natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis det i forbindelse med en angivet tjeneste, som er identificeret af en »Sdi«, sikres (garanteret af CSPQC og overvåget/akkrediteret af SB/AB), at et QC faktisk indeholder QcCompliance-erklæringen, og kun nogle af disse QC'er skal understøttes af SSCD'er (dette kan f.eks. differentieres af forskellige CSP-specifikke Certificate Policy OIDs eller gennem andre CSP-specifikke oplysninger i QC'et, uanset om de er direkte eller indirekte, maskinprocesserbare eller ikke), men et certifikat, der er understøttet af en SSCD, HVERKEN indeholder QcSSCD-erklæringen ELLER ETSI QCP(+) OID, så er anvendelsen af en passende »Sdi« muligvis ikke tilstrækkelig, OG »Sie«-feltet skal anvendes til at angive udtrykkelige oplysninger om SSCD-støtte sammen med eventuelt udvidede oplysninger for at identificere det omfattede certifikatsæt. Dette vil sandsynligvis kræve medtagelse af forskellige »SSCD support information values« for samme »Sdi«, når »Sie«-feltet anvendes.
If it is ensured (guarantee provided by CSPQC and supervised/accredited by SB/AB) that, for a listed service identified by a ‘Sdi’, any QC does contain the QcCompliance statement, and some of these QCs are meant to be supported by SSCDs and some not (e.g. this may be differentiated by different CSP specific Certificate Policy OIDs or through other CSP specific information in the QC, directly or indirectly, machine-processable or not), but a certificate that is supported by an SSCD contains NEITHER the QcSSCD statement NOR the ETSI QCP(+) OID, then the use of an appropriate ‘Sdi’ may not be sufficient AND the ‘Sie’ field must be used to indicate explicit SSCD support information together with a potential information extension to identify the covered set of certificates. This is likely to require the inclusion of different ‘SSCD support information values’ for the same ‘Sdi’ when making use of the ‘Sie’ field.
Hvis det i forbindelse med en angivet tjeneste, som er identificeret af en »Sdi«, sikres (garanteret af CSPQC og overvåget/akkrediteret af SB/AB), at et QC ikke indeholder QcCompliance-erklæringen, QCP OID, QcSSCD-erklæringen eller QCP + OID, men det sikres, at kun nogle af disse slutenhedscertifikater udstedt under denne »Sdi« skal være QC'er og/eller understøttet af SSCD'er (dette kan f.eks. differentieres af forskellige CSPQC-specifikke Certificate Policy OIDs eller gennem andre CSPQC-specifikke oplysninger i QC'et, uanset om de er direkte eller indirekte, maskinprocesserbare eller ikke), vil anvendelsen af en passende »Sdi« ikke være tilstrækkelig, OG »Sie«-feltet skal anvendes til at angive udtrykkelige oplysninger om kvalificering. Dette vil sandsynligvis kræve medtagelse af forskellige »SSCD support information values« for samme »Sdi«, når »Sie«-feltet anvendes.
If it is ensured (guarantee provided by CSPQC and supervised/accredited by SB/AB) that for a listed service identified by a ‘Sdi’, any QC does not contain any of the QcCompliance statement, the QCP OID, the QcSSCD statement, or the QCP+ OID but it is ensured that some of these end-entity certificates issued under this ‘Sdi’ are meant to be QCs and/or supported by SSCDs and some not (e.g. this may be differentiated by different CSPQC specific Certificate Policy OIDs or through other CSPQC specific information in the QC, directly or indirectly, machine-processable or not), then the use of an appropriate ‘Sdi’ will not be sufficient AND the ‘Sie’ field must be used to include explicit qualification information. This is likely to require the inclusion of different ‘SSCD support information values’ for the same ‘Sdi’ when making use of the ‘Sie’ field.
Det betyder, at anvendelsen (eller ikke-anvendelsen) af de passende QcStatements (dvs. QcCompliance og QcSSCD) og/eller ETSI-definerede QCP(+) OIDs garanteres at være i overensstemmelse med, hvad der hævdes i CSPQC.
