natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I betragtning af, at klageren havde undladt at give oplysninger, der kunne have ført til opdagelse af eksistensen af restriktive aftaler, erklærede Kommissionen, at der ikke var tale om nogen overtrædelse af konkurrencereglerne, eftersom alle leverandører er fuldt ud berettigede til at anvende eneforhandlere, såvel i Det Forenede Kongerige som andetsteds.
Given that the complainant had failed to provide details which might have led to discovering the existence of any restrictive agreements, the Commission stated that there would be no infringement of the competition rules, since all suppliers are fully entitled to employ exclusive distributors, in the UK or elsewhere.
Kommissionen bemærkede endvidere, at den i mangel af
The Commission further commented that, in the absence of detailed information, it could not take a decision to carry out in situ inspections, and that
AFGØRELSER detaljerede oplysninger ikke kunne træffe en afgørelse om at udføre inspektioner på stedet, og at denne sags indvirkning, som klageren erkendte var lille, ikke berettigede til en systematisk undersøgelse gennem formelle anmodninger om oplysninger til alle modeljernbanefabrikanter og -grossister i EU.
DECISIONS a systematic investigation through formal requests for information to all manufacturers and wholesalers of model railways in the Community was not justified by the economic impact of the case, which the complainant admitted was small.
Kommissionen henledte navnlig opmærksomheden på, at klageren sammen med klagen havde sendt en kopi af "Kommissionens meddelelse af 3. september 1986 vedrørende aftaler af ringe betydning", hvilket viste, at han var klar over, at Kommissionen ikke normalt intervenerede i sådanne tilfælde.
The Commission particularly drew the attention to the fact that, attached to his complaint, the complainant had sent a copy of the "Commission Notice of 3 September 1986 on Agreements of minor impor­tance", which showed that he was aware that the Commission did not nor­mally intervene in such cases.
Endelig bemærkede Kommissionen, at eftersom det måtte lægges til grund, at sagen vedrørte handel med modeljernbaner på detailplan, var en virkning på handelen mellem medlemsstater under alle omstændigheder usandsynlig.
Finally the Commission observed that, since the case appeared to concern trade in model railways at retail level, an effect on trade between Member States was in any event improbable.
Klageren forkastede Kommissionens redegørelse og anmodede om en fuldstændig undersøgelse af de spørgsmål, der var rejst i hans klage, som han erklærede er kendsgerninger og ikke generelle bemærkninger.
The complainant rejected the Commission's statement and asked for a full investigation of the matters raised in his complaint, which he declared are facts and not general observations.
Han bemærkede i særdeleshed, at der ikke findes nogen alternativ leveringskilde, at der er skabt et monopol, og gentog, at britiske detailhandlere skulle betale alt for høje prise i sammenligning med andre lande.
He more particularly observed that there exists no alternative source of supply, that a monopoly is created and repeated that the UK retailers have to pay excessive prices as opposed to other countries.
Han bemærkede også, at han ikke kunne give noget bevis for restriktive handelsordninger uden at bryde ind i leverandørers/fabrikanters lokaler for at skaffe sådanne oplysninger.
He also commented that he could not furnish proof of restrictive trade arrangements without breaking into premises of suppli­ers/manufacturers to obtain such information.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Påstået manglende handling i forlængelse af klagen
THE DECISION 1 Alleged failure to take action further to the complaint
Ifølge klageren burde Kommissionen være skredet til yderligere handling i forlængelse af hans klage, hvori han gør konkurrence restriktioner fra de tyske og østrigske modeljernbanefabrikanters side gældende.
According to the complainant the Commission should have taken action further to his complaint alleging restriction of competition by the German and Austrian model railway manufacturers.
Sammenfattet bemærkede Kommissionen, at kla geren ikke gav tilstrækkeligt mange detaljerede oplysninger til at sætte den i stand til at indlede en undersøgelse.
In sum­mary, the Commission observed that the complainant did not fur­nish enough detailed information in order to enable it to initiate investigations.
Kommissionens påståede manglende handling i henhold til konkurrenceretten skal betragtes inden for rammerne af den administrative procedure, som Kommissionen følger for at bringe over trædelser af EF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86 frem for dagens lys.
