natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En anden gruppe foreslår, at der, ud over tærsklen på en tredjedel, indføres endnu en tærskel på to tredjedele, som, hvis den overskrides, medfører, at Kommissionen skal trække sit forslag tilbage, eller at Rådet og Europa-Parlamentet skal standse lovgivningsproceduren. Dette forslag er omstridt.
Another group suggested that, in addition to the one-third threshold, a second, two-thirds threshold, be introduced which, if exceeded, would result in the proposal being withdrawn by the Commission or legislative scrutiny by the Council and Parliament being discontinued.
Mange konventsmedlemmer går imod dette forslag, idet de finder, at en "vetomekanisme" ikke vil være acceptabel, og at den vil udgøre et brud med EU-institutionernes selvstændige beslutningstagning.
Many Convention members were against this proposal, on the grounds that a "veto" mechanism would not be acceptable and would infringe the decisionmaking autonomy of European bodies.
De påpeger ligeledes, at hvis to tredjedele af de nationale parlamenter går imod Kommissionens forslag, vil det nødvendigvis få den politiske konsekvens, at forslaget forkastes i Rådet og/eller i Europa-Parlamentet.
They also pointed out that at political level opposition by two thirds of national parliaments would of necessity result in rejection of the Commission proposal in the Council and/or the Parliament.
Forligsudvalget: Et betydeligt antal konventsmedlemmer er skeptiske over for muligheden for, at "mekanismen for hurtig varsling" på ny skal kunne iværksættes i forbindelse med indkaldelsen af Forligsudvalget.
The Conciliation Committee A large number of Convention members voiced doubts as to the wisdom of allowing a second opportunity to apply the early-warning system when the Conciliation Committee was convened.
De sætter spørgsmålstegn ved, om denne bestemmelse kan fungere i praksis, idet de påpeger, at
They wondered how this arrangement would work in practice, pointing out that the interval
tidsrummet mellem indkaldelsen af udvalget og afholdelsen af dets møde undertiden er meget kort.
between the convening of the Committee and the holding of its meeting was sometimes very short.
De foreslår, at dette forslag trækkes tilbage.
They suggested that this item be withdrawn.
Mekanismen for indbringelse af klager for EF-Domstolen: To særskilte punkter blev behandlet: nu l l
The arrangement for actions before the Court of Justice Two separate points were addressed:
parlamenters rolle afspejles i protokollen, omfanget af informationen til de nationale parlamenter, fastsættelsen af tidsfrister, navnlig for fremsendelse af dokumenter til parlamenterne, og det interparlamentariske samarbejde.
national parliaments is reflected in the Protocol, the scope of the information transmitted to national parliaments, the timeframes set, particularly for the transmission of documents to parliaments, and interparliamentary cooperation.
Debatten om protokollen var i vid udstrækning koncentreret om disse temaer.
The debate on the Protocol concentrated mainly on these themes.
Protokollens generelle tilgang blev der ikke sat spørgsmålstegn ved.
The Protocol's overall approach was not questioned.
Nogle medlemmer foreslog, at protokollen om de nationale parlamenter kunne slås sammen med protokollen om anvendelse af nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitetsprincippet på baggrund af den tætte forbindelse mellem disse to emner.
Some members suggested that the Protocol on national parliaments could be merged with the one on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality given the close links between the matters.
Nogle medlemmer understregede, at det er vigtigt i højere grad at fremhæve de nationale parlamenters rolle, og at deres inddragelse vil bringe Unionen tættere på borgerne.
The manner in which the role of national parliaments is reflected in the Protocol Some members underlined the importance of giving greater prominence to the role of national parliaments and the fact that their involvement would bring the Union closer to its citizens.
Et medlem foreslog en ændring i form af indskrivning af en henvisning til "Copenhagen Parliamentary Guidelines" (vedtaget af COSAC) i teksten til protokollen.
One member proposed an amendment relating to insertion into the text of the Protocol of a reference to the "Copenhagen guidelines" (adopted by COSAC).
Nogle understregede, at parlamenternes indflydelse især ligger i deres politiske kontrol med deres egen regerings arbejde, og at en bedre og hurtigere adgang til informationer formentlig ville lette udøvelsen af denne kontrol.
Some pointed out that parliaments made their influence felt mainly through the political control which they exercised on the actions of their own governments and that better and more rapid access to information should make it easier to exercise such control.