The general usage guidelines for electronic signature applications, services or products relying on a Trusted List compliant with the present Technical Specifications are as follows: A ‘CA/QC’‘Sti’ entry (similarly a CA/QC entry further qualified as being a ‘RootCA/QC’ through the use of ‘Sie’ additionalServiceInformation Extension)
og HVIS der findes oplysninger om »Sie«»Qualifications Extension«, skal de certifikater (ud over den førnævnte generelle fortolkningsregel), som identificeres gennem anvendelse af denne »Sie«»Qualifications Extension«-anførelse, som konstrueres ud fra princippet om en sekvens af »filtre«, der yderligere identificerer et sæt certifikater, betragtes i overensstemmelse med de tilknyttede »kvalifikatorer«, som giver visse yderligere oplysninger om »SSCD-støtte« og/eller »juridisk person som genstand« (f.eks. de certifikater, der indeholder en specifik OID i certifikatpolitikudvidelsen, og/eller har et specifikt mønster for »nøglebrug«, og/eller filtreres gennem anvendelse af en specifik værdi, der skal forekomme i et specifikt certifikatfelt eller udvidelse, osv.). Kvalifikatorerne indgår i følgende sæt »kvalifikatorer«, som anvendes til at kompensere for de manglende oplysninger i det tilsvarende QC-indhold, og som henholdsvis anvendes til:
indicates that from the ‘Sdi’ identified CA (similarly within the CA hierarchy starting from the ‘Sdi’ identified RootCA), all issued end-entity certificates are QCs provided that it is claimed as such in the certificate through the use of appropriate machine processable QcStatement (i.e. QcCompliance) and/or ETSI defined QCP(+) OIDs (and this is ensured by Supervisory/Accreditation Body, see above ‘general editing guidelines’) Note: if no ‘Sie’‘Qualifications Extension’ information is present or if an end-entity certificate that is claimed to be a QC is not further identified through a related ‘Sie’‘Qualifications Extension’, then the machine-processable information to be found in the QC is supervised/accredited to be accurate.
and IF»Sie«»Qualifications Extension« information is present, then in addition to the above default usage interpretation rule, those certificates that are identified through the use of this »Sie«»Qualifications Extension« information, which is constructed on the principle of a sequence of filters further identifying a set of certificates, must be considered according to the associated qualifiers providing some additional information regarding the qualified status, the »SSCD support« and/or »Legal person as subject« (e.g. those certificates containing a specific OID in the Certificate Policy extension, and/or having a specific »Key usage« pattern, and/or filtered through the use of a specific value to appear in one specific certificate field or extension, etc.). Those qualifiers are part of the following set of »Qualifiers« used to compensate for the lack of information in the corresponding QC content, and that are used respectively:
and IF‘Sie’‘Qualifications Extension’ information is present, then in addition to the above default usage interpretation rule, those certificates that are identified through the use of this ‘Sie’‘Qualifications Extension’ information, which is constructed on the principle of a sequence of filters further identifying a set of certificates, must be considered according to the associated qualifiers providing some additional information regarding the qualified status, the ‘SSCD support’ and/or ‘Legal person as subject’ (e.g. those certificates containing a specific OID in the Certificate Policy extension, and/or having a specific ‘Key usage’ pattern, and/or filtered through the use of a specific value to appear in one specific certificate field or extension, etc.). Those qualifiers are part of the following set of ‘Qualifiers’ used to compensate for the lack of information in the corresponding QC content, and that are used respectively:
»QCWithSSCD« — en kvalifikatorværdi, der betyder »QC understøttet af et SSCD«, eller
to indicate the qualified status: ‘QCStatement’ meaning the identified certificate(s) is(are) qualified, AND/OR
»QCNoSSCD« — en kvalifikatorværdi, der betyder »QC ikke understøttet af et SSCD«, eller
to indicate the nature of the SSCD support ‘QCWithSSCD’ qualifier value meaning ‘QC supported by an SSCD’, or
»QCSSCDStatusAsInCert« — kvalifikatorværdi, der betyder, at det er sikret, at oplysninger om SSCD-understøttelse er indeholdt i ethvert QC under »Sdi«-»Sie« angivne oplysninger for denne angivelse af CA/QC
‘QCNoSSCD’ qualifier value meaning ‘QC not supported by an SSCD’, or ‘QCSSCDStatusAsInCert’ qualifier value meaning that the SSCD support information is ensured to be contained in any QC under the ‘Sdi’-‘Sie’ provided information in this CA/QC entry,
Tjenester, hvormed der kan rettes forespørgsel om certifikaters gyldighedsstatus, i forbindelse med QC'er, og for hvilke oplysningen om certifikatets gyldighedsstatus er underskrevet af en enhed, hvis private nøgle ikke er certificeret under en certificeringssti, der leder til en angivet CA, der udsteder QC'er (»CA/QC«), skal inkluderes i positivlisten ved at anføre disse certifikatgyldighedsstatustjenester som sådan i positivlisten (dvs. med henholdsvis en tjenestetype »OCSP/QC« eller »CRL/QC«), idet disse tjenester kan anses for at være del af de overvågede/akkrediterede »kvalificererede« tjenester i forbindelse med udbuddet af QC-certificeringstjenester. Selvfølgelig skal OCSP-respondenter eller CRL-udstedere, hvis certifikater er underskrevet af CA'er i hierarkiet for en angivet CA/QC-tjeneste, betragtes som »gyldige« i overensstemmelse med den angivne CA/QC-tjenestes statusværdi.
