natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
- at sikre en konsekvent holdning fra Kommissionens side ved at gennemgå andre tilfælde af tilsvarende statsstøtte,
- ensure consistency in the Commission's response by consider ing other State aid cases of a comparable nature,
- at klarlægge, om de indklagede foranstaltninger reelt var en statsstøtte eller en mere generel form for økonomisk regulering via beskatning.
- verify whether the measures complained of are in fact State aids, or a more general form of economic regulation through taxation.
Klagen krævede indgående undersøgelser, som Kommissionens personale havde påbegyndt.
The complaint required in depth examination Commission's staff were engaged in that operation.
I modsætning til de tilfælde, hvor en statsstøtte er blevet meddelt Kommissionen, var Kommissionen i denne sag ikke forpligtet til at reagere inden for en fastsat tidsfrist.
Contrary to the situation where aids have been notified, the Commission is under no obligation to respond within a predeter-
Endvidere stod klageren ikke uden klagemuligheder, eftersom han kunne anlægge sag for de nationale domstole.
DECISIONS mined time. Moreover the complainant is not without redress since he can proceed in the national courts.
Klageren henviste i sine bemærkninger til en pressemeddelelse (IP/97/40) fra Kommissionen af 22. januar 1997, hvori det under henvisning til Ladbrokes klage oplystes, at Kommissionen havde besluttet at indhente oplysninger fra de franske myndigheder, for så vidt angik de franske foranstaltninger vedrørende spil på hestevæddeløb.
The observations referred to a press release (IP/97/40) issued by the Commission on 22 January 1997, which mentioned the complaint by Ladbroke and indicated that the Commission had decided to seek explanations from the French authorities concerning the nature of French horserace betting measures.
S.J.B. havde af denne pressemeddelelse forstået, at Kommissionen havde besluttet at indlede en formel procedure i overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, for at undersøge, om foranstaltningerne udgjorde en ulovlig statsstøtte.
S.J.B. understood from this press release that the Commission had decided to open a formal procedure under Article 93 (2) EC to investigate whether the measures constitute unlawful state aid.
Dog var det uvist, om Kommissionens procedure kun vedrørte Ladbrokes klage af 23. december 1992, eller om den ligeledes tog udgangspunkt i klagerne af 25. august 1994 og 27. marts 1995.
However, they queried whether the Commission's procedure took into account only Ladbroke's complaint dated 23 December 1992 or whether it also took into account the complaints dated 25 August 1994 and 27 March 1995.
Klageren fremsatte endvidere i det væsentligste følgende betragtninger:
The observations also made, in substance the following points:
Selv om visse traktatbestemmelser vedrørende statsstøtte fandt direkte anvendelse og således kunne prøves for nationale dom stole, havde Kommissionen alene beføjelse til at afgøre, hvorvidt en statsstøtte var forenelig med Fællesmarkedet.
Although certain of the Treaty provisions concerning State aids have direct effect and thus can be enforced in national courts, the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an aid is compatible with the common market;
Kommissionen fastholdt, at den var i færd med at undersøge Ladbrokes klage, men havde sidst kommunikeret med de franske myndigheder den 21. november 1995, over et år inden den vedtog at indlede en formel procedure.
The Commission maintained that it was actively investigating Ladbroke's complaints, but it had last communicated with the French authorities on 21 November 1995, more than a year prior to its decision to institute formal proceedings.
Som svar på Ombudsmandens anmodning om at klarlægge, hvilke af Ladbrokes klager der var omfattet af den formelle undersøgelse, frem sendte Kommissionen en kopi af sin skrivelse til de franske myndigheder med Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede proceduren i artikel 93, stk. 2, i EF-traktaten.
In response to a request from the Ombudsman to clarify which of Ladbroke's complaints were covered by the formal investigation, the Commission forwarded a copy of its letter to the French authorities setting out its decision to open 'the procedure under Article 93 (2).
Denne skrivelse af 4. februar 1996 blev offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende (1997 C 163, s. 5).
This letter, dated 4 February 1997, was published in the Official Journal (1997 C 163/5).
Kommissionen fremsendte senere yderligere oplysninger til Ombudsmanden, hvoraf det fremgik, at skrivelsen til de franske myndigheder ikke blot omhandlede de dekreter, som vedrørte Ladbrokes klage af 23. december 1992 men også dem, der vedrørte klagen af 25. august 1994 og 27. marts 1995.
