natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fitzgerald (RDE). - (EN) Hr. formand, her i Parlamentet rejste jeg den 7. oktober år spørgsmålet om en episode, som jeg var ude for i lufthavnen i Glasgow den 23. september, da jeg blev truet med fængsling, fordi jeg ikke havde udfyldt et rødt kort, selv om jeg havde forevist mine legitimationspapirer her fra Par lamentet.
Mr Fitzgerald (RDE). — Mr President, in this Parliament on 7 October last, I raised the matter of the incident which befell me at Glasgow Airport on 23 September when I was threatened with imprisonment for failing to sign a red card, although I had produced my identification from this Parliament.
Alle vore kolleger, der har arbejdet sammen med ham her i Parlamentet, har værdsat hans kompetence, hans ildhu og hans umådelige høflighed.
He was also a member of the Parliamentary assemblies of the North Atlantic Treaty and of the Council of Europe. All those who worked with him in this Assembly appreciated his competence, his devotion and his' great courtesy.
På alles vegne vil jeg gerne give udtryk for min dybe medfølelse med hr. Radoux' familie og med hans gruppe.
I ask you to observe a minute's silence in memory of Mr Vgenopoulos and Mr Radoux.
I mødeperioden i december modtog jeg, da jeg igen rejste spørgsmålet, en korrespondance, der også inde holdt en bekræftelse fra Det forenede Kongeriges fa ste repræsentanter, dateret den 17. november.
At the December part-session when I again raised the issue, I was given correspondence which included an acknowledgement from the United Kingdom Permanent Representative dated 17 November.
1 denne bekræftelse lovede man et hurtigt og udførligt svar.
This acknowledgement promised an early substantive reply.
Har man modtaget et sådant svar, og vil formanden i benægtende fald sige, hvad han yderligere agter at foretage sig?
Has such a reply been received, and if not, will the President indicate what further steps he will take?
Pannella (NI). — (FR) Hr. formand, da de græske kolleger tog plads for første gang her i Parlamentet, fik de efter formandens velkomsttale lov til — og det var et berigende og meget velanbragt udtryk for høflighed — at tage ordet for at svare Dem og udtryk ke deres gode ønsker.
Mr Pannella (NI). — (FR) Mr President, when our Greek colleagues took their place in this assembly for the first time, after the President's speech of welcome they were permitted — as a happy and courteous gesture — to speak in reply.
Vi har kun haft dette ene præcedens. cedens.
This is the only precedent we know.
Formanden. — På sit møde den 10. december 1985 udarbejdede det udvidede præsidium det omdelte forslag til dagsorden.
President. — At its meeting of 10 December 1985, the enlarged Bureau drew up a draft agenda, which has now been distributed.
I mødet i formiddags bemyndigede gruppeformændene mig til at foreslå Dem en række ændringer.
At this morning's meeting, the political group chairmen authorized me to propose to the House a number of changes.
Jeg beder Dem notere, at jeg ikke er enig i denne afgørelse. Jeg ønsker nemlig, at hvis portugisiske og spanske kolleger måtte ønske at tage ordet, skal de have lov til det.
This morning, the chairmen of the political groups chose to break with precedent and apparently decided that none of those Spanish and Portuguese Members who might have wished to speak after you should do so.
Gruppeformændene har bemyndiget mig til at fore slå, at man på dagsordenen optager betænkning (dok.
With regard to Monday's agenda, there is the proposal to include the Wedekind report on the changes to be made to the Rules of Procedure as a consequence of enlargement (excluding the matter of the number of Vice-Presidents) (Doc.
A 2-158/85) af Wedekind for udvalget for forretningsordenen og for andragender om ændringer af forretningsordenen som følge af udvidelsen (bortset fra antallet af næstformænd) efter Donnez-betænkninger-ne under pkt. 302 og 303.
A2-158/85) after the Donnez reports (Items Nos 302 and 303).
Pannella (NI). — (FR) Hr. formand, à propos Wede-kind-betænkningen beder jeg Dem om at låne øre til følgende overvejelser:
Mr Palmella (NI). — (FR) Mr President, I should like to make the following points about the Wedekind report:
Formanden. — Hr. Pannella, til det sidste spørgsmål : jeg mener ikke, at der er noget, der forpligter med lemmerne af Parlamentet til at rejse sig, når Parlamentets formand taler stående.
Finally, Mr President, since it is never too late to learn — in fact it is our duty to do so — and because matters of form are not unimportant, I should like to ask the following question: when you address us standing, should we remain seated or rise with you?
