natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det ville være ufornuftigt at drøfte denne betænkning en fredag sidst på formiddagen, hvor vi sandsynligvis vil være stærkt forsinkede på grund af den dagsorden, vi lige har vedtaget, og de punkter vi har tilføjet, især budgettet.
It would "be unreasonable to discuss this report at the end of a Fridav morning when we shall probably be running very late in view of the agenda we have just adopted and the points we have added, in particular concerning the budget.
Ville det under disse omstændigheder ikke være bedre at behandle betænkningen i marts?
Would it not there fore be better to consider the report in March?
Dette spørgsmål har allerede været behandlet flere gange i Europa-Parlamentet, samtidig med at det har været genstand for en afgørelse i Domstolen.
Parliament has already on several occasions considered this question, which has been the subject of a decision by the Court of Justice.
For at vise, hvor vigtig denne sag er, ønsker vi, at man kan drøfte den på et bedre egnet tidspunkt.
We believe that the question should be debated at a more appropriate moment in view of its importance.
Hvad angår den sidste af disse anmodninger om uopsættelig forhandling, nærmere bestemt forslaget til forordning om finansiering af interventioner gennem EUGFL-garantisektionen (dok.
Regarding the last of these requests for urgent procedure, namely that in respect of the proposal for a regulation on the financing of intervention by the EAGGF Guarantee Section (Doc.
C2-197/86), er der en kompetencekonflikt mellem udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring og budgetudvalget.
C 2-197/86), there is a conflict of responsibility between the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Committee on Budgets.
Begge har hen vendt sig til mig, og jeg prøvede at nå til en løsning med de to formænd, men det lykkedes ikke.
Both have approached me and we tried to reach a solution between the two chairmen but failed.
Deraf konflikten mellem de to udvalg.
Hence the conflict between the two committees.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 94, stk. 2, skal jeg sætte spørgsmålet under afstemning efter at have hørt en taler for og en taler imod og, om nødvendigt, formændene for de to udvalg.
In accordance with Rule 94(2) I shall put this question to the vote after hearing one speaker in favour and one speaker against and, if necessary, the chairmen of the two committees.
Beumer (PPE), ordfører. — (NL) Hr. formand, jeg har ingen indvendinger imod fru Veils forslag, forudsat at der er garanti for, at vi ikke i mødeperioden i marts bliver stillet i samme situation og sagen så bliver sat på fredagens dagsorden, for så har jeg indvendinger imod det.
BEUMER (PPE), rapporteur. — (NL) Mr President, I have no objection to Mrs Veil's proposal provided that we are assured that we shall not be confronted with the same situation in the March part-session, namely, that it is put down on the agenda for Friday.
Hvis man altså kan give mig en garanti fra præsidiet for, at den i marts vil blive placeret sådan, at Parlamentet virkelig har tid til den og der også er et tilstrækkeligt antal medlemmer til stede for at give den megen opmærksomhed, finder jeg det udmærket. ket.
Because in that case I do object. So if I have the Bureau's assurance that in March it will be given a place in which Parliament genuinely has the time and also enough Members are present to devote proper attention to it, then that seems to me first-rate.
Arndt (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne på min gruppes vegne foreslå Dem at udpege udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring som korresponderende udvalg og budgetudvalget som medvirkende rådgivende udvalg.
ARNDT (S). — (DE) Mr President, my group suggests that the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be the committee responsible and the Committee on Budgets be asked for an opinion.
Som medlem af budgetudvalget forstår jeg naturligvis, at man lige så godt havde kunnet gøre det modsatte, men vi går ud fra, at samarbejdet mel lem landbrugsudvalget og budgetudvalget er så godt, at de to udvalg kan gøre det forsøg at holde fælles møde for at drøfte det i fællesskab, således at spørgsmålet om, hvem der er korresponderende og hvem medvirkende rådgivende, kun er en formel afgørelse.
As a member of the Committee on Budgets, I naturally understand that it would be equally acceptable the other way round, but we take it that collaboration between the Committee on Agriculture and the Com mittee on Budgets is so good that the two committees should try sitting together and deliberating together so that the question which of them is responsible and which is asked for an opinion is in practice only a matter of form.
Ud fra dette synspunkt vil min gruppe stemme for, at udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring bliver korresponderende.
From this point of view my group will vote for the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be the responsible committee.
