natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Jeg vil gerne have oplyst, hvordan disse finansielle midler præcist tildeles og fordeles, og navnlig hvilke udvælgelseskriterier der finder anvendelse for projekter eller organisationer, som modtager europæiske midler.
Can the Commission indicate, with a breakdown, the exact amount of these European financial resources and, most importantly, the criteria for selecting projects or associations to benefit from them.
Foretages der en opfølgning på organisationernes korrekte og effektive anvendelse af midlerne?
Furthermore, are there monitoring arrangements in place to ensure the correct and effective use of funding by associations?
I bekræftende fald vil det også være muligt at få kendskab til den?
If so, could the Commission provide details of them?
Målet er ikke at anfægte Kommissionens valg eller betvivle de støttede organisationers retskaffenhed, men først og fremmest at sikre, at tildelingen af europæiske midler i realiteten anvendes til at støtte fremvæksten af demokrati i Burma/Myanmar og ikke utilsigtet eller ad bagvejen til at støtte det eksisterende diktatorstyres tilrettelæggelse af skinvalg.
Without prejudging the Commission’s selection of associations or the probity of the associations, I would like above all to receive assurances that European funding is indeed being used to encourage the emergence of democracy in Burma/Myanmar and not being diverted by the current dictatorial regime, by some sleight of hand, to orchestrate sham elections.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2289/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2289/10
Om: Langsigtet forvaltningsplan for ansjosfiskeriet
Subject: Long-term plan to manage anchovy stocks
Jeg fik i september sidste år tildelt ordførerskabet for betænkningen om forslag til Rådets forordning om en langsigtet plan for ansjosbestanden i Biscayabugten og for fiskeriet efter denne bestand (KOM(2009)0399).
In September 2009 I was appointed rapporteur on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing a long-term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock (COM(2009)0399).
Efter at sagen var modtaget i Parlamentet og henvist til udvalgsbehandling, trådte Lissabontraktaten i kraft, og fiskeripolitikken blev derved også en del af den fælles beslutningsprocedures anvendelsesområde.
After the corresponding parliamentary procedure had been completed and the proposal had gone through committee, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, meaning that matters pertaining to fisheries became subject to codecision.
Den vejledende afstemning, som blev afholdt efter debatten i Fiskeriudvalget, blev derfor bekræftet.
The orientation vote after the debate in the Committee on Fisheries was accordingly approved.
Efter modtagelsen af den fælles holdning tog jeg som ordfører for samme de første skridt til indledning af forhandlinger med Rådet, Kommissionen og de politiske grupper.
After receiving the common position, as rapporteur I initiated the procedure of negotiation with the Council, the Commission and the political groups.
Det første møde med repræsentanterne for Kommissionen og de politiske grupper var berammet til den 17. marts 2010.
The first meeting with the representatives of the Commission and the political groups was scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 17 March 2010.
Jeg modtog da meddelelse om, at Kommissionen agtede at starte behandlingen af denne forvaltningsplan helt forfra, øjensynlig for at tilpasse dens indhold til Lissabontraktaten.
It was then that I was informed that the Commission intended to restart the procedure concerning the proposed plan from scratch, apparently to bring it into line with the Lisbon Treaty.
Der skal efter sigende foreligge et forslag i marts.
It would appear that a proposal is to be submitted in March.
Dette forhold kommer oven i de andre problemer, der har været med behandlingen af betænkningen, og som tvinger mig til at give udtryk for min utilfredshed med denne mangel på gennemsigtighed og institutionel respekt for Parlamentets arbejde.
In addition to this incident, I have also encountered other difficulties in the process of drawing up my report that have left me no other option than to speak out officially against the lack of transparency and the total lack of institutional respect for Parliament’s work.
Samtidig må den pågældende sektor, som netop har genoptaget aktiviteterne efter en biologisk hvileperiode på fem år, med bekymring konstatere, at den langsigtede forvaltningsplan for ansjosfiskeriet, som er et instrument af vital betydning for en stabilisering af samme, nu igen bliver forsinket.
While the sector, which has resumed fishing after five-year biological rest period, looks on with concern, the long-term management plan, which it is sees as an essential instrument for stabilising its activities, is beginning to lag behind schedule.
Tilslutter Rådet sig denne fremgangsmåde?
Has the Council been treated in same way?
Er der klarhed over, hvilke dele af indholdet, som skal ændres i forhold til den oprindeligt fremsendte plan og til Fiskeriudvalgets vejledende afstemning fra december sidste år?
