natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Its Constitution recalls two values: “Labour is not a commodity” and “Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere.”
ILOs konstitusjon er basert på to kjerneverdier: «arbeid er ikke en innsatsfaktor» og «fattigdom ett sted er en trussel mot velstand alle steder».
And this is not only a question of fair distribution.
Og dette er ikke bare et spørsmål om rettferdig fordeling.
ILO’s Decent Work Agenda is both a vision and a toolbox for policy-makers.
Dette er både en visjon og en verktøykasse for politikere.
It reflects the fact that a good job is one of the most basic and justified democratic demands of people everywhere.
Erklæringen gjenspeiler at en trygg jobb på anstendige vilkår er et av de mest grunnleggende demokratiske krav blant mennesker verden over.
Gender equality and non-discrimination are key to all these objectives.
Likestilling og ikke-diskriminering er nøkkelen til alle disse målene.
The Declaration underscores that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes – and makes clear that violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be used as a legitimate comparative advantage.
ILO-erklæringen understreker at arbeidsstandarder ikke skal brukes til handelspolitisk proteksjonisme, men gjør det samtidig klart at fravær av grunnleggende prinsipper og rettigheter på arbeidsplassen ikke kan brukes som legitimt konkurransefortrinn.
Only by making globalisation more balanced and fair can we make it legitimate, and only by making it legitimate can we make globalisation sustainable.
Bare ved å gjøre globaliseringen mer rettferdig kan vi gjøre den mer legitim, og bare ved å gjøre den mer legitim kan vi gjøre den bærekraftig.
These are issues which key international organizations like the World Bank, the IMF, WTO, OECD, UNDP and the ILO should address together.
Dette er utfordringer som sentrale internasjonale organisasjoner som Verdensbanken, IMF, WTO, OECD, UNDP og ILO må løse sammen.
Many leaders are already promoting Decent Work as a global goal of interest to everybody – as an explicit objective and criteria for economic policy-making and international cooperation, including in trade, finance and development.
Mange ledere fremmer allerede «Decent Work» som et globalt mål for alle – et eksplisitt mål og kriterium for økonomisk politikk og internasjonalt samarbeid, herunder handel, finans og utvikling.
Deepening this process is essential.
Det er avgjørende at denne prosessen videreutvikles.
There are no quick fixes or magic solutions, but we believe that it can be done.
Det finnes ingen enkle løsninger, men vi tror det lar seg gjøre.
Corporate social responsibility abroad
Næringslivets samfunnsansvar i utlandet
The white paper clarifies the responsibility companies have as regards human rights, decent working conditions, the environment and anti-corruption.
Stortingsmeldingen tydeliggjør bedrifters ansvar når det gjelder menneskerettigheter, anstendig arbeidsliv, miljø og anti-korrupsjon.
The Government and the Foreign Service will intensify their efforts by enhancing advisory services, cooperation and dialogue with the business sector.
Regjeringen og utenrikstjenesten vil styrke sitt engasjement gjennom økt rådgivning, samarbeid og dialog med næringslivet.
A number of other measures will also be continued and strengthened,” said Minister of Trade and Industry Sylvia Brustad.
I tillegg videreføres og styrkes en rekke andre tiltak, sier næringsminister Sylvia Brustad.
The Polish-Norwegian research fund specifically earmarks the fields of environment and health.
Fondet er spesielt øremerket områdene miljø og helse.
The Polish-Norwegian research fund specifically earmarks the fields of environment and health.
Helse og miljø
The official website of the Fund: www.fbn.opi.org.pl.
Fondets nettsider: www.fbn.opi.org.pl
Polish-Norwegian Research fund launched
Mer forskningssamarbeid med Polen
Twenty-nine companies will be offered participating interests, while 14 companies will be offered operatorships.
29 selskaper får tilbud om andeler, mens 14 selskaper får tilbud om operatørskap.
“I am very pleased to be able to offer 24 production licences to 29 companies.