Denne betænkning indeholder en ændring af spillets regler.
This report introduces a change in the rules of the game.
Jeg præjudicerer ikke retningen, men det er en fast regel hos os, at Parlamentet bortset fra undtagelsestilfælde kan træffe afgørelse, efter at medlemmerne i et udvalg har behandlet en betænkning.
I do not wish to prejudge the outcome, but it is an established rule among us that, save in exceptional circumstances, Parliament legislates after its Members have discussed a report in committee.
I det øjeblik, de spanske og portugisiske kolleger får sæde her i Parlamentet med kendskab til de spilleregler, som gælder, når de træder ind, finder jeg det meget lidt parlamentarisk og lidet korrekt at forhindre netop dem i at studere en betænkning, der drejer sig om Parlamentets spilleregler, i et udvalg.
President. — Mr Pannella, on the last point, I see no reason why Members of this Assembly should rise to their feet when the President does so in order to speak.
(') Parlamentets sammensætning — Andragender — Tilladelse til at udarbejde betænkning — Henvisning til udvalg — Skriftlige erklæringer (artikel 49 registret) — Modtagne dokumenter: se protokollen.
For items relating to Membership of Parliament, Petitions, Authorization to draw up reports, Reference to com mittee, Written declarations under Rule 49, and Documents received, see Minutes.
Formanden. — Gruppeformændene mente, at det på grund af den stærkt belastede dagsorden ikke var muligt på tirsdagens dagsorden at optage Bonaccinibetænkningen, som er af stor betydning og derfor for tjener at blive behandlet omhyggeligt, når vi har tid nok til det.
I consider that it is unparliamentary and unacceptable, at the very time when our Spanish and Portuguese col leagues are entering Parliament for the first time, and knowing the ground rules as they stand at present, to prevent them as a body from considering in committee a report which deals with the basic rules of this Parliament ment
Jeg ønsker, at den sendes tilbage til udvalget, for at vore portugisiske og spanske kolleger kan drøfte den.
I should like it to be referred to the committee to enable our Portuguese and Spanish colleagues to discuss its contents.
Derefter kan vi behandle den.
Only after that should it be submitted to us.
Bonaccini-betænkningen vil blive optaget på dagsordenen for mødeperioden i februar.
I also asked that the report on detergents, by Mrs Braun-Moser, be taken on Tuesday and not on Friday, and this is also part of the economic package.
(Formanden oplæste ændringerne af dagsordenen for torsdag og fredag — Forslaget til dagsorden vedtoges med de foretagne ændringer) (') (2)
President. — In view of the fact that our order of business is heavily loaded, the group chairmen felt it was not possible to include the Bonaccini report in the agenda for Tuesday, since this report is of great importance and therefore merits careful debate and consequently a sufficient amount of time.
Barón Crespo (S). — (ES) Hr. formand, mine damer og herrer, jeg vil gerne komme ind på ændringen til dagsordenen i form af en opførelse af den såkaldte Wedekind-betænkning. Tillad mig, hr. formand, først på egne vegne — og jeg formoder også på mine lands mænds vegne — at takke ham for hans hjertelige modtagelse.
Mr Barón Crespo (S). — (ES) Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to refer to the change in the agenda to include the Wedekind report.
Jeg tror, mange vil tage ordet i dag.
Today is not a day for speech-making, in my view.
Det har kostet os spaniere så meget at nå frem til dette demokratiske forum, hvorfor det vigtigste for øjeblik ket er, at vi kommer i gang med vort arbejde.
For those of us who have come from Spain, it has been such a struggle to reach this democratic forum that the most important thing for us to do now is to get down to work.
Vi ønsker således at slå fast — og jeg taler her på den socialistiske gruppes vegne — at, da der nu er sket grundlæggende ændringer i alle Det europæiske Fæl lesskabs institutioner, i Kommissionen, i Domstolen og i Parlamentet, nu hvor vi med vore portugisiske kolleger har indfundet os, er det rimeligt, hvad der i Wedekind-betænkningen foreslås Europa-Parlamentet.
In this connection, we are anxious that it should be established — and here I speak on behalf of the Socialist Group — that, in view of the changes brought about in all the institutions of the European Communities, in the Commission, in the Court of Justice and in the Parliament, by our arrival and the arrival of our Portuguese colleagues, the proposals made by the European Parliament in the Wedekind report are fully justified.
