natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
FORD (S). — Hr. formand jeg vil ikke forlænge debat­ten.
That is not the same subject as we are discussing here.
Da der ikke gøres indsigelse, sætter vi redegørelsen om situationen hos Leyland­Daf på dagsordenen som første punkt om eftermiddagen.
If there are no objections we will make the statement on Leyland­DAF the first item of the agenda for the after­noon.
FORMANDEN. — De har ret.
PRESIDENT. — You are right.
Der rejser sig følgende spørgsmål for os.
The problem is the following.
Den Socialistiske Gruppe ønsker emnet Leyland­Daf behandlet under uopsættelighedsdebatten torsdag formiddag.
The Socialist Group wants the Leyland­DAF question dealt with as an urgency on Thursday.
De har anmodet om behandling af en mundtlig forespørgsel med forhandling.
You have asked for a statement followed by a debate.
Naturligvis kan vi nu sætte det på dagsordenen for torsdag som et selvstændigt punkt i stedet for den fremrykkede fore­spørgsel af hr. Desama.
We could, of course, have that a separate item replacing Mr Desama's question on Thursday. We have to decide.
Det kan vi nu om et øjeblik træffe afgørelse om.
I should like to ask you whether it will still be possible to decide about that at a later stage this week or whether the decision must be taken now.
(Formanden oplæste ændringerne af fredagens dagsor­den) (■')
I would ask the groups to arrive at some agreement here (4).
FORD (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, det er ved at blive temmelig indviklet.
FORD (S). — Mr President, this is getting rather compli­cated.
Vi ønskede en redegørelse fra Kom­missionen om Leyland­Daf, hvis vi ikke kunne få denne sag på dagsordenen til uopsættelig debat, for det er særdeles vigtigt med hensyn til Leyland­Daf, Hoover, Nestlé og en række andre selskaber, at Parlamentet kommer med en udtalelse i denne uge.
We wanted a Commission statement on Leyland DAF if we could not get this matter on the agenda in the urgent debate because it is most important, with regard to Leyland DAF, Hoover, Nestlé and a number of other companies, that this Parliament expresses a view this week.
Hvis vi nu får en mundtlig forespørgsel — selv om Den Socialistiske Gruppe faktisk ikke bad om det, men om en redegørelse fra Kommissionen — bliver det formentlig ikke muligt for os at få en beslutning i denne uge.
Now if we have an oral question — although the Socialist Group did not actually request one, but rather a Commission statement — then we probably will not be able to have a resolution this week.
Eller hvis vi får en beslutning, bliver det på fredag, hvor der ikke er nogen her og det næppe får den virkning, vi ønsker.
Or if we do have a resolution, it will be on Friday when there is nobody here and it is hardly going to have the impact we want.
Jeg mener derfor alt taget i betragtning, at Den Socialistiske Gruppe
So I think on balance that the Socialist Group would prefer to have the matter taken under urgencies so that we can have a resolution covering all these subjects in which Parlia­ment can express a clear view.
VAN DUK (V). — (NL) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne lige henvise til den redegørelse, der står som det allersidste punkt på fredagens dagsorden.
Does this mean that we should make Leyland­DAF the first item on the agenda for Thursday afternoon instead of the oral ques­tions by Mr Desama set for Tuesday?
Nu på onsdag finder de sidste forhandlinger mellem ungarerne og slovakkerne sted i overværelse af Kommissionen, og jeg kan sagtens forestille mig, at det onsdag vil stå klart, at det ikke blot er nødvendigt at få en redegørelse fra Kommissionen, men at man også må holde muligheden for en forhandling og indgivelse af forslag til beslutninger i sammenhæng med denne forhandling åben.
CHRISTIANSEN (NI). — (DA) Mr President, I should just like to make sure that you have been informed that the committee has adopted a proposed amendment to the common position on the machinery directive.