- Jeg er svært fornøyd med å kunne tilby 24 utvinningstillatelser til 29 selskaper.
The companies have demonstrated their strong interest and submitted numerous good applications.
Interessen fra selskapene har vært stor, og de har levert mange gode søknader.
This confirms that the Norwegian Continental Shelf is a highly interesting petroleum province,” says Minister of Petroleum and Energy Ola Borten Moe.
Dette bekrefter at norsk sokkel er en svært interessant petroleumsprovins, sier olje- og energiminister Ola Borten Moe.
Two of the 24 production licences are extensions to existing production licences.
Av de 24 utvinningstillatelsene er 2 tilleggstildelinger til eksisterende utvinningstillatelser.
Although activity levels in the petroleum industry on the Norwegian continental shelf are currently high, it is crucial to maintain exploration levels to ensure future activity through the discovery of new resources.
Det er i dag god aktivitet i petroleumsnæringen på norsk sokkel, men det er svært viktig å opprettholde leteaktiviteten slik at nye ressurser kan sikre det fremtidige aktivitetsnivået.
The new production licences awarded in the 22nd licensing round will only begin contributing to production in 10 to 15 years’ time.
De nye utvinningstillatelsene som blir tildelt i 22. konsesjonsrunde vil først kunne bidra med produksjon om ti til femten år.
Twenty-three of the 24 production licences on offer lie north of the polar circle.
23 av 24 utvinningstillatelser som selskapene nå får tilbud om ligger nord for polarsirkelen.
Twenty of the licences relate to the Barents Sea.
20 av tildelingene gjelder Barentshavet.
“Interest in our northernmost seas has increased in recent years.
-Oppmerksomheten rundt vårt nordligste havområde har vært økende de siste årene.
We are now laying the foundation for long-term and efficient exploration of our northern seas, in both the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea.
Vi legger nå grunnlaget for en langsiktig og god utforsking av våre nordlige havområder både i Barentshavet og Norskehavet.
This will promote further growth and employment not only in the north of Norway but also in the rest of the country,” says Minister of Petroleum and Energy Ola Borten Moe.
Dette vil bidra til videre vekst og sysselsetting både i nord og i resten av landet, sier olje- og energiminister Ola Borten Moe.
The 22nd licensing round was announced on 26 June 2012, and comprised 86 blocks in the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea.
Utlysningen av 22. konsesjonsrunde skjedde 26. juni 2012 og omfattet 86 blokker i Barentshavet og Norskehavet.
By the application deadline on 4 December 2012, 36 companies had applied for production licenses.
Innen søknadsfristen 4. desember 2012 hadde 36 selskaper søkt på utvinningstillatelser.
Map of awards in the 22nd licencing round
Se kart over tildelingene
List of awards with work obligations
Se tildeling med arbeidsprogram
A/S Norske Shell (1)
A/S Norske Shell (1)
Centrica Reources (Norge) AS (1)
Centrica Reources (Norge) AS (1)
Edison International Norway Branch (1)
Edison International Norway Branch (1)
Eni Norge AS (3)
Eni Norge AS (3)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (2)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (2)
Lundin Norway AS (1)
Lundin Norway AS (1)
OMV (Norge) AS (2)
OMV (Norge) AS (2)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (2)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (2)
RWE Dea Norge AS (1)
RWE Dea Norge AS (1)
Statoil Petroleum AS (3)
Statoil Petroleum AS (3)
Companies being offered participating interests (number of participating interests in brackets, including where the company is the operator):
Selskaper som får tilbud om deltakerandel (antall andeler i parentes, inkludert der selskapene er operatør):
A/S Norske Shell (2)
A/S Norske Shell (2)
BP Norge AS (2)
BP Norge AS (2)
ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (4)
ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (4)
Det norske oljeselskap ASA (4)
Det norske oljeselskap ASA (4)
E.ON E&P Norge AS (4)
E.ON E&P Norge AS (4)
Edison International Norway Branch (4)
Edison International Norway Branch (4)
Eni Norge AS (4)
Eni Norge AS (4)
Faroe Petroleum Norge AS (1)
Faroe Petroleum Norge AS (1)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (5)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (5)
Lukoil Overseas North Shelf AS (2)
Lukoil Overseas North Shelf AS (2)
Maersk Oil Norway AS (1)
Maersk Oil Norway AS (1)
OMV (Norge) AS (6)
OMV (Norge) AS (6)
PGNIG Upstream International AS (4)
PGNIG Upstream International AS (4)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (4)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (4)
RN Nordic Oil AS (1)
RN Nordic Oil AS (1)
Suncor Energy Norge AS (1)
Suncor Energy Norge AS (1)
Tullow Oil Norge AS (3)
Tullow Oil Norge AS (3)
Valiant Petroleum Norge AS (1)
Valiant Petroleum Norge AS (1)
Read the whole press release on the web page of the Office of the Prime Minister.
