natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Mr Boual stressed the need for increased civil society involvement in EU policy-shaping and decision-making processes.
Jean-Claude Boual rõhutas, et vaja on suurendada kodanikuühiskonna kaasamist ELi poliitika kujundamisse ja otsustusprotsessidesse.
Mr Bouis
hr Bouis
Mr BOUIS (FR – II)
Lucien Bouis (FR – II)
Mr Bouis (FR – III)
Lucien BOUIS (FR – III)
Mr Bouis (FR)
BOUIS (FR)
Mr BOUIS (FR)
hr BOUIS (FR)
Mr Bouis (FR-III)
hr Bouis (FR-III)
Mr Bouis (FR-III)
Lucien BOUIS (FR-III)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) (Rule 62 - Ms Pichenot)
Lucien BOUIS (FR-III) (Pichenot – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) (Rule 62 Bloch-Lainé)
Lucien Bouis (FR-III) (Jean-Michel Bloch-Lainé- – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) (Rule 62 – Bloch-Lainé)
Lucien Bouis (FR-III) (Jean-Michel Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) (Rule 62 – Mr Bloch-Lainé)
Lucien BOUIS (FR-III) (Jean-Michel Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) (Rule 62 – Ms Pichenot)
Lucien BOUIS (FR-III) (Pichenot – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) Rule 62 Bloch-Lainé
Lucien Bouis (FR-III) (Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (FR-III) Rule 62 – Bloch-Lainé
Lucien Bouis (FR-III) (Jean-Michel Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (III-FR)
hr BOUIS (III-FR)
Mr Bouis (rule 62 – Mr Bloch-Lainé) (FR-III)
hr Bouis (FR-III) (hr Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Bouis (Rule 62 – Mr Bloch-Lainé) (FR-III)
hr Bouis (hr Bloch-Lainé – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel) (FR-III)
Mr Bouis expressed concern at the tensions arising from the economic crisis and stressed that action by voluntary associations in support of integration, especially through micro-projects, had to be backed up at both national and European level.
Lucien Bouis väljendas muret seoses majanduskriisiga kaasnevate pingetega ning rõhutas, et eelkõige mikroprojektide kaudu integratsiooni edendavate vabatahtlike ühenduste tegevust tuleb toetada nii Euroopa kui ka riiklikul tasandil.
Mr Bouis highlighted that it was time to launch a campaign in order to inform citizens about the EU's actions in external relations.
Hr Bouis rõhutas, et on aeg algatada kampaania kodanike teavitamiseks ELi tegevusest välissuhetes.
Mr Bouis stressed that this directive would certainly have impact on the health systems of the member states and was worried that it may lead to health inequalities, if no measures were taken.
Lucien Bouis rõhutas, et direktiiv mõjutab kindlasti liikmesriikide tervishoiusüsteeme ning väljendas muret selle üle, et kui meetmeid ei võeta, võib see viia tervishoiuga seotud ebavõrdsuseni.
Mr Bouis's question: Mr Landáburu agreed that an information campaign was needed and that the Commission was aware of this.
Hr Bouis' küsimus: hr Landáburu nõustus teavituskampaania vajalikkusega ja märkis, et ka komisjon on sellest teadlik.
Mr Bouis, Mr Hahr, Mr Soares and Ms Attard took part in the general discussion that ensued, during which the following points were raised:
Üldise arutelu käigus võtsid sõna järgmised liikmed: BOUIS, HAHR, SOARES ja ATTARD.
Mr Bouis, rapporteur, presented briefly the opinion saying that the Committee would welcome improvements to the draft directive, especially as regards the definition of hospital and non-hospital care and the rules concerning prior authorisation mechanism.
Arvamuse raportöör Lucien Bouis andis arvamusest lühiülevaate ning sõnas, et komitee tervitab paranduste sisseviimist direktiivi eelnõusse eelkõige seoses haiglaravi ja haiglavälise ravi määratlemisega ning eelloa süsteemi eeskirjadega.