I øvrigt vil jeg gerne tilføje følgende spørgsmål, hr. formand: da Dury- og Dido-betænkningerne er taget af dagsordenen for fredag formiddag, betyder det så, at betænkningerne fra udvalget om økonomi, valutaspørgsmål og industripolitik, og altså også min be tænkning, eventuelt kan komme under hammeren som de første?
In addition I should like to add the following question, Mr President: if the Dury report and the Dido report are taken off the agenda for Friday morning, does that then mean that the reports of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, and so my report too, will perhaps come up first on Friday morning?
Hvis det er tilfældet, bortfalder måske fru Veils indvending.
If that is the case, perhaps Mrs Veil's objection lapses.
Formanden. — Hr. Arndt har udtalt sig for udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring som korresponderende udvalg.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Arndt has spoken in favour of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food being the committee responsible.
Er der nogen, der vil tale imod det te?
Does anyone wish to speak against this?
Klepsch (PPE). - (DE) Hr. formand, jeg·kan kun understrege, hvad hr. Beumer netop sagde, Hvis vi kun kan udsætte betænkningen til marts, men i marts har den samme situation som i dag, vil det være bedre at behandle betænkningen nu.
KLEPSCH (PPE). — (DE) Mr President, I support what my honourable friend Mr Beumer has just said.
Da De ikke har givet hr. Beumer den ønskede garanti, vil jeg gerne fremføre dette forbehold.
If we merely postpone the report to the March partsession only to meet the same situation as today, we should do better to consider the report now. I should
(') Anmodninger om uopsættelig forhandling: se protokollen.
Requests for urgent procedure: see Minutes.
Curry talelse, der kom fra budgetudvalget, stadfæstet i EFT af 5. juni 1978.
On that occasion Parliament's opinion, coming from the Committee on Budgets, was recognized in the Official Journal of 5 June 1978.
Det er altså en forordning, hvis oprindelse går tilbage til udtalelsen fra budgetudvalget.
So this is a regulation whose origins go back to a Committee on Budgets opinion.
Aigner (PPE), formand for budgetkontroludvalget. — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne minde om, at også budgetkontroludvalget er delagtig i denne procedure, for ideen stammer jo fra det.
AIGNER (PPE), chairman of the Committee on Budget ary Control. — (DE) Mr President, perhaps I may mention that the Committee on Budgetary Control is also involved in this procedure, since it was the com mittee which had the original idea.
Jeg vil imidlertid gerne sige principielt: jeg kan ikke forestille mig, at efter at vi i ugevis har skændtes om 66 eller 70 mio, skulle budgetudvalget ikke indtage en hovedrolle nu, hvor det drejer sig om 3,2 mia.
But basically I should like to say that after we have been arguing for weeks about 66 or 70 million, it is hard to imagine that the Committee on Budgets should not play a leading part when it comes to 3 200 million.
For det andet: det, der står på spil, er den tredje interguvernementale enighed — det største vi har haft hidtil — om 3,2 mia finansiering af Fællesskabet fra medlemsstaterne.
Secondly, what is at stake materially is the third inter governmental agreement, the biggest we have had so far, a 3.2 billion financing of the Community by the Member States.
Det i sig selv er meget væsentligt.
That in itself is very substantial.
Disse penge vil blive refunderet.
That money is going to be reimbursed.
Størrelsen af det refunderede beløb skal figurere på budgettet.
The capital amounts reimbursed will have to appear in the budget.
Renter ne afholdes af Fællesskabet.
The interest is being financed by the Community.
Renterne skal figurere på Fællesskabets årlige budget.
The interest will have to appear in the Community's annual budget.
Da begge disse ting, hr. formand, derfor skal forelægges for budgetudvalget, forekommer det logisk, at vi behandler spørgsmålet i første række.
Therefore, Mr President, as both those things have to come to the Committee on Budgets, it seems logical that we should deal with the matter in the first place.
Jeg er absolut enig rned hr. Arndt i, at der ikke er nogen uenighed om sagens indhold eller ønskelighed, men jeg mener, at de grunde, jeg har nævnt, peger på, at budgetudvalget bør være det første til så at sige at sprænge målsnoren i denne sag.
I do agree with Mr Arndt that there is no difference of substance or desirability, but I think that the reasons I have cited indicate that the Committee on Budgets should be the one to breast the tape first, as it were, on this matter.
