natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad angik det tredje spørgsmål forklarede Kommissionen, at den begrænsede procedure udgjorde en fordel for Kommissionen i den forstand, at kun de bedste virksomheder blev udpeget, hvilket medførte, at Kommissionens tjenestegrene skulle udføre mindre revision af de over sættelser, den modtog.
As concerned the third question, the Commission explained that a restrict ed procedure represented an advantage to the Commission in the sense that only the best companies were retained, which implied that the Commission services had to do less revision of the translations received.
På dette grundlag konkluderede Kommissionen, at den havde handlet korrekt, og at der ikke havde været tale om diskrimination imod hr. D.'s firma.
Against this background the Commission concluded that it had operated properly and that there had been no discrimination against Mr D.'s company. ny.
Hr. D fastholdt klagen i sine bemærkninger.
In his observations Mr D. maintained his complaint.
Især henviste han til doku mentation, der viste, at andre af Kommissionens tjenestegrene end den, der havde ansvaret for denne udbudsprocedure, havde været godt tilfredse med hans arbejde.
In particular he referred to documentation showing that Commission services other than the ones in charge of this tendering procedure had been pleased with his work.
Princippet om ikke-diskrimination indebærer, at identiske situationer ikke kan behandles forskelligt, og at forskellige situationer ikke kan behandles identisk.
The principle of non-discrimination implies that identical situations cannot be treated differently and that different situations cannot be treated identically.
Der foreligger ikke noget element, der viser, at Kommissionen har foretaget diskrimination i denne sag.
There is no element at hand indicating that the Commission had engaged in discrimination in this matter.
Det adskillende element blandt de ansøgere, der respekterede meddelelsen om udbuddet, var kvaliteten af ansøgernes arbejde, hvilken i hr. D's tilfælde af Kommissionens udvælgelseskomite blev anset for at være et svagt punkt.
The distinguishing element among the applications which were in conformity with the tender notice was the quality of the applicants' work, which in Mr D.'s case was seen as a weak point by the selection committee of the Commission.
Det fremgik af Kommissionens udtalelse, at den på korrekt måde havde overholdt bestemmelserne for proceduren.
It appeared from the Commission's opinion that the Commission had complied properly with the provisions governing the procedure.
At hr. D's firma havde haft heldet med sig under andre udbud havde ingen betydning i denne forbindelse.
The fact that under other calls for ten der, Mr D.'s company had been successful, did not have any bearing on this finding.
Det faktum, at Kommissionen i visse tilfælde havde fundet, at ansøgerens arbejde var af god kvalitet, ophævede heller ikke betydningen af det faktum, at den i andre tilfælde havde fundet kvaliteten utilstrækkelig.
Neither did the fact that on some occasions, the Commission had found the complainant's work of good quality invalidate the fact that, on other occasions, the Commission had found the quality to be insufficient.
Derfor fandt ombudsmanden, at der ikke var belæg for påstanden om, at Kommissionens
Therefore the Ombudsman found that there were no grounds for the claim that the Commission's decision not to invite Mr D. to bid constituted an instance of maladministration in the activities of the Commission.
ARTIKEL 169: MANGEL PÅ BEGRUNDET UDTALELSE OG UDELUKKELSE AF KLAGEREN FRA ET MØDE
ARTICLE 169: FAILURE TO DELIVER REASONED OPINION AND EXCLUSION OF THE COMPLAINANT FROM A MEETING
Afgørelse om klage 651/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 651/97/IJH against the European Commission
I juli 1997 klagede R. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af sit selskab BLC Limited, som importerede øl, fremstillet af et tysk bryggeri, til det britiske marked.
In July 1997, Mr R. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of his com pany BLC Limited, which imported beer produced by a German brewery into the UK market.
Nedenfor gives et sammendrag af de faktiske omstændigheder således som fremstillet i klagen:
The following is a summary of the facts as presented in the complaint:
Den 3. april 1993 klagede R. til Kommissionen over en ny britisk lov, der er kendt under betegnelsen "Guest Beer Provision" (GBP). Denne gjorde det muligt for forpagtere af store britiske bryggerier, som er genstand for eneforhandlingsaftaler, også at købe en type fadøl efter deres valg. R. anførte, at GBP var en diskrimination over for øl produceret i andre medlemsstater og dermed overtrådte EF-traktatens artikel 30.
