natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lustenhouwer
Mr Lustenhouwer
LUSTENHOUWER  (fuldmagt fra SCHLEYER)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights of Mr Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (art. 54 - Mengozzi)
Lustenhouwer (Rule 54 - Mr Mengozzi)
Lustenhouwer (art. 54 - Sigmund)
Lustenhouwer (Rule 54 - Sigmund)
Lustenhouwer (art.54)
Lustenhouwer (Rule 54)
Lustenhouwer (artikel 53 - Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (Rule 53 - Schleyer)
LUSTENHOUWER (formand)
Mr  Lustenhouwer (president)
LUSTENHOUWER (fuldmagt fra BARROW)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights of Dame Jocelyn Barrow)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Peeters)
Lustenhouwer (froxy for Mr Peeters)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Peeters)
Lustenhouwer (proxy for Mr Peeters)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Rebuffel)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights - Rebuffel)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer  (voting rights of Mr Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (Delegation from Schleyer)
LUSTENHOUWER (fuldmagt fra SCHLEYER)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights of Mr Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights of Mr Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (fuldmagt fra Schleyer)
Lustenhouwer (voting rights of Schleyer)
LUSTENHOUWER (NL-III)
Mr Lustenhouwer (NL-III)
LUSTENHOUWER (næstformand)
Mr Lustenhouwer (vice-president)
Lustenhouwer (Ordfører)
Mr Lustenhouwer (Rapporteur)
LUSTENHOUWER (studiegruppe - art. 54)
Lustenhouwer (Rule 54, study group)
LUSTENHOUWER *
Lustenhouwer
LUSTENHOUWER begrundede sit ændringsforslag til pkt. 4.7.1., som tilsigtede en forlængelse af kontraktvarighed og opsigelsesvarsler.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER explained his amendment to point 4.7.1.
LUSTENHOUWER betegnede det "kartel", der er involveret i gennemførelsen af artikel 4 i Protokollen om Social- og Arbejdsmarkedspolitikken, som en skandale.
Mr Lustenhouwer considered that the "cartel" involved in the application of Article 4 of the social protocol was a scandal.
LUSTENHOUWER Colin, valgt med 107 stemmer for, 26 stemmer imod og 7 hverken
Lustenhouwer Colin, elected by 107 votes to 26 , with 7 abstentions
LUSTENHOUWER erklærede sig som kraftig modstander af diskrimination, men fandt ikke, der var brug for et EF-direktiv om bevisbyrden.
Mr Lustenhouwer declared that he was resolutely opposed to discrimination, but that there was no need for a draft European directive on the burden of proof.
LUSTENHOUWER foreslog at slette sidste punktum i pkt. 2.2.5.3., da sociale og arbejdsmarkedsmæssige regelsæt ikke blev drøftet under GATT-forhandlingerne.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER proposed that the last sentence in point 2.2.5.3 be deleted, saying that social clauses had no place in the GATT negotiations.
LUSTENHOUWER gik imod CONNELLAN's ændringsforslag.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER opposed this amendment.
LUSTENHOUWER gik imod ændringsforslaget.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER opposed the amendment.
LUSTENHOUWER hilste initiativet velkomment og fandt det meget belejligt at høre denne redegørelse, før arbejdet om emnet går i gang.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER welcomed the initiative as well as this opportunity for the Section to hear about the programme before work on it got under way.
LUSTENHOUWER mindede om grønbogens 3 hovedpunkter, nemlig handelssektoren i landdistrikter, handelssektoren i byområder - som i  kraft af sin distributionsfunktion er en garanti for disses levedygtighed - og virtual reality, dvs. elektronisk handel.
Mr Lustenhouwer reiterated the three main issues raised by the green paper: commerce in rural areas, commerce in town and city centres (which made those towns and cities viable by providing distribution services), and “virtual reality”, i.e. electronic trading.
LUSTENHOUWER orienterede som stedfortræder for formanden for Sektionen for Industri, Handel, Håndværk og Tjenesteydelser om vilkårene for udtalelsens udarbejdelse og pegede på dokumentets betydning; udtalelsen var vedtaget i sektionen med et flertal af stemmer for, 6 imod og 13 hverken for eller imod.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER, deputizing for the Chairman of the Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, explained the basis on which the Opinion was drafted and highlighted the importance of the document, which had been adopted by the Section with 6 votes against and 13 abstentions.
