natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
D. der henviser til, at Kommissionen ifølge EF-traktatens artikel 226, stk. 1, hvis den finder, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til traktaten, "fremsætter" en begrundet udtalelse herom efter at have givet den pågældende stat lejlighed til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger, og at den i henhold til stk. 2 i samme artikel, hvis den pågældende stat ikke retter sig efter den fremsatte udtalelse inden for den frist, der er fastsat af Kommissionen, "kan" indbringe sagen for Domstolen;
D. whereas, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty, it "shall" deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, and whereas, pursuant to the second paragraph of that article, if the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter "may" bring the matter before the Court of Justice,
E. der henviser til, at Ombudsmanden tidligere i sin afgørelse om klage 995/98/OV har understreget, at selv om Kommissionen har skønsmæssige beføjelser i forbindelse med indledningen af overtrædelsesprocedurer, er disse ikke desto mindre underkastet retlige begrænsninger, som er fastlagt i Domstolens praksis, hvorefter administrative myndigheder skal handle konsekvent og i god tro, undgå forskelsbehandling, overholde principperne om proportionalitet, lighed og berettigede forventninger samt overholde menneskerettighederne og de grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder;
E. whereas the Ombudsman has previously emphasised, in his Decision on complaint 995/98/OV, that, even though the Commission enjoys discretionary powers with respect to the opening of infringement procedures, these are nevertheless subject to legal limits "established by the case law of the Court of Justice which requires, for example, that administrative authorities should act consistently and in good faith, avoid discrimination, comply with the principles of proportionality, equality and legitimate expectations and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms",
F. der henviser til, at Kommissionen har understreget, at denne opgave i høj grad er væsentlig for borgernes interesser, og i denne forbindelse har anerkendt vigtigheden af retsstatsprincipperne
F. whereas the Commission has stressed that this role is essential to the interests of European citizens, and has recognised the importance of the rule of law in this context
Kommissionens meddelelse med titlen ”bedre kontrol med gennemførelsen af fællesskabsretten” (KOM(2002) 0725). ,
Commission communication entitled "Better monitoring of the application of Community law" ( COM(2002)0725 final). ,
G. der henviser til, at Kommissionen bekræfter, at dens meddelelse om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten fastsætter de administrative foranstaltninger til fordel for klageren, som den forpligter sig til at overholde under behandlingen af klagen og undersøgelsen af den tilhørende overtrædelsessag,
G. whereas the Commission confirms that its Communication on relations with the complainant regarding infringements of Community law sets out the administrative measures for the benefit of the complainant with which the Commission undertakes to comply when handling his/her complaint and assessing the infringement in question,
H. der henviser til, at Ombudsmanden finder, at Kommissionens undladelse af at tage endelig stilling til klagerens klage om traktatbrud er et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser,
H. whereas the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's failure to decide on a definitive position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint constitutes an instance of maladministration,
I. der henviser til Ombudsmandens henstilling til Kommissionen, hvorefter den bør behandle klagen så hurtigt og omhyggeligt som muligt,
I. whereas the Ombudsman's recommendation to the Commission is that it should deal with the complainant's complaint as rapidly and diligently as possible,
3. påpeger, at Kommissionen i meddelelsen om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten har påtaget sig visse forpligtelser, for så vidt angår behandlingen af klager om traktatbrud;
Points out that, in its Communication on relations with the complainant regarding infringements of Community law, the Commission has entered into certain commitments as regards its handling of infringement complaints;
5. erkender, at Kommissionens undersøgelse i vanskelige og komplicerede sager kan vare mere end et år; finder imidlertid, at overskridelsen af fristen på et år kun er berettiget, når undersøgelsen rent faktisk stadig pågår;
Accepts that in difficult and complicated cases the Commission's investigations may require more than one year; considers, however, that exceeding the one-year time-limit is justified only when investigations are indeed still ongoing;
7. minder om, at forslaget blev forelagt i september 2004, og at der ikke er tegn på, at Kommissionen siden da har foretaget sig yderligere for at komme videre med undersøgelsen;