The Commission subsequently provided further clarification to the Ombudsman. This was to the effect that the letter to the French authorities mentioned not only the Decrees relevant to Ladbroke's complaint dated 23 December 1992, but also those relating to its complaints dated 25 August 1994 and 27 March 1995.
Endvidere omfattede skrivelsen også den støtte, der henvistes til i en pressemeddelelse af 10. december 1992 fra det franske landbrugsministerium.
Furthermore, the letter also covered aid, referred to in a press release dated 10 December 1992 issued by the French Ministry of Agriculture.
Det fremgik af klagerens bemærkninger til de supplerende oplysninger fra Kommissionen, at klageren havde opnået vished for, at der ikke som anført i den oprindelige klage, forelå fejl og forsømmelser, idet Kommissionen havde besluttet at indlede proceduren i artikel 93, stk. 2.
It appeared from the complainant's observations on this further information from the Commission that they accepted that the concerns about possible maladministration expressed in his original complaint had been satisfied by the opening of a formal investigation under Article 93 (2).
Ikke desto mindre mente klageren ikke, at den formelle undersøgelse skulle kunne vare ved uendeligt, især i betragtning af, at der ikke var fastsat nogen bindende tidsfrist for Kommissionens procedurer.
However, they expressed concern that the progress of the formal investigation should not be allowed to drift indefinitely, particularly in view of the
AFGØRELSEN
Page 142
1 Ifølge EF-traktatens artikel 155 varetager Kommissionen rollen som "traktatens vogter". Hermed menes, at Kommissionen skal sikre, at trak tatens bestemmelser og bestemmelser, som institutionerne træffer med hjemmel i traktaten, gennemføres.
DECISIONS absence of any binding time limits in the Commission's procedures.
Anmeldes en ny statsstøtte ikke i overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, kan Kommissionen gøre brug af den i artikel 93, stk. 2, fastlagte procedure.1
They stated that a further complaint to the Ombudsman might be made in case of excessive delay by the Commission in concluding its investigation under Article 93 (2).
AFGØRELSER tätens grundlæggende regler om statsstøtte at gennemføre en passende og upartisk undersøgelse af klagen.1
In dealing with a complaint in the field of State aids, the Commission is required, in the interests of sound administration of the fundamental rules of the Treaty relating to State aid, to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint.2
3 Den 4. februar 1997 indledte Kommissionen en formel undersøgelse i henhold til artikel 93, stk. 2, af Ladbrokes klager over statsstøtte til den franske væddeløbs- og totalisatorsektor.
On 4 February 1997, the Commission began a formal investigation under Article 93 (2) of Ladbroke's complaints concerning State aids to the French racing and betting industries.The investigation appeared to cover all the matters which were the subject of the complaint to the Ombudsman.
4 Ombudsmanden konkluderede, at klageren havde erkendt, at påstanden om fejl og forsømmelser i den oprindelige klage til Ombudsmanden var ubegrundet, eftersom der den 4. februar 1997 var indledt en formel undersøgelse i henhold til artikel 93, stk. 2.
The Ombudsman understood that the complainant accepted that the concerns about possible maladministration expressed in the original complaint to the Ombudsman were satisfied by the open­ing of the formal investigation under Article 93 (2) on 4 February 1997.
5 Det fremgik af Europa-Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde truffet en afgørelse i sagen, som var til fredsstillende for klageren, og Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
It appeared from the European Commission's comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter and had thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
MANGLENDE INFORMATION I FORBINDELSE MED TELEFONSAMTALER
ALLEGED LACK OF INFORMATION FURTHER TO TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
Afgørelse om klage 1128/31.12.96/MH/U(VK)OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1128/31.12.96/MH/U(VK)OV against the European Commission
I december 1996 klagede H., journalist, til Ombudsmanden over manglende information fra Kommissionens side.
In December 1996, Mr H., a journalist, complained to the Ombudsman con­cerning an alleged lack of information from the Commission.
H. havde ved flere lejligheder forsøgt at opnå oplysninger fra Kommissionen om 1) BADGE, et farligt stof i konserves, 2) import, handel og konsum af krokodillekød fra Sydafrika og 3) nye bestemmelser om køkkenudstyr til restauranter.
Mr H. tried on several occasions to obtain from the Commission information about 1) BADGE, a dangerous substance in tinned food, 2) import, trade and con-
Kommissionen bemærkede dog, at den var rede til at forelægge kla geren de ønskede oplysninger.
