natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren kritiserede den udvælgelse af projekterne, der var fore­taget i fællesskab af Kommissionen og det spanske Agenda Tributaria, og at hans projekt ikke var blandt de 20 udvalgte.
2.1 The complainant criticised the selection of the projects made joint ly by the Commission and the Spanish Agenda Tributaria, and the exclusion of his project from the twenty finally selected.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at ansøgningsfristen havde været unødvendig kort, og at anmodningen om yderligere oplysninger på et sent stadie i udvælgelsesproceduren havde været upassende.
In his view, the time period for the submission of proposals had been unduly short; and the request for further information at a late stage of the selection procedure had been inappropriate.
Selv om klageren først modtog oplysninger om mulighederne for fællesskabsstøtte den 8. marts 1993, var programmets indhold og tidsramme fastlagt i forordning 3904/92, som offentliggjordes i De Europæiske Fællesskabets Tidende den 31. december 1992.
2.2 Although the complainant only received information about the pos sibilities of Community assistance on 8 March 1993, the contents of the programme and its time schedule were set out in Regulation 3904/92 which was published in the Official Journal of 31 December 1992.
En forsvarlig tidsfrist var derfor afsat til forelæggelse af projekter.
A reasonable amount of time had therefore been given for the presentation of projects.
Følgelig synes der ikke at være grundlag for påstanden om en uacceptabel kort tidsfrist.
Consequently, there appeared to be no grounds to justify the claim of an unduly short deadline.
Kommissionen begrundede udelukkelsen af klagerens projekt med, at projektet ikke var klart defineret og var uforholdsmæssigt dyrt.
2.3 The Commission justified the exclusion of the complainant's pro­ject on the grounds of its vagueness and its excessive financial request.
Klageren havde ikke besvaret en anmodning om yderligere oplysninger, eftersom han antog, at afgørelsen allerede var truffet i februar 1994.
The complainant had not responded to a request for fur­ther information since he believed that the decision had already been taken in February 1994.
Fællesskabsinstitutionerne har en udbredt skønsbeføjelse ved fastlæggelsen af, hvilke faktorer der skal tages i betragtning ved til deling af kontrakter efter en opfordring til at afgive bud.1Denne skønsbeføjelse kan dog ikke undskylde nogen form for magtmisbrug eller alvorlig eller udtalte fejl i udvælgelsesproceduren.2
In assessing the relevant factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to third parties, Community institutions enjoy a large degree of dis­cretion.1That discretion cannot justify, however, any misuse of powers or serious and manifest errors in the selection procedure.2
Det fremgik ikke af de oplysninger, Ombudsmanden var i besiddelse af, at Kommissionen skulle have overskredet sine beføjelser i forbindelse med afgørelsen vedrørende ansøgningerne om støtte under Rådets forordning 3904/92.
From the information available to the Ombudsman, there appeared to be no evidence to suggest that the Commission did not act within the limits of its legal authority in adopting its decision on the applications for assistance to be funded under Council Regulation 3904/92.
Der forelå således ingen beviser for fejl eller forsømmelser vedrørende dette aspekt af sagen.
There was therefore no evidence of malad­ministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
3 Vildledende oplysninger fra Kommissionens tjenestegrene
3 Allegedly misleading information from the Commission's services
Det fremgik, at det tidligere spanske kommissionsmedlems kabinet i en skrivelse havde oplyst, at klagerens projekt ville mod tage fællesskabsstøtte.
It appeared that the Cabinet of former Commissioner Matutes indi­cated in a letter that the complainant's project would receive a Community grant.
Denne meddelelse kunne have været vild ledende for klageren.
This communication could have been mislead­ing for the complainant.
Kommissionen forklarede, at man sandsynligvis havde forvekslet to virksomheder med samme navn.
3.2 The Commission explained that there could have been a misun­derstanding between two firms with the same name.
Kommissionen havde sendt en skrivelse til klageren, hvori den undskyldte misforståelsen.
The Commission sent to the complainant a letter in which it apolo­gized.
Eftersom Kommissionen havde indrømmet fejltagelsen og und skyldt den sandsynlige misforståelse, forelå der intet bevis for fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med dette aspekt af sagen.