1.2 The alleged failure of the Commission to take action under com­petition law has to be considered in the frame of the administrative procedure which the Commission follows in order to bring to light infringements of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.
Denne administrative procedure er fastsat i Rådets forordning nr. 17,1som tillægger Kommissionen vide undersøgelsesbeføjelser og beføjelser til at indhente oplysninger.
This admin­istrative procedure is regulated by Council Regulation no 171 which confers on the Commission wide powers to make investiga­tions and to obtain information.
I henhold til Domstolens retspraksis2er det op til Kommissionen selv og ikke til tredjemand med henblik på en undersøgelse i hen hold til artikel 14 i forordning nr. 17 at afgøre, om særlige oplysninger er nødvendige for at sætte den i stand til at bringe en over-
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice,2it is for the Commission itself, and not for a third party, to decide, for the pur­poses of an investigation under Article 14 of Regulation no 17, whether particular information is necessary to enable it to bring to light an infringement of the competition rules.
Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962: Første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikler 85 og 86 ( EFT, Dansk Specialudgave 1959-1962, s. 81).
1 Council Regulation N° 17 of 6 February 1962 : First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ English Special Edition, Series-I (59-62), p. 87).
AFGØRELSER trædeise af'konkurrencereglerne frem for dagens lys. Domstolen har navnlig fastslået, at selv om den allerede har dokumentation eller endog bevis for eksistensen af en overtrædelse, kan Kommissionen indtage den holdning, at det er nødvendigt at anmode om supplerende oplysninger for at sætte den i stand til mere præcist at fastslå overtrædelsens omfang, fastslå dens varighed eller påvise kredsen af involverede virksomheder.
DECISIONS indeed proof, of the existence of an infringement, the Commission may take the view that it is necessary to request further information to enable it to define more accurately the scope of the infringe ment, to determine its duration or to identify the circle of under takings involved.
Det forhold, at Kommissionen anmodede klageren om supplerende oplysninger i det foreliggende tilfælde, forekom rimeligt og ikke for vidtgående.
The fact that the Commission requested more information from the complainant in the present case seemed reasonable and not excessive.
Derfor kunne det lægges til grund, at Kommissionen ikke havde begået fejl eller forsømmelser, da den besluttede, at den stadig var ude af stand til at handle på grundlag af de oplysninger, klageren havde givet.
Therefore there appeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commission in deciding that it was still unable to take action on basis of the information provided by the complainant.
2 Påstået manglende besvarelse af klagerens skrivelser
2 Alleged failure to reply to the letters of the complainant
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen undlod at besvare hans skrivelser af 21. november 1995, 29. marts og 23. maj 1996.
2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to reply to his letters of 21 November 1995, 29 March and 23 May 1996.
I sin skrivelse af 21. november 1995 gav klageren i forlængelse af dens anmodning om mere detaljerede oplysninger Kommissionen en liste over fabrikanter, der formodedes at anvende eneagenturaftaler.
In his letter of 21 November 1995, the complainant provided the Commission, further to its request for more detailed information, with a list of manufacturers supposed to use sole agency agree ments.
I betragtning af, at klageren ikke havde modtaget noget svar fra Kommissionen i marts 1996, skrev han de to skrivelser, hvori han venligst anmodede om et svar på sin første skrivelse af 21. november 1995.
Given that the complainant received no answer from the Commission by March 1996, he wrote the two other letters in which he asked for the courtesy of a reply to his first letter dated 21 November 1995.
Kommissionen svarede, at den besvarede disse skrivelser den 28. november 1996.
The Commission answered that it replied to those letters on 28 November 1996.
2.2 God forvaltningsskik kræver, at skrivelser fra klagere til Kommissionens administration bliver besvaret inden for en rimelig tidsfrist.
Principles of good administrative behaviour require that letters from complainants to the Commission administration receive a reply within a reasonable time limit.
Opfyldelsen af dette krav er endnu mere nødvendigt, når en skrivelse fra en klager indeholder nye oplysninger i sammen ligning med hans tidligere skrivelser, f.eks. en korrespondance, hvori Kommissionen anmodes om at gribe ind som følge af en overtrædelse af konkurrencereglerne.
