natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er som følge af disse faktiske forhold, at der blev indledt forundersøgelse mod advokat Zahorka for — som jeg sagde før — meddelagtighed i tyve ri.
At the end of 1984, a former client of MrZahorka, who is of course a lawyer, was accused as such by his former client of convincing him in 1982 to submit clean passports to the local authorities in Maagstadt, after which these passports were subsequently filled in by Mr Zahorka and one of his assistants to allow a Czech family wishing to live in the Federal Republic of Germany to cross the border.
Da hr. Zahorka i mellemtiden er valgt til medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, et det nødvendigt at anmode om ophævelse af hans parlamentariske immunitet, og det er det, De nu skal tage stilling til.
As Mr Zahorka had become a Member of Parliament in the meantime, it was of course necessary to request the waiver of parliamentary immunity, on which you must now decide.
klient ikke ønskede at skade politikeren Zahorka?
In this case, we must ask ourselves whether, in accusing Mr Zahorka of being an accomplice, his client wished to see justice done, or whether he wished to prejudice Mr Zahorka the politician, candidate for election to our Parliament by universal suffrage.
Ser man på tidspunkterne og på en række uddrag af den tyske presse, og sammenholder man tidspunkterne: 1982 for den for undersøgelsen tilgrundliggende på stand og 1984 for beskyldningen, så har man lov til at overveje, om det ikke har været klientens hensigt at skade hr. Zahorka.
However, the Com mittee on Legal Affairs stuck simply to the question I have just asked you: was Mr Zahorka's client not trying to prejudice the politician? However, when we look at some articles in the German press, when we look at the dates — in 1982 the accusations were made, in 1984 came the condemnation — we may well ask ourselves if Mr Zahorka's client did not wish to prejudice him.
Og ved at stille spørgsmålet, som jeg netop gjorde det, er der grund til at tro, at man måske har villet skade hr. Zahorka i hans erhvervs udøvelse, men især i hans politiske virke.
And the question as I have just stated it presumes that he was perhaps trying to prejudice Mr Zahorka in his professional activities but especially in his politial activities.
Man ville skade ham, fordi han stillede op som kandidat ved valget til Europa-Parlamentet.
There was an attempt to pre judice him because he was a candidate for election to Europe.
Jeg understregede for lidt siden principperne. Derfor vender jeg ikke igen tilbage til dem, bortset fra at jeg bemærker, at den parlamentariske immunitet ikke er et privilegium, der har til formål at beskytte den ene eller anden iblandt os, men at den er et middel til beskyttelse af institutionen som helhed, idet det faktum, at hr. Zahorka er valgt til medlem, efter at de forhold, der nu lægges ham til last, måtte være op stået, overhovedet ikke har nogen indflydelse. Det drejer sig om at beskytte det parlamentariske mandat som sådant og ikke personen Zahorka.
I shall not reiterate the principles to which I referred some minutes ago except to point out that parliamentary immunity is not a privilege designed to protect one or other of us, but a means of protecting the entire institution; the fact that Mr Zahorka's election came after the acts with which he is charged today have strictly no bearing on the matter.
Der er i hvert fald ingen iblandt os, der kan udelukke denne formodning om et ønske om at skade. Fumus persecutionis bygger imidlertid som regel på en enkel formodning: hensigten om at skade.
Nobody among us can rule out the possibility of the will to prejudice, nobody!
Hvis ønsket om at skade er sandsynligt i foreliggende sag, drejer det sig om et tilfælde aí fumus persecutionis.
If the will to prejudice is possible in this case, the fumus persecutionis should play a role.
Da retsudvalget har ment, at der er tale om fumus persecutionis, anmoder jeg Dem derfor i dag om ikke at ophæve hr. Zahorkas parlamentariske immunitet. Heller ikke i denne sag tvivler jeg på, at De vil følge mig.
This is perhaps why the Committee on Legal Affairs, considering that it should indeed play a role, is asking you today not to waive Mr Zahorka's parliamentary immunity.
Jeg vil så med Deres tilladelse og på en lidt mere tilbundsgående måde komme ind på det, vi skal for stå ved fumus persecutionis, idet det er i medfør af dette princip, at retsudvalget også i dette tilfælde anmoder Dem om ikke at ophæve hr. Zahorkas par lamentariske immunitet.
I shall now look in more detail, if I may, at what we should understand by fumus persecutionis, because it is on the basis of this principle that the Committee on Legal Affairs is asking you yet again not to waive Mr Zahorka's parliamentary immunity.
