natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens fortolkning af direktiv 78/686/EØF og 78/687/EØF var efter hans opfattelse fyldestgørende, og han havde altid gjort alt hvad der stod i hans magt for at sikre en behørig gennemførelse af disse direktiver i Spanien.
The Commission's interpretation of Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC was, in his view, adequate, and he had always made all pos sible efforts to guarantee the proper application of these Directives in Spain.
Han accepterede ikke Kommissionens begrundelse for den lange tid, det havde taget at behandle denne sag.
He did not accept the Commission's justification for the lengthy period of time taken for the handling of the case.
Han var af den opfattelse, at eftersom Kommissionen er et teknisk organ, er det dens primære opgave at sikre behørig gennemførelse af EF-retten i alle medlemsstater.
He considered that since the Commission is a technical body, its primary task is to ensure the proper application of Community law by all Member States.
Derfor kunne Kommissionen umuligt begrunde den lange tid, denne procedure havde taget, med en henvisning til politiske årsager.
Consequently, the Commission could not possibly justify the long time elapsed in this action on the basis of political reasons.
Han anmodede Ombudsmanden om at foretage de nødvendige under søgelser for at kontrollere, om alle de parter, der var involveret i sagen, havde handlet i overensstemmelse med EF-retten.
He asked the Ombudsman to make the necessary inquiries to verify whether all the parties involved in the case acted in accordance with Community law.
I april 1997 sendte han Ombudsmanden en kopi af en skrivelse, som han havde modtaget fra Kommissionen.
On April 1997 he forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of a letter which he had received from the Commission.
Denne skrivelse oplyste ham om den afgørelse, som Kommissionen havde truffet i december 1996, om at ind bringe sagen for Domstolen, selv om den dog også tilføjede, at sagen endnu ikke var blevet indbragt.
This letter informed him of the decision adopted by the Commission on December 1996 to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, although it also added that the case had not yet been materially lodged.
Kommissionen havde vedtaget denne afgørelse i lyset af de spanske myndigheders utilfredsstillende svar på Kommissionens begrundede udtalelse.
The Commission had adopted this decision in view of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Spanish authorities to the Commission's reasoned opinion.
I maj 1997 skrev Den Europæiske Ombudsmand igen til Kommissionen med anmodning om yderligere oplysninger vedrørende klagen.
In May 1997, the European Ombudsman wrote again to the Commission requesting further information in relation to the complaint.
Ombudsmanden henstillede til Kommissionen at give klarere, mere præcise og gennemskuelige oplysninger vedrørende indholdet af forhandlingerne mellem Kommissionen og de spanske myndigheder og om udviklingen i proceduren siden 1990.
The Ombudsman suggested that the Commission should provide more clear, precise and transparent information concerning the contents of the negotiations between the Commission and the Spanish authorities and on the develop­ment of the proceedings which had taken place since 1990.
Kommissionen bekræftede i sit svar sin tidligere udtalelse og oplyste Ombudsmanden om, at den var ved at gennemgå de nye oplysninger, de spanske myndigheder havde forelagt i juni 1997.
In reply, the Commission confirmed its previous opinion and informed the Ombudsman that it was reviewing the new information submitted by the Spanish authorities in June 1997.
I februar 1998 oplyste Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om, at den havde besluttet ikke at indbringe sagen for Domstolen.
In February 1998, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had decided not to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse tacklede de spanske myndigheder det relevante problem i for bindelse med EF-retten.
In the Commission' view the Spanish authorities were tackling the relevant prob­lem in accordance with Community law.
Endvidere havde den spanske Højesteret ændret sin fortolkning af de eksisterende nationale regler for at bringe dem i over ensstemmelse med kravene i direktiv 78/686/EØF og 78/687/EØF.
Furthermore, the Spanish Supreme Court had changed its interpretation of existing national rules, in order to make them conform to the requirements of Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC.
Kommissionen påpegede, at den omstændighed, at Ombudsmanden havde modtaget flere klager (531/97/PD og 535/97/PD) fra borgere, som havde erhvervet deres eksamensbeviser for tandlæger i latinamerikanske lande, men som ikke havde opnået anerkendelse af deres eksamensbeviser for tandlæger af de spanske myndigheder, var et bevis på en ændring i situationen.
