natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til andre frihedsberøvende foranstaltninger (det, som fransk straffelovgivning kalder retslige kontrol foranstaltninger: f.eks. forbud mod at forlade landet eller mod at bevæge sig uden for bestemte områder fastlagt af undersøgelsesdommeren), er det en kendsgerning, at Europa-Parlamentet ville finde gennemførelsen af sådanne foranstaltninger meget alvorlig.
As regards other libertydepriving measures (what the French Criminal Code calls 'judicial supervision', for example, which is a prohibition on leaving French territory or an obligation not to visit any place other than those determined by the examining magistrate), there is no doubt that the effects of such measures would be very serious for the European Parliament.
Hvis man kort sagt holder sig til det juridiske og objektive... tive...
To summarize, if we stick to the rules of law and objectivity... tivity...
På den anden side vil jeg dog alligevel gerne pege på, at der i vor gruppe er temmelig mange medlemmer, der stiller spørgsmålstegn ved den måde, hvorpå systemet med par lamentarisk immunitet anvendes i en række lande.
On the other hand I should like to point out that for many members of our group questions arise also as to the way in which parliamentary immunity is managed in a number of countries.
Vi så . meget gerne en grundig debat om dette spørgsmål, fordi det jo ikke bør være således, at en parlamentariker er hævet over loven.
We should be very glad to have a fundamental debate about it because the position must actually be that no Member of Parliament can be placed above the law.
Af disse fundamentale grunde har vi da også hos os fri afstemning i denne sag og et klart ønske til Parlamentet om på et eller andet tidspunkt at foranstalte en principdebat, løsrevet fra en konkret sag.
For that basic reason we are clearly having a free vote on this subject and call Parliament's attention expressly to our wish to have a fundamental debate about immunity irrespective of any specific case.
Lalumière (ARE). - (FR) Hr. formand, en anmodning om ophævelse af parlamentarisk immunitet er altid en alvorlig sag, der bør behandles med grundighed og overblik.
Lalumière (ARE). - (FR) Mr President, a request for the waiver of immunity is always a serious matter and must be considered rigorously and calmly.
Jeg vil derefter, sådan som De har ønsket, give Dem lejlighed til en personlig bemærkning i slutningen af debatten, som vores forretningsorden foreskriver.
I shall then give you the opportunity you requested to make a personal statement at the end of our debate as provided for in our Rules of Procedure.
I denne ånd har Forretningsordensudvalget arbejdet, og jeg vil gerne komplimentere ordføreren, hr. Wijsenbeek, som udelukkende bygger sin argumentation på jura og ikke på de følelser, der kunne have drevet den pågæjdende person, Bernard Tapie, på hans politiske valg eller hans nationalitet.
That is the spirit in which the Committee on the Rules of Procedure proceeded, and I pay tribute to the reporter, Mr Wijsenbeek, who based his arguments on law alone, without regard to any emotions that might be aroused by the person in question, Bernard Tapie, his political prefer ences or his nationality.
Med et overvældende flertal - 13 stemmer for, 2 imod og 3 der undlod at stemme - anbefaler Forretningsordensudvalget os at afvise de franske myndigheders anmodning om ophævelse af den parlamentariske immunitet.
By a very large majority - 13 votes against 2, with 3 abstentions - the Committee on the Rules of Procedure invites us to reject the request made by the French authorities for a waiver of immunity.
Jean-Pierre (EDN). - (FR) Hr. formand, mine damer og herrer, hvad betyder retfærdighed for os her?
Jean-Pierre (EDN). - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what does the concept of justice represent to each one of us?
For det første er den en del af grundlaget for vore retssamfund.
First, it is one of the foundations of our societies, which are based on the rule of law.
Uden retfærdighed, intet socialt sammenhold, intet nationalt fællesskab, ingen institutionel ligevægt.
Without justice there can be no social cohesion, no national com munity, no institutional equilibrium.
Og for det andet en ganske enkel idè, som vi alle har tilfælles helt fra barnsben: at alle mennesker er lige for loven.
Secondly, it represents a very simple idea that all of us share from childhood onwards: under our rules and laws, all men are equal.
Vi medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet er borgere som alle andre, og loven bør gælde for os som den gælder, undertiden på ubarmhjertig vis, for borgerne i vore lande.
All of us, as Members of this Parliament, are citizens like any other citizens, and the law must be applied to us as it is applied - harshly, sometimes - to the citizens of our countries.
Anmodningen om ophævelse af parlamentarisk immunitet vedrører sagen om Olympique de Marseilles regnskaber.
