natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ydelser i forbindelse med erhvervsmæssig invaliditet betragtes imidlertid som en indtægt, og modtagelsen af ydelserne bevirkede, at hun mistede sine øvrige ydelser, som f.eks. indkomststøtte, gratis recepter og senest folkepensionstillæg.
However, IIDB is classed as income and receiving this benefit caused her to lose her other benefits such as Income Support, free prescriptions and most recently Pension Credit.
Kan nogen aktuel EU‑lovgivning anvendes af ofre for arbejdsulykker til at opnå flere ydelser? 2.
If there is any current EU legislation which may help victims of industrial accidents receive more benefits? 2.
Vil den i benægtende fald stille forslag til en sådan lovgivning?
If not, whether it intends to propose such legislation?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004453/2011
Question for written answer E-004453/2011
Om: Velgørenhedsorganisationen Chernobyl Children's Lifeline
Subject: Chernobyl Children's Lifeline Charity
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som har gjort mig opmærksom på den britiske velgørenhedsorganisation Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline (CCLL).
I have been contacted by a constituent who has brought the UK charity Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline (CCLL) to my attention.
Velgørenhedsorganisationen støtter børn, der lider under de efterfølgende effekter af atomulykken i Tjernobyl og har til formål at hjælpe børn fra de berørte områder til at rejse til udlandet i en måned for at spise friske fødevarer og indånde frisk luft samt at hjælpe med at rense den radioaktive isotop cæsium-137 ud af deres kroppe.
The charity supports children who suffer from the after-effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and aims to help children from the affected regions to go abroad for one month to eat fresh food, breathe fresh air and to help clear the radioactive isotope Cesium-137 out of their bodies.
Min vælger oplyser, at velgørenhedsorganisationen har gjort det muligt for mere end 45.000 børn at rejse til Det Forenede Kongerige.
My constituent tells me that the charity has allowed more than 45 000 children to travel to the UK.
Velgørenhedsorganisationen får bevilget visumfrihed for børn, der rejser fra Hviderusland, men ikke fra Ukraine.
The charity is granted free visas for children travelling from Belarus but not from Ukraine.
Velgørenhedsorganisationen har for nylig haft drøftelser med ministeriet for udenrigs- og Commonwealth-anliggender og de britiske immigrationsmyndigheder, og de er blevet enige om, at visaene mellem de to lande nu skal være fleksible.
The charity recently had discussions with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK Border Agency and they have agreed that the visas between the two countries will now be flexible.
Han oplyser imidlertid, at der fra 2013 ikke mere vil være visumfrihed, og at dette vil føre til en ekstra omkostning på 70 engelske pund per barn.
However, he tells me that from 2013 there will be no more free visas, and this will lead to an additional cost of GBP 70 per child.
Min vælger oplyser, at der i andre europæiske lande bevilges visumfrihed til "Tjernobyl-børnene", og at nogle modtager yderligere støtte fra deres regeringer såsom fra den tyske regering.
My constituent tells me that in other European countries, the ‘Chernobyl Children’ are granted free visas and some receive further funding from their governments, such as from the German Government.
Han oplyser, at velgørenhedsorganisationen vil have et underskud på 154.000 engelske pund, hvad angår visa for tidsrummet 2011/12, og at den forudser et underskud på 350.000 engelske pund i 2013.
He tells me that for 2011/12, the charity will have a shortfall of GBP 154 000 for visas and that it faces a deficit of GBP 350 000 in 2013.
Min vælger mener, at denne velgørenhedsorganisation er vigtig, fordi antallet af børn i Hviderusland er faldet så meget, at nogle skoler ikke har nok børn til, at skolerne kan overleve, og at præsidenten opfordrer parrene til at få mindst tre børn.
My constituent believes that this charity is important because the child population of Belarus has dropped so much that some schools do not have enough children to make the schools viable, and the President is telling couples to have at least three children.
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, om der er nogle EU‑støttemidler, som er tilgængelige for denne velgørenhedsorganisation?
Could the Commission confirm whether there is any EU funding available for this charity?
Hvordan kan min vælger i bekræftende fald ansøge om sådanne støttemidler?
If so, how can my constituent apply for such funding?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004454/2011
Question for written answer E-004454/2011
Om: Refusion fra Thomas Cook
Subject: Refund from Thomas Cook
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, hvis flyvning fra London Gatwick til Bodrum blev aflyst i april 2010 på grund af askeskyen.