However, the Commission observed that it was prepared to provide the requested information to the complainant.
Den oplyste derfor, at klageren for at opnå generelle oplysninger skulle kontakte Talsmandens Tjeneste og oplyste tjenestens telefonnummer.
Therefore it indicated that, in order to obtain general information, the complainant could contact the Spokesman's Service, for which it gave the telephone number.
For så vidt angik aktindsigt i specifikke dokumenter, henviste Kommissionen til bestemmelserne i Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter1og angav for de tre forskellige emner, som klageren havde ønsket oplysninger om, navne og telefonnumre på de tjenestemænd i henholdsvis direktorat III, VIII og XI, som var ansvar lige for de pågældende områder.
As con cerns access to specific documents, the Commission referred to the rules laid down in the Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 on pub lic access to Commission documents1and indicated, for the three different topics on which the complainant requested information, the names and telephone numbers of the officials in Directorates III, VIM and XI respectively responsible for those matters.
Kommissionens udtalelse indeholdt endvidere en række grundlæggende oplysninger om 1) BADGE i konserves, 2) import af krokodillekød fra Sydafrika og 3) bestemmelser om køkkenudstyr i restauranter.
The Commission's opinion also provided some basic information on 1) BADGE in tinned food, 2) import of crocodile meat from South Africa and 3) regulations on kitchen equipment for restaurants.
For så vidt angik det første emne, vedføjede Kommissionen udtalelse af 7. juni 1996 fra Den Videnskabelige Komité for Levnedsmidler og oplyste, at efter en telefonsamtale mellem en tjenestemand i GDIII og klageren, havde sidst nævnte fået tilsendt dokumentation om dette emne den 29. april 1997.
As regards the first topic, the Commission also enclosed the Opinion of the Scientific Committee for Food expressed on 7 June 1996 and indicated that after a telephone conversation between an official of DG III and the complainant, documentation on this matter had been sent to the latter on 29 April 1997.
Ombudsmanden modtog ingen bemærkninger fra klageren til Kommissionens udtalelse.
No observations on the Commission's opinion were received from the com plainant.
Dog meddelte klageren i en telefonsamtale, at han var tilfreds med Kommissionens endelige svar og den dokumentation, han havde modtaget.
However, in a telephone conversation the complainant declared that he was satisfied with the final response of the Commission and the documentation that had been sent to him.
2 Positivt svar fra Kommissionen på anmodning om oplysninger
2 Positive response from the Commission to provide the requested information
I sin udtalelse erklærede Kommissionen sig rede til at forelægge de oplysninger, klageren havde anmodet om, og fremsendte visse grundlæggende oplysninger vedrørende de tre emner (1.
In its opinion, the Commission declared that it was prepared to provide the information requested to the complainant and supplied some basic information concerning the three subjects (1.
BADGE i konserves, 2. import af krokodillekød fra Sydafrika og 3. bestemmelser om køkkenudstyr til restauranter).
BADGE in tinned food, 2. import of crocodile meat from South Africa, and 3. regulation on kitchen equipment for restaurants).
Kommissionen foreslog klageren at kontakte Talsmandens Tjeneste og flere tjeneste mænd vedrørende henholdsvis generelle og specifikke oplysninger. ninger.
The Commission suggested to the complainant that he could contact the Spokesman's Service and several officials, respectively for general or specific information.
Det fremgik af Kommissionen udtalelser og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde bestræbt sig på at finde en løsning i sagen, som var tilfredsstillende for klageren og Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
It appeared from the Commission's comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter and had thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
FORSINKET BETALING AF KOMMISSIONENS BIDRAG TIL ET PROJEKT
LATE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION'S CONTRIBUTION TO A PROJECT
Afgørelse om klage 384/97/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 384/97/JMA against the European Commission
I maj 1997 klagede M. og H. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af European Nature Heritage Fund (ENHF) (den europæiske naturarvsfond).
In May 1997, Mr M. and Mrs H. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of the European Nature Heritage Fund (ENHF). The complaint alleged
Klagen vedrørte uberettiget forsinkelse fra Kommissionens GD Vl's side med hensyn til betaling af Kommissionens bidrag til et projekt, som gennem førtes af ENHF.
DECISIONS unjustified delay by DG VI of the Commission in paying its contribution to a project carried out by ENHF.
