natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning besluttede at nedsætte et ad hoc-udvalg, der fik til opgave at udarbejde en redegørelse for sagen til UVVU. 
DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science decided to form an ad hoc committee, which was given the task of compiling a report on the case for DCSD.
Redegørelsen blev i oktober 2001 sendt til sagens parter med henblik på en eventuel kommentering af faktuelle forhold. 
In October 2001 the report was sent to the parties in the case with a view to obtaining any comments on the factual aspects.
Klageren har svaret, at han ikke har bemærkninger til redegørelsen, mens de indklagede har meddelt, at svar først kan foreligge i 2002. 
The complainant has answered that he has no comment to make on the report, while the defendants have stated that no reply will be available until 2002.
Sagen kan derfor ikke afsluttes i beretningsåret, men overføres til år 2002. 
The case cannot be completed during the year under review, therefore, but will be carried forward to 2002.
Sag om begæring om aktindsigt i en sag, som var under behandling, men endnu ikke var afsluttet (Sag 11 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case concerning a request for access to documents in a case that was under consideration but still pending (Case 11 in DCSD's 2000 report).
En speciallæge rejste i 1999 over for UVVU tvivl om bæredygtigheden af det materiale, der førte til godkendelse af et lægemiddel. 
In 1999 a medical specialist raised doubts with DCSD concerning the soundness of the material that led to the approval of a drug.
Under behandlingen af sagen begærede en journalist aktindsigt i ad hocudvalgets redegørelse. 
While the case was under consideration, a journalist requested access to documents in the ad hoc committee's report.
Anmodningen blev afslået med den begrundelse, at Udvalget for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning ønskede at følge den praksis, som det tidligere Udvalget Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed havde fulgt, dvs. ikke at give aktindsigt i sager, der var under behandling i udvalget. 
The request was dismissed on the grounds that the Committee for Health and Medical Science wished to adhere to the practice that had been followed by the former Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, i.e. that of not granting access to documents in cases under consideration by the Committee.
Begæringen blev derfor afslået. 
The request was therefore rejected.
Sagen blev herefter indbragt for Folketingets Ombudsmand, som ved udgangen af 2000 endnu ikke havde afsluttet behandlingen af sagen, jf. UVVU's beretning 2000, sag nr. 11. 
The case was subsequently brought before the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman, who had not yet completed his consideration of the case by the end of 2000, cf. DCSD's 2000 report, case no. 11.
Folketingets Ombudsmand traf i april 2001 endelig afgørelse i denne sag. 
In April 2001 the Parliamentary Ombudsman made a final ruling in this case.
Folketingets Ombudsmand mente derfor ikke, at ministeriet burde have afvist klagen over UVVU's afslag på aktindsigt. 
The Ombudsman did not feel, therefore, that the Ministry should have dismissed the complaint about DCSD's rejection to grant access to documents.
Ministeriets afgørelse af dette spørgsmål forelå ikke ved beretningsårets udløb. 
The Ministry's decision in this question was not yet available at the end of the reporting year.
Sagen overføres derfor til UVVU's beretning 2002. 
The case will therefore be carried forward to DCSD's 2002 report.
Sagen bør i øvrigt sammenholdes med sag nr. 8, der er beskrevet ovenfor. 
Moreover, the case should be compared with case no. 8, outlined above.
Sag om en henvendelse om mulig videnskabelig uredelighed i form af mulig manipulation med data (Sag 12 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case concerning an approach about possible scientific dishonesty in the form of possible manipulation of data (Case 12 in DCSD's 2000 report).
UVVU modtog i 2000 til orientering kopi af en korrespondance, som blev ført mellem en forsker og et videnskabeligt tidsskrift. 
In 2000 DCSD received, for information purposes, a copy of correspondence being conducted between a researcher and a scientific journal.
Som svar på henvendelsen meddelte UVVU, at UVVU ikke havde mulighed for at tage sager op af egen drift, men alene kan behandle sager, der rejses ved klage. 
By way of reply to the enquiry, DCSD stated that it was not able to review cases on its own initiative but can only deal with cases filed in the form of a complaint.
I 2001 blev henvendelsen afløst af en formel klage. 
In 2001 the enquiry was superseded by a formal complaint.
Sag om klage over en udenlandsk forsker, som uden tilladelse har plagieret andres videnskabelige artikler. 
