natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
4) Kommissionen burde have underrettet de registrerede klagere om sin afgørelse om at afslutte behandlingen af sagen, inden der blev udsendt en pressemeddelelse desangående.
However in the Großkrotzenburg case, the Court assessed the factual circumstances as to when a formal application was submitted.
Kommissionens første udtalelse
Therefore, the Commission considers that Directive 85/337/EEC did not apply to the Newbury Bypass project.
I sin første udtalelse fremsatte Kommissionen følgende ræsonnement:
The complainants' observations on the First Opinion
1) I den foreliggende sag var det påkrævet, at Kommissionen udøvede et skøn for at afgøre, om der skulle iværksættes en procedure efter artikel 169.
Taking the observations sent to the Ombudsman as a whole, the following claims
Dette fortolkningsspørgsmål blev behandlet i forbindelse med to afgørelser fra Domstolen'.
1) The Commission's remarks about its discretion amount to an assertion that it can act arbitrarily.
Det sidstnævnte forhold ville have været uden betydning, hvis godkendelsestidspunktet havde været den relevante faktor.
2) The Commission failed to answer the allegation that it had acted disingenuously.
Denne retspraksis indebærer, aten korrekt fortolkning af direktiv 85/337/EØF går ud på, at igangværende sager er udelukket fra direktivets anvendelsesområde.
3) The Commission continued to misinterpret the Großkrotzenburg case and failed to apply it correctly to the UK development procedures used in the Newbury Bypass case.
I forbindelse med Newbury-omfartsvejprojektet er det en kendsgerning, at godkendelsesproceduren blev påbegyndt før den 3. juli 1988.
4) The Commission claimed that it had kept the complainants informed.
Derfor mener Kommissionen, at direktiv 85/337/EØF ikke finder anvendelse på dette vejprojekt.
However, it had informed the media of the decision to close the Newbury file in a press re lease dated 20th October 1995, while complainants were finally informed by let ters dated 6th December 1995.
1) Kommissionens bemærkninger om egen skønsudøvelse giver det indtryk, at institutionen kan tillade sig at handle vilkårligt.
1 ) The Commission's decision
2) Kommissionen undlod at besvare påstanden om, at institutionen havde handlet uvederhæftigt.
1.1 The Commission explained the decision to close the file in the Newbury Bypass case solely in terms of a legal conclusion that Directive 85/337/EEC does not apply to the Newbury Bypass project.
3) Kommissionen vedblev med at fejlfortolke Großkrotzenburgsagen og undlod at drage de rigtige konsekvenser i forhold til de britiske godkendelsesprocedurer, som blev anvendt i Newbury-sagen.
1.3 The Ombudsman therefore considers that it was misleading to the complainants for the question of discretion to be raised in the Commission's First Opinion.
4) Kommissionen hævdede, at klagerne var blevet holdt underrerttet om sagens vi dere forløb, men Kommissionen underrettede medierne om, at der var truffet afgørelse om at afslutte behandlingen af Newbury-sagen, gennem en pressemeddelelse af 20. oktober 1995, mens klagerne først blev underrettet i skrivelser, der var dateret den 6. december 1995.
1.4 The Ombudsman found that the complaints provided insufficient grounds to raise doubts as to whether the Commission's legal conclusion was reached in good faith, after due inquiry and on the basis of objective and expert consideration of the legal issues.
1) Kommissionens afgørelse
2) The applicability of Directive 85/337/EEC to the Newbury Bypass case
1.1 Kommissionen begrundede sin afgørelse om at afslutte behandlingen af Newbury-sagen udelukkende ud fra en retlig betragtning om, at direktiv 85/337/EØF ikke kunne finde anvendelse på Newbury-projektet.
2.1 The Commission's conclusion that Directive 85/337/EEC does not apply to the Newbury Bypass depends on a process of legal reasoning that has two stages.
1.2 EF-traktatens artikel 169 fastslår, at Kommissionen skal fremsætte en begrundet udtalelse, hvis den finder, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til denne traktat.
2.2 The first stage is the argument that the Directive does not apply to projects for which development consent was granted after 3 July 1988, provided that the for mal application for development consent (or its equivalent, in procedures where no formal application takes place) occurred before that date.
Hvis Kommissionen når frem til, at der ikke foreligger en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, er den grundlæggende betingelse for at fremsætte en begrundet udtalelse ikke opfyldt.
This is the argument that 'pipeline' cases are excluded. The second stage of the argument is that the Newbury Bypass project is a 'pipeline' case.
