- Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know what the consequences of anti-personnel mines are, even if there may often be important military justifications for them in individual cases.
- Vi vet alla vilka konsekvenser antipersonella minor har, även om de i enskilda fall kan dölja viktiga militära motiv.
- Nor do we believe that the Member States should be enjoined to analyse whether short-term measures are an effective tool in each individual case and in each individual place where the threshold value has been exceeded.
- Vi anser inte heller att medlemsstaterna skall åläggas att utreda om åtgärder på kort sikt är ett effektivt verktyg i varje enskilt fall, och på varje enskild plats där tröskelvärden har överskridits.
- Without a prior decision in an individual case on the basis of existing suspicions, any access to the bank data of European citizens is disproportionate.
- Jag anser inte man kan bevisa att en massöverföring av personuppgifter utan specifika initiala misstankar är lämplig och att vi inte har betydligt mindre intensiva metoder för ingripande som skulle vara tillräckliga för att uppnå dessa mål. Utan ett förhandsbeslut i ett enskilt fall på grundval av befintliga misstankar är allt tillträde till en databank över europeiska medborgare oproportionerligt.
- Whether money has been obtained by deliberate fraud or paid out in error, the recovery of it must run smoothly and efficiently, and even if the procedure may appear disproportionate in individual cases, the Member States must apply it, so I call on them to proceed with greater rigour and coordinate their public prosecutors’ offices accordingly, while also asking them to make room for the European anti-fraud authority OLAF to become more involved in the proceedings.
- Oavsett om pengarna har erhållits genom avsiktligt bedrägeri eller betalats ut felaktigt måste inkasseringen ske smidigt och effektivt, och medlemsstaterna måste tillämpa förfarandet även om det i enskilda fall kan verka oproportionerligt.
- I should like to say to Mrs Ahlqvist that I cannot give an opinion on the individual case raised by the honourable Member but I should like to point out the ruling, which she has referred to, already made by the Court of Justice in a 1991 case: ’ The mere fact that a national of a Member State B who has moved to a Member State A where he has found employment and accommodation has after a certain date and for over a year spent almost every night and a weekend with a woman friend in Member State B, whilst retaining his employment and his accommodation in Member State A, is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that he has moved his normal residence to Member State B’ .
- Till Ahlqvist vill jag säga att jag inte kan yttra mig om det enskilda fall den ärade ledamoten tar upp, men jag vill påpeka det utslag hon hänvisar till, som EG-domstolen avgav redan i ett fall år 1991: ”Själva det faktum att en medborgare i medlemsstat B, som flyttat till medlemsstat A, där han fått anställning och bostad, efter ett visst datum och i över ett års tid tillbringat nästan varje natt och veckoslut med en kvinnlig vän i medlemsstat B, samtidigt som han behållit sin anställning och sin bostad i medlemsstat A, är inte tillräckligt för att motivera slutsatsen att han skall ha flyttat till medlemsstat B”.
show query
SET search_path TO f9miniensv;
WITH
list AS (SELECT
t11.token_id AS t11,
t12.token_id AS t12,
t21.token_id AS t21,
t22.token_id AS t22,
r1.dep_id AS dep1,
r2.dep_id AS dep2
FROM
deprel r1
JOIN depstr s1 ON s1.dep_id = r1.dep_id
JOIN word_align a1 ON a1.wsource = r1.head AND a1.wsource < a1.wtarget
JOIN word_align a2 ON a2.wsource = r1.dependent
JOIN deprel r2 ON r2.head = a1.wtarget AND r2.dependent = a2.wtarget
JOIN depstr s2 ON s2.dep_id = r2.dep_id
JOIN token t11 ON t11.token_id = r1.head
JOIN token t21 ON t21.token_id = r2.head
JOIN token t12 ON t12.token_id = r1.dependent
JOIN token t22 ON t22.token_id = r2.dependent
WHERE
s1.val = 'amod' AND
s2.val = 'AT' AND
t11.ctag = 'NOUN' AND
t21.ctag = 'NOUN' AND
t12.ctag = 'ADJ' AND
t22.ctag = 'ADJ' AND
t11.lemma_id = 15160 AND
t12.lemma_id = 9740 AND
t21.lemma_id = 3149 AND
t22.lemma_id = 52190),
stats AS (SELECT
sentence_id,
count(DISTINCT token_id) AS c,
count(*) AS c_aligned,
count(DISTINCT wtarget) AS c_target
FROM
token
LEFT JOIN word_align ON wsource = token_id
WHERE
sentence_id IN (
SELECT sentence_id
FROM
list
JOIN token ON token_id IN(t11, t21)
)
GROUP BY sentence_id),
numbered AS (SELECT row_number() OVER () AS i, *
FROM
list),
sentences AS (SELECT *, .2 * (1 / (1 + exp(max(c) OVER (PARTITION BY i) - min(c) OVER (PARTITION BY i)))) +
.8 * (1 / log(avg(c) OVER (PARTITION BY i))) AS w
FROM
(
SELECT i, 1 AS n, sentence_id, ARRAY[t11,t12] AS tokens
FROM
numbered
JOIN token ON token_id = t11
UNION SELECT i, 2 AS n, sentence_id, ARRAY[t21,t22] AS tokens
FROM
numbered
JOIN token ON token_id = t21
) x
JOIN stats USING (sentence_id)
ORDER BY i, n)
SELECT
i,
n,
w,
c,
c_aligned,
c_target,
sentence_id,
string_agg(CASE WHEN lpad THEN ' ' ELSE '' END || '<span class="token' ||
CASE WHEN ARRAY[token_id] <@ tokens THEN ' hl' ELSE '' END || '">' || val || '</span>',
'' ORDER BY token_id ASC) AS s
FROM
sentences
JOIN token USING (sentence_id)
JOIN typestr USING (type_id)
GROUP BY i, n, w, c, c_aligned, c_target, sentence_id
ORDER BY w DESC, i, n;
;