Derfor vil jeg gerne tilslutte mig hr. Arndts forslag om et fælles møde for de tre udvalg: budgetudvalget, budgetkontroludvalget og udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring. Så deltog tre udvalg deri, og disse tre ville ved afstemning bestemme — det kan man jo nok acceptere — hvem der så som korresponderende skulle forelægge betænkningen i plenum.
I therefore agree with Mr Arndt's proposal, to arrange a joint sitting of the three committees, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Jeg tror, det er den eneste løsning til at skaffe denne kompetencestrid ud af verden.
I think that is the only solution to this con flict of competence.
Pranchère (COM). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne støtte anmodningen fra formanden for udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring, for dette præcedens fo rekommer mig at være farligt.
PRANCHÈRE (COM). — (FR) Mr President, I should like to support the claim of the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, since this precedent seems to me to be a dangerous one.
Hvis budgetudvalget nu vil beskæftige sig med landbrugsproblemer vedrørende smørlagrene og deres finansiering, kan det ud mærket forlange at blive korresponderende om samt lige andre spørgsmål også.
If the Committee on Budgets now wants to deal with problems of agriculture concerning butter stocks and their financing, there is no reason why it should not ask to be made responsible for all other questions.
Jeg vil finde det naturligt, at landbrugsudvalget bliver korresponderende ud valg, og at budgetudvalget afgiver sin udtalelse.
It would be appropriate for the Committee on Agricul ture to be responsible and for the Budgets Committee to be asked to give its opinion.
Derfor sætter jeg forslaget om, at sagen henvises til udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring, under afstemning.
Therefore I put to the vote the proposal that this be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Colino Salamanca (S), formand for udvalget omlandbrug, fiskeri og ernæring. — (SP) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne slå til lyd for, at udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring gøres til korresponderende udvalg vedrørende forslaget til forordning.
COLINO SALAMANCA (S), chairman of the Com mittee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. — (ES) Mr President, I feel that the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be the committee basically responsible for the proposal for a regulation.
Anmodningen er frem sat af Landbrugsministerrådet, netop fordi det er et spørgsmål, der er direkte knyttet til landbrugspolitik ken, mere præcist mælkesektoren. Vi mener, at den foranstaltning, der foreslås i dag, er forbundet med de foranstaltninger, der blev truffet i december 1986, og som forvinder en reduktion og lagrene med den nye markedsordning for mælkeprodukter.
It was requested by the Council of Ministers for Agriculture precisely because it is a subject directly related to agri cultural policy and specifically to the milk and milk products sector.
Der er således tale om et spørgsmål, der er direkte forbundet med landbrugspolitikken, og som i lighed med alle andre landbrugsspørgsmål også har indvirkning på budget tet.
We are dealing therefore with a matter directly connected with agricultural policy which, like all agricultural matters, also affects the budget.
Men spørgsmålet har først og fremmest forbindelse med de målsætninger, der nu er ved at blive udarbejdet for mælkeprodukter som et led i reformen af den fælles landbrugspolitik.
But the question is essentially one of guide lines which are being laid down for the milk and milk products sector as part of the CAP reforms.
Derfor kræver vi, at land brugsudvalget bliver korresponderende udvalg.
That is why we think that the Committee on Agriculture should be the committee responsible.
(Forslaget vedtoges)
(Parliament accepted the proposal)
Rogalla (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, min bemærkning sigter i det mindste indirekte stadig på arbejdsplanen.
PASTY (RDE). — (FR) Mr President, the Com mittee on Budgets has asked to be the committee responsible for the basic reason just outlined by Mr Curry — that the Committee on Budgets was responsible in 1978 when the basic regulation was examined — and also for another reason, as I will explain.
Jeg vil gerne vende tilbage til afstemningen om fru Veils anmodning om at tage Beumer-betænkningen af dagsordenen.
The fact is that it is a document with purely financial con sequences affecting the future financing of the Com
Pasty (RDE). - (FR) Hr. formand, budgetudvalget har bedt om at være korresponderende udvalg af en hovedårsag, som for lidt siden blev nævnt af hr. Curry, nemlig at det var budgetudvalget, der var korresponderende i 1978, da det drejede sig om at behandle grundforordningen — men også af en anden grund, som jeg nu vil give Dem et par oplysninger om.
ROGALLA (S). — (DE) Mr President, my comments relate at least indirectly to the agenda.
Da budgetudvalget også, hvilket forekommer helt naturligt, har fået forelagt spørgsmålet om Fæl lesskabets fremtidige finansiering, er dette en af de ekstra grunde, vi påberåber os for at begrunde bud getudvalgets kompetence.