Jeg vil gerne spørge Dem: Erdet senere på ugen stadig muligt at beslutte dette, eller skal denne beslutning tages nu?
When we get to it I should be glad to have the opportunity to explain briefly the background to the committee's deci­sion to put forward such an amendment, which will mean that the matter has to go back to the Council for reconsideration.
For yderligere ændringer af onsdagens dagsorden: se protokollen. Se protokollen.
Can we be assured that on Thursday the Commission will be able to come?
Om anvendelse af proceduren uden forhandling:
One essential point which always causes us problems is the simple question of the facts.
Gennem Parlamentets formand anmodede vi i juni 1992 de pågældende italienske myndigheder om nærmere oplysninger, men vi har ikke modtaget det ringeste svar.
Only when the facts are available can we understand the reasons behind the national authorities' requests.
CHRISTIANSEN (NI). — Hr. formand, jeg vil blot sikre mig, at De er orienteret om, at udvalget har vedtaget et ændringsforslag til den fælles holdning om maskindirektivet.
I ask you therefore to make sure that, until we have gone into this matter, we do not put anything on the agenda under urgent procedure unless we are sure that we shall actually able to deal with it.
Om anvendelse af proceduren om uopsættelighed:
In addition I ask you to check this point in principle and to bear in mind the possibility of our taking action before the European Court of Justice.
ROGALLA (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, som allerede nævnt af ordføreren er Fantini-sagen noget for sig selv.
In this case the committee has drawn the logical conclusions: as there are sufficient facts on which we can rely, Mr Fantini's immunity should not be waived.
Jeg beder Dem altså sørge for, at vi, så længe dette punkt ikke er undersøgt, ikke optager noget punkt på dagsordenen til uopsættelig behandling, hvis vi ikke er sikre på, at vi også vil behandle det.
PRESIDENT. — I will raise this in the Enlarged Bureau, but I would appeal to the House for the time being to take due account tomorrow when we are voting on the urgencies of what has just been said.
Om fornødent kan vi så belyse dem kritisk.
(Parliament adopted the agenda thus amended)
FORMANDEN. — Jeg vil tale med Det Udvidede Præsidium om det, men vil først appellere til forsamlingen om i morgen, når vi træffer afgørelse om anmodningen om uopsættelighed, at tage tilbørligt hensyn til det, der lige blev sagt.
GIL-ROBLES GIL-DELGADO (PPE). — (ES) Mr President, I shall be brief, because the two speakers before me have explained the circumstances clearly.
I det foreliggende tilfælde har udvalget draget følgende logiske konsekvens: Da der ikke foreligger tilstrækkelige kendsgerninger, som vi kan støtte os til, bør hr. Fantinis immunitet ikke ophæves.
Our Group fully agrees with Mr Defraigne's report and I shall therefore vote in favour.
Anmodning om ophævelse af Fantinis immunitet
Request for waiver of parliamentary Mr Fantini
A3-20/93) af Defraigne for Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmer nes Immunitet om anmodning om ophævelse af Antonio Fantinis parlamentariske immunitet.
A3-2/93) by Mr Defraigne on behalf of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Verification of Credentials and Immunities on the request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Fantini.
DEFRAIGNE (LDR), ordfører. — (FR) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, hr. Fantini oprettede som leder af Campanias regionalregering et fritidscenter i Avelino-området.
DEFRAIGNE (LDR), rapporteur. — (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Fantini is a member of the Campania regional executive and in that capacity he initiated the establishment of a tourist and leisure centre in the Avelino region.
Det var et ret omfattende projekt, hvortil de første undersøgelser allerede indledtes i 1987.
That was a fairly large-scale project and the preliminary studies began in 1987.
Anklagemyndigheden i Napoli har nu forelagt Europa-Parlamentet en sag, hvorefter hr. Fantini under arbejdet med projektet påstås at have fremmet private interesser.
We now have before us a series of documents from the Naples Public Prosecutor alleging that Mr Fantini gave advantages to private interests in all his dealings.
