natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Formanden. — Hr. Pannella, jeg lyttede som altid meget opmærksomt til Deres ord, og sammen med de pågældende afdelinger vil jeg se, hvad der kan gøres for at tage hensyn til Deres bemærkninger og omsætte dem i praksis.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Pannella, as always, I listened very carefully to what you said and I shall consult with the competent services to see what action can be taken on your comments.
Bangemann, næstformand i Kommissionen. — (DE) Fru formand, da Kommissionen har ret til at bede om ordet til enhver tid, vil jeg gerne gøre det.
BANGEMANN, Vice-President of the Commission. — (DE) Madam President, since the Commission is entitled to ask for the floor at any time, I should like to do so now.
Men jeg kan desværre kun meddele Dem det, min kollega, hr. Van Miert, allerede i går begrundede, nemlig at Kommissionen fastholder sin stilling.
Unfortunately, however, I can only tell you what my colleague Mr van Miert explained to you yesterday, namely that the Commission stands by its position.
Udover ændringsforslag nr. 8 kan den desværre ikke over tage andre ændringsforslag.
Apart from Amendment No 8, I am afraid it cannot accept any further amendments.
Colom i Naval (S). — (ES) Fru formand, i går eftermiddags på et bestemt tidspunkt under afstemningerne stemte jeg på hr. Livanos' plads i forbin delse med en afstemning ved navn.
COLOM I NAVAL (S). — (ES) Madam President, yesterday afternoon during the votes, I voted from Mr Livanos' seat in one roll-call vote.
Med Deres tilladelse vil jeg meddele Dem, præcist på hvilket tidspunkt af afstemningen det fandt sted, da jeg glemte at meddele det straks.
With your permission, I will inform the presidency of exactly which vote this was, since I forgot to do so at the time.
Formanden. — Det vil blive rettet.
PRESIDENT. — That will be corrected.
Wijsenbeek (LDR). — (NL) Fru formand, specielt af hensyn til de kristelig-demokratiske medlemmer, hr. von Wogau og hr. Langes, vil jeg endnu en gang helt klart redegøre for vor holdning.
WIJSENBEEK (LDR). — (NL) Madam President, for the benefit of Mr von Wogau and Mr Langes of the Christian-Democrats in particular, I should like to once again make our position absolutely clear.
Vi mener, at der undertiden må udvises en vis tilbageholdenhed i lovgivningen.
We think that sometimes a certain reticence in legislation is appropriate.
På baggrund af det af Parlamentet vedtagne subsidiaritetsprincip mener vi, at dette nu er et spørgsmål, som medlemsstaterne selv må træffe
We said that a new future lay ahead. The facts which Mrs Roth has referred to this morning naturally change the situation, and I would ask you and the Bureau to respond to them in an appropriate way.
Van Hemeldonck (S). — (NL) Fru formand, jeg tager ordet som medlem af Undersøgelsesudvalget om Racisme.
BEAZLEY, Christopher (ED). — Madam President, regarding Mr Pannella's remarks on Yugoslavia.
Det er den ene grund.
VEIL achieving this.
Det var af de grunde, min gruppe stemte imod.
Those were the reasons why my group voted against.
Jeg kan ikke se, hvordan man kan blande sig i alt, hvad der har med normer at gøre, katalysatorer og alle disse ting, uden at blande sig i hastigheden, da det jo drejer sig om det samme problem.
I don't see how action can be taken on everything concerning standards, catalytic converters and all those sort of things, but not on speed, when it's all part of the same problem.
Jeg kan heller ikke se, hvordan man ved de grænser, som man vil afskaffe, kan påtvinge folk at ændre adfærd.
Nor do I see how changes in driving speed can be imposed at frontiers, which we are trying to do away with.
Det er fuldstændig absurd, og jeg tror ikke, borgerne kan forstå det.
It's completely absurd, and I don't think our citizens will understand it.
Derfor stemte jeg ikke for teksten, samtidig med at jeg mener, at man må give Kommissionen tid til at studere spørgsmålet og blive enig om det.
At the same time, that's why I did not vote in favour of the text, because I think the Commission must have more time to study the matter and to confer.
Jeg afholdt mig altså fra at stemme, og jeg for min del ønsker, at vi ret hurtigt får forelagt et forslag, der i det mindste gør det muligt at harmonisere visse hastighedsbestemmelser på motorvejene for store og mellemstore køretøjer, men at man ikke skal vide, at man har passeret en grænse og skal ændre hastighed.
I therefore abstained, and I hope for my part that we shall quite soon be consulted on a proposal that will at least make it possible to harmonize certain speeds for large and mediumsized cars on motorways, but without making it necessary to know when you have crossed a border and have to change speed.