I should like to take this opportunity to point out that on the Friday of the last part-session, in the case of a report for which I was responsible, I twice proposed in plenary sitting
stemte, hvilket fremgår af en beretning udarbejdet af den revisionsinstans, som til lejligheden var udpeget af de retlige myndigheder.
Mr Valenzi is accused of drawing up, in his capacity as Mayor of Naples, a budget containing false figures in order to conceal a particularly large deficit — 980 thousand million lire over the period in question — and of presenting the budget for the city of Naples as being balanced when it was not, according to a report drawn up by accounting experts appointed by the relevant Court.
Mit ærinde er altså ganske enkelt: jeg ville være tak nemlig, hvis præsidiet ville overlade fortolkningen af artikel 85, stk. 1, til udvalget for forretningsordenen, valgs prøvelse og medlemmernes immunitet for at opklare det spørgsmål, på hvilket tidspunkt en sådan anmodning om tilbagevisning kan fremsættes.
This brings me to the question of the inter pretation of Rule 85, which states that referral back to committee may be requested by any Member at any time. On the other hand, in the notes to Rule 85(1) there is a form of words which seems to suggest that this request must be made during the debate.
Det er anklagepunkterne, og det er klart, at jeg som sædvanligt på ingen måde tager stilling til disses rig tighed, selv om jeg finder det rimeligt at gøre op mærksom på, at ingen på noget tidspunkt har be skyldt hr. Valenzi for direkte eller indirekte at have draget personlig fordel af selv det ringeste beløb i for bindelse med de handlinger, han beskyldes for. Hr. Valenzis redelighed har altså aldrig været draget i tvivl.
This is the substance of the accusation and I am not expressing any opinion as to the accuracy of the charge, though it should be pointed out that no one has ever claimed that Mr Valenzi profited either directly or indirectly as a result of the matter of which he is accused, No doubt has ever been cast on Mr Val enzi's personal honesty.
Det vil jeg gerne påpege.
That should be made clear.
Formanden. — Tak, hr. Rogalla, dette spørgsmål vil blive taget op af præsidiet og det udvidede præsidium. um.
My request is therefore quite simple. I should be grateful if the Bureau would take the question up with the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Verification of Credentials and Immunities so as to make clear at what time such a request for referral back may be made.
Retsudvalget, der på daværende tidspunkt endnu var kompetent i sager om ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet, behandlede derfor sagen og kom til følgende konklusioner.
In those circumstances the Legal Affairs Committee, which at that time still dealt with questions of waiver of immunity, considered the case and arrived at the following conclusions.
A 2-220/86) af Donnez for udvalget om retlige anliggender og borgernes rettigheder om første anmodning om ophævelse af Maurizio Valenzis parlamentariske immunitet.
A 2-220/86) by Mr Donnez, on behalf of the Com mittee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights, on the first request for the waiver of Mr Maurizio Valenzi's parliamentary immunity.
Vi ønskede at fastholde to vigtige principper, som vi mere end nogen sinde bør holde fast ved, nemlig at vi, når de anklagepunkter, der danner grundlaget for anmodningen om ophævelse af immuniteten, direkte eller indirekte står i forbindelse med medlemmets politiske aktivitet, ikke ophæver immuniteten.
We wished to preserve two essential principles which it is our duty to uphold more than ever. When the circumstances on which the request for waiver of immunity is based are linked directly or indirectly to the political activity of the Member accused, we do not waive parliamentary immunity.
Vi har også altid været af den opfattelse, at vi heller ikke ophæver immuniteten, hvis der næres mistanke om ønsket om at skade medlemmets politiske aktivitet — romerrettens meget omtalte fumus persecutionis.
Similarly we have always considered that if there is any reason to suspect an intention to prejudice the Member's political activity — rhis is the well-known^/m«í/ > eríec«f/'oni'í of Roman law — we do not waive parliamentary immunity.
Det er i henhold til disse to principper, at retsudvalget i dag anmoder Dem om ikke at ophæve hr. Valenzis immunitet.
It is by virtue of these two decisive principles that the Legal Affairs Committee is asking you today not to waive Mr Valenzi's parliamentary immunity.
Donnez (LDR), ordfører. — (FR) Tak, hr. formand, det ser ud til, at der har indsneget sig en beklagelig misforståelse i de oplysninger, De har fået.
DONNEZ (LDR), rapporteur. — (FR) Mr President, there seems to be some confusion regarding the information you have been given.