This requirement is even more necessary when a letter from a complainant contains new information compared to his previous letters, for example in correspondence asking the Commission to take action because of violation of competition rules.
På grundlag af Kommissionens oplysninger kunne det lægges til grund, at skrivelsen af 21. november 1995 først blev besvaret den 28. november 1996, dvs. et år senere.
It appeared from the information given by the Commission that the letter of 21 November 1995 was only answered on 28 November 1996, i.e. one year later.
Selv om Kommissionen havde besvaret alle de øvrige skrivelser fra klageren, hvortil der henvises i klagens faktiske omstændigheder i punkt 2 ovenfor, burde den også have besvaret skrivelsen af 21. november 1995 inden for en rimelig tidsfrist.
Even if the Commission had replied to all the other correspondence from the complainant referred to in the facts of the complaint under point 2 above, it should also have answered the letter of 21 November 1995 within a reasonable time limit.
Nødvendigheden af et svar i det foreliggende tilfælde blev presserende i betragtning af, at klageren i forlængelse af Kommissionens anmodning om mere detaljerede oplysninger endelig gav Kommissionen nye oplysninger i form af en liste over tyske og østrigske fabrikanter, der formodes at anvende eneagenturaftaler.
2.4 The necessity of a reply in the present case became urgent, given that the complainant, further to the Commission's request for more detailed information, finally provided the Commission with new details in the form of a list of German and Austrian manufacturers supposed to practice sole agency agreements.
Derfor udgjorde den omstændighed, at Kommissionen besvarede klagerens skrivelse af 21. november 1995, som indeholdt nye
Therefore, the fact that the Commission replied one year later to
AFGØRELSER oplysninger med hensyn til hans oprindelige klage, et år senere, et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
DECISIONS the complainant's letter of 21 November 1995 which contained new information with regard to his original complaint, constituted an instance of maladministration.
Af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage fremgik det, at det var nødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appeared necessary to make the following critical remark :
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at skrivelser fra klagere til Kommissionens administration bliver besvaret inden for en rimelig tidsfrist.
The principles of good administrative behaviour require that letters from complainants to the Commission administration receive a reply within a reasonable time limit.
Den omstændighed, at Kommissionen besvarede klagerens skrivelse af 21. november 1995, som indeholdt nye oplysninger med hensyn til hans oprindelige klage, et år senere, udgjorde derfor et tilfælde af fejl eller for sømmelser.
The fact that the Commission only replied after one year to the complainants letter of 21 November 1995 which con tained new information with regard to his original complaint constituted therefore an instance of maladministration.
I betragtning af, at dette aspekt af sagen vedrørte procedurer med tilknytning til tidligere specifikke begivenheder, var det ikke hensigtsmæssigt at forfølge en mindelig bilæggelse af sagen.
Given that this aspect of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in the past, it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
Ombudsmanden besluttede derfor at afslutte behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
ANERKENDELSE AF EKSAMENSBEVISER FOR TANDLÆGER UDSTEDT AF TREDJELANDE
RECOGNITION OF CERTIFICATES OF DENTISTRY FROM THIRD COUNTRIES
Afgørelse om klage 783/01.08.96/LBR/ES/KH(JMA) over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 783/01.08.96/LBR/ES/KH(JMA) against the European Commission
I juli 1996 klagede B. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af "Colegio de Odontólogos y Estomatólogos" i Vizcaya.
In July 1996, Mr B. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of the "Colegio de Odontólogos y Estomatólogos" of Vizcaya.
Klagen vedrørte Kommissionens påståede manglende sikring af, at de spanske myndigheder anvendte direktiv 78/686/EØF om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser for tandlæger korrekt.
The complaint con cerned the alleged failure of the Commission to ensure that the Spanish authorities correctly applied Directive 78/686/EEC on mutual recognition of certificates of dentistry.
B. gjorde i sin klage gældende, at Spanien ikke overholdt. direktivet, eftersom myndighederne anerkendte eksamensbeviser for tandlæger, som var erhvervet i latinamerikanske lande og ikke levede op til direktivets krav.
In his complaint Mr B. alleged that Spain was not complying with the Directive since its authorities were recognizing odontologisi degrees obtained in Latin American countries, which did not meet the requirements set by the Directive.