The Commission pointed out that the fact that the Ombudsman had received several complaints (531/97/PD and 535/97/PD) from citizens who had obtained their dental degrees in Latin American countries, but who had not obtained the recognition of their dental degrees by the Spanish author­ities, was proof of the change in the situation.
Kommissionen agtede at afslutte overtrædelsesproceduren, så snart Spanien ophørte med at være part i alle de internationale aftaler, som kunne være i modstrid med EF-retten.
The Commission intended to close the infringement proceeding as soon as Spain ceased to be a party to all the international agreements which could be contrary to Community law.
1 Kommissionens afgørelse om ikke at indbringe sagen for Domstolen
1 Decision of the Commission not to bring the case before the Court of Justice
I overensstemmelse hermed fremsætter Kommissionen, når den finder, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til EF-retten, en begrundet udtalelse.
Accordingly, when the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil a Community obligation, it delivers a reasoned opinion.
Retter den pågældende stat sig ikke efter den fremsatte udtalelse, kan Kommissionen indbringe sagen for Domstolen.
If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
Som Domstolen gentagne har erklæret,1har Kommissionen en skønsbeføjelse til at anmode Domstolen eller ej om en erklæring,
As the Court of Justice has repeatedly stated,1the Commission has a discretionary power whether or not to apply to the Court of ι See, most recently Case T­182/97, Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 February 1998.
Se den seneste sag, sag T-182/97, kendelse afsagt af Retten i Første Instans (Anden Afdeling) den 16. februar 1998, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud og Monique Ségaud mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, Sml. 1998, s. 11-0271 (endnu ikke trykt).
Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud ν Commission of the European Communities, [1998] ECR 11­0271.
AFGØRELSER der fastslår den pågældende medlemsstats manglende overholdelse af en forpligtelse.
Justice for a declaration establishing the failure of the Member State concerned.
Ved udøvelsen af en skønsbeføjelse er det normal praksis i de fleste offentlige administrationer at redegøre for de årsager, som begrunder valget af en bestemt handlemåde.
In the exercise of discretion a normal practice for most public administrations is to explain the reasons which justify the choice of a particular course of action.
Derfor bør der, såfremt Kommissionen vælger ikke at forfølge en overtrædelsesprocedure, være en begrundelse til støtte for dette valg.
Therefore, if the Commission chooses not to pursue an infringement procedure, there should be some reasoning supporting this particular option.
Disse grunde bør danne grundlag for enhver potentiel undersøgelse fra Ombudsmandens side for at sikre, at der ikke har fundet fejl eller forsømmelser sted.
These reasons should provide the basis for any potential inquiry by the Ombudsman in order to ensure that no maladministration has taken place.
På grundlag af de seneste oplysninger, der blev indgivet af de spanske myndigheder, besluttede Kommissionen ikke at indbringe sagen for EF-Domstolen.
On the basis of the latest information submitted by the Spanish authorities, the Commission decided not to bring the matter before the European Court of Justice.
Denne afgørelse var foranlediget af, at de spanske myndigheder havde opsagt flere internationale trak tater om anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, som var indgået med latinamerikanske lande, og af den spanske Højesterets nye hold ning.
This decision was prompted by the fact that the Spanish authorities had denounced several international treaties on recognition of degrees signed with some Latin American countries, and by the new position taken by the Spanish Supreme Court.
Ved gennemgangen af de motiver Kommissionen havde anført til begrundelse for sin holdning, fandt Ombudsmanden, at institutionen havde handlet inden for grænserne af sin juridiske autoritet, og der var derfor ikke konstateret noget tilfælde af fejl eller for sømmelser.
In reviewing the reasons given by the Commission to justify its position, the Ombudsman found that the institution had acted with in the limits of its legal authority and therefore no instance of mal administration had been established.
2 Behørig omhu ved sikring af overholdelsen af EF-retten
2 Due diligence in ensuring compliance with Community law
I forbindelse med Ombudsmandens Undersøgelse på eget initiativ af Kommissionens administrative procedurer vedrørende borgeres klager (303/97/PD) forpligtede Kommissionen sig til at vedtage en afgørelse om en klage inden for et år efter klagens registrering.
In the context of the Ombudsman's own initiative inquiry into the Commission's administrative procedures in relation to citizens' complaints (303/97/PD), the Commission committed itself to adopt a decision on a complaint within a year from its registration.