I have been contacted by a constituent whose flight from London Gatwick to Bodrum was cancelled in April 2010 due to the volcanic ash cloud.
Da han havde bestilt flyvningen gennem rejsebureauet Thomas Cook, reserverede de en ny flyvning til ham to uger senere, men de opkrævede yderligere 120 engelske pund af ham.
Since he booked the flight with the travel agency Thomas Cook, they re-booked him on a flight two weeks later but charged him an additional GBP 120.
Min vælger har bedt virksomheden om at refundere dette beløb, idet han siger, at EU‑forordning 261/2004 fastsætter, at transportører, der aflyser en flyvning, har pligt til at reservere en ny flyvning til passagererne på en senere dato.
My constituent has asked the company to refund this amount because he says that EU Regulation 261/2004 obliges carriers who cancel a flight to re-book passengers at a later date.
Han fortæller mig dog, at Thomas Cook svarede, at de er fritaget for dette krav, idet askeskyen skyldtes ekstraordinære omstændigheder.
However he tells me that Thomas Cook’s response is that since the volcanic ash cloud was due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ they are relieved of this obligation.
Kan Kommissionen oplyse, om Thomas Cook har overtrådt forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 ved at nægte refusion af ekstraomkostningerne?
Can the Commission confirm whether Thomas Cook has violated Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 by refusing to refund the additional cost?
Hvordan agter Kommissionen i bekræftende fald at skride ind over for Thomas Cook?
If so, what action does it plan to take against Thomas Cook?
Hvilke råd kan Kommissionen give min vælger i forbindelse med hans krav om tilbagebetaling af ekstraomkostningerne fra Thomas Cook?
What advice can the Commission give to my constituent with regard to claiming back the additional charge from Thomas Cook?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004455/2011
Question for written answer E-004455/2011
Om: Bradley Manning
Subject: Bradley Manning
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, som har rejst sagen om Bradley Manning, der ifølge min vælger har været tilbageholdt i isolation af amerikanerne i mere end syv måneder og holdes indespærret i en militærcelle i mere end 23 timer om dagen.
I have been contacted by a constituent who has raised the case of Bradley Manning who according to my constituent has been incarcerated in isolation by the Americans for over seven months and is being confined to an army cell for over 23 hours per day.
Min vælger har forklaret, at Bradley Manning blev anholdt for angiveligt at have givet oplysninger til WikiLeaks om den amerikanske regerings aktiviteter.
My constituent explains that Bradley Manning was arrested for allegedly giving information to WikiLeaks about US Government activities.
Hun er bekymret for, at en anholdelse som denne begrænser ytringsfrihed og demokrati i USA.
She is concerned that an arrest such as this reduces free speech and democracy in America.
Har den kendskab til anholdelsen og fængslingen af Bradley Manning? 2.
If it is aware of the arrest and imprisonment of Bradley Manning? 2.
Har den i bekræftende fald indledt drøftelser med de amerikanske myndigheder for at sikre, at Bradley Manning får en retfærdig rettergang, og at hans menneskerettigheder beskyttes? 3.
If so, whether it is currently in discussions with the US authorities to ensure that Bradley Manning is given a fair trial and that his human rights are protected? 3.
Er der gjort eller vil der blive gjort fremskridt i drøftelserne?
If any progress has been or is being made in the discussions?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004456/2011
Question for written answer E-004456/2011
Jeg er blevet kontaktet af en vælger, der er italiensk statsborger, og som giftede sig med en kinesisk statsborger i Wuhan i Kina i september 2009.
I have been contacted by a constituent who is an Italian citizen and who married a Chinese citizen in Wuhan, China, in September 2009.
Min vælger oplyser, at han fik al den passende dokumentation inden brylluppet, og at de kinesiske myndigheder gav tilladelse til deres ægteskab.
My constituent tells me that he obtained all the proper documentation before the wedding and that the Chinese authorities authorised their marriage.
Den britiske ambassade i Beijing udstedte derpå et ægtefællevisum til dem inden for fem dage.
The British Embassy in Beijing then issued them with a spouse visa within five days.
Min vælger oplyser, at han for nylig bestilte flybilletter og et hotel hos British Airways, således at han kunne rejse til Venedig med sin hustru.
My constituent tells me that he recently booked airline tickets and a hotel with British Airways so he could take his wife to Venice.
Herefter søgte han om et Schengenvisum til sin kone som ægtefælle til en EU‑borger fra det italienske konsulat i London.
After this, he applied for a Schengen visa for his wife, as the spouse of an EU citizen, from the Italian Consulate in London.
