natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 18. september 1995 indgav A. og H. en fælles klage mod Europa-Kommissionen. Klagen vedrørte Kommissionens behandling af en klage, den havde modtaget fra A. og H. vedrørende udvidelsen af motorvejen M40 i Det Forenede Kongerige.
In June 1995, the Parliamentary Commissioner, whilst critical of certain aspects ol the way in which the request for access to information had been dealt with by the UK authorities, concluded that the complainants were mistaken in thinking that the information given to them by the UK authorities represented a less than full and frank picture of the exchanges between the Commission and the UK government.
Klagen til Europa-Kommissionen
THE COMPLAINT
1) støjniveauvurderingen blev ikke udført i overensstemmelse med Det Forenede Kongeriges transportministeriums miljøvurderingsforskrifter;
2) the Commission had failed to make a full diligent and searching inquiry into the circumstances surrounding their complaint that the UK authorities' environmental as sessment of the M40 widening project had been faulty but had accepted at face value and without demur the United Kingdom government's submission made in res ponse to the complaint.
4) der blev ikke foretaget luftkvalitetsundersøgelser.
In March 1 996, the Commission sent the Ombudsman the following comments:
Den 26. august 1991 bekræftede Kommissionen modtagelsen af klagen.
Involves a decision of the Commission with re 169. The Court of Justice has consistently held
Klagen til Det Forenede Kongeriges ombudsmand
"The subject matter of the complaint gard to proceedings under Article that:
A. og H. anmodede Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder om adgang til de oplysninger, disse havde forelagt Kommissionen. Da de ikke fandt myndighedernes svar tilfredsstillende, klagede de til Det Forenede Kongeriges ombudsmand.
"...it is clear from the scheme of Article 169 of the EEC Treaty that the Commission has no obligation to commence proceedings under that article; It has a discretio nary power precluding the right of Individuals to require It to adopt a particular po sition and to bring an action for annulment against its refusal to take action. "
I juni 1995 konkluderede ombudsmanden til trods for visse forbehold vedrørende flere aspekter af Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheders behandling af anmodningen om aktindsigt, at klagernes mistanke om, at de oplysninger, Det Forenede
In deciding not to open Infringement proceedings Commission exercised Its discretion as fully recognised has proceeded vis-à-vis the complainants in accordance
1 EFT L175 fra 1985, s. 40.
In the present case, the by the Court.
Kongeriges myndigheder havde forelagt dem, ikke gav et fuldstændigt og oprigtigt billede af udvekslingen mellem Kommissionen og Det Forenede Kongeriges regering, var uberettiget.
The Commission also asked the Ombudsman to take a position on the admissibility of the complaint, in view of the requirement of Article 2 (4) of the Statute of the Ombudsman that a complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the com plaint.
I fortsættelse af rapporten fra Det Forenede Kongeriges ombudsmand indgav A. og H. en klage til den europæiske ombudsmand, hvori de anførte, 1) at de havde forelagt Europa-Kommissionen omfattende beviser for, at Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder havde undladt at følge og sikre en korrekt gen nemførelse af bestemmelserne i direktiv 85/337/EØF;
After careful examination of the Commission's comments, it appeared that the main questions raised by the complaint to the Ombudsman remained unanswered.
2) at Kommissionen havde undladt at foretage en fuldstændig og indgående un dersøgelse af de forhold, der lå til grund for deres klage over fejl i forbindelse med Det Forenede Kongeriges miljøvurdering af projektet om en udvidelse af M40, og uden indsigelse havde taget Det Forenede Kongeriges regerings svar på henvendelsen for pålydende.
To avoid fruitless debate on the two-year time limit, the Ombudsman decided to conduct further inquiries on his own initiative, in accordance with Article 138e of the Treaty and Article 3 (1) of the Statute of the Ombudsman. He asked the Commission:
UNDERSØGELSEN
The Commission's reply
Kommissionens oprindelige svar
The reply from the Commission included information about
I marts 1996 modtog ombudsmanden følgende kommentarer fra Kommissionen:
1) its interpretation of Directive 85/337/EEC;
"Klagens genstand vedrører en kommissionsafgørelse angående søgsmål i medfør af artikel 169.
2) its view of the principles on which it should act in cases of this kind;
Endvidere har den over for klagerne handlet fuldt ud i overensstemmelse med principperne om forsvarlig administration ved korrekt at registrere klagerne og holde klagerne underrettet om sagens behandling.