Under disse omstændigheder opstår der ikke et spørgsmål om skønsudøvelse, fordi Kommissionen ikke har beføjelse til at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure.
2.3 As regards the first stage of the argument, the Commission relies in its First Opinion on the judgements of the Court of Justice and the opinions of the
1.3 Følgelig fandt ombudsmanden, at det var vildledende over for klagerne at rejse spørgsmåletom skønsudøvelse i Kommissionens første udtalelse.
Advocates-General in Großkrotzenburg and Bund Naturschutz1 to argue that the
1.4 Ombudsmanden fandt, at klagerne udgjorde et utilstrækkeligt grundlag for at betvivle, at Kommissionen var nået frem til sin juridiske fortolkning i god tro, efter behørige undersøgelser og ud fra en objektiv og sagkyndig vurdering af de juridiske problemstillinger.
2.4 The Ombudsman notes that in other contexts, including its reply to the Committee on Petitions concerning petitions 865/95 and 972/95, the Commission also referred to the general unwritten principle of legal certainty and the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality in support of its interpretation.
1.5 Klagernes kritik gav grundlag imidlertid grundlag for, at ombudmanden måtte undersøge Kommissionens retlige argumentation for, at direktiv 85/337/EØF ikke fandt anvendelse på Newbury-omfartsvejprojektet, med henblik på at fastlå, om der forelå fejl eller forsømmelser ved fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten eller ved an vendelsen af fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser på sagens faktiske omstændigheder og den nationalretlige kontekst.
2.5 The Commission's interpretation of the Directive has been criticized by the com plainants and by some commentators.2The criticisms point out that, in Großkrotzenburg, the Court of Justice expressly left open the question of the application of the Directive to 'pipeline' cases (paragraph 28 of the judgement) and that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations also provide arguments against the Commission's interpretation.
Undersøgelsens resultater er gengivet i afgørelsens afsnit 2.
2.6 The Ombudsman considers it regrettable that the First Opinion contains only a very brief, and possibly incomplete, outline of the Commission's legal reasoning in support of its conclusion that the Directive does not apply to 'pipeline' cases.
2) Anvendelse af direktiv 85/337/EØF på Newbury-omfartsvejprojektet
In view of the opinions of the Advocates-General in Bund Naturschutz and Großkrotzenburg and the fact that the Court of Justice in Großkrotzenburg evaluated the factual circumstances as to when a formal application was submitted, the conclusion that Directive 85/337/EEC does not apply to 'pipeline' cases is probably correct.
2.1 Kommissionen har konkluderet, at direktiv 85/337/EØF ikke finder anvendelse på Newbury-sagen, og denne konklusion er baseret på et retligt ræsonnement i to trin:
It must be recalled, however, that the Court of Justice is the highest authority on questions of Community law.
Dette argument går altså ud på, at igangværende sager er undtaget. Det andet trin i ræsonnementet er, at Newburyprojektet er en igangværende sag.
2.8 As regards the second stage of the argument, and subject to the qualification in the last sentence of paragraph 2.7, the Ombudsman considers that, prima facie,
2.3 Hvad angår det første trin i ræsonnementet, henviser Kommissionen i sin første udtalelse til Domstolens domme og udtalelserne fra generaladvokaterne i
: Case C-431/92, judgement of 11 August 1995 and C-396/92 [1994] ECR 1-371 7 See e.g. P. Kunzlik, 'Environnemental Impact Assesment: Bund Naturschutz, Großkrotzenburg and the Commission's retreat on the 'Pipe-line' point, european Environnemental Law Review, 1 March 1996, 87-93.
Großkrotzenburgsagen og Bund Naturschutz-sagen' og fastslår på denne bag grund, at direktivet må tolkes således, at igangværende sager skal udelukkes fra dets anvendelsesområde.
the appropriate criterion to identify 'pipeline' cases is that used in Großkrotzenburg: i.e. the date when the application for consent was formally lodged.
2.4 Ombudsmanden noterer sig, at Kommissionen i andre sammenhænge - herunder dens svar til Udvalget for Andragender om andragende 865/95 og 972/95 -også begrundede sin fortolkning ved at henvise til det generelle uskrevne retssikkerhedsprincip og til princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning og proportionalitetsprincippet. portionalitetsprincippet.