Mr Bouis, rapporteur, presented the opinion stressing the fact that in the EU 8% to 12% of patients fell victim to healthcare associated infections (HCAI) which created economic and social cost for societies.
Raportöör Lucien Bouis tutvustas arvamust rõhutades, et EL-is on 8–12 % patsientidest tervishoiuteenustega seotud nakkuste ohvrid, mis toob ühiskonnale majanduslikke ja sotsiaalseid kulusid.
Mr Boulnois enquired about the possibility of former members attending EESC meetings.
Peter Boulnois uuris, kas endistel liikmetel oleks võimalik osaleda komitee koosolekutel.
Mr Boulnois expressed dismay that only 50 members had paid their membership fee.
Peter Boulnois väljendas oma jahmatust selle üle, et ainult 50 liiget on tasunud liikmemaksu.
Mr Boulnois said that inconsistencies in Europe had more to do with governments' activities than with the way Europe was designed.
Peter Boulnois sõnas, et ebakõlad Euroopas on seotud pigem valitsuste tegevuse kui ELi kontseptsiooniga.
Mr Boyle
Sandy Boyle
Mr Boyle (EN-II)
Sandy Boyle (EN-II)
Mr Boyle (EN-II)
Sandy Boyle (UK-II)
Mr Boyle (for Group II)
Charles Boyle (II rühma nõustav ekspert)
Mr Boyle (Rule 62, McKnigh) (UK-II)
Sandy Boyle (UK-II) (Judy McKnight – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Boyle (Rule 62-Ms McKnight) (UK-II)
Sandy Boyle (UK-II) (Judy Mcknight – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Boyle (UK – II)
Sandy Boyle (UK – II)
Mr Boyle (UK – II)
Sandy BOYLE (UK-II)
Mr Boyle (UK – II)
Sandy Boyle(UK – II)
Mr Boyle (UK-II)
Boyle (UK-II)
Mr Boyle (UK-II)
hr Boyle (UK-II)
Mr Boyle (UK-II)
Sandy BOYLE (EN-II)
Mr BOYLE (UK-II)
Sandy Boyle (UK-II)
Mr Boyle (UK-II)
Sandy BOYLE (UK–II)
Mr Boyle (UK-II) – Rule 62 McKnight
BOYLE (UK-II)  (artikkel 62 – McKnight)
Mr Boyle (UK-II) – Rule 62 McKnight
BOYLE (UK-II) –  McKnighti asemel, KK art 62
Mr Boyle (UK-II) – Rule 62 Mr Shepherd
Hr Boyle (UK-II) (artikkel 62 – Shepherd)
Mr Boyle (UK‑II)
hr Boyle (UK‑II)
Mr Boyle (UK‑II)
Sandy BOYLE (UK-II)
Mr Boyle and Mr Jahier stressed the need to have a final and structured debate by September 2012 to decide on the future of cooperation with the AICESIS and, if necessary, lay down the appropriate procedures.
Luca Jahier rõhutas vajadust pidada enne 2012. aasta septembrit struktureeritud ja lõplik arutelu, et võtta vastu otsus AICESISega tehtava koostöö tuleviku kohta ja määratleda vajadusel selle üksikasjad.
Mr Boyle and Mr Pegado Liz also spoke and the president requested the secretariat, on behalf of the Bureau, to draw up a plan for assessing the impact of own-initiative opinions prepared by the EESC.
Sõna võtsid veel Sandy Boyle, Jorge Pegado Liz ja president, kes palus sekretariaadil juhatuse nimel koostada EMSK koostatud omaalgatuslike arvamuse mõjuhindamise kava.
Mr Boyle commented on the allocation of the opinion on promoting renewable energy, which at the moment was in the brochure under the TEN section, whereas she thought it should be under the REX section, although it fell within the remit of both sections.
Sandy Boyle tegi märkuse taastuvenergia edendamise teemalise arvamuse asukoha kohta, mis on brošüüris praegu ära toodud TENi sektsiooni all, kuigi tema arvates peaks arvamus paiknema REXi sektsiooni all, hoolimata sellest, et mõlemad sektsioonid on kõnealuses valdkonnas pädevad.
