natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Undersøgelsesudvalget drøftede dette, stemte om det og vedtog, at det skulle ændres.
The committee of inquiry discussed this and voted on it and voted that that should be changed.
Også på side 26 i den engelske udgave, punkt 64, var der visse ændringer, der ligeledes blev foretaget med hensyn til udbredelsen af visse højre orienterede tidsskrifter i Tuskland.
Also on page 26 in the English text, paragraph 64, there were some changes that were equally made in the circulation of some of the rightwing magazines in Germany.
Jeg er anklaget, og jeg står fast på retten til at blive dømt.
I was convicted and I claim my right to be judged.
Jeg er klar over, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt man skal ophæve min parlamentariske immunitet el ler ej, gælder institutionen og ikke min person.
I am well aware that the question of whether or not my parliamentary immunity should be waived concerns our institution and not me personally.
Men jeg håber, at Parlamentet for en gangs skyld vil anse min personlige ret til at blive dømt på et tidspunkt, hvor man lod, som om man ville retsforfølge mig, for vigtigere end Parlamentets ret til at forsvare sig selv.
But I hope that this parliament for once will consider it more important for me as a person to be tried when the claim is that it is intended to charge me, than to uphold Parliament's right to self-defence.
Jeg har ikke haft lejlighed til at kontrollere alle de ændringer, der blev foretaget på undersøgelsesudvalgets seneste møde, men det er klart for mig og for hr. d'Ormesson, at dette ikke er den endelige udgave.
I have not had the opportunity to check all of the changes that were made at the last committee of inquiry but it is clear to me and to Mr d'Ormesson that in fact this is not the final version.
På basis af, at vi ikke har teksterne på alle sprog, og at den foreliggende betænkning er forkert, vil jeg gerne anmode Dem om at træffe afgørelse om, at denne forhandling udsættes, indtil disse tekster foreligger på alle sprog og i korrekt form.
On the basis that we do not have all of the texts in all of the lan guages and that the report in front of us is in error I would ask you to rule that this debate be postponed until those texts are in fact available in all languages and correctly.
Jeg anmoder Dem ven ligst om at træffe den afgørelse nu.
I ask you to make that ruling now please.
Ford (S), formand for undersøgelsesudvalget om den voksende fascisme og racisme i Europa. — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg accepterer, at hr. Pflimlin tidligere sag de, at betænkningen forelå på alle sprog.
Mr Ford, chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Rise of Fascism and Racism in Europe. — Mr President, I accept that Mr Pflimlin said earlier on that the report was available in all of the languages.
Han sagde ikke, at bilagene forelå.
He did not say that the annexes were available.
Det er klart noget nyt, der er blevet rejst, og som De skal træffe afgørelse om.
That is clearly some thing new that has been raised for you to make a decision on.
Jeg må imidlertid som formand for undersøgelsesudvalget sige, at hr. Pflimlin ikke er medlem af udvalget og derfor ikke er i stand til at træffe nogen som helst afgørelse om, hvorvidt betænkningens indhold også er lige nøjagtig det indhold, som udvalget har vedtaget. get.
However, I must say, as chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, that Mr Pflimlin is not a mem ber of that committee and is therefore unable to make any ruling as to whether the contents of the report are in fact the accurate contents as determined by the committee.
Jeg håber, at Parlamentet vil tro mig på mit ord — men hvis ikke, bør man spørge hr. Evrigenis: den betænkning. De har foran Dem, er ikke den endelige udgave af undersøgelsesudvalgets arbejde.
I would hope that the House will take word for it — but if not, they should ask Mr Evrigenis — that the report that you have in front of you is not the final version of the Committee of Inquiry's work.
Som for mand fortæller jeg Dem, at det er tilfældet, og jeg håber, for at forhindre at Parlamentet kommer på afveje, at medlemmerne vil få lejlighed til at undersøge den korrekte og endelige udgave af betænkningen.
As chair man I am telling you that that is the case, and I would hope, in order to prevent the House from being in error, that there will be an opportunity for Members to study the correct and final version of the report.
Jeg er bange for, at ingen bortset fra mig selv eller et andet medlem af udvalget er i stand til at give Dem de oplysninger.
I am afraid that no one apart from myself or another member of the committee is in a position to give you that information.
Jeg ved, at der i dette tilfælde findes to bestemmelser i forretningsordenen, som hindrer forhandlingen.
I am aware that the Rules of Procedure con tain two prohibitory directives.