2.9 The legal procedures in England for development consent in the case of high way projects do not involve an application for development consent by one body to another. The procedure is an administrative one, in which both the developer and the authority which grants development consent are parts of the central government administration.
2.5 Kommissionens fortolkning af direktivet er blevet kritiseret af klagerne og af andre iagttagere2.
2.10 The question therefore arises as to which stage of the administrative proce dure under English law is to be regarded as the equivalent of 'the date when the application for consent was formally lodged.'
Kritikerne påpeger, at i Großkrotzenburgsagen lod Domstolen udtrykkeligt spørgsmålet om direktivets anvendelse i igangværende sager stå åbent (jf. dommens præmis 28), og at retssikkerhedsprincippet og princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning også kan bruges til at argumentere ¡mod Kommissionens fortolkning.
In identifying such an equivalent it is important to recall that the Court of Justice in Großkrotzenburg expressly rejected a claim that a preliminary stage of the consent procedure, involving informal contacts and meetings between the competent authority and the developer, could be treated as a definite indication of the date on which the consent procedure was initiated.
2.6 Ombudsmanden anser det for beklageligt, at den første udtalelse kun indeholder en meget kortfattet og muligvis ufuldstændig gennemgang af det juridiske ræsonnement, der har foranlediget Kommissionen til at konkludere, at direktivet ikke finder anvendelse på igangværende sager.
2.11 Draft orders for the Newbury Bypass were published between 1986 and 1988; the public inquiry began on 14 June 1988 and closed on 9 November 1988; the final Statutory Instrument was made on 1 8 June 1 991 and became effective on 16 August 1991.
Når man tager hensyn til de udtalelser, generaladvokaterne fremsatte i Bund Naturschutz-sagen og Großkrotzenburg-sagen, og til, at Domstolen i Großkrotzenburgsagen vurderede de faktiske omstændigheder omkring tidspunktet for indgivelsen af en formel ansøgning, er det formentlig korrekt at konkludere, at direktiv 85/337/EØF ikke finder anvendelse på igangværende sager.
In their view, such procedures cannot be described as a formal application and are the equivalent of 'informal contacts and meetings between the competent authority and the de veloper'.
Det må dog understreges, at Domstolen har det sidste ord, hvad angår fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten. lesskabsretten.
According to the complainants, the equivalent of a formal application is the making of the final Statutory Instrument, which is followed by a six-week period within which it is subject to challenge in the High Court.
1 Sag C-431/92, Saml.
Bypass are that the consent proce
1995, s. 121 89 og sag C-396/92 , Saml. 1994, s. 1-3717.
'The factual circumstances In respect of Newbury dure was initiated before 3 July 1988. '
2 Se f.eks. P. Kunzlik, "Environmental Impact Assessment: Bund Naturschutz, Großkrotzenburg and the Commission's retreat on the 'Pipe-line' point", European Environmental Law Review, 1. marts 1996, 87-93.
The Commission does not, therefore, specify which point of the national procedures it regards as the equivalent of a formal application in the Newbury Bypass case.
2.10 Spørgsmålet er derfor, hvilken fase i den engelske administrative procedure der skal betragtes som modstykket til "tidspunktet for den formelle indgivelse af ansøgningen".
2.14 In the Ombudsman's view, the publication of the draft orders can reasonably be regarded as the equivalent of a formal planning application, in that the developer makes a public statement containing definite proposals for development, which may then be the subject of a public inquiry.
I bestræbelserne på at identificere dette modstykke må man holde sig for øje, at Domstolen i Großkrotzenburgsagen udtrykkeligt afviste en påstand om, at en indledende fase i godkendelsesproceduren med uformelle kontakter og samtaler mellem den kompetente myndighed og bygherren kunne anses for afgørende ved fastlæggelsen af tidspunktet for iværksættelsen af godkendelsesproceduren. ren.
The fact that there may be differences between the draft order and the final project does not affect this conclusion, since there may also be changes made to an application during the course of the proce dure for granting development consent. The possibility of such changes in both cases is inherent in the fact that the procedures involved are more than a mere for mality.
2.11 Der blev offentliggjort projektoplæg for Newbury-omfartsvejen mellem 1986 og 1988; den offentlige høring begyndte den 14. juni 1988 og sluttede den 9. no vember 1988; den endelige afgørelse blev truffet den 18. juni 1991 og trådte i kraft den 16. august 1991.
