the size of the proposed operation?
I benægtende fald agter Kommissionen at iværksætte en undersøgelse?
If not, will the Commission investigate it?
Mener Kommissionen, at den gennemførte aktion er i modstrid med bogstav - især artikel 4 og 7 - og ånd i rammedirektivet om vand, hvis mål er at forbedre vandkvaliteten i Europa og imødegå en forværring af problemet og en overvæltning af ansvaret?
Does the proposed operation contravene the letter - particularly Articles 4 and 7 - and the spirit of the objective of improving water quality in Europe and preventing deterioration and the diversion of problems elsewhere, as provided for in the Framework Directive on Water?
Mener Kommissionen, at det her drejer sig om en forbudt aktion med et kræftfremkaldende og hormonforstyrrende prioriteret stof i henhold til rammedirektivet om vand?
Is this a prohibited activity involving a carcinogen and hormone-disruptor which is a priority substance under the Framework Directive on Water?
I bekræftende fald hvad agter Kommissionen at gøre for at imødegå dette?
If so, what will the Commission do to prevent it?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3303/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3303/04
Om: Adgang til domstole i en anden medlemsstat
Subject: Access to justice in another Member State
Indbyggerne i Bellingwolde har forsøgt at indbringe sagen for domstolene i Tyskland, men indtil videre er sagen blevet afvist flere gange.
The inhabitants of Bellingwolde have tried to bring their case before the courts in Germany, but their case has, to date, been dismissed as inadmissible on several occasions.
Er Kommissionen enig i, at EU-borgere, der påvirkes af projekter på en anden medlemsstats territorium, har ret til at indbringe sagen for en domstol i den pågældende medlemsstat?
Does the Commission agree that European citizens who are affected by projects built on the territory of another Member State have the right to bring their case before a court in that Member State?
Er Kommissionen enig i, at en medlemsstat, der nægter borgere fra en anden medlemsstat adgang til domstolsprøvelse, gør sig skyldig i en overtrædelse af artikel 20 og 47 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder?
Does the Commission agree that a Member State’s failure to allow citizens from another Member State access to justice constitutes a breach of Articles 20 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
Kan Kommissionen i benægtende fald give en begrundelse for sine synspunkter?
If the Commission does not agree, can the Commission say why?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3304/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3304/04
Om: Sagfører, der repræsenterer en tidligere tjenestemand i Kommissionen og OLAF-meddeler
Subject: Lawyer acting for a former Commission official and OLAF informant
Det påstås, at journalist Hans-Martin Tillack har bestukket ansatte ved OLAF for at få udleveret en kopi af en fortrolig rapport i februar 2002.
It is alleged that a journalist, Mr Tillack, bribed OLAF officials in order to secure a copy of a confidential report in February 2002.
Den person, der har fremsat denne påstand, har skiftet sagførerfirma og repræsenteres nu af Uphoff fra sagførerfirmaet McDermott, Will & Emerys München-kontor.
The source of that allegation has changed lawyers and is now represented by a Mr Uphoff who works in the Munich office of the McDermott, Will and Emery law firm.
Uphoff repræsenterer også OLAF's direktør, Brüner, i den strafferetlige undersøgelse, som den offentlige anklager i Hamburg har indledt mod ham, fordi han skal have fremsat injurierende udtalelser om Hans-Martin Tillack.
Mr Uphoff also represents the Director of OLAF, Mr Brüner, in the criminal investigation which the Hamburg Public Prosecutor has initiated against him on the grounds that he defamed the journalist, Mr Tillack.
Oprindelig var kilden til påstanden tilsyneladende parat til at acceptere det påbud, han havde fået af Landgericht Hamburg om ikke at gentage sine tidligere udtalelser om, at en tidligere kollega havde været den oprindelige kilde til påstanden.
It would appear that the source of this allegation was, initially, ready to accept the order made by the Landgericht Hamburg forbidding him to repeat the claim that a former colleague had been the original source of the allegation.
På dette tidspunkt skal kilden allerede som påkrævet have betalt tre fjerdedele af sagsomkostningerne.