8 93.ES.06.002"-projektet i forbindelse med "Proyecto piloto y de demostración de aprovechamiento duradero de pastizales arbolados en el oeste de España".1 ENHF afsluttede projektet i slut ningen af marts 1996 og indgav de nødvendige tekniske og finansielle rapporter til Kommissionen i maj 1996 med henblik på den endelige betaling.
ENHF completed the project at the end of March 1996 and submitted the necessary technical and financial reports to the Commission in May 1996, in order to obtain the final payment.
(Kommissionen havde allerede betalt 73.755.269 pta.).
(The Commission had already paid 73,755,269 ptas.)
I juni 1996 anmodede en tjenestemand i GD VI om visse ændringer i præsentationen af de endelige rapporter vedrørende projektet, som blev frem sendt af klagerne i juni 1996.
In June 1996, an official from DG VI requested some changes in the presentation of the Project's final reports, which were forwarded by the com plainants on June 1996.
Derefter kontaktede klagerne Kommissionen ved flere lejligheder for at anmode om den endelige betaling.
Thereafter the complainants contacted the Commission on several occasions to request that the final payment be made.
Kommissionen svarede i februar 1997 med en anmodning om en ændring af projektets finansielle rapport.
The Commission replied in February 1997 requesting a modification of the project's financial report.
Selv om klagerne anså den oprindelige rapport for at være i overensstemmelse med retningslinjerne for projektets fuldendelse, fremsendte de en ny finansiel rapport til Kommissionen i april 1997.
Although they considered that the original report was in conformity with the guidelines for the completion of the project, the complainants forwarded a new financial report to the Commission in April 1997.
På tidspunktet for klagen til Ombudsmanden i maj 1997 havde klagerne ikke modtaget yderligere betalinger fra Kommissionen over et år efter at projektet var fuldendt, og de oplyste, at deres finansielle situation var ved at blive håbløs. De spurgte Ombudsmanden, om der var en frist for forsinkede betalinger fra Kommissionen, og anmodede ham om at gribe ind for at sikre, at den endelige betaling fandt sted omgående.
At the time of the complaint to the Ombudsman in May 1997, the com plainants had received no further payments from the Commission, more than a year after the project had been completed and stated that their financial situation was becoming desperate.
Kommissionen erklærede i sin udtalelse, at den havde samfinansieret klagernes projekt på grundlag af artikel 8 i forordning 4256/88.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it had co-financed the complainants' project on the basis of Article 8 of Regulation 4256/88.
Betalingerne for projektet var blevet foretaget i tre rater: i august 1993, i maj 1995 og i juli 1997.
Payments for the project had been made in three instalments: in August 1993, May 1995 and July 1997.
Den endelige betaling var blevet forsinket på grund af nødvendigheden af at kontrollere visse finansielle oplysninger vedrørende projektet. Beslutning 1605/93, som fast satte reglerne for projektet, fastslog, at endelige betalinger først kan foretages, når de kompetente kommissionstjenestegrene har godkendt de tekniske og finansielle rapporter, som kontrahenten har indgivet.
The final payment had been delayed because of the need to check some finan cial information concerning the project.
Bilag II til beslutningen giver Kommissionen tilladelse til at anmode kontrahenten om alle relevante oplysninger.
Annex II of the Decision authorizes the Commission to request all relevant information from the contractor.
I dette særlige tilfælde måtte Kommissionen anmode kontrahenterne om supplerende oplysninger ved forskellige lejligheder. heder.
In this particular case, the Commission services had to request additional information from the complainants on different occasions. sions.
Imidlertid skyldtes den lange forsinkelse med hensyn til den endelige betaling en kontrol foretaget af Kommissionen i forbindelse med alle projekter, der finansieres i henhold til artikel 8 i forordning 4256/88, i forlængelse af kritiske bemærkninger fra Revisionsretten.
However, the length of the delay in making the final payment was the con sequence of a review carried out by the Commission of all projects financed under Article 8 of Regulation 4256/88, following critical remarks made by the Court of Auditors.
Denne kontrol medførte en væsentlig forøgelse af arbejdsbyrden i Kommissionens tjenestegrene.
This review entailed a substantive increase in the workload of the Commission's services.
Kommissionen påpegede, at den, så snart den havde modtaget den nye rapport fra klagerne i april 1997, udarbejdet i overensstemmelse med dens nye retningslinjer, havde foretaget den endelige betaling i løbet af to måneder.
The Commission underlined that once it had received the new report from the complainants in April 1997, drawn up in line with its new guidelines, it had cleared the final payment within two months.
Supplerende oplysninger fremsendt af klagerne
Additional information sent by the complainants
Inden Ombudsmanden modtog Kommissionens udtalelse, fremsendte kla gerne supplerende oplysninger med skrivelser fra juni og juli 1997.
Before the Ombudsman received the Commission's opinion, the com plainants sent additional information by letters dated June and July 1997.
Den første skrivelse henviste til deres kontakter med forskellige kommissionstjenestegrene med henblik på at få klarlagt situationen med hensyn til den endelige betaling i forbindelse med deres projekt.
The first letter referred to their contacts with different services of the Commission with a view to finding out the situation of the final payment for their project.
Selv om den endelige betaling syntes at være undervejs, havde Kommissionen over for klagerne også påpeget, at den havde beføjelse til at blokere betalingerne i tilfælde af tvivl.
Although final payment seemed to be on its way, the Commission had also pointed out to the complainants that it was within their power to block payments in case of doubt.
På baggrund af denne erklæring satte klagerne i deres skrivelse til Ombudsmanden spørgsmålstegn ved, om der burde være en frist for at begrænse denne beføjelse.
In view of this statement, the complainants questioned in their letter to the Ombudsman whether there should be a deadline to limit that power.
Klagerne anførte i deres skrivelse fra juli 1997, at de nu havde modtaget den endelige betaling.
In their letter of July 1997, the complainants stated that they had now received the final payment.
De anførte også, at medmindre Kommissionen ændrede sin måde at behandle ikke-statslige organisationer på, ville de ikke være i stand til at deltage i noget andet projekt. Klagerne takkede også
They also stated that unless the Commission modifies its way of dealing with non-governmental organisations, they would be unable to participate in any other project.
Ombudsmanden fremsendte Kommissionens udtalelse til klagerne med en opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger, men han modtog ingen.
The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion to the complainants with an invitation to make observations, but none were received.
På grundlag af oplysningerne fra klagerne og Kommissionen konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen havde løst sagen.
On the basis of the information provided by the complainants and the Commission, the Ombudsman concluded that the case had been settled by the Commission.
FORSØMMELSE VED IKKE AT HOLDE EN KLAGER UNDERRETTET OM DENNES KLAGESAG
FAILURE TO KEEP A COMPLAINANT INFORMED OF DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING HIS COMPLAINT
Afgørelse om klage 596/97/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 596/97/JMA against the European Commission
I juni 1997 klagede D.M. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af miljøgruppen CER.
In June 1997, Mr D. M. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of an environmental group, CER.
Han påstod, at Kommissionen havde forsømt at underrette CER om enhver udvikling angående den klage, gruppen havde sendt til Kommissionen i maj 1996.
He alleged that the Commission had failed to inform CER of any developments concerning a complaint which it sent to the Commission in May 1996.
CER's klage til Kommissionen drejede sig om den tilladelse, de spanske myndigheder havde givet til minedrift i Montes Obarenes-Toloño, i La Rioja.
CER's complaint to the Commission concerned the authorisation granted by the Spanish authorities for mining exploitation in Montes Obarenes-Toloño, La Rioja.
Dette område var af de spanske myndigheder klassificeret som et særligt beskyttelsesområde for beskyttelse af fugle.
This area had been classified by the Spanish authorities
Den 5. juni 1996 meddelte Kommissionen CER, at klagen var registreret under arkivnummer 96/4370 SG(96)A/8475, men den havde derefter ikke givet nogen yderligere oplysninger. ninger.
On 5 June 1996, the Commission informed CER that the complaint had been registered under file number 96/4370 SG(96)A/8475, but had not subsequently forwarded any further information.
Klagen blev sendt til Kommissionen, hvis udtalelse i sammendrag var som følger:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission. The Commission's opinion was in summary the following:
Som indledende aspekt hævdede Kommissionen, at klageren ikke forud for klagen havde foretaget passende administrative henvendelser, som det kræves i artikel 2, stk. 4, i ombudsmandsstatutten.
As a preliminary aspect, the Commission claimed that the complaint had not been preceded by appropriate administrative approaches, as required by Article 2 (4) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.