This request for a waiver of immunity relates to the case known as the Olympique de Marseille accounts case.
Formålet med anmodningen er helt klart og meget alvor ligt, da det drejer sig om at give dommeren mulighed for at varetægtsfængsle1, Bernard Tapie, indtil der afsiges ken-" delse, eller anvende restriktive eller frihedsberøvende for anstaltninger over for denne.
It has a highly specific and very serious purpose: that purpose is to authorize the judge to imprison Bernard Tapie on remand before judgement, or to impose upon him measures to deprive him of or restrict his liberty.
Dette er, hvad det drejer sig om. intet andet.
That is what it is about, and that is all it is about.
Hvorfor skulle en af os så undtages fra de almindelige love?
So why should one of us escape this general rule?
Vi kender alle alvoren af de forseelser, Bernard Tapie anklages for.
We know the gravity of the charges against Bernard Tapie.
Vi ved, at den franske dommer forud for sin anmodning har indsamlet oplysninger af så overbevisende karakter, at han ønsker at varetægtsfængsle ham.
We know that the French judge who made the request has gathered such firm evidence against him that he wishes to place him in preventive detention.
Vores rolle som folkevalgte repræsentanter for de europæiske nationer er ikke at sørge for systematisk beskyttelse af et medlem af en af vore institutioner.
Our duty, as elected representatives of the European nations, is not to provide systematic protection for this or that member of our institution.
Heller ikke at dække over ulovlige handlinger ved at påberåbe os en eller anden politisk sammensværgelse.
Nor is it our duty to camouflage offences with arguments about an imaginary political plot.
Det er vigtigt at vide, at den franske forfatning blev ændret i 1994, hvorefter det ikke længere er nødvendigt at ophæve et parlamentsmedlems immunitet med henblik på retsforfølgelse, forundersøgelser og eventuelt idømmelse af fængselsstraf for handlinger, som er hans politiske mandat uvedkommende.
The point here is that the French Constitution was amended in 1994, and since that date it has not been necessary to waive the immunity of a Member of Parliament when the intention is to prosecute him, examine his case and, if appropriate, sentence him to imprisonment for facts extra neous to the exercise of his mandate.
Ophævelse af immuniteten er faktisk kun påkrævet, hvis der er tale om arrestation, varetægtsfængsling eller andre former for frihedsberøvelse inden den endelige kendelse.
In reality, a waiver of immunity is required only if the intention is to arrest him or impose upon him any measure such as to prevent or restrict his liberty before final sentence is passed.
Den nuværende franske lovgivning giver således langtfra en total beskyttelse af parlaments medlemmer.
In other words, the present French law certainly does not offer automatic protection to Members of Parliament.
Dette er årsagerne til, at jeg beder Dem om at stemme for ophævelse af Bernard Tapies parlamentariske immunitet.
It is for these reasons that I ask you to vote to waive Bernard Tapie's immunity.
Desuden, hr. formand, forbeholder jeg mig ret til at tage ordet om lidt for at svare på de urimelige beskyldninger, som blev fremsat af formanden for Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmernes Immunitet. tet.
And I take due note, Mr President, of my option to address the House in due course in order to answer the unacceptable accusations by the chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities.
Er der i det foreliggende tilfælde nogen juridiske faktorer, der berettiger til fængsling eller andre restriktive eller frihedsberøvende foranstaltninger?
In the present case, are there any legal considerations which could justify imprisonment or other liberty-depriving or liberty-restricting measures?
Sagsakterne indeholder intet overbevisende i denne henseende.
No document in the file is convincing in this respect.
Intet, der beviser, at Bernard Tapies ret til at færdes frit på nuværende tidspunkt udgør en alvorlig trussel mod den offentlige orden. Intet,
There is nothing to prove that Bernard Tapie's freedom of movement would at present represent a serious threat to public order.
Gollnisch (NI). - (EL) Hr. formand, de mange anklager mod hr. Tapie får Dem, mine kære kolleger, til at konkludere, at retsforfølgelsen af ham er uretfærdig.
The report is quite hypocritical in refraining from any detailed examination of the charges made against the party in question. Has Mr Tapie ruined the businesses he bought for a symbolic price of one franc, yes or no?
Lod hr. Tapie de selskaber, han købte tilbage for et symbolsk beløb, gå konkurs eller ikke? Ja, han gjorde!
Gollnisch solely in order to resell them after dismissing the staff, yes or no?
Hvad har den så besluttet?
What was its decision?
Den har bevaret hr. Tapies immunitet og således forbudt statsadvokaten at varetægtsfængsle.
