natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klagerne mente derimod,at denne bestemmelse skal fortolkesindskrænkende,eftersom det er en undtagelse til det overordnede princip om fri bevægelighed.
The complainants on the other hand meant that this provision must be interpreted strictly since it is an exception to the general principle of freedomof movement.
Klagerne angav,at en privat person,der transporterer mineralolie i egnede reservedunke skal have lov til dette,hvilket efter deres opfattelse var i overensstemmelse medbestemmelserne i direktiv 92/12/EØF.
The complainants stated that a private person transporting mineral oil inappropriate reserve fuel canisters must be allowed and was in their view in accordancewith the provisions of Directive 92/12/EEC.
Foreningen ”Norrbottens Frihandelsförening”havde hjulpet et stort antal mennesker medat appellere til de svenske forvaltningsdomstole i forbindelse med afgørelser fra desvenske skattemyndigheder.
The association “Norrbottens Frihandelsförening”had assisted a very large number ofpersons with appeals to the Swedish administrative courts following decisions from the Swedish Taxation authority.
Foreningen havde i den forbindelse bedt domstolen om atanmode De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol om en præjudiciel afgørelse under henvisning til EF-traktatens artikel 234 (tidligere artikel 177).
The association had thereby requested that the courts ask the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling according to Article 234 (previous Article 177) of the EC-Treaty.
Dette ønske var aldrig blevet tagetmed i overvejelserne.
These requests had never been takeninto account.
Klagerne henvendte sig til Europa-Kommissionen for at klage over sagen.
The complainants turned to the European Commission to complain about the matter.
Klagerne havdeogså et møde med Kommissionen.
Thecomplainants had also met with the Commission.
De hævdede,at Kommissionen ikke undersøgte sagen.En af klagerne sagde,at dette skyldtes et politisk pres.
They alleged that the Commission didnot investigate the matter. One complainant stated that this was due to political pressures.
Klagerne gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen skulle genoptage sin undersøgelse af sagenog undersøge,om Sverige har overtrådt fællesskabslovgivningen og især direktiv92/12/EØF.
The complainants claimed that the Commission should resume its investigation of thematter and examine whether Sweden is in breach of Community law and in particular of Directive 92/12/EEC.
Kommissionens udtalelser
The Commission’s opinions
Klagerne videresendtes til Kommissionen.
The complaints were forwarded to the Commission.
Kommissionen fremlagde to forskellige udtalelser.
The Commission provided twodifferent opinions.
Samlet set indeholdt udtalelserne i det væsentligste følgende:
Taken together,the opinions contained in summary the following:
Kommissionen meddelte,at det i 1997 modtog en skrivelse fra foreningen ”Norrbottens Frihandelsförening”.
The Commission stated that it received a letter from the association “Norrbottens Frihandelsförening” in 1997.
Skrivelsen indeholdt oplysninger om systematiske og vilkårligegrænsekontroller,og Kommissionen fortolkede det som om,det kun omhandlede grænsekontrollerne mellem Sverige og Finland. Klagen blev derfor behandlet af GD Det indre
The letter contained information about systematic and arbitrary border controls and was interpreted by the Commission as relating only to the border
I en skrivelse af 1. september 1998 bad Kommissionen foreningen om at fremsende yderligere oplysninger.
By letter of 1 September 1998,the Commission asked the association tosubmit further information.
Disse oplysninger blev ikke fremsendt inden fristens udløb,hvorfor Kommissionen afsluttede sagsbehandlingen den 7. oktober 1998.
No such information was received within the deadline and the Commission closed the file on 7 October 1998.
I en skrivelse af 28. september 1998,som blev modtaget af Kommissionen den 13. oktober1998,fremsendte foreningen yderligere oplysninger med nogle nye informationer omgrænsekontrol,men også om de svenske regler om punktafgifter.
By letter of 28 September 1998,which was received by the Commission on 13 October1998,further information with some new elements on border controls but also concerningthe Swedish rules on excise duty was submitted by the association.
Oplysningerne motiverede Kommissionen til at behandle sagen,der blev registreret som en klage.
The information motivated the Commission to deal with the matter,which was registered as a complaint.
I maj 1999afholdtes et møde med klagerne.
In May 1999,a meeting took place with the complainants.
Ifølge Kommissionen var det første gang,klagerne fremlagde mere præcise oplysninger,som gav Kommissionen mulighed for bedre at forståderes problemer.
According to the Commission,thiswas the first time more precise information was provided by the complainants whichallowed the Commission to better understand their concern.