Jeg troede faktisk, at De var ved at holde min gravtale. De for står sikkert, at det giver en underlig fornemmelse...
I thought you were giving my obituary notice when I heard you — rather a strange sensation!
Men jeg vil nøjes med, hr. formand, at tænke på Deres ønsker om min snarlige bedring.
My thanks, however, for your wishes for my speedy recovery.
Jeg vil så forelægge de to første betænkninger.
What does the matter involve?
Da den sidste er meget mere kompliceret, har udvalget om retlige anliggender og borgernes rettigheder bedt om hurtigst muligt at få den henvist til fornyet udvalgs behandling.
Clearly the accusations made against Mr Valenzi are solely concerned with his capacity as Mayor of Naples. And clearly the actions of a mayor are in general administrative rather than political.
Hvad drejer det sig i grunden om?
Now to present the first two reports.
Det er også indlysende, at en borgmesters aktivitet rent generelt er af administrativ og ikke politisk karakter.
Since the last report is much more complicated, the Legal Affairs Committee asked for it to be urgently referred back.
Idet jeg endnu en gang takker formanden for hans gode ønsker, vil jeg gerne udtrykke min glæde over, at den engelske dronning har udnævnt ham til lord.
In thanking our President, Lord Plumb, once again for his good wishes, I should also like to congratulate him on his elevation to the peerage.
Men det er lige så indlysende, at der også forekom mer helt specielle tilfælde, hvor en borgmesters politiske aktivitet i vidt omfang griber ind i hans administrative virke.
But it is also clear that in certain very specific cases the political activity overlaps to a considerable extent with a mayor's administrative activity.
Det er givetvis tilfældet i den foreliggende sag, idet det, der bebrejdes hr. Valenzi og hans medarbejdere i kommunen, det skal påpeges, trods alt udgør en ejendommelig fremgangsmåde på administrativt og finansielt plan.
This was obviously the case here, since what Mr Valenzi — and his municipal colleagues — are accused of is strange methods of proceeding in administrative and financial matters.
Herom kunne man diskutere i det uendelige.
We could discuss that indefinitely.
Jeg vil nøjes med at henlede Deres opmærksomhed på det forhold, at anklage punkterne tager deres oprindelse i det jordskælv, der den 23. november 1980 praktisk talt lagde Napoli i ruiner og medførte i hundredvis af dødsofre, i tusind vis af hjemløse og så store materielle skader, at man ge af dem den dag i dag ikke er helt udbedret.
I simply wish to draw your attention to the fact that the accusations made against Mr Valenzi date from the earthquake on 23 November 1980 which reduced Naples practically to ruins, leaving hundreds dead and thousands home less and causing such material damage that is has still not all been repaired today.
Hvad disse handlinger angår, skal jeg blot gøre op mærksom på, at hr. Valenzi beskyldes for som Napolis borgmester at have lavet et budget på et forkert grundlag for at tilsløre et underskud af størrelsesordenen 980 mia lire og for at have forelagt budgettet som værende i balance, medens det i virkeligheden ikke
The first report concerning Mr Valenzi deals with a request for the waiver of our colleague's parliamentary immunity presented by the Public Prosecutor of the Italian Republic for Naples on the basic of charges brought against Mr Valenzi for breaches of Articles 110, 328, 479, 476 and 81 of the Italian Penal Code, following events which took place between 1978 and 1983 when Mr Valenzi was Mayor of
Der er også et andet dement: Hr. Valenzis fire med arbejdere, som alle er medlemmer af det italienske deputeretkammer, har fået deres forhold undersøgt af kammeret, som ikke ville ophæve deres immunitet.
enzi's four assistants, who are Members of the Italian Parliament, has been considered by the Italian Chamber of Deputies, which has refused to waive their par liamentary immunity.
Hvis vi derfor nu ophæver Maurizio Valenzis immunitet, praktiserer vi fumus persecutionis med om vendt fortegn.
If we were to waive Mr Val enzi's immunity today therefore, we should be raising a fumus persecutionis in reverse.
Det ville være en retslig fejl over for ham, altså en handling i strid med al billighed: Det velkendte latinske udtryk summa injuria.
That would be a travesty of justice and totally unfair: the famous summa injuria of the well-known Latin dictum.
Ligeledes af denne grund kan vi ikke ophæve immuniteten.
For that reason also we cannot waive immunity.
Ændringsforslag nr. 1
Amendment No 1