2.15 Although it is regrettable that the First Opinion does not contain all the legal reasoning necessary to support the Commission's view that Newbury Bypass is a 'pipeline' case, the Ombudsman does not consider, therefore, that the conclusion it self contains an error in the application of Community law to the facts and the national legal context of the Newbury Bypass case.
2.12 Klagerne mente, at offentliggørelsen af projektoplæggene og den offentlige høring havde status som en indledende procedure med høring og debat om det britiske trafikministeriums foretrukne vejføring og alternative løsningsforslag. Efter klagernes opfattelse kan sådanne procedurer ikke beskrives som en formel ansøgning -de svarer til "uformelle kontakter og samtaler mellem den kompetente myndighed og bygherren".
2.16 The Ombudsman's inquiries into the complaints concerning the Newbury Bypass have not, therefore, revealed any instance of maladministration by the Commission in the interpretation of Community law, or in the application of Community law to the facts and to the national legal context of the case.
2.13 Kommissions holdning til dette spørgsmål fremgår ikke helt klart af den første udtalelse, som blot fastslår, at:
3) The failure to inform the registered complainants before issuing the press release
"Newbury-omfartsvejprojektet var en igangværende sag, eftersom tidspunktet for ansøgningen om tilladelse faldt før den 3. juli 1988, mens tidspunktet for selve tilladelsen faldt eher denne dato"; og
3.1 The Commission has invited individuals to submit to it complaints about breaches of Community law by Member States and has published a standard form for this purpose.'
"Hvad angår Newbury-sagen, er det et faktum, at godkendelsesproceduren blev påbegyndt før den 3. juli 1988. "
In its First Opinion, the Commission acknowledges procedural obligations duly to register complaints and to keep the complainants informed of the treatment of the case.
Kommissionen tager derfor ikke klart stilling til, hvilket tidspunkt i de nationale procedurer der anses for modstykket til en formel ansøgning i Newbury-sagen.
3.2 An administrative process of this kind normally concludes with a reasoned de cision communicated to those who have participated in the process.
Logisk set må det imidlertid enten være offentliggørelsen af projektoplæggene eller påbegyndelsen af den offentlige høring, eftersom disse tidspunkter er de eneste faser i proceduren, der faldt før den 3. juli 1988.
There may have been practical reasons why this was not possible in this particular case (although no such reasons have been advanced by the Commission in its First Opinion). If so, the Commission should at least have explained those reasons to the complainants.
Denne konklusion står fast, også selv om der kan være forskel på projektoplægget og det endelige projekt - det er nemlig også tænkeligt, at der foretages ændringer i en ansøgning i forbindelse med godkendelsesproceduren.
3.3 Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not necessary to make further inquiries or to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
Sådanne ændringer kan komme på tale i begge tilfælde, netop fordi de pågældende procedurer er andet og mere end en ren og skær formalitet.
In view of the above findings, the Ombudsman considered that it was unnecessary to conduct further inquiries into the case whilst trusting that the Commission would take note of the critical remark in paragraph 3.2. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
2.16 Ombudsmandens behandling af klagerne over Newbury-omfartsvejprojektet har således ikke afsløret fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, hvad angår fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten eller anvendelsen af fællesskabsretten på sagens faktiske omstændigheder og den nationale retlige kontekst.
As noted in the Annual Report for 1995, an important part of the Ombudsman's mission is to enhance relations between the Community institutions and European citizens.
3) Manglende orientering af de registrerede klagere inden udsendelsen af pressemeddelelsen
The creation of the office of Ombudsman by the Treaty on European Union was meant to underline the commitment of the Union to open, democratic and accountable forms of administration.
3.1 Kommissionen har opfordret enkeltpersoner til at indgive klager over medlemsstaters manglende overholdelse af fællesskabsretten, og der er offentliggjort en standardformular til dette formål'. I sin første udtalelse erkender Kommissionen, at den korrekte procedure går ud på at foretage en behøring registrering af sådanne klager og at holde klagerne underrettet om sagens videre forløb.
The inquiries of the Ombudsman into the Newbury Bypass, and into several other complaints against the Commission, have led him to conclude that it is appropriate for there to be a more general examination of the procedural position of individual complainants in the Article 169 procedure.
3.2 En administrativ procedure af denne art afsluttes almindeligvis med en begrundet afgørelse, der sendes til dem, som er impliceret i sagsforløbet. Ombudsmanden mener, at Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med god forvaltningsskik burde have orienteret de registrerede klagere om afgørelsen på forhånd eller i hvert fald samtidig med, at afgørelsen blev bekendtgjort offentligt gennem en pressemeddelelse.