Et medlem fastslog, at de nationale parlamenter burde udnytte de eksisterende muligheder fuldt ud på grundlag af bestemmelserne i de nationale forfatninger.
One member remarked that national parliaments should fully exploit existing possibilities under the provisions of their national constitutions.
Nogle medlemmer mente, at de nationale parlamenter burde kunne afgive udtalelser om forslagenes substans, herunder anvendelsen af proportionalitetsprincippet.
Some members felt that national parliaments should be able to submit opinions on the substance of proposals, including application of the proportionality principle.
Et medlem foreslog, at de nationale parlamenter opfordres til at tage stilling til udkast til EU-retsakter vedrørende de overordnede retningslinjer for de økonomiske politikker og social- og arbejdsmarkedspolitikkerne.
One member proposed that national parliaments be invited to give an opinion on draft Union acts relating to the broad outlines of economic and social policies.
Flere medlemmer foreslog, at protokollen udtrykkeligt skal nævne fremsendelsen til parlamenterne af Kommissionens årsprogram (lovgivnings- og arbejdsprogram), for eksempel i punkt 1. Et
The scope of the information transmitted to national parliaments Several members proposed adding an explicit reference, for example in the first paragraph, to the sending of the Commission's annual programme (legislative and work programme) to
medlem foreslog, at de nationale parlamenter skal have forelagt programmet samtidig med Europa-Parlamentet.
national parliaments. One member proposed that the programme should be submitted to national parliaments at the same time as to the European Parliament.
Et medlem mente, at det er Rådet, der bør fremsende lovgivningsforslag (protokollens punkt 4), og ikke Kommissionen.
One member felt that it should be the Council's responsibility to forward legislative proposals (paragraph 4 of the Protocol) and not the Commission's.
Et medlem udtrykte ønske om, at Rådet også sender referater af debatterne til de nationale parlamenter (protokollens punkt 5).
One member wanted the Council also to send records of debates to national parliaments (paragraph 5 of the Protocol).
Flere medlemmer gik ind for en styrkelse af teksten til protokollens punkt 4, der nævner den periode på seks uger, der skal være mellem det tidspunkt, hvor et lovgivningsforslag stilles til rådighed af Kommissionen, og det tidspunkt, hvor det sættes på Rådets dagsorden med henblik på vedtagelse eller vedtagelse af en fælles holdning inden for rammerne af lovgivningsproceduren.
The timeframe, particularly for sending documents to the parliaments Several members wanted to tighten up the text of paragraph 4 of the Protocol, which mentions the six-week period which must elapse between a legislative proposal being made available by the Commission and the date when it is placed on a Council agenda for adoption or for adoption of a position under the legislative procedure.
De foreslog indsættelse af en supplerende bestemmelse, som foreslået af Arbejdsgruppe IV, hvorefter der ikke kan indgås nogen aftaler, heller ikke foreløbige, i Rådets organer (arbejdsgrupper og Coreper) i denne periode.
They proposed inserting an additional provision as proposed by Working Group IV to the effect that no agreement, even a preliminary one, could take place within Council bodies (Working Parties and Coreper) during that period.
Nogle foreslog indsættelse af en fast frist på ti dage mellem drøftelserne i Coreper og det møde i Rådet, hvor forslaget skal drøftes.
Some proposed laying down a set period of ten days between Coreper's deliberations and the Council meeting at which the proposal would be discussed.
Andre afviste disse forslag og understregede, at det er vigtigt ikke at gøre systemet tungere ved at tilføje sådanne restriktioner.
Others rejected these proposals and underlined the importance of not weighing the system down by adding such constraints.
Nogle medlemmer så gerne, at teksten til protokollens punkt 8 formuleres mere dynamisk, og mente, at Europa-Parlamentet og de nationale parlamenter bør opmuntre eller fremme interparlamentarisk samarbejde (snarere end "undersøge", hvordan man kan fremme det).
Interparliamentary cooperation Some members wanted paragraph 8 of the Protocol to be worded more dynamically to say that the European Parliament and national parliaments should encourage or promote interparliamentary cooperation (rather than "examine" how it might be promoted).
Nogle understregede betydningen af regelmæssige møder mellem Europa-parlamentarikere og nationale parlamentsmedlemmer, dog uden oprettelse af nye institutioner.
Some stressed the importance of regular meetings between European and national parliamentarians, without creating new institutions.