Som det blev bemærket på daværende tidspunkt, kunne det lægges til grund, at overholdelsen af denne regel var en passende metode til at sikre, at klagen behandles uden unødig forsinkelse.
As it was noted at the time, the observance of this rule appeared to be an adequate means for ensuring that the complaint is processed without undue delay.
Dette generelle formål kunne imidlertid blive bragt i fare, såfremt en overtrædelsesprocedure, når først en klage var resulteret i indledningen af en sådan, trak ud i mange ar uden nogen til fredsstillende løsning på problemet.
However, this general aim could be frustrated if, once a complaint had resulted in the opening of an infringement procedure, the latter lingered on for many years with no satisfactory solution to the problem.
Kommissionen bør, når den som traktatens vogter sikrer, at med lemsstaterne fuldt ud overholder EF-retten, følge god forvaltningsskik og handle med behørig omhu.
In ensuring as Guardian of the Treaty that Member States fully comply with Community law, the Commission should work in accordance with principles of good administration and act with due diligence.
Dette indebærer, at Kommissionen aktivt bør søge at få den pågældende medlemsstat til at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør og også orientere klageren om sine handlinger.
This implies that the Commission should actively seek to make the Member State concerned put an end to the infringement, and also inform the complainant of its actions.
Kommissionen tog først formelle skridt til at tvinge de spanske myndigheder til at overholde direktiv 78/686/EØF i oktober 1990, da den fremsendte en åbningsskrivelse.
In the process of compelling the Spanish authorities to comply with Directive 78/686/EEC, formal action by the Commission was first undertaken in October 1990 with the dispatching of a letter of formal notice.
I december 1996 besluttede Kommissionen at indbringe sagen for Domstolen, skønt den
In December 1996 the institution decided to apply to the Court of Justice, although it suspended this decision in
AFGØRELSER ophævede denne afgørelse i december 1997 i betragtning af de positive resultater af dens forhandlinger med Spanien.
December 1997, in view of the positive results of its negotiations with Spain.
Denne procedure, som Kommissionen stadig undersøger, havde taget syv år.
This process, still being reviewed by the Commission, had taken seven years.
Kommissionen anførte, at den i dette lange tidsrum havde fremsendt en begrundet udtalelse til de spanske myndigheder i august 1992 og ligeledes havde anmodet om yderligere oplysninger om dette spørgsmål i marts og juli 1993, oktober 1994, juli 1995 og april 1996.
During this long period, the Commission had indicat­ed it sent a reasoned opinion to the Spanish authorities in August 1992, and also requested additional information on this matter in March and July 1993, October 1994, July 1995, and April 1996.
Kommissionen gjorde i sine svar til Ombudsmanden gældende, at dens holdning overfor klagen har været meget aktiv i de syv år, der er gået, siden overtrædelsesproceduren blev påbegyndt.
In its replies to the Ombudsman, the Commission had claimed that its attitude has been very active in relation to the complaint during the seven years that have elapsed since infringement proceedings begun.
Imidlertid havde Kommissionen, til trods for en anmodning fra Ombudsmanden, undladt at give klare, præcise og gennemsigtige oplysninger til støtte for denne påstand for derigennem at bevise, at den havde handlet med behørig omhu i dette lange tidsrum.
However, despite a request from the Ombudsman, it had failed to provide clear, precise and transparent information to sup­port this claim and thereby demonstrate that it had acted with due diligence throughout this long period of time.
3 Klagerens anmodning om at få aktindsigt i visse dokumenter
3 Request by the complainant to have access to certain documents
For at klarlægge udviklingen i proceduren havde klageren ved flere lejligheder anmodet om oplysninger vedrørende brev vekslingen mellem Kommissionen og de spanske myndigheder.
In order to clarify the evolution of the proceedings, the complainant had requested on several occasions information concerning the exchanges between the Commission and the Spanish authorities.
Kommissionen besvarede disse anmodninger med at afslå at udlevere disse skrivelser under henvisning til overtrædelsesprocedurens fortrolige karakter.
The Commission replied to such requests by refusing to release those letters on the basis of the confidentiality of the infringement proceedings.
Kommissionen anførte i sine svar på denne forespørgsel, at den som traktatens vogter skal sikre en atmosfære af gensidig tillid over for medlemsstaterne.