Ved gennemgang af sagen bemærker man, at den hver ken er særlig holdbar eller konkret.
It is clear that in the event of any doubt or suspicion, even an unfounded one, the Member's interest lies in being able to defend himself.
Det forekommer mig endvidere væsentligt at tilføje, at de straffebestemmelser.
We think that in this case it is in his own interests, and moreover those of all politicians of our kind, to opt for transparency.
Ved ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet har vor gruppe altid skelnet imellem, om det drejer sig om politisk ytringsfrihed eller om anklager i forbindelse med handlinger, der falder ind under den almindelige ret.
We think our Parliament ought not to be seen to be opposing a concern for transparency in which democracy can flourish and which too, in this actual case, is favourable, we think, to Mr Fantini.
For førstnævntes vedkommende mener vi, at man bør sikre det politiske mandats frie udøvelse og givetvis undgå at ophæve den parlamentariske immunitet.
That is why our Group feels that we should oppose Mr Defraigne's report and will vote against it.
Drejer det sig derimod om handlinger, der falder ind under almindelig ret, mener vi absolut, at den størst mulige gennemsigtighed er i medlemmets egen interesse.
The President of Parliament asked the Italian judicial authorities in June 1992, on our behalf, for more details but we have not received any reply.
I så fald mener vi, at medlemmet som i øvrigt hele den gruppe politikere, som vi tilhører, har interesse i at gå ind for gennemsigtighed.
ROGALLA (S). — (DE) Mr President, this Fantini case, as the rapporteur has already said, is a special case.
Efter vor opfattelse bør den parlamentariske immunitet i så fald ophæves.
In the framework of checking immunity in our Committee on
Vi mener ikke, at Parlamentet bør optræde som modstander af en for demokratiet og i dette tilfælde efter vor mening også for hr. Fantini favorabel gennemsigtighed.
SPERONI crimes and then getting away with it to become established in this European Parliament too by dint of refusing authorizations to take proceedings.
Naturligvis taler jeg ikke specielt om denne sag; men jeg siger dog, at hvis hr. Fantini virkelig er uskyldig, bør han ikke bevise det for os, så bør han ikke beskytte sig med den parlamentariske immunitet; men det skal være domstolen, der skal bevise, at han er helt uskyldig.
Of course I am not speaking specifically of the case in question, but I say that if Mr Fantini is really innocent he does not have to prove it to us, he must not shield himself with parliamentary immunity, but it will be for the courts to show whether he is fully innocent.
Jeg vil derfor stemme imod betænkningen.
So I shall vote against the report.
MORETTI (ARC). — (IT) Hr. formand, også jeg vil som hr. Speroni stemme imod dette forslag, fordi Lega Nord er tilhængere af immunitet for stemmer afgivet og meninger udtrykt her i Parlamentet.
MORETTI (ARC). — (IT) Mr President, I too, like Mr Speroni, will vote against this, partly because we from the Lombard League in our Group are in favour of immunity for votes cast and opinions expressed in this Assembly.
Udenfor er vi borgere på lige fod med andre.
Apart from that, we are citizens like anybody else.
Derfor er vi modstandere af dette forslag.
So we are against this proposal.
Jeg henleder Europa-Parlamentets opmærksomhed på dette aspekt af sagen, hr. formand, for når man har ønsket parlamentarisk immunitet, er det, for at administrative og dømmende myndigheder ikke skal råde over parlamentsmedlemmers frihed efter eget forgodtbefindende.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Moretti I would remind you we enjoy the rights of Members of the European Parliament wherever we are and whatever we are doing.
Lad os endvidere tilføje, at vi, da vi for næsten to år siden ophævede hr. Ruiz Mateos' immunitet, var overbevist om, at den spanske domstol i betragtning af sagens alvor ville indlede retsforfølgelse af ham, hvilket imidlertid ikke skete.