Certificate validity status services related to QCs and for which the certificate validity status information (e.g. CRLs and OCSP responses) is signed by an entity whose private key is not certified under a certification path leading to a listed CA issuing QCs (‘CA/QC’) shall be included in Trusted List by listing those certificate validity status services as such in the TL (i.e. with a service type ‘OCSP/QC’ or ‘CRL/QC’ respectively) since these services can be considered as part of the supervised/accredited ‘qualified’ services related to the provision of QC certification services. Of course, OCSP responders or CRL Issuers whose certificates are signed by CAs under the hierarchy of a listed CA/QC service are to be considered as ‘valid’ and in accordance with the status value of the listed CA/QC service.
CSPs not issuing QCs but providing ancillary services, may fall under a »voluntary accreditation« system (as defined in and in compliance with Directive 1999/93/EC) and/or under a nationally defined »recognised approval scheme« implemented on a national basis for the supervision of compliance with the provisions laid down in Directive 1999/93/EC and possibly with national provisions with regard to the provision of certification services (in the sense of Article 2(11) of Directive 1999/93/EC). Some of the physical or binary (logical) objects generated or issued as a result of the provision of a certification service may be entitled to receive a specific »qualification« on the basis of their compliance with the provisions and requirements laid down at national level but the meaning of such a »qualification« is likely to be limited solely to the national level.
CSPs not issuing QCs but providing ancillary services, may fall under a ‘voluntary accreditation’ system (as defined in and in compliance with Directive 1999/93/EC) and/or under a nationally defined ‘recognised approval scheme’ implemented on a national basis for the supervision of compliance with the provisions laid down in Directive 1999/93/EC and possibly with national provisions with regard to the provision of certification services (in the sense of Article 2(11) of Directive 1999/93/EC). Some of the physical or binary (logical) objects generated or issued as a result of the provision of a certification service may be entitled to receive a specific ‘qualification’ on the basis of their compliance with the provisions and requirements laid down at national level but the meaning of such a ‘qualification’ is likely to be limited solely to the national level.
The general interpretation rule for any other »Sti« type entry is that the listed service named according to the »Sn« field value and uniquely identified by the »Sdi« field value has a current supervision/accreditation status according to the »Scs« field value as from the date indicated in the »Current status starting date and time«. Specific interpretation rules for any additional information with regard to a listed service (e.g. »Service information extensions« field) may be found, when applicable, in the Member State specific URI as part of the present »Scheme type/community/rules« field.
The general interpretation rule for any other ‘Sti’ type entry is that the listed service named according to the ‘Sn’ field value and uniquely identified by the ‘Sdi’ field value has a current supervision/accreditation status according to the ‘Scs’ field value as from the date indicated in the ‘Current status starting date and time’. Specific interpretation rules for any additional information with regard to a listed service (e.g. ‘Service information extensions’ field) may be found, when applicable, in the Member State specific URI as part of the present ‘Scheme type/community/rules’ field.
Disse oplysningskategorier angives på positivlisteniveau ved anvendelse af nærværende »Scheme information URI« (punkt 5.3.7 — oplysninger, der leveres af medlemsstaten), »Scheme type/community/rules« (punkt 5.3.9 — gennem anvendelse af en fælles tekst for alle medlemsstater) og »TSL policy/legal notice« (punkt 5.3.11 — en fælles tekst for alle medlemsstater, der henviser til direktiv 1999/93/EF, samtidig med at hver medlemsstat har mulighed for at tilføje medlemsstatsspecifik(ke) tekst/henvisninger). Yderligere oplysninger om nationale overvågnings-/akkrediteringssystemer for CSP'er, der ikke udsteder QC'er, kan afgives på tjenesteniveau i det omfang det er relevant og påkrævet (f.eks. for at skelne mellem flere kvalitets-/sikkerhedsniveauer) gennem brug af »Scheme service definition URI« (punkt 5.5.6).