Les mer i pressemeldingen fra Statsministerens kontor.
Prime Minister congratulates President Santos on Peace Prize
Statsministeren gratulerte president Santos med fredsprisen
Erik Solheim new chair of OECD’s Development Assistance Committee
Solheim ny leiar for utviklingskomiteen i OECD
Mr Solheim takes over the chairmanship from Brian Atwood, from the US, who will step down at the end of the year.
Solheim tek over stillinga etter amerikanaren Brian Atwood, som fråtrer ved årsskiftet.
DAC has 24 member countries and is based in Paris.
Utviklingskomiteen held til i Paris og har 24 land som medlemmar.
It contributes to sustainable development by promoting close cooperation in the field.
Den bidreg til bærekraftig utvikling gjennom godt samarbeid om utvikling.
You can read more about DAC on its website.
Meir om utviklingskomiteen på heimesidene i verdsveven.
(Erik Solheim nouveau président du Comité d’aide au développement de l’OCDE)
(Erik Solheim nouveau président du Comité d’aide au développement de l’OCDE)
Reasoned opinion concerning base-tax on non-refillable packaging
Reasoned opinion concerning base-tax on non-refillable packaging
Reference is made to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter “Authority”) reasoned opinion dated 16 April 2008 June concerning the Norwegian base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging.
Reference is made to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter “Authority”) reasoned opinion dated 16 April 2008 June concerning the Norwegian base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging.
The Authority states in its reasoned opinion that Norway by maintaining the base tax (as far as it applies to soft drinks and water) has failed to fulfil its obligation arising from Article 14 EEA.
The Authority states in its reasoned opinion that Norway by maintaining the base tax (as far as it applies to soft drinks and water) has failed to fulfil its obligation arising from Article 14 EEA.
The Authority therefore requires Norway to take the measure necessary within two months following notification thereof.
The Authority therefore requires Norway to take the measure necessary within two months following notification thereof.
The time-limit has been postponed to 23 June in accordance with e-mail 12 June from the Authority.
The time-limit has been postponed to 23 June in accordance with e-mail 12 June from the Authority.
Observations:
Observations:
The EEA and environmental taxes As held in our letters of 24 May 2006 and 13 September 2007 a national differentiated tax system will be compatible with the EEA if certain criteria are fulfilled.
The EEA and environmental taxes As held in our letters of 24 May 2006 and 13 September 2007 a national differentiated tax system will be compatible with the EEA if certain criteria are fulfilled.
The legal basis is the case law of The Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereinafter “Court of Justice”) concerning the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (“EC”), which is parallel to Article 14 EEA.
The legal basis is the case law of The Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereinafter “Court of Justice”) concerning the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (“EC”), which is parallel to Article 14 EEA.
It is the Norwegian Government’s view that the base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging is compatible with Article 14 EEA.
It is the Norwegian Government’s view that the base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging is compatible with Article 14 EEA.
