natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Afslutningsvis gør jeg opmærksom på, hr. formand, at der i hvert fald i den spanske udgave er en meningsforstyrrende udeladelse, for så vidt som der efter »i samme mødeperiode« er udeladt tre ord »eller i den« følgende. Dette må rettes i den endelige tekst.
The scrutiny of nominations becomes a formality, an almost purely administrative matter, mainly because they are sanctioned by the signatures of 29 Members. This requirement to have MEPs' signatures has also met with a certain amount of opposition.
Hvad angår det første punkt, fjerner hr. Fayots betænkning denne bekymring.
Fayot nominated during the first abortive attempt to appoint an Ombudsman.
På denne baggrund håber jeg, at vi kan støtte betænkningen.
On this basis I hope we can support this report.
Det tror jeg ikke.
I do not think it will.
Uden den sanktion, der ligger i disse underskrifter, skal vi finde en anden måde at kontrollere kandidaterne på, en anden undersøgelsesprocedure, hvilket ville føre til afstemningsprocedurer i udvalget med de deraf følgende problemer, som vi kender.
However, without the legitimacy conferred by these signatures, we would need another procedure to scrutinize nominations, another examination procedure, which would bring us back to voting procedures within a committee, with all the problems we have already seen.
Brendan Donnelly (PPE). — (EN) Hr formand, jeg vil først og fremmest komme med en meget personlig lykønskning til hr. Fayot.
Donnelly, Brendan (PPE). — Mr President, I rise primarily to say a word of very personal congratulation to Mr Fayot.
Det er en behagelig tradition her i Parlamentet altid at lykønske ordføreren, selv om der senere måtte opstå politiske stridigheder og uoverensstemmelser.
It is the pleasant habit of our Parliament always to congratulate the rapporteur, even if later there are political disputes and divergences.
For mit vedkommende giver hr. Fayots betænkning ikke den mindste anledning til stridigheder og uoverensstemmelser.
There will not be any political debates or divergences, certainly not on my part, as far as Mr Fayot's report is concerned.
Hans personlige beslutsomhed og tålmodighed har uden tvivl i stort omfang bidraget til, at han fremlægger denne betænkning for plenarforsamlingen i dag.
Undoubtedly his personal determination and patience has contributed very largely to his bringing this report here to the plenary today.
Et af de mest følsomme problemer, vi stod overfor, var, hvordan vi skulle behandle de otte kandidater fra den første procedure.
Members of this Parliament should be fully aware of the very great responsibility they will be taking by giving their signatures.
Efter at have rådspurgt vor juridiske ekspert er vort udvalg blevet overbevist om, at deres rettigheder skal for svares, hvilket skal ske ved, at de automatisk bliver kandidater i den anden procedure, hvis de ønsker det, idet de så skal anmodes om at overholde de nye bestemmelser for så vidt angår antal underskrifter, oprindelse og forbud mod dobbelte eller tredobbelte underskrifter.
They must also realize how important it is to look closely at the person in whom they are placing their confidence. Even before the new call for nominations begins, we need to ensure that details of these new provisions are properly distributed to all Members.
Endelig for så vidt angår afstemningen i Parlamentet, kan alle kandidaterne opstille i de to første afstemningsrunder.
One of the most delicate problems we faced was what to do about the six shortlisted candidates from the first procedure.
For at blive valgt skal der opnås absolut flertal af de afgivne stemmer. Hvis der ikke vælges en kandidat, skal der afholdes en tredje afstemning mellem de to kandidater, der har opnået flest stemmer ved anden afstemning.
After consulting the Legal Adviser, our committee was convinced that their rights needed to be safeguarded by automatically declaring them to be candidates for the second procedure, unless they opposed this.
Det har ikke været et let job for hr. Fayot, og den enighed, som vi forhåbentlig kan nå frem til i morgen, vil være en hyldest til den generelle succes, som hr. Fayot varetager vores affærer med i Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmernes Immunitet.
It has not been an easy road and the consensus which I hope we are going to manifest tomorrow is a tribute to the general success with which Mr Fayot conducts our business in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities.
Det er imidlertid ikke kun en personlig succes for hr. Fayot, det er også en politisk succes.
But it is not simply a personal success of Mr Fayot's. It is also a political success.
Jeg tror, at han endelig gennem forhandlingerne i Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmernes Immunitet har formået at isolere, hvad der var problemet bag den tidligere artikel 159.