Case of a complaint about a foreign researcher who has plagiarized others' scientific articles without permission.
UVVU modtog i september 2001 til orientering en kopi af et brev fra ledelsen af et institut ved et dansk universitet med en klage over, at en udenlandsk gæsteforsker ved det danske institut efter sin hjemkomst til sit eget land havde publiceret mindst to videnskabelige artikler om eksperimentelle data, som hidrørte fra instituttet. 
In September 2001 DCSD received, for information purposes, a copy of a letter from the heads of a department at a Danish university containing a complaint about a foreign visiting researcher at the Danish institute following his return to his home country, having published at least two scientific articles on experimental data stemming from the department.
Heraf havde den udenlandske forsker produceret visse data under sit ophold i Danmark, mens en anden del omhandlede forskningsaktiviteter, som den udenlandske forsker ikke havde deltaget i, og som var blevet publiceret af det danske institut i tidsskrifter i 1998. 
The foreign researcher had generated some of these data during his stay in Denmark, while another portion related to research activities in which the foreign researcher had not taken part and which had been published by the Danish department in journals in 1998.
Institutledelsen anklagede på denne baggrund den udenlandske forsker for plagiat og uretmæssigt forfatterskab, idet data og artikler var kopieret uden tilladelse fra de danske forskere og uden reference til de danske forskeres arbejder. 
On this basis the departmental heads accused the foreign researcher of plagiarism and wrongful authorship, data and articles having been copied without permission from the Danish researchers and with no allusion to the Danish researchers' work.
Da det danske institut efter tre måneder ikke havde modtaget nogen reaktion fra det udenlandske institut, bad instituttet i december 2001 UVVU om at indtræde i sagen. 
Since the Danish department had not received any response from the foreign institute three months later, in December 2001 the department asked DCSD to enter into the case.
Sag om klage over krænkelse af god videnskabelig praksis på et dansk universitet. 
Case of a complaint about violation of good scientific practice at a Danish university.
En forsker klagede i marts 2001 over krænkelse af god videnskabelig praksis på et universitet. 
In March 2001 a researcher complained about violation of good scientific practice at a university.
Med henvisning til § 3 i bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998) gjorde UVVU opmærksom på, at UVVU kun kan behandle sager, hvor der blev indgivet klage mod nogen for videnskabelig uredelighed. 
With reference to Section 3 of the Danish Executive Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), DCSD pointed out that it can deal only with cases in which a complaint has been lodged against someone for scientific dishonesty.
På denne baggrund var det umiddelbart UVVU's opfattelse, at klagerens sag faldt uden for UVVU's sagsområde, hvorfor udvalget alene af den grund måtte afstå fra at behandle sagen. 
Against this background it was DCSD's view that, on the face of it, the complainant's case fell outside of DCSD's purview, for which reason the Committee had no choice but to refrain from considering the case on those grounds alone.
I maj 2001 bad klageren imidlertid UVVU om igen at se på klagen, idet klageren nu havde præciseret de punkter, hvor der efter dennes opfattelse forelå forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab og grov vildledning om en persons indsats. 
In May 2001, however, the complainant asked DCSD to reconsider the complaint, as the complainant had now qualified the points which in his opinion involved a distortion of the scientific message and gross misrepresentation about a person's involvement.
Der var i udvalget enighed om, at det ikke kunne antages, at problemet i sagen vedrørte videnskabelig uredelighed. 
The Committee reached a consensus that the problem in the case could not be accepted as relating to scientific dishonesty.
Klagen måtte derfor afvises. 
The complaint therefore had to be dismissed.
Sag om klage over en forskers antividenskabelige holdninger. 
Case of a complaint about a researcher's antiscientific attitudes.
UVVU meddelte klageren, at klagen over forskerens uvidenskabelige holdninger ikke kunne antages at være rettet mod en adfærd, der kunne betegnes som videnskabelig uredelighed jf. definitionen af dette: § 3, stk. 
DCSD informed the complainant that the complaint about the researcher's unscientific attitude could not be assumed to be directed towards conduct describable as scientific dishonesty, cf. the definition of this: Section 3, subs.
1 i Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udviklings bekendtgørelse nr. 933 af 15. december 1998 om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed, som er grundlaget for UVVU's arbejde. 