Do we know exactly which parts will be changed in relation to the plan first submitted and the orientation vote in the Fisheries Committee in December 2009?
Vil planens bilag 1 om »relativ stabilitet« blive taget ud? 4.
Will Annex I of the plan, on ‘relative stability’, be removed?
Vil beregningsmetoden i den plan, man nu ønsker at trække tilbage, kunne anvendes hertil?
Will the calculation formulae in the plan that is to be replaced be used for this purpose?
Rådet er ikke i stand til at sige, om og hvornår Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet vil få forelagt et nyt forslag.
The Council is not in a position to state if and when a new proposal will be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Det er kun Europa-Kommissionen selv, der kan give den oplysning.
This information could only be provided by the European Commission itself.
Med hensyn til fastlæggelsen af fangstkvoterne indtil forvaltningsplanen er blevet vedtaget, minder Rådet om, at de i overensstemmelse med artikel 43, stk. 3, TEUF vil blive vedtaget af Rådet på grundlag af et forslag fra Europa-Kommissionen.
As regards the setting of fishing quotas pending the adoption of the management plan, the Council recalls that in accordance with Article 43(3) TFEU, these will be adopted by the Council on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission.
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2290/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2290/10
Om: Maksimumsalder for trafikflyvere
Subject: Age limit for airline pilots
På nuværende tidspunkt må trafikflyvere udøve deres erhverv, indtil de fylder 65 år.
The current age limit for commercial airline pilots is 65.
Samtidig bliver pensionsalderen i stadig flere medlemsstater sat op til 67 år.
However, the legal retirement age is being raised to 67 in more and more EU Member States.
Efter min mening burde denne aldersgrænse også gælde for trafikflyvere, så længe de lever op til de helbredsmæssige krav.
In my opinion, this should also apply to airline pilots, provided they meet the medical requirements for flying.
Er Europa-Kommissionen enig i, at trafikflyvere ligesom alle andre bør kunne udøve deres erhverv, indtil de fylder 67, når blot de opfylder de helbredsmæssige krav?
Does the Commission agree that, like other people, airline pilots should be allowed to continue working until 67, provided they meet the medical requirements for flying?
I bekræftende fald, hvornår og hvordan agter Kommissionen da at tage affære på området?
If so, when and how does the Commission intend to take action on the matter?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2299/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2299/10
Om: Ulovlig anvendelse i græske farvande af snurrevod, der er et skadeligt fiskeredskab
Subject: Illegal use of destructive Danish seine nets in Greek waters
Det græske forbund for erhvervsfiskeri har i en skrivelse af 8. marts 2010 (protokolnr.
A recent letter (1401 of 8 March 2010) from the Greek Fishing Federation to the Greek Prime Minister and competent ministers complained about the continued use of destructive Danish seine nets in Greek waters.
1401) til den græske premierminister og de øvrige berørte ministre klaget over, at det skadelige fiskeredskab snurrevod stadig anvendes i de græske have.
Similar complaints have also been made by environmental organisations.
Forskellige miljøorganisationer har også fremført sådanne klager.
As far as the allocation of codes for fishing gear is concerned (Regulations (EC) Nos 26/2004 OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p.
Selv om redskabet anvendes ulovligt, selv om det har en ødelæggende indvirkning på det marine økosystem, og selv om alle organisationer inden for fiskerisektoren kræver, at redskabet øjeblikkeligt forbydes, forsøger jordbrugsministeren i den nye regering alligevel at bevare redskabet i yderligere to år og har fremlagt en handlingsplan med henblik herpå.
Even though this gear is being used illegally with a false code, and despite its harmful effects for marine habitats and the fact that all the bodies representing the fishing industry have called for an immediate ban, the minister for rural development in the new government intends to retain this gear for a further two years whilst proposing a corresponding management plan.
Jeg vil derfor gerne stille Kommissionen følgende spørgsmål: 1.
Can the Commission answer the following questions: 1.
Vil Kommissionen acceptere, at dette skadelige fiskeredskab anvendes i de græske farvande også efter den 31. maj 2010, i strid med forordning (EF) nr. 1967/2006? 2.
Will it tolerate the use of this destructive fishing gear in Greek waters after 31 May 2010, in contravention of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006? 2.
Hvilke initiativer vil Kommissionen tage for at stoppe undtagelsen i forbindelse med forskellige regeringers anvendelse af forordning (EF) nr. 1967/2006?