Recalls that that proposal was submitted in September 2004 and that there is no evidence that the Commission has taken any further steps since then in order to proceed with its investigation;
10. erkender, at Kommissionen råder over et vist skøn under behandlingen af klager og traktatbrudsproceduren, især med hensyn til at nedbringe sager for Domstolen, men påpeger, at EF-traktatens artikel 226 bestemmer, at Kommissionen skal indlede den administrative procedure, hvis den finder, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til traktaten;
Acknowledges that the Commission has certain discretionary powers with regard to the management of complaints and infringement proceedings, in particular as regards bringing matters before the Court of Justice, but points out that Article 226 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Commission is to initiate the pre-litigation phase if it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty;
12. gentager sin bekymring over den ubegrundede og urimeligt lange tid - ofte flere år - det tager for Kommissionen at forfølge og afslutte traktatbrudssager, og sin utilfredshed med de hyppige eksempler på, at medlemsstaterne ikke retter sig efter Domstolens afgørelser; mener, at det undergraver tilliden til, at fællesskabsretten formuleres og gennemføres korrekt, og at det bringer EU’s mål i miskredit;
Restates its concern at the unjustified and excessive amount of time – often spanning several years – which the Commission takes to pursue and conclude infringement proceedings and its dissatisfaction with the frequent examples of non-compliance by Member States with decisions of the Court of Justice; considers that this undermines the credibility of the formulation and coherent application of Community law and that it serves to discredit the objectives of the EU;
18. fremhæver, at Parlamentet i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 230 har ret at indbringe klager for Domstolen under de samme betingelser, som gælder for Rådet og Kommissionen, og at Parlamentet i henhold til traktatens artikel 201 er beføjet til at føre kontrol med Kommissionens virksomhed;
Stresses that, under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, Parliament has the right to bring actions before the Court of Justice under the same conditions as the Council and the Commission and that Parliament, pursuant to Article 201 of the Treaty, is empowered to exercise control over the activities of the Commission;
I november 2001 anmodede klageren, en tysk læge, Kommissionen om at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure mod Tyskland.
In November 2001, the complainant, a German doctor, requested the Commission to open infringement proceedings against Germany.
Klageren anførte, at Tyskland tilsidesatte Rådets direktiv 93/104/EF af 23. november 1993 om visse aspekter i forbindelse med tilrettelæggelse af arbejdstiden
The complainant argued that Germany infringed Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time
Efter klagerens opfattelse medfører dette alvorlige risici såvel for de ansatte som for patienterne.
In the complainant's view, this resulted in a considerable risk for both staff and patients.
I klagen (2333/2003/GG) påstod klageren, at Kommissionen havde undladt at tage stilling til hans traktatbrudsklage inden for et rimeligt tidsrum.
In this complaint (2333/2003/GG) the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint within an appropriate period of time.
I den afgørelse, der afsluttede undersøgelsen, bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at der i den foreliggende sag var gået næsten 15 måneder, inden Kommissionen var begyndt at tage fat på de indsigelser, som klageren havde rejst, ved da at anmode om oplysninger fra den pågældende medlemsstat.
In the decision closing this inquiry the Ombudsman noted that nearly 15 months had passed in the present case before the Commission had started dealing with the objections raised by the complainant by sending a request for information to the Member State concerned.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionen havde undladt at behandle klagen inden for et rimeligt tidsrum, og at der derved forelå et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had failed to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time and that this constituted an instance of maladministration.
Tyskland havde i mellemtiden vedtaget en ny lov med henblik på at bringe tysk lovgivning i overensstemmelse med direktiv 93/104/EF, og Kommissionen var nødt til at undersøge, om denne nye lovgivning var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, for at kunne behandle klagerens klage.
In the meantime Germany had adopted a new law in order to bring the German legislation in line with Directive 93/104/EC and the Commission needed to examine the compatibility of this new legislation with Community law in order to be able to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint.