It maintained Mr Tapie's immunity, and therefore denied the request for detention on remand made by the public prosecutor.
Til gengæld har den ophævet immuniteten med henblik på retslige kontrolforanstaltninger, hvilket statsadvokaten ikke har anmodet om.
On the other hand, it waived immunity as regards judicial supervision measures which were not requested by the public prosecutor.
Vi befinder os således i en temmelig upassende situation: vi kan ikke ophæve immuniteten med henblik på det, som det franske retsvæsen er interesseret i, men kun tilfredsstille det på et område, som det ikke er interesseret i.
So we have here an absurd situation: we cannot waive immunity in a matter which is of interest to French justice, and we can only give satisfaction to French justice in a matter which is of no interest to it.
Har hr. Tapie i den pågældende sag fået en af sine håndlangere, den forhenværende socialistiske minister og nuværende borgmester i Béthune, Mellick, til at aflægge falsk vidneforklaring, ja eller nej? Ja han har!
In the matter before us today, did Mr Tapie bear false witness through one of his henchmen, the former socialist minister and still mayor of Béthune, Mr Mellick, yes or no?
Er menederen og det falske vidne Mellick blevet taget på fersk gerning i et forsøg på at lægge pres på et vidne, sin sekretær, der blev truet på sin egen og sin mands person, hvis hun nægtede at aflægge falsk vidneforklaring, ja eller nej? Ja, han har!
Was the perjurer and false witness Mellick caught red-handed trying to put pressure on a witness, his secretary, with threats made to her personally and to her husband if she refused to bear false witness, yes or no?
Det er denne stakkels kvinde, De skal have ondt af, hr. Wijsenbeek, af de ansatte, der mistede deres job, og de ubemidlede franske skatteydere, der har måttet dække det underskud i Crédit Lyonnais, som Parretti, Maxwell og Tapie har forårsaget.
It is this unhappy woman, Mr Wijsenbeek, who should be the object of your sympathy, or the employees who have lost their jobs, or the humblest of French tax-payers who have been called upon to fill in the pit dug in the Crédit Lyonnais by the Parrettis, Maxwells and Tapies.
Men lad os nu ikke give hr. Tapie al skylden.
But, ladies and gentlemen, having said that, let us not be too hard on Mr Tapie.
Han er først og fremmest produktet af et system og mindre skyldig end de medier, der har hævet ham til skyerne gennem årene, mindre skyldig end direktøren for Crédit Lyonnais, som har finansieret ham til sidste krone, mindre skyldig end politi kere som Dem, der har gjort ham til en moralsk autoritet for det samme, som hr. Le Pen blev angrebet for, mindre skyldig end François Mitterrand, som gjorde ham til minister, mindre skyldig end Jacques Toubon, justitsministeren, der holder hånden over ham i dag, mindre skyldig end Dem, kære kolleger, som ophæver en af Deres kollegers immunitet, fordi han er kommet med udtalelser, De ikke bryder Dem om, og bevarer immuniteten i en sag, der tydeligvis hører under almindelig ret.
He is first and foremost the product of a system, less guilty than the media which for many years praised him to the skies, less guilty than Mr Haberer, the Chairman of the Crédit Lyonnais, who provided him with financing that was never repaid, less guilty than the politicians like you who vested him with moral authority solely because he was attacking Mr Le Pen, less guilty than François Mitterrand who made him a minister, less guilty than Jacques Toubon, the Minister of Justice, who is showing him consideration today, less guilty than you, ladies and gentlemen, who waived the immunity of one of your number when he advanced arguments you didn't like but maintain immunity in a matter which is, quite clearly, a common-law one.
I det mindste er disse ting gennemskuelige for alle, maskerne falder, og det er slet ikke så ringe.
At least everyone can see how the land lies - the masks are off, and that is as it should be.
Todini (UPE). - (IT) Hr. formand, jeg vil for det første takke hr. Wijsenbeek for hans meget klare betænkning. Som Europa-Parlament hverken kan eller skal vi udtale os om, hvorvidt hr. Tapie er skyldig eller ej; vi skal alene afgøre, om hans immunitet skal ophæves, og det opfordres vi til på et grundlag, som mig forekommer mildt sagt uklart.
Todini (UPE). - (IT) Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate Mr Wijsenbeek on his exhaustive report.
Hvorfor?
Why is that so?
Fordi vore juridiske overvejelser får os til at antage, at der ikke findes grunde til at ophæve den, for så vidt som den franske anklagemyndighed har begrundet sin begæring med to argumenter, nemlig risikoen for undvigelse og risikoen for forvanskning af beviserne.
