natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I henhold til finansforordningens artikel 561skal fællesskabsinstitutionerne overholde de forpligtelser, der er fastlagt i direktivet om tjenesteydelser, ved indgåelse af aftaler, hvis beløb når eller over stiger en bestemt grænse.
Article 56 of the Financial Regulation1 requires Community institutions to comply with the obligations of the Services Directive when concluding service contracts for which the amount involved is equal to or greater than a threshold.
Kommissionen afviste ikke klagerens påstand om, at direktivet fandt anvendelse på de omhandlede udbud.
The Commission has not con tested the complainant's assertion that the Directive applied to the tenders in question.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt bestemmelserne i direktivets artikel 20, stk. 3, om, at udbudsdokumenterne skal fremsendes ad den hurtigste vej.
The complainant claimed that the Commission breached Article 20 § 3 of the Directive by failing to supply the tender documents by the most rapid means.
I henhold til det materiale, Kommissionen havde forelagt, og som klageren ikke havde gjort indsigelse mod, blev dokumenterne fremsendt til alle de udvalgte bydende samtidig og pr. rekommanderet brev.
According to evidence supplied by the Commission, which the complainant has not contradicted, documents were sent to all the companies selected to tender at the same time and by registered post.
Endvidere fremgik det ikke entydigt, at den artikel i direktivet, kla geren henviste til, havde til formål at opstille forpligtelser for både den kontraherende myndighed og den bydende.
Furthermore, it is not obvious that the Article of the Directive cited by the complainant is intend ed to impose obligations on the contracting authority as well as the tenderer.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt artikel 20, stk. 2, i direktivet, fordi den ikke havde fremsendt yder ligere oplysninger inden for den fastsatte frist.
The complainant claimed that the Commission breached Article 20 § 2 of the Directive by failing to supply additional information within the period prescribed.
Kommissionen erkendte, at den ikke havde besvaret klagerens anmodning om supplerende oplysninger skriftligt.
The Commission acknowledged that it did not reply in writing to the complainant's request for addition al information.
Dog var begge parter enige om, at Kommissionen havde henvendt sig pr. telefon.
However, it is common ground that there was com munication by telephone.
Endvidere finder artikel 20, stk. 2, kun anvendelse, hvis den bydende har fremsat anmodningen om yderligere oplysninger "i tide".
Furthermore, Article 20 § 2 only applies when additional information has been requested by the tenderer "in good time".
Det var på bag grund af sagens faktiske omstændigheder, som de fremgik af Ombudsmandens undersøgelse, derfor tvivlsomt, at bestemmelserne i artikel 20, stk. 2, var blevet overtrådt.
On the basis of the factual circumstances of this case as they appeared from the Ombudsman's inquiry, therefore, it was questionable whether any breach of the requirements of Article 20 § 2 occurred.
Klageren mente, at Kommissionen burde have anvendt proceduren med forhandling.
1.4 The complainant claimed that the Commission should have used the negotiated procedure.
Valget af procedure foretages af den kontraherende myndighed i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i direktivet om tjenesteydelser. Bortset fra de påstande, som behandles i punkt 3 nedenfor, har Ombudsmanden på intet tidspunkt fået forelagt påstande om, at det var i modstrid med direktivets bestemmelser at anvende den fremskyndede, begrænsede procedure i stedet for proceduren med forhandling.
The choice of procedure is a matter for the contracting authority, subject to the requirements of the Services Directive.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser viste således ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, for så vidt angik dette aspekt af sagen.
The Ombudsman's inquiries therefore revealed no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
2 Påstanden om et ulovligt formål
2 The allegation of an illegitimate purpose
En sammenligning af de forskellige sprogudgaver af De.Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende bekræftede, at de forskelle, Kommissionen henviste til, var reelle.
Comparison of the different language versions of the Official Journal confirms that the differences identified by the Commission exist.
Kommissionen afviste, at den tidligere kontrahent var blevet begunstiget, og oplyste, at de forskellige entrepriser i udbuddet var blevet tildelt de virksomheder, som havde afgivet de laveste bud.
2.2 The Commission denied that the previous contractor was given preference and asserted that the various lots involved in the ten der were awarded to the companies that put in the lowest bids.
Endvidere fastslog Kommissionen, at kriterierne for personalets kvalifikationer havde fundet anvendelse på udvælgelsesstadiet i den fremskyndede, begrænsede procedure.
Furthermore, the Commission insisted that the criteria for quality of personnel were applied at the selection stage of the accelerated restricted procedure.
Denne redegørelse for forløbet var koherent og i overensstemmelse med de bilag, som Kommissionen havde forelagt, og som klageren havde haft mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger til.
This account of events is coherent and consistent with the documentary evidence which the Commission has supplied and on which the complainant has had the opportunity to make observations.
Selv om klageren hævdede, at Kommissionens redegørelse ikke var korrekt, havde han ikke forelagt bevis herfor.
Although the complainant disputes the accuracy of the Commission's account, he has not provided evidence to substantiate his allegations.
2.3 Ombudsmandens undersøgelser viste således ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser vedrørende dette aspekt af sagen.
2.3 The Ombudsman's inquiries therefore revealed no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen burde have forelagt ham oplysninger og dokumenter, som kunne bevise, at de omhandlede kriterier havde fundet anvendelse.
3.1 The complainant claimed that the Commission should supply him with information and documents to prove that it applied the quality criteria.
3.2 Artikel 12 i direktivet om tjenesteydelser indeholder specifikke bestemmelser om forelæggelse af oplysninger og begrundelser for de bydende, der ikke tilbydes en kontrakt.
Article 12 of the Services Directive makes specific provision for the supply of information and reasons to unsuccessful tenderers.
Aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter er underlagt Kommissionens afgørelse 94/90.1 Klageren havde ikke fremsat påstand om krænkelse af de relevante bestemmelser i henholdsvis direktivet og afgørelsen.
Public access to Commission documents is governed by Commission Decision 94/90.1 The complainant has made no allegation of violation of the relevant provisions either of the Directive, or of the Decision.
På baggrund af de undersøgelsesresultater, der redegøres for i denne afgørelses punkt 2, fandt Ombudsmanden det ikke nødvendigt at anmode Kommissionen om yderligere oplysninger eller dokumenter som led i undersøgelsen af denne sag.
In view of the findings in section 2 of this decision above, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to ask the Commission to supply further information or documents as part of his inquiry into this case.
Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter, EFT 1994L46, s. 58.
Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents, OJ 1994 L 46/58.
PÅSTÅET OVERTRÆDELSE AF KONKURRENCEREGLERNE
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF COMPETITION RULES
Afgørelse om klage 829/22.8.96/FDR/D/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 829/22.8.96/FDR/D/PD against the European Commission
I juli 1996 sendte hr. R. et andragende til Europa-Parlamentet om Kommissionens håndtering af hans klager vedrørende påståede overtrædelser af Fællesskabets konkurrenceregler fra visse bilfabrikanter og bilimportørers side.
In July 1996, Mr R. petitioned the European Parliament about the Commission's handling of his complaints concerning alleged infringements of Community competition rules by certain car manufacturers and car importers.
I august 1996 fremsendte hr. R. en klage til ombudsmanden i samme anledning.
In August 1996, Mr R. made a complaint to the Ombudsman about the same matter.
I september 1996 kom Europa-Parlamentet frem til det synspunkt, at hr. R.'s andragende vedrørte et påstået tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelse med hensyn til visse af Kommissionens aktiviteter. Man henviste derfor sagen til ombudsmanden, så den kunne blive behandlet som en klage.
In September 1996, the European Parliament took the view that Mr R.'s petition concerned an alleged instance of maladministration in the activities of the Commission.
I henhold til klagen er biler, som fremstilles af tyske fabrikanter, ofte dyrere i Tyskland end i visse andre medlemsstater, f.eks. Denmark, Nederlandene og Finland.
According to the complainant, cars produced by German manufacturers are often more expensive in Germany than in some other Member States, e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland.
I lyset heraf, henvender nogle forbrugere, som bor i Tyskland, sig til bilforhandlere i andre medlemsstater for at købe deres bil der.
Given this fact, some con sumers living in Germany address car dealers in other Member States in order to buy their car there.
Når de gør dette, løber de undertiden ind i problemer, som f.eks. at forhandleren nægter at sælge til forbrugere, som er bosiddende i Tyskland, eller leve ringstiden bliver for lang, eller der er tale om kunstigt højere priser.
When they do so, they sometimes run into problems such as e.g. refusal to sell to consumers resident in Germany, excessive delivery times or artificially increased prices.