Schwalba-Hoth (ARC). - (DE) Jeg vil gerne i kort hed gøre det klart, hvorfor ikke alle medlemsstater, der er repræsenteret i regnbuegruppen, og de tyske grønne kan følge anbefalingen fra hr. Donnez. Det kan bl. a. heller ikke jeg.
Mr Schwalba-Hoth (ARC). — (DE) I should briefly like to make it clear why not all Member States represented in the Rainbow Group and the German Greens can agree with the final recommendation of ther rapporteur, Mr Donnez.
Men jeg tror, at det går ud over begrebet civil ulydighed.
I do believe, however, that it goes beyond the notion of civil disobedience.
I grunden har jeg jo mange gange talt om fumus per secutionis, dette gamle latinske begreb som jeg kunne tolke således: det er den røg, den lugt, de følger og de efterveer, der i visse tilfælde næsten bliver til en for følgelse, og som omgærder retsforfølgelsen af den per sonøer er sigtet for de ulovlige forhold.
I have spoken several times about the fumus persecutionis, this old Latin concept which could possibly be translated into French in the following way: it is smoke, the insidious smells, the consequences and after-effects which become almost a persecution in certain cases and which wrap themselves around legal proceedings, involving in his turn the individual who is accused of misdemeanours . . .
Og vi har altid været af den opfattelse, at der, når der bevisligt var tale om fumus persecutionis, ikke var nogen grund til at ophæve den parlamentariske immunitet. munitet.
We have always thought that when the fumus persecutionis could be proven, there was no question of the waiver of parliamentary immunity.
Jeg synes — og derpå bygger også min afvisning af, hvad hr. Donnez anbefaler — at man med dette for slag fra hr. Donnez forlader det grundlag, man hidtil har været enige om i udvalget.
I believe the basis on which there has hitherto been consensus in the committee on Mr Donnez's proposal will now be abandoned, and this is why I cannot accept it either.
Vort grundlag er, at vi ikke ophæver den parlamentariske immunitet i de til fælde, hvor et politisk indhold kan erkendes i beskyldningen. skyldningen.
Our reason, finally, is that we cannot waive parliamentary immunity in cases where accusations against the person concerned are of a political nature.
Ved nærmere betragtning affumus persecutionis' op rindelse opdager man, at den faktisk — måske med undtagelse af Storbritannien — i vore nationale par lamenter ligger flere hundrede år tilbage i tiden.
If we looked a little more closely at the origin of the fumus persecutionis, we would truly realize that, except maybe in Great Britain, it goes back several centuries in our national parliaments.
I dette tilfælde kan det politiske indhold ligge i, at en skuffet eller forbitret klient hos advokat Zahorka vil skade hr. Zahorkas politiske karriere.
In this case, it might be that a disappointed or embittered client of the lawyer, Mr Zahorka, would like to damage his political career.
Jeg henviser til tilfældet Klöckner II.
It is very possible, and
Da vi bør følge udvalgets hidtidige logik, bør vi i dette tilfælde ophæve immuniteten.
We should also waive immunity in this case and follow the logic the committee has followed till now.
Personlig ville jeg under alle omstændigheder anbefale hr. Zahorka at sagsøge sin klient for bagvaskelse, for at denne beskyldning — selv hvis immuniteten skulle bestå — bringes ud af verden.
Person ally, I would recommend to Mr Zahorka that he take legal action against his client for defamation of character to do away with this charge, even if the immunity should continue.
Da den ene formodning kan være lige så god som den anden, kan man sige, at det tilstræbte mål var at bringe vor kollega i miskredit som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet.
It is mere conjecture that the aim was to discredit our fellow member in his capacity as Member of the European Parliament.
På gruppens vegne er det mig derfor en ære energisk at støtte afvisningen af anmodningen om ophævelse af hr. Zahorkas parlamentariske immunitet, som juridisk indholdsløs,
On behalf of my group, I shall give my full and whole hearted support to the rejection of the request for waiver of Mr Zahorka's parliamentary immunity, which has no legal foundation.
(Forslaget til afgørelse vedtoges)
(Parliament adopted the motion for a resolution)
Rothley (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne kort begrunde, hvorfor medlemmerne af den socialistiske gruppe i retsudvalget ikke stemte for forslaget om ophævelse af immuniteten.
Mr Rothley (S). — (DE) Mr President, I should briefly like to explain why members of the Socialist group on the Legal Affairs Committee did not vote in favour of the request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity.
For det første havde hr. Zahorka lovet at forelægge presseartikler, af hvilke den politiske kampagne skulle fremgå. Disse artikler blev ikke forelagt.