1 in the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation's Executive Order No. 933 of 15 December 1998 on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, which forms the basis of DCSD's work.
Sagen blev derfor afvist som følge af bekendtgørelsens § 2, stk. 
The case was therefore dismissed by dint of Section 2, subs.
I august 2001 klagede en forsker til UVVU over, at den indklagede havde gjort sig skyldig i videnskabelig uredelighed ved at have plagieret klagerens publikation i en kronik i et landsdækkende dagblad uden klagerens samtykke og viden og uden henvisning til klagerens artikler. 
In August 2001 a researcher complained to DCSD that the defendant had been guilty of scientific dishonesty by having plagiarized the complainant's publication in a feature article in a nationwide newspaper without the complainant's consent and knowledge and without reference to the complainant's articles.
Der blev desuden klaget over, at den indklagede havde krænket klagerens ophavsret, og klageren krævede en erstatning på mindst 50.000 kr. 
A further grievance was that the defendant had violated the complainant's copyright, and the complainant demanded compensation of at least DKK 50,000.
UVVU fandt, at sagen ikke kunne afgøres af UVVU, uanset om det efter den målestok, der anvendes vedrørende videnskabelige publikationer, måtte fastslås, at der forelå plagiat. 
DCSD found that the case could not be decided by DCSD, despite having to acknowledge plagiarization according to the yardstick used for scientific publications.
1, at "Videnskabelig uredelighed omfatter handlinger eller undladelser, hvorved der i forskning sker forfalskning eller forvridning af det videnskabelige budskab eller grov vildledning om en persons indsats i forskningen". 
1 that: "Scientific dishonesty includes actions or omissions in research whereby falsification or distortion of the scientific message takes place, or gross misrepresentation about a person's involvement in the research".
Det var UVVU's opfattelse, at den omhandlede artikel efter sin fremtrædelsesform ikke kunne begrunde en behandling efter videnskabelige kriterier. 
It was DCSD's opinion that the article under discussion, to judge by the form in which it appeared, did not warrant being treated in accordance with scientific criteria.
UVVU måtte derfor for sit vedkommende afvise at forfølge denne sag nærmere. 
DCSD for its part, therefore, had to decline to pursue the case.
I september 2001 anklagede en forsker en anden forsker ved et videnskabeligt institut for fabrikering af videnskabelige data i et abstract, som var indsendt forud for en international konference, der blev afholdt i september 1996. 
In September 2001 a researcher accused another researcher at a scientific institute of fabricating scientific data in an abstract that had been submitted prior to an international conference held in September 1996.
I overensstemmelse med UVVU's forretningsorden blev klagen undergivet høringsprocedure hos den indklagede. 
In accordance with DCSD's rules of procedure, the complaint was submitted to the hearing procedure at the defendant's.
På det således tilvejebragte grundlag tog UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning på et møde stilling til, om sagen, uanset sin alder, skulle realitetsbehandles. 
On the basis thus provided, DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science made a decision at a meeting as to whether the case, regardless of its age, should be considered on its merits.
Udvalgets konklusion blev, at klagen afvistes med henvisning til § 5, stk. 
The Committee's conclusion was that the complaint was rejected with reference to Section 5, subs.
1, i Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udviklings bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998), hvorefter "en klage over videnskabelig uredelighed skal indgives i rimelig tid efter, at klageren har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive klagen. 
1 of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation's Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), according to which "a complaint about scientific dishonesty shall be submitted within a reasonable period of time after the complainant has been given the necessary wherewithal for presenting the complaint.
Udvalgene kan kun i særlige tilfælde behandle forhold, der ligger mere end fem år tilbage i tiden." 
Only in special cases can the Committees consider circumstances dating back more than five years."
Udvalget fandt efter en samlet vurdering ikke, at sagen indeholdt sådanne særlige grunde, som kunne begrunde, at den skulle undergives videregående behandling. 
Following an overall evaluation, the Committee did not consider that the case contained such special grounds as to justify it having to undergo more extensive consideration.
Sagen blev herefter afvist uden nogen realitetsbehandling. 
The case was subsequently rejected without any consideration of its substance.
Sag vedrørende en klage over et universitets behandling af en sag om en bog, som på en række punkter blev postuleret at være videnskabelig uredelig (Sag 13 i UVVU's beretning 2000). 