What steps will it take to end the derogations from the application of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 used by the various governments?
Vil Kommissionen også i fremtiden tillade, at den græske regering tilsidesætter forordningen, selv når det gælder trawlere, der fisker så tæt på kysterne som med en sømils afstand? 3.
Will it continue to allow the Greek government to violate this regulation with regard to trawling up to a mile from the coastline as well? 3.
Mener Kommissionen at det er lovligt, at fiskeredskabet snurrevod fortsat er blevet anvendt med en kode, og at redskabet er blevet anvendt i de græske farvande frem til den 31. maj 2010?
Does it consider it legitimate that Danish seine nets were given a code and could be used in Greek waters up to 31 May 2010?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2321/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2321/10
Om: Sagen vedrørende Pilar Juárez
Subject: Pilar Juárez
Blandt dødsofrene for jordskælvet i Haiti var en spansk tjenestemand ved Europa-Kommissionen, Pilar Juárez.
The Spanish European Commission official Pilar Juárez died in the Haiti earthquake.
De forsinkelser og den forvirring, som prægede eftersøgningen af liget, problemerne med at identificere samme samt manglerne ved den information og bistand, familien modtog fra Kommissionens delegation i Haiti, giver anledning til bekymring i Europa-Parlamentet.
Parliament is concerned at the delays and confusion in searching for her body, identification problems and the incomplete information and support provided to her family by the Commission delegation in Haiti.
Den 12. januar 2010 kl. 15.30 deltog Pilar Juárez i et møde i bygningen »Villa Privée«, som er et anneks til De Forenede Nationers bygning i Port-au-Prince i Haiti.
At 15.30 on 12 January 2010 Pilar Juárez was attending a meeting at the ‘Villa Privée’, an annex of the United Nations building at Port-au-Prince in Haiti.
Skælvet indtraf kl. 16.53, og »Villa Privée« styrtede sammen.
The earthquake struck at 16.53, causing the ‘Villa Privée’ to collapse.
Pilar Juárez nåede ikke at komme ud.
Pilar Juárez was not able to get out of the building.
Ikke desto mindre oplyste ledelsen af EU‑delegationen i Haiti den samme dag kl. 20.00 familien om, at man ledte efter Pilar et andet sted, nemlig ved Hotel Christopher, som også hører under FN.
However, at 20.00 on 12 January the management of the Commission delegation in Haiti informed her family that they were looking for Pilar elsewhere at the Hôtel Christopher, another building belonging to the UN.
Til trods for, at familien igen og igen bad om, at man ledte efter Pilar i »Villa Privée«, gav Kommissionens repræsentanter ingen oplysning om den bygning, som Pilar befandt sig i, da jordskælvet indtraf, og to dage senere meddelte de, at hun var blevet evakueret til Den Dominikanske Republik.
Despite continual requests from her family to search for Pilar in the ‘Villa Privée’, the Commission’s services did not indicate her whereabouts at the time of the earthquake and announced two days later that she had been evacuated, alive, to the Dominican Republic.
Selv om familien har indicier for, at Pilars lig blev gravet frem af ruinerne den 13. januar, skete det ifølge den attest, de modtog, første den 18. januar kl. 12.30.
According to her family, there are compelling reasons to suggest that Pilar’s body was removed from the rubble on 13 January whereas her family received a document certifying that she had been removed at 12.30 on 18 January.
Pilar lå således forladt under murbrokkerne i mere end 6 dage, selv om direktøren for Kommissionens delegation burde have vidst, hvor hun var, hvilket han imidlertid hverken meddelte til Bruxelles eller FN.
Pilar was left in the rubble for six days, despite the fact that the director of the EU delegation should have known her whereabouts but failed to inform Brussels of them or liaise with the UN.
Pilar lå alene i lighuset i Santo Domingo (Den Dominikanske Republik) fra mandag den 18. januar, indtil familien blev underrettet den 22. januar.
Pilar’s body was left unattended in the Santo Domingo morgue from Monday, 18 January to Friday, 22 January, when her family were informed.
Familien fik udleveret en forkert attest, hvilket betød, at de blev nødt til at blive fem dage mere i Santo Domingo.
An error on the certificate given to her family meant that they were made to stay in Santo Domingo for five days longer than they should have.
Hele denne proces vidner om en tilsyneladende efterladenhed hos Europa-Kommissionen i forbindelse med eftersøgningen og identifikationen af Pilar Juárez' lig samt i kommunikationen med hendes familie.