Since the Commission recognized the mistake and apolo­gized for the potential misunderstanding, it appeared that there was no evidence of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, hvorfor Ombudsmanden afsluttede behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
TYSK STATSSTØTTE TIL VEDVARENDE ENERGI
GERMAN STATE AID FOR RENEWABLE ENERGIES
Afgørelse om de forenede sager 1086/11.12.96/HK/D/VK, 1092/11.12.96/JS/D/VK, 1095/12.12.96/FS/D/VK, 1097112.12.96/KS/D/VK, 1104/16.12..96/FP/D/VK, 1112/31.12.96/SB/D/VK, 1113/31.12.96/GS/D/VK, 1124/31.12.96/KPS/DA/K, 1134/31.12.96/HS/D/VK, 1135/31.12.96/AD/D/VK, 1139/31.12.96/MS/D/VK, 1/97/VK, 4/97/VK, 9/97/VK, 12/97/VK, 13I97NK, 28I97NK, 34/97/VK, 43I97NK, 58I97NK, 72/97A/K, 88I97NK, 161197NK over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on joined complaints 1086/11.12.96/HK/D/VK, 1092/11.12.96/JS/DA/K, 1095/12.12.96/FS/D/VK, 1097/12.12.96/KS/D/VK, 1104/16.12.96/FP/D/VK, 1112/31.12.96/SB/D/VK, 1113/31.12.96/GS/D/VK, 1124131.12.96/KPS/D/VK, 1134/31.12.96/HS/DA/K, 1135/31.12.96/AD/D/VK, 1139/31.12.96/MS/DA/K, 1/97A/K, 4/97/VK, 9/97/VK, 12/97/VK, 13/97/VK, 28/97/VK, 34/97/VK, 43/97/VK, 58/97/VK, 72/97Λ/Κ, 88/97A/K, 161/97/VK against the European Commission
Mellem december 1996 og januar 1997 modtog Ombudsmanden i alt 23 klager fra tyske statsborgere vedrørende en skrivelse fra kommissær Karel Van Miert til den tyske økonomiminister, Rexrodt, vedrørende den tyske lov til fordel for produktion af vedvarende energi (Stromeinspeisegesetz).
Between December 1996 and January 1997 the Ombudsman received a total of 23 complaints from German citizens, concerning a letter which Commissioner Karel Van Miert had addressed to the German Minister of Economic Affairs Mr. Rexrodt concerning the German law in favour of the production of renewable energies (Stromeinspeisegesetz).
For at sikre en så effektiv og hurtig behandling af klagerne som mulig vedtog ombudsmanden at behandle dem under ét.
In order to deal with the complaints as effectively and promptly as possible, the Ombudsman decided to treat them jointly.
Den tyske Stromeinspeisegesetz var ligeledes genstand for et andragende til Europa- Parlamentet.
The Stromeinspeisegesetz was also the subject of petitions to the European Parliament.
Ombudsmanden beskæftiger sig sædvanligvis ikke med sager, som er under behandling i Europa-Parlamentets Udvalg for Andragender, medmindre udvalget med andragerens samtykke over fører andragendet til Ombudsmanden til behandling som en klage.
The Ombudsman does not usually deal with a mat­ter pending before the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament unless, with the consent of the petitioner, that Committee transfers it to the Ombudsman to be dealt with as a complaint.
I dette tilfælde modtog Ombudsmanden dog også mange klager fra borgere, som ikke havde indgivet andragender til Parlamentet.
In this case, however, the Ombudsman also received many complaints from citizens who had not addressed petitions to the Parliament.
Den pålægger de virksomheder, der leverer elektricitet, en forpligtelse til at købe elektricitet fremstillet ved hjælp af vedvarende energikilder og betale en garanteret minimumspris afhængig af den vedvarende energikildes art. I henhold til lovens artikel 3, stk. 2, skal minimumsprisen for elektricitet fremstillet ved hjælp af vindkraft udgøre 90% af den gennemsnitlige indtægt pr. kWh, som leverandørvirksomhederne opnåede ved salg af elektricitet i det næstsidste kalenderår.
It impos­es on electricity supply companies an obligation to purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources and to pay a guaranteed mini­mum price depending on the nature of the renewable source. Article 3 (2) of the law prescribes the minimum price of electricity generated from wind power-to be 90 % of the average revenue per kWh of electricity which the supply companies generated by sale of electricity in the penultimate calen­dar year.
De tyske myndigheder indberettede Stromeinspeisegesetz til Kommissionen i 1990 som en statsstøtte i overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3.
The German authorities notified the Stromeinspeisegesetz to the Commission in 1990 as a state aid, in accordance with Article 93 (3) EC.
Kommissionen fastslog, at loven var forenelig med Fællesmarkedet, jf. artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c.
The Commission decided that the law was compatible with the common market under Article 92 (3) (c).
Klagerne til Ombudsmanden indeholdt i det væsentligste to klagepunkter: i)
Taking the complaints sent to the Ombudsman as a whole, there were in substance two allegations:
Kommissær Van Miert havde ikke beføjelse til at sende den omhandlede skrivelse, eftersom Stromeinspeisegesetz var blevet godkendt af Kommissionen i en bindende beslutning, jf. EF-traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c. Klagerne gjorde gældende, at brevets indhold reelt betød en ændring af Kommissionens beslutning, som kun kunne foretages ved en ny kommissionsbeslutning.
Commissioner Van Miert was not entitled to send the letter in question, because the Stromeinspeisegesetz had been approved by the Commission in a binding decision under Article 92 (3) (c) of the EC Treaty. The complainants considered that the contents of
Kommissær Van Miert havde foretaget en fejlagtig vurdering af de tyske vindenergiproducenters retlige og økonomiske situation, fordi han øjensynlig udelukkende havde taget udgangspunkt i data fra de tyske elektricitetsleverandører, og ikke havde kontrolleret, om disse var korrekte.
Commissioner Van Miert had wrongly assessed the legal and economic situation of wind energy producers in Germany because the Commissioner had apparently based his position only on data and figures provided by the German electricity suppliers, without verifying whether these figures were correct.
I henhold til klagerne ville Kommissærens forslag få katastrofale følger for vindenergiproducenterne, eftersom et fald i indtjeningsniveauet ville udgøre en trussel for vindenergianlæggene og hermed den nuværende beskæftigelsessituation.
According to the com plainants, the effects of the Commissioner's proposal would be disastrous for the wind energy producers, as the reduction of the remuneration level would jeopardize wind energy plants and with them, the current employment situation.
Forskningen på området ville ligeledes blive ramt og følgelig også den miljømæssige og tekniske udvikling.
Research in this field would also suffer and this would consequently have a negative impact on the environmental and technical developments.
Konkurrencen ville reelt blive fordrejet, og der ville opstå en monopollignende struktur.
Competition in fact would be distorted and a monopolistic structure would arise.
Klagerne blev fremsendt til Kommissionen.
The complaints were forwarded to the Commission.
I sin udtalelse fastslog Kommissionen følgende: i)
In summary the Commission's opinion made the following points:
I juli 1995 begyndte Kommissionen at modtage flere klager fra tyske elektricitetsleverandører vedrørende støtten til vindenergi.
As from July 1995 the Commission started receiving several com plaints from German electricity suppliers concerning the support for wind energy.
Klagerne anførte, at garantiprisen for vindenergi ikke længere var berettiget, og at de kunne imødese betydelige tab, hvis garanti prisen for vindenergi forblev uændret og de tyske delstaters planer om at udvide vindenergikapaciteten til 4000 MW i år 2000 blev gennemført.
The complainants claimed that the guaranteed price for wind energy was no longer justified and that they would face considerable losses, if the guaranteed price for wind energy remained the same, and if the plans of the German Länder to extend wind power capacity up to 4000 MW in the year 2000 were to be pursued.
Kommissionen fandt det nødvendigt at foretage en fornyet vurdering af situationen efter modtagelsen af disse klager.
The Commission considered it necessary to reassess the situation after it had received these complaints.
Efter en høring i det tyske parlament om behovet for en eventuel ændring af loven, havde Kommissionen modtaget kommentarer fra alle deltagere herunder repræsentanter for de tyske delstaters regeringer, energileverandørvirksomhederne og foreninger, som forsvarede anvendelsen af vedvarende energi.
After a hearing in the German Parliament to discuss whether or not amendments to the law were necessary, the Commission had received the comments of all participants, among them representatives of the governments of the German Länder, of energy supply companies and of associations in favour of renewable energies.
Derudover var der blevet afholdt flere møder med alle berørte parter herunder repræsentanter for vindenergiproducenterne. centerne.
In addition to this, several meetings with all concerned parties, including representatives of wind energy producers, had taken place.
Det fremgik, at der mellem 1990, hvor Stromeinspeisegesetz blev godkendt af Kommissionen, og oktober 1996 var sket en betydelig udvikling, for så vidt angik både de konkrete og de juridiske for hold.
It appeared that both the real and the legal conditions had changed between 1990, the time of approval of the Stromeinspeisegesetz by the Commission, and October 1996.
Støtteordningen til fordel for vindenergi under Stromeinspeisegesetz havde medført en betydelig stigning i vindenergiproduktionen ¡sær i Tysklands kystområder.
The support mechanism for wind energy in the Stromeinspeisegesetz had led to a very considerable increase of wind energy production, particularly in the coastal regions of Germany.
Efter lovens gennemførelse var antallet af anlæg såvel som deres kapacitet steget betydeligt med deraf følgende omkostningsstigninger for energileverandørerne.
Since the enactment of the Stromeinspeisegesetz the amount of plants as well as their capacity had considerably increased, thus raising costs for
Blandt andet foreslog han en reduktion af prisen på vindkraft fra 90% pr. kWh til 75% pr. kWh som en for holdsvis enkel og hurtig mulighed for at ændre den nuværende situation.
Among other things, he proposed the reduction of the remuneration for wind power from 90% per kWh to 75% per kWh as a relatively simple and quick change of the present situation.
Den omhandlede skrivelse havde ikke nogen juridisk værdi i for hold til den tyske regering.
The letter in question did not have any legal consequences for the German government.
Der var tale om en ikke-bindende hen stilling om at ændre loven.
It was a non-binding recommendation to modify the law.
Det ansås, at et udenretligt tiltag var den bedste løsning, eftersom de tyske myndigheder således fik mulighed for at løse konkurrenceproblemet internt.
It was considered that a non-legal action would be the best solution since it would allow the German government to solve the problem of competition internally.
Skrivelsen lå klart inden for grænserne for de foranstaltninger, Kommissionen kunne træffe i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93.
The letter was fully within the measures that the Commission may take pursuant to Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
De data, GD IV havde anvendt, for så vidt angik antallet af vind kraftanlæg, deres kapacitet og deres produktion, var baseret på de oplysninger, de tyske myndigheder havde forelagt Kommissionen.
(vi) The data concerning the number of wind power stations, their capacity and their production used by DG IV were based on the information provided to the Commission by the German government.
Endvidere havde Kommissionen modtaget oplysninger fra en høring, som afholdtes i den tyske Forbundsdag med repræsentanter for begge parter, dvs. vindenergiproducenterne såvel som de vigtigste energileverandører.
Furthermore, the Commission received information from a hearing held in the German Bundestag with representatives from both sides, the wind energy producers as well as the main energy suppliers.
Derudover afholdtes flere supplerende møder med alle berørte parter.
In addition to this, several extra meetings with all parties concerned were held.
Kommissionen havde taget alle parters holdning i betragtning.
The Commission took the opinions of all parties into account.
Klagernes bemærkninger
The complainants' observations
I de bemærkninger, der fremsendtes til Ombudsmanden, fastholdtes kla gerne generelt.
Taking the observations sent to the Ombudsman as a whole, the com plaints were maintained.
Klagerne gav udtryk for utilfredshed med Kommissionens udtalelse.
The complainants expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission's observations.
1 Det første klagepunkt
1 The complainants' first claim
Det første klagepunkt var, at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt traktaten, fordi den havde anvendt en forkert procedure.
1.1 The complainants' first claim, in substance, was that the Commission had infringed the Treaty by using the wrong procedure.
I henhold til klagerne var skrivelsen til den tyske regering ensbetydende med en ændring af Kommissionens beslutning, jf. EF-traktatens artikel 92, stk. 3, litra c, om at Stromeinspeisegesetz var forenelig med Fællesmarkedet.
According to the complainants, the letter to the German government amounted to an alteration of the Commission's decision, made under Article 92 (3) (c) of the EC Treaty, that the Stromeinspeisegesetz is compatible with the common market.
De gjorde gældende, at en sådan ændring kun ville være retsgyldig, hvis den blev nedfældet i en ny kommis sionsbeslutning.
They claimed that such an alteration could only validly be made by way of a further Commission decision.
Stromeinspeisegesetz godkendtes efter denne procedure i 1990 og blev således en eksisterende støtteordning.
The Stromeinspeisegesetz received approval through this procedure in 1990 and thus became an existing system of aid.
EF-traktatens artikel 93 opstiller to procedurer, hvorved Kommissionen kan søge at ændre en eksisterende støtteordning.
Article 93 EC provides two procedures through which the Commission may seek modification of an existing scheme of aid.
Den første procedure indebærer, at Kommissionen fremsætter for slag til foranstaltninger til den pågældende medlemsstat, jf. artikel 93, stk. 1. Disse forslag er ikke bindende.
The first procedure is by proposing measures to the Member State concerned under Article 93 (1).
Den anden procedure indebærer, at Kommissionen retter en bindende beslutning til den pågældende medlemsstat, hvori den kræver, at den ophæver eller ændrer støtteforanstaltningen, jf. artikel 93, stk. 2.
The second procedure is to address a binding decision to the Member State concerned, requiring it to abolish or alter the aid, following the procedure of Article 93 (2).
Der er ud fra en juridisk betragtning intet til hinder for, at proceduren i artikel 93, stk. 1, kan finde anvendelse i sager, hvor Kommissionen tidligere har godkendt støtten i henhold til artikel 92, stk. 3.
1.4 There is no legal basis for considering that the Article 93 (1) pro cedure cannot be used in cases where the Commission has previously approved aid under Article 92 (3).
Det fremgik på intet tidspunkt af den omhandlede skrivelse, at den skulle være bindende for medlemsstaten eller ændre Kommissionens beslutning vedrørende Stromeinspeisegesetz.
The letter in question did not purport to be binding on the Member State, nor did it purport to alter the Commission's 1990 decision concerning the Stromeinspeisegesetz.
Skrivelsen syntes således heller ikke at indeholde elementer, som oversteg de beføjelser, Kommissionen tildeles i artikel 93, stk. 1.
The letter did not therefore appear to contain any element which exceeded the competence of the Commission under Article 93 (1).
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse af klagernes første klagepunkt viste ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman's inquiry into the complainants' first claim did, therefore, reveal no maladministration.
2 Det andet klagepunkt
2 The complainants' second claim
Det andet klagepunkt var, at Kommissionen havde foretaget en ukorrekt vurdering af vindproducenternes juridiske og økonomiske situation, fordi den var baseret på ikke-verificerede data fra den tyske elektricitetssektor.
2.1 The complainants' second claim was, in substance, that the Commission had wrongly assessed the legal and economic situation of wind energy producers because it relied on unverified data supplied by the German electricity industry.
Der fastlægges i artikel 93, stk. 1, ingen specifikke krav ved rørende Kommissionens samarbejde med medlemsstaterne om kontrol med de eksisterende støtteordninger.
2.2 Article 93 (1) does not lay down specific requirements concerning the Commission's cooperation with Member States to keep under review existing systems of aid.
Dog kræver god for valtningsskik, at Kommissionen baserer sine tekniske og økonomiske vurderinger på korrekte oplysninger og om nødvendigt sikrer muligheden for en kritisk vurdering af de relevante data og forskellige meningstilkendegivelser.
However, as a matter of good administrative practice, the Commission should base its technical and economic assessments on accurate information and ensure, when appropriate, that there is opportunity for critical appraisal of relevant data and that different opinions are heard.
I sin udtalelse forelægger Kommissionen en redegørelse for sine tiltag, som klagerne ikke gjorde indsigelse mod.
In its opinion the Commission had provided an account of its activities which was not contradicted by the complainants.
I henhold til Kommissionen havde den informeret den tyske regering om de klager, den havde modtaget vedrørende støtteordningen for vindenergi, og anmodet om den tyske regerings kommenterer.
According to the Commission, it had informed the German government about complaints it had received concerning the system of aid for wind energy and had asked for its comments.
Etter en høring i det tyske parlament om en eventuel ændring af loven, modtog Kommissionen kommentarer fra alle deltagere, herunder repræsentanter for de tyske delstaters regeringer, energileverandørvirksomheder og foreninger, som forsvarede anvendelsen af vedvarende energi. Derudover afholdtes flere møder med alle
After a hearing in the German Parliament to discuss whether or not amendments to the law were necessary, the Commission had received the comments of all participants, among them representatives of the governments of the German Länder, of energy supply companies and of
AFGØRELSER berørte parter, herunder repræsentanter for vindenergiproducenter. center.
In addition to this, several meetings with all concerned parties, including representatives of wind energy producers, had taken place.
Det fremgik af ovenstående, at Kommissionen havde truffet rimelige foranstaltninger for at sikre, at dens tekniske og økonomiske vurderinger var baseret på korrekte oplysninger, og at der var mulighed for en kritisk vurdering af de relevante data, samt at for skellige meningstilkendegivelser havde været mulige.
2.4 On the basis of the above, it appeared that the Commission had taken reasonable steps to ensure that its technical and economic assessments were based on accurate information and that there was opportunity for critical appraisal of relevant data and that different opinions were heard.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse af klagernes andet klagepunkt viste således ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman's inquiry into the complainants' second claim did, therefore, reveal no maladministration. tration.