Ved en række lejligheder har hr. R, som bor i Tyskland, henvendt sig til bil forhandlere i andre medlemsstater med den hensigt at købe en bil.
On a number of occasions, Mr R., who lives in Germany, addressed individual' car dealers in other Member States, with a view to buying a car.
Det ser ud til, at han fik nogle af de nævnte typer problemer.
It appeared that he met with some problems of the kind mentioned.
Da hr. R. er af den opfattelse, at hvis man nægter at sælge eller kun modstræbende sælger biler til forbrugere med den begrundelse, at de bor i en anden medlems stat, er man i modstrid med Fællesskabets konkurrenceregler, og derfor henvendte han sig til Kommissionen.
Considering that refusals or reluctance to sell cars to consumers on the grounds that they live in another Member State are contrary to the Community competition rules, Mr R. addressed the Commission.
Der var derefter en betydelig korrespondance mellem ham og Kommissionen, hvoraf det fremgår, at Kommissionen ikke i princippet anfægtede klagerens opfattelse af lovgivningen gående ud på, at de rapporterede tilfælde var i modstrid med konkurrencereglerne, inklusive forordning 1475/95.1Imidlertid mente hr. R., at Kommissionen ikke havde taget skridt til at sikre gennemførelsen af konkurrencereglerne.
Subsequently, there was considerable correspondence between him and the Commission, from which it appeared that the Commission did not in principle contest the complainant's perception of law that the reported instances were contrary to the competition rules, including Regulation 1475/95.1 However, Mr R. considered that the Commission had not taken steps to enforce the competition rules.
Han udtrykte især utilfredshed med et brev, som Kommissionen havde sendt ham den 28. juni 1996.
He expressed in particular discontent with a letter that the Commission had addressed to him on 28 June 1996.
I brevet henviste Kommissionen til udvekslingen af korrespondance mellem hr R. og Kommissionen og søgte at forklare sin politik i denne sag.
In the letter, the Commission referred to the exchange of correspondence between Mr R. and the Commission and sought to explain its policy on the matter.
De relevante afsnit lyder som følger:
The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
AFGØRELSER som er særligt betydende ud fra et politisk, økonomisk eller juridisk synspunkt.
In making that choice the Commission gives precedence to those cases which are particularly significant from the political, economic or legal point of view.
Dette princip gælder naturligvis også for modtagelse og håndtering af klager.
This principle also applies, of course, to the receipt and handling of complaints.
I denne forbindelse må jeg imidlertid påpege, at EU's konkurrenceregler ikke sætter Kommissionen i stand til at hjælpe privatpersoner med at gennemtvinge deres subjektive rettigheder.
In this connection I must point out, however, that the European competition rules do not enable the Commission to help pri vate persons to enforce their subjective rights.
Dette er i princippet de nationale domstoles opgave, i det de - i modsætning til Kommissionen - også er i stand til at afgøre spørgsmålet om skadeserstatning ...
This is basically the function of national courts which - unlike the Commission - are also able to determine entitlement to damages ...
Kommissionen er klar over, at der i enkelttilfælde kan være vanskeligheder med at købe en bil i Finland eller Denmark; de mulige årsager hertil er allerede forklaret Dem i skrivelsen fra den pågældende afdeling.
The Commission is aware that in individual cases there may be difficulties with purchasing a car in Finland or Denmark, the possible reasons for which have already been explained to you in writing by the relevant department.
Det betydelige omfang af korrespondancen indtil dato på grundlag af Deres sag viser, at Kommissionen har taget initiativer inden for sit ansvarsområde.
The fairly comprehensive exchange of correspondence to date arising from your case shows that the Commission has taken action within the sphere of its responsibilities.
I lyset af det forståelige ønske, millioner af bilister i EU har om at købe deres bil så billigt som muligt, og også i lyset af de vanskeligheder, som undertiden opstår, når de gør det, kan Kommissionen ikke tage et initiativ i hvert enkelt tilfælde, som vedrører en personlig interesse..."
In view of the under standable desire of millions of drivers in the EU to buy their cars as cheaply as possible, and also in view of the difficulties that sometimes occur when they do so, the Commission cannot take action in each individual case involving a personal interest..."
Klageren mente, at Kommissionens henvisning til sager, som vedrører en personlig interesse, var irrelevant, idet han forfulgte sagen i offentlighedens interesse.