Vi mener, at der bør være flere næstformænd, og vi ønsker, at spørgsmålet behandles indgående, ikke for at favorisere bestemte nationaliteter — dette stri der jo mod forretningsordenen — men for, at vi kan blive fuldgyldige medlemmer på alle niveauer.
We believe that it is necessary to increase the number of Vice-Presidents and, while I do not wish to go into the details of this matter, our motive is not any wish to see them allocated to specified nationalities (because this would be contrary to the spirit of the Rules of Procedure), but a concern to ensure that we are fully involved at all levels.
Det ville være hensigtsmæssigt, om både de portugisiske og de spanske medlemmer direkte deltog i fast sættelsen af vore spilleregler.
It is important at this time that both our Portuguese colleagues and ourselves should be able, in our own right and without need for any help, to play a full role in determining our rules.
Jeg anmoder derfor om, hr. formand, at der sker en ændring af dagsordenen i form af en opførelse af dette punkt.
Consequently, Mr President, I ask that the agenda be amended to include this item.
Pitt (S). — (EN) Til forretningsordenen, hr. formand.
(Applause from the Socialist Group)
De vil erindre, at jeg fredag formiddag i december mødeperioden spurgte Dem, om De agtede at under skrive budgettet for 1986 i betragtning af Parlamentets debat dagen i forbejen.
Mr Pitt (S). — Mr President, you will recall that on the Friday morning of the December partsession, I asked you your own intention regarding signing the 1986 budget in view of Parliament's debate the previous day.
De var så venlig at sige, at De ville overveje sagen og træffe beslutning inden jul.
You were kind enough to say that you would give the matter your consideration and take a decision before Christmas.
Tilfældigvis var jeg den dag, da De underskrev bud gettet, til møde i budgetudvalget, hvor jeg spurgte, hvilke medlemsstater der endnu ikke havde betalt deres del af de 2 mia £, som man var blevet enige om ved den interguvernementale aftale i april sidste år.
As it happened, on the day that you actually signed the budget, I was at a meeting of the Committee on Budgets, where I inquired which Member States had still not paid their proportion of the £ 2 billion intergovernmental agreement agreed in April last year.
På det tidspunkt, da der kun var nogle få arbejdsdage tilbage i 1985, var der fire medlemsstater — jeg tror, det var Italien, Frankrig, Belgien og Holland — der endnu ikke havde betalt.
At that stage, with just a few working days to go of 1985, four Member States — I think they were Italy, France, Belgium and Holland — had not then paid.
Jeg forstår det sådan, at det te i henhold til fællesskabslovgivningen rent faktisk betyder, at vi så ikke kan have et 1986-budget. Men den politiske bemærkning, jeg gerne vil komme med, er, om der vil være nogen mulighed for, at vi, når Rådets formand har afgivet en erklæring, kan spørge, om disse indbetalinger nu er sket, og hvordan det kan være, at de lande, der råber højest om en europæisk union, er de sidste til at praktisere det, de prædiker? ker?
As I understand it, in Community law this means, as a matter of pure fact, that we cannot have a 1986 budget, but politically the point that I wish to raise is whether there will be an opportunity, when the President-in-Office of the Council has made a statement, for us to inquire whether these payments have yet been made and why it is that those countries which speak loudest about European Union are the last to put their money where their mouths are.
Pannella (NI). — (FR) Hr. formand, min indvending gik først og fremmest på Wedekind-betænkningen dok. A 2-159/85.
Mr Pannella (NI). — (FR) Mr President, my objection chiefly concerned the Wedekind report (Doc.
Jeg tror, at det indlæg, vi netop hørte, gik i samme retning.
I believe that the last speaker dealt with the same point.
Det er de anklager, der er rejst mod hr. Almirante, og nu skal vi afgøre, om vi bør ophæve hans parlamentariske immunitet eller ej.
This is why the Italian judicial authorities consider that Mr Almirante has committed the offence — or crime — of being an accessory after the fact to the murder in question by enabling Mr Cicuttini to avoid prosecution.
at det er mig. der kan forelægge dem den første betænkning, efter at de har fået sæde i Parlamentet.
Mr Donnez (L), rapporteur. — (FR) Before introducing these two reports, may I say what an honour it is to be called on to submit to our Spanish and Portuguese colleagues the first two reports they will be asked to vote on in this Parliament.
Det er for mig den bedste måde at byde dem velkommen på.
I cannot think of a better way of wishing them welcome.