First, Mr Zahorka had agreed to provide newspaper articles which resulted in the political campaign.
Det eneste, der blev forelagt, var en presseartikel om domsforhandlingen, hvor disse beskyldninger blev rejst.
The only article provided concerned the main proceedings in which the charges were filed.
Det var alt.
That was all.
A2-168/85) af Donnes for udvalget om retlige anliggender og borgernes rettigheder om anmodning om ophævelse af Marco Pannellas immunitet. nitet.
A 2168/85) by Mr Donnez, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, on the request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Marco Pannella.
For det andet: Hr. Donnez har talt om fumus persecutionis.
Second, Mr Donnez spoke about the fumus persecutionis.
I den forbindelse har han ikke skelnet kor rekt mellem fumus persecutionis fra den anmeldendes side og fra påtalemyndighedens side.
However, he did not make a clear distinction between the accuser and the prosecuting authorities.
Efter alle parlamentariske regler undlader man kun at ophæve immuniteten, når denne fumus persecutionis konstateres hos påtalemyndigheden, og aldrig når den angiveligt foreligger hos den anmeldende part.
According to all parliamentary rules, immunity is not waived if the fumus persecutionis is discovered in the prosecuting authorities and never when it alleged to emanate from the accuser.
Vil De være venlig at meddele Parlamentet, om også den, det vedrører, må stemme ved en af stemning om ophævelse af immunitet?
Would you please inform the House whether the person concerned may also participate in a vote on the waiver of parliamentary immunity.
Formanden. — Hr. Schmid, så vidt jeg ved, står der ikke noget derom i forretningsordenen, i det mindste ikke noget om det modsatte.
President. — Mr Schmid, as far as I know there is no provision on this, at least nothing forbidding it, in the Rules of Procedure.
Forhandlingen er afsluttet. Vi kommer nu til afstem ningen.
The debate is closed.
I det foreliggende tilfælde er hr. Pannella genstand for retsforfølgelse ved den kompetente italienske straffe ret for fremturen i fornærmelse mod en domstol, modstand mod tjenestemand i funktion og nægtelse af at legitimere sig, alt i henhold til følgende begivenhedsforløb: den 28. september 1976 underrettede for manden for militærdomstolen i Padua — der dømmer en række officerer og medlemmer af det italienske politi — retten om, at han havde modtaget et telegram fra hr. Pannella, som beskyldte ham for at begå ulovlige handlinger med henblik på at fratage de tiltalte deres frihed og personlige rettigheder.
In this case, the following facts led to Mr Pannella being charged by the competent Italian criminal court with persistent contempt of a court of law, obstruction of a public official, and refusal to give indication of identity: on 28 September 1976 the Presiding Judge of the Padua Divisional Military Court, which was res ponsible for trying officers or members of the Italian police force, informed the public prosecutor's depart ment that he had received a telegram from Mr Pannella accusing him of illegal acts with a view to confiscating the freedom and rights of the detained men.
Samme dag under retsmødet — jeg citerer fremdeles sagens akter, det er ikke mig, der taler — anmodede hr. Pannella, der var nærværende, formanden om at oplæse det telegram, han havde sendt til ham.
The same day, in the courtroom — still of course according to the report — I am not speaking person ally here — Mr Pannella, who was present, asked the Presiding Judge to read out the telegram which he had
Denne sags formodede
We shall proceed to the vote.
Donnez retkammeret har beskæftiget sig med sagen tre gange, ganske enkelt fordi italiensk praksis kræver, at der i tilfælde af ændret sammensætning af kammeret skal træffes en ny afgørelse af det nyvalgte kammer.
In fact, the Legal Affairs Committee discussed the present case at length because the problem could be interpreted in two ways.
Det andet kriterium går- ud på, at det er vor pligt at vise respekt for domstolene, når vi har med retskafne og agtværdige dommere: et gøre, og at det er urimeligt, at en dommer skal lade sig injuriere under et retsmøde.
The first interpretation was that it is a political act to criticise a legal decision; it is a political act to criticise a military tribunal when one wishes this tribunal to be abolished.
I vore retsstater er dommeren en person, der skal håndhæve de demokratiske rettigheder, og derfor skal han nyde en særlig beskyttelse.
We are well aware that Mr Pannella, as leader of the Radical Party, wishes the abolition of the military tribunal in Italy — it is therefore a political act.
Her er der altså ikke tale om nogen politisk handling, hvilket taler til fordel for den parlamentariske immunitets ophævelse.
This was the first reason for not waiving Mr Pannella's parliamentary immunity.