Efter at have modtaget flere klager vedrørende det samme forhold indledte Kommissionen overtrædelsesproceduren i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169.
Having received several complaints concerning the same situation, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
Der blev i oktober 1990 sendt en åbningsskrivelse til de spanske myndigheder efterfulgt af en begrundet udtalelse i august 1992.
A letter of formal notice was sent to the Spanish authorities in October 1990, followed by a reasoned opinion in August 1992.
De spanske myndigheder besvarede den begrundede udtalelse i marts 1993.
The Spanish authorities replied to the reasoned opinion in March 1993.
B. klagede til Kommissionen i 1992.
Mr B. had complained to the Commission in 1992.
Siden da skrev han til og besøgte de ansvarlige tjenestegrene ved flere lejligheder for at få oplysninger om udviklingen i artikel 169-proceduren.
Since then, he wrote to and visited the services responsible on several occasions in order to receive information on the development of the Article 169 proceedings.
Han anmodede Kommissionen om at fremskynde sagen og om at få adgang til oplysninger vedrørende de relevante sagsakter, navnlig at fa kopier af brevvekslingen mellem Kommissionen og de spanske myndigheder.
He had asked the Commission to speed up the process and to have access to information concerning the relevant files, in particular to obtain copies of the exchanges between the Commission and the Spanish authorities.
Kommissionen afslog imidlertid hans anmodninger om at se sagsakterne med den begrundelse, at proceduren er fortrolig.
The Commission, however, rejected his requests to see the files on the grounds that the proceedings are confidential.
I forbindelse med alle kontakter med og skrivelser til klageren hævdede Kommissionen, at proceduren gik sin gang, og at Kommissionens tjene stegrene modtog de dokumenter, som de spanske myndigheder frem sendte.
In all contacts and letters with the complainant, the Commission insisted that the procedure was following its course and that the Commission's services were reviewing the documents sent by the Spanish authorities.
Klageren betragtede disse svar som værende for generelle og utilfredsstillende. fredsstillende.
The complainant considered that those replies were too general and unsatisfactory. factory.
Kommissionens udtalelse inde holdt sammenfattet de følgende bemærkninger:
In summary, the Commission's opinion was as follows:
I 1990 indledte Kommissionen overtrædelsesproceduren i henhold til artikel 169 mod Spanien for landets manglende opfyldelse af kriterierne
In 1990, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure under article 169 against Spain for its failure to follow the criteria set out in
2 i direktiv nr. 78/686/EØF og nr. 78/687/EØF om anerkendelse af eksa mensbeviser for tandlæger.
2 and 78/687/EEC for the recognition of dental directives 78/686/EECdegrees.
Artikel 1, stk. 4, i direktiv 78/687/EØF fastsætter følgende: "Dette direktiv berører ikke på nogen måde medlemsstaternes mulighed for på deres eget område og i henhold til deres lovgivning at give indehavere af eksamensbeviser, [...] som ikke er erhvervet i en medlemsstat, adgang til at optage og udøve virksomhed som tandlæge".
Article 1 paragraph 4 of Directive 78/687 establishes that "nothing shall prejudice any facility which may be granted in accordance with their own rules by Member States in respect of their own territory to authorize holders of diplomas, [...] which have not been obtained in a Member State to take up and pursue the activities of a dental practitioners".
Men ved at gøre dette var medlemsstaten bundet af de grundlæggende kriterier, som er fastsat i begge direktiver, og som enhver specialtandlæge bør opfylde.
However, in doing so, the Member State had been limited by the basic criteria laid down by both directives, and which should be met by any practitioner of specialised dentistry.
Kommissionen mente, at et eksamensbevis for tandlæger udstedt af en ikke-medlemsstat burde opfylde disse minimumskriterier for at blive anerkendt i Fællesskabet.
The Commission considered that, in order to be recognised in the Community, an odontologist degree delivered by a non Member State must guarantee these minimum criteria.
Til trods for ovennævnte forpligtelser anerkendte Spanien automatisk eksamensbeviser for tandlæger, som var erhvervet i latinamerikanske lande og ikke opfyldte direktivets minimumskriterier.
In spite of the above obligations, Spain automatically recognised dental degrees obtained in Latin American countries and which did not meet the Directive's minimum criteria.