Jeg har her i denne kreds hyppigt sagt, at vi ikke er dommere, og at det ikke er vor opgave at tage stilling til, om hr. Almirante er skyldig eller ej i de forhold, han tiltales for.
These are the charges levelled against Mr Almirante, and we must now decide whether or not to waive his parliamentary immunity. I have often proclaimed in this place that we are not judges, and that it is not for us to decide whether or not Mr Almirante is guilty of the charges brought against him.
Det er ikke vor opgave.
That is not our role.
Vi skal afgøre, om vi skal ophæve hr. Almirantes parlamentariske immunitet eller ej i henhold til betemmelserne om parlamentarisk immunitet og de af os nedfældede principper, der faktisk udgør vor retspraksis.
It is our task to say whether, in view of the texts deal ing with parliamentary immunity on the one hand and the principles we have established — which constitute our own case law on the subject — on the other, we should waive Mr Almirante's parliamentary immunity.
Efter at jeg har sagt dette, kære kolleger, skal vi så behandle denne og en efterfølgende om ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet, begge vedrørende hr. Almirante.
To return to business, we have before us today two requests for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of the same Member, Mr Almirante.
Det er den sag. der har nr. 191/85.
A 2-191/85, I ask you, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, to waive parliamentary immunity.
Senere vil jeg for den anden sags vedkommende an mode Dem. ligeledes på vegne af udvalget om retlige anliggender og borgernes rettigheder, om ikke at op hæve hr. Almirantes parlamentariske immunitet, idet de to sager er helt forskellige.
With regard to the second request, I ask you — also on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights — not to waive Mr Almirante's parliamentary immunity, since the two cases are completely different.
I sager om ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet ser vi altid på de ret lige aspekter, men aldrig på de politiske eller nationale, for at undgå enhver form for afvigelse, som ville være overordentlig beklagelig.
In matters concerning parliamentary immunity, we always consider the legal aspects of the case and ignore political or national considerations to avoid the risk of being distracted from the main issue.
Med Deres tilladelse vil jeg komme tilbage til dette punkt om lidt.
But, with your permission, I shall return to this point later.
Hvad den forste sag angår, skal jeg præcisere, at Par lamentet allerede udtalte sig derom for 23 år siden.
With regard to the first request, I should point out that Parliament has already dealt with the case some two or three years ago.
Det er som følge af de italienske retsmyndigheders juridiske og administrative metoder, at vi nu igen skal tage stilling til en anmodning, der er identisk med den tidligere forelagte.
It is because of the judicial or administrative procedures followed by the Italian authorities that we are required to decide again now on an identical request to one submitted to us previously.
De italienske retsmyndigheder er nemlig at den opfattelse, at man ved en ny sammensætning af kammeret igen skal forelægge an modningen for at fa fastslået, om det fremdeles er indforstået med at ophæve immuniteten eller ej, hvorfor vi altså nu for anden gang skal beskæftige os med de forhold, som den offentlige anklager ved appelretten i Venezia gør gældende imod hr. Almirante. te.
For the Italian judicial authorities consider that, if an assembly is re-elected, it must be asked once again whether it is still in favour of waiving the parliamentary immunity of the Member in question, which is why we are considering for the second time the allegations made against Mr Almirante by the Public Pro secutor of the Venice Court of Appeal.
Lad os begynde med bestemmelserne.
Let us take the texts first.
Jeg skal kort redegøre for dem, men jeg står til rådighed for de spanske og portugisiske medlemmer, hvis de skulle ønske nærmere oplysninger.
I shall deal with them only briefly, but should be pleased to give our Spanish and Portuguese colleagues fuller details, if they wish, in future.
Den tekst, vi går ud fra. er artikel 10 i protokollen om De europæiske Fælles skabers privilegier og immuniteter, der er et bilag til traktaten om oprettelse af De europæiske Fællesskaber.
The basic text is Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com munities annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Communities.
Denne artikel bestemmer, at medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet på deres eget lands område ny der de samme immuniteter, der er tillagt medlem merne af deres eget lands parlament.
This article states that Members of the European Parliament shall enjoy, on the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament.
Det er det lov givningsmæssige princip, og hertil bemærkes, at den parlamentariske immunitet kendes i alle retsstater.
This is the basic legal principle, given that parliamentary immunity is recognised in every constitutional state.
Det er en gammel parlamentarisk tradition undtagen i Storbritannien, hvilket forklares af en anden gammel parlamentarisk tradition, der er endnu ældre end den, jeg henviste til.