LUSTENHOUWER pointerede SMV'ernes jobskabende rolle og tilsluttede sig forslagene om at sænke momssatserne i arbejdskraftintensive servicefag og industrier.
Mr Lustenhouwer stressed the role of SMEs in job creation, and endorsed proposals to lower VAT rates in labour-intensive services and industries.
LUSTENHOUWER repræsenterede ØSU.
Mr Lustenhouwer had represented the Committee.
LUSTENHOUWER som hovedordfører, jf. forretningsordenens art. 25, stk. 1, 2. punktum, og art. 50.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER as Rapporteur-General in accordance with Rule 25, paragraph 1, second sentence, and Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure.
LUSTENHOUWER syntes, at udtalelsen var fremragende, men erklærede, at han hverken kunne stemme for eller imod af principielle grunde: han havde en anden indstilling til spørgsmålet om en uafhængig europæisk konkurrencemyndighed, som han i øvrigt baserede på det, der siges i punkt 6.2.
Mr Lustenhouwer judged the opinion to be excellent, but announced he would abstain on a matter of principle: he had a different vision of the independent European competition agency, based on the comments made in point 6.2.
LUSTENHOUWER takkede ordføreren for hans udmærkede arbejde og kom nærmere ind på certificering og SMV.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER congratulated the Rapporteur on his excellent work stressing, in particular, the question of certification and SMEs.
LUSTENHOUWER takkede ordføreren, fordi han havde bestræbt sig på at skabe samklang mellem de mange forskellige involverede interesser.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER thanked the Rapporteur for his efforts to reconcile the many interests at stake.
LUSTENHOUWER takkede ordføreren, fordi han i udtalelsen har taget hensyn til alle de synspunkter, der er kommet frem på studiegruppens møder.
Mr LUSTENHOUWER thanked the Rapporteur, saying that his Opinion took account of all the positions expressed at Study Group meetings.
LUSTENHOUWER talte imod dette.
Mr Lustenhouwer spoke against.
LUSTENHOUWER talte imod ændringsforslaget.
Mr Lustenhouwer opposed the amendment.
LUSTENHOUWER talte imod ændringsforslaget.
Mr Lustenhouwer spoke against the amendment.
Lustenhouwer*
Lustenhouwer
LUSTENHOUWER, næstformand for Sektionen for Industri, Handel, Håndværk og Tjenesteydelser, kommenterede baggrunden for udarbejdelsen af denne udtalelse om Kommissionens årlige konkurrenceberetning, som sektionen havde vedtaget uden stemmer imod, mens 1 havde stemt hverken for eller imod.
The Vice-Chairman of the Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, Mr LUSTENHOUWER, explained the conditions surrounding the preparation of the Opinion on the Commission's annual report on competition policy, which had been adopted by the Section with no votes against and 1 abstention.
Luton, præsident, Arianespace
Luton, Chairman of Arianespace
Lutz
Mr
Lutz
Mr Lutz
Lutz (GD Miljø)
Lutz (DG Env)
Lutz Guellner fremsatte nogle yderligere kommentarer til de ovenfor nævnte emner.
Mr Guellner made some additional comments on the above issues.
Lutz Kienle sagde videre, at kritikken i udtalelsen først og fremmest er rettet mod afkoblingen, som kan få negative virkninger for de svageste regioner og desuden fremkalde konkurrenceforvridninger.
The main criticism put forward in the opinion, concerned decoupling, which could have negative effects on disadvantaged regions as well as distorting competition.
Lutz Kienle sluttede af med at understrege, at det er vigtigt at kandidatlandene inddrages i debatten om reformen af den fælles landbrugspolitik og takkede kollegaerne i studiegruppen for, at det er lykkedes at opnå næsten fuldstændig enighed om dokumentet.
Mr Kienle concluded by stressing the need to involve candidate countries in the discussions on reform of the CAP, and thanked his study group colleagues for having reached near unanimous agreement on the document.
Lutz Kienle understregede endvidere, at hvad angår parlamentsmedlemmernes deltagelse den 27. november 2002, havde han fornyet EØSU's støtte til Parlamentets anmodning om også at anvende den fælles beslutningstagningsprocedure i spørgsmål vedrørende den fælles landbrugspolitik.
Mr Kienle also stressed that during his attendance at the European Parliament on 27 November, he had reiterated the Committee's support for EP requests to use the co-decision procedure for matters relating to the CAP.