The complainant considered the Commission's reference to cases of per sonal interest inappropriate, as he pursued this matter in the interest of the general public.
På denne baggrund fremsatte hr. R. seks klagepunkter i sin klage: (i) Kommissionen var inaktiv med hensyn til verserende procedurer.
Against this background, Mr R. put forward six grievances in his complaint:
Kommissionen tolererede ulovlig praksis samt fortsat og systema tisk overtrædelse af forordning nr. 1475/95.
The Commission tolerated illegal practices and continuous and systematic violation of Regulation N° 1475/95.
Kommissionen overvågede ikke de gældende regler.
The Commission failed to monitor the applicable rules.
Kommissionen tog ikke beviste overtrædelser af loven alvorligt.
(iv) The Commission did not take seriously proven violations of the law.
Kommissionen vurderede forkert med hensyn til, om der skulle iværksættes procedurer over for bilfabrikanterne, som påstås at overtræde de relevante konkurrenceregler.
The Commission wrongly assessed whether procedures should be initiated against the car manufacturers who allegedly violate the relevant competition rules.
Kommissionen ignorerede borgerens ret til at klage.
In brief, the complaint was to the effect that the Commission had been passive in the matter complained of or that the course of action taken by the Commission had been inappropriate.
I sin udtalelse forklarede Kommissionen, at det overordnede spørgsmål vedrører påståede hindringer for paralleleksport af nye motorkøretøjer fra visse medlemsstater.
In its opinion, the Commission explained that the overall issue concerns alleged obstacles to parallel exports of new motor vehicles from certain Member States.
AFGØRELSER må afvise en forbrugers købstilbud eller forlange en højere pris, blot fordi forbrugeren er bosiddende i en anden medlemsstat.
It is implied in Commission Regulation N° 1475/95 that a dealer may not reject a consumer's offer to buy, or ask for a higher price, simply because the con sumer is a resident of another Member State.
Hvad angår nærværende klage, fremsendte Kommissionen en grundig redegørelse for sin korrespondance med hr. R. Hr. R. havde sendt 30 breve til Kommissionen siden 1994, hvori han klagede over seks tyske bilfabrikanters adfærd.
As regards the present complaint, the Commission submitted a thorough account of its correspondence with Mr R. Mr R. had addressed 30 letters to the Commission since 1994, in which he complains about the conduct of six main German car manufacturers.
Han klagede også over adfærden hos disse fabrikanters importører i fem andre medlemsstater.
He also complained about the con duct of the importers of these manufacturers in five other Member States.
Kommissionen undersøgte alle hr. R.'s klagepunkter om denne påståede, ulovlige praksis.
The Commission investigated all Mr R.'s complaints about these allegedly unlawful practices.
Samtidig forklarede Kommissionen gentagne gange hr. R., hvad dens holdning var til det emne, der blev diskuteret.
At the same time, the Commission repeatedly explained to Mr R. its attitude toward the issue under consideration.
I et af brevene fra kommissæren for konkurrence, fik hr. R. at vide, at hvis der var tale om overtrædelser, så ville Kommissionen ikke tøve med at tage de nødvendige organisatoriske skridt, selv om det ville skulle gøres i samklang med Kommissionens prioriteter.
In one letter from the Commissioner for Competition Mr R. was informed that in cases of infringements the Commission would not hesitate to take the necessary organisational measures, though it would have to do so in accordance with its priorities.
Kommissæren meddelte imidlertid også hr. R., at det ikke kunne være Kommissionens opgave at hjælpe privatpersoner med at gennemtvinge deres subjektive ret (eller deres såkaldte "Partikularinteresse"), hvilket er en opgave for de nationale domstole.
However, the Commissioner also informed Mr R. that it could not be the Commission's duty to help private persons in enforcing their subjective rights (or their so-called "Partikularinteresse") which is a task for the national jurisdictions.
Kommissionens kommentarer angav ligeledes, at den angrebsvinkel, Kommissionen havde valgt, er i overensstemmelse med de principper, der er bekræftet af Retten ved Første Instans.
The Commission's comments also stated that the approach chosen by the Commission corresponds to the principles con firmed by the Court of First Instance.
Kommissionen forklarede, at den pågældende dom bekræftede, at Kommissionen har pligt til at handle i offentlighedens interesse.
The Commission explained that the judgement in question confirmed that the Commission has a duty to act in the public interest.