Min vælger oplyser, at de ved ankomsten til konsulatet blev informeret om, at de skulle betale for visummet, fordi konsulatet ikke accepterede oversættelsen af deres ægteskabsbeviser, da de ikke var blevet stemplet af den kinesiske ambassade i London.
My constituent says that when they arrived at the Consulate, they were informed that they would have to pay for the visa because the Consulate did not accept the translations of their marriage cards as they had not been stamped by the Chinese Embassy in London.
Min vælger påpegede over for dem, at den kinesiske ambassade ikke stemplede disse beviser, og at han havde e‑mails, der bekræftede dette.
My constituent pointed out to them that the Chinese Embassy did not stamp these cards and that he had emails to confirm this.
Min vælger oplyser, at han også var nødsaget til at påpege over for konsulatet, at både de franske og de irske myndigheder tidligere havde udstedt et ægtefællevisum til hende med de samme dokumenter.
My constituent tells me that he also had to point out to the Consulate that both the French and Irish authorities had previously issued her with a spouse visa with the same documents.
Han oplyser, at han hustru senere spurgte en anden italiensk medarbejder på konsulatet, der havde arbejdet i Shanghai i fem år, om dette.
He says that his wife later asked another Italian worker at the Consulate, who had worked in Shanghai for five years, about this.
Hun anerkendte, at dokumenterne var ægte, men gentog kravet om, at papirerne skulle stemples af det italienske konsulat i Kina eller den kinesiske ambassade i Italien.
She acknowledged that the documents were genuine but repeated the requirement that the papers needed to be stamped by the Italian Consulate in China or the Chinese Embassy in Italy.
Eftersom min vælgers hustru ikke kunne komme ind i Italien, ville de være nødt til at rejse tilbage til Kina for at få stemplet dokumenterne.
Since my constituent’s wife could not enter Italy, they would need to travel back to China to have the documents stamped.
Kommissionen bedes oplyse: 1.
Could the Commission confirm: 1.
Om den mener, at dette er en urimelig procedure? 2.
Whether it believes that this is an unreasonable procedure? 2.
Om min vælger kan få sine ægteskabsbeviser stemplet af de italienske myndigheder uden at rejse tilbage til Kina? 3.
Whether my constituent can get his marriage cards stamped by the Italian authorities without travelling back to China? 3.
Hvordan kan min vælger i bekræftende fald gøre dette? 4.
If so, how can my constituent do this? 4.
Om der er skridt, som Kommissionen kan tage med henblik på at hjælpe min vælger?
If there are any steps the Commission could take to assist my constituent?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004458/2011
Question for written answer E-004458/2011
Om: EU's handelsforbindelser med Rusland
Subject: EU-Russia trade relations
Hvordan forventer Kommissionen, at de fremtidige handelsforbindelser mellem EU og Rusland udvikler sig, i og med at toldunionen mellem Rusland, Kasakhstan og Hviderusland kan skabe en skæv handelsbalance mellem de to parter?
How does the Commission expect future EU-Russia trade relations to evolve, given that the customs union among Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus may create a trade imbalance between the two sides?
Mener den, at Ruslands eventuelle tiltrædelse af WTO vil medføre tilstrækkelig med fordele for handelsforbindelserne mellem EU og Rusland til at opveje de af Rusland pålagte importafgifter og ulemperne i forbindelse med toldunionen?
Does it believe Russia’s possible accession to the WTO will bring enough benefits to EU-Russia trade relations to outweigh the import duties imposed by Russia and the drawbacks resulting from the customs union?
Mener den, at der er en aftale med den russiske regering, der gør det muligt at garantere, at der ikke vil være nogen fremtidig afbrydelse af leveringen af naturgas til medlemsstaterne, selv om Rusland har problemer med en transitstat?
Does it believe there is a common understanding with the Russian Government such as to guarantee that there will be no future interruption in the supply of natural gas to Member States, even if Russia is having issues with a transit state?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004459/2011
Question for written answer E-004459/2011
Om: Forskningsprojekter vedrørende teknologi forbundet med høj risiko og høj gevinst
Subject: High-risk, high-reward technology research projects
USA foretager under landets energiministeriums forskningsredskab, ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy), som er baseret på USA's militærs DARPA-gruppe, essentiel forskning i teknologier forbundet med høj risiko og høj gevinst.
The United States, under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) research arm, the ‘Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy’ (ARPA-E), which is modelled on the US military’s DARPA group, conducts essential research into high-risk, high-reward technologies.
