natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen uden at informere Ecotourism erstattede budgettet med Ecotourisms finansielle rapporti forbindelse med interimsrapporten, hvorved den endelige betalingblev nedsat. Ifølge Kommissionen erstattede den budgettet med denfinansielle rapport, da den fandt, at der i forbindelse med den finansielle rapport, som indeholdt en oversigt over de enkelte poster, var taleom en omhyggeligt udarbejdet omvurdering af projektbehovene.Endvidere indebar dette ikke en overtrædelse af reglerne og stilledeikke Ecotourism ufordelagtigt, da det medførte en mindre nedsættelseaf projektudgifterne, end hvis det oprindelige budget var blevetanvendt til beregningen.
The complainant alleged that, without informing Ecotourism, the Commission replaced the budget with the Ecotourism’s interim financial report, thereby reducing the final payment.According to the Commission, it replaced the budget with the financial report becauseit found that the financial report, broken down into individual headings,represented a carefully prepared reassessment of the project needs.Moreover, its action did not breach any rule and did not disadvantage Ecotourism, since it led to less reduction in the project expenditurethan if the original budget had been used for the calculation.
Bevægelser mellem budgetposter
Movements between budget lines
193 sammen med interimsrapporten, indeholdt sådanne bevægelser.Kommissionen anførte, at interimsrapporten kun viser, hvordan projektet skrider frem, og at dens godkendelse ikke automatisk betyder,at den endelige rapport også vil blive godkendt. Den endelige betalinger derimod altid betinget af, at der forelægges den nødvendige dokumentation for de udgifter, der er afholdt.
The complainant claimed that the Commission’s approval of theinterim report indicated that movements between individual headingsin the budget were accepted since the financial report submitted withthe interim report contained such movements.The Commissionstated that the interim report only shows how the project is progressing and that its approval did not automatically mean that the finalreport would also be accepted.Rather, the final payment alwaysdepends on the supply of necessary proof of expenditure claimed.
I henhold til artikel 3a i erklæringen var bilag 2, som fastsætter denærmere oplysninger om projektindtægter og -udgifter, en integreretdel af erklæringen.
According to Article 3a of the Declaration, Annex 2 which set out thedetails of project income and expenditure, was an integral part of the Declaration.
Nedsættelsen af den endelige betaling
The reduction in the final payment
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at denne del af sagen står i forbindelsemed, hvilken form for udgiftsdokumentation støttemodtageren bør forelægge, og hvilken form for dokumentation Ecotourism rent faktiskforelagde. Erklæringen indeholdt ikke en detaljeret forklaring på,hvilke dokumenter støttemodtageren skal forelægge, men anførteblot, at “alle oplysninger om indtægter og udgifter”skulle forelægges.Denne meget brede formulering syntes at betyde, at Ecotourismskulle forelægge ethvert dokument, som virksomheden med rimelighed kan forventes at forelægge i forbindelse med projektet.Ombudsmanden har fremsat en yderligere bemærkning til dettespørgsmål nedenfor.
The Ombudsman noted that this part of the case relates to what kindof proof of expenditure the beneficiary should supply and what kind ofproof was in fact provided by Ecotourism.The Declaration did not givea detailed explanation of what documents the beneficiary has tosupply, but merely stated that “all details of income and expenditure”should be submitted.This very wide expression appeared to meanthat Ecotourism must supply any document which it may reasonablybe expected to provide in the context of the project.The Ombudsmanmade a further remark in relation to this point below.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at uenigheden hovedsagelig skyldtes,at Ecotourism ikke stillede timesedler til rådighed for Kommissionen.Forelæggelsen af timesedler synes at være et rimeligt krav som dokumentation for afholdte personaleomkostninger. Klageren gjorde gældende, at Ecotourism kunne forelægge alternativ dokumentation forden tid, der var medgået til at udarbejde en vejledning, hvor
The Ombudsman noted that the dispute arose mainly from the factthat Ecotourism did not supply the Commission with time sheets.Thesubmission of time sheets appears to be a reasonable requirement forjustification of claims for personnel costs.The complainant claimedthat Ecotourism could supply alternative proof of the time spent onproduction of a manual, for which the Commission did not accept part
Eftersom dette aspekt af sagen vedrørte procedurer i forbindelse med specifikke hændelser i fortiden, var det ikke hensigtsmæssigt at forfølge enmindelig løsning. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen afsagen.