Coimbra Martins (S). — (PT) Fru formand, der er en ting, der ikke er helt klar.
COIMBRA MARTINS (S). — (PT) Madam President, the following point has not been made sufficiently clear : the proposal for a directive which the Commission has submitted to us is one thing, the version modified by the Visser amendments is another.
Men hvis Kom missionen ikke kan tage hensyn til eller acceptere alle ændringsforslag af Visser, så er dette ensbetydende med en afvisning af Parlamentets ønske.
So if the Commission is unable to take into account, is unable to accept all the Visser amendments, that is tantamount to a dential of the will expressed by Parliament.
Og vi kan naturligvis ikke acceptere en sådan afvisning.
And obviously we cannot accept such a denial.
Men det, der bør ske, er, at Kommissionen i over ensstemmelse med Parlamentets ønske hurtigt udarbejder et supplerende direktiv om personbiler, for vi kan naturligvis ikke gå med til, at det, der er uacceptabelt for arbejdskøretøjer, skulle være acceptabelt for personbiler.
So what has to be done, in fact, in the light of the will clearly expressed by Parliament, is for the Commission to draw up swiftly a complementary directive on passenger vehicles, since we obviously cannot accept something which is unsatisfactory for goods vehicles as satisfactory for passenger vehicles.
Topmann (S). — (DE) Fru formand, mine damer og herrer, kommissær Bangemann burde, da han i sin egenskab endnu er relativt ung her i huset, tage med til Kommissionen, at Kommissionen kun har givet afkald på hastighedsbegrænsninger for biler på den tyske motorveje og dermed på de europæiske motorveje, fordi man, som Deres kollega så rigtigt sagde i går, ikke fik noget flertal for det i Parlamentet for nogle år siden.
TOPMANN (S). — (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, since he is still relatively new to Parliament in this capacity, Mr Bangemann should take back to the Commission the point that the Commission only abandoned the idea of speed limits for passenger vehicles on German motorways and thus on European motorways because, as your colleague rightly pointed out yesterday, there was no majority for them in Parliament a few years ago.
Flertallet ser ud til at være her i dag, og dermed er det i fru Veils ånd en arbejdsopgave for Dem i fremtiden.
Today the majority seems to be there, and so this is a job for you in the future, as Mrs Veil has pointed out.
Bangemann, næstformand i Kommissionen. — (DE) Fru formand, hr. Van Miert gav under debatten i aftes meget tydeligt udtryk for, at Kommissionen absolut er sig bevidst, at der i de enkelte medlems stater foregår en diskussion om en generel hastighedsbegrænsning for personbiler, og at vi meget nøje følger denne diskussion, indsamler de undersøgelsesresultater, der følger deraf, og er parate til igen at fortælle om dette og om vor egen holdning.
BANGEMANN, Vice-President of the Commission. — (DE) Madam President, my colleague, Mr van Miert, made it very clear in the debate yesterday evening that the Commission is perfectly aware that discussions are taking place in the various Member States on a general speed limit for passenger vehicles, that we are following these discussions very carefully, collating the findings they are producing, and are ready to report on them and on our own position once again.
Der kan altså ikke være tale om, at Kommissionen vil gå uden om dette problem.
So there can be no question of the Commission seeking to evade this issue.
von Wogau (PPE). — (DE) Fru formand, jeg vil gerne på min gruppes vegne begrunde, hvorfor vi har stemt imod forslaget.
VON WOGAU (PPE). — (DE) Madam President, on behalf of my group, I should like to explain why we have voted against the proposal.
Vi er af den opfattelse, at Parlamentet må tage sin rolle som lovgiver mere alvorligt, end det førhen har været tilfældet.
We believe that this Parliament must take its legislative role more seriously than has been the case in the past.
Det, der lå på bordet, var et forslag om hastighedsbegrænsninger for lastbiler.
That is a matter for discussion, on which the Commission has drawn up a proposal, on which we have to take a decision.
Det er et spørgsmål, som man kan diskutere, og som Kommissionen har udarbejdet et forslag om, som vi skal træffe beslutning om.
As regards the comments made by the last speaker, I have to say that the Commission, like Parliament, is acting in the present institutional context.
Flertallet i udvalget sagde nej til dette forslag. Sådan var situationen.
We are working in concert.
Når hastighedsbegrænsninger for lastbiler er til debat her — en sag, som Kommissionen omhyggeligt har undersøgt — og man så forsøger at lægge
We are doing something now which goes beyond this institutional framework, as it were, but you cannot of course expect us to change our mind today simply on the basis of this decision and say : right, tomorrow we shall do precisely that. That's not on.