Et konventsmedlem foreslog, at konventet vender tilbage til dette spørgsmål i forbindelse med diskussionerne om afsnit VI, "Unionens demokratiske liv".
One Convention member proposed that the Convention return to this issue when discussing Title VI, "the democratic life of the Union."
Et medlem nævnte en ændring, hvorefter Europa-Parlamentet bør høre COSAC angående fremme af det interparlamentariske samarbejde.
One member referred to an amendment to the effect that the European Parliament should consult COSAC with regard to promoting interparliamentary cooperation.
Flere udtrykte ønske om, at COSAC's rolle styrkes, men angav dog klart, at dette organ ikke bør blive en ny institution, og de så gerne, at teksten til protokollen gøres mere eksplicit på dette punkt.
Several members wanted to see COSAC's role enhanced, with the clear recognition that this body should not become a new institution, and the text of the Protocol made more explicit in
Nogle medlemmer mente, at COSAC til trods for de igangværende reformdiskussioner endnu ikke fuldt ud udfylder sin rolle, der bør være mere end blot udveksling af informationer og god praksis.
A few members felt that, despite the ongoing discussion of reform, COSAC was still not playing its full role, which should be more than the exchange of information and best practice.
Et medlem udtrykte ønske om, at det indskrives i protokollen, at Rådet skal have mulighed for at forelægge COSAC specifikke tekster.
One member wanted the Protocol to make provision for the Council to refer specific texts to COSAC.
Det blev foreslået, at der i protokollen indsættes en passage om afholdelse af en europæisk uge hvert år på samme tid i de nationale parlamenter med inddragelse af medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet.
It was suggested that the Protocol should include the organisation each year of a European week, running simultaneously in all national parliaments and involving Members of the European Parliament.
Et konventsmedlem mente, at betydningen af det bilaterale samarbejde mellem parlamenterne også bør understreges.
One member of the Convention thought that the importance of bilateral interparliamentary cooperation should also be underlined.
Plenarmødet mandag den 17. og tirsdag den 18. marts 2003 TALERLISTEefter indlæggenes rækkefølge
Plenary session, Monday 17 and Wednesday 18 March 2003 LIST OF SPEAKERSin order of speaking
Mandag den 17. marts2.
Monday 17 March 2.
Debat om udkastet til artikel 24 ff.
Debate on draft Articles 24 et seq.
(CONV 571/03 og 609/03)
(CONV 571/03 and CONV 609/03)
Debat om: udkastet til protokol om anvendelse af nærhedsprincippet og proportionalitets- princippet(CONV 579/03, 610/03)
Debate on: draft Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (CONV 579/03, CONV 610/03)
Debat om: udkastet til protokol om de nationale parlamenters rolle (CONV 579/03, 611/03)
Debate on: draft Protocol on the role of national parliaments (CONV 579/03, CONV 611/03)
Sammenfattende rapport vedrørende det ekstra plenarmøde den 26. marts 2003 i Bruxelles
Summary report of the additional plenary session −Brussels, 26 March 2003
DEBAT OM ÆNDRINGSFORSLAGENE VEDRØRENDE ARTIKEL 17 I UDKASTET TIL FORFATNING
DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ARTICLES 1 TO 7 OF THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION
I forlængelse af plenarmødet den 27. februar vedrørende artikel 17 i udkastet til forfatning og de ændringsforslag, der var stillet af konventsmedlemmerne, videreførte disse drøftelserne herom på et ekstra møde under forsæde af næstformanden for konventet, Jean-Luc Dehaene.
Following the plenary session of 27 February dealing with Articles 1 to 7 of the draft Constitution and the amendments tabled by Convention members, the Convention continued its discussions at an additional session chaired by Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene, Vice-Chairman of the Convention.
Næstformanden indledte kort drøftelserne med at erindre om forløbet af plenarmødet vedrørende drøftelsen af artiklerne og navnlig om hovedtemaerne for de ændringsforslag, konventsmedlemmerne havde stillet.
The Vice-Chairman briefly introduced the discussion by referring to the progress of proceedings at the plenary session at which these articles had been discussed and in particular recalling the main topics on which members of the Convention had submitted amendments.
Han oplyste også, at præsidiet under alle omstændigheder vil bestræbe sig på i en revideret udgave klarere at afspejle nogle af de ønsker, der var kommet til udtryk; han nævnte særligt det forhold, at Unionens beføjelser tildeles af medlemsstaterne og ikke af forfatningen. Dette blev hilst velkommen af flere konventsmedlemmer.