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specificevents in the past, it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement ofthe matter.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
BESKATNING AF TACIS-STØTTE TILRUSLANDAfgørelse om klage 620/98/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
TAXATION OF TACIS AID TO RUSSIADecision on complaint 620/98/IJH against the European Commission
Klageren arbejdede i Rusland fra februar 1995 til februar 1997 som projektleder for et konsulentfirma, der havde vundet en kontrakt med Kommissionen under Tacis-programmet78.
The complainant worked in Russia from February 1995 to February 1997as project manager for a firm of consultants which had won a contract withthe Commission under the Tacis78programme.
Ifølge kontrakten mellem Kommissionen og firmaet skulle udstationeretpersonale fra medlemsstaterne være fritaget for indkomstskat i Rusland.Klageren accepterede stillingen som projektleder på dette grundlag.
According to the contract between the Commission and the firm, expatriatestaff from Member States were to be exempt from income tax in Russia.The complainant accepted the post of project manager on this basis.
Klageren anfører, at Kommissionen fejlagtigt havde oplyst, at man kunnefæste lid til protokollen. Han gjorde endvidere gældende, at Kommissionenikke havde besvaret hans korrespondance vedrørende dette spørgsmål,og at den havde svigtet både ham og andre Tacis-konsulenter i Rusland.
The complainant claims that the Commission wrongly advised that the Protocol could be relied on.He also claimed that the Commission failed toanswer his correspondence on this matter and abandoned both himselfand other Tacis consultants in Russia.
Klageren krævede kompensation for sine økonomiske tab på grund af Kommissionens forsømmelser, hvilket ville sige 25.000 US-dollar betalt iskat for 1996 og et tilsvarende beløb, som han kunne risikere at skullebetale med tilbagevirkende kraft for 1995.
The complainant claimed compensation for his financial losses as a resultof the Commission’s negligence:i.e.25.000 US Dollars taxes paid for 1996and a similar amount which he risked having to pay retrospectively for1995.
Klageren fremhævede også, at Tacis-beløb tildeles af Europa-Parlamentettil forskellige formål, og at skatten allerede er trukket af disse beløb. At tillade beskatning af disse beløb betyder indirekte støtte til den russiskeregerings politik, som Europa-Parlamentet ikke har nogen kontrol over.
The complainant also pointed out that Tacis aid money is allocated by the European Parliament for specific purposes and is already the product oftaxation.To permit taxation of this money indirectly funds the policies of the Russian government, over which the European Parliament has no control.
Kommissionen bekræftede i sin udtalelse, at protokollen fra 1991 og de“Generelle bestemmelser for faglig bistand fra De Europæiske Fællesskaber” (undertegnet med Rusland i juli 1997) fritager enkeltpersoner, der arbejder på en Tacis-kontrakt, fra russisk indkomstskat.Kommissionen erklærede endvidere, at trods dens intense bestræbelservar hverken protokollen eller de generelle bestemmelser blevet ratificeretaf Dumaen eller ved et dekret fra præsidenten.
In its opinion, the Commission confirmed that the 1991 Protocol and the“General Rules applicable to the Technical Assistance of the European Communities” (signed with Russia in July 1997), exempt individualsworking on Tacis contracts from Russian income tax.The Commission alsostated that, despite its intensive efforts, neither the Protocol nor the General Rules have been ratified by the Duma or by presidential decree.
Ifølge Kommissionen havde man indtil det foreliggende tilfælde fundetpragmatiske løsninger, i praksis ved at Kommissionens Moskva-delegationudstedte certifikater, der attesterede fritagelse fra skat. “Selv om den juri-
According to the Commission, until the present case, pragmatic solutionshad been found in practice through the issuing by the Commission’s Moscow delegation of certificates attesting exemption from tax.“Althoughthe legal situation may have been precarious and still is far from satisfac-
AFGØRELSER diske situation kan have været skrøbelig og stadig langtfra er tilfredsstillende, har forevisning af disse certifikater på de forskellige skattekontorersammen med et afslag på at betale generelt løst problemet.”
DECISIONS tory, the presentation of these certificates to the respective tax officestogether with a refusal to pay has generally solved the problem.”
Hvad angik klagerens personlige tab, fremhævede Kommissionen, at densstandardkontrakter for Tacis oplyser kontrahenterne om de skatteprivilegier, der nævnes i protokollen, men den advarer også om, at den ikkepåtager sig noget økonomisk ansvar, “hvis myndighederne skulle nægte atanvende ovennævnte undtagelser og privilegier til fordel for kontrahenten”.Kontrakten kræver, at Kommissionen “gør sit yderste for at støtte kontrahenten i forhandlinger med de kompetente myndigheder.”