May I add that when we waived Mr Ruiz Mateos's immunity, now some time ago, almost two years, we were convinced that the Spanish Public Prosecutor, in view of the apparently serious nature of the facts, would be pressing charges, but that was not done.
Det tyder på, at hr. Ruiz Mateos er genstand for et ikke-objektivt motiveret ønske om rets forfølgelse.
That seems to show that Mr Ruiz Mateos is being pursued in a less than objective manner.
En meget vigtig ting, som jeg vil tilføje, er, at hr. Ruiz Mateos i forbindelse med sine mellemværender med de spanske myndigheder har klaget til Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol.
I would add the extremely important fact that, in the context of the differences which put him at odds with the Spanish State, Mr Ruiz Mateos took his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Vort udvalg, som skal foretage en vurdering forud for sagens forelæggelse for Domstolen, fandt, at sagen var egnet til forelæggelse, fordi sagerne mod hr. Ruiz Mateos havde trukket usædvanligt længe ud, langt længere end den normale behandlingstid, og også, tilføjede udvalget, fordi hr. Ruiz Mateos ikke var blevet rimeligt behandlet af de spanske domstole.
Our committee, which has the task of making a report before the case is brought before the European Court, decided that his action was clearly admissible because the action taken against Mr Ruiz Mateos had been abnormally long drawn out, at nothing like the normal speed for proceedings and also, the Commission added, because Mr Ruiz Mateos had not received fair treatment from the Spanish system of justice.
(Forslaget til afgørelse vedtoges)
(Parliament adopted the decision) immunity of
Anmodning om ophævelse af Ruiz Mateos' immunitet
Request for waiver of parliamentary Mr Ruiz Mateos
FORMANDEN. — Næste punkt på dagsordenen er betænkning (dok.
I do not know, Mr President, what the European Court will say about this.
A3-21/93) af Defraigne for Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmer nes Immunitet om anmodning om ophævelse af José Maria Ruiz-Mateos' parlamentariske immunitet.
PRESIDENT. — The next item is the report (A3-21/93) by Mr Defraigne, on behalf of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities on the request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Ruiz Mateos.
BRU PURÓN (S). — (ES) Hr. formand, jeg tager ordet for at præcisere et par punkter, idet jeg — i lighed med andre medlemmer — har tilsluttet mig Forretningsordensudvalgets og hr. Defraignes anbefaling af ikke at ophæve hr. Ruiz Mateos' immunitet.
BRU PURÓN (S). — (ES) Mr President, I should like to speak if possible because, like some other Members, I associated myself with the view of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Mr Defraigne's report about whether it is appropriate to uphold Mr Ruiz Mateos's immunity in this case.
Men på baggrund af ordførerens udtalelser i dag, der er vidt forskellige fra de argumenter, der fremsættes i betænkningen, ser jeg mig nødsaget til at præcisere nogle punkter.
But on hearing the arguments which the rapporteur puts forward today, quite different from those in the report, I feel I must clarify certain points because they are incorrect.
DEFRAIGNE (LDR), ordfører. — (FR) Hr. formand, i hr. Ruiz Mateos' tilfælde har vi tidligere vedtaget at ophæve hans immunitet af årsager, der har med respekten for visse samfundsmæssige regler at gøre.
DEFRAIGNE (LDR), rapporteur. — (FR) Mr President, I would say that in Mr Ruiz Mateos's case we decided to waive his parliamentary immunity on a question concern ing the fulfilment of certain social obligations.
Det er ensbetydende med, at Europa-Parlamentet også tager sit ansvar i forbindelse med overtrædelser af den almindelige ret.
That means that, as regards infringements of ordinary law, Parliament too accepts its responsibilities as it thinks it should.
I dette tilfælde stod vi ikke over foren lov, der er afskaffet, og jeg spekulerer på, hvad de meget strenge kolleger ville sige, hvis de i morgen blev stillet for en ret i henhold til en lov, der ikke findes mere.