Up to that point, the source had apparently paid the required three quarters of the court costs.
Efter at have skiftet til sin nuværende sagfører blev kilden til påstanden pludselig mere kampberedt og ønskede ikke længere at acceptere påbuddet.
After changing to his current lawyer, the source of the allegation very suddenly became more aggressive and refused to acknowledge the court order.
Har direktøren for OLAF eller Kommissionen nogen indflydelse på, hvad Joachim Gross siger i retten?
Does the Director of OLAF, or does the Commission, have any influence over what Mr Joachim Gross says in court?
Betaler Kommissionen Uphoffs salær for at repræsentere Gross?
Is the Commission paying the fees charged by Mr Uphoff for representing Mr Gross?
Hvorledes kan Gross i så fald betragtes som et troværdigt vidne?
If so, how can Mr Gross be deemed to be a credible witness?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3315/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3315/04
Skal Kommissionens svar på skriftlig forespørgsel P-0524/04 EUT C forstås således, at traktaterne om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab og om Den Europæiske Union ikke længere vil finde anvendelse på Nordirland, hvis et flertal af befolkningen i det pågældende område på grundlag af »Good Friday Agreement« vælger at træde ud af unionen med Storbritannien?
Does the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-0524/04 OJ C imply that, if, on the basis set out in the Good Friday Agreement, a majority of the people of Northern Ireland chose to discontinue the Union with Great Britain, the Treaties establishing the EC and the EU would no longer apply to that part of the island of Ireland?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3316/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3316/04
Om: Dobbelt bogføring
Subject: Double-entry book-keeping
Hvornår vil Kommissionen gå over til at benytte dobbelt bogføring i sine budgetter?
When will the Commission start to use double-entry book-keeping for its budget accounts?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3317/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3317/04
Om: Sprogene skotsk og gælisk og EU-forfatningen
Subject: Scots and Gaelic Languages and the EU Constitution
I henhold til artikel IV-448 i den foreslåede traktat om en forfatning for Europa kan traktaten oversættes til ethvert sprog som fastlagt af medlemsstaterne blandt de sprog, der i overensstemmelse med deres forfatningsmæssige orden har officiel status på hele eller en del af deres område.
Article IV-448 of the proposed Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe allows the Treaty to be translated into any language as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory.
Mens Det Forenede Kongeriges forfatningsmæssige orden ikke anerkender »officielle« sprog som sådanne, er betydningen af såvel gælisk som skotsk blevet anerkendt i hele Skotland og navnlig af det skotske parlament.
Whilst the UK constitutional order does not recognise ‘official’ languages as such, the importance of both the Gaelic and Scots languages have been recognised throughout Scotland and, in particular, by the Scottish Parliament.
Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at den foreslåede traktat, såfremt Det Forenede Kongeriges regering foretager det fornødne, kan oversættes til a) gælisk og b) skotsk, idet bekræftede genparter af disse oversættelser deponeres i Rådets arkiver, jf. artikel IV-448?
Can the Commission confirm that, should the UK Government make appropriate representations, the proposed Treaty could be translated into (a) Gaelic and (b) Scots, with authentic copies thereof being deposited in the archives of the Council, as envisaged in Article IV-448?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3318/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3318/04
Den 16. november 2004 afholdt Kommissionen inden for sin Politiske Konsulentgruppe (Gopa) et møde med diverse religiøse sammenslutninger og forskellige kirker for at orientere dem om konklusionerne fra Det Europæiske Råds møde den 4.-5. november 2004.
On 16 November 2004, the Commission, through GOPA, organised a meeting with various religious organisations and several churches, in order to inform them of the conclusions of the last meeting of the Council of Ministers of 4 and 5 November.
Blandt de indbudte var endog Scientologi-kirken, hvilket kan forbavse én noget.
Among those invited was to my great surprise. the Church of Scientology.