As regards the complainant’s personal loss, the Commission pointed outthat its standard Tacis contract informs contractors about the tax privilegesprovided for in the Protocol but also warns them that it does not acceptfinancial responsibility “in the event that the authorities should refuse toapply in favour of the contractor the abovementioned exemptions and priv-ileges”.The contract requires the Commission to “exert its best efforts tosupport the contractor in dealing with the competent authorities.”
Kommissionen anførte, at den oplyste Tacis-kontrahenterne om den retligegyldighed af protokollen og de generelle bestemmelser på orienterendemøder i 1996-97; klageren var personligt til stede ved to af disse.
The Commission claimed that it informed Tacis contractors about the statusof the Protocol and General Rules at briefing meetings in 1996/7, two ofwhich the complainant personally attended.
Kommissionen anførte også, at den gav klageren al den hjælp, han medrimelighed kunne forlange. Især da det blev klart i slutningen af 1997, atden russiske skatteforvaltning havde strammet sin praksis op, “greblederen af delegationen omgående og gentagne gange ind på klagerensvegne, men desværre uden noget mærkbart resultat.”Til sin udtalelse vedlagde Kommissionen kopier af fire skrivelser fra Kommissionen til de russiske myndigheder (dateret i november 1997).
The Commission also claimed that it provided the complainant with everyassistance which he could reasonably expect.In particular, when it becameclear late in 1997 that the Russian tax administration had tightened its practices, “the Head of Delegation immediately and repeatedly intervened onthe complainant’s behalf, but unfortunately without any tangible result.”Copies of four letters from the Commission to the Russian authorities(dated in November 1997) were annexed to the Commission’s opinion.
Delegationen drøftede situationen med klageren i april 1998, da de russiske skattemyndigheder fremsatte deres endelige krav om betaling. Forikke at undergrave Kommissionens fortsatte bestræbelser på at nå frem tilen samlet løsning ved at sende et forkert signal til de russiske skattemyndigheder, blev klageren kraftigt opfordret til at påberåbe sig protokollenigen og at nægte at betale.
The Delegation discussed the situation with the complainant in April 1998when the Russian tax authorities made their final demand for payment.Inorder not to undermine the Commission’s continuing efforts to reach anoverall solution by sending the wrong signal to the Russian tax authorities,the complainant was strongly advised to invoke the Protocol again andrefuse payment.
Klagerens bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt og gentog klageren sin klage.
In his observations, the complainant maintained and restated the complaint.
Hvad angik påstanden om manglende besvarelse af korrespondance, ogat både han og andre Tacis-konsulenter var ladt i stikken, understregedeklageren, at Kommissionen ikke forud havde oplyst ham om skrivelsernefra delegationslederen til de russiske myndigheder.
As regards the claim of failure to answer correspondence and abandonment of himself and other Tacis consultants, the complainant pointed outthat the Commission had not previously made him aware of the letters fromits Head of Delegation to the Russian authorities.
197 certifikater om fritagelse gav et falsk billede af situationen over for såvelkonsulenterne som de russiske skattemyndigheder.
191 exemption issued by the Commission misrepresented the position both toconsultants and to the Russian tax authorities.
Det blev også gentaget i bemærkningerne, at Kommissionen havde udvistforsømmelse over for EU’s skatteydere, idet beløb, der er tildelt støtteprogrammer, beskattes af russerne og anvendes til formål, som Europa-Parlamentet ikke har nogen kontrol med.
The observations also repeat the claim that the Commission has been negligent towards European taxpayers, since money allocated for aid programmes is taxed by the Russians and put to uses over which the European Parliament has no control.
Påstandene om vildledende rådgivning og manglende information
The claims of misleading advice and lack of information
Klageren arbejdede i Rusland for et firma, der havde en kontrakt med Kommissionen om at yde faglig bistand under Tacis-programmet.Standardkontrakten mellem Kommissionen og firmaet indeholdt følgende bestemmelse (Bilag F, art. 5, stk. 4):
The complainant worked in Russia for a firm which had a contract withthe Commission to provide technical assistance under the Tacis pro-gramme.The standard-form contract between the Commission andthe firm contained the following provision (Annex F Art.5.4):
“Fysiske og juridiske personer, herunder udstationeret personale fra EF’s medlemsstater, der gennemfører fagligesamarbejdskontrakter finansieret med EF-tilskud, er fritagetfor erhvervs- og indkomstskat i de nye uafhængige stater.”