Ifølge en rapport fra det amerikanske energiministerium beskæftiger ARPA-E sig med »game‑changing«-teknologier, hvoraf en, som navnlig fokuserer på kritiske råstoffer, som f.eks. sjældne jordtyper, kaldes »Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies (REACT)« (alternativer med sjældne jordtyper i kritiske teknologier).
According to a DOE report, ARPA-E looks into game-changing technologies, one of which, focusing particularly on critical raw materials such as rare earths, is entitled: ‘Rare Earth Alternatives in Critical Technologies (REACT)’.
Andre projekter omfatter netværksintegration i forbindelse med grøn elektricitet (GENI) og levering af solenergi med elproduktionsteknologi (Solar ADEPT).
Other projects include: ‘Green Electricity Network Integration (GENI)’ and ‘Solar Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology (Solar ADEPT)’.
Hvert af disse projekter støttes af ARPA-E med op til 30 mio. amerikanske USD.
Each of these projects is supported by ARPA-E with funding up to USD 30 million each.
I denne forbindelse ønsker jeg at undersøge, hvorvidt EU har et forskningsprogram vedrørende høj risiko og høj gevinst i forbindelse med »game‑changing«-teknologier til energisektoren (med undtagelse af ITER) og kritiske råstoffer, navnlig sjældne jordelementer.
In this context, I would like to enquire whether the European Union has a high-risk, high-reward research programme in game-changing technologies related to the energy sector (with the exception of ITER) and critical materials, particularly rare earth elements.
Hvis dette er tilfældet, bedes Kommissionen besvare følgende spørgsmål:
Should this be the case I would like to pose the following questions:
Finansieres programmet af RP7 og vil det fortsætte under RP8?
Is this programme financed under FP7 and will it be continued under FP8?
Hvor mange »game‑changing«-teknologier til energisektoren indgår der i programmet (angives i listeform)?
How many game-changing technologies for the energy sector are part of this programme (list them, please)?
Hvor store beløb er der tildelt hvert af disse projekter?
How much money has been allocated to each of these projects?
Hvem har deltaget i de enkelte projekter?
Who have been the participants in each of the projects?
Hvor mange forskningsprojekter findes der specielt inden for sjældne jordtyper (giv et konkret svar)?
How many research projects are there specifically on rare earths (be specific)?
Hvor meget modtager hvert enkelt projekt?
How much funding do they each receive?
Hvad fokuserer de på (giv et konkret svar)?
What do they focus on (be specific)?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004460/2011
Question for written answer E-004460/2011
Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE) og Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE)
Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE) and Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE)
Om: Gennemførelse i medlemsstaterne af direktiv 2008/115/EF
Subject: Transposition in the Member States of Directive 2008/115/EC
Den 24. december 2010 udløb fristen for gennemførelse i den nationale lovgivning i medlemsstaterne af direktiv 2008/115/EF om fælles standarder og procedurer i medlemsstaterne for tilbagesendelse af tredjelandsstatsborgere med ulovligt ophold, med undtagelse af artikel 13, stk. 4.
On 24 December 2010 the deadline passed for transposition into the national law of the Member States of Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures for returning illegal immigrants, with the exception of Article 13(4).
Har alle EU's medlemsstater allerede gennemført bestemmelserne i dette direktiv i den nationale lovgivning? —
Have all the Member States of the European Union already implemented the provisions of this directive into national law? —
Hvilke medlemsstater har indtil dato gennemført bestemmelserne, og hvilke har ikke gjort det? —
Which Member States have to date already implemented the provisions and which have not? —
Hvad vil Kommissionen gøre for at tvinge medlemsstaterne til at gennemføre direktivet? —
What does the Commission plan to do to force Member States to implement the directive? —
Hvor mange af medlemsstaterne har allerede indledt gennemførelsen af artikel 13, stk. 4?
How many of the Member States have already started the transposition of Article 13(4)?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004461/2011
Question for written answer E-004461/2011
Om: Kernekraft og affald
Subject: Nuclear energy and nuclear waste
Debatten om kernekraft, som hele Europa på nationalt plan og på EU‑plan er berørt af, omfatter forskellige aspekter, heriblandt vurderingen af de negative og positive konsekvenser af denne energikilde, de risici og fordele, den kan medføre, kernekraftværkernes sikkerhed og håndteringen af affaldet og de radioaktive materialer.