This entire procedure demonstrates an apparent lack of due care from the Commission in searching for and identifying the body of the Spanish official Pilar Juárez, and a lack of proper communication with her family.
Kan Kommissionen forklare, hvorfor der skulle gå seks dage, inden man fandt frem til Pilar i »Villa Privée«, hvor hun havde deltaget i et officielt møde som repræsentant for den selv samme Kommission.
Can the Commission explain why it waited six days before searching for Pilar in the ‘Villa Privée’ where she was attending an official meeting on its behalf?
Kan den bekræfte, at liget ikke blev fundet den 13. januar, og at familien modtog en fejlagtig meddelelse herom?
Can it confirm that her body was not found on 13 January and the report her family received is false?
Kan Kommissionen redegøre nærmere for eftersøgningen og for årsagerne til de problemer, der var med identifikationen af Pilars lig?
Can the Commission give a detailed account of the search for Pilar and the problems encountered in identifying her body?
Kan den redegøre for den situation, Pilars mand og søn befinder sig i?
Could it also give details of the situation for her husband and son?
Kan Kommissionen garantere, at familien blev korrekt informeret om omstændighederne ved eftersøgningen?
Can the Commission provide assurances that her family were kept duly informed of the way in which the search for her was carried out?
Kan Kommissionen på baggrund af alt det ovenstående oplyse, hvor Pilar Juárez rent faktisk blev fundet, og hvornår hun blev fundet, samt give familien en nærmere redegørelse for, hvilket møde hun befandt sig i, og hvem hun var sammen med, da katastrofen indtraf?
In view of the above, could the Commission say where and when Pilar Juárez was finally removed from the rubble and explain to her family in which meeting and with whom she was at that fateful moment?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2322/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2322/10
Om: Ny lovgivnings konsekvenser for små og mellemstore virksomheder (SMV)
Subject: Impact of new legislation on SMEs
Mange virksomheder i min valgkreds, West Midlands (Det Forenede Kongerige), har rejst spørgsmål omkring EU-lovgivningen og dens konsekvenser for små og mellemstore virksomheder (SMV).
Many businesses in my constituency, the West Midlands (UK), have raised issues concerning EU legislation, and its effect on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Kan Kommissionen oplyse mig om, hvilke eventuelle procedurer for konsekvensanalyse der er oprettet til at sikre, at ny lovgivning ikke får nogen urimelige negative konsekvenser for SMV'er og deres ansatte?
Can the Commission advise me as to what, if any, impact assessment procedures are in place in order to ensure that new legislation does not have any undue negative effects on SMEs and their employees?
Hvem udfører sådanne konsekvensanalyser?
Who carries out such impact assessments?
Kan Kommissionen garantere, at SMV'ernes bidrag til økonomien anerkendes, og at denne sektor og dens ansatte ikke kommer til at lide økonomisk på grund af politiske hensyn?
Can the Commission reassure me that the contribution to the economy of SMEs is recognised, and this sector, and its employees, will not suffer economically for the sake of political expediency?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2323/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2323/10
Om: Miljøvirkninger af Parlamentets pendling til og fra Strasbourg
Subject: Environmental impact of Parliament commuting to Strasbourg
Kommissionen vil være bekendt med, at såvel EU‑institutionerne som andre organer konstant opfordrer befolkningen til at tillægge sig en mere bæredygtig livsstil, at EU har en moralsk forpligtelse til samt et organisatorisk ansvar for at reducere spild og forurening (f.eks. via initiativer såsom »borgmesteraftalen«), at EU's medlemsstater pådrager sig sanktioner, hvis de krænker lovgivningen om forurening, og endelig at EU spiller en vigtig rolle i udformningen af den globale politik inden for bl.a. miljøbeskyttelse.
The Commission will be aware that members of the public are constantly being urged, by Community institutions and other bodies, to adopt more sustainable lifestyles; that the Union has a moral duty, as well as an organisational responsibility, to eliminate waste and reduce pollution (for example, by initiatives such as the ‘Covenant of Mayors’); that EU Member States incur penalties if they contravene the legislation on pollution, and finally that the EU plays an important role in shaping world policy in areas such as environmental protection.
Er Kommissionen på denne baggrund enig i, at den bør foretage, eller lade eksterne eksperter foretage, en vurdering af de miljømæssige virkninger af Parlamentets regelmæssige pendling mellem Bruxelles og Strasbourg, således at der kan træffes en beslutning om, hvorvidt denne praksis bør ophøre eller ej?