Den 6. december 2004 informerede Kommissionen klageren om, at den havde vedtaget et forslag til ændring af arbejdstidsdirektivet (2003/88/EF)
On 6 December 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that it had adopted a proposal for an amendment of the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC)
Den 2. november 2005 henvendte klageren sig atter til Ombudsmanden (klage 3453/2005/GG).
On 2 November 2005, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman again (complaint 3453/2005/GG).
Han anførte, at han ikke havde fået yderligere oplysninger om Kommissionens forventede holdning til hans sag.
He submitted that he had received no further information on the position the Commission proposed to adopt concerning his case.
Han var af den opfattelse, at Kommissionen forsinkede sagen og ignorerede Ombudsmanden.
He took the view that the Commission was delaying the matter and ignoring the Ombudsman.
Han gentog i det væsentlige påstanden i den første klage.
He essentially repeated the allegation in his earlier complaint.
I sin udtalelse anførte Kommissionen, at den var beføjet til at skønne, hvorvidt den ville indlede eller fortsætte en traktatbrudsprocedure.
In its opinion the Commission stated that it had a discretion as to whether to start or continue infringement proceedings.
Klageren påstod, at der ikke i EU-retten er hjemmel til at tilsidesætte lovgivning og domme med henvisning til, at Kommissionen har fremlagt forslag om nye regler.
The complainant alleged that EU law did not envisage the possibility of disregarding laws and judgments on the grounds that the Commission proposed new rules.
Hvis den omstændighed, at der var blevet fremlagt et sådant forslag, gjorde det legalt at tilsidesætte gældende lovgivning, ville De Europæiske Fællesskabers retsorden efter klagerens mening være en ren parodi.
If the fact that such proposals had been submitted made it lawful to disregard existing law, the legal order of the European Communities was, in the complainant's view, a farce.
Ved sin handling bragte Kommissionen retsbeskyttelsen i fare, samtidig med at den bevidst fordrejede loven.
By acting as it did, the Commission jeopardised the legal peace and deliberately distorted the law.
Den 12. september 2006 rettede Ombudsmanden følgende forslag til henstilling til Kommissionen:
On 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman addressed the following draft recommendation to the Commission:
Ombudsmanden fastslog følgende:
The Ombudsman considered the following:
- Den omstændighed, at et direktiv (93/104) er blevet erstattet af et andet direktiv (2003/88), der omhandler det samme emne, var irrelevant for klagen.
- The fact that one directive (93/104) has been replaced by another one (2003/88) dealing with the same subject matter was not relevant for the complaint.
- Det er i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 211 Kommissionens ansvar at drage omsorg for gennemførelsen af de bestemmelser, som træffes af institutionerne.
- Under A rticle 211 of the EU Treaty it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that measures taken by the institutions are applied.
- Kommissionen er vogter af traktaterne.
- The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties.
Den har fremhævet, at denne opgave i høj grad er væsentlig for borgernes interesser, og har i denne sammenhæng anerkendt vigtigheden af retsstatsprincipperne.
It has stressed that this role is essential to the interests of European citizens and it has recognised the importance of the rule of law.
Det er derfor god forvaltningsskik at behandle traktatbrudsklager så hurtigt og omhyggeligt som muligt.
Therefore, it is good administrative practice to deal with infringement complaints as rapidly and diligently as possible.
- Kommissionen foreslog at behandle klagen under hensyntagen til sit forslag om ændring af det relevante direktiv.
- The Commission proposed to deal with the infringement complaint in the light of its proposal for an amendment of the relevant directive.
Kommissionen antog tilsyneladende, at den i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 211 ikke var forpligtet til at sikre anvendelsen af et direktiv, der er ved at blive ændret.
Apparently the Commission assumed that Article 211 of the EC Treaty did not require it to ensure the application of a Directive which is in the process of being amended.
- Både direktiv 93/104 og direktiv 2000/88 var gældende, og der fandtes ingen bestemmelser eller principper, der gav Kommissionen hjemmel til at tilsidesætte sin forpligtelse efter EF-traktatens artikel 211.