“Natural and legal persons, including expatriate staff, fromthe Member States of the European Community executingtechnical cooperation contracts financed out of EC grantshall be exempted from business and income tax in the NIS[Newly-Independent States].”
Bestemmelsen om fritagelse var indeholdt i en protokol (1991) og i degenerelle bestemmelser (1997), som Kommissionen og USSR og derussiske myndigheder alle var enedes om. Men hverken protokolleneller de generelle bestemmelser blev nogen sinde ratificeret af USSReller af Rusland.
1.2 Provision for exemption from taxes was included in a Protocol (1991)and in General Rules (1997), agreed between the Commission andthe USSR and Russian authorities respectively.However, neither the Protocol nor the General Rules were ever ratified by the USSR or by Russia.
God forvaltningsskik kræver også, at Kommissionen besvarer borgernes forespørgsler. På baggrund af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser fremgår det, at Kommissionen ikke informerede klageren omsine aktiviteter inden for en rimelig frist, selv om den greb ind over forde russiske myndigheder på klagerens vegne.
Principles of good administrative behaviour also require the Commission to reply to a citizen’s requests.On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries it appears that, although the Commissionintervened with the Russian authorities on the complainant’s behalf, itfailed to inform him of its activity in due time.
De russiske myndigheder krævede, at klageren betalte 25.000 US-dollar i skat af sin Tacis-indkomst i 1996. Klageren erkendte, at han
The Russian authorities required the complainant to pay 25.000 USDollars in taxes on his Tacis earnings in 1996.The complainant
AFGØRELSER ikke kunne henholde sig til kontrakten, men gjorde gældende, at hanstab var forudsigelige, og at Kommissionen har ansvaret herfor.Kommissionen frasiger sig dette ansvar.
DECISIONS accepts that he has no contractual remedy, but claims that his losswas foreseeable and that the Commission is responsible for it. The Commission contests liability.
Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontraktforhold er underlagt EF-trak-tatens artikel 235 og artikel 288, stk. 279. For at Fællesskabet skalkunne pålægges ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, skal sagsøgerenifølge etableret retspraksis bevise det ulovlige i den pågældende institutions påståede adfærd, den faktiske skade samt eksistensen af enårsagssammenhæng mellem denne adfærd og den påståedeskade80.
The non-contractual liability of the Community is governed by Article235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.79According toestablished caselaw, in order for the Community to incur non-con-tractual liability, the applicant must prove the unlawfulness of thealleged conduct of the institution concerned, actual damage and theexistence of a causal link between that conduct and the allegeddamage.80
I den foreliggende sag hedder det i flere på hinanden følgende Tacisforordninger, at skatter ikke skal finansieres af Fællesskabet81Det erimidlertid ikke indlysende, at manglende overholdelse af dennebestemmelse skyldes en handling eller undladelse, der kan tillægges Kommissionen. Skulle det endda være tilfældet, er det ikke indlysende, at der kan påvises en årsagssammenhæng set i forbindelsemed de russiske myndigheders rolle.
In the present case, successive Tacis Regulations all provide thattaxes shall not be funded by the Community.81However, it is notobvious that failure to respect this provision results from an act oromission attributable to the Commission.Even if it does result fromsuch an act or omission, it is not obvious that causation can bedemonstrated, in view of the role of the Russian authorities.
Med hensyn til vildledende oplysninger bygger retspraksis i Retten i Første Instans uden for kontraktforhold på en legitim forventning82.Selv om Ombudsmanden har fremsat en kritisk bemærkning om Kommissionens adfærd (ovenstående punkt 1.4), er det ikke indlysende, at denne kritiserede adfærd kunne retfærdiggøre en legitimforventning fra klagerens side.
As regards misleading information, the caselaw of the Court of First Instance bases non-contractual liability on a legitimate expectation.82Although the Ombudsman has made a critical remark concerning the Commission’s conduct (para 1.4 above), it is not obvious that the criticised conduct could justify a legitimate expectation on the part of thecomplainant.