Those sets of information shall be provided at Trusted List level through the use of the present ‘Scheme information URI’ (clause 5.3.7 — information being provided by Member State), ‘Scheme type/community/rules’ (clause 5.3.9 – through the use of a text common to all Member States) and ‘TSL policy/legal notice’ (clause 5.3.11 — a text common to all Member States referring to Directive 1999/93/EC, together with the ability for each Member State to add Member State specific text/references). Additional information on national supervision/accreditation systems for CSPs not issuing QCs may be provided at service level when applicable and required (e.g. to distinguish between several quality/security levels) through the use of ‘Scheme service definition URI’ (clause 5.5.6).
af 14. november 2013
of 14 November 2013
om afvisning af anmodning af annullering af en betegnelse, der er opført i registret over beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelser og beskyttede geografiske betegnelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (BGB))
concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI))
(meddelt under nummer C(2013) 7626)
(notified under document C(2013) 7626)
under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 af 21. november 2012 om kvalitetsordninger for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer [1], særlig artikel 54, stk. 1, og
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs [1], and in particular Article 54(1) thereof,
I artikel 54, stk. 1, første afsnit i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 fastsættes det, at Kommissionen på anmodning af de producenter, som markedsfører produktet med den registrerede betegnelse, kan annullere registreringen af en beskyttet geografisk betegnelse, når det ikke er sikret, at produktet overholder varespecifikationen, eller når der ikke er markedsført et produkt med den pågældende beskyttede geografiske betegnelse i mindst syv år.
The first subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 provides that, apart from in the case of requests from the producers of the product sold under the registered name, the Commission may cancel the registration of a protected geographical indication where compliance with the conditions of the specification is not ensured or where no product has been placed on the market under the protected geographical indication for at least seven years.
Kommissionen har indledt en undersøgelse af anmodningen om annullering af registreringen af den beskyttede geografiske betegnelse »Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski«, der blev fremsendt af Tyskland den 15. februar 2013 og modtaget den 18. februar 2013.
The Commission has examined the request to cancel the registration of the protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski’ submitted by Germany on 15 February 2013 and received on 18 February 2013.
Denne anmodning om annullering falder ikke ind under nogen af de to tilfælde, som er omhandlet i artikel 54, stk. 1, første afsnit, i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012, og den opfylder derfor ikke betingelserne i nævnte artikel.
This cancellation request does not fall into either of the two cases referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and does not therefore meet the conditions laid down in that Article.
På baggrund heraf bør Tysklands anmodning om annullering af den beskyttede geografiske betegnelse »Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski« afvises.
In view of these elements, the request to cancel the protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski’ submitted by Germany must be rejected.
Foranstaltningen i denne afgørelse er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Komitéen for Kvalitetspolitikken for Landbrugsprodukter —
The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for agricultural product quality policy,
Anmodningen om annullering af den beskyttede geografiske betegnelse »Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski« afvises.
The request to cancel the protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski’ is rejected.
Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 14. november 2013.
Done at Brussels, 14 November 2013.
om foranstaltning SA.23324 — C 25/07 (ex NN 26/07) — Finland Finavia, Airpro og Ryanair i Tampere-Pirkkala lufthavn
on measure SA.23324 — C 25/07 (ex NN 26/07) — Finland Finavia, Airpro and Ryanair at Tampere-Pirkkala airport
(meddelt under nummer C(2012) 5036)
(notified under document C(2012) 5036)
(Kun den finske og den svenske tekst er autentiske)
(Only the Finnish and Swedish versions are authentic)
I februar 2005 modtog Kommissionen en klage fra Blue1 Oy (»Blue1«), et finsk luftfartsselskab, der indgår i SAS Group.
In February 2005 the Commission received a complaint from Blue1 Oy (‘Blue1’), a Finnish airline that is part of the SAS Group.
Blue1 påstod bl.a., at Ryanair Ltd. (»Ryanair«) modtog støtte, da de lufthavnsafgifter, selskabet skulle betale i Tampere-Pirkkala lufthavn (»TMP lufthavn« eller »lufthavnen«), lå under gennemsnittet.