He also stated that the Praesidium would in any event seek to produce a revised version more clearly reflecting some of the concerns expressed; in particular, he cited the fact that the Union's competences were conferred by the Member States and not by the Constitution.
Artikel 1, stk. 1"Folk" eller "borgere"
Article 1(1) "Peoples" or "citizens"
En række deltagere gav udtryk for, at de i dette stk. foretrækker at bruge udtrykket "borgere" frem for "folk", idet de fremførte, at dette udtryk er mere moderne, eftersom det er blevet bekræftet i Maastricht-traktaten.
Many speakers indicated their preference for the term "citizens" rather than "peoples" in this paragraph, arguing that it was the more modern term, having been sanctioned by the Maastricht Treaty.
I samme retning lagde nogle deltagere vægt på, at udtrykket "borger" har en virkelig juridisk betydning, medens dette ikke er tilfældet med udtrykket "folk".
By the same token, some speakers stressed the fact that the term "citizen" had a real legal sense, whereas the same could not be said for "peoples".
Dog bemærkede andre, at udtrykket "folk" i højere grad afspejler Unionens grundlæggende karakter, som denne artikel omhandler.
However, others pointed out that the term "peoples" more accurately reflected the fundamental nature of the Union to which this Article referred.
Endelig foreslog nogle af deltagerne en omformulering af stykket, som gik ud på at forlige de to begreber "folk" og "borgere".
Finally, some speakers proposed rewording this paragraph to reconcile the two concepts of "peoples" and "citizens".
"Forfatning" versus "forfatningstraktat"
"Constitution" v "Constitutional Treaty"'
Nogle deltagere foretrak, at man undgår ordet "forfatning" og erstatter det med ordet "forfatningstraktat", da dette i højere grad afspejler tanken om en aftale mellem stater.
Some speakers voiced a preference for avoiding the word "Constitution" and replacing it by "Constitutional Treaty", which more accurately reflected the idea of an agreement reached between States.
"Oprettelse af Unionen"
Establishment of the Union
Nogle af deltagerne har overvejet, om den juridiske kontinuitet er sikret, hvis det i forfatningen hedder "oprettelsen" af Unionen.
Some speakers wondered whether legal continuity was guaranteed if the Constitution provided for "establishment" of the Union.
For disse deltagere drejer det sig ikke om at oprette en union, for den eksisterer allerede, men at markere en ny etape i dens udvikling.
In their view, it was not a case of establishing a Union because the Union already exists, but rather of marking a new stage in its development.
Næstformanden forklarede, at for det første vil den union, der oprettes med forfatningen, under alle omstændigheder følge efter Fællesskabet og den nuværende union, og for det andet vil der i sidste del af forfatningen under overskriften afsluttende bestemmelser optræde bestemmelser, der sikrer den juridiske kontinuitet.
The Vice-Chairman explained, firstly, that the Union established by the Constitution would in any event succeed the Community and the current Union and, secondly, that provisions guaranteeing legal continuity would be found in the last part of the Constitution, under the Title "Final provisions".
En deltager understregede betydningen af, at den juridiske kontinuitet afspejles allerede fra den første artikel, således at man undgår enhver tvetydighed.
One speaker emphasised the importance of reflecting legal continuity from Article 1 onwards, so as to avoid any ambiguity.
Nogle deltagere gik ind for, at ordet "føderal" udgår i dette stk.
Some speakers were in favour of deleting the word "federal" in this paragraph.
Disse deltagere mente, at ordet føderal har en forskellig juridisk betydning på forskellige sprog, og at det derfor er hensigtsmæssigt at undgå det for ikke at åbne op for afvigende fortolkninger.
These speakers expressed the view that the word "federal" had a different legal meaning in different languages and that it was therefore best avoided so as not to open up the possibility of divergent interpretations.
En deltager foreslog, at anden del af sætningen (P.M. " hvor medlemsstaternes politikker samordnes, og som efter føderal model forvalter visse fælles kompetencer" ) udgår, da de anser den for overflødig og indholdstom.
One speaker proposed deleting the second part of the sentence (which reads: "within which the policies of the Member States shall be coordinated, and which shall administer certain common competences on a federal basis"), on the grounds that it was superfluous and devoid of substance.