On 3 April 1993, Mr R. complained to the Commission about a new United Kingdom law known as the "Guest Beer Provision" (GBP) This allowed the tenants of large UK brewers, who are subject to exclusive purchase agree ments, also to buy one cask-conditioned beer of their choice.
Den 30. juni 1993 meddelte Kommissionen R., at hans klage var blevet registreret, og at GBP var ved at blive undersøgt af Kommissionens personale set ud fra de frie varebevægelsers synspunkt.
On 30 June 1993, the Commission informed Mr R. that his complaint had been registered and that the GBP was being examined by the Commission's staff from the standpoint of the free movement of goods.
Den 28. september 1995 meddelte Kommissionen R., at den den 15. september 1995 havde sendt de britiske myndigheder en åbningsskrivelse i overensstemmelse med proceduren i EF-traktatens artikel 169.
On 28 September 1995, the Commission informed Mr R. that, on 15 September 1995, it had sent to the UK authorities a letter of formal notice, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
Den 7. februar 1996 meddelte Kommissionen R. indholdet af Det Forenede Kongeriges svar på åbningsskrivelsen og opfordrede ham til at fremsætte bemærkninger vedrørende de punkter, Det Forenede Kongerige havde fremført.
On 7 February 1996, the Commission informed Mr R. of the substance of the UK's reply to the letter of formal notice and invited him to make observations on the arguments which the UK had put forward.
Den 5. august 1996 meddeltes det i en pressemeddelelse fra Kommissionen (IP/96/774), at Kommissionen havde besluttet at sende Det Forenede Kongerige en begrundet udtalelse i overensstemmelse med proceduren i EF-traktatens artikel 169.
On 5 August 1996, a Commission press release (IP/96/774) announced that the Commission had decided to send a reasoned opinion to the UK, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
Den 22. august 1996 erfarede R. i en pressemeddelelse fra det britiske handels- og industriministerium, at der var fastsat et trepartsmøde i oktober 1996 mellem Kommissionen, de britiske myndigheder og en handelssammenslutning, Confédération des Brasseurs du Marché commun (CBMC) (Fællesmarkedets Bryggeres Arbejdsfællesskab).
On 22 August 1996, Mr R. learnt from a press release issued by the UK Department of Trade and Industry that a tripartite meeting was scheduled to take place in October 1996 between the Commission, the UK authorities and a trade association, the Confédération des Brasseurs du Marché com mun (CBMC).
Den 27. august 1996 skrev han til Kommissionen med anmodning om tilladelse til at overvære mødet, men Kommissionen afslog denne anmodning.
On 27 August 1996, he wrote to the Commission asking to be allowed to attend the meeting, but the Commission refused his request.
Han blev imidlertid indbudt til at overvære et særskilt møde med Kommissionens tjeneste grene nogle dage senere.
However, he was invited to attend a separate meeting with the Commission services a few days later.
I marts 1997 meddelte den britiske regering, at den påtænkte at ændre GBP, således at den også kom til at omfatte gærende flaskeøl, at Kommissionen var tilfreds med betingelserne i den foreslåede ændring og ikke længere agtede at fremsætte den begrundede udtalelse.
Commission was satisfied with the terms of the proposed amendment and no longer intended to issue the reasoned opinion.
R. gjorde gældende, at den foreslåede ændring ikke var tilstrækkelig til at bringe overtrædelsen af artikel 30 til ophør.
Mr R. considered that the proposed amendment was not adequate to bring the infringement of Article 30 to an end.
Kommissionens manglende fremsendelse af den begrundede udtalelse til de britiske myndigheder, efter at den havde givet med delelse om sin beslutning om at gøre dette den 5. august 1996, var et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser; ii) artikel 169-proceduren ikke blev korrekt gennemført efter den 5. august 1996; navnlig var hans udelukkelse fra trepartsmødet i oktober 1996 urimelig.
(i) the Commission's failure to send the reasoned opinion to the UK authorities after it had announced its decision to do so on 5 August 1996 was maladministration.
R. bad også Ombudsmanden om at anmode Kommissionen om ikke at afslutte artikel 169-proceduren, før hans undersøgelser var fuldført.
Mr R. also requested the Ombudsman to ask the Commission not to ter minate the Article 169 procedure until his inquiries were completed.