Dette medfører bl.a., at Kommissionen bør tage højde for sine administrative ressourcer, når det prioriterer klager om overtrædelse af fællesskabslovgivningen.
This implies, among other things, that the Commission should take into account its administrative resources when prioritising com plaints about infringements of Community law.
Kommissæren understregede også, at det er op til Kommissionen at vurdere, om der er bevis nok til at fastslå, at der er sket en overtrædelse af konkurrencereglerne.
The Commissioner also emphasised that it is for the Commission to assess whether there is evidence on basis of which an infringement of competition can be stipulated.
Endelig bemærkede Kommissionen, at spørgsmålet er af general art. Mange klager over bildistributionen i EU foreligges Kommissionen, som bruger betydelig tid og betydelige ressourcer på at følge op på og under søge disse klager, hvoriblandt har været klager fra hr. R.
Finally the Commission observed that the issue is of a general nature. Many complaints about car distribution in the EU are submitted to the Commission which devotes considerable time and resources to the followup and investigation of these complaints, among which have been the com plaints by Mr R.
I lyset af disse omstændigheder anså Kommissionen hr. R.'s påstande for ubegrundede.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission considered Mr R.'s allegations to be unfounded.
I sine bemærkninger understregede klageren, at han havde ret til at klage, og at han ikke kun repræsenterede sine egne personlige interesser; at Kommissionen ikke svarede på hans korrespondance eller anerkendte modtagelsen af hans breve; at overtrædelserne fandt sted og at både Kommissionen og Europa-Parlamentet let kunne fastslå dem gennem undersøgelser; at Kommissionen imidlertid ikke undersøgte overtrædelserne, men snarere udviste en næsten komplet mangel på aktivitet; at den frie bevægelighed for varer faktisk ikke var tilsikret noget sted i Unionen; og endelig angav han forskellige initiativer, som Kommissionen efter hans opfattelse burde tilpligtes at tage.
In his observations, the complainant emphasized that he had a right to complain and that he not only represented his own personal interest; that the Commission was not replying to his correspondence nor acknowledging receipt of his letters; that infringements were taking place and that both the Commission and the European Parliament could easily establish them through investigations; that the Commission however was not investigating
AFGØRELSER telse undgik sit ansvar, i et vist omfang endda ved hjælp af svig, for over holdelsen af konkurrencereglerne.
The complainant further recalled his allegations concerning the Commission's inactivity and tolerance towards the alleged infringements of the competition rules, and the ways in which the institution, in his opinion, evaded its responsibility, to some extent even by means of fraud, for the upholding of competition rules.
I henhold til hr. R., støttede Kommissionen overtrædelserne og var helt subjektiv til fordel for bilindustrien.
According to Mr R., the Commission supported the infringements and was completely biased in favour of the car industry.
Desuden vedhæftede han materiale, især avisartikler og prislister fra nogle af de virksomheder, han klagede over, som efter hans opfattelse viser, at der finder overtrædelser sted.
Furthermore, he attached material, mainly newspaper articles and price lists from some of the companies complained of, which in his opinion show that infringements are taking place.
Hr. R. bad også ombudsmanden om direkte at undersøge bilfabrikanterne og bilimportørerne, og han klagede til ombudsmanden over Kommissions forordning nr. 1475/95 som helhed.
Mr R. also asked the Ombudsman to investigate directly the car manufacturers and car importers and complained to the Ombudsman of Commission Regulation Nc1475/95 as such.
Senere udvikling
Subsequent developments
Efter at have indsendt sin klage til ombudsmanden, fortsatte hr. R. med at henvende sig til Kommissionen direkte.
After lodging his complaint with the Ombudsman, Mr R. continued to address the Commission directly.
Den 16. december 1997 sendte Kommissionen et brev til hr. R. i henhold til artikel 6 i forordning 99/63, hvori man meddelte ham, at man ikke havde til hensigt at iværksætte en formel undersøgelse af fire af de sager, der angik hans klager, idet de forhold, der blev klaget over, ikke var af tilstrækkelig fællesskabsinteresse til at retfærdiggøre en sådan undersøgelse.
On 16 December 1997 the Commission addressed a letter to Mr R. under Article 6 of Regulation N° 99/63, inform ing him that it did not intend to open formal investigations with regard to four of the files concerning his complaints, as the matters complained of were not of sufficient Community interest to merit such investigations.