Den ene findes i forretnings ordenens artikel 61, hvor det anføres, at alle Parlamentets dokumenter skal være affattet på de officielle sprog. Den taler ikke kun om betænkninger, men om alle dokumenter.
The first is that of Rule 61, which specifies that all documents of the European Parliament shall be drawn up in the official languages.
Formanden, som foretog afstemningen, erklærede, at betænkningen, men ikke bilagene, var oversat til alle sprog.
The President, who has called for a vote, told us that the report itself has been translated into all the languages, but not the annexes.
Men bilagene er dokumenter til betænkningen og til forhandlingen, hr. for mand, og forretningsordenen skelner ikke mellem dokumenterne i artikel 61.
However, Mr President, the annexes are documents relating to the report, to the debate, and Rule 61 makes no distinction.
Artikel 61 udgør altså en hindring og danner grundlag for en afvisning på grund af uantagelighed ifølge artikel 84 i forretnings ordenen.
This therefore represents a contravention of Rule 61, and is consequently unacceptable under Rule 84.
Jeg mener derfor, at hverken Parlamentet eller dets formand er bemyndiget til at starte forhandlingen om en betænkning, når dokumenterne ikke foreligger, idet dette ville kræve en ændring af forretningsordenen.
I also think that Parliament and its President do not have the authority to proceed with a debate on a report before the relevant documentation is available, since this would entail amending the Rules of Procedure.
Eftersom forretningsordenen generelt beskytter mindretallet og specielt i dette tilfælde dets rettigheder, er Parlamentets formand ikke bemyndiget til at afgøre, at denne artikel kun anvendes delvis, og at Parlamentet derfor kan gå til forhandling og afstemning.
Since the Rules are there to safeguard a situation in general, and in this particular case the rights of a minority, Parliament's President does not have the authority to apply the Rule selectively and permit Parliament to proceed with a debate and a vote.
Jeg mener, at De bør udsætte forhandlin gen, eftersom den strider imod forretningsordenen, hr. formand.
I think the debate must be postponed, Mr President, since to proceed with it is unacceptable.
Formanden. — Mine damer og herrer, formanden erklærede tidligere — jeg har endnu en gang forvisset mig om det — at betænkningen forelå på alle officiel le sprog.
President. — Ladies and gentlemen, the President declared a while ago, and I have checked this myself, that the report is available in all the official languages.
Han var derfor at den opfattelse, at vi kunne behandle betænkningen.
Consequently, he took the view that we could take the report.
d'Ormesson (DR). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg må in drømme, at jeg er chokeret over grundlaget for denne nye forhandling.
Mr d'Ormesson (DR). — (FR) Mr President, I am yet again shocked by the nub of this debate.
Ved mødets begyndelse drøftede vi indgående, hvil ken forretningsgang der skulle følges.
We held lengthy discussions at the beginning of the sitting on the procedure to be followed.
Der gennem førtes en afstemning, og Europa-Parlamentets for mand, hr. Pflimlin, understregede, at alle parter hav de haft tid til at overveje for og imod.
A vote was held and Mr Pierre Pflimlin, the President of the European Parliament, reminded us that we all had had time to weigh the pros and cons.
Cryer (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, til forretningsordenen. Jeg vil gerne rejse spørgsmålet om forhandlin gen.
Mr Cryer (S). — Mr President, on a point of order I should like to raise the question of the debate.
De siger, at De har accepteret hr. Pflimlins afgørelse om, at betænkningen skal behandles, da den foreligger på alle sprog.
You say you have accepted President Pflimlin's ruling that the report should be debated because it is available in all the languages.
I så tilfælde må man sørge for, at vi også kan drøfte bilagene.
In that case, provision must be made for debating the appendices.
Hr. Pflimlin in drømmer selv. at de ikke foreligger på alle sprog, og i henhold til artikel 61 kan de derfor ikke forhandles.
On President Pflimlin's own admission, they are not available in all languages and, therefore, under Rule 61 they cannot be debated.
Det ville være klart absurd og tidsspildende at have en forhandling om betænkningen og så på et tids punkt i fremtiden have en forhandling om bilagene.
It would be patently absurd and timewasting to have a debate about the report and then at some future date have a debate about the appendices.
Som udvalgsformanden har sagt. er bilagene klart en integrerende del af betænkningen, og det er den slags fornuft, som de fleste vil acceptere.
Clearly, as the committee chairman has said, the appendices are an integral part of the report and that is the sort of commonsense view most people would accept.