I think he has finally, through the debates in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities, isolated what was the underlying problem of the former Rule 159.
Det värdet forhold, at parlamentsudvalg i henhold til denne artikel fik ret til at træffe en beslutning, som rettelig bør træffes af Parlamentet.
It was that it gave to a committee of Parliament a decision that ought properly to have been a decision of the plenary.
Nu er der en række problemer, som et sådant system kunne have været årsag til.
Now there are a number of problems that such a system could have given rise to.
Der kunne have været overgangsflertal, et flertal, som ikke fuldt ud afspejler forsamlingens synspunkter som helhed.
There might have been transitional majorities, a majority that did not fully reflect the view of the plenary as a whole.
Så jeg mener, at vi er nået frem til den rigtige konklusion, at det er plenum, der skal træffe beslutning, og ikke et udvalg. Med dette udsagn kritiserer jeg naturligvis ikke Udvalget om Andragender, der har gjort nøjagtig det, det blev bedt om i henhold til den tidligere artikel 159.
Finally, as far as the plenary vote is concerned, all the candidates can stand in the first two rounds. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes cast.
Kære kolleger, det var, hvad jeg havde at sige.
Ladies and gentlemen, that is what I wanted to say to you.
Jeg vil gerne bede Dem om størst mulig støtte til disse forslag, også selv om De ikke er enig i enkelte detaljer.
May I ask you to give these proposals your broad support, even if you have your doubts about the odd detail.
Det vigtige er nu at komme videre og endelig få konkretiseret en vigtig rettighed, som vi har fået gennem Maastrichttraktaten.
What is essential at present is that we go forward and finally turn an important right given to us by the Maastricht Treaty into a reality.
Når vi hæver røsten for at kræve flere beføjelser til Europa-Parlamentet, bør vi også udnytte de rettigheder, vi allerede har.
At a time when we are calling for more powers for the European Parliament, we should make good use of those we already have.
Jeg har sagt, at det er plenarforsamlingen, der skal vælge en ombudsmand, og vi skal i morgen beslutte, om vi er villige til at ændre vor forretningsorden.
I have said it is the plenary that must decide on the Ombudsman. The plenary must decide tomorrow whether we are prepared to change our Rules of Procedure.
Vi skal have absolut flertal, så jeg håber, at så mange kolleger som muligt vil være til stede fra Det Europæiske Folkepartis Gruppe, Den Socialistiske Gruppe og alle de øvrige grupper, og så stemme for dette ændringsforslag fra hr. Fayot.
We need an absolute majority, so I hope as many colleagues as possible will be here from the EPP from the Socialist Party and from all the other groups as well to vote this amendment of Mr Fayot's.
Vi byder hr. Fayots betænkning velkommen og håber, at et overvældende flertal af parlamentsmedlemmerne vil støtte betænkningen senere på ugen.
We welcome Mr Fayot's report and we hope that the overwhelming majority of Members in this House will be able to support it later this week.
Hvis ikke, vil Parlamentet tage sig latterligt ud.
If we do not, Parliament will be making itself look ridiculous.
Vi har bemyndigelse til at udnævne en ombudsmand, men alligevel har proceduremæssige hindringer stået i vejen i næsten tolv måneder.
We have the power to appoint an Ombudsman and procedural matters have now stood in the way for almost twelve months.
Jeg vil gerne slutte med at give min varme støtte til de filosofiske bemærkninger, om hr. Fayot startede sit indlæg med. En stor del af drøftelserne om institutionelle spørgsmål i Europa forvirres af misvisende analogier med modellen med nationale regeringer og nationalstaten.
I would like finally to conclude by endorsing most heartily the philosophical remarks with which Mr Fayot began his inter vention. A lot of the debate on institutional questions through out Europe is confused by misleading analogies with the model of national governments and the nation state.
Mange af drøftelserne om føderalisme og konføderalisme og om et centraliseret eller decentraliseret Europa ville være overflødige, hvis folk tog hr. Fayots ord til sig, dvs. at Europa, Den Europæiske Union, er en enestående konstruktion, og at sammenligninger med nationale stater kan være lige så misvisende som oplysende.
A lot of the debates about federalism and confederalism, about a central ized or a decentralized Europe would be rendered unnecessary if people took to heart exactly what Mr Fayot has said, namely, that Europe, the European Union, is a unique construction and that comparisons with nation states can be just as misleading as illuminating.
Den har haft en position i de nordiske samfund.
It has an established position in Scandinavian societies.