Såfremt man allerede havde ønsket at respektere ånden i den fremtidige forfatningstraktats artikel 52, havde verdslige, humanistiske og konfessionsløse organisationer som f.eks. Europæisk Humanistisk Forbund også skullet være indbudt til dette møde.
It appears to me that, had one wanted to be true to the spirit of Article 52 of the future Constitutional Treaty, it would have been advisable for secular, humanist and non-confessional organisations such as the European Humanist Federation also to be invited to this meeting.
Man kan imidlertid gå ud fra, at et lignende møde med sådanne organisationer om samme emne indgår i Gopas program for den nærmeste fremtid.
I can only suppose that a similar meeting on the same theme has already been scheduled by GOPA for the near future.
Man kan jo næppe forestille sig, at denne mangel på verdslige og humanistiske organisationers deltagelse i mødet den 16. november 2004 skyldes en forglemmelse eller endnu mindre et tilsigtet fravalg fra Gopas side eller endog en form for diskriminering, idet der må have været tale om et rent mødeteknisk problem.
I do not believe that this absence of secular and humanist organisations at the meeting of 16 November was a matter of oversight, nor indeed that it was a deliberate choice on the part of GOPA or a form of discrimination; I believe that it simply stemmed from a technical problem.
Det må ikke desto mindre beklages, at separate møder ikke resulterer i nogen faktisk åben og gennemsigtig meningsudveksling som håbet.
It was, nevertheless, to be regretted that separate meetings will not develop into the true, open and transparent exchange that one would have hoped for.
Kan Kommissionen fremlægge nærmere oplysninger om denne situation?
Could the Commission give details about this situation?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3319/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3319/04
Om: Arvelig fruktose-intolerans
Subject: Hereditary fructose intolerance (HFI)
Arvelig fruktose-intolerans (heriditary fructose intolerance (HFI)) er en sjælden genetisk sygdom af recessiv autosomal arvelig karakter, som skyldes mangel på enzymet Aldolase B, som er nødvendigt for at omsætte fruktose.
Hereditary fructose intolerance (HFI) is a rare autosomal recessive metabolic disease caused by a deficiency in the Aldolase B enzyme needed for the breakdown of fructose.
De, der er ramt af HFI, kan således ikke omsætte den fruktose, der findes i fødevarer og lægemidler, men kan - ud over andre symptomer - blive udsat for kraftige anfald af lavt blodsukker, leverskader, utilstrækkelig nyrefunktion, koma og dødsfald.
A person suffering from HFI is hence unable to metabolise the fructose contained in food and medicaments, leading, among other symptoms, to severe hypoglycaemia, liver damage, kidney dysfunction, coma and death.
Hvilke initiativer agter Europa-Kommissionen at tage i dette spørgsmål, og agter den ikke at foretage de nødvendige ændringer i bestemmelserne og navnlig ajourføre bilag III a til direktiv 2003/89/EF af 10. november 2003 og heri udtrykkelig anføre de ingredienser, der er farlige for HFI-ramte, nemlig 1) fruktose, 2) sakkarose, 3) sorbitol (E420), 4) invertsukker, 5) glukosesirup, 6) lactitol (E966), 7) maltitol (E965) og 8) isomalt (E953)?
What steps does the Commission intend to take in this area, and does it not consider it necessary to make appropriate amendments to the abovementioned texts, inter alia by updating Annex IIIa to Directive 2003/89/EC of 10 November 2003 to include specifically the ingredients which are harmful to HFI sufferers, namely: (i) fructose, (ii) saccarose, (iii) sorbitol (E420), (iv) invert sugar, (v) glucose syrup, (vi) lactitol (E966), (vii) maltitol (E965) and (viii) isomaltitol (E953)?
Med en sådan specifik angivelse vil det blive muligt at give de HFI-ramte mere korrekt information, således at de skadelige og undertiden livsfarlige følger kan undgås.
This would enable HFI sufferers to obtain more precise information in order to avoid harmful, and sometimes even fatal, consequences.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3320/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3320/04
Om: Offentlige tjenester i forbindelse med arbejdsformidling og EU's konkurrencepolitik
Subject: Public placement services and European competition policy
Kommissionen argumenterer med, at medlemsstaternes offentlige tjenester i forbindelse med arbejdsformidling ikke kan betragtes som en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse.