As regards the interpretation of the Directive, the Commission referred to provisions of Article 5 that require information to be supplied only where the Member State considers certain conditions to be fulfilled.
Det skal tilføjes, at under en EF 169procedure tilkendes klagerne ingen specifikke proceduremæssige rettigheder, som tilfældet kan være i sager inden for andre områder såsom konkurrence eller antidumping. Kommissionen ser derfor ingen grund til klage over forsømmelighed i en sådan sag. "
As regards the principles on which it should act, the Commission set out the criteria that it considers appropriate to use, in the context of Article 169, in cases concerning a Member State's exercise of discretion based on a complex appraisal such as environmental assessment under Directive 85/337/EEC.
Kommissionen anmodede endvidere ombudsmanden om at tage stilling til, om klagen opfyldte kravene for behandling på baggrund af bestemmelserne i artikel 2, stk. 4, i ombudsmandens statut, som foreskriver, at en klage skal indgives inden for
The Commission stated that it would "limit its review to three main categories: » failure of procedural rules • facts on which the decision was taken were Inaccurately stated, • manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers. "
en frist på to år regnet fra den dato, hvor klageren bliver gjort bekendt med de om stændigheder, der berettiger klagen.
The UK supplied a copy of the environmental statement for the project, the non-technical summary, and the seven-page reasoned decision granting development consent for the project.
Efter en indgående gennemgang af Kommissionens kommentarer fremgik det, at klagerens væsentligste spørgsmål til ombudsmanden forblev ubesvaret.
The Commission further stated that it had considered the information supplied to it by the complainants and by the UK authorities and had formed the view that this in formation:
2) på grundlag af hvilket materiale Kommissionen havde konkluderet, at der ikke var tale om en overtrædelse af direktiv 85/337/EØF, og
The Commission therefore considered that the information before it contained no grounds on which to conclude that the United Kingdom exercised its discretion un der Directive 85/337/EEC in a manner contrary to the requirements of that Directive.
3) hvilken brevveksling Kommissionen havde haft med Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder vedrørende sagen.
There was therefore no basis on which the Commission could have cor rectly decided to bring a formal action against the United Kingdom under Article 169 of the Treaty."
1) dens fortolkning af direktiv 85/337/EØF
The examination was carried out on 5 November 1996.
3) dens behandling af klagen.
1) The Commission's interpretation of the Directive
Angående de grundsætninger, der skal ligge til grund for dens arbejde, redegjorde Kommissionen for de kriterier, den finder hensigtsmæssige ved behandling af sager i forbindelse med artikel 169, vedrørende en medlemsstats udøvelse af et skøn om et indviklet spørgsmål såsom en vurdering af miljøindvirkninger i medfør af direktiv 85/337/EØF.
1.1 Article 3 of Directive 85/337/EEC provides that an environmental impact as sessment will identify, describe and assess the effects of a project on various listed factors, including human beings and the air.
gen af disse oplysninger.
1.2 Artide 5 requires Member States to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the developer supplies in an appropriate form the information specified in Annex III.
Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder forelagde en kopi af miljøvurderingen til projektet, det ikke-tekniske resume og en syv siders begrundet godkendelse af projektet.
Annex III requires, amongst other things, estimates of air pollution and noise.
Kommissionen anførte endvidere, at den havde behandlet de oplysninger, den havde modtaget af klagerne og Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder, og var nået til den opfattelse, at disse oplysninger side
1.3 The obligation imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Directive is qualified.
" a) ikke påviste nogen manglende af procedurebestemmelserne overholdelse fra Det Forenede Kongeriges i direktiv 85/337/EØF, b) ikke indeholdt noget bevis for en ukorrekt fremstilling af de forhold, som lå til grund for Det Forenede Kongeriges afgørelse om tilladelse til M40-projektet, c) ikke indeholdt bevis for, at Det Forenede Kongerige havde gjort sig skyldig i en åbenbar fejlvurdering eller havde misbrugt sine beføjelser.
Information only has to be provided inasmuch as a Member State considers: a) that it is relevant to: a given stage of the consent procedure and the specific characteristics of a particular project and of the environmental features likely to be affected; and b) that the developer may reasonably be required to compile the information having regard, inter alia, to current knowledge and methods of assessment.
Kommissionen fandt derfor ikke, at de oplysninger, der var i dens besiddelse, gav anledning til at konkludere, at Det Forenede Kongerige havde udøvet sine skøns beføjelser under direktiv 85/337/EØS i modstrid med direktivets bestemmelser.
1.4 Article 5 therefore requires an exercise of judgement by the Member State as to what information is to be provided and, in that sense, leaves the extent of the in formation required to be supplied to the discretion of the Member State.
Undersøgelse af sagsakterne
1.5 The requirements of Article 3 of the Directive are expressed to be "in accor dance with the Articles 4 to 11."
Efter indgående behandling af oplysningerne fra Kommissionen og klagerne ved tog ombudsmanden, at det var nødvendigt at undersøge de dokumenter, Kommissionen var i besiddelse af vedrørende klagen, for at opnå sikkerhed for, at afgørelsen om at afslutte behandlingen var blevet truffet i overensstemmelse med al mindelige grundsætninger for god forvaltningsskik.
Given that Annex III (referred to by Article 5) is more detailed than Article 3, it does not appear that the latter was intended to impose obligations on Member States independent of those under Article 5.
Undersøgelsen gennemførtes den 5. november 1996.
It must be recalled, however, that the Court of Justice is the highest authority on questions of Community law.
1.1 Artikel 3 i direktiv 85/337/EØF bestemmer, at vurderingen af indvirkningen på miljøet skal påvise, beskrive og vurdere virkninger af et projekt på en række faktorer, herunder mennesker og luft.
2.1 Article 169 of the Treaty does not lay down procedures or criteria to be used by the Commission in the period preceding the issuing of a reasoned opinion to a Member State.
1.2 I henhold til artikel 5 skal medlemsstaterne træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at sikre, at bygherren på passende vis giver de i bilag III omhandlede oplysninger.
Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice provides only limited guidance.
Bilag III omfatter bl.a. vurdering af luft- og støjforurening.
The Commission itself therefore must decide what procedures and criteria to adopt in order to discharge its responsibilities under Article 169 in the process that may lead to the issuing of a reasoned opinion.
1.3 Medlemsstaternes forpligtelse i henhold til direktivets artikel 5 er betinget.
2.2 From its reply to the Ombudsman in July 1996 it appears that, in examining complaints of the kind made by Messrs A. and H. against the United Kingdom, the Commission has decided to limit its review to verifying whether procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers.
De omhandlede oplysninger skal forelægges for så vidt som medlemsstaterne er af den opfattelse,
In explaining its decision thus to limit its review, the Commission has drawn by ana-
α) at de er relevante: på et givet stadium i godkendelsesproceduren og for projektets særlige karakteristika og det miljø, som måtte blive berørt, og b) at det med rimelighed kan forlanges, at bygherren indsamler de pågældende oplysninger, under hensyntagen til foreliggende viden og vurderingsmetoder.
logy on the principles used by the Court of Justice in Remia ν Commission', to re­view Commission decisions based on complex economic appraisal.
1.4 Artikel 5 kræver således, at medlemsstaterne foretager en vurdering af, hvilke oplysninger der skal forelægges, og overlader det dermed til medlemsstaternes skøn at fastsætte omfanget af de oplysninger, der kræves forelagt.
The Ombudsman's inquiries have not, therefore, revealed any instance of maladministration by the Commission in its approach to the discharge of its responsibilities under Articles 155 and 169 in cases involving the exercise of judgement by a Member State as regards the information to be sup­plied under Directive 85/337/EEC.
1.5 Bestemmelserne i direktivets artikel 3 finder anvendelse "i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 til 11."
3.1 In their complaint to the Commission, Mr A. and Mr. H. made four specific claims.
Eftersom bilag III (henvisning i artikel 5) er mere detaljeret end artikel 3, er formålet med denne sidste bestemmelse tilsyneladende ikke at pålægge medlemsstaterne forpligtelser uafhængigt af de i artikel 5 fastlagte.
Two of these claims, concerning air quality and noise level assessments, contest the adequacy of the information contained in the environmental statement.
Det skal dog påpeges, at Domstolen er den højeste myndighed i spørgsmål vedrørende Fællesskabsret.
As noted in paragraph 1.4 above, the extent of the information to be supplied is a matter within the judgement of the Member State.
1.6 Ombudsmandens undersøgelser har således ikke afdækket fejl eller forsømmel­ser i forbindelse med Kommissionens fortolkning af den i direktivet indeholdte for­pligtelse til at forelægge oplysninger.