3.2 The Commission indicated in its replies to this inquiry that, in its role of guardian of the Treaty, the institution has to ensure an atmosphere of mutual trust with Member States.
Dette formål kan kun opfyldes gennem den fortrolige karakter af kontakterne mellem Kommissionen og den pågældende medlemsstat.
This aim could not be achieved but for the confidential character of the contacts between the institution and the Member State concerned.
Begæringer om aktindsigt i dokumenter, som Kommissionen ligger inde med, skal behandles i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens afgørelse 94/90/EKSF, Euratom til gennemførelse af den af Rådet og Kommissionen vedtagne adfærdskodeks.
Requests for access to documents held by the Commission are to be dealt with in accordance with Commission Decision 94/90, which gives effect to the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council and Commission.
Disse retsakter pålægger Kommissionen en retlig forpligtelse til at sikre offentligheden størst mulig adgang til dokumenter, den ligger inde med. Undtagelserne fra retten til aktindsigt i dokumenter bør fortolkes snævert, således at dette specifikke formål i adfærdskodeksen ikke bringes i fare.1
Those measures place a legal obligation on the Commission to give the public the widest possible access to doc­uments held by it. The exceptions to the right of access to docu­ments should be interpreted strictly in order not to frustrate this specific aim of the Code of Conduct.1
I den foreliggende sag havde de pågældende dokumenter ganske vist tilknytning til den eventuelle indledning af en overtrædelsesprocedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169.
In the present case, the documents concerned were admittedly related to the possible opening of an infringement procedure under Article 169 EC.
På EF-rettens nuværende stade har Kommissionen mulighed for at afslå aktindsigt i dokumenter vedrørende undersøgelser, som kan føre til en overtrædelsesprocedure, ud fra hensynet til beskyttelsen af offent-
In the present state of Community law, the Commission has the possibility to refuse access to documents relating to investigations which may lead to an infringement pro­cedure under the heading of protection of the public interest.2It did
AFGØRELSER lighedens interesser.1Afslaget på aktindsigt i dokumenter på dette grundlag udgjorde derfor ikke et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser. melser.
DECISIONS not appear, therefore, that the refusal of access to documents on these grounds constituted an instance of maladministration.
På grundlag af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage, blev der fremført følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appears necessary to make the following critical remark:
Kommissionen bør, når den som traktatens vogter sikrer, at medlems staterne fuldt ud overholder EF-retten, følge god forvaltningsskik og handle med behørig omhu.
In ensuring as guardian of the Treaty that Member States fully comply with Community law, the Commission should work in accordance with principles of good administration and act with due diligence.
Dette indebærer, at Kommissionen aktivt bør søge at få den pågældende medlemsstat til at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør og også orientere klageren om sine handlinger.
This implies that the Commission should actively seek to make the Member State concerned put an end to the infringement, and also inform the com plainant of its actions.
Kommissionen gjorde i sine svar til Ombudsmanden gældende, at dens holdning overfor klagen har været meget aktiv i de syv år, der er gået, siden overtrædelsesproceduren blev påbegyndt.
In its replies to the Ombudsman in this case, the Commission claimed that its attitude had been very active in relation to the complaint during the seven years that had elapsed since the sending of the reasoned opinion.
Imidlertid havde Kommissionen, til trods for en anmodning fra Ombudsmanden, undladt at give klare, præcise og gennemsigtige oplysninger til støtte for denne påstand for derigennem at bevise, at den havde handlet med behørig omhu i dette lange tidsrum.
However, despite a request from the Ombudsman, it had failed to provide clear, precise and transparent information to support this claim and thereby demonstrate that it had acted with due diligence throughout this long period of time.
Eftersom dette aspect af sagen vedrørte et overstået hændelsesforløb var det ikke relevant at søge en mindelig løsning.
Given that this aspect of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in the past, it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
DEN FORTROLIGE KARAKTER AF FORHOLDET MELLEM LÆGE OG PATIENT
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
Afgørelse om klage 819/19.8.96/GV/l/VK over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 819/19.8.96/GV/l/VK against the European Commission
I august 1996 klagede X. til Ombudsmanden over en kommissionstjenestemands adfærd under hans praktikophold i Kommissionens Oversættelsestjeneste i Luxembourg.