The base tax is, the Government submits, objectively justified by environmental considerations, and does therefore not imply discrimination in the meaning of Article 14(1) EEA or indirect protection of domestic products in the meaning of Article 14(2) EEA.
The base tax is, the Government submits, objectively justified by environmental considerations, and does therefore not imply discrimination in the meaning of Article 14(1) EEA or indirect protection of domestic products in the meaning of Article 14(2) EEA.
Additionally – or alternatively – the base tax is legitimate as it is suitable and necessary in achieving environmental objectives.
Additionally – or alternatively – the base tax is legitimate as it is suitable and necessary in achieving environmental objectives.
An important starting point is that the base tax clearly – and undisputedly – cannot be regarded as directly discriminatory.
An important starting point is that the base tax clearly – and undisputedly – cannot be regarded as directly discriminatory.
The base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging does indeed apply to both Norwegian and foreign beverage packaging.
The base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging does indeed apply to both Norwegian and foreign beverage packaging.
This fact is indisputable.
This fact is indisputable.
The Government also makes reference to the fact that the total domestic production of non-carbonated water is on refillable PET bottles, which is applicable to the tax and thus equally taxed as the non-carbonated water imported.
The Government also makes reference to the fact that the total domestic production of non-carbonated water is on refillable PET bottles, which is applicable to the tax and thus equally taxed as the non-carbonated water imported.
Moreover, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that tax provisions that prima facie may seem to imply indirect discrimination may be compatible with Article 90 EC if they are objectively justified.
Moreover, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that tax provisions that prima facie may seem to imply indirect discrimination may be compatible with Article 90 EC if they are objectively justified.
In that regard, it seems more of theoretical than practical relevance whether this justification is regarded as part of the discrimination test or of the test of ‘mandatory requirements’.
In that regard, it seems more of theoretical than practical relevance whether this justification is regarded as part of the discrimination test or of the test of ‘mandatory requirements’.
Both of these possibilities of justification apply, in the Government’s opinion, in the present situation.
Both of these possibilities of justification apply, in the Government’s opinion, in the present situation.
The Government does not share the Authority’s view that this is “a very isolated ruling” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
The Government does not share the Authority’s view that this is “a very isolated ruling” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
Neither is the criterion on which the base tax is based “biased toward imported products” as submitted on the same page.
Neither is the criterion on which the base tax is based “biased toward imported products” as submitted on the same page.
On the contrary, the Government considers the criterion to be objective and non-discriminatory, based on the type of beverage packaging used.
On the contrary, the Government considers the criterion to be objective and non-discriminatory, based on the type of beverage packaging used.
As regards both of these aspects, the Authority refers (pages 5 and 7), in particular, to Case C-375/95.
As regards both of these aspects, the Authority refers (pages 5 and 7), in particular, to Case C-375/95.
However, that case, as well as other cases mentioned by the Authority, concerned direct discrimination of important product and is thus of limited significance to the present case.
However, that case, as well as other cases mentioned by the Authority, concerned direct discrimination of important product and is thus of limited significance to the present case.
The lack of explicit derogations from Article 14 EEA can be of importance for the possibility to justify directly discriminatory tax provisions, but cannot in any way exclude justification of other national tax measures.
The lack of explicit derogations from Article 14 EEA can be of importance for the possibility to justify directly discriminatory tax provisions, but cannot in any way exclude justification of other national tax measures.
In addition to the cases referred to above, the Government finds support for its view in Case C-213/96 Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777.
In addition to the cases referred to above, the Government finds support for its view in Case C-213/96 Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777.
In this case the Court considered the Finnish excise duty charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which varied according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which was higher than the lowest rate, but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin.
In this case the Court considered the Finnish excise duty charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which varied according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which was higher than the lowest rate, but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin.
The Court presupposes in that case that environmental considerations could justify different rates for domestically produces and imported electricity, respectively, see, in particular, paragraphs 31-33 of the judgment.
