natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derfor kan det på grundlag af fæl lesskabsrettens nuværende stade anføres, at der ikke er noget retsgrundlag for påstanden om, at det var urimeligt at udelukke klageren fra et møde, som blev afholdt i den sammenhæng, for udsat at han havde en procedural mulighed for at kommentere for eneligheden med fællesskabsretten af den handling, der var endelig valgt og accepteret af Kommissionen som fyldestgørende.
DECISIONS be no legal basis for the claim that it was unreasonable to exclude the complainant from a meeting organised in that context, provided that he had the procedural possibility to.comment on the com patibility with Community law of the course of action finally select ed and accepted as satisfactory by the Commission.
Som bemærket i ovenstående punkt 3.4 fremgår dette at have været tilfældet.
As noted in paragraph 3.4 above, this appears to have been the case.
3.6 Ombudsmandens undersøgelser har derfor ikke afsløret bevis for Kommissionens undladelse af at overholde god forvaltningsskik i forbindelse med de procedurale spørgsmål, der behandles i dette afsnit af afgørelsen.
3.6 The Ombudsman's inquiries have not, therefore, revealed evidence of failure by the Commission to observe the principles of good administrative behaviour in relation to the procedural matters dealt with in this section of the decision.
4 Spørgsmål rejst i klagerens bemærkninger
4 Matters raised in the complainant's observations
Klageren anførte i sine bemærkninger vedrørende Kommissionens udtalelse, at Kommissionens beslutning om at støtte ændringen af GBP var retligt uholdbar og så bort fra den doku mentation, han havde leveret.
In his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant argued that the Commission's decision to support the amendment to the GBP was legally unsustainable and ignored the evidence that he had supplied.
Han gjorde også gældende, at Kommissionens ræsonnement vedrørende "traditionelt" øl var en undskyldning for at have forhandlet sig frem til en politisk løsning på artikel 169-proceduren.
He also claimed that the Commission's reasoning concerning "traditional" beer was an excuse for having negotiated a political settlement of the Article 169 procedure.
Den oprindelige klage fokuserede på de procedurale spørgsmål, der er omhandlet i afsnit 2 og 3 ovenfor.
4.2 The original complaint focused on the procedural questions dealt with in sections 2 and 3 above.
Det fremgik, at bemærkningerne ikke berettigede Ombudsmanden til at foretage under søgelser af disse nye påstande.
The observations did not appear to provide grounds for the Ombudsman to conduct inquiries into these new allegations.
4.3 Ombudsmanden bemærker, at klageren har mulighed for at bestride foreneligheden af den ændrede GBP med EF-traktatens artikel 30 ved at anlægge sag ved de britiske domstole.
4.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has the possibility to contest the compatibility of the amended Guest Beer Provision with Article 30 of the EC Treaty by initiating proceedings in the UK courts.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede følgelig behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
OVERFØRSEL AF PENSIONSRETTIGHEDER
TRANSFER OF PENSION RIGHTS
Afgørelse om klage 733/97/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 733/97/PD against the European Commission
I august 1997 overførte den tyske Forbundsdags Udvalg for Andragender et andragende indgivet af L. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand med hen blik på behandling som klage.
In August 1997, the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag trans ferred a petition lodged by Mr L. to the European Ombudsman to be dealt with as a complaint.
L. havde arbejdet for Kommissionen fra den 16. maj 1960, indtil han tog sin afsked den 1. maj 1970.
Mr L. had worked for the European Commission from 16 May 1960 until he resigned on 1 May 1970.
I overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser i tjenestemandsvedtægten, som finder anvendelse på dette spørgsmål, fik han udbetalt udtrædelsespenge.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations, he was paid a severance grant.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke behandlede hans anmodning korrekt.
In December 1994 and in April 1995 Mr L. asked the Commission to allow him to repay the severance grant and transfer his pension rights to the
UNDERSØGELSEN
German pension system.
Klagen fremsendtes til Kommissionen.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.
Denne anførte, at i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser i tjenestemandsvedtægten, som finder anvendelse på dette spørgsmål, var L. ikke pensionsberettiget.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations, Mr L. had not been entitled to a pension.
Derfor havde han fået udbetalt udtrædelsespenge.
Therefore a severance grant had been paid to him.