Andre deltagere gik ind for, at bestemmelsen og udtrykket "føderal" opretholdes, idet de mener, at dette udtryk mere præcist og koncist end andre udtrykker den meget specifikke måde, Unionen inden for rammerne af visse af sine beføjelser, fungerer på.
Others were in favour of maintaining this provision and the term "federal", believing that this term expressed more precisely and concisely than others the very specific way in which the Union operates in terms of some of its competences.
Nogle deltagere foreslog, at ordet "føderal" erstattes med ordene "fællesskabs-" eller "overnational".
Some speakers proposed replacing the word "federal" by "Community" or "supranational".
"En stadig snævrere union"
"Ever closer union"
Nogle konventsmedlemmer gik ind for, at begrebet en stadig snævrere union, der optræder i den nuværende traktats artikel 1, indsættes i dette stk. En deltager foreslog, at dette begreb får plads i præamblen til forfatningen, da det har til formål at angive et perspektiv.
Some Convention members advocating incorporating into this paragraph the concept of the ever closer Union which appears in the current Article 1 of the Treaty. One speaker suggested that an appropriate place for this concept was the Preamble to the Constitution, since it was intended to look towards the future.
Et konventsmedlem understregede, at hun kunne se en sammenhæng mellem denne problematik og problematikken omkring udtrykket "føderal model": hun kunne acceptere sidstnævnte udtryk på betingelse af, at forfatningsteksten ikke bibeholder udtrykket "en stadig snævrere union".
One Convention member said she saw a link between this issue and the question of the term "federal basis": she would be able to accept that expression provided the Constitution no longer included the expression "ever closer union".
Redaktionelle spørgsmål
Drafting points
Nogle medlemmer karakteriserede den indledende formulering i artikel 1 som "banal" og fremsatte alternative forslag som "... besluttet på at skabe en fremtid sammen ...".
Some members described the opening formula of Article 1 as "banal" and made alternative suggestions such as "..determined to build their future together".
Desuden blev verbet "forvalte" (eller: "administer" på engelsk) kritiseret som værende for bureaukratisk.
Moreover, the verb "administer" was criticised as being too bureaucratic.
Opbygningen af stk. 1
Structure of the paragraph
Nogle deltagere foreslog at bytte om på rækkefølgen i sætningens andel del, således at de beføjelser, der tildeles Unionen, optræder først, inden samordningen af medlemsstaternes politikker.
Some speakers proposed inverting the order of the second part of the sentence so that the competences conferred on the Union came first, before the coordination of Member States' policies.
Flere medlemmer insisterede på, at det er nødvendigt nærmere at præcisere udtrykket "national identitet" i artiklens stk. 2, og udtrykte tvivl om det hensigtsmæssige i at omtale den nationale identitet to steder i forfatningen.
Several Convention members stressed the need to define more clearly the expression "national identity" in paragraph 2 of this Article and expressed doubts as to the advisability of mentioning national identity in two places in the Constitution.
Disse medlemmer foreslog navnlig at udbygge dette begreb med forskellige aspekter som f.eks. kulturel eller sproglig mangfoldighed, selvstyre og regionale og andre særpræg.
These members in particular proposed to make this concept more specific by adding various aspects such as cultural or linguistic diversity, autonomy and regional and other characteristics.
En del af medlemmerne foreslog at supplere dette begreb med bestemmelserne i artikel 9, stk. 6, eller at formulere en ny artikel på grundlag af artikel 1, stk. 2, suppleret med artikel 9, stk. 6.
Some speakers proposed amplifying the concept by adding the provisions of Article 9(6) or drawing up a new article on the basis of Article 1(2), supplemented by Article 9(6).
En deltager forholdt sig imidlertid tøvende til at medtage elementer fra artikel 9, stk. 6, af angst for at det nye stk. skulle blive overlæsset.
However, one speaker expressed misgivings about incorporating elements of Article 9(6), fearing that the new paragraph would be overloaded.
En deltager bemærkede, at bestemmelsen i artikel 1, stk. 3, vedrørende kriterier i forbindelse med åbning af Unionen over for andre stater, er mere bindende i sin formulering af tiltrædelsesbetingelserne end de bestemmelser, de nuværende medlemsstater har fastlagt i artikel 2 om værdierne.
One speaker pointed out that Article 1(3) relating to the Union's openness to other States was more mandatory in its wording of the conditions for membership than the provisions laid down for existing Member States in Article 2 on the Union's values.