In August 1996, X complained to the Ombudsman about the behaviour of a Commission official during his traineeship at the Translation Service of the Commission in Luxembourg.
I 1994 fik klageren tildelt et praktikophold i Kommissionen.
In 1994, the complainant was awarded a traineeship at the Commission.
Lige i begyndelsen af praktikopholdet blev han syg.
Right at the beginning of his traineeship, he fell ill.
Han fremsendte de nødvendige lægeattester til Kommissionen.
He forwarded the necessary medical certificates to the Commission.
I januar 1995 ringede X's kontorleder til hans læge i Italien, som havde udstedt attesterne, og forhørte sig om hans situation.
In January 1995, his head of service telephoned X's doctor in Italy, who had issued the certificates, and inquired about his situation.
X. fandt, at kontorlederen havde handlet ukorrekt, og fremsendte en klageskrivelse til Kommissionen.
X considered that the head of service had behaved incorrectly and wrote a letter of complaint to the Commission.
Han modtog ikke noget svar på denne skrivelse.
He received no reply to this letter.
Den pågældende kontorleder havde handlet ukorrekt.
The behaviour of the head of service concerned was incorrect.
X. gjorde i hovedsagen gældende, at kontorlederen advarede lægen mod at udstede ubegrundede lægeattester.
In substance, X alleged that the head of service warned the doctor not to issue unfounded medical certificates.
Sag T105/95, WWF UK mod Kommissionen, Sml. 1997, s. 11-0313, præmis 63.
The Commission should have replied to his letter.
AFGØRELSER ii)
DECISIONS
I sin udtalelse erkendte Kommissionen, at kontorlederen kontaktede klagerens læge i januar 1995 for at "klarlægge situationen".
In its opinion, the Commission recognised that the head of service contacted the com­plainant's doctor in January 1995 in order to "clarify the situation".
Ifølge Kommissionen var kontorlederens intervention udelukkende begrænset til spørgsmål, som var nødvendige med henblik herpå, og han gjorde ikke noget forsøg på at påvirke lægens vurdering.
According to the Commission, the intervention of the head of service was purely limited to questions necessary for this purpose and he did not attempt to influence the doctor's judgement.
Han gjorde hende blot opmærksom på, at lægeattester var nødvendige for at begrunde alt fravær.
He merely reminded her that medical certificates were required to justify all absences.
Kommissionen erkendte også, at kontorlederen oplyste lægen om klagerens boligsituation i Luxembourg.
The Commission also recognised that the head of service informed the doctor about the complainant's accommodation situation in Luxembourg.
Ifølge Kommissionen var denne oplysning relevant for drøftelsen med lægen og rummede ikke ærekrænkende elementer. Derfor konkluderede Kommissionen, at kontorlederen til enhver tid handlede i overensstemmelse med normal praksis og med de fagetiske regler.
According to the Commission, this information was relevant to the discussion with the doc­tor and contained no elements of defamation.
Med hensyn til klagerens andet klagepunkt blev det i Kommissionens udtalelse gjort gældende, at der blev affattet et svar på skrivelsen, men at det ikke blev fremsendt som følge af en administrativ forglemmelse.
As concerns the complainant's second grievance, the Commission's opin­ion stated that a reply to the letter was drafted but was not sent due to an administrative oversight.
Klagerens bemærkninger Klageren opretholdt klagen i sine bemærkninger.
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint.
1 Påstanden om, at kontorlederen ikke burde have kontaktet klage rens læge
1 The claim that the head of service should not have contacted the complainant's doctor
Reglerne vedrørende praktikophold i Kommissionen fastsætter den procedure, der skal følges i tilfælde af sygdom.1Artikel 33 i reglerne giver administrationen passende garantier til at sikre dens interesser.
The Rules governing in-service training at the Commission make provision for the procedure to follow in case of absence due to sickness.1 Article 33 of the Rules appears to provide the adminis­tration with adequate safeguards for its interests.
En praktikant, som er syg over tre dage, skal kunne bevise dette ved hjælp af en lægeattest. Hvis han ikke er i stand til at fremlægge et sådant bevis, kan administrationen se bort fra sygdommen.
A trainee who is ill for more than three days, must be able to prove this by a medi­cal certificate; if he is incapable of producing such evidence, the administration may disregard the illness.