Case concerning a complaint about a university's treatment of a matter regarding a book postulated to be scientifically dishonest in a number of respects (Case 13 in DCSD's 2000 report).
Sagen, der blev afvist, er refereret i UVVU's beretning 2000 (sag nr. 13). 
The case, which was dismissed, was reported on in DCSD's 2000 report (case no. 13).
Afgørelsen blev truffet i 2001. 
The ruling was delivered in 2001.
Efter modtagelse af Forskningsforums afvisning af at behandle sagen klagede forskeren herefter i januar 2001 til Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. 
After receiving a refusal to consider the case from the Board of the Danish Research Councils, the defendant researcher subsequently complained to the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in January 2001.
2. Skal formuleringen "En klage … skal indgives i rimelig tid efter, at klageren har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive klagen" under alle omstændigheder fortolkes i forhold til det tidspunkt, hvor klageren er blevet opmærksom på de påklagede forhold eller under ekstraordinære omstændigheder finder det nødvendigt at indgive klagen? 
2. Must the wording "A complaint … shall be submitted within a reasonable period of time after the complainant has been given the necessary wherewithal for presenting the complaint" be construed under any circumstances relative to the time at which the complainant became aware of the situation being complained of or under extraordinary circumstances finds it necessary to file the complaint?
Folketingets Ombudsmand fremkom i april 2001 med sin udtalelse vedrørende spørgsmål om rekursadgang til ministeriet. 
In April 2001 the Ombudsman issued his statement on issues of rights of appeal to the Ministry.
Sammenfattende var det ombudsmandens vurdering, at Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling var klageinstans for afgørelser af retlige sagsbehandlingsspørgsmål truffet af UVVU. 
To summarize, it was the Ombudsman's considered judgement that the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation was the appellate authority for rulings on legal caseworking issues made by DCSD.
Ministeriet tog ombudsmandens afgørelse til efterretning og svarede klageren i maj 2001. 
The Ministry took the Ombudsman's decision under advisement and replied to the complainant in May 2001.
Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling gav udtryk for følgende: 
The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation voiced the following:
1: om den politiske hensigt vedrørende UVVU's kompetence efter Bkg. 933 til at træffe afgørelse i spørgsmål vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed og spm. 
1: on the political intent relating to DCSD's competence under Order 933 to make a decision in questions regarding scientific dishonesty and qu.
Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (UVVU) har som retsgrundlag bekendtgørelse om Udvalgene vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed (nr. 933 af 15. december 1998), hvor der blev fastsat regler for tre udvalg vedrørende uredelighed i dansk forskning, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 1, stk. 
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) take as their legal basis the Danish Executive Order on the Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (no. 933 of 15 December 1998), which lays down the rules for three committees relating to dishonesty in Danish research, cf. Section 1, subs.
1. Tilsvarende kan en person begære en sag behandlet for at blive renset for verserende rygter, jf. § 2, stk. 
1. Similarly, a person can request that a case be considered in order to be cleared of rumours in circulation, cf. Section 2, subs.
Dvs. at UVVU ikke frit kan afvise en klage f.eks. blot med henvisning til administrativ konveniens. 
I.e. DCSD is not at liberty to dismiss a complaint merely with reference, say, to administrative convenience.
UVVU's sagsbehandling må heller ikke basere sig på vilkårlighed i valg og afvejning af kriterier. 
Nor must DCSD's consideration of a case be based on arbitrariness in its selection and weighing of criteria.
Hvis det på det foreliggende grundlag findes nærliggende, at der er sket en fejl, der emnemæssigt falder inden for UVVU's kompetenceområde, jf. § 2 og § 3, bør sagen behandles. 
If, on the available basis, it is deemed obvious that there has been a mistake that falls within DCSD's sphere of competence in terms of the subject, cf. Sections 2 and 3, the case should be considered.
Da det ville være en tjenesteforseelse, hvis en person med forskningspligt udfører sit forskningsmæssige arbejde uredeligt, vil institutionen også selv kunne sanktionere forholdet tjenstligt. 
Since it would constitute misconduct if a person with a duty to research were to perform his or her research work dishonestly, the institution itself would also be able to sanction the circumstance officially.
Samtidig bemærkede ministeriet, at sager om videnskabelig uredelighed spænder over et meget bredt felt. 
At the same time the Ministry noted that cases of scientific dishonesty range over a very wide field.