Under disse omstændigheder mener Ombudsmanden ikke, at klageren har påvist, at han har ret til skadeserstatning baseret på gældende retspraksis ved Fællesskabets domstole vedrørende de generelle principper for ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, der er fælles formedlemsstaternes love. Ombudsmanden bemærker, at klageren harmulighed for at indbringe sit krav for Retten i Første Instans.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that thecomplainant has demonstrated an entitlement to damages based onthe existing caselaw of the Community Courts concerning the general principles of non-contractual liability common to the laws of the Member States.The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has thepossibility to pursue his claim before the Court of First Instance.
Påstanden om manglende beskyttelse af EU’s skatteyderesinteresser
The allegation of failure to protect the interests of European taxpayers
Klageren gør gældende, at Kommissionen har udvist forsømmelseover for EU’s skatteydere, idet beløb, der er tildelt støtteprogrammer,beskattes af de russiske myndigheder og anvendes til formål, som Europa-Parlamentet ikke har nogen kontrol med. Kommissionenskulle efter klagerens opfattelse på et tidspunkt efter 1991, da Tacisprogrammet begyndte, have gjort yderligere hjælp til Rusland
The complainant claims that the Commission has been negligenttowards European taxpayers, since money allocated for aid programmes is taxed by the Russian authorities and put to uses overwhich the European Parliament has no control.In the complainant’sview, at some point after 1991 when the Tacis programme began, the Commission should have made further aid to Russia conditional onratification of the 1991 Protocol and later the General Rules signed in1997.
F.eks. sag T-113/96, Édouard Dubois mod Rådet og Kommissionen, Sml. 1998 II, s. 125.
See e.g Case T-113/96, Édouard Duboisv Council and Commission[1998] ECR-II 125.
Dom af 17. december 1998 i sag T-203/96, Embassy Limousines mod Europa-Parlamentet.
Case T-203/96, Embassy Limousines v European Parliament, judgement of 17 December 1998.
Under anvendelse af princippet om, at et kontrolorgan med et generelt mandat må vige for et særorgan, finder Ombudsmanden det ikkebegrundet at fortsætte sin undersøgelse af dette aspekt af klagen.Han vil underrette Revisionsretten om sagen.
In application of the principle that a supervisory body with a generalremit gives way to a specialised body, the Ombudsman considers thatit is not justified to pursue further his inquiry into this aspect of thecomplaint.He will inform the Court of Auditors of the case.
På baggrund af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denneklage, er det nødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkninger:
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it appears necessary to make the following critical remarks:
Med hensyn til fejl eller forsømmelser påvist under ovenstående punkt 1mener Ombudsmanden ikke, at klageren har påvist, at han har ret til skadeserstatning baseret på gældende retspraksis ved Fællesskabets domstole.
As regards the maladministration identified in point 1 above, the Ombudsman does not consider that the complainant has demonstrated anentitlement to damages based on the existing caselaw of the Community Courts.
Klageren har mulighed for at indbringe sit krav for Retten i Første Instans. Med hensyn til fejl eller forsømmelser påvist under ovenståendepunkt 2, og da dette aspekt af sagen vedrørte et overstået hændelsesforløb, kunne det ikke lade sig gøre at finde en mindelig løsning.Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The complainant has the possibility to pursue his claim before the Court of First Instance.As regards the maladministration identified in point2 above, given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating tospecific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
AFSLUTNING AF ANTIDUMPINGPROCEDUREAFGØRELSE OM KLAGE 650/98/(PD)/GG OVER EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN
TERMINATION OF ANTI-DUMPING PROCEDUREDecision on complaint 650/98/(PD)/GG against the European Commission
KLAGEN Baggrund
THE COMPLAINTBackground
I juni 1998 indgav en tysk virksomhed en klage over, at Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber havde besluttet at afslutte en antidumpingprocedure.
In June 1998 a complaint was lodged by a German company against thedecision of the Commission of the European Communities to terminate ananti-dumping procedure.
Klagerens påstande Klageren fremsatte følgende påstande:
The complainant’s allegations The complainant made the following allegations:
Kommissionens vurdering af de faktiske omstændigheder var forkert Kommissionen manipulerede med dokumentationen og
The Commission’s assessment of the facts was wrong;The Commission manipulated the evidence and
Disse påstande var baseret på følgende klagepunkter, som klageren fremsatte:
These allegations were based on the following claims made by the complainant:
UNDERSØGELSENKlagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen til udtalelse.Kommissionens udtalelse
THE INQUIRYThe complaint was sent to the Commission for its comments.The Commission’s opinion