On the basis of the complaints that the Ombudsman has received, it appears thai the procedure currently used by the Commission causes considerable dissatisfaction amongst European citizens, some of whom regard the Commission's approach to the discharge of its responsibilities under Article 1 69 as arrogant and high-handed.
Måske var det ikke muligt at følge denne fremgangsmåde i den foreliggende sag af praktiske årsager (selv om Kommissionen ikke henviser til sådanne praktiske problemer i sin første udtalelse).
Furthermore, the procedure appears not to promote the degree of transparency which European citizens increasingly expect in the functioning of Community institu tions and bodies.
3.3 Eftersom dette aspekt af sagen vedrører procedurerne omkring et nærmere be stemt afsluttet begivenhedsforløb, er det ikke påkrævet at foretage yderligere un dersøgelser eller at forsøge at finde frem til en mindelig løsning.
Without prejudice to the question of whether the principles of Community law might require more developed procedural rights for private complainants under Article 169, the Commission could itself decide to create such rights as a matter of good administrative behaviour, consistent with the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance that individuals cannot challenge the Commission's decision not to open infringement proceedings.
I lyset af disse undersøgelsesresultater mente ombudsmanden, at det var unødvendigt at foretage yderligere undersøgelser; han gik ud fra, at Kommissionen ville tage de kritiske bemærkninger i punkt 3.2 til efterretning. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
In particular, before making its final decision, the Commission might communicate to registered complainants a provisional conclusion that there is no breach of Community law and its findings in support of that conclusion, with an invitation to submit observations within a defined period.
SUPPLERENDE BEMÆRKNINGER FRA OMBUDSMANDEN
132/21.9.95/'AH/EN against the European
Som nævnt i årsberetningen for 1995 er det i høj grad ombudsmandens opgave at forbedre forholdet mellem fællesskabsinstitutionerne og borgerne.
On 18 September 1995 Mr A. and Mr H. made a joint complaint against the European Commission.
Oprettelsen af ombudsmandsinstitutionen ved Traktaten om Den Europæiske Union skulle under strege Unionens tilsagn om en åben, demokratisk og ansvarlig forvaltning.
The complaint concerned the way in which the Commission had dealt with a complaint that it had received from Mr A. and Mr H. in relation to the widening of the M40 motorway in the United Kingdom.
At dømme efter de klager, ombudsmanden har modtaget, giver Kommissionens nuværende procedure anledning til betydelig utilfredshed blandt borgerne - en række borgere har givet udtryk for, at Kommissionen varetager sine forpligtelser ef ter artikel 169 på en arrogant og autoritær facon.
On 29 November 1990 Mr A. and Mr H. made a complaint to the European Commission alleging that the United Kingdom authorities had failed to comply with Directive 85/337/EEC' in relation to the widening of the M40 motorway.
Desuden fremmer proceduren til syneladende ikke den åbenhed, som borgerne i stadig højere grad efterlyser hos fællesskabsinstitutioner og -organer.
They al leged that a full and accurate environmental assessment of the proposed develop ment was not carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Directive.
I forhold til den nuværende situation ville den nævnte procedure frembyde to for dele.
On 26 August 1 991, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
For det første kunne proceduren bidrage til mere effektiv administration, fordi Kommissionen ville få lejlighed til at modtage kritik af sine synspunkter og til at vurdere og besvare denne kritik, inden der blev truffet endelig afgørelse.
By letter dated 10 September 1992, the Commission informed the complainants that it had concluded that there was no infringement of Directive 85/337/EEC and that this conclusion had been reached after enquiries had been made of the United Kingdom authorities and after examination of the information provided by them.
For det an det ville der ske en forbedring af forholdet mellem borgerne og Kommissionen, fordi borgerne ville få lejlighed til i højere grad at deltage i den administrative procedure efter artikel 169, og der ville blive skabt større åbenhed omkring Kommissionens aktiviteter.
The letter also stated that the Commission was unable to let the complainants see a copy of the United Kingdom's response to its enquiries as such enquiries are made, and the replies are given, on a confidential basis.
EUROPA-KOMMISSIONENS BEHANDLING AF EN KLAGE OVER MANGLENDE MILJØVURDERING: MOTORVEJEN M40
The complaint to the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
Afgørelse i klage 132/21.09.95/'AH/EN over Europa-Kommissionen
Mr A. and Mr H. asked the UK authorities for access to the information put forward to the Commission.