Mr Boyle complained that in the revised joint statement of the EU–Turkey JCC there was an additional sentence on Cyprus, which had not been discussed, but had been included at the request of the Turkish delegation.
Hr Boyle kurtis, et kõnealuse nõuandekomitee ühisavalduses oli täiendav lause Küprose kohta, mida ei olnud arutatud, kuid mis lisati Türgi delegatsiooni palvel.
Mr Boyle congratulated the rapporteur.
Hr Boyle õnnitles raportööri.
Mr Boyle explained that the amendments were tabled in order to include in the opinion an assessment of the Commission and the EEAS communication on the review of the European Neighbourhood policy, which was adopted the day the opinion was voted in the section.
Ta selgitas, et muudatusettepanekute eesmärk on lisada arvamusse hinnang komisjoni ja Euroopa välisteenistuse koostatud Euroopa naabruspoliitika läbivaatamist käsitleva teatise kohta.
Mr Boyle gave his support to the draft opinion and informed that no amendments had been tabled at the meeting of the External Relations Section.
Sandy Boyle avaldas arvamuse eelnõule toetust ja teatas, et välissuhete sektsiooni koosolekuks ei esitatud ühtegi muudatusettepanekut.
Mr Boyle mentioned the close cooperation with the CoR on this issue and the need for leaders of the Member States to come up with a unified position on such a dramatic subject.
Sandy Boyle mainis Regioonide Komiteega tehtavat tihedat koostööd kõnealusel teemal, samuti seda, et liikmesriikidel tuleb sellises dramaatilises küsimuses seisukohad ühtlustada.
Mr Boyle provided explanations regarding the organisation of the ACP-EU seminar, justifying the estimated financial amounts set out in the memo.
Sandy Boyle andis selgitusi AKV-ELi seminari korraldamise kohta, põhjendades märgukirjas esitatud finantsprognoose.
Mr Boyle provided some clarifications regarding the request mentioned by Mr Krawczyk, while stressing that the REX section had complied with the procedures in place as regards the organisation of meetings.
Sandy Boyle andis selgitavaid märkusi Jacek Krawczyki mainitud taotluse kohta, rõhutades, et REXi sektsioon järgis kehtivaid menetlusi koosolekute korraldamise osas.
Mr Boyle requested clarification regarding statements which had been made at the Budget Group, in which appropriations earmarked for "institutional obligations" were not to cover expenses regarding organisation of meetings that was the responsibility of the REX section.
Sandy Boyle soovis selgitust eelarverühmas tehtud avalduste kohta, mille kohaselt rubriigi „institutsioonilised kohustused” jaoks eraldatud assigneeringud ei peaks katma REXi sektsiooni korraldatavaid koosolekuid.
Mr Boyle spoke in the discussion to explain the reason for the changes to the proposed status following the last Euromed summit and examination by the Budget Group.
Sandy Boyle põhjendas muudatusi põhikirja eelnõus, mis tehti pärast Euroopa-Vahemere piirkonna viimast tippkohtumist ja eelarverühma analüüsi.
Mr Boyle spoke on comments made to the requests GB CESE 63/2011 and GB CESE 66/2011.
Sandy Boyle rääkis taotluste GB CESE 63/2011 ja GB CESE 66/2011 kohta tehtud märkustest.
Mr Boyle then spoke about the initiatives planned in respect of the EU's Eastern Partnership and Union for the Mediterranean –sensitive ground, given the recent events in Tunisia.
Sandy Boyle käsitles seejärel idapartnerluse ja Vahemere Liidu teemal kavandatud algatusi, mis puudutavad Tuneesia hiljutisi sündmusi arvestades tundlikke teemasid.
Mr Boyle then spoke, also supporting the president's proposal, and was followed by Mr Wilms and Ms Le Nouail Marlière.
Samuti võtsid sõna Sandy Boyle, kes ühines samuti presidendi ettepanekuga, Hans-Joachim Wilms ja An Le Nouail Marlière.