In that case we were not dealing with a legal provision which had been repealed and I wonder what those of my colleagues who are so insistent would say if tomorrow they were to be arraigned before a criminal court under a law which no longer exists.
For det første vil jeg gerne gøre opmærksom på. at da Europa-Parlamentet for nogle år siden imødekom en anmodning om ophævelse af hr. Ruiz Mateos" immunitet, var anledningen ikke blot manglende opfyldelse af visse socialforpligtelser, men derimod overtrædelse af almindelige civilretlige bestemmelser i form af bedrag og forfalskning af et merkantilt dokument, en af den slags forbrydelser »med hvide handsker«, som forfølges i ethvert civiliseret land.
First, with regard to the Assembly's waiver of immunity two years ago, it was not about mere social security irregularities: it was about some offences of fraud and forgery of a commercial document, purely private offences, under the ordinary law, an example of the "white collar" crime which is being tracked down throughout the civilized world.
Den foreliggende sag er ikke uden pikanteri.
The case now before us is almost a matter of folklore.
Den drejer sig om en Isabella, ikke den hellige, men én, der har været gift med Julio Iglesias, en fin spansk markis med meget
It is about one Isabel, who is not a Catholic but who was once the wife of Julio Iglesias, then of a very blue-blooded Spanish marquis and then of a socialist minister who is no longer a minister at the moment.
For det andet vil jeg gerne fastslå, at jeg finder sagen så bagatelagtig, at der rent faktisk slet ikke burde være
Your committee took the view that the facts in them selves were scarcely important. At the most any violence was of a minor nature.
BRU PURÓN lemmer, men selvfølgelig afspejler hele Parlamentets bredde og alle dets grupper.
BRU PURÓN which is also unimportant.
Men hvad angår det vigtigste spørgsmål — om det i henhold til forfatningen var lovligt eller ej at indføre en lov om ekspropriering af virksomheder tilhørende en finansmand, der var i stand til at ødelægge hele det spanske finanssystem — har Menneskerettighedsdomstolen erklæret det pågældende lovdekret for fuldt lov medholdeligt.
But as regards the most important thing — whether or not it was constitutionally permissible to pass a law by which a financier, who was capable of destroying the whole Spanish financial system, was expropriated — the Court of Human Rights has declared it entirely acceptable.
GAIBISSO (PPE). — (IT) Hr. formand, hr. Defraignes betænkning er klar og kompetent, og man siger, at klarhed ikke altid kan forenes med kompetence eller vice versa.
DEFRAIGNE (LDR), rapporteur. — (FR) Mr President, I should just like to make three remarks.
I hr. Ruiz Mateos-sagen er der tydeligvis tale om fumus persecutionis, den er erklæret, den er indrømmet.
First about the case in which we waived Mr Ruiz Mateos's parliament ary immunity; it is true, Mr Bru Purón, that I spoke in particular of non-payment of social security contributions.
Det er jo således, at vi ikke har pligt eller ret til at se på sagens substans; men jeg vil sige, at i dette tilfælde må man gøre en undtagelse. Der hersker ingen tvivl om, at der er en konflikt, som kun kan defineres som ideologisk, mellem den spanske statsborger Ruiz Mateos og de kompetente dømmende myndigheder i Spanien, der behandler sagen.
That gave rise to a whole series of charges against Mr Ruiz Mateos, but I do not know what the happened about them.
Derfor er der for mig ingen tvivl om, at man bestemt må afvise anmodningen om tilladelse til at retsforfølge, som vi gjorde i det foregående tilfælde, der jo i sig selv har et meget vigtigt aspekt, nemlig den konstante mangel på interesse for formanden for Parlamentets berettigede anmodning om oplysninger, der ville hjælpe med den objektive analyse af sagen.
So in this case it seems to me that there is no doubt that we must decisively reject the application for authorization to take proceedings, as we did in the previous case, which, in itself, seems much more important, that of chronic inattention to the authoritative request from the President of this House for facts so that the matter could be objectively analysed.