This being so, does the Commission agree that it should carry out, or commission outside experts to carry out, an assessment of the environmental impact of Parliament's regular commute from Brussels to Strasbourg, so that a decision can be taken as to whether the practice should cease?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2396/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2396/10
Om: Regnskabsåret 2009 — certificeringsprocedure — uregelmæssigheder i udvælgelsesproceduren for tjenestemænd
Subject: Certification procedure 2009 — irregularities in the procedure for selecting officials
Hvert år fastlægger ansættelsesmyndigheden efter udtalelse fra det paritetiske udvalg for certificeringsproceduren antallet af tjenestemænd, der vil få tilladelse til at følge det obligatoriske uddannelsesprogram, jf. vedtægtens artikel 45a, stk. 1.
Every year, having heard the opinion of the Joint Certification Procedure Committee, the Appointing Authority determines the number of officials who are to be authorised to take part in the compulsory training programme under Article 45(a)(1) of the Staff Regulations.
For certificeringsproceduren 2009 er antallet af tjenestemænd, der har fået tilladelse til at følge uddannelsesprogrammet, fastsat til 110, jf. ansættelsesmyndighedens beslutning af 14. oktober 2009 og det paritetiske udvalgs udtalelse af 1. oktober 2009.
For the 2009 certification procedure, 110 officials were authorised to take part in the training programme, in accordance with the Appointing Authority's decision of 14 October 2009 and the Joint Committee's opinion of 1 October 2009.
Sammenholdt med oplysningerne i denne meddelelse om udvælgelsesprocedure forekommer listen over de udvalgte i modstrid og uforenelig med principperne og procedurereglerne.
In relation to the provisions laid down in that notice concerning the selection procedure, the list appears to be contradictory and inconsistent with the principles and with the procedural rules.
Der foreligger således oplysninger om, at der er indgivet klager over den opstillede liste.
We are aware, in particular, of a number of appeals which have been lodged against the list in question.
Ud over de betydelige konsekvenser, denne procedure har, rejser der sig spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt udvælgelsen af tjenestemænd forløber korrekt, om de gavnlige virkninger, som den rette uddannelse af personalet kan have for forvaltningen af EU's midler, samt om en objektiv vurdering af kandidaternes fortjenstfuldhed, af deres uddannelsers kvalitet og niveau samt af deres erhvervserfaring.
Over and beyond the important implications of this procedure, questions are being raised as to the fairness of the procedures for selecting officials and the potential positive repercussions which the proper training of staff has on the management of EU funds, not to mention the importance of the impartial assessment of merit, of the quality and level of education and of the professional experience of applicants.
Kan Kommissionen udarbejde en undersøgelse desangående?
Can the Commission therefore conduct an investigation into this matter?
Finder Kommissionen, at der er grund til snarest at foretage en undersøgelse af proceduren for at sikre, at der lægges vægt på fortjenstfuldhed, uddannelsesniveau og erhvervserfaring, og for at hindre misbrug, uregelmæssigheder, fordrejninger og ulovligheder foruden vilkårlighed og uretfærdighed, som alene vil medføre unødvendige og omkostningstunge konflikter, der vil skade Den Europæiske Union?
Does it not consider that it might be advisable to review the procedure as a matter of urgency, in order to safeguard merit and the level of education and professional experience and thereby prevent abuses, irregularities, distortions and injustices that are both illegitimate and arbitrary, which would result only in a pointless and costly conflict, to the detriment of the European Union?
SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2406/10
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2406/10
Om: Sund ernæring af europæiske skolebørn
Subject: Healthy eating for European schoolchildren
USA fører for øjeblikket en kampagne for fremme af sund ernæring og bekæmpelse af fedme hos børn, der samtidig har til formål at forbedre de store selskabers produkter og skolekantinernes kvalitet.
A campaign is currently under way in the United States to encourage healthy eating and combat child obesity, while at the same time seeking to improve the products manufactured by large companies and enhance the quality of school canteens.
Samtidig konstateres det ved kontrolundersøgelser af skolekantiner i EU hyppigt, at der sælges usunde fødevarer til eleverne, såsom chips, osterejer, læskedrikke, slik og endda kaffe til trods for de bestemmelser, der gælder på området.
Meanwhile, checks on school canteens in the Member States of the European Union continue to reveal that, despite the rules in force, unhealthy foodstuffs are being sold to pupils, including crisps, soft drinks, chocolate-based products and even coffee.