Mr Boyle until 18 April 2013
Sandy Boyle kuni 18. aprillini 2013
Mr Boyle, Mr Gendre and Mr Nyberg took the floor.
Sõna võtsid Sandy Boyle, Pierre Gendre ja Lars Nyberg.
Mr Boyle, President of the External Relations Section stated that the opinion is very timely as its discussion comes immediately after the EU-Russia Summit and shows the importance that the EESC attaches to the EU-Russia relations.
Välissuhete sektsiooni esimees Sandy Boyle kinnitas, et arvamus on väga ajakohane, kuna see võetakse arutusele vahetult pärast ELi ja Venemaa tippkohtumist ning see annab tunnistust ELi ja Venemaa suhete tähtsusest Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee jaoks.
Mr Boyle, vice-president of the Section for External Relations, stressed that the information report would serve as a basis for discussion at the Euromed summit of economic and social councils and similar institutions to be held in Rome on 10-12 November 2010.
Välissuhete sektsiooni aseesimees Sandy Boyle rõhutas, et teabearuanne on lähtepunktiks aruteludele Roomas 10.–12. novembril 2010. aastal toimuvale Euroopa ja Vahemere piirkonna majandus- ja sotsiaalnõukogude ning samalaadsete institutsioonide tippkohtumisele.
Mr Braghin
Hr Braghin
Mr Braghin (IT-I)
BRAGHIN (IT-I rühm)
Mr Braghin (IT-I)
hr BRAGHIN (IT – I rühm)
Mr BRAGHIN (IT-I)
Hr BRAGHIN (IT-I)
Mr Braghin (IT-I) (Rule 62 – Burani)
hr Braghin (IT-I) (Burani - töökorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Braghin (IT-I) (Rule 62 – Mr Burani)
hr Braghin (IT-I) (hr Burani – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Braghin (IT-I) (Rule 62-Burani)
Hr Braghin (IT-I) (Burani – kodukorra artikkel 62)
Mr Braghin (IT-I) (Rule 62-Burani)
hr Braghin (IT-I) (Burani – kodukorra artikli 62 alusel)
Mr Braghin (IT-I) – Rule 62 Mr Burani
hr BRAGHIN (IT-I) – hr Burani –töökorra artikkel 62
Mr Braghin opposed the compromise proposal, so the amendment tabled by Mr Ribbe was put to vote with its original wording.
Hr BRAGHIN oli kõnealuse muudatusettepaneku vastu, misjärel pandi hr RIBBE esialgne muudatusettepanek hääletusele.
Mr Braghin presented an amendment that aimed to eliminate the "formal opinion" concept by wording the second part of the Rule as follows:
Hr BRAGHIN esitas oma muudatusettepaneku, millega jäetaks tekstist välja mõiste “formaalne seisukoht” ja muudetaks artiklit järgmiselt:
Mr Braghin proposed the following amendment:
Hr BRAGHINi muudatusettepanek:
Mr Braghin questioned whether the Committee could propose amendments to the Treaty and believed that the document being discussed was not typical of the Committee.
Hr BRAGHIN kahtles, kas komitee suudab EÜ asutamislepingule muudatusettepanekuid pakkuda ja leidis, et arutluse all olev arvamus ei ole komitee tüüpiline arvamus.
Mr Braghin stated his opposition to the amendment and briefly explained his reasons for opposing the alternative text.
Hr Braghin avaldas arvamust nimetatud vastuarvamuse vastu, selgitades lühidalt põhjusi, mille tõttu ta ei nõustu alternatiivse tekstiga.
Mr Braghin withdrew his amendment.
Hr BRAGHIN võttis oma muudatusettepaneku tagasi.