Because our legal reasoning leads us to believe that there are insufficient grounds to grant the revocation requested by the French prosecutor which is based on two arguments: the risk that Mr Tapie might leave the country and the likelihood that existing evidence may be tampered with.
For at der ikke skal være risiko for undvigelse - det første af de to punkter - siger man, men uden at begrunde det.
Why should there be the risk that Mr Tapie might leave the country - the first of the two arguments - has not been explained.
For så vidt angår det andet spørgsmål - faren for forvanskning af beviserne - skal jeg bemærke, at de forhold, som der er tale om, vedrører årene 1990-1993.
With regard to the second argument - the possibility that evidence may be tampered with - I would like to point out that the cases referred to date back to the years 1990-1993.
Hvis der altså var risiko for undvigelse, havde den givet for længst givet sig konkret udslag.
Now, if there really had been any risk of Mr Tapie leaving the country, this would already have happened.
Men hr. Wijsenbeeks betænkning er dog blevet vedtaget med meget stort flertal i Udvalget for Forretningsordenen.
In addition, the Wijsenbeek report has been approved by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure by a majority vote.
Dette viser klart, hvad der er Parlamentets hen sigter.
This clearly demonstrates the intentions of Parliament.
Som følge heraf vil jeg stemme for betænkningen -og jeg opfordrer kollegerne til at gøre det samme.
I shall therefore vote - and I invite my honourable colleagues to do the same - in favour of the Wijsenbeek Report.
Cot (PSE). - (FR) Hr. formand, hvad angår immunitet, henviser EU-lovgivningen til forfatningerne, i dette til fælde den franske.
Cot (PSE). - (FR) Mr President, as far as immunity is concerned, European legislation refers us to the constitution - the French constitution in this case.
Som alle ved, og som vi også er blevet gjort opmærksomme på i dag, blev denne ændret i august, således at den ophæver enhver immunitet i forbindelse med såvel retsforfølgelse som straf, også selv om der er tale om frihedsberøvelse.
That constitution, which was amended in August, as we know and as we have in any case been specifically reminded, eliminates any immunity during a prosecution and at the stage of final sentence, even if that sentence is one which deprives the accused of his liberty.
Afstemningen finder sted i den efterfølgende afstemningstid.
The vote will take place at voting time, which will follow shortly.
Jean-Pierre (EDN). - (FR) Hr. formand, jeg vil blot sige et par enkelte ord.
Jean-Pierre (EDN). - (FR) Mr President, I shall not detain you long.
Hr. formand for Forretningsordensudvalget. jeg står ved alt, hvad jeg har sagt.
Mr Fayot, I repeat everything I said.
De siger, at der ikke dækkes over hr. Tapie; men jeg siger, at der gør!
You say that there is no connivance, but I tell you that there is connivance!
Jeg kan i denne forbindelse konstatere, at ovennævnte bestemmelser i den franske forfatning ubegrundet lægger spørgsmålet over på artikel 6, stk. 4, i Parlamentets forretningsorden, der giver mulighed for at adskille vor afgørelse om retsforfølgelse fra afgørelsen om restriktive foranstaltninger.
I note, incidently, that these provisions of the French constitution mean that there is no point in referring to Rule 6(4) of our Rules of Procedure, which allows us to separate our decision on prosecution from our decision on libertydepriving measures.
Men det er ikke det, Den Franske Nationalforsamling har besluttet, hr. Nordmann.
Well, Mr Nordmann, that was not what the French National Assembly decided.
Vi skal ikke her træffe beslutning om immuniteten i forbindelse med retsforfølgelse, eftersom en sådan ikke eksisterer ifølge fransk lovgivning.
We are not required to make a decision here regarding immunity in the event of prosecution, since no such immunity exists in French law.
Det spørgsmål, vi skal tage stilling til, er begrænset til dels varetægtsfængslingen, dels de retslige kontrolforanstaltninger, som undersøgelsesdommeren vil se sig foranlediget til at træffe beslutning om.
When, two days before the meeting of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur's conclusions can be read in 'Le Monde', while our proceedings are being held in camera and are supposed to be confidential, that is scandalous!
Hvad er det, de franske myndigheder anmoder om?
What are the French authorities asking?
Statsadvokaten i Aix er af den opfattelse, at der er grund til at varetægtsfængsle hr. Tapie.
The public prosecutor of Aix considers that a remand order would be justified.