Anerkendelsen af disse eksamensbeviser var baseret på bestemmelserne i bilaterale internationale aftaler, som Spanien havde indgået inden dets tiltrædelse af De Europæiske Fællesskaber.
The recognition of these degrees was based on the provisions of bilateral international agreements concluded by Spain before its accession to the European Communities.
Selv om de spanske myndigheder søgte at opfylde bestemmelserne i ovennævnte direktiver, blev deres afgørelser omstødt ved appel af for skellige administrative domstole.
Although the Spanish Administration sought to comply with the provisions of the above Directives, its decisions were reversed on appeal by different administrative courts.
Som følge heraf blev bestemmelserne i de relevante direktiver stadig ikke overholdt.
As a result the provisions of the relevant Directives were still not respected.
Kommissionen forklarede endvidere, at den på baggrund af, at Spanien var i færd med at genforhandle sine bilaterale aftaler med tredjelande, havde besluttet under udøvelse af sine skønsbeføjelser, jf. EF-Domstolens rets praksis, ikke at indbringe spørgsmålet for EF-Domstolen.
The Commission also explained that in view of the fact that Spain was in the process of renegotiating its bilateral agreements with third countries, it had decided not bring the matter before the European Court of Justice, in the exercise of its discretion, as recognised by the case-law of the European Court of Justice.
Rådets direktiv 78/686/EØF af 25. juli 1978 om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser for tandlæger og om foranstaltninger, der skal lette den faktiske udøvelse af retten til etablering og fri udøvelse af tjenesteydelser - EFT L 233 af 24.08.1978, 8.1.
Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, cer tificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services; OJL233 , 24.08.1978, p.1.
Med hensyn til den lange tid, der var gået i forbindelse med artikel 169-pro-cedurens forløb, begrundede Kommissionen den med procedurens kom pleksitet både ud fra et retligt og politisk synspunkt.
As regards the length of time involved in the development of this infringe ment proceeding under Article 169, the Commission justified it on the basis of its complexity, both from a legal and a political point of view.
Efter at have modtaget svaret på sin begrundede udtalelse anmodede Kommissionen de spanske myndigheder om yderligere oplysninger i oktober 1994 og i juli 1995.
After receiving the reply to its reasoned opinion, the Commission asked for further information from the Spanish authorities in October 1994 and in July 1995.
De spanske myndigheder besvarede disse anmodninger i henholdsvis december 1994 og oktober 1995.
The Spanish authorities replied to these requests in December 1994 and October 1995 respectively.
På tidspunktet for udtalelsen (den 20. december 1996) ventede Kommissionen stadig på svar fra de spanske myndigheder på en ny anmodning om oplysninger.
At the date of the opinion (20 December 1996) the Commission was still waiting for a reply from the Spanish authorities to a new request for information. mation.
Med hensyn til procedurens påståede manglende gennemsigtighed og afslaget på at fremlægge korrespondancen mellem Kommissionen og den spanske regering hævdede Kommissionen, at de skrivelser og øvrige dokumenter, som blev udvekslet med en medlemsstat inden for rammerne af en artikel 169-procedure, var af fortrolig karakter.
As for the alleged failure of transparency of the proceedings and the refusal to disclose the correspondence between the Commission and the Spanish government, the Commission insisted that the letters and other documents exchanged with a Member State in the context of Article 169 were of a con fidential nature.
På det grundlag var der ingen forpligtelse til at dele oplysningerne med eller videregive dem til tredjemand. jemand.
On that basis, there was no obligation to share with or to pass the information on to third parties.
Kommissionen påpegede, at den i sin behandling af denne procedure altid havde fulgt god forvaltningsskik, og at dens tjenestegrene havde svaret behørigt og i rette tid på skrivelserne fra klageren, med hvem de også havde haft et møde i Bruxelles.
The Commission stressed that in its handling of this proceeding it had always followed principles of good administration, and its services had replied in time and properly to the letters of the complainant, with whom they had also had a meeting in Brussels.
Klagerens bemærkninger Sammenfattet fremførte B. følgende punkter i sine bemærkninger:
The complainant's observations In his observations, Mr B. made in summary the following points: