natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren hævdede også, at dette ville være i overens stemmelse med en afgørelse, der blev truffet af Domstolen, hvor kendelsen lød således: " Udtrykket 'vildt', sådan som det fremgår af underafsnit 02.04B i den fælles toldtarif fra 1970 skal fortolkes som gældende for dyr, derlever vildt, og som jages".1Eftersom de pågældende rådyr ikke jages, men bringes til slagteriet som får eller kvæg, anså klageren det for rimeligt, at de i toldsammenhæng ville blive opfattet som husdyr.
The complainant also claimed that this would be in line with a decision of the Court of Justice where it held: "The expression 'game' as it appears at subheading 02.04-B of the Common Customs Tariff 1970 is to be interpreted as applying to animals living in the wild state which are hunted'.1As the deer in question are not hunted, but brought to the slaughterhouse like sheep or cattle, the complainant considered it to be fair that they would be treated for customs purposes as domestic animals.
Herefter var der en brevveksling mellem klageren og Kommissionen, hvoraf det fremgik, at Kommissionen ikke var af samme opfattelse som klageren.
Thereafter there was an exchange of correspondence between the com­plainant and the Commission, from which it emerged that the Commission did not share the complainant's point of view.
Dom af den 12. december 1973 i sagen C 149/73, Otto Witt KG mod. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus, [1973] ECR- 1587.
Judgment of 12 December 1973 in case C 149/73, Otto Witt KG ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus, [1973] ECR- 1587.
Klagen blev sendt til Kommissionen.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.
I sin udtalelse fastslog Kommissionen i det væsentlige følgende:
In its opinion, the Commission stated in substance the following:
Kommissionen vurderede klagerens klagepunkt, som denne havde fremsat i adskillige breve og kom til følgende konklusion: Det er nødvendigt at efterkomme de direktiver, der angives i Aftalen om fælles toldtarif, der fastslår, at kød fra dyr, der normalt jages (for eksempel rådyr) forbliver klassificeret som vildt, selv hvis sådanne dyr er blevet opdrættet i fangenskab.1Dette argument er i overensstemmelse med de redegørelser, som kommissær Monti gav klageren.
The Commission assessed the complainant's grievance which he had stated in several letters and came to the following conclusion: It is necessary to obey the instructions given in the Common Customs Tariff which states that meat of animals which are normally hunted (like deer), remains classified as meat of game, even when such animals have been raised in cap tivity.1This argumentation is in line with the explanations which Commissioner Monti gave to the complainant.
Desuden fastslår stk. 3 i den dom, Domstolen afsagde, og som citeres af klageren, at udtrykket 'vildt' i den almindelige betydning betegner de kategorier af dyr, der lever vildt, og som jages.
Furthermore, point 3 of the judgment of the Court of Justice cited by the complainant states that the expression 'game' in its ordinary meaning des ignates those categories of animals living in the wild and which are hunted.
Rådyr omfattes utvivlsomt af denne kategori.
Deer are undoubtedly included in this description.
Endelig bør man huske på, at den beskyttelse, som bliver forskellige landbrugsprodukter til del, frem for alt afgøres af politiske og ikke administrative handlinger.
Finally, it has to be recalled that the protection which is granted to different agricultural products is principally decided by political and not administrative action.
Kommissionen var af den mening, at klageren efter grundig overvejelse havde fået korrekte og tilstrækkelige oplysninger om sagen.
The Commission was of the opinion that, after thorough assessment, the complainant had been informed correctly and sufficiently about the matter.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage.
In his observationSi the complainant maintained his complaint.
Det spørgsmål, klagen rejste, var, hvorvidt Kommissionen havde fortolket de bestemmelser, der gælder for tariffen på rådyrkød, forkert.
The question raised by the complaint was whether the Commission had wrongly interpreted the provisions governing the tariff applicable to deer meat.
Den pågældende Aftale om fælles toldtarif fastslår, at rådyrkød, selv når rådyrene ikke jages, kan betegnes som 'vildt'.
The relevant Common Customs Tariff states that deer meat, even when it is not hunted can be declared as 'game'.
Det fremgik derfor, at Kommissionen havde vurderet de pågældende bestemmelser korrekt, og at rådyrkød fra dyr, der er opdrættet i fangenskab kan importeres af EU-landene som vildt.