Med blikket på det sidste indlæg må jeg sige, at Kommissionen ligesom Parlamentet bevæger sig inden for de nuværende institutionelle rammer.
Secondly, I believe we really must get to grips with the principle of subsidiarity. 1 think we still have very different conditions on the roads in the various countries of the European Community.
Vi udfolder bestræbelser i fællesskab. Således støtter Kommissionen for eksempel Parlamentets holdning til at få en egen initiativret.
We have no common motorways, but all kinds of different roads in individual Community countries.
Hvis dette kan gennem føres på konferencen sidst på året, så har Parlamen-
I do not think an overall speed limit, as proposed here, is the right way of
Formanden. — Fru Veil var skrevet op til en stem meforklaring, hr. Pannella.
Transitional arrangements are proposed until 31 De cember 1992.
Om det så svarer til Kommissionens mening eller ikke, skal jeg lade være usagt, for det kan vi i dag ikke udtale os om.
Regrettably, the Commission has chosen Article 113 as the legal base, arguing that the air transport services involved fall within the commercial sector.
Palmella (NI). — (FR) Det var derfor, jeg til Dem sagde: En stemmeforklaring.
PANNELLA (NI). — (FR) I just wanted to say, Madam President, that I am in favour.
Hvis jeg ikke var skrevet op, er det en anden sag. Tak.
All right, that's your way of expressing yourself. No!
Men for øjeblikket er det ikke sådan.
But I'm speaking on the same thing as Mrs Veil!
For øjeblikket ligger initiativet hos Kommissionen, og naturligvis er det klart, at med de nu vedtagne ændringsforslag er der givet udtryk for Parlamentets utvetydige vilje, som Kommissionen selvfølgelig vil tage hensyn til.
Not only would Article 113 exclude participation of this House in the process of consultation, which the European Parliament finds totally unacceptable, it would also remove this proposal from the realms of transport policy into the commercial arena.
(Det således ændrede forslag til lovgivningsmæssig beslutning vedtoges)
PANNELLA (NI). — (FR) That's why I said 'for an explanation of vote'.
(Bifald)
(Parliament amended)
A3-192/90) af Mcintosh for Udvalget om Transport og Turisme om
A3192/90) by Ms Mcintosh, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism:
Vi gør nu noget, der så at sige går ud over denne institutionelle ramme, men De kan naturligvis ikke forvente af os, at vi alene på grund af denne beslutning i dag skal ændre vor mening og sige: Javel, præcis sådan gør vi det i morgen.
In commending this report to the House, I would urge the Commission to amend the legal basis immediately so that we can go on to consider the substance of the report, according to the procedures set out in Rule 36(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
retsgrundlaget for forslag fra Kommissionen til Rådet (KOM(90) 17 endel. — dok.
In the meantime, there are important matters of substance to consider in the Commission proposal.
C3-97/90) til beslutning om en konsultations- og bemyndigelsesprocedure for aftaler om handelsforbindelserne mellem medlemsstaterne og tredje lande vedrørende luftfart.
By transferring competence from the Member States to the Commission to negotiate international air transport agreements, the proposal finally opens the way to cabotage rights of Member States in third countries.
Men i øjeblikket kan vi ikke overtage disse ændringsforslag og garantere Dem: Ja, i morgen vil vi forelægge Dem et forslag om generelle hastighedsbegrænsninger også for personbiler.
on the proposal from the Commission to the Council for a decision on a consultation and authorization procedure for agreements concerning commercial aviation relations between Member States and third countries.
Mcintosh (ED), ordfører. — (EN) Fru formand, genstanden for denne betænkning er Kommissionens forslag til beslutning fra Rådet om en konsultationsog bemyndigelsesprocedure for aftaler om handelsforbindelserne mellem medlemsstaterne og tredje lande vedrørende luftfart.
McINTOSH (ED), rapporteur. — Madam President, the subject of this report is the Commission proposal for a Council decision for a consultation and authorization procedure for agreements on commercial civil aviation relations between Member States and third countries.
Forslaget indebærer, at medlemsstaterne skal afgive retten til at forhandle om alle handelsaftaler vedrørende luftfart med tredjelande til Kommissionen.
The proposal will require Member States to surrender competence to negotiate all commercial agreements in air transport with third countries to the Commission.
Vi er en meget frugtbar ager!
I look forward to hearing the Commission's reply.
(Munterhed)
No 3-393/234
På dette stadium agter jeg ikke at komme ind på forslagets indhold.
14.9.90 speaker — in effect, that on the coattails of an objective decision you want to strengthen Parliament's powers of participation — is fundamentally inadmissible.