I sidste ende foretrak retsudvalget at fastholde det princip, det anså for vigtigst, nemlig den politiske aktivitet og fumus persecutionis.
Therefore it could no longer be a political act, the second reason which militates in favour of the waiver of parliamentary immunity. ity.
Som sagt beskæftigede det italienske deputeretkammer sig med sagen tre gange.
I said that the Italian Chamber dealt with the matter three times.
Kammeret statuerede igen i 1979, og tilladelse blev givet i 1980, og det statuerede endnu en gang den 20. juni 1984 og kom til samme resultat, som jeg netop nævnte.
It made another decision in 1979 and published a deliberation in 1980, and decided again on 20 June 1984 in the same conditions at those I have just explained to you.
Det er mig en ære at referere for Dem, hvad retsudvalget anmoder Dem om at beslutte, nemlig ikke at ophæve hr. Pannellas parlamentariske immunitet, selv om vi derved kommer i strid med det italienske deputeretkammer.
It is my great pleasure to transmit the Legal Affairs Committee's request not to waive Mr Pannella's parliamentary immunity, even if we are acting contrary to the wishes of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
Jeg understreger dog, at det ingen lunde er ensbetydende med, at vi ikke respekterer de afgørelser, som de nationale italienske parlaments medlemmer har truffet.
But I must emphasize that this in no way means that we do not respect the decisions made by the Members of the Italian Parliament.
Tværtimod har vi nøje gen nemgået deres afgørelser.
On the contrary, we took a long look at their decision.
Vi deler ikke helt deres opfattelse af sagen, men det er utvivlsomt naturligt i et demokratisk land og i et demokratisk Fællesskab som vort.
We do not wholly share their view of things, but this is no doubt only natural in a democratic country and a democratic Community such as ours.
Med disse bemærkninger anmoder jeg Dem om at stemme for retsudvalgets betænkning.
On the basis of these remarks, I should like you to adopt the report of the Legal Affairs Com mittee.
Hr. formand, dermed er jeg færdig med mine tre immunitetssager. De kan regne med, at det for mit vedkommende slår til for i aften.
I thank you, Mr President, and I have thus finished with my three cases of immunity for this afternoon; believe me, that is enough for this evening.
Pannella (NI). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg er ikke ind forstået med de konklusioner, som retsudvalgets for mand har forelagt, men derimod er jeg helt på linje med det, han sagde i udvalget.
Mr Pannella (NI). — (FR) Mr President, I do not agree with the conclusions submitted by the rapporteur of the Legal Affairs Committee, but I share his feelings and understand his reasoning, as he explained himself to our committee.
I dag har hr. Pannella på en måde mulighed for — hvis jeg må udtrykke mig således — at blive fremstillet for den kompetente italienske domstol for fornærmelse mod en domstol, dersom vi træffer den samme afgørelse som det italienske deputeretkammer.
Today Mr Pannella has the possibility — if I may call it that — of being brought before the Italian law courts for contempt of court if we take the same decision as the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
Det er der dog intet, der tvinger os til, og det er dette punkt, jeg gerne vil henlede deres opmærksomhed på.
However, nobody can force us to do so and I should like to draw your attention to this.
Der som De skulle vælge at følge retsudvalget, er det faktisk første gang, at vi er uenige med den af det nationale parlament trufne afgørelse i en sag om ophævelse af immuniteten.
In fact, if you fall in line with the Legal Affairs Committee, it could well be the first time that we should be at odds with a national parliament as far as immunity is concerned.
Men det bekræfter det, jeg sagde, nemlig at der bør skelnes mellem den parlamentariske immunitet, vi alle nyder — og som er identisk med et nationalt parlamentsmedlems immunitet — og ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet på nationalt plan, idet hvert enkelt nationalt parlament har sin egen praksis.
But that con firms what I was saying to you, that is, that a distinction must be made between the parliamentary immunity which each one of us enjoys — which is identical to that of a member of any national parliament — and the waiver of parliamentary immunity at national level as each one of our national parliaments has its own jurisprudence.
Det italienske deputeretkammers praksis kender vi udmærket; den afviger fra vor.
We know the jurisprudence of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and it is different from ours.
Men dersom De i dag følger udvalget om retlige anliggender og borgernes rettigheder, vil De være uenige med et nationalt parlament i en sag om parlamentarisk immunitet, hvilket for øvrigt viser vor uafhængighed, til trods for den store agtelse vi alle nærer for vore nationale parlamenter.
However, perhaps for the first time in the whole his tory of parliamentary immunity, if you follow the advice today of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, you will be acting contrary to the wishes of a national parliament.