Endvidere hed det i udtalelsen, at Kommissionen den 13. juni 1995 havde givet følgende svar på klagerens forespørgsler af 23. december 1994 og 7. april 1995:
Furthermore the opinion stated that the Commision had replied to the complainant's inquiries of 23.12.1994 and 7.4.1995 on 13.6.1995, as follows:
- På den ene side var genindbetaling af udtrædelsespengene ikke mulig (artikel 4 i bilag VIII til tjenestemandsvedtægten åbner kun mulighed herfor, hvis den pågældende person genindtræder i en EF-instititu-tion).
- that on the one hand the reimbursement of the severance grant was not possible (Article 4 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations provides for such a possibility only if the person concerned resumes active employment with a Community institution);
- På den anden side kunne overførslen af pensionsrettigheder kun tages i betragtning for tjenestemænd og midlertidigt ansatte, som stadig er i aktiv tjeneste, eller for dem, der, når de forlader en EF-insti-tutions tjeneste, kan godtgøre en umiddelbar pensionsret eller en ret, som træder i kraft efter et vist tidsrum. Dette var imidlertid ikke klage rens tilfælde.
- that on the other hand the transfer of pension rights could only be taken into consideration for those officials and temporary agents who are still in active service, or else for those who, when leaving the service of an Community institution can prove an immediate entitlement to pension or an entitlement which takes effect after a certain period; this was however not the case with the complainant.
Det gjordes endvidere gældende i udtalelsen, at Kommissionen med udbetalingen af udtrædelsespengene havde opfyldt sine forpligtelser over for klageren, eftersom han ikke havde krav på pension, at Kommissionen havde besvaret alle klagerens spørgsmål, og at der ikke ville blive overvejet andre foranstaltninger.
The opinion also stated that through the payment of the severance grant the Commission had fullfilled its obligations towards the complainant since he had no claim to a pension; that the Commission had answered all the complainant's questions; and no other measures would be considered.
Ingen bemærkninger blev modtaget fra klageren.
No observations were received from the complainant.
Det fremgik, at Kommissionen i sit svar på L.'s forespørgsler havde anført passende grunde for, at den ikke kunne imødekomme hans anmodning.
It appeared that in its reply to Mr L.'s inquiries, the Commission gave adequate reasons why it could not meet his request.
Derfor fandt Ombudsmanden, at der ikke var basis for påstanden om, at Kommissionen havde behandlet L.'s anmodning ukorrekt.
Therefore, the Ombudsman found no justification for the claim that the Commission had dealt with Mr L.'s request improperly.
Det fremgik af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage, at der ikke var begået fejl eller forsømmelser.
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
DIREKTIVET OM PAKKEREJSER: PÅSTÅET MANGELFULD BEHANDLING AF EN KLAGE TIL KOMMISSIONEN
PACKAGE HOLIDAYS DIRECTIVE: ALLEGED FAILURE BY COMMISSION TO DEAL PROPERLY WITH A COMPLAINT
Afgørelse om klage 1075/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1075/97/1JH against the European Commission
I november 1997 klagede D. til Ombudsmanden over Kommissionens behandling af en klage, han havde indgivet over Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder i august 1995.
In November 1997, Mr D. made a complaint to the Ombudsman concern ing the way in which the Commission had dealt with a complaint which he had made against the UK authorities in August 1995.
I klagen til Kommissionen gjorde D. gældende, at Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder ikke havde sikret en korrekt gennemførelse og håndhævelse af bestemmelserne vedrørende ekstrabetaling i direktiv 93/314/EØF og i den nationale lovgivning, som var vedtaget med henblik på direktivets gennemførelse.1 Kommissionen registrerede klagen under følgende reference: 95/4883.
Mr D.'s complaint to the Commission concerned the alleged failure of the UK government properly to implement and enforce the provisions relating to surcharges contained both in Directive 90/314/EEC and in the national legislation through which the Directive was transposed into domestic law.1 The Commission registered the complaint as N°. 95/4883.
I februar 1996 meddelte Kommissionens GD XXIV klageren, at direktivet øjensynlig var korrekt gennemført i den nationale lovgivning, men at Kommissionen havde rettet en henvendelse til Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder vedrørende en brochure om denne lovgivning, som Det Forenede Kongeriges handels- og industriministerium havde offentliggjort, og at der eventuelt ville blive indledt en artikel 169-procedure, hvis svaret fra Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder ikke var tilfredsstillende.
In February 1996, DG XXIV of the Commission informed the complainant that the Directive appeared to have been properly transposed into domestic law, but that the Commission had requested information from the UK authorities concerning a guidance booklet about the law published by the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and that Article 169 infringe ment proceedings might commence if the reply from the UK authorities were not satisfactory.
Den 7. oktober 1997 meddelte GD XXIV klageren, at hans klage havde ført til en ændring af ordlyden i handels- og industriministeriets brochure, og at Kommissionen havde besluttet ikke at gå videre i sagen.
On 7 October 1997, DG XXIV informed the complainant that his complaint had resulted in a change of wording in the DTI's guidance booklet and that the Commission had decided not to go further in the matter.
I skrivelsen for klarede Kommissionen endvidere, at det pågældende direktiv ikke inde holdt krav om, at de nationale myndigheder skulle have beføjelse til at afgive påbud i forbindelse med eventuelle krænkelser af de nationale bestemmelser, men at et forslag til direktiv, som indebar sådanne beføjelser, var under behandling.
The letter also explained that the Directive in question did not require that injunctive powers should be available to national authorities to deal with possible infringe ments of national provisions transposing Community law, but that a pro posal for a Directive containing such injunctive powers was being considered. ered.
D.'s klage til Ombudsmanden indeholdt i det væsentligste tre klagepunkter: i)
In summary, Mr D.'s complaint to the Ombudsman made three allegations:
Kommissionens behandling af klagen havde været uforholdsmæssig langsom.
The time taken to deal with the complaint to the Commission was excessive.
Kommissionens skrivelse af 7. oktober 1997 indeholdt irrelevante oplysninger.
DECISIONS the Regulations through which the Directive was transposed into domestic law.
For det første kunne der i henhold til lovgivningen kun opkræves ekstrabetaling, "hvis kontrakten fastlægger den præcise beregningsmetode for en sådan ændring", mens ordet "præcise" var udeladt i brochuren.
Firstly, the law provides that a surcharge may be imposed only "if the contract states precisely how the revised price is to be calculated," where as the booklet omits the words "precisely and "to be".
I praksis indeholdt rejseselskabernes kontrakter ingen oplysninger om beregningsmetoderne ved ekstraomkostninger.
According to the complaint, package tour companies do not, in practice, explain in their con tracts the method by which surcharges will be calculated.
For det andet hed det i direktivet, at ændringer i prisen udelukkende må foretages inden for et begrænset område, herunder "gebyrer for visse tjenesteydelser så som lufthavns-, havne-, landings- eller startafgifter".
Secondly, the law provides that surcharges may be imposed only in respect of a limited range of items including "fees chargeable for services such as landing taxes or embarkation or disembarkation fees at ports or airports".
I brochuren henvistes udelukkende til "gebyrer for visse tjenesteydelser", og i praksis tilføjede rejseselskaberne ofte administrative udgifter og gebyrer til turistagenturer, som de ikke var berettiget til at opkræve.
However, the booklet refers only to "fees chargeable for services" and, in practice, package tour companies frequently add amounts in respect of administration charges and agents' commissions, which they are not entitled to charge.
I henhold til klageren var den ønskede beskyttelse af forbrugerne ikke opnået.
According to the complainant, the consumer protection which the Directive aims to provide is thereby negated.
I sin udtalelse anførte Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The Commission's opinion included, in summary, the following points:
Klageren havde klaget til Kommissionen over brochurens ordlyd og over, at der ikke forelå en retshåndhævelsesmekanisme, som kunne træde i kraft, hvis en kontrakt om en pakkerejse ikke "fastlægger den præcise beregningsmetode" ved en prisændring.
The complainant had complained to the Commission about both the text of the guidance booklet and the absence of an enforcement mechanism in case a package travel contract does not "sfare precisely how the revised price is to be calculated'.
Kommissionen under rettede Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder om klagen den 6. december 1995.1 en skrivelse af 7. marts 1996 meddelte Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder, at de ikke fandt brochurens indhold misvisende.
The Commission informed the UK authorities of the complaint on 6 December 1995. In a letter of 7 March
På et møde med tjenestemænd fra GD XXIV den 26. juli 1996 indvilgede Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder i at ændre brochurens ordlyd.
However, in a meeting with officials of DG XXIV on 26 July 1996, the UK authorities showed their readiness to modify the text of the booklet.