Jeg vil gerne meget alvorligt sige, at den mest fornuftige fremgansmåde er at udsætte denne forhandling i henhold til
Therefore, if you are going to consider carefully the views of the committee chairman which were not made known to
(Bifald fra de europæiske højrepartiers gruppe)
For fourteen months, Mr Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Rise of Fascism and Racism in Europe, you have been attacking us, attacking me.
Oyer artikel 61. fordi en vigtig del af betænkningen, nemlig bilagene, ganske enkelt ikke foreligger.
I would suggest in all earnestness that the most sensible course of action is to defer this debate under Rule 61 because an important section of the report, namely the appendices, simply is not available.
I adskillige udvalg tidligere er denne artikel blevet overset og ignoreret.
In several commit tees in the past this Rule has been overlooked and ignored.
Jeg håber, at plenum ikke vil overse artikel 61, da den er af vital betydning for, at tingene går gnidningsløst i forsamlingen.
I hope that the whole plenary session is not going to overlook Rule 61 as it is of vital importance to the smooth running of this Assembly.
sagt, at det i dag er torsdag, men det gør ikke, at det er torsdag — om at vi har en nøjagtig udgave på alle sprog, så vi ved nu, at dette ikke var tilfældet.
Under those circumstances, Mr President, whatever Mr Pflimlin may have said — with the greatest respect to him, he could have stood up and said that today is Thursday but that dues not make it Thursday — the fact is that he said that we have an accurate version in all languages but we now know this was not the case.
Vi bebrejder ikke hr. Pflimlin det, men det, han siger, er ikke rigtigt.
We do not blame Mr Pflimlin for that, but what he says is not the case.
Vi kan ganske enkelt ikke drøfte noget, der ikke er nøjagtigt. Jeg tror ikke.
Therefore, we simply cannot debate something which is not accurate.
De har andet valg end at træffe afgørelse på det grundlag.
I do not think you have any choice but to rule in that way.
Croux (PPE). — (NL) Hr. formand, vi har allerede stemt om de bemærkninger, der er fremsat.
Mr Croux (PPE). — (NL) Mr President, we have already voted on the comments that have been made.
Men der er dog et spørgsmål, som jeg gerne vil stille ordføreren.
But there is one question I should like to put to the rapporteur.
Hvis det forholder sig sådan, at der forekommer en række unøjagtigheder i forslaget, navnlig af materiel art, kan de så ikke korrigeres i ordførerens tekst?
If it is true that the report contains a number of inaccuracies, chiefly of a material nature, can they not be put right in the rapporteur's text?
Jeg vil også gerne spørge ordføreren, om der er uregelmæssigheder. mæssigheder.
I should also like to ask the rapporteur whether there are irregularities.
Selv har jeg et problem med punkt 199 i forslaget.
I personally have some difficulty with paragraph 199 of the report.
Jeg ved, at ordførerens hensigt er korrekt, men med en lille tilføjelse vil man kunne udelukke enhver misforståelse.
I know the rapporteur means well, but the addition of a few words would preclude any mis understanding.
På samme grundlag skulle ordføreren eventuelt i udvalget kunne præcisere endnu nogle unøjagtigheder eller uklarheder.
Such examples show that the rapporteur might clarify some of the inaccuracies or vague statements in committee.
Det er det spørgsmål, jeg gerne vil stille ham.
That is the question I wanted to put to him.
Det er vor udgangsposition.
That is the point from which we start.
Måske kunne hr. Amadei i sin egenskab af formand for udvalget for forretningsordenen og for andragender også udtale sig herom.
Per haps Mr Amadei, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions, could say something about this?
Der rejser sig nemlig det spørgsmål, om bilagene til en betænkning er fuldgyldige bestanddele.
The question which has arisen is whether the annexes are part of a report in the strict sense of the word.
Formanden har tidligere erklæret, at betænkningen foreligger.
The President stated a moment ago that the report was available.
Men der mangler, som udvalgsformanden har sagt, et par bilag.
As the committee chairman has pointed out, one or two annexes are missing.
Det er altså udgangssituationen.
That is the basic point.
Forretningsordenen siger, så vidt jeg ved, intet nøjagtigt om det.
As far as I know, the Rules of Procedure con tain nothing precise on this matter.
Men der er måske en eller anden, der kan belære mig.
Perhaps someone can instruct me.
Jeg tager gerne imod råd.
I am quite open to advice.
Estgen (PPE). — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg tror ikke, jeg forstod Dem rigtigt tidligere, da De sagde, at vi skulle nå til en afgørelse.