Mr Branko Ravnik (SL-III)
Branko Ravnik (SL-III)
Mr Brendan Burns
Brendan BURNS
Mr Brendan Burns (rapporteur working alone)
Brendan Burns (üksikraportöör)
Mr Brendan Burns (UK - I)
Brendan Burns (UK–I)
Mr Brendan Burns (UK-I)
Brendan Burns (UK-I)
Mr Brendan Burns (UK-I)
Brendan Burns (UK–I)
Mr Brendan Burns (UK–I)
Brendan Burns (UK-I)
Mr Brendan Hayes
Brendan HAYES
Mr Brewer (UK-Cat.
hr Brewer (UK-kat.
Mr Brian Curtis
Brian CURTIS
Mr Brian Curtis
Brian CURTISt
Mr Brian Curtis (UK-II)
Brian Curtis (UK-II)
Mr Brian Curtis (UK-II)
Brian Curtis (UK–II)
Mr Brian Curtis  (UK-II)
Brian Curtis (UK-II)
Mr Brichart (FR-I)
Henri Brichart (FR-I)
Mr Brichart (FR-I)
Henri Brichart (FR‑I)
Mr Briesch (FR)
BRIESCH (FR)
Mr BRIESCH (FR)
hr BRIESCH (FR)
Mr Briesch closed the meeting of the annual general assembly and thanked all speakers and members for their participation and contributions.
Roger Briesch kuulutas iga-aastase üldkogu lõppenuks ning tänas kõiki sõnavõtjaid ja liikmeid nende osavõtu ja panuse eest.
Mr Briesch concluded by pointing out that European integration had made it possible for two generations to live in peace, an argument that had not been brought to the fore during the referendum campaign.
Kokkuvõtteks märkis hr BRIESCH, et Euroopa integratsioon lasi kahel varasemal põlvkonnal rahus elada – see on argument, mida referendumite kampaaniates esile ei toodud.
Mr Briesch explained in detail the various cooperation prospects between the EESC and IAESCSI.
Hr Briesch täpsustas EMSK ja AICESISe vahelise koostöö erinevaid perspektiive.
Mr Briesch felt that the time was right to think about the nature of the EESC's involvement in the context of AICESIS.
Hr BRIESCH mainis, et tema arvates on praegu aeg mõelda järele EMSK osalemise üle AICESISi tegevuses.
Mr Briesch gave a positive account of the structured debates on the "The current state of play in the EU" and "Communicating Europe", which had taken place at the previous plenary session.
Hr Briesch andis positiivse hinnangu eelmise täiskogu ajal toimunud struktureeritud arutelule teemadel “Euroopa hetkeseis” ning “Euroopa asjadest teavitamine”.
Mr Briesch pointed out that the trust that had grown among the stakeholders represented in this group was the direct consequence of the legitimacy of each one of them.
Hr BRIESCH märkis, et rühma osapoolte vahel tekkinud usaldus tuleneb otseselt nende õiguspärasuse tunnustamisest.
Mr Briesch presented the Communication Group’s report.
Hr BRIESCH esitas kommunikatsioonirühma esimehe aruande.
Mr Briesch specified that this conference would make it possible to compare the best practices adopted by the various Member States for implementing the Lisbon Strategy and added that the summary report presented to the Bureau represented a continuation of the conference's work.
Hr BRIESCH täpsustas, et kõnealune konverents võimaldas võrrelda liikmesriikide parimaid tavasid Lissaboni strateegia elluviimisel ja lisas, et juhatusele esitatud kokkuvõtlik aruanne on jätkuks konverentsi tööle.
Mr Briesch suggested that rules on reimbursing travel and meeting expenses could be reviewed at the same time as the Rules of Procedure.
Hr BRIESCH tegi ettepaneku vaadata koos kodukorraga uuesti läbi ka transpordihüvitiste ning reisitoetuste ja koosolekutasude sätted.
Mr Briesch thanked Mr Danusēvičs and noted that former members could indeed draw on all their contacts and networks in order to take the European project forward.
Roger Briesch tänas Henriks Danusēvičsit ning märkis, et endised liikmed võiksid Euroopa projekti edendamiseks tõepoolest kasutada kõiki oma kontakte ja võrgustikke.
Mr Briesch thanked Mr Salvatore and said that if the other Bureau members agreed with Mr Salvatore's proposal, he would gladly take on this challenging role.
Roger Briesch tänas Valerio Salvatoret ning ütles, et kui teised juhatuse liikmed nõustuvad Valerio Salvatore ettepanekuga, võtab ta selle väljakutseterohke ameti meeleldi vastu.
Mr Briesch thanked the Bureau members, and in particular Mr Salvatore, for their vote of confidence and said that although the task was ambitious he was ready to face the challenges ahead.
Roger Briesch tänas juhatuse liikmeid, eriti Valerio Salvatoret, usalduse eest ning ütles, et hoolimata ambitsioonikast ülesandest on ta eesolevateks väljakutseteks valmis.
Mr Briesch thanked the EESC president and vice-president and opened the general debate.
Roger Briesch tänas komitee presidenti ja asepresidenti ning avas üldise arutelu.
Mr Briesch, president of the Communication Group, presented a report on Communicating Europe in light of the French and Dutch referendum results – the role of the EESC.
Kommunikatsioonirühma esimees hr BRIESCH esitas aruande teemal “Euroopa Majandus- ja Sotsiaalkomitee roll Euroopa teavitamises pärast Prantsusmaa ja Hollandi referendumit põhiseaduse lepingu kohta”.
Mr Briesch, president of the Subcommittee, said that the opinion had been amended by the Subcommittee members and unanimously adopted.
Allkomitee esimees Roger BRIESCH teatas, et allkomitee liikmete poolt muudetud arvamus võeti ühehäälselt vastu.
Mr Briesch, vice-president, moved that the Committee turn to agenda item 9 – concerning an information report on
Asepresident hr Briesch tegi ettepaneku asuda päevakorrapunkti 9 juurde: arvamuse vastuvõtmine teemal
Mr Brok believed that it should be possible to draw up a new treaty, a treaty for Europe, that would: (a) include the whole of Part I of the Constitutional Treaty which, in accordance with the wishes of the German presidency of the European Council, should not be subject to any new discussion, and (b) Part II, the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Hr BROK leidis, et peaks olema võimalik koostada uus leping, Euroopa leping, milles säilitataks täielikult põhiseaduse lepingu esimene osa, mille üle arutelu vastavalt muuhulgas Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu eesistujariigi Saksamaa soovile enam ei algatata.
Mr Brok confirmed that it was Chancellor Merkel's intention to adopt a proactive approach to retaining the essence of the Constitutional Treaty, as one could not trivialise the decision of 18 Member States to ratify the treaty.
Hr BROK nentis, et pr MERKELi nn ründava hoiaku eesmärk oli säilitada põhiseaduse lepingu põhiolemus.
Mr Brok confirmed that, from the legal point of view, the new treaty would in all probability have to be agreed by the governments of the 27 Member States at an inter-governmental conference, even if one were to allow for such a conference to be preceded by a convention bringing together MEPs and MPs from the individual Member States, as had been the case with the Constitutional Treaty.
Hr BROK kinnitas, et õiguslikust seisukohast peaks kokkulepe uue lepingu kohta saavutatama 27 valitsuse vahelise konverentsi käigus isegi siis, kui kõnealusele konverentsile eelneks konvent, milles osaleksid riiklike parlamentide ja Euroopa Parlamendi esindajad, nagu see toimus põhiseaduse lepingu puhul.
Mr Brok nonetheless believed that it would be inadequate to simply limit ourselves to a purely institutional agreement which ignored the significant moves forward made by the Constitutional Treaty in terms of democracy, transparency, effectiveness of EU action, citizen participation in the Union's public life, distribution of competences, subsidiarity or regarding the role of the national parliaments.
Hr BROK leidis, et sellegipoolest oleks ebapiisav piirduda pelgalt institutsioonilise kokkuleppega, mis eiraks põhiseaduse lepingu olulisi edusamme demokraatia, läbipaistvuse, ELi tegevuse tõhususe, kodanike poliitilises elus osalemise, pädevuste jaotuse, subsidiaarsuse ja riiklike parlamentide rolli valdkondades.