The Commission argues that public placement services in the Member States cannot be regarded as ‘services of general economic interest’.
De kan derfor ikke i lighed med sygehuse og almene boligselskaber indgå i rammeforordningen om statsstøtten og Kommissionens afgørelse om anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 86 om statsstøtte.
Unlike hospitals and housing associations, for example, they therefore cannot be included in the framework on state aid or in the Commission's decision on the application of Article 86 (EC Treaty) to state aid.
Frygter Kommissionen ikke, at medlemsstaterne med hjemmel i denne fortolkning i endnu højere grad vil overlade disse tjenester til den private sektor?
Is the Commission not concerned that this interpretation will lead to the Member States further cutting their public placement services and leaving this work to the private sector?
Ville det ikke være mere hensigtsmæssigt at anerkende den specifikke samfundsmæssige rolle, som den offentlige arbejdsformidling spiller i overensstemmelse med målsætningerne i den europæiske beskæftigelsesstrategi og den åbne koordinering med hensyn til samfundsmæssig integration?
Would it not be better to recognise the specific social role played by public placement services, in accordance with the objectives of the European Employment Strategy and the open method of coordination on social inclusion?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3331/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3331/04
Om: Fodbold og den sociale dialog
Subject: Football and social dialogue
Den sociale dialog mellem arbejdsmarkedets parter er anerkendt i EU og i traktaten som reguleringsprincip på arbejdsmarkedsområdet.
The social dialogue between management and workforce is recognised in the EU and in the Treaty as a regulatory principle of the labour market.
Der er indgået overenskomster på nationalt niveau mellem fodboldspillerne og fodboldklubbernes organisationer i en lang række europæiske lande.
Agreements have been concluded at national level between footballers and football clubs’ organisations in a large number of European countries.
De nationalt anerkendte mekanismer, som bruges til at regulere et arbejdsmarked ved aftaler, finder således også anvendelse i fodboldsektoren.
The nationally recognised mechanisms used to regulate the labour market by agreements thus also apply to the football sector.
Hvilke skridt har Kommissionen taget for at fremme den sociale dialog, som fastlagt i traktaten, i sportssektoren og specifikt i fodboldsektoren?
What measures has the Commission taken to promote social dialogue, as laid down in the Treaty, in the sports sector in general and in football in particular?
Vil Kommissionen fremover støtte den sociale dialog i fodbold og sport generelt?
Will the Commission also support social dialogue in football and in sport as a whole?
Vil Kommissionen tage initiativ til at sikre, at nødvendige europæiske arbejdsmarkedsregler (fx om transfer af spillere) på fodboldens europæiske arbejdsmarked bliver skabt via den sociale dialog og fastlagt i kollektive aftaler (overenskomster) mellem de relevante europæiske parter, som repræsenterer klubberne og spillerne, således at UEFA's og FIFA's påvirkning af arbejdsmarkedsforholdene i denne sektor ved hjælp af egne regulativer mindskes?
Will the Commission take the initiative to ensure that necessary European labour market rules (e.g. on transfers of players) in the football labour market at European level are arrived at by means of social dialogue and set out in collective agreements between the relevant European parties, representing clubs and players, so as to diminish the influence of UEFA and FIFA on labour market conditions in this sector through their own regulatory systems?
I bekræftende fald, hvordan forventer Kommissionen at gøre dette, og hvad er tidsrammen for eventuelle forslag?
If so, how does the Commission look to do this, and what is the time framework for any such proposals?
Hvordan vil Kommissionen sikre, at UEFA og FIFA følger traktatens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, fri konkurrence, m.v., og følger de i Bosman-dommen fastlagte vilkår?
How does the Commission propose to ensure that UEFA and FIFA comply with the Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement of workers, freedom of competition etc., as well as with the requirements set out in the Bosman judgment.?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3332/04
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3332/04