Mr Estgen (PPE). — (DE) Mr President, I did not fully understand what you were saying earlier on about our reaching a decision.
Jeg mener, at afgørelsen allerede er faldet.
I believe the decision has already been taken.
Jeg hører ingen argumenter nu, som vi ikke allerede hørte, da hr. Pflimlin førte forsædet.
I do not hear any arguments now that were not heard already when President Pflimlin was in the chair.
Det blev sagt tydeligt, at betænkningen forelå på alle sprog. Vi har derfor afgjort, at denne forhandling skal føres i dag.
It was clearly stated that the report was available in all the languages, and this led us to decide to hold this debate today.
Altså kan en anden mødeleder ikke en time senere sætte den samme sag under afstemning igen.
Therefore, another chairman cannot proceed to a vote on the same matter an hour later.
Det ville i hvert fald være mod forretningsordenen.
In any case, this would be a violation of the Rules of Procedure.
Lomas (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, den sidste kom mentar ville have været rimelig under normale om stændigheder.
Mr Lomas (S). — Mr President, that last comment would be a reasonable one in normal circumstances.
Jeg ved, at De som altid forsøger at være så retfærdig som muligt i en vanskelig situation.
I know that, as always, you are trying to be as fair as you can in a difficult situation.
Problemet er, at den omstændighed, at formanden tidligere traf afgørelse om, at denne sag kan drøftes nu, sætter Dem i en meget vanskelig situation.
The problem is that the President's having -ruled earlier that this was a matter for discussion puts you in a very difficult situation.
Des værre er det nu blevet en politisk tvist mellem dem, der gerne vil drøfte den mere udførligt næste måned, og dem der gerne vil feje den ind under gulvtæppet i aften og få den af vejen.
Unfortunately, it has now become a political dispute between those who would like to debate it more fully next month and those who would like to shovel it under the carpet tonight and get it out of the way.
Vi er ikke naive.
We are not naive.
Vi forstår det alle.
We all understand that.
Amadei (S), formand for udvalget for forretningsordenen og for andragender. — (IT) Hr. formand, jeg kan kun give udtryk for mit helt personlige synspunkt; De ved, at jeg ikke kan tale som ordfører for udvalget, før det har fået dette spørgsmål forelagt.
Mr Amadei (S), chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions. — (IT) Mr President, I can only give an opinion that is entirely per sonal and expresses only my own point of view; as you know, I cannot act as spokesman for the Committee before the question has been put to them.
Det, jeg kan sige, er, at når man siger, at dokumenterne skal oversættes til de officielle sprog, forstår man herved alle dokumenter.
What I can say is that, when it is said that documents must be translated into the official languages, that means all documents.
Jeg vil gøre opmærksom på, at der på dagsordenen for mødet i dag er et forslag om at ændre artikel 57 i forretningsordenen, netop fordi den nuværende version af artikel 57, som vedrører anmodning om uopsættelig forhandling, kræver, at der foreligger en oversættelse af både teksten til anmodningen og teksten til det forslag, der er genstand for anmodningen.
Indeed, the proposal to amend Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure is on today's agenda for the very reason that, in accordance with the present word ing of Rule 57 — which deals with requests for urgent debate — both the text of the request and the text of the proposal which is the subject of the debate have to be translated.
Når vi derfor ønsker at ændre denne artikel — og udvalgets indstilling på dette punkt er enstemmig — er det netop for at gå i denne retning.
If, therefore, we wish to amend this Rule — and the Committee is unanimous on this point — it is precisely in order to bring about the hoped-for improvement.
Formanden. — Mine damer og herrer, Parlamentet har vedtaget at sætte denne betænkning på dagsordenen.
Amadei can see the seven colours indicating that they are available at the document distribution desk.
Denne beslutning gælder fortsat. Jeg ser mig dog for øjeblikket ude af stand til at konstatere, om alle dele af den foreligger på alle officielle sprog, som det kræves i artikel 61, stk. 1, i forretningsordenen.
But, under the terms of the Rule as it still stands at present, it is obvious that all documents have to be translated into the official languages, including those that we are discussing.
Dette er, har udvalgsformanden erklæret, ikke tilfældet. det.
That is all that I can say, even though I am not speak ing in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions, since the question has not yet been debated in committee.
Jeg har en formodning om, at det er meget få af Parlamentets betænkninger, der ikke i en eller anden sprogudgave har et par fejl.
I suspect we will find few reports of this Parliament that will not have, in one or other language version, an error or two.