- Directives 93/104 and 2000/88 both were in force and there was no rule or principle that would allow the Commission to disregard its duty under Article 211.
- Såfremt der foreligger et traktatbrud, kan Kommissionen skønne, hvorvidt den vil indbringe sagen for EF-Domstolen.
- The Commission in the case of an infringement has discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Dette giver imidlertid ikke Kommissionen ret til at udsætte sin stillingtagen til en klage på ubestemt tid med henvisning til, at den lovgivning, der finder anvendelse, kan blive ændret en gang i fremtiden.
However, this does not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that applicable law may be amended some time in the future.
- Kommissionens undladelse af at behandle klagen inden for et rimeligt tidsrum var et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
- The Commission's failure to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time constituted maladministration.
I sin detaljerede udtalelse fastholdt Kommissionen, at det var velkendt, at den rådede over et skøn ved afgørelsen af, om den ville forfølge en traktatbrudsprocedure mod en medlemsstat, samt med hensyn til måden, hvorpå den håndterede sådanne procedurer.
In its detailed opinion the Commission maintained that it had an established discretion whether to pursue infringement procedures against Member States, as well as over the way in which it managed such procedures.
Den havde derfor besluttet ikke at gå videre med traktatbrudsproceduren, idet den afventede resultatet af den lovgivningsmæssige procedure vedrørende forslaget om ændring af direktiv 2003/88.
Therefore, it had decided not to advance with infringement procedures pending the results of the legislative process concerning its proposal for amendment of Directive 2003/88.
Kommissionen tilføjede, at dens skønsbeføjelse udstrakte sig til alle faser af klagesagen og traktatbrudsproceduren, herunder den administrative fase af proceduren.
The Commission added that this discretion extended to all phases of complaints and proceedings, including the pre-litigation stage.
I en meddelelse til Parlamentet og Ombudsmanden om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten fra 2002 havde Kommissionen anført, at den som hovedregel inden for en frist på ét år fra klagens registrering afgør, om der skal udarbejdes en åbningsskrivelse, eller om sagen skal henlægges.
In a Communication to the Parliament and the Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law of 2002, the Commission had indicated that, as a general rule, it would decide whether to open infringement proceedings or to close the file within a year from the date of the registration of the complaint.
Dette begrænsede imidlertid ikke Kommissionens skøn, når det forekom berettiget at anvende en anden fremgangsmåde, der bedre passede til sagens særlige omstændigheder.
However, this did not limit the discretion of the Commission when it seemed justified to adopt a different approach more adapted to the particular facts of the case.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede følgende:
The Ombudsman noted the following:
- Kommissionen havde påtaget sig visse forpligtelser, for så vidt angår behandlingen af overtrædelsesklager.
- The Commission had entered into certain commitments as regards the handling of infringement complaints.
- I sin meddelelse havde Kommissionen anført, at dens tjenestegrene som hovedregel undersøger en klage, således at der senest et år efter klagens registrering kan træffes afgørelse om enten at udarbejde en åbningsskrivelse eller at henlægge sagen, og at den skriftligt giver klageren besked, hvis denne frist overskrides.
- In its Communication the Commission had stated that as a general rule its departments will investigate complaints with a view to arriving at a decision to issue a formal notice or to close the case within not more than a year from the date of registration of the complaint and that it would inform the complainant in writing where this time limit is exceeded.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at en overskridelse af fristen på et år kun er berettiget, hvis Kommissionen rent faktisk stadig undersøger en sag.
The Ombudsman considered that the one-year time limit is justified only if the Commission is indeed still investigating a case.
- Kommissionen ville behandle klagen i forbindelse med sit forslag til ændring af direktivet, der blev forelagt i september 2004.
- The Commission would deal with the complaint in the context of its proposal for amendment of the Directive which was submitted in September 2004.
Tilsyneladende har Kommissionen ikke siden da foretaget sig yderligere for at komme videre med undersøgelserne.
It seems the Commission had not taken any further steps since in order to proceed with the investigations.