Lutz Mühl
Mr Lutz Mühl
Lutz Ribbe
Malosse
Lutz Ribbe
Mr  Ribbe
Lutz RIBBE
Mr Wladyslaw Serafin
Lutz Ribbe
Ribbe
Lutz Ribbe
RIBBE Lutz
Lutz Ribbe (Arbejdstagergruppen – DE)
Lutz Ribbe (Workers – DE)
Lutz Ribbe (art. 54 - Staffan Nilsson)
Ribbe (Rule 54 - Nilsson)
Lutz Ribbe (art. 54 for Flavio Pasotti)
Ribbe (Rule 54 from Pasotti)
Lutz Ribbe (D - III) (Gerd Wolf - art. 62)
Mr Ribbe (D-III) (Rule 62 Wolf)
Lutz Ribbe (D)
Mr Ribbe (D)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III)
Mr Ribbe (D-III)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III)
Mr Ribbe (Group III - D)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III)
Mr Ribbe (D - III)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III) (art. 54 - Staffan Nilsson)
Mr Ribbe (D-III) (Rule 54 - Mr Nilsson)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III) (for Jan Olsson, art. 54)
Mr Ribbe (III-D) (Rule 54 for Mr Olsson)
Lutz Ribbe (D-III) (for Staffan Nilsson, art. 54)
Mr Ribbe (D-III) (Rule 54 - Mr Nilsson)
Lutz Ribbe (D/III) A/62
Mr Ribbe (D-III) – Rule 62
Lutz Ribbe (DE - III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE – III)
Ribbe (DE – III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Mr Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-GRIII)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III)
Ribbe Lutz (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III) (art. 62 – Adams)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III) (Rule 62 - Mr Adams)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III) (art. 62 – Adams)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III) (Rule62 Mr. Adams)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III) (for Adams, art. 62)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III) (Rule 62 Mr Adams)
Lutz Ribbe (DE-III) (for Staffan Nilsson, art. 62)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III) (Rule 62 – Mr Nilsson)
Lutz Ribbe (DE–III)
Mr Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE–III)
Mr Ribbe (DE–III)
Lutz Ribbe (DE–III)
Ribbe (DE-III)
Lutz Ribbe (for Hanns-Eberhard Schleyer, art. 62) (DE-III)
Mr Ribbe (Rule 62 – Mr Schleyer) (DE – III)
Lutz Ribbe (GR.
Mr Ribbe (GR.
Lutz Ribbe (Gruppen Andre Interesser – DE)
Lutz Ribbe (Various Interests - DE)
Lutz Ribbe (Gruppen Andre Interesser – DE)
Lutz Ribbe (Various Interests – DE)
Lutz Ribbe (III-D) (art. 54 - Jan Olsson)
Mr Ribbe (III-D) (Rule 54 - Olsson)
Lutz Ribbe - Agenda 2007
Mr RIBBE - Agenda 2007
Lutz Ribbe - III
Mr Ribbe - III
Lutz Ribbe accepterede (uden afstemning) inkluderingen af det nye punkt 4.7.6.
Mr Ribbe accepted (without vote) the inclusion of the new point 4.7.6.
Lutz Ribbe anførte, at det hverken er nødvendigt eller ønskeligt at yde finansiel støtte til de landbrugere, der holder op med at anvende methylbromid.
Mr Ribbe explained that it was neither necessary nor desirable to give financial support to farmers who were forced to stop using methyl bromide.
Lutz Ribbe anmodede om en skarpere skelnen mellem de forskellige arbejdsstrukturer i EØSU for at undgå at anvende "gruppe" alt for ofte.
Mr Ribbe wanted a distinction made in the names of the various EESC working bodies, avoiding overuse of the term "group."
Lutz Ribbe bad Kommissionen redegøre for betingelserne for ansøgerlandenes deltagelse i Life.
Mr Ribbe asked the Commission to explain under which conditions the accession countries could participate in Life.
Lutz Ribbe bakkede op om udtalelsen.
Mr Ribbe supports the paper.
Lutz Ribbe beklagede, at en bemærkning fra hans side, endog bekræftet skriftligt, ikke var medtaget i referatet om "legetøjs sikkerhed".
Mr Ribbe regretted that the "toy safety" record failed to take into consideration one of his comments, which he had confirmed in writing.