Her står vi over for en klar overtrædelse af juridisk upartiskhed under hensyntagen til ideologiske motiver frem for selve afgørelsens rigtighed.
Here we are faced with a clear disregard of the objectivity of judgment, based more on reasons of an ideological nature than on the correctness of the judgment itself.
Derfor er vi helt enige i ordførerens forslag til afgørelse.
We are therefore entirely in agreement with the decision proposed by the rapporteur.
Vi går over til afstemningen.
We now come to the vote.
Hvad den lettere vold angår, bygger vi på vidneudsagn. Hændelsen vistes direkte i fjernsynet, og jeg så den tilfældigvis i 1989. Jeg kunne ikke forestille mig, at sagen ville få efterdønninger her.
Next, as regards the minor assault, we are relying on the evidence of witnesses whom we have examined.
Jeg mener, at der højst kan være tale om lettere vold og ikke angreb.
I think that at the very most we may speak of rough-and-tumble and not of aggression.
PERREAU DE PINNINCK DOMENECH (RDE). — (ES) Hr. formand, det var egentlig min hensigt at afgive skriftlig stemmeforklaring, men efter at have hørt hr. Bru Puróns indlæg, foretrækker jeg at gøre det mundtligt.
PERREAU DE PINNINCK DOMENECH (RDE). — (ES) Mr President, I was thinking of putting my explanation of vote in writing, but in view of what Mr Bru Purón has said, I prefer to do it orally.
For det første må jeg gøre opmærksom på, at hr. Defraigne nøje har redegjort for de argumenter, der fremsættes i betænkningen — der, så vidt jeg husker, blev vedtaget med kun I stemme imod og 14 for i Udvalget om Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmernes Immunitet, og at hr. Bru Purón er medlem af dette udvalg og normalt deltager i dets arbejde, men at han ikke på noget tidspunkt tog ordet under behandlingen af denne sag eller i forbindelse med beslutningen om at afholde en vejledende afstemning.
First of all I must say that Mr Defraigne did mention the arguments set out in the report approved — I seem to remember by a single vote against and 14 in favour— in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities, and that Mr Bru Purón is a member of that committee and usually takes part in its debates, but he did not speak on any of the days on which this matter was debated and views were being expressed for the straw vote.
Med hensyn til Deres tredje bemærkning har jeg aldrig sagt, at Menneskerettighedsdomstolen har accepteret hr. Ruiz Mateos' klager.
As regards your third observation, I never said that the European Court of Human Rights had accepted Mr Ruiz Mateos's claims.
Jeg sagde, at der var gode muligheder for, at den ville gøre det, fordi vort udvalg, der afgiver en forudgående vurdering af, om klagerne kan accepteres, skønnede, at sagen burde forelægges Domstolen — jeg går ud fra, at De kender proceduren — og at der var to vigtige momenter i sagen.
I said there was a good chance that it would accept them because our committee, which makes a prior report on the admissibility of claims — I think in any case you know the procedure — thought the case could be referred to the Court because in its opinion two important factors ought to be taken into account.
Jeg har ikke beskæftiget mig med at finde ud af, om der foreligger en konflikt med de spanske myndigheder, jeg konstaterer blot, at udvalget praktisk talt enstemmigt, nemlig med seksten stemmer mod to, kom til det resultat, at hr. Ruiz Mateos, det er ikke mig, der har fundet på det, ikke var blevet behandlet korrekt, og især at sagen havde trukket usædvanligt længe ud.
I am not concerned whether there was a dispute with the Spanish Government, I just note that if I am not mistaken our committee concluded by an almost unanimous vote, 16 to 2, that Mr Ruiz Mateos, and I have not invented this, had not had a fair trial and above all that proceedings had dragged on too long.
Mere indviklet er det ikke.
The position is no more complicated than that.