It is an ancient par liamentary tradition, except in the United Kingdom, where its absence is due to the existence of another — even older — parliamentary tradition.
I Storbritannien findes den par lamentariske immunitet ikke, men den findes i Fæl lesskabets øvrige medlemsstater.
Parliamentary immunity does not exist in the United Kingdom, but it exists in every other Member State of the Community.
Som bekendt er den parlamentariske immunitet ikke et privilegium, der gives os personlig, men en garanti om uafhængighed, der indrømmes Parlamentet som institution i relation til alle andre myndigheder.
We know, also, that parliamentary immunity is not a personal privilege granted to us as individuals, but a guarantee of the independence of our Parliament as an institution in relation to other authorities, whatever they may be.
Det er det, der er formålet med den parlamentariske immunitet, og det bør gen tages fra tid til anden, da man hører alt for mange fejlopfattelser i så henseende.
That is the purpose of parliamentary immunity, as perhaps we need to be reminded from time to time, since one hears far too many inaccurate statements on the subject.
Ud fra formålet med den parlamentariske immunitet er det mindre væsentligt, om det medlem, der er gen stand for anmodningen om ophævelse af sin parlamentariske immunitet, selv giver afkald derpå eller ej.
Since the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect the institution as a whole, it follows that it is of little consequence whether the Member whose immunity is in question renounces it or not.
I det foreliggende tilfælde ønsker hr. Almirante sin parlamentariske immunitet ophævet. Jeg forstår ud mærket dette ønske, men det er os som Parlament, der alene skal afgøre, om hans immunitet i henhold til vore principper, som jeg kort skal redegøre for, bør ophæves eller ej.
In the present case, Mr Almirante wishes his immunity to be waived.
I 1972 fandt der en veritabel massakre af terroristisk karakter sted i Peteano, hvorunder tre italienske ordensbetjente døde.
In 1972, a terrorist outrage in Peteano claimed the lives of three Italian police officers.
En vis Cicuttini kendtes skyldig i attentatet og eftersøgtes derfor.
Subsequently an individual named Cicuttini was suspected of having carried out these murders and sought by the police.
Det er på dette grundlag, at retsmyndighederne i Italien mener, at hr. Almirante a posteriori har gjort sig til medskyldig i det pågældende attentat ved at hjælpe hr. Cicuttini til at unddrage sig retsforfølgning.
As a result of the police investigation, Mr Cicuttini admitted — and here I am merely reporting the allegations contained
Almirante (DR). — (IT) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, først og fremmest vil jeg takke ordføreren, hr. Don nez, for hans seriøse arbejde og for den upartiskhed, der præger hans behandling af disse to anmodninger, der vedrører mig.
Mr Almirante (DR). — (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Donnez, for the calm, conscientious and thorough manner in which he has examined these two requests, both of which concern me.
Jeg — og nu skal mine kolleger ikke blive forbavset — der har fulgt det personlige standpunkt, jeg altid har indtaget i det italienske par lament, og det standpunkts mit parti, som jeg er sek retær for, altid har indtaget i det italienske parlament, ønsker at blive retsligt forfulgt i mit land, og derfor anmoder jeg, for så vidt begge anklager angår, om, at min parlamentariske immunitet ophæves.
My colleagues in this House must not be surprised if I say that, consistent with the personal position that I have always upheld in the Italian Parliament and with the position that my party, the party of which I am secretary, has always upheld in the Italian Parliament, it is my wish to be judged by the courts of law in my own country. For this reason I am requesting, in respect of both charges, that my parliamentary immunity be waived.
Men så skal vi også have vore egne regler og efterleve dem.
We also need both to have our own rules and to apply them.
Der må nemlig ikke ske sammenblanding af den parlamentariske immunitet og ophævelsen af den.
Because we must not confuse parliamentary immunity with the waiving of parliamentary immunity.
Det er to helt forskel lige ting, og her vil jeg sige en enkelt bemærkning vedrørende ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet, som vi opfatter den.
They are two quite different things, and I should like to stress just one point with regard to our conception of the waiving of parliamentary immunity.
Vi ophæver den parlamentariske immunitet, eller vi gør det ikke alt efter om karakteren af den strafferetlige anklage, der rettes mod den, der er genstand for anmodningen om op hævelse af immuniteten, kan henføres til medlem mets politiske aktivitet eller ej.
We waive parliamentary immunity, or decline to do so, according to whether or not the charges brought against the Member whose immunity is at stake are connected with his political activities.
Det er det essentielle spørgsmål.
That is the crucial question.