Kommissionen fremførte i sin udtalelse sammenfattet følgende punkter: i)
In its opinion, the Commission made, in summary, the following points:
Artikel 169 giver Kommissionen beføjelse til at anlægge sag ved Domstolen mod en medlemsstat, når Kommissionen finder, at medlemsstaten har undladt at opfylde en traktatfæstet forpligtelse.
Article 169 gives the Commission the power to bring a Member State before the Court of Justice when it considers that it has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty.
Kommissionen har kompetence til at afgøre, om den vil indbringe sagen for Domstolen, selv om en medlemsstat ikke retter sig efter en begrundet udtalelse.
The Commission has a discretion as to whether it seizes the Court, even if a Member State does not comply with a reasoned opinion.
Fysiske personer og navnlig klagere har ingen ret til at kræve af Kommissionen, at den indtager en bestemt holdning.
Individuals and, in particular, complainants have no right to require the Commission to adopt a specific position.
Kommissionen tilskynder fysiske personer til at indgive klager, således at dens tjenestegrene bliver klar over overtrædelser af fællesskabsretten.
The Commission encourages individuals to make complaints so that its services become aware of violations of Community law.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse bør klageren informeres om resultatet og om hvilke skridt, den beslutter at tage.
The Commission has considered that the complainant should be informed of the outcome and of the action it decides to take.
GBP tillod kun indkøb af fadøl, og denne type øl svarer til et typisk britisk traditionelt produkt.
The GBP allowed only draught cask-conditioned beer to be bought and this kind of beer corresponds to a typical British traditional product.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse var dette en de /acfo-diskrimination i modstrid med EF-traktatens
The Commission considered this as de facto discrimination in breach of Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty.
Der blev afholdt flere møder, herunder et trepartsmøde mellem Kommissionen, de britiske myndigheder og Ölindustrien; repræsenteret ved CBMC.
DECISIONS meeting between the Commission, the UK authorities and the beer industry represented by the CBMC.
I begyndelsen af marts 1997 foreslog de britiske myndigheder en ændring af GBP, der gjorde det muligt for forpagtere af de store nationale bryggerier at købe et flaskeølsmærke ud over fadøl.
At the beginning of March 1997, the UK authorities proposed an amendment to the GBP allowing the tenants of the large national breweries to buy one brand of bottle-conditioned beer in addition to cask-conditioned beer.
For Kommissionen er løsningen tilfredsstillende, fordi de fleste af de traditionelle øltyper, der produceres i andre medlemsstater, er flaskeøl.
For the Commission, the solution is satisfactory because most of the traditional beers produced in other Member States are bottle-conditioned.
Derfor besluttede Kommissionen at afbryde proceduren og ikke at fremsende den begrundede udtalelse.
Consequently the Commission decided to suspend the procedure and not send the reasoned opinion.
Ændringen ved toges af det britiske parlament den 22. juli 1997.
The amendment was passed on 22 July 1997 by the UK Parliament.
R. blev på hvert stadium holdt underrettet om de skridt, Kommissionen tog.
Mr R. was kept informed, at each stage, of the action taken by the Commission.
Han blev navnlig efter pressemeddelelsen af 5. august 1996, hvori det erklæredes, at Kommissionen havde besluttet at fremsende en begrundet udtalelse til Det Forenede Kongerige, underrettet telefonisk om, hvilket stadium af proceduren man var nået til, og modtaget tre gange i Kommissionens kontorer.
In particular, after the Press Release of 5 August 1996 stating that the Commission had decided to send a reasoned opinion to the UK, he was informed by telephone of the stage reached in the procedure and received three times in the Commission's offices.
Selv om han ikke blev indbudt til trepartsmødet den 11. oktober 1996, blev han modtaget tre dage senere af GD XV og underrettet om ikke-fortrolige detaljer, der var blevet drøftet pa dette møde.
Although he was not invited to the tripartite meeting held on 11 October 1996, he was received three days later by DG XV and informed of non-confidential elements dis cussed during this meeting.
Den 21. april 1997 blev han skriftligt underrettet om, at udvidelsen af GBP til at omfatte traditionelle flaskeølstyper ifølge Kommissionen var fyldestgørende.
On 21 April 1997, he was informed by letter that the Commission considered that the extension of the GBP to traditional bottle-conditioned beers was satisfactory.