Ud fra antallet af sager, der forelægges ombudsmanden i f.eks. Finland, kan
To judge by the number of cases the Ombudsman has to deal with in Finland, for example, it is fair to draw the conclusion that the public relies on the independent role the Ombudsman plays in safeguarding the interests of ordinary citizens.
For mig at se var der to grunde til modstanden mod den forrige betænkning.
As for the first point. Mr Fayot's report removes this worry.
For det første var der nogen, som mente, at Parlamentets ønske ikke ville blive opfyldt gennem den daværende procedure, og for det andet at der var fare for, at det hele var ved at blive en politisk sag.
Now each Member of Parliament can nominate a candidate for the Ombudsman and all those who receive 29 or more nominations and who meet the criteria will be put to the vote in the plenary.
Det forhold, at Europa-Parlamentet med Maastrichttraktaten fik mulighed for at udnævne ombudsmanden, betød, at proceduren til en vis grad måtte blive politisk.
As a guarantor for the legal protection of citizens in their dealings with the authorities, it is of crucial importance that the Ombudsman be completely independent of political groups and other organizations representing particular interests.
Ikke desto mindre skal vi gøre os klart, at hvis ombudsmanden skal have den nødvendige autoritet, kan den pågældende ikke udnævnes med udgangspunkt i partipolitiske interesser.
I consider it natural and necessary that these principles be the point of reference for any change in the Rules of Procedure for the appointment of the European Parliament's Ombudsman.
Elisabeth Rehn man slutte, at borgerne stoler på ombudsmandens uafhængige rolle som vogter af deres interesser.
Elisabeth Rehn electing the Ombudsman will finally come to an end with tomorrow's vote.
Jeg tøver ikke med at sige, at det — selv om hverken min gruppe eller jeg selv er enige i den seneste version — ville være ønskeligt, at Europa-Parlamentet afsluttede denne tv-føljeton af europæisk format efter at have gjort sig til grin over for den offentlige mening i månedsvis.
Despite the fact that neither my group nor I personally concur with the latest version, I have no hesitation in saying that the European Parliament should put an end to this European soap opera after having made itself look ridiculous in the eyes of the general public for many months.
Endelig vil jeg gerne sige, at udvalget har gjort et ganske godt stykke arbejde.
I must say that the committee has done a very good job.
Men afgrunde, som jeg tidligere har nævnt, er jeg ret betænkelig ved kravet om, at der skal mindst 29 medlemmer til at opstille en kandidat.
But for reasons already stated I find the minimum requirement of 29 Members to nominate a candidate slightly worrying.
På grund af dette krav om, at opstillingen skal støttes af et vist antal medlemmer — som naturligvis vi! repræsentere politiske interesser — er der, teoretisk set, fare for, at ombudsmanden mister sin politiske uafhængighed, hvilket ville være særdeles beklageligt.
If a nomination has to be supported by a certain number of Members — who of course represent political interests — there is a theoretical risk that the Ombudsman may lose his political independence, which would be really regrettable.
Desuden kan der jo også sættes spørgsmålstegn ved, om en høj, eller rettere sagt en højere, alder skal være afgørende, hvis to kandidater opnår samme stemmetal.
It might also be wondered whether age, or should I say a more advanced age, ought to be the deciding factor when two candidates obtain the same number of votes.
Alder kan være et udmærket kriterium, men er det formentlig ikke altid.
Age is a fine thing, but perhaps not always.
Det burde vi måske tænke lidt over.
Maybe we ought to give that some thought.
Jeg må imidlertid indrømme, at jeg er temmelig skuffet over den seneste redaktion af artiklen.
I wish this, lastly, for the sake of the rapporteur.
Dette eventyr — tillad mig at definere det sådan — er endnu en gang en demonstration af, i hvor høj grad Europa-Parlamentets arbejde er frugten af et kompromis mellem de store grupper.
Mr Fayot, who, with great patience and constructive imagination, has succeeded in formulating, again and again, a number of different versions of the same Rule.
Det er paradoksalt, at den artikel, som skal regulere valget af den myndighed, der per definition skal være den mest neutrale i Parlamentet, og som skal stå absolut supra partes, har været emne for købslåen mellem de politiske grupper.
I think it important that we accept the amendment submitted by Mr de Vries and the ELDR Group, which requires that all supporting documents needed to show that the nominee fulfils all the conditions required of the Ombudsman be submitted to Parliament and that it should be possible to demonstrate clearly that the nominee fulfils all the conditions required for the exercise of the highest legal office.