3.2 The other two claims concern the availability of information to the public. The Directive's requirements in this respect are contained in Article 6, which also leaves to the judgement of Member States the detailed arrangements for public informa­tion and consultation.
2.1 Artikel 169 i traktaten fastlægger ingen procedure eller kriterier, Kommissionen skal anvende i tiden inden afgivelsen af en begrundet udtalelse til en medlemsstat. Endvidere indeholder Domstolens retspraksis kun få retningslinjer.
3.3 It therefore appears that all four claims made by the complainants raised issues within the area of judgement left by the Directive to Member States.
Kommissionen må derfor selv træffe afgørelse om, hvilke procedurer og kriterier den anvender un­der udøvelsen af sine beføjelser i henhold til artikel 169 i den proces, som evt. fører til udstedelsen af en begrundet udtalelse.
Therefore a detailed in­vestigation of the claims was unnecessary and the Commission was entitled to limit its inquiry to the documents which it requested from the UK authorities and to base its decision to close the file on those documents.
2.2 Af Kommissionens svar til ombudsmanden i juli 1996 fremgår, at Kommissionen ved behandlingen af klager af den art, A. og H. indgav mod Det Forenede Kongerige, har vedtaget at begrænse behandlingen til en kontrol af, om procedurebestemmelserne er overholdt, om sagens omstændigheder er korrekt fast­lagte, og om der er åbenbare fejlvurderinger eller misbrug af beføjelser.
3.4 The Ombudsman's inquiries have not, therefore, revealed any instance of mal­administration by the Commission in the application of Community law to the facts of the case.
2.3 Kommissionens analyse af sin egen rolle er efter alt at dømme korrekt, ¡sær på baggrund af den byrde, Kommissionen må påtage sig, hvis den indbringer en med­lemsstat for Domstolen.
4.1 The original complaint to the Commission was made on 29 November 1990. Receipt of the complaint was acknowledged on 26 August 1991.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser har således ikke afdækket tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med Kommissionens udøvelse af sine
The Commission has already apologised for this delay, which was clearly too long, and no further remark by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
beføjelser i henhold til artikel 155 og 169 i sager vedrørende medlemsstaternes vurdering af, hvilke oplysninger der skal forelægges i medfør af direktiv 85/337/EØF.
4.2 From the examination of the documents, it is clear that there was delay of over nine months between the date when the Commission decided to close the file and the communication of this decision to the complainants.
3) Kommissionens behandling af klagen fra A. og H.
Since the date of the decision was not specified in the letter to the complainants, they were unaware of the delay.
3.1 I klagen til Kommissionen anfører A. og H. fire specifikke punkter.
4.3 As a matter of good administrative practice, the Commission should always communicate a decision to close a file to the complainant reasonably promptly.
I to af disse punkter vedrørende vurdering af luftkvalitet og støjniveau, anfægtes nøjagtigheden af de oplysninger, der er opført i miljøvurderingen.
There appears to have been no justification for the delay in this case.
Som anført ovenfor i punkt 1.4. er omfanget af de forelagte oplysninger afhængigt af medlemsstaternes vurdering.
However, there is no evidence that the delay was the result of anything other than an adminis trative failure.
3.2 De to øvrige punkter vedrører aktindsigt.
FURTHER REMARKS BY THE OMBUDSMAN
3.3 Det fremgår således, at alle fire klagepunkter vedrører områder, som i henhold til direktivets bestemmelser er overladt til medlemsstaternes vurdering. På baggrund af Kommissionens analyse af sin egen rolle fremgår det således, at der ikke ville have været grundlag for yderligere tiltag i henhold til artikel 167, også selv om alle fire anklagepunkter havde været berettigede.
The complaints to the European Commission, to the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and to the European Ombudsman were all based on the assumption that, if the four specific claims concerning the environmental as sessment of the M40 project were correct, then the UK authorities had necessarily failed to comply with the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC.
Derfor var en detaljeret undersøgelse af klagepunkterne unødvendig, og Kommissionen kunne med rette begrænse sin un dersøgelse til de dokumenter, den havde anmodet Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder om at forelægge, og basere sin afgørelse om at afslutte sagen på disse dokumenter. menter.
The complainants therefore also assumed that the Commission had a duty to investigate their four claims in detail.
3.4 Ombudsmandens undersøgelser har således ikke afdækket nogen form for fejl eller mangler i forbindelse med Kommissionens gennemførelse af fællesskabsretten i denne sag.
These assumptions - though understandable - were mistaken, for the reasons given above.