The debate on nuclear energy, which concerns the whole of Europe, whether at national or Community level, touches on a number of issues, such as the assessment of the pros and cons of this form of energy, the potential risks and benefits, the safety of nuclear power plants and the management of radioactive waste and radioactive materials.
Hvad især angår sidstnævnte, er Kommissionen da i stand til at tilvejebringe oplysninger om de metoder og systemer til bortskaffelse af affald og radioaktive materialer (dvs. affald, der stammer fra brændstoffet, og materialer, der er udsat for vedvarende emission af stråling på grund af deres tilstedeværelse i eller i nærheden af reaktoren), der i øjeblikket anvendes i de forskellige medlemsstater?
With specific reference to the last-named aspect, can the Commission provide information concerning the arrangements and systems for disposing of radioactive waste and radioactive materials (i.e. spent fuel and materials subjected to continuous irradiation inside or in the immediate vicinity of reactors) currently employed by the Member States?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004462/2011
Question for written answer E-004462/2011
Om: Kernekraftværker i EU — lokalisering i forhold til de italienske grænser samt typer af kraftværker
Subject: Nuclear power plant in the EU: distances from the Italian borders and reactor types
Kan Kommissionen tilvejebringe oplysninger vedrørende antallet, lokaliseringen og typen af de aktive kernekraftværker, der befinder sig i en afstand af under 400 km fra de italienske grænser?
In view of this, can the Commission provide information concerning the number, location and type of active nuclear reactors situated less than 400 kilometres from the borders of Italy?
Kan den i øvrigt tilvejebringe en kortlægning af de forskellige typer kernekraftværker, der i øjeblikket er aktive i de forskellige medlemsstater (førstegenerations-, andengenerations- og tredjegenerationsreaktorer samt fusionsreaktorer)?
Can it provide a map showing the various types of nuclear power plant currently operational in the various Member States (first, second or third-generation reactors or fusion reactors)?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004463/2011
Question for written answer E-004463/2011
Om: Nedbrydning af monument for forsoning med Armenien i Tyrkiet
Subject: Demolition of Armenia reconciliation monument in Turkey
I Kars i Tyrkiet har man påbegyndt nedtagningen af et stort monument, som skulle fremme forsoningen med Armenien.
In Kars, Turkey, work has begun on the demolition of a large monument which was intended to promote reconciliation with Armenia.
Den tyrkiske premierminister Erdoğan, som besøgte Kars i januar, kaldte monumentet for en vanskabning og opfordrede til, at den blev ødelagt.
The Turkish PM Erdoğan, who visited Kars in January, described the monument as ‘freakish’ and called for its destruction.
Byrådet vedtog senere at gøre dette.
The town council subsequently agreed to this.
Billedhuggeren Mehmet Aksoy erklærede ifølge Hürriyet Daily News (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=monument-to-humanity-dismantled-piece‑by-piece‑2011‑04‑26), at ødelæggelsen af monumentet kunne lede tankerne hen på Talebanregimets ødelæggelse af de antikke buddhistiske monumenter i Bamiyan i Afghanistan i 2001.
According to Hürriet Daily News http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=monument-to-humanity-dismantled-piece-by-piece-2011-04-26 , sculptor Mehmet Aksoy said that demolition of the monument recalled the Taliban’s destruction of ancient Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, in 2001.
Samme websted oplyser, at monumentets hoved blev fjernet til råbene »Allahu Akhbar« (»Allah er stor«).
The same website reports that the head of the statue was removed to cries of ‘Allahu Akhbar’ (‘Allah is great’).
Ifølge den flamske avis »Metro« af 27. april blev maleren Bedri Baykam stukket ned, efter han havde slået til lyd for bevarelsen af monumentet.
According to the Flemish paper ‘ Metro ’ of 27 April 2011, artist Bedri Baykam was stabbed after he had called for the monument to be retained.
Har Kommissionen taget kontakt til den tyrkiske regering i forbindelse med denne provokation?
Has the Commission contacted the Turkish government in connection with this provocation?
I bekræftende fald, hvad var konklusionerne?
If so, what conclusions were reached?
Mener Kommissionen, at ødelæggelsen af et monument til forsoning med armenierne er i overensstemmelse med ordlyden og ånden i Københavnskriterierne?
Does the Commission consider that the destruction of a monument to reconciliation with Armenians is in line with the letter and the spirit of the Copenhagen criteria?
Hvilke følger har dette hændelsesforløb for tiltrædelsesforhandlingerne?
What consequences will this incident have for Turkey’s accession negotiations?
Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004464/2011
Question for written answer E-004464/2011