Vi har jo ikke oprettet ombudsmandsinstitutionen, fordi den er noget værdifuldt i sig selv.
After all we have not created this institution as an end in itself.
Ombudsmanden er til for borgerne.
The Ombudsman is there for the public.
Derfor er det også af stor betydning, at institutionen ikke giver anledning til unødigt bureaukrati, men at administrationen holdes på det effektive, men minimale, niveau, der kræves for at undersøge de klager, som borgerne fremfører.
It is therefore also very important that the institution should not give rise to unnecessary bureaucracy but that the administration should be effective yet minimized, the only criterion being its ability to investigate complaints submitted by the public.
Desværre er det ikke lykkedes os at adskille procedurespørgsmålet fra de politiske interesser.
Unfortunately we have not managed to separate the procedural question from political interests.
For kort at illustrere årsager ne til denne kritik vil jeg gerne henlede Deres opmærksomhed på stk. 2, efter hvilket kandidaturerne skal være støttet af 29 medlemmer.
In brief explanation of the reasons for this criticism, I should like to draw your attention to paragraph 2, according to which nominations must have the support of 29 Members.
Af hensyn til historien vil jeg gerne erindre om, at den grænse oprindeligt blev foreslået netop af min kollega, hr. Florio, hvis eneste ønske var at opnå en talmæssig tilpasning til den gamle forretningsorden.
For the record I should like to recall that this threshold was initially proposed by my colleague Mr Florio himself, with the sole aim of changing the number of Members stipulated in the old Rules of Procedure.
Ændringsforslaget faldt, men blev så taget op igen af udvalget selv i mangel af enighed om de andre forslag, der var stillet.
The amendment was rejected, but was subsequently brought out again by the committee itself in the absence of any consensus on the other proposals put forward.
Jeg tror, vi kan få en god ombudsmandsinstitution, og jeg håber, vi meget snart kan vælge Europa-Parlamentets første ombudsmand.
Let us hope that this saying will acquire Community status today and that we will succeed on this third occasion in adopting the amendment to Rule 159 on the basis of Mr Fayot's report.
Denne stykkes historie ender ikke her: faktisk er den i sin sidste version beriget med en yderligere betingelse, nemlig at de 29 medlemmer skal komme fra mindst to medlemsstater.
The story ofthat paragraph does not end here: the latest version in fact adds a further condition, namely that the 29 signatory Members must belong to at least two Member States.
Jeg spørger så mig selv, hvad logikken er i denne tilføjelse, i betragtning af, at samhørigheden i Udvalget for Forretningsordenen ikke har vist sig tilstrækkelig til at acceptere de ændringsforslag, der er stillet af grupperne Forza Europa og RDE, som krævede, at underskrifterne ikke alene kom fra to medlemsstater, men også fra to politiske grupper.
I wonder, then, what the logic of this addition is now, in view of the fact that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure was not sufficiently agreed for it to accept the amendments tabled by the Forza Europa and RDE groups, which asked that the signatures should come not only from two Member States but also from two political groups.
Som hr. Fayot netop har påpeget, er det, nu hvor vi kræver større beføjelser end Maastrichttraktaten har givet os, vigtigt, at vi på mønstergyldig vis forstår at udøve de beføjelser, vi allerede har.
Because — as Mr Fayot has just reminded us — now that we are calling for greater powers than those granted to us under the Maastricht Treaty, it is important that we show ourselves capable of properly exercising those that we already have.
Efter min mening viser forsinkelsen to ting, dels at Udvalget for Andragender gjorde ret i at forlange, at spørgsmålet blev forelagt Udvalget for Forretningsordenen, da det viste sig vanskeligt at nå til en løsning, og dels at forsinkelsen har sat hr. Fayots tålmodighed, politiske kløgt og konsensusskabende evne på en hård prøve.
In any case, I think that this delay has shown us two things: firstly, that the Committee on Petitions did not act arbitrarily in asking the Committee on the Rules of Procedure to consider the matter when it was unable to reach a solution, and, secondly, that this delay has tested the patience, political wisdom and capacity of Mr Fayot to seek a consensus.
Tydeligvis var viljen til at afpolitisere kandidaturerne og endelig selve ombudsmandens person et aspekt, som ikke overbeviste nogen, men også en attribut, som alle ville benytte sig af.