Lutz Ribbe betegnede som svar på María Sánchez Miguels indlæg opnåelsen af mangfoldighed i naturen som en del af den europæiske kultur.
Turning to the remarks made by Mrs Sanchez Miguel, the rapporteur cited the maintenance of natural diversity as an example of European culture.
Lutz Ribbe bifaldt udtalelsens kommentarer til artikel 1 i Kommissionens direktivforslag.
Mr Ribbe welcomed the opinion's comments on Article 1 of the Commission's draft Directive.
Lutz Ribbe blev enig med Joan Caball i Subirana om at stryge punkt 6.3.2 og foretage en tilføjelse til andet punktum i punkt 6.3.1.
Mr Ribbe and Mr Caball i Subirana agreed to delete point 6.3.2 and to add text to the second sentence of point 6.3.1.
Lutz Ribbe blev enig med Joan Caball i Subirana om at stryge sidste komma i punkt 6.3.5 og foretage en tilføjelse til første punktum i punkt 6.3.1.
Mr Ribbe and Mr Caball i Subirana agreed to delete the final clause of point 6.3.5 and to add text to the first sentence of point 6.3.1.
Lutz Ribbe erklærede, at udvalget havde truffet et godt valg med udpegelsen af Krzysztof Kamieniecki til ordfører.
Mr Ribbe stated that the Committee had been right to select Mr Kamieniecki as the rapporteur for this opinion.
Lutz Ribbe fandt det meget interessant, at tallene ikke beviste, at gensplejsede afgrøder var mere rentable; borgerne måtte bibringes en bedre forståelse af, hvad debatten drejede sig om, så man kunne komme bort fra den taktik, hvor offentlige instanser sendte beslutninger frem og tilbage mellem hinanden.
Mr Ribbe found it highly significant that the figures failed to prove that GMO varieties were more cost-efficient; citizens needed to have a better grasp of the terms of the debate in order to get away from the tactic of official bodies referring decisions back and forth between each other.
Lutz Ribbe fandt nye, bl.a. kritiske bemærkninger i udtalelsen; han mente, at man også i Europa burde operere med en vis form for beskyttelse mod omverdenen.
Mr Ribbe found some new, critical approaches in the opinion; he thought Europe would have to go along with a certain amount of protection against outside goods.
Lutz Ribbe forelagde udtalelsen og understregede, at Kommissionen havde foreslået en simpel forlængelse af LIFE III indtil udgangen af 2006, så den kunne nå at forberede LIFE IV.
Mr Ribbe presented the opinion, underlining that the Commission proposed a simple prolongation of LIFE III until the end of 2006 giving it enough time to prepare for LIFE IV.
Lutz Ribbe foreslog at udarbejde en initiativudtalelse om opfølgningen af det midlertidige forbud på 6 måneder mod anvendelse af kødmel i foder til drøvtyggere.
Mr Ribbe suggested that an own-initiative opinion should be drawn up considering what should happen after the six-month ban on the use of meat meal in ruminant feed.
Lutz Ribbe foreslog følgende kompromistekst:
Mr Ribbe proposed the following compromise text:
Lutz Ribbe fremhævede, at en politik, der fremmer energieffektiviteten, på lang sigt indebærer konkurrencefordele og et teknologisk forspring.
Mr Ribbe pointed out that pursuing an energy efficiency policy would bring  long-term benefits as regard competitiveness and give enterprises  a technological lead.
Lutz Ribbe fremhævede, at oplægget var velafbalanceret, og at den særdeles komplekse problemstilling ikke blev behandlet ensidigt.
Mr Ribbe said that the opinion was well balanced, avoiding a one-sided approach to the very complex issues.
Lutz Ribbe fremlagde de ændringsforslag, der var fremsat af Lutz Ribbe, Soscha zu Eulenburg, Manfred Dimper og Johannes M. Jaschick, og som omhandlede effektiviteten af den eksisterende lovgivning om GMO‑tilladelser (punkt 2.5 – accepteret af ordføreren), præcisering af erstatningsansvaret (punkt 2.5.1 – vedtaget med 46 stemmer for, 39 imod og 14 hverken for eller imod), debatten om GMO'er (punkt 4.1 – forkastet med 50 stemmer for, 53 imod og ni stemmer hverken for eller imod) og animalske produkter fra dyr, der har været fodret med GMO'er (punkt 4.3.1 – forkastet med 43 stemmer for, 56 stemmer imod og 8 stemmer hverken for eller imod).