Kommissionen opfattede ikke klagen som værende i relation til enbestemt regel,men til de metoder,der blev anvendt ved grænsekontrollen,samt omfangetaf grænsekontrollen og den systematiske måde,hvorpå den blev udført.
The Commission understoodthe complaint not to relate to a specific rule but to the methods used at the border controlsand the scope and systematic character of the controls.
Efter mødet og en analyse af klagen kontaktede Kommissionen de svenske myndighederfor at forklare klagen og sagens enkeltheder.
Following the meeting and an analysis of the complaint,the Commission contacted the Swedish authorities to explain the complaint and the details of the case.
De svenske myndigheder afviste klagensklagepunkter.
The Swedishauthorities rejected the allegations of the complaint.
Kommissionen anmodede den 19. november 1999 om yderligere oplysninger fra klagerne.Den modtog ikke disse oplysninger,og Kommissionen forklarede i en e-mail til klagerneden 3. januar 2000,at dens forslag til de foranstaltninger,der skulle træffes,ville blivebaseret på det materiale,der allerede var til rådighed.
On 19 November 1999,the Commission requested further information from thecomplainants.
Kommissionen var i kontakt medklagerne flere gange,men der blev ikke fremlagt flere væsentlige oplysninger.
No such information was received and the Commission explained in an email to the complainants of 3 January 2000,that its proposal on the steps to be taken wouldbe based on the material already at hand.
På grundlagaf de oplysninger,Kommissionen havde til rådighed,foreslog GD Det indre marked ikkedesto mindre,at der skulle sendes en åbningsskrivelse til Sverige.
Further contacts between the Commission andthe complainants took place but no real substantial information was submitted.Nevertheless,on the basis of the information available to the Commission,Internal Market DG had made a proposal that a letter of formal notice shall be sent to Sweden.
Kommissionen overvejede at tage en formel beslutning om at sende en sådan skrivelse til Sverige.
A formaldecision from the Commission to send the notice was under consideration.
Påstanden om,at Kommissionens handlinger udsprang af politiske overvejelser blev afvistaf Kommissionen.
The allegation that the Commission’s actions were based on political concerns was refutedby the Commission.
Kommissionen forklarede,at det under hele proceduren havde været meget svært atforklare den lovgivningsmæssige situation til klagerne,hvorfor de ikke modtog relevanteoplysninger fra klagerne.
The Commission explained that during the whole procedure it had been very difficult toexplain the legal situation to the complainants and thus receive relevant information inexchange.
Hvad angår de særlige regler om punktafgifter,udtalte Kommissionen,at hovedreglengiver borgerne mulighed for at købe varer i en hvilken som helst medlemsstat og betalepunktafgifter i denne medlemsstat.
As regards the specific rules on excise duty,the Commission stated that the general ruleallows citizens to purchase goods in the Member State of their choice and to pay exciseduty in that same state.
Der er imidlertid visse undtagelser til denne regel.Punktafgifter på mineralolie er en sådan undtagelse,og punktafgiften skal i stedet betalesi den medlemsstat,som olien indføres i.
There are however exceptions to this rule. Excise duty on mineraloil is such an exception and the excise duty should instead be paid in the Member State towhich it is brought.
Der er én undtagelse til denne regel,og det ertransport i køretøjernes brændstoftanke eller i en egnet reservedunk. Sverige kan derforopkræve punktafgifter,hvis privatpersoner anvender atypiske transportformer sombeskrevet i artikel 9,stk. 3,i direktiv 92/12/EØF.
There is one exception to this rule and that is transport in the vehicletank or in an appropriate reserve fuel canister.
Dette var blevet forklaret for klagerne oghar været årsagen til Kommissionens beslutning om indtil videre ikke at tage sagen opmed Sverige.
This has been explained to the complainants and has been the reasonfor the Commission not to act against Sweden up to now.
Udtalelserne blev sendt til de respektive klagere,som indsendte separate bemærkninger.
The respective opinions were forwarded to the complainants who submitted separateobservations.
Klagerne fasthold i det væsentlige deres klager.
In summary,the complainants maintained their complaints.
De henviste til begrebet ”atypiske trans-portformer”og til,at Kommissionen i sin udtalelse angav,at transport i enegnet reservedunk var tilladt.
They referred to the term“atypical transportation modes”and to the fact that the Commission in its opinion statedthat transportation in anappropriate reserve fuel canister would be allowed.
I den forbindelse fremførte klagerne,at direktiv 92/12/EØF ikke nævnerantallet af dunke,og at den svenske oversættelse nævner dunke.