- Ifølge Kommissionens meddelelse kan en undersøgelse af en overtrædelsesklage resultere i en af to mulige beslutninger.
- According to the Commission's Communication an investigation of an infringement complaint can result in one of two possible decisions.
Kommissionen kan enten beslutte at fremsende en åbningsskrivelse, dvs. at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure mod en medlemsstat, eller den kan beslutte at henlægge sagen.
Either the Commission decides to issue a formal notice i.e. to initiate formal infringement proceedings against a Member State or it decides to close the case.
I den foreliggende sag har Kommissionen tilsyneladende undladt at foretage sig yderligere i sine undersøgelser.
It appears that in this particular case the Commission has abstained from taking any further action as regards its investigations.
- Kommissionen fremhævede sin skønsmæssige beføjelse og den omstændighed, at dens tilsagn i meddelelsen ikke begrænsede dette skøn, når det forekom berettiget at følge en anden fremgangsmåde.
- The Commission stressed its discretionary powers and that its commitments in its Communication did not limit its discretion when it seemed justified to follow a different approach.
Kommissionen bekræfter imidlertid, at meddelelsen indeholder de ”administrative foranstaltninger til fordel for klageren, som den forpligter sig til at overholde under behandlingen af klagen og undersøgelsen af den tilhørende overtrædelsessag”.
However, the Commission confirms that its Communication sets out "the administrative measures for the benefit of the complainant with which it undertakes to comply when handling his/her complaint and assessing the infringement in question".
Hvis Kommissionens skønsmæssige beføjelse blev anerkendt fuldt ud, således at Kommissionen var berettiget til at fravige sine tilsagn i meddelelsen, så snart den fandt dette berettiget, ville dette fratage meddelelsen enhver mening.
Taking full account of the Commission's discretionary powers, if the Commission were allowed to depart form its commitments in the Communication whenever it considers this to be justified would deprive the Communication of its very meaning.
Kommissionens skønsmæssige beføjelse bør udøves inden for rammerne af meddelelsen, og den omstændighed, at den ikke har truffet en afgørelse, kan ikke retfærdiggøres med henvisning til Kommissionens skønsmæssige beføjelse.
The Commission's discretionary powers should be exercised within the framework of the Communication and the failure to reach a decision cannot be justified by the Commission's discretionary powers.
- Kommissionen har endvidere undladt at behandle de dele af klagerens klage, som var uden sammenhæng med den praksis, som Kommissionen henviser til.
- Moreover the Commission did not deal with aspects of the complainant's complaint that were independent of the case-law the Commission refers to.
- De konstaterede fejl og forsømmelser består i, at Kommissionen har undladt at tage endelig stilling til klagerens traktatbrudsklage.
- The identified instance of maladministration consists in the Commission's failure to adopt a definite position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint.
Hvis undersøgelsen blev afsluttet, og det blev konstateret, at der forelå et traktatbrud, ville Kommissionen være berettiget til at skønne, hvorvidt sagen skulle indbringes for Domstolen.
If an investigation were completed and an infringement were found the Commission would have discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
Kommissionen har imidlertid endnu ikke truffet en sådan beslutning.
However, the Commission has not yet taken such a decision.
- En undersøgelse af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Kommissionen åbenbart har overskredet grænserne for sit skøn, vil kunne drøftes i Europa-Parlamentet.
- An examination of the question whether the Commission has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion could be the subject for a discussion in the European Parliament.
om Den Europæiske Ombudsmand særlige beretning på grundlag af forslag til henstilling til Europa-Kommissionen i klage 3453/2005/GG
on the Special report from the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 3453/205/GG
1. fremhæver Den Europæiske Ombudsmands konklusion om, at Kommissionen objektivt set har forsinket behandlingen af andragerens klage i flere år uden begrundelse, og at dette udgør et tilfælde af ineffektiv forvaltning;
Underlines the conclusion of the European Ombudsman that the failure of the Commission to deal with the petitioner's complaint what was objectively established as several years' unjustified delay, constitutes ineffective administration;