Mr Ribbe presented amendments by Mr Ribbe, Ms zu Eulenburg, Mr Dimper and Mr Jaschick on the effectiveness of existing legislation on GMO-authorisation (point 2.5 – accepted by the rapporteur), the clarification of liability (point 2.5.1 – adopted by 46 votes to 39, with 14 abstentions), the debate on GMOs (point 4.1 – defeated by 50 votes to 53, with nine abstentions) and labelling animal products from animals which have been feed GM feed (point 4.3.1 – defeated by 43 votes to 56, with 8 abstentions).
Lutz Ribbe fremlagde forslaget til udtalelse.
Mr Ribbe presented the draft opinion.
Lutz Ribbe fremlagde sit ændringsforslag, hvorefter stk. 4 skulle affattes således:
Mr Ribbe presented an amendment asking for Rule 50(4) to be worded as follows:
Lutz Ribbe fremlagde sit ændringsforslag, som sigtede på at præcisere og harmonisere forretningsordenens bestemmelser om retten til at indgive ændringsforslag.
Mr Ribbe presented an amendment which sought to clarify and harmonise the provisions of the Rules of Procedure concerning the right to table amendments.
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte et ændringsforslag til punkt 1.7 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented the following amendment to point 1.7:
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte et ændringsforslag til punkt 5.5.3 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented the following amendment to point 5.5.3
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte et ændringsforslag til punkt 5.7.3 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented the following amendment to point 5.7.3
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte følgende kompromisforslag:
Mr Ribbe proposed the following compromise text:
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte ændringsforslag 15 og 16 til punkterne 5.8.3 og 5.8.4 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented amendments 15 and 16 below to points 5.8.3 and 5.8.4:
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte ændringsforslag 17, 18 19 og 20 til punkterne 5.14.1 og 5.14.2, 5.14.3 og 6.4 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20 below to 5.14.1, 5.14.2, 5.14.3 and 6.4:
Lutz Ribbe fremsatte ændringsforslag 5 og 6 til punkterne 1.8 og 1.9 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe presented amendments 5 and 6 below to points 1.8 and 1.9:
Lutz Ribbe gav sin støtte til ordføreren og lykønskede ham for udtalelsen.
Mr Ribbe gave his support to the rapporteur and congratulated him for the opinion.
Lutz Ribbe gav sin tilslutning til udtalelsen, selv om han havde fremsat adskillige ændringsforslag til ordføreren om de eksisterende forskelle mellem medlemsstaterne, hvad angår skovbrugssektorens økonomiske rentabilitet.
Mr Ribbe gave his support to the opinion despite having submitted various amendments to the rapporteur on the existing differences between Member States with regard to the economic viability of the forestry sector.
Lutz Ribbe gav udtryk for tvivl med hensyn til finansieringen af målsætningerne i forslaget.
Mr Ribbe wondered how all the document's pursued objectives could be financed.
Lutz Ribbe gik ind for at beholde dette som et eksempel.
Also Mr Ribbe was in favour of keeping this as an example.
Lutz Ribbe gjorde opmærksom på, at vi først er i færd med at realisere en europæisk landbrugsmodel, og at der i praksis stadig er mange uløste konflikter.
Mr Ribbe pointed out that we were on the road to achieving a European agricultural model, but in practice there were still many conflicts that had to be resolved.
Lutz Ribbe godkendte ændringsforslag 1, 2 og 4 og indføjede dem som nyt punkt 4.11, 4.12 og 4.13.
Mr Ribbe incorporated amendments 1,2 and 4 into the opinion as new points 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13.
Lutz Ribbe havde de samme tvivl med hensyn til artikel 2 og undrede sig også over, at OLAF ikke knyttes til Revisionsretten.
Mr Ribbe raised the same query regarding Article 2 and also wondered why OLAF was not attached to the Court of Auditors.