It appeared therefore that the Commission had rightly assessed the relevant provisions and that deer meat of animals which remain in captivity can be imported into the Union as game.
Det skal imidlertid bemærkes, at Domstolen er den øverste myndighed vedrørende spørgsmål om fællesskabsretten.
However, it shall be recalled that the Court of Justice is the high est authority on questions of Community law.
På baggrund af ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage, fremgik det, at der ikke var fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
OJ C 342 af den 5. december 1994, side 23.
OJC 342 of 5 December 1994, page 23.
KOMMISSIONENS BESLUTNING OM IKKE AT INDLEDE EN OVERTRÆDELSESPROCEDURE I HENHOLD TIL EF-TRAKTATENS ARTIKEL 169
COMMISSION DECISION NOT TO INITIATE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 169 EC
Afgørelse om klage 175/97/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 175197IMA against the European Commission
I februar 1997 indgav D. på vegne af sin klient P. en klage til Ombudsmanden, hvori han anførte, at Kommissionen havde undladt at sikre korrekt anvendelse af direktiv 91/533/EØF i Portugal.
In February 1997, Mr D. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of his client Mr P., alleging that the Commission had failed to ensure the correct application of Directive 91/533 in Portugal.
P. havde arbejdet for firmaet "Casinos do Algarve", der blev overtaget af en administrativ kommission oprettet af de portugisiske myndigheder.
Mr P. had been working for the firm "Casinos do Algarve", which was taken over by an Administrative Commission set up by the Portuguese authorities.
Efter en arbejdsretlig tvist anlagde P. sag mod sin arbejdsgiver.
Following a labour-related dispute, Mr P. brought a legal action against his employer.
Det administrative organ, der ledede "Casinos", udtalte i retten, at det ikke var ansvarligt for firmaets ledelse.
However, the administrative agency in charge of Casinos declared in court that it was not responsible for the firm's management.
Det kunne lægges til grund, at situationen var i modstrid med kriterierne i direktiv 91/533/EØF, som regulerer arbejdsgiverens pligt til at underrette arbejdstageren om vilkårene for arbejdskontrakten eller ansættelsesforholdet.
The situation appeared to contravene the criteria laid down in Directive 91/533, which regulates the employer's obligation to inform employees of the con ditions applicable to the contract or to the employment relationship.
R indbragte sagen for de portugisiske domstole.
Mr P. took the case to the Portuguese Courts.
Eftersom sagen havde til knytning til de portugisiske myndigheders anvendelse af et EU-direktiv, fremsendte han også en klage og flere skrivelser til Kommissionen.
Since the case was related to the application of a Community directive by the Portuguese authorities, he also sent a complaint and several letters to the Commission.
P. kla gede over, at ingen af hans skrivelser blev besvaret af Kommissionen.
Mr P. com plained that none of his letters had received a reply from the Commission.
Kommissionen anførte i sin udtalelse, at den første skrivelse fra P. var blevet registreret af dens Generalsekretariat.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the first letter from Mr P. had been registered by its Secretariat General.
På grundlag af de faktiske omstændigheder således som fremstillet i skrivelsen konkluderede Kommissionen, at de portugisiske myndigheder muligvis ikke havde anvendt direktiv 91/533/EØF og direktiv 77/187/EØF om varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder korrekt.
On the basis of the facts as presented in the letter, the Commission concluded that the Portuguese authorities might not be correctly applying Directive 91/533 as well as Directive 77/187 concerning the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings.
Kommissionen skønnede det imidlertid uhensigtsmæssigt at foretage en undersøgelse af sagen i betragtning af, at vurderingen af sagen afhang af fortolkningen af portugisisk ret, og også, at de omtvistede omstændigheder allerede var genstand for to retssager ved de nationale domstole.
However, the Commission deemed it inappropriate to carry out an inquiry into the matter, in view of the fact that the assessment of the case was dependent on the interpretation of Portuguese law, and also that the facts in dispute were already the object of two legal proceedings before the national courts.
Ikke desto mindre havde Kommissionen i maj 1997 anmodet de portugisiske myndigheder om supplerende oplysninger.
Nevertheless, the Commission had requested further information from the Portuguese authorities in May 1997.
Kommissionen henviste også til sine skønsmæssige beføjelser for indledelse af overtrædelsesprocedurer mod en medlemsstat, således som anerkendt af Domstolen.
The Commission also made reference to its discretionary powers to start infringement proceedings against a Member State, as recognized by the Court of Justice.
P. anførte i sine bemærkninger, at appelsagen fortsat var under behandling ved de portugisiske domstole, og at sagen dermed langtfra var afgjort.
In his observations, Mr P. stated that the case was still on appeal before the Portuguese courts, and thus far from being settled.
Der
In the com-
Efter klagerens opfattelse burde Kommissionen, eftersom de nationale myndigheder ikke havde overholdt fællesskabsretten, være interveneret.
DECISIONS plainant's view, since the national authorities had not respected Community law, the Commission ought to have intervened.
Ved ikke at gøre brug af sin kompetence i henhold til traktaten havde Kommissionen undladt at optræde som traktatens vogter og havde tilladt, at en medlemsstat krænkede en EU-borgers rettigheder.
By not using its powers under the Treaty, the Commission had failed to act as the guardian of the Treaty and had allowed the violation of a European citizen's rights by a Member State.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Beslutning om ikke at realitetsbehandle en klage
1 Decision not to take up a complaint
I henhold til traktatens artikel 155 er det Kommissionens pligt som "traktatens vogter" at sikre, at fællesskabsretten gennemføres.
Under Article 155 of the Treaty, the Commission's duty as the "Guardian of the Treaty" is to ensure that Community law is applied.
Ved udførelsen af sin pligt som traktatens vogter undersøger Kommissionen eventuelle overtrædelser af fællesskabsretten, som den bliver opmærksom på gennem klager eller ved undersøgelser på eget initiativ.
In carrying out its duty as Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission investigates possible infringements of Community law which come to its attention as a result of complaints, or at its own initiative.
Undersøgelsen kan føre til, at der fremsendes en åbningsskrivelse til den pågældende medlemsstat, som har mulighed for at frem sætte sine bemærkninger.
The investigation may lead to the sending of a letter of formal notice to the Member State concerned, which has the opportunity to submit its observations.
Hvis Kommissionen da er af den opfattelse, at medlemsstaten har undladt at overholde en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til traktaten, fastsætter artikel 169, at den skal fremsætte en begrundet udtalelse.
If the Commission then considers that the Member State has failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaty, Article 169 provides for it to deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter.
Hvis Kommissionen vælger ikke at forfølge en undersøgelse af sagen, skal der være en begrundelse til støtte for denne handlemåde.
If the Commission chooses not to pursue an inquiry into the matter, there must be some reasoning supporting this course of action.
Disse årsager bør danne grundlag for enhver potentiel undersøgelse fra Ombudsmandens side for at sikre, at der ikke har fundet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser sted.
Those reasons should provide the basis for any potential inquiry by the Ombudsman in order to ensure that no maladministration has taken place.
Kommissionen begrundede sin manglende handling i P.'s sag med, at vurderingen af klagen var afhængig af fortolkningen af portugisisk ret, og at de omstridte faktiske omstændigheder allerede var genstand for to retssager ved de nationale domstole.
The Commission justified its inaction in Mr P.'s case on the grounds that the assessment of the complaint was dependant on the interpretation of Portuguese law and that the facts in dispute were already the object of two legal proceedings before the national courts.
Nationale domstole kunne behandle sager, som involverer ukorrekt anvendelse af fællesskabsretten, på en hurtig måde, og proceduren i forbindelse med forelæggelse af præjudicielle spørgsmål i artikel 177 gør det muligt at henvise spørgsmål vedrørende fællesskabsretten til Domstolen.
National courts could handle cases involving the incorrect application of Community law in an expeditious way, and the preliminary reference pro cedure of Article 177 allows for questions of Community law to be referred to the Court of Justice.
Ved gennemgangen af den af Kommissionen valgte handlemåde fandt Ombudsmanden, at institutionen havde handlet inden for grænserne af sin lovlige myndighed, og at der derfor ikke var konstateret noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
In reviewing the course of action chosen by the Commission, the Ombudsman found that the institution had acted within the limits of its legal authority and therefore that no instance of maladministration had been established.
2 Omgående svar på skrivelser fra klagere
2 Prompt reply to letters from complainants
Kommissionen anførte i sin udtalelse, at P.'s klage til Kommissionen var blevet registreret som sådan. R blev imidlertid aldrig skriftligt underrettet om denne registrering.
The Commission stated in its opinion that Mr P.'s complaint to the Commission had been registered as such.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand bemærkede imidlertid, at Kommissionen havde erkendt denne undladelse og havde undskyldt den over for klageren.
The European Ombudsman noted, however, that the Commission had recognized this failure and apologized to the complainant.
Der syntes derfor ikke at være behov for supplerende bemærkninger fra Ombudsmandens side.
No further remark by the Ombudsman therefore appeared to be necessary.
Det fremgik af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelse af denne klage, at Kommissionen valgte ikke at gribe ind over for en medlemsstat i forlængelse af P.'s klage, idet den tog i betragtning, at vurderingen af klagen var afhængig af fortolkningen af portugisisk ret, og at de omstridte faktiske omstændigheder allerede var genstand for to rets sager ved de nationale domstole.
On the basis of the inquiries of the European Ombudsman into this com plaint, it appeared that the Commission chose not to take any action against a Member State following the complaint sent by Mr P., taking into account that the assessment of the complaint was dependant on the inter pretation of Portuguese law, and also that the facts in dispute were already the object of two legal proceedings before the national courts.
Ved gennemgangen af den af Kommissionen valgte fremgangsmåde fandt Den Europæiske Ombudsmand, at institutionen havde handlet inden for grænserne af sin lovlige myndighed, og at der derfor ikke var konstateret noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
In reviewing the course of action chosen by the Commission, the European Ombudsman found that the institution had acted within the limits of its legal authority and therefore no instance of maladministration was established.
AFSLAG FRA EN NATIONAL DOMSTOL PÅ AT INDBRINGE ET PRÆJUDICIELT SPØRGSMÅL FOR EF-DOMSTOLEN: KOMMISSIONENS AFGØRELSE OM IKKE AT FORFØLGE EN BESLÆGTET KLAGE
REFUSAL BY A NATIONAL COURT TO REQUEST A PRELIMINARY RULING: COMMISSION'S DECISION NOT TO PURSUE A RELATED COMPLAINT
Afgørelse om klage 176/97/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 176/97/JMA against the European Commission
I februar 1997 klagede D. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af sin klient, K. Klagen vedrørte Kommissionens manglende besvarelse af skrivelser, som han havde sendt til Kommissionen den 7. august 1996 og den 11. december 1996.
In February 1997, Mr D. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of his client, Mr K. The complaint concerned the Commission's failure to reply to letters which he had addressed to it on 7 August 1996 and 11 December 1996.
Disse skrivelser var blevet sendt til Kommissionen som formelle klager over de portugisiske myndigheders påståede overtrædelser af fællesskabs retten.
These letters had been sent to the Commission as formal complaints against alleged infringements of Community law by the Portuguese author ities.
Klageren forklarede i sin første skrivelse til Kommissionen, at hans klient, K., der oprindelig var finsk statsborger, var blevet arresteret af de portugisiske myndigheder efter en udleveringsbegæring fra de finske myndigheder.
In his first letter to the Commission, the complainant explained that his client Mr K., originally a national of Finland, had been arrested by the Portuguese authorities following an extradition request from the Finnish authorities.
Under retssagen blev det imidlertid afsløret, at K. også havde taget dominikansk statsborgerskab.
However, in the course of the legal process, it was revealed that Mr K. had also taken the nationality of the Dominican Republic.
De kompetente portugisiske retsmyndigheder fandt, at K. ved at tage dominikansk statsborgerskab havde mistet sit oprindelige finske statsborgerskab, og anvendte i overensstemmelse hermed reglerne vedrørende tredjelandsstatsborgere frem for reglerne vedrørende EU-borgere.
The com petent Portuguese judicial authorities considered that, by taking the nation ality of the Dominican Republic, Mr K. had lost his original Finnish nation ality, and accordingly applied the rules concerning third country nationals, rather than those for EU citizens.
Denne fremgangsmåde blev bekræftet af den portugisiske Højesteret.
This approach was confirmed by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at denne retlige fortolk-
The complainant considered that this legal interpretation breached Article 8 and 8A of the Treaty.
Se Kommissionens Håndbog om Operationsprocedurer (afsnit 15.4., s. 45).
Mr D. therefore asked the Commission to intervene, in its role of guardian of the Treaty, to ensure that the Portuguese authorities properly applied Community law.
D. fremsendte med sin anden skrivelse til Kommissionen af 11. december 1996 yderligere dokumentation vedrørende klagen.
In his second letter to the Commission of 11 December 1996, Mr D. pro vided additional documentation to his complaint.
I sin udtalelse gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at den først efter en grundig evaluering af de dokumenter, der var fremsendt med klagerens skrivelser, var i stand til at affatte et svar i juni 1997.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it was only after a thorough evaluation of the documents submitted in the complainant's letters that the Commission was able to draft a reply in June 1997.
Kommissionen erkendte den lange forsinkelse og undskyldte, at den ikke havde besvaret skrivelserne inden for et mere rimeligt tidsrum.
The Commission recognised the long delay, and apologised for not having replied to the letters in a more reasonable time.
Med hensyn til den faktiske situation bekræftede Kommissionen den af kla geren beskrevne stilling.
As regards the factual situation, the Commission confirmed the position as described by the complainant.
Den gjorde imidlertid gældende, at der ikke havde fundet nogen overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten sted.
However, it considered that no infringement of Community law had occurred.
Eftersom ingen af de dokumenter, som var fremsendt med klagerens skrivelser, beviste, at K. stadig havde finsk statsborgerskab, fandt Kommissionen, at den frem gangsmåde, den portugisiske Højesteret havde anvendt, var berettiget.
Since none of the documents forwarded in the complainant's letters proved that Mr K. still held Finnish nationality, the Commission considered the approach taken by the Portuguese Supreme Court was justified.
Endvidere gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at den indtil dato ikke havde anvendt overtrædelsesproceduren i henhold til traktatens artikel 169 i for bindelse med en national domstols afgørelse.
Furthermore the Commission stated that, until now, it had not used infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty against any ruling rendered by a national court.
Ombudsmanden fremsendte Kommissionens udtalelse til klageren og opfordrede ham til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's comments to the com plainant with an invitation to make observations.
Kommissionen modtog ingen bemærkninger.
No observations were received.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Manglende besvarelse af korrespondance
THE DECISION 1 Failure to answer correspondence
Kommissionen erkendte, at klagerens skrivelser ikke var blevet behandlet straks.
The Commission acknowledged that there was a failure to deal promptly with the letters sent by the complainant.
Den gav en forklaring herpå og undskyldte for sinkelsen.
It offered an explanation and apologised for the delay.
Det fremgik af disse fakta, at der ikke var nogen grund til, at Den Europæiske Ombudsmand forfulgte dette aspekt af sagen yderligere. gere.
In view of these facts, it appeared that there were no grounds for the European Ombudsman to pursue further this aspect of the case.
2 Afgørelse om ikke at behandle en klage
2 Decision not to take up a complaint
Kommissionen undersøger ved opfyldelsen af sin pligt som traktatens vogter eventuelle overtrædelser af fællesskabsretten, den får kendskab til som følge af klager eller på eget initiativ.
In carrying out its duty as Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission investigates possible infringements of Community law which come to its attention as a result of complaints, or at its own initiative.
Undersøgelsen kan føre til, at der fremsendes en åbningsskrivelse til den pågældende medlemsstat, som har lejlighed til at frem sætte sine bemærkninger.
The investigation may lead to the sending of a letter of formal notice to the Member State concerned, which has the opportunity to submit its observations.
Finder Kommissionen da, at medlems staten ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til traktaten, fremsætter den i henhold til artikel 169 en begrundet udtalelse herom.
Article 169 provides for it to deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter. ter.
2.3 Vælger Kommissionen ikke at forfølge en undersøgelse af sagen, skal der være en begrundelse til støtte for denne handlemåde.
If the Commission chooses not to pursue an inquiry into the matter, there must be some reasoning supporting such course of action.
Disse grunde skal danne grundlag for en eventuel undersøgelse fra Den Europæiske Ombudsmands side for at sikre, at der ikke er sket fejl eller forsømmelser.
Those reasons should provide the basis for any potential inquiry by the European Ombudsman in order to ensure that no maladministration has taken place.
Kommissionen begrundede sin manglende handling i denne sag med, at den portugisiske Højesterets fremgangsmåde var berettiget, fordi ingen af deaf klageren fremsendte dokumenter beviste, at hans klient stadig havde finsk statsborgerskab.
2.4 The Commission justified its inaction in this case on the grounds that the approach taken by the Portuguese Supreme Court was justified because none of the documents forwarded by the com plainant proved that his client still held Finnish nationality.