Mr Brok stated that he still took a favourable view of the current Treaty and advocated the use of the term "Constitutional Treaty."
Hr BROK teatas, et toetab olemasolevat lepingut ning terminit “põhiseaduse leping”.
Mr Bros
Gilbert BROS
Mr Bros
hr Kallio
Mr Bros                                          (FR-III)
Gilbert BROS (FR-III)
Mr Bros   FR-III
(FR-III)
Mr Bros  (FR-III)
Gilbert BROS (FR-III)
Mr Bros  FR-III
(FR-III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
(FR-III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
Gilbert Bros (FR - III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
Gilbert Bros (FR-III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
Gilbert Bros (FR–III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
Hr Bros (FR-III)
Mr Bros (FR-III)
Hr BROS (FR-III)
Mr Bros (FR–II)
Gilbert Bros – FR-II
Mr Bros (FR–III)
Gilbert Bros – FR-III
Mr Bros had tabled an amendment to new point 1.7.1 reading as follows: In Mr Bros' absence, Mr Espuny Moyano presented the amendment:
Gilbert Bros oli esitanud muudatusettepaneku punkti 1.7.1 lisamiseks: Hr Brosi puudumisel tutvustas muudatusettepanekut Espuny Moyano:
Mr Bros stated that his counter opinion was in line with a previous opinion of Mr Ranocchiari (TEN/221).
Gilbert Bros märkis, et tema vastuarvamus on kooskõlas Virgilio Ranocchiari eelmise arvamusega (TEN/221).
Mr Bros, FR-III
Gilbert BROS, FR-III
Mr Brovia (Cat 1–IT)
Hr Brovia (1. kat–IT)
Mr Brunetti
BRUNETTI
Mr Brunetti
BRUNETTI, Gianluca
Mr Brunetti
Gianluca Brunetti
Mr Brunetti, director of human resources, on behalf of the secretariat, referred back to a request from the former secretary-general concerning an outside activity and the administration's follow-up of that request.
Personaliküsimuste direktor Gianluca Brunetti viitas sekretariaadi nimel endise peasekretäri taotlusele väljaspool komiteed toimuvaks tegevuseks ja komitee administratsiooni järelmeetmetele seoses selle taotlusega.
Mr Brunetti, Director, Directorate for Human Resources and Internal Services
BRUNETTI, personaliküsimuste ja siseteenuste direktoraadi direktor
Mr Brunetti, Director, Directorate for Human Resources and Internal Services
GIANLUCA BRUNETTI, personali- ja siseküsimuste direktoraadi direktor
Mr Brunetti, Director, Directorate for Human Resources and Internal Services
Gianluca BRUNETTI, personaliküsimuste ja siseteenuste direktoraadi direktor
Mr Bruno Buratti  (for the rapporteur)
Bruno BURATTI  (raportööri nõustav ekspert)
Mr Bruno Buratti (for the rapporteur)
Bruno Buratti (raportööri nõustav ekspert)
Mr Bruno Coquet, President of the EU Employment Committee
Euroopa tööhõivekomitee president Bruno Coquet
Mr Bruno Coquet, President of the EU Employment Committee
Euroopa tööhõivekomitee president Bruno Coquet;
Mr Bruno Costantini
Bruno COSTANTINI
Mr Bruno Vever (for the rapporteur)
Bruno VEVER (raportööri nõustav ekspert)
Mr Bruno Vever (rapporteur's expert)
Bruno Vever (raportööri nõustav ekspert)
Mr Bryan (IE-III)
John Bryan (IE-III)
Mr Bryan (IE-III)
John Bryan (IE–III)
Mr Bryan Cassidy
Bryan CASSIDY
Mr Bryan Cassidy
Bryan CASSIDYd
Mr Bryan Cassidy (UK-I)
Bryan Cassidy (UK-I)
Mr Buelen (for Group II)
Werner Buelen (II rühma nõustav ekspert)
Mr Buffetaut
hr Buffetaut
Mr Buffetaut
Stéphane Buffetaut