Lutz Ribbe havde forelagt følgende forslag til ændring af punkt 1.15:
Mr Ribbe had tabled an amendment to point 1.15 reading as follows:
Lutz Ribbe havde fremlagt et ændringsforslag om tilføjelse af følgende nye punkter 7.6.9 og 7.6.10:
Mr Ribbe tabled the following amendments, inserting new points 7.6.9 and 7.6.10:
Lutz Ribbe havde fremsat følgende ændringsforslag til punkt 4.4:
Mr Ribbe had tabled an amendment to point 4.4, reading as follows:
Lutz Ribbe havde stillet et ændringsforslag til punkt 1.8 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe had tabled an amendment to point 1.8 reading as follows:
Lutz Ribbe havde stillet et ændringsforslag til punkt 3.4.2.1 og 3.4.2.2 med følgende ordlyd:
Mr Ribbe had tabled an amendment to points 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2 reading as follows:
Lutz Ribbe henledte formandens opmærksomhed på de uacceptable arbejdsvilkår i underudvalget og på plenarforsamlingen: Ordføreren havde været særdeles åben over for medlemmernes argumenter, men da dokumentet var kommet meget sent, havde der ikke været tid til debat.
Mr Ribbe drew the attention of the President to unacceptable working conditions in the Sub-committee and at the plenary: the rapporteur had been very open to members' arguments, but as the document had arrived very late there had not been any time for discussion.
Lutz Ribbe henviste til ØSU-udtalelsen om vurdering af det 5. miljøprogram og spurgte, om Kommissionen har foretaget en analyse af programmets ringe succes.
Mr Ribbe referred to the ESC opinion assessing the 5th EAP and wondered whether the Commission had analysed the reasons for this programme's lack of success.
Lutz Ribbe håbede dog, at den nuværende lave prioritering af bæredygtig udvikling ville gøre det muligt for EØSU's udtalelse at lægge nogle rammer for revisionen.
Nevertheless, Mr Ribbe hoped that the current low priority of sustainable development would open a window of opportunity for the Committee opinion to set the frame for the review.
Lutz Ribbe informerede næstformanden om, at ordføreren og Armands Krauze havde indgået et kompromis om ændringsforslag 8.
Mr Ribbe informed the vice-president that a compromise had been agreed between the rapporteur and Mr Krauze for the amendment 8.
Lutz Ribbe introducerede udtalelsen, der er en opfølgning på den sonderende udtalelse om biodiversitet, som EØSU vedtog i maj sidste år.
Mr Ribbe introduced the opinion, which was a follow-up to the exploratory opinion on biodiversity adopted by the EESC in May last year.
Lutz Ribbe kritiserede, at Kommissionen ikke gjorde nok for at ændre sine politikker, selv om den var opmærksom på ikke-bæredygtige tendenser.
Mr Ribbe criticised that, in spite of its awareness of unsustainable trends, the Commission did not do enough to change its policies.
Lutz Ribbe kunne ikke acceptere ændringsforslaget, og det blev sat til afstemning.
Mr Ribbe opposed the amendment, which was put to the vote.
Lutz Ribbe lod det stå åbent, om denne tekst, som enhver jo kunne skrive under på, ville formå at påvirke den politiske debat.
Mr Ribbe left open the question as to whether this text, with which everyone could identify, could influence the political debate.
Lutz Ribbe lovede i sit svar på de fremsatte bemærkninger at tilpasse pkt. 2.3.2.4 (med en henvisning til grænseoverskridende programmer) og pkt. 2.4.1 (hvor de sidste to punktummer udgår).
In reply to their comments, Mr Ribbe promised to amend points 2.3.2.4 (to include a reference to cross-border programmes) and 2.4.1 (deleting last two sentences).
Lutz Ribbe meddelte, at forslagsstillerne var nået til enighed med ordføreren om ændringsforslagene.
Mr Ribbe pointed out that the members tabling the amendments had reached agreement with the rapporteur on the proposed amendments.
Lutz Ribbe medgav, at udtalelsen selvfølgelig ikke gav det fulde billede.
In response Mr Ribbe pointed out that the opinion of course did not give the whole picture.
Lutz Ribbe mente derimod, at den udtalelse, som Henri Malosse var ordfører for, ikke var tilstrækkeligt kritisk over for Kommissionens forslag.
However Mr Ribbe believed that Mr Malosse's opinion was not sufficiently critical of the Commission proposal.
Lutz Ribbe mente, at den europæiske landbrugsmodel måtte integrere alle politikområder.
Mr Ribbe thought that the European model of agriculture was supposed to integrate all policy areas.
Lutz Ribbe mente, at netop dette produkt var velegnet i et alsidigt landbrug, og at man burde nævne dette.
Mr Ribbe took the view that this product fitted in particularly well with the concept of multi-functionality of agriculture, and that this should also be mentioned.