Hvis De følger os, vil hr. Pannella fortsat nyde parlamentarisk immunitet, idet retsudvalget anmoder Dem om ikke at ophæve den.
Although we all hold our national parliaments in very high esteem, we would thus be demonstrating the independence of our institution.
I den foreliggende sag fandt der en ret indgående drøftelse sted i retsudvalget, idet der kan anlægges to anskuelser.
And if you should follow our advice, Mr Pannella will continue to enjoy his parliamentary immunity because the Legal Affairs Committee is requesting you not to waive it.
Og hvorfor nu det, hr. formand? Jeg skal ganske kort fortælle hvorfor.
He made no secret of his support for the waiver of parliamentary immunity.
For ni år siden gik jeg til den pågældende domstol netop for at få en dom.
I have as it were to put what the rapporteur said in its context.
Jeg har oplyst datoerne, så det behøver jeg ikke at komme tilbage til.
The Committee quite simply refused to adopt his point of view.
bekendt med, at noget af betænkningens indhold, nemlig nogle af bilagene, ikke foreligger på nogen af sprogene for øjeblikket.
You will be aware that some of the contents of the reports, namely some of the annexes, are in fact not available in any of the lan guages at the moment.
Nogle af disse bilag anses måske ikke for at være så frygtelig vigtige i henseende til betænkningens politiske indhold, f.eks. listen over eksperter og organisationer, der har indgivet skriftlige indlæg.
It may be that some of those annexes are considered not to be terribly important in terms of the political content of the report, for example the list of experts and organizations who for warded written submissions.
Men jeg vil gerne påpege over for Den, at et af bilagene indeholder indlæggene fra eksperterne un der høringerne, og vi havde tredive sådanne eksperter fra hele Europa, der kom med deres indlæg og deres syn på genstanden for undersøgelsesudvalgets arbejde, og det forekommer mig vanskeligt for os at gå videre uden at have al dokumentation til rådighed.
But I would make the point to you that one of the annexes consists of the submissions by the experts from all over Europe giving their submissions and their views on the subject matter of the committee of inquiry and it would seem to me very difficult for us to proceed without having all the documentation available.
Jeg måtte true med filibustering for at få parlamentet til at træffe afgørelse om ophævelse af min immunitet.
In spite of myself, I more or less forced the Italian Chamber of Deputies to agree to the waiver of my parliamentary immunity.
På den måde har de altså haft held til ikke at retsforfølge mig.
They are afraid to put me on trial and one can even go further.
Disse omstændigheder gør sagen en smule ko misk og useriøs.
In doing so, they succeeded in preventing me from going to trial.
Man lader, som om immuniteten ophæves, men vil samtidig for enhver pris undgå retsforfølgelse, idet den givetvis ville sætte dommerne i stor forlegenhed.
Under these circumstances, the whole matter is rather grotesque and not to be taken seriously by People pretend to request the waiver of immunity, but desperately wanting not to have me brought to trial because magistrates in such a trial would be in the greatest difficulty.
I strid med retsudvalgets indstilling, der går ud på ikke at ophæve min immunitet, anmoder jeg for jeg ved ikke hvilken gang om, at italiensk retsvæsen tvinges til at retsforfølge mig. Sker det ikke, vil det for jeg ved ikke hvilken gang stå klart, at det er bange for at dømme mig.
Once again, contrary to the position taken by the Legal Affairs Committee, which is requesting you not to waive my parliamentary immunity, I am asking you, for the umpteenth time, to force the Italian legal authorities to bring me to trial; if this is not done, it will be clear for the umpteenth time that they are afraid to see justice done.
For det andet hedder det i artikel 62, at dokumenter, der danner grundlag for Parlamentets forhandlinger og beslutninger, trykkes og omdeles til medlemmer ne. Det lader ikke til, at vi har dokumenterne foran os. Som hr. d'Ormesson meget rimeligt understrege de, er der fejl i det foreliggende dokument, hvilket viser, at dokumentet — i det mindste på engelsk, og jeg formoder også på fransk, da jeg antager, at hr. d'Ormesson anvendte sin franske udgave — ikke er den endelige udgave af undersøgelsesudvalgets betænkning.
Secondly, it says in Rule 62 that documents forming the basis for Parliament's debates and decisions shall be printed and distributed to Members.
F.eks. anføres det på side 39 i den engelske tekst, punkt 114, forkert, at hr. Almirante har været justitsminister i Salo-republikken.
For example, on page 39 in the English text, paragraph 114, it falsely indicates that Mr Almirante was a minister of justice in the Salo Republic.