På baggrund af den nye tekst, som Kommissionen fik forelagt den 10. oktober 1996, vedtog Kommissionen at afslutte behandlingen af sagen den 19. marts 1997, fordi Det Forenede Kongerige i henhold til Kommissionen ikke havde overtrådt fællesskabsretten.
Taking into account the new text, which was communicated on 10 October 1996, the Commission decided to close the file on 19 March
Klageren blev informeret om denne afgørelse og begrundelsen herfor i en skrivelse af 7. oktober 1997.
The complainant was informed of this decision and the reasons for it by letter of 7 October 1997.
Denne skrivelse indeholdt endvidere klare og detaljerede oplysninger om klagerens spørgsmål vedrørende retshåndhævelse.
That letter also contained clear and detailed information on the questions raised by the complainant concerning the issue of enforcement.
I udtalelsen beklagede Kommissionen endvidere det lange tidsrum mellem sagens afslutning (den 19. marts 1997) og meddelelsen af afgørelsen til klageren (den 7. oktober 1997).
The Commission's opinion also expressed regret for the delay between closing the file (19 March 1997) and informing the complainant of this deci sion (7 October 1997).
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren påstandene om uforholdsmæssig forsinkelse, irrelevant information og accept af misvisende fremstilling af direktivets bestemmelser.
In his observations, the complainant maintained the allegations of excessive delay, irrelevant information and collusion in misrepresenting the meaning of the Directive.
Han gentog sin bemærkning om, at Kommissionen havde undladt at behandle hans væsentligste klagepunkt vedrørende betydningen af direktivets nøjagtige ordlyd.
He repeated his view that the Commission had ignored his main point about the importance of the precise wording of the [Directive.
I denne forbindelse anførte han, at den reviderede udgave af handels- og industriministeriets brochure ikke var bedre end den oprindelige udgave.
In this respect, he considered the revised wording of the DTI guidance booklet to be no better than the original.
1 Indledende bemærkninger vedrørende Kommissionens procedure for behandling af klager over medlemsstaters overtrædelser af fæl lesskabsretten
1 Preliminary remarks concerning the Commission's procedures for dealing with complaints concerning infringements of Community law by Member States
I denne sag afsluttede Kommissionen behandlingen af klagen i marts 1997.
The Commission closed its file on the complaint in this case in March 1997.
I april 1997 indledte Ombudsmanden en under søgelse på eget initiativ af mulighederne for at forbedre Kommissionens administrative procedurer ved behandling af klager over medlemsstaters overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten.1I forbindelse med undersøgelsen på eget initiativ oplyste Kommissionen, at den havde vedtaget interne procedurebestemmelser om, at der i hver enkelt klagesag inden et år efter registreringsdatoen skal tages stilling til, om sagsbehandlingen skal afsluttes uden yderligere foranstaltninger, eller om der skal iværksættes en officiel traktatbrudsprocedure, og at denne regel kun kan fraviges i undtagelsestilfælde, og at der skal gives en begrundelse herfor.
In April Í997 the Ombudsman began an own initiative inquiry into the possibilities for improving the quality of the Commission's administrative procedures for dealing with com plaints concerning infringements of Community law by Member States.1 During the own-initiative inquiry the Commission indicated that it had adopted an internal rule of procedure that a decision either to close a file without taking any action, or to initiate official infringement proceedings, must be taken on every complaint with in a maximum period of one year from the date on which it was registered, except in special cases, the reasons for which must be stated.
Endvidere påtog Kommissionen sig i alle sager at underrette kla geren, når den havde til hensigt at afslutte behandlingen af sagen, undtagen i de tilfælde, hvor en klage tydeligvis savnede ethvert grundlag, eller hvor Kommissionen ikke havde hørt yderligere fra klageren.
Furthermore, the Commission undertook that, apart from cases where a complaint is obviously without foundation and cases where nothing further is heard from the complainant, the Commission will ensure that a complainant is informed of its intention to close a case.
Det fremgik således, at det i sager som den her omhandlede, hvor Kommissionen ikke finder, at der er tale om en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, bør sikres, at klageren får mulighed for at fremsætte kommentarer til Kommissionens hold ning, inden Kommissionen træffer en endelig afgørelse i sagen.
It appears, therefore, that in cases such as the present, in which the Commission finds that there is no infringe ment of Community law, complainants should have the possibility to put forward views and criticisms concerning the Commission's point of view before the Commission commits itself to a final con clusion that there is no infringement.
2 Forsinkelser i forbindelse med klagens behandling
2 The complaint of excessive delay
I den her omhandlede sag forelå Kommissionens afgørelse om at afslutte behandlingen af sagen først to år efter, at klagen var blevet registreret.
In the present case, the delay between registration of the com plaint and the Commission's decision to close the file was over two years.
I sin udtalelse undskylder Kommissionen, at der yder-
In its opinion, the Commission apologized for the further delay (nearly seven months) before the complainant was informed of this decision.
303/97/PD, Den Europæiske Ombudsmands årsberetning for 1997, s. 273-277. Jf. endvidere Kommissionens 15. beretning om kontrollen med gennemførelsen af fællesskabsretten (1997), Indledning, s. III-IV (KOM(98)0317).
303/97/PD, reported in the European Ombudsman's Annual Report for 1997 pp 270-274 and see the Commission's 15th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community law (1997), Introduction pp lll-IV (COM (1998) 317 final).
3 Påstanden om, at Kommissionens skrivelse af 7. oktober 1997 indeholdt irrelevante oplysninger
The allegation that the Commission's letter dated 7 October 1997 contained irrelevant information
I skrivelse af 7. oktober 1997 meddelte Kommissionen klageren, at den fandt, at den ændrede udgave af handels- og industriministeriets brochure opfyldte kravene til tekstens klarhed, og at Kommissionen havde vedtaget ikke at gå videre i sagen.
3.1 The Commission's letter to the complainant dated 7 October 1997 informed him of the Commission's view that the modified text of the DTI guidance booklet met the necessary demands for clarification and that the Commission had decided not to go further into the matter.
Som anført i punkt 1.2 ovenfor ville klagerne fremover få mulighed for at gøre deres synspunkter gældende, inden Kommissionen vedtog at afslutte behandlingen af sagen.
As noted in paragraph 1.2 above, complainants should, in future, have the opportunity to put forward views and criticisms concerning the Commission's point of view before the decision to close a case is made.
Ifølge klageren indeholdt Kommissionens skrivelse irrelevante oplysninger i form af bl.a. en supplerende forklaring vedrørende mangelen på krav om påbudsmæssige beføjelser med henblik på håndhævelse af direktiv 90/314 og oplysninger om et forslag til direktiv, som skulle indeholde krav om sådanne bestemmelser.
3.2 According to the complainant, the Commission included irrelevant material in its letter: in particular, the additional explanation con cerning the absence of a requirement of injunctive provisions to enforce Directive 90/314 and the information about a proposal for a new Directive which would require such provisions.
Klagen, til Kommissionen af 15. august 1995 vedrørte udtrykkeligt spørgsmålet om manglende muligheder for at sikre håndhævelsen af direktivet.
3.3 The complaint to the Commission dated 15 August 1995 express ly raised the issue of the absence of any means of enforcement of the Directive.
Ombudsmanden fandt det derfor korrekt, at Kommissionen behandlede spørgsmålet i sin skrivelse til klageren.
The Ombudsman therefore considers that it was correct for the Commission to deal with this matter in its letter to the complainant.
Endvidere forekom det ikke upassende, at Kommissionen uopfordret informerede om lovgivningsmæssige forslag vedrørende rets håndhævelse.
Furthermore, it does not appear inappropriate for the Commission also to volunteer information about legislative pro posals relating to enforcement.
Der syntes således ikke at foreligge tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, for så vidt angik dette aspekt af klagen.
3.4 There appears, therefore, to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
4 Påstanden om Kommissionens mangelfulde behandling af klage punkterne og accept af Det Forenede Kongerige ufuldstændige gennemførelse af direktiv 90/314
The allegation that the Commission failed to deal properly with the issues raised by the complaint and colluded with a failure by the UK government to implement Directive 90/314 properly and effectively tively
Klagerens væsentligste påstand vedrørende dette aspekt af sagen var, at handels- og industriministeriets brochure ikke gengav direktivet og de nationale bestemmelsers nøjagtige ordlyd.
4.1 The complainant's main claim in relation to this aspect of the case concerns the fact that the DTI guidance booklet does not reproduce exactly the wording of the Directive and transposing Regulations.