Betænkningen, der blev enstemmigt vedtaget i Udvalget om Transport og Turisme, prøver at ændre retsgrundlaget for Kommissionens forslag.
That is not a consideration that would hold water in the Court of Justice if it came to arguing whether Article 113 or Article 84 of the EEC Treaty should be selected.
Beklageligvis har Kommissionen valgt artikel 113 som retsgrundlaget med det argument, at lufttransporttjeneste falder ind under handelssektoren.
The possible amendment of Article 113 of the EEC Treaty may be a hope, but as things stand we cannot make that the basis of our decisions.
Artikel 113 er blevet afvist totalt som retsgrundlaget af både Udvalget om Transport og Turisme og Udvalget om Retlige Anliggender og Borgernes Ret tigheder, idet den anses for ikke at dække denne temmelig tekniske transportsektor.
I would say to the rapporteur that the case law of the Court of Justice shows quite clearly that it takes the view that you cannot say in general terms : Article 84 applies to transport.
Transportudvalget konkluderede efter råd fra for samlingens juridiske tjeneste, at det korrekte retsgrundlag i dette tilfælde er artikel 84, stk. 2, sammen med artikel 228, stk. 1, i EØF-Traktaten, som er det relevante grundlag for Fællesskabets ordninger vedrørende eksterne forbindelser i lufttransporten.
There is no doubt that the Community transport policy has got off the ground, as shown by the fact that calls for Community powers in the develop ment of European infrastructures are becoming louder and louder, in view of the forthcoming problems connected with the completion of the internal market and also with events in Central and Eastern Europe.
Domstolens principielle domme, især i AETR-sagen og Cramer-sagen, indebærer, at artiklerne 75 og 84 i EØF-Traktaten skal anses som det konkrete retsgrundlag vedrørende de eksterne forbindelser på transportområdet.
It is thus becoming clear that powers must be transferred beyond the national responsibility of Member States to Community level, on the one hand to improve planning, but also in subsequent measures besides the planning of transport infrastructures that include Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, to secure the resources actually required, i.e. in the final analysis to ensure that financing is made available.
Artikel 228 i EØF-Traktaten er vigtig, idet den giver Kommissionen beføjelse til at føre forhandlinger i sager af denne art. Ikke alene ville artikel 113 udelukke forsamlingens deltagelse i høringsprocessen, hvilket Europa-Parlamentet finder fuldkommen uantageligt, men den ville også flytte dette forslag fra transportpolitikkens område og over til handelsområdet. området.
We should be undermining the European position in Uruguay Round, since we are pressing there in our own interests for transfrontier provision of services to be looked at in terms of commercial policy, if we now said that in conferring responsibilities in the transport sector, commercial policy was not involved. If we were talking about noise emissions, about a treaty with other countries on the reduction of noise emissions, then of course we could use Article 84, but here it is quite definitely a commercial policy issue.
ønskede tilgang af rettigheder for Europa-Parlamentet af Kommissionens forslag om alene at betragte artikel 113 i EØF-Traktaten som grundlag.
As Miss Mcintosh briefly mentioned, in our efforts to democratize the Community institutions and to achieve the hoped-for increase in the powers of the European Parliament, a Commission proposal based solely on Article 113 of the EEC Treaty hits us particularly hard.
Vi har også snakket med kommissæren, hr. Van Miert, om det, og en pragmatisk løsning havde absolut været tænkelig.
We have talked about this with Mr van Miert, and a pragmatic solution could certainly have been found.
Jeg mener, at Parlamentet i den nuværende situation ikke har anden mulighed end at tilbagevise dette forslag fra Kommissionen, idet vi går ud fra, at vi på langt sigt kunne ændre artikel 113 og efter beslutninger på regeringskonferencen give Parlamentet et andet retsgrundlag ved at overføre beføjelser til det, også på transportpolitikkens område.
I think that in the present situation, Parliament has no choice but to reject this Commission proposal, on the basis that in the long term or perhaps even, hopefully, in the medium term we can modify Article 113 and, with a transfer of responsibilities which includes the transport policy sector, give Parliament a different legal base through decisions of the intergovernmental conference.
Kommissionens oplæg til at sammenfatte denne mængde bilaterale aftaler er — det vil jeg gerne udtrykkeligt sige til hr. Bangemann — naturligvis rigtigt.
I should like to say clearly to Mr Bangemann that the Commission's idea of pulling together this multitude of bilateral agreements is of course correct.
Forskellen ligger i grundlaget, retsgrundlaget.
Where we differ is on the legal base.
Vi har f.eks. i de tolv medlemsstater 660 aftaler med tredjelande, bi- og suppleringsaftaler ikke medregnet.