The Court presupposes in that case that environmental considerations could justify different rates for domestically produces and imported electricity, respectively, see, in particular, paragraphs 31-33 of the judgment.
As regards environmental concerns as an objective justification, the Court of Justice has held that the differentiation must be in line with economic policy objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation.
As regards environmental concerns as an objective justification, the Court of Justice has held that the differentiation must be in line with economic policy objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation.
The protection of the environment certainly complies with these criteria.
The protection of the environment certainly complies with these criteria.
According to the EEA Agreement the protection of the environment is an aim not only compatible with the internal market, but one which also constitutes an integral part of all the common policies.
According to the EEA Agreement the protection of the environment is an aim not only compatible with the internal market, but one which also constitutes an integral part of all the common policies.
The Government draws attention to Article 73(2) EEA, which reads:
The Government draws attention to Article 73(2) EEA, which reads:
"Action by the Contracting Parties relating to the environment shall be based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
"Action by the Contracting Parties relating to the environment shall be based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
Environment protection requirements shall be a component of the Contracting Parties' other policies."
Environment protection requirements shall be a component of the Contracting Parties' other policies."
It is the Government’s view that environmental protection must be taken into consideration when interpreting Article 14 EEA with respect to the base tax.
It is the Government’s view that environmental protection must be taken into consideration when interpreting Article 14 EEA with respect to the base tax.
Environmental protection must be regarded as an objective reason that may justify a differentiated tax system on packaging as long as the tax system is not based on nationality criteria.
Environmental protection must be regarded as an objective reason that may justify a differentiated tax system on packaging as long as the tax system is not based on nationality criteria.
Against this background, the Government cannot agree with the Authority when it concludes that the Court of Justice has held that “a pursuit of an environmental objective does not relieve a State from its duty to observe the rule of non-discrimination laid down in Article 14” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
Against this background, the Government cannot agree with the Authority when it concludes that the Court of Justice has held that “a pursuit of an environmental objective does not relieve a State from its duty to observe the rule of non-discrimination laid down in Article 14” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
This may be true as regards directly discriminatory tax measures.
This may be true as regards directly discriminatory tax measures.
It cannot, in the Government’s opinion, apply with regard to tax measures based on other criteria than nationality.
It cannot, in the Government’s opinion, apply with regard to tax measures based on other criteria than nationality.
This holds true irrespective of whether the base tax is assessed under Articles 14(1) or 14(2) EEA.
This holds true irrespective of whether the base tax is assessed under Articles 14(1) or 14(2) EEA.
Even if the base tax can, in principle, be justified on environmental grounds, the Authority argues that Norway has failed to demonstrate that the contested tax is necessary in order to protect the environment.
Even if the base tax can, in principle, be justified on environmental grounds, the Authority argues that Norway has failed to demonstrate that the contested tax is necessary in order to protect the environment.
The Government disagrees, and would like to make the following comments.
The Government disagrees, and would like to make the following comments.
The base tax was introduced as an environmental tax and is still regarded as such The Norwegian Parliament introduced base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging 1 January 1994.
The base tax was introduced as an environmental tax and is still regarded as such The Norwegian Parliament introduced base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging 1 January 1994.
Environmental concerns – and such concerns alone – undisputedly motivated the introduction of the tax, its legislative intention being the establishment of an incentive to use refillable rather than non-refillable packaging.
Environmental concerns – and such concerns alone – undisputedly motivated the introduction of the tax, its legislative intention being the establishment of an incentive to use refillable rather than non-refillable packaging.
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the assessment made by the public commission appointed to consider solutions to questions related to waste, reuse and recovery (NOU 1990:28 Avfallsminimering og gjenvinning) (hereinafter “NOU 1990: 28”).
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the assessment made by the public commission appointed to consider solutions to questions related to waste, reuse and recovery (NOU 1990:28 Avfallsminimering og gjenvinning) (hereinafter “NOU 1990: 28”).