Blue1 alleged, among other things, that Ryanair Ltd (‘Ryanair’) was receiving aid due to lower-than-average airport charges at Tampere-Pirkkala airport (‘TMP airport’ or ‘the airport’).
Kommissionen anmodede Finland om at fremsende yderligere oplysninger vedrørende klagen ved skrivelse af 2. marts 2005 og 23. maj 2006.
The Commission requested Finland to provide further information in relation to the complaint by letters of 2 March 2005 and 23 May 2006.
Finland svarede ved skrivelse af 27. april 2005 og 27. juli 2006.
Finland replied by letters of 27 April 2005 and 27 July 2006.
Ved skrivelse af 10. juli 2007 meddelte Kommissionen Finland, at den havde besluttet at indlede den procedure, der er fastsat i artikel 108, stk. 2, i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde (TEUF) [2] ( »beslutningen om at indlede proceduren«), over for aftalen mellem Airpro Oy og Ryanair samt Finavias og Airpro Oys gennemførelse af lavprisstrategien i TMP lufthavn.
By letter dated 10 July 2007 the Commission informed Finland of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) [2] ( ‘the opening decision’) in respect of the agreement between Airpro Oy and Ryanair and the implementation of the low-cost strategy by Finavia and Airpro Oy at TMP airport.
Finland fremsatte sine bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren den 28. november 2007.
Finland provided its comments on the opening decision on 28 November 2007.
Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede proceduren blev offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende [3].
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Kommissionen opfordrede interesserede parter til at sende deres bemærkninger til de pågældende foranstaltninger senest en måned efter datoen for offentliggørelsen.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month of the publication date.
Kommissionen modtog bemærkninger fra fire interesserede parter (Ryanair, SAS Group, Air France og Sammenslutningen af Europæiske Luftfartsselskaber (AEA)).
The Commission received comments on the subject from four interested parties (Ryanair, SAS Group, Air France and the Association of European Airlines).
Kommissionen videresendte bemærkningerne til Finland ved skrivelse af 13. februar 2008.
It transmitted these comments to Finland by letter dated 13 February 2008.
Finland fremsatte sine bemærkninger den 15. april 2008.
Finland transmitted its comments on 15 April 2008.
Kommissionen anmodede om yderligere oplysninger ved skrivelse af 25. juni 2010.
By letter dated 25 June 2010 the Commission requested further information.
Kommissionen fremsendte derfor en rykkerskrivelse i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [4].
Therefore, the Commission sent a reminder pursuant to Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [4].
Finland svarede ved skrivelse af 15. juni 2011.
Finland replied by letter dated 15 June 2011.
BESKRIVELSE AF FORANSTALTNINGERNE OG BEGRUNDELSE FOR INDLEDNING AF PROCEDUREN
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Baggrund for undersøgelsen
Background to the investigation
TMP lufthavn
TMP airport
TMP lufthavn er beliggende i Pirkkala, 13 km sydvest for byen Tampere i det sydlige Finland.
TMP airport is located in Pirkkala, 13 kilometres south-west of the City of Tampere in southern Finland.
Det er den tredjestørste lufthavn i Finland (målt i antal passagerer, jf. tabel i betragtning 10).
It is the third largest airport in Finland (measured in number of passengers, see table in paragraph (10)).
Ud over varetagelsen af den civile luftfart er lufthavnen også base for det finske flyvevåben.
Besides handling civil aviation, the airport also serves as a base for the Finnish Air Force.
TMP lufthavn har to passagerterminaler til ruteflyvning:
TMP airport has two scheduled passenger terminals:
Terminal 1 (»T1«) blev bygget i 1998 og anvendes i øjeblikket af Finnair, Flybe, SAS, Blue1 og Air Baltic.
Terminal 1 (also ‘T1’) was built in 1998 and is currently used by Finnair, Flybe, SAS, Blue1 and Air Baltic.
I 2003 havde T1 en kapacitet på 550000 passagerer om året.
In 2003 the capacity of T1 was 550000 passengers a year.
Terminal 2 (»T2«) blev oprindelig anvendt som fragthangar af DHL, og da den blev ledig i 2002, blev den omdannet til en lavpristerminal.
Terminal 2 (also ‘T2’) was initially used as a cargo hangar by DHL and (after it became vacant in 2002) converted into a low-cost terminal.
T2 anvendes i øjeblikket kun af Ryanair.
T2 currently serves Ryanair only.
T2 har en kapacitet på 425000 passagerer om året.
The capacity of T2 is 425000 passengers a year.