4.1 Den oprindelige klage til Kommissionen blev indgivet den 29. november 1990. Bekræftelsen af klagens modtagelse blev afgivet den 26. august 1991.
The Commission's letter informing the complainants of its decision, as well as being unduly delayed, gave no reasons for the conclusion that there was no infringement of the Directive.
Kommissionen har allerede undskyldt denne forsinkelse, som klart var alt for lang, og yderligere bemærkninger fra ombudsmanden synes unødvendige.
The Ombudsman has already noted in his decision of 29 October 1996 on the complaints against the European Commission concerning the Newbury Bypass (206/27.10.95/HS/UK and others) that an administrative process of this kind normally concludes with a reasoned decision communicated to those who have participated in the process.
Eftersom afgørelsesdatoen ikke oplyses til klagerne, var de ikke bekendt med denne forsinkelse.
Had reasons been given, the complainants would have learnt that their assumptions were mistaken in 1992, or earlier, rather than in 1 996.
4.3 God forvaltningsskik kræver, at Kommissionen altid meddeler en afgørelse om at afslutte behandlingen af en sag til klageren inden for en forsvarlig frist.
Because they did not know the reason why their complaint had been rejected, the complainants directed their energies in the matter - understandably and reasonably - first to finding out what the United Kingdom authorities had said to the Commission and then, following the in vestigation by the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to the way their complaint had been dealt with by the Commission.
Øjensynlig har der ikke været nogen begrundelse for forsinkelsen i nærværende sag.
In the event, both these lines of enquiry were bound to be fruitless.
På den anden side foreligger der intet grundlag for at antage, at forsinkelsen skyldes andet end en administrativ fejl.
It would not be surprising if the complain ants were left with a sense of grievance as a result of their participation in the Article 169 procedure.
I det givne tilfælde var begge disse undersøgelser nødvendigvis forgæves. Klagerne er givet skuffede over resultatet af deres deltagelse i en artikel 169-procedure.
The further remarks of the Ombudsman in the present case will be taken into account in an own-initiative inquiry into the procedural position of complainants to the Commission in the Article 169 procedure.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede behandlingen af sagen med den kritiske bemærkning nævnt ovenfor under punkt 4.3.
The Ombudsman closed the case with the critical remark in paragraph 4.3 of the decision.
MANGLENDE SVAR PA ANMODNING OM FORLÆNGELSE AF FRIST
FAILURE TO ANSWER A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A TIME LIMIT
Formanden for en italiensk fond indgav en klage over, at Kommissionen havde for kastet et byfornyelsesprojekt, som de italienske myndigheder havde søgt om støtte til fra Den Europæiske Fond for Regionaludvikling (EFRU).
The President of an Italian foundation complained about the European Commission's rejection of an urban renovation project which the Italian authorities had submitted for funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
Ifølge klagen underrettede Kommissionen ved skrivelse af 4. oktober 1994 de italienske myndigheder om, at man agtede at samfinansiere et begrænset antal pilotprojekter, jf. EFRU artikel 10.
It appeared from the complaint that, by letter dated 4 October 1994, the Commission informed the Italian authorities of its intention to co-finance a limited number of pilot projects under Article 10 ERDF.
Skrivelsen var stilet til dr. Ugo de Dominicis, leder af det centrale samhørighedskontor i det italienske ministerium for budget og økonomisk planlægning, og underskrevet af Landáburu, generaldirektør for Kommissionens GD XVI.
The letter was addressed to Dr Ugo de Dominicis, head of the central service for cohesion policies of the Italian Ministry of Budget and Economic planning and was signed by Mr Landáburu, Director-General of DG XVI of the Commission.
I skrivelsen blev de italienske myndigheder opfordret til at forelægge to projekter senest den 31. oktober 1994.
The letter invited the Italian authorities to submit two projects by no later than 31 October 1994.
Det blev meddelt, at Kommissionen ville foretage udvælgelsen af projekter med bistand fra en lille uafhængig ekspertgruppe, og at hensigten var, at der i princippet skulle udvælges ét projekt for hver medlemsstat ud fra kvalitative kriterier.
It stated that the Commission intended to proceed to the selection of projects with the assistance of a small committee of independent experts with the intention of selecting, in principle, on the basis of their quality, one project for each member state.
De italienske myndigheder modtog skrivelsen den 25. oktober 1994.
This letter was received by the Italian authorities on 25 October 1994.