For example, in the twelve Member States we have 660 agreements with third countries, leaving aside additional and supplementary agreements.
Alene dette tal gør det klart, at der skal ske noget her.
This figure alone makes it clear that something has to be done.
Det Europæiske Fællesskab må sammen fatte tingene. Jeg tror også, det vil lykkes.
The European Community must pull these things together, and I believe it will succeed in doing so.
Når jeg anbefaler denne betænkning over for for samlingen, opfordrer jeg indtrængende Kommissionen til straks at ændre retsgrundlaget, således at vi kan gå over til at behandle forslagets indhold i overensstemmelse med den procedure, der er beskrevet i artikel 36, stk. 3, i forretningsordenen.
If Parliament now abandons this legal stance solely because it wants to participate more than Article 113 allows, we shall hardly have done a great service to our international transport policy — all the more so since Parliament's involvement is guaranteed by the Luns-Westerterp procedure.
Den nuværende situation kan, håber jeg, ændres på regeringskonferencen.
Mr van Miert said yesterday that we shall apply that procedure.
I mel lemtiden er der vigtige reelle aspekter at overveje i Kommissionens forslag.
You therefore automatically have a right of participation in the same way as under Article 84.
Vi kan på nuværende tidspunkt — det vil jeg gerne sige på Den Socialistiske Gruppes vegne — ikke tilslutte os til det af Kommissionen foreslåede retsgrundlag, men lægger af hensyn til Europa-Parlamentets selvagtelse vægt på, at artiklerne 84 og 228 i EØF-Traktaten gøres til grundlaget.
On behalf of the Socialist Group, I have to say that at the present time we cannot agree to the legal base proposed by the Commission, but that in the interest of Parliament's selfrespect, we think it important for Articles 84 and 228 of the EEC Treaty to be taken as the legal base.
Dertil knytter vi håbet om, at artikel 113 bliver ændret — måske bliver den endda erklæret for overflødig.
We combine this view with the hope that Article 113 of the Treaty will be modified, and perhaps even be declared redundant.
Bangemann, næstformand i Kommissionen. — (DE) Fru formand, lad mig først komme ind på spørgsmålet om retsgrundlaget, fordi dette jo åben bart, som man kan udlede af både ordførerens og hr. Lüttges indlæg, står i centrum for Parlamentets overvejelser.
BANGEMANN, Vice-President of the Commission. — (DE) Madam President, may I first deal with this question of the legal base, because quite clearly, as shown by the speeches of the rapporteur and Mr Lüttge, this lies at the centre of Parliament's considerations.
Først vil jeg gerne endnu en gang pege på, at valget af retsgrundlag er en objektiv beslutning for enhver, ikke bare for Kommissionen og Rådet, men også for Parlamentet.
I should first like to point out once again that for everyone — not only the Commission and the Council, but also Parliament — the choice of legal base is an objective decision.
Det er ikke nogen overvejelse, der kunne holde i Domstolen, når det drejer sig om at fremføre argumenter for, om man skal vælge artikel 113 eller artikel 84 i EØF-Traktaten.
On this question, a consideration of the kind put forward by the rapporteur and the other
Lüttge (S). — (DE) Fru formand, mine damer og herrer, kære kolleger, der er ingen tvivl om, at der er kommet bevægelse i den europæiske transportpolitik, hvilket også fremgår af, at råbet bliver stadig kraftigere om europæiske beføjelser ved udviklingen af de europæiske infrastrukturer i betragtning af de problemer, vi kommer til at stå overfor i forbindelse med udviklingen af det indre marked, men også med udviklingen i Mellem- og Østeuropa.
In addition, the situation of our European airlines is currently disastrous — perhaps that's too strong, but in any event it does not look particularly profitable, since they are having problems with the increased price of fuel.
At artikel 113 i EØF-Traktaten muligvis kan ændres, er et håb, men vi kan ikke i øjeblikket lægge det til grund for vore beslutninger. Af responsa fra Domstolen, fru ordfører, fremgår det helt utvetydigt, at den har den opfattelse, at man ikke generelt kan sige: For transport gælder artikel 84.
Put yourselves in our shoes and say: we are defending a right of Parliament which in practice we would get in any case, but you have to wait for the time being, and perhaps at the end of next year something will come out of the intergovernmental conference and Article 113 will be amended !
Vi kan ikke simpelt hen sige, at Parlamentet endnu ikke har disse beføjelser og derfor holder fast ved artikel 84 som retsgrundlag.
We cannot simply say that Parliament does not yet have these powers and is therefore insisting on Article 84 as a legal base.