Jeg mener derfor, at ingen af de indsigelser, der er rejst mod at fortsætte denne forhandling i dag, er korrekte.
I think, therefore, that neither of the objections made to this debate pro ceeding today are correct.
Må jeg også understrege, at det grundlag, hvorpå De stillede Deres forslag, har jeg nu bevist ikke er korrekt. De sagde i god tro, at De ikke troede, at disse dokumenter forelå.
May I also point out that the basis upon which you made your proposal was one which I have now shown not to be correct.
Jeg har nu vist, at de gør det.
I have now shown that they
Under disse omstændigheder foreslår jeg følgende: Præsidiet vil i morgen tidlig på sit møde kl. 9.00 få forelagt spørgsmålet, om denne forretningsordensbestemmelse også gælder for bilag til betænkninger.
Under these circumstances I propose that the Bureau should, at its meeting tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. consider the question whether this provision also applies to annexes to reports.
Ef ter denne afgørelse fra præsidiet, der omgående vil blive meddelt Dem, bliver der i givet fald straks sat et nyt punkt på dagsordenen for i morgen, så for handlingen kan blive gennemført på det tidspunkt.
After the Bureau has reached a decision which will be communicated to you without delay, a new item will be added to the agenda to enable the debate to take place.
Jeg giver nu ordet til en taler for og en taler imod.
I shall call one speaker for and one speaker against this proposal.
Formanden. — Næste punkt på dagsordenen er betænkning (dok.
(Applause from the left)
(Bifald fra venstre) forslag fra Kommissionen til Rådet (dok.
A 2101/85) by Mr Nordmann, on behalf of the Com mittee on the Environment, Public Health and Con sumer protection on the proposal from the Commission to the Council (Doc.
1-1363/83 -KOM(83) 787 endel.) til direktiv om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om kakao- og chokoladevarer til konsum.
1-1363/83 - COM (83) 787 final) for a directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption.
Jeg håber, at Deres forslag også kan opnå det, som hidtil har udmærket dette undersøgelsesudvalgs arbejde, nemlig enstemmighed og enighed.
I hope that your proposal can achieve what has hitherto distinguished the work of the Committee of Inquiry, namely unanimity and agreement.
Nordmann (L), ordfører. — (FR) Det emne, jeg nu skal behandle, affødte en række lidenskabelige erklæringer i udvalget, uden at det dog derfor kom på højde med den sag, der netop blev udsat.
Mr Nordmann (L), rapporteur. — (FR) The subject of my speech gave rise to several heated statements in committee which are obviously outside the scope of the subject which has just been reported.
I alle tilfælde nyder også mit emne den fordel at være aktuelt, idet den tilstundende jul giver behandlingen af et forslag fra Kommissionen til direktiv om kakaoog chokoladevarer en vis interesse.
In any case, the subject of my speech has the added advantage of being quite topical because the examination of a draft directive drawn up by the Commission relating to chocolate products is all the more relevant given the closeness of the Christmas celebration.
Trods den for mange meget provokerende problem stilling var det i udvalget sådan, at såkaldt højre orienterede kunne samarbejde relativt konstruktivt med såkaldt venstreorienterede. Afstemningen om den samlede betænkning skete ikke langs en polariseringslinje, men med et stort, bredt flertal.
Despite provocative questions, there was reasonably constructive cooperation between the so-called Left and Right.
Begge politiske lejre har takket ordføreren, hr. Evrigenis, og komplimenteret ham for denne afrundede betænk ning.
Both political camps thanked the rapporteur, Mr Evrigenis, and congratulated him on this autonomous report.
Men nu har vi det, som vi hele tiden ikke havde i udvalget, nemlig delte, spaltede lejre og en konflikt om formelle ting.
However, there is now a divided, split camp and conflict over formalities, something we had managed to avoid the whole time in committee.
Hvis vi følger Deres forslag, hr. formand, kan vi afslutte den beklagelige forretningsordensdebat, der ellers nu ville følge, fordi der herefter igen ville blive stillet forslag om at afbryde og udsætte forhandlingen.
If we act on your proposal, Mr President, we can end this wretched debate on the Rules of Procedure which would now ensue, because finally a request has been made to curtail that debate and to defer it.
Rent personligt hører jeg til de medlemmer, der sædvanligvis er velvilligt indstillet til Kommissionens forslag.
However, I must admit that I was no longer so favourably disposed towards the proposal of the Commission after I had examined all the evidence.