Klagerens bemærkninger
The complainant's observations Mr R.'s observations included, in summary, the following points,
Kommissionens manglende fremsendelse af den begrundede udtalelse til de britiske myndigheder var en misligholdelse af dens retlige forpligtelser i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 155 og 169.
The Commission's failure to send the reasoned opinion to the UK authorities was a breach of its legal obligations under Articles 155 and 169 of the EC Treaty.
Kommissionens beslutning om at støtte ændringen af GBP i 1997 undlod at behandle det væsentlige retlige spørgsmål om, hvad der var nødvendigt i 1990, da bestemmelsen blev indført første gang.
The Commission's decision to support the amendment to the GBP in 1997 failed to deal with the crucial legal issue of what was necessary in 1990 when the Provision was first introduced.
Dens ræsonnement ved rørende "traditionelt" øl var en undskyldning for at have forhandlet sig frem til en politisk løsning på artikel 169-proceduren.
Its reasoning concerning "traditional" beer was an excuse for having negotiated a political set tlement of the Article 169 procedure.
Anmodningen om at anmode Kommissionen om ikke at afslutte artikel 169-proceduren, før Ombudsmandens undersøgelser var fuldført
The request to ask the Commission not to terminate the Article 169 procedure until the Ombudsman's inquiries were completed
Hverken traktaten eller Ombudsmandens statut indeholder bestemmelser om, at en klage til Ombudsmanden har en opsættende virkning på administrative procedurer.
Neither the Treaty nor the Statute of the Ombudsman provides for a complaint to the Ombudsman to have a suspensive effect on administrative procedures.
Det normale princip, som anvendes på nationalt plan, er, at en klage til en ombudsmand ikke har en sådan virkning.
The normal principle applied at nation al level is that a complaint to an ombudsman does not have such an effect.
Kommissionens undladelse af at fremsende den begrundede udtalelse til Det Forenede Kongerige
2 The Commission's failure to send the reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom
Som vogter af traktaten er det dens pligt at drage omsorg for gennemførelsen af de i traktaten indeholdte bestemmelser og af de bestemmelser, som med hjemmel i den træffes af institutionerne.
As Guardian of the Treaty, its duty is to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied.
2.2 Traktatens artikel 169 fastsætter følgende:
2.2 Article 169 of the Treaty provides that:
"Finder Kommissionen, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt en forpligtelse, der påhviler den i henhold til denne traktat, fremsætter den en begrundet udtalelse herom efter at have givet den pågældende stat lejlighed til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger.
If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations.
Retter den pågældende stat sig ikke efter den fremsatte udtalelse inden for den frist, der er fastsat af Kommissionen, kan denne indbringe sagen for Domstolen. "
If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion with­in the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
I henhold til den dokumentation, som står til Ombudsmandens rådighed, overtrådte GBP, efter at Kommissionen havde givet Det Forenede Kongerige mulighed for at fremsætte sine bemærkninger, ifølge Kommissionen traktatens bestemmelser vedrørende frie varebevægelser.
2.3 The evidence available to the Ombudsman is that, having given the United Kingdom the opportunity to submit its observations, the Commission considered that the Guest Beer Provision infringed the provisions of the Treaty concerning free movement of goods.
Kommissionen besluttede imidlertid ikke straks at fremsende den begrundede udtalelse, fordi de britiske myndigheder var villige til at drøfte en løsning i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
However, the Commission decided not to send the reasoned opin­ion immediately because the UK authorities were willing to discuss finding a solution in conformity with Community law.
I henhold til Domstolens retspraksis indebærer fuldbyrdelsesproceduren, at Kommissionen er beføjet til at vælge de midler og fri ster, der er bedst egnede med henblik på at bringe eventuelle overtrædelser til ophør.1
2.6 The complainant also claimed in his observations that, in consid­ering the 1997 amendments to the GBP to be satisfactory, the Commission failed to deal with what was necessary in 1990 when the GBP was first introduced.
Kommissionen mod Frankrig, Sag 7/71, dom af 14. december 1971, Sml. 1971, s. 295.
1 Commission ν France, Case 7/71 [1971] ECR 1003.
2.7 Artikel 169 foreskriver en udtalelse, der skal indeholde en frist, inden for hvilken medlemsstaten skal rette sig efter udtalelsen.
2.7 Article 169 provides for a reasoned opinion to contain a time-limit within which the State must comply with the opinion.
Kommissionen kan kun indbringe sagen for Domstolen, hvis den pågældende stat ikke retter sig efter udtalelsen inden for den fast satte frist.
The Commission may only bring the matter before the Court of Justice if the State does not comply within the period laid down.
Det er derfor klart, at det relevante spørgsmål for Kommissionen at overveje ved udførelsen af dens opgaver i medfør af artikel 169, da Det Forenede Kongerige foreslog en ændring af GBP i 1997, var, om forslaget var fyldestgørende med henblik på at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør.
It is clear, therefore, that in carrying out its functions under Article 169, the relevant question for the Commission to consider when the UK proposed amendment of the GBP in 1997 was whether the pro posal was satisfactory to put an end to the infringement.
3 Kommissionens procedurale behandling af klage
3 The Commission's procedural treatment of the complaint
Ved udførelsen af sine opgaver som traktatens vogter har Kommissionen pligt til at handle i overensstemmelse med god for valtningsskik.
In carrying out its functions as Guardian of the Treaty, the Commission has a duty to act in accordance with the principles of good administrative behaviour.
Kommissionen har i sine svar på Ombudsmandens undersøgelser i "artikel 169"-sager konsekvent erkendt denne pligt.
In responding to the Ombudsman's inquiries in "Article 169" cases, the Commission has consistently acknowledged this duty.
Der hersker enighed om, at Kommissionen registrerede klagen vedrørende GBP, at den underrettede klageren om fremsendelsen af en åbningsskrivelse, og at den gav ham mulighed for at kom mentere indholdet af svaret fra Det Forenede Kongerige.
It is common ground that the Commission registered the complaint concerning the GBP, that it informed the complainant of the send ing of a letter of formal notice and that it gave him an opportunity to comment on the substance of the reply received from the UK.
Kommissionen meddelte dernæst offentligt, at der efter dens opfattelse forelå en overtrædelse.
The Commission then publicly announced its view that an infringe ment existed.
Det fremgår af den dokumentation, der står til rådighed for Ombudsmanden, at klageren også blev underrettet om Kommissionens efterfølgende beslutning om at indlede drøftelser med de britiske myndigheder om mulige alternative midler til at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør.
On the basis of the evidence available to the Ombudsman, it appears that the complainant was also informed of the Commission's subsequent decision to engage in discussions with the UK authorities about possible alternative ways to bring the infringement to an end.
Kommissionen underrettede den 21. april 1997 klageren om, at udvidelsen af GBP til at omfatte traditionelle flaskeølstyper efter Kommissionens opfattelse ville være fyldestgørende med henblik på at bringe overtrædelsen til ophør.
3.4 The Commission informed the complainant on 21 April 1997 of its view that the extension of the GBP to traditional bottle-conditioned beers would be satisfactory to bring the infringement to an end.
Den dokumentation, som begge parter har leveret Ombudsmanden, viser, at klageren havde kendskab til Kommissionens ræsonnement med hensyn til denne slutning og havde mulighed for at forelægge yderligere
The evidence supplied by both parties to the Ombudsman shows that the complainant knew of the Commission's reasoning for this conclusion and had the opportunity to submit further evidence and counter-arguments.
AFGØRELSER dokumentation og modargumenter. Det kan derfor lægges til grund, at klageren har nydt den procedurale mulighed, Kommissionen accepterede som svar på Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ af Kommissionens administrative procedurer i forbindelse med borgeres klager over nationale myndigheder.1 digheder.1
The complainant therefore appears to have enjoyed the procedural possibility accepted by the Commission in response to the Ombudsman's own initiative inquiry into the Commission's administrative procedures in relation to citizens' complaints about national authorities.1
For så vidt angår trepartsmødet, er en klagers udelukkelse fra et møde, der afholdes med henblik på drøftelse af en løsning prima facie urimelig inden for rammerne af en normal administrativ procedure, hvor klageren er part i sagen.
As regards the tripartite meeting, the exclusion of a complainant from a meeting intended to discuss a solution to the complaint would be prima facie unreasonable in a normal administrative pro cedure in which the complainant is a party.
Men valget mellem forskel lige handlinger, som er forenelige med fællesskabsretten, er op til den pågældende medlemsstat.
However, the choice between different courses of action which are compatible with Community law is a matter for the Member State concerned.