I simple sager om afskrift, hvor forholdet er ob 
In simple cases of copying, where the particulars are objec
jektivt konstaterbart, vil institutionenselv kunne prøve forholdet, men i mere komplicerede sager skal UVVU ses som et tilbud om, at et sagkyndigt organ kan prøve forholdet, hvor institutionslederen måske ikke selv finder sig kompetent. 
tively ascertainable, the institution willbe able to test things itself, but in more complex cases DCSD should be viewed as an offer to have an expert body examine matters in which the actual head of the institution may feel out of his or her jurisdictional depth.
Det vil dog altid være arbejdsgiveren, der skal vurdere spørgsmålet om eventuelle tjenstlige sanktioner, mens UVVU alene kan udtale sig om, hvorvidt en given adfærd efter UVVU's opfattelse må betegnes som videnskabelig uredelig, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 6. 
However, it will always be the employer who has to evaluate the question of any official sanctions, whereas DCSD can only give its views on whether a particular conduct should, in the opinion of DCSD, be labelled as scientifically dishonest, cf. Section 6 of the Order.
2 - Spørgsmålet om klagefrist 
2 - The question of time-limits for complaints.
Ifølge bekendtgørelsens § 5, stk. 
According to Section 5, subs.
1, 1. punktum, skal en sag vedrørende videnskabelig uredelighed indgives inden for en rimelig tid efter, at den pågældende har fået det nødvendige grundlag for at indgive sagen. 
1, clause 1 of the Order, a case concerning scientific dishonesty must be submitted within a reasonable period of the person in question having been given the necessary wherewithal to submit the case.
Efter ministeriets opfattelse løber fristen for forældelse i § 5, stk. 
In the view of the Ministry the limitation period in Section 5, subs.
1, 2. punktum fra det tidspunkt, hvor de faktiske forhold har fundet sted. 
1, clause 2 runs from the time the actual circumstances took place.
Ministeriet fandt det vanskeligt at give et udtømmende svar på spørgsmålet om tidsperspektivet i begrebet "rimelig tid", der må indgå som en del af en helhedsvurdering, især forståelsen af "det nødvendige grundlag". 
The Ministry found it difficult to provide an exhaustive reply to the question of the time-frame encapsulated in the term "reasonable period of time", which has to form an integral part of a holistic evaluation - particularly in construing "the necessary wherewithal".
Som eksempel nævnte ministeriet plagiering, jf. bekendtgørelsens § 3, stk. 
By way of example, the Ministry mentioned plagiarism, cf. Section 3, subs.
UVVU har afgivet udtalelser i sagen. 
requisite documentation no longer being obtainable.
Sag om uberettiget afvisning af en sag behandlet af UVVU (Sag nr. 3 i UVVU's beretning 1999). 
Case of unjustified dismissal of a case considered by DCSD (case no. 3 in DCSD's 1999 report).
I 1999 modtog UVVU's Udvalg for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning en klage fra en pensioneret overlæge, der anklagede en forsker, han tidligere havde samarbejdet med, for at have foretaget konstruktion af data. 
In 1999 DCSD's Committee for Health and Medical Science received a complaint from a retired doctor and consultant, who accused a researcher with whom he had previously collaborated of having fabricated data.
Som dokumentation fremsendte klageren et dokument, der i sin form fremstod som en patentansøgning. 
By way of documentation the complainant sent a document whose appearance suggested a patent application.
Sagen blev behandlet på et møde i Udvalget for sundhedsvidenskabelig forskning. 
The case was dealt with at a meeting of the Committee for Health and Medical Science.
Under sagen blev det oplyst, at den af klageren anfægtede metode ikke var tænkt anvendt i samarbejdsprojektet, der af andre grunde aldrig blev sat i gang. 
During the case it was stated that the method being contested by the complainant had not been intended for use in the collaborative project, which for other reasons was never set in train.
Udvalget fandt herefter ikke sagen egnet til videre behandling. 
Accordingly, the Committee did not consider the case suitable for further consideration.
Se endvidere Sag nr. 3 i UVVU's beretning 1999. 
See also case no. 3 in DCSD's 1999 report.
Sagen er på dette grundlag taget op af Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling. 
On this basis the case has been taken up by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
UVVU har afgivet udtalelser i sagen. 
DCSD has submitted statements in the case.