Clearly the wish to depoliticize the nominations, and ultimate ly the figure of the Ombudsman himself, was an aspect which did not convince anyone, although it was also an attribute of which everyone wanted to take advantage.
Hermed mener jeg, at Udvalget for Andragender udelukkende varetager sagsbehandlingen, me dens det fulde ansvar hviler på plenarforsamlingens skuldre.
In other words, the Committee on Petitions is merely part of the procedure: full responsibility lies with this House.
Forhåbentlig vil den vide at leve op til dette ansvar, for så vidt som Fayot-betænkningen rent faktisk tilstræber også at tage højde for eventuelle vanskeligheder, der kunne tænkes at opstå — og bl.a. forsvarer tidligere opstillede kandidaters interesser.
Let us hope that it will be able to use this responsibility wisely since the Fayot report is also trying to nip any problems which might arise in the bud — and it is also trying to protect the interests of the candidates who have already submitted their applications.
Hr. formand, det tjener ikke noget formål at gå ind i de andre artikler, som der har været og nu er uenighed om.
Mr President, there is no point in going into details about the other paragraphs, which have been and still are the subject of disagreement.
Det ville vare for længe, og De ville i øvrigt ikke give mig lejlighed til det: jeg vil imidlertid gerne præcisere, at min gruppes holdning er en helt anden, når det gælder stk. 4 og 6.
It would take too long, and moreover you would not allow me to do so: I should however like to point out that my group's position is totally different with regard to paragraphs 4 and 6.
Vi finder faktisk, at Udvalget om Andragener skulle have haft et større ansvar i udvælgelsesproceduren, så man kunne undgå at sætte et for stort antal kandidater til afstemning i Parlamentet og på den måde undgå de mange ulemper, som en sådan situation kan føre til.
For we consider that the Committee on Petitions ought to have been more fully involved in the selection procedure, in order to avoid nominating too many candidates for voting in the plenary, thus avoiding the many difficulties likely to arise in such circumstances.
Det er således på grund af disse fundamentale aspekter i artikel 159, at min gruppe i udvalget...
15.5.95 changes on the hoof, and secondly to respect the competence of the Committee on Petitions.
Vi, som var imod deres også udvidede manøvrer, kan ikke være tilfredse med resultatet, selv om vi anerkender den store værdi og dygtighed hos den tålmodige væver — ordføreren, hr. Fayot — som bør beundres for denne tålmodighed.
We, who had opposed their manoeuvres, and delaying tactics, cannot be satisfied with the result, although we recognize the great merit and skill of the patient compiler — the rapporteur, Mr Fayot — who has displayed admirable patience in this matter.
Selv om der i betænkningen er visse positive aspekter, er den i sin helhed negativ, for så vidt angår ovenstående to principper.
Although it has a few positive points, the report overall does not comply with these two principles.
Der er tale om en impulsreform, der er tegn på despekt for udvalget, fordi PPE og PSE, da der ikke kunne nås til enighed, har vedtaget denne form for impulsreform for at få løst det konkrete problem.
This is a circumstantial reform and ignores the Committee on Petitions; circumstantial because in the absence of agreement, the EPP and the PSE have adopted a localized reform to deal with the problem.
I Parlamentet fik vi præsenteret tre eller fem kandidater.
We were offered three or five candidates for the plenary.
Nu præsenteres vi for alle kandidaterne.
Now, all the candidates will be submitted to the plenary.
Udvalget for Andragender gør ingenting, det foretager blot høringer om kandidaturerne.
The Committee on Petitions no longer has a role: it is simply hearing the nominees.
Vi har fået præciseret, at disse høringer er offentlige, hvilket ikke er nødvendigt, og at de finder sted i overværelse af samtlige parlamentsmedlemmer.
We are told that the hearings will be in public — which is not necessary — and take place in the presence of all Members.
Vi har ikke en gang fået at vide, om udvalget afgør, om de pågældende kan opstille.
We are not even told that it will consider the admissibility of nominations.
Hvis Den Socialistiske Gruppe og PPE-Gruppen ikke har tillid til deres repræsentanter i udvalget, synes jeg, de skal udskifte dem, for vi kan ikke blot give et af vore udvalg en rolle som postbud.
It seems to me that if the EPP and PSE Groups do not have confidence in their representatives on the committee, they should change them, because we cannot have one of our Parliament's committees simply playing the role of a postman.
Men hvem styrer så spillet? Tilsyneladende kun de to store grupper.
But who will then control the game?