Det er skandaløst, at man to dage før mødet i Forretningsordensudvalget kan læse ordførerens konklusioner i »Le Monde«, skønt der er tale om en forhandling for lukkede døre. som bør være omfattet af tavshedspligten!
When, eight months ago, I asked on behalf of my group that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure should call upon the President of the European Parliament to ask the French Minister of Justice officially exactly what is the legal situation with Bernard Tapie, so that following the personal bankruptcy judgement given against him he could be deprived of his mandates, and when the Com mittee on the Rules of Procedure unanimously requests that this should be done, what is the situation eight
Og når jeg i udvalget anmoder Dem om at være så venlig at foranstalte en undersøgelse for at finde ud af, hvem der har talt med journalisten, svarer De ikke på min anmodning.
Now, because Mr Tapie holds a double mandate, the French National Assembly was called upon to give judgement in
FORSÆDE: Renzo IMBENI Næstformand
IN THE CHAIR: MR IMBENI Vice President months later?
Skrivelsen er ikke afsendt, og De, hr. formand, og vi andre har ikke engang spurgt Parlamentets formand, hvorledes sagen forholder sig.
The letter has never been sent and neither you, Mr Fayot, nor any of us has even asked the President of Parliament what is going on.
Der dækkes over hr. Tapie!
There is connivance!
Den afstemning, der skal finde sted om lidt, er en afvisning... ning...
The vote which will perhaps be taking place shortly is a refusal...
(Formanden bad taleren om at slutte sit indlæg)
(The President interrupted the speaker)
... som jeg finder uantagelig, og jeg står derfor ved alle mine tidligere udtalelser.
... and I find that unacceptable, and I therefore stand by everything I said previously.
Fabre-Aubrespy (EDN). - (FR) Hr. formand, jeg undlod at deltage i den afstemning, der netop har fundet sted.
Fabre-Aubrespy (EDN). - (FR) Mr President, I abstained on the vote that has just taken place.
Faktisk var hr. Tapie under parlamentsvalget i 1993 min modstander i Bouches-du-Rhône, og jeg ville derfor ikke finde det passende at deltage i en afstemning, der drejer sig om min gamle modstanders person, selv om den pågældende anmodning ikke har nogen indflydelse på denne persons status som fransk parlamentsmedlem.
The reason was that I stood against Mr Tapie in the March 1993 legislative elections in Bouches-du-Rhône. As I saw it, it would not have been right for me to take part in a vote which concerned my former opponent personally, even if the request under consideration has no effect on his situation as a member of the French Parliament.
En stilling tagen fra min side, som i øvrigt ikke ville have nogen indvirkning på afstemningsresultatet, kunne misfortolkes.
This stance, which incidently would have had no effect at all on the result of the vote, could have been misinterpreted.
Betænkning (A4-0023/96) af Wijsenbeek for Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmer nes Immunitet om anmodning om ophævelse af Ber nard Tapies parlamentariske immunitet
Report (A4-0023/96) by Mr Wijsenbeek, on behalf of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities, on the request for waiver of immunity with regard to Mr Bernard Tapie
Imidlertid vil jeg gøre opmærksom på, at hvis jeg ikke havde været i denne specielle situation, ville jeg ikke have stemt ja til hr. Wijsenbeeks betænkning, der afviser stats advokatens anmodning.
However, I would like to make it clear that if I had not been in this special situation I would still not have approved Mr Wijsenbeek's report rejecting the public prosecutor's re quest.
Jeg synes ikke, at vi på grundlag af sagen.s akter kan optræde hverken strengere eller mere lemfældige end Den Franske Nationalforsamlings Præsidium.
I would not have done so because it seems to me impossible, in the light of the evidence in the case, for us to be either harsher or more indulgent than the Bureau of the French National Assembly.
Jeg ville ikke stemme for et samtykke til fængsling, som også ville være uden virkning på grund af hr. Tapies nationale parlamentariske immunitet, der i denne henseende er bevaret ved beslutningen truffet af Den Franske Nationalforsamlings Præsidiums.
I would not have been in favour of authorizing imprisonment, which would in any case have been ineffective in view of Mr Tapie's national parliamentary immunity, which as far as this point is concerned has been upheld by the decision of the Bureau of the National Assembly.
Her er i øvrigt et tilfælde, hvor den nationale suverænitet heldigvis stadig tjener et formål.og gør sig gældende, og det glæder mig meget at høre alle fremhæve dette.
This is in any case a matter where, fortunately, national sovereignty still serves a purpose and must be respected by us, and I am very glad to note that everyone is emphasizing that.