In relationhereto,the complainants put forward that Directive 92/12/EEC does not mention thenumber of canisters and that the Swedish translation refers to canisters.
Klagerne påpegede også,at de dunke,der var godkendt til transport i henhold til de nationale regler,ikke nødvendigvis kan betragtes som egnede reservedunke.
The complainantsalso pointed out that canisters approved for the purpose of transportation according tonational rules must necessarily be seen as appropriate reserve fuel canisters.
Hvis dette ikke er tilfældet,ville det væreen hindring for den frie bevægelighed og principperne i EF-traktaten.
If not,itwould be a clear obstacle to the free movement and the principles of the EC-Treaty.
Klagerne konkluderede,at Kommissionen ikke havde taget alle de relevante kendsgerninger med i sine overvejelser.
The complainants concluded that the Commission had not taken all relevant facts intoconsideration.
En af klagerne erkendte,at der var indledt en undersøgelse imod Sverige.
One complainant admitted that an investigation had been initiated against Sweden.
Klageren syntesdog generelt ikke at være tilfredshed med Kommissionens handlinger.
It didhowever not appear to be satisfied with the Commission’s actions in general.
Denne klager fremsatte også et nyt forhold.
That same complainant also put forward a new point.
Det drejede sig om de finske toldmyndigheder,der konfiskerede køretøjer,som var registeret i Sverige,med det argument,at ejeren havdeboet fast i Finland i mere end 185 dage.
This related to the behaviour of the Finnish customs confiscating vehicles registered in Sweden claiming that the owner of thevehicle had lived permanently in Finland for more than 185 days.
Ifølge foreningen klagede den til Kommissionenpå mødet i maj 1999 med indgivelse af en skriftlig klage,men Kommissionen havde ikkereageret på klagen.
According to the asso-ciation,it complained to the Commission at the meeting in May 1999 by written submis-sion,but the Commission had not acted upon the complaint.
Da dette var et nyt forhold,der ikke var relateret til Sveriges punktaf-gifter,faldt det uden for de oprindelige klager,og Ombudsmanden fandt ingen grund til atbehandle det inden for rammerne af den nuværende undersøgelse.
As this was a new point notrelating to the excise duty charged in Sweden,it was outside the scope of the originalcomplaints and the Ombudsman did not find reasons to deal with it in the framework ofthe present inquiry.
Den anden klager konkluderede,at eftersom direktivet synes at være i modstrid med EF-traktaten,anmodede han om,at Kommissionen skulle følge traktaten og ikke direktivet.Desuden bad denne klager om Ombudsmandens råd med hensyn til,hvem han skullehenvende sig til i forbindelse med det faktum,at direktivet ikke er i overensstemmelse med EF-traktaten, i tilfælde af,at Ombudsmanden ikke kunne behandle det spørgsmål.Ombudsmanden oplyste derfor klageren om,at denne kunne sende et andragende til Europa-Parlamentet om denne del af bemærkningerne,og oplyste klageren om adressen.
The other complainant concluded that since the Directive appears to be contrary to the EC-Treaty,he requested that the Commission follow the Treaty and not the Directive.Furthermore,that complainant asked the Ombudsman for advice on were to turn about thefact that the Directive is not in accordance with the EC-Treaty,in the case that the Ombudsman could not deal with that issue. The Ombudsman therefore informed thecomplainant that,as regards this specific part of the complainant’s observations,he couldpetition the European Parliament and provided the complainant with the relevant address.
Anmodning om yderligere oplysninger
Request for further observations
Eftersom Ombudsmanden fandt,at Kommissionens udtalelse til klage 1554/99/ME varmere omfattende end udtalelsen til klage 227/2000/ME,blev udtalelsen til klage1554/99/ME fremsendt til klageren i klage 227/2000/ME til udtalelse.
Since the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s opinion received in complaint1554/99/ME was more extensive than the one received in complaint 227/2000/ME,theopinion in complaint 1554/99/ME was forwarded to the complainant in complaint227/2000/ME for comments.
Ombudsmandensynes ikke at have modtaget en sådan udtalelse.
No such comments appear to have been received by the Ombudsman.
Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene ringede den 3. april 2001 til den ansvarlige tjenestemand i Kommissionen, GD Det indre marked,for at indhente oplysninger om den foreslåedeåbningsskrivelse til Sverige.
On 3 April 2001,the Ombudsman’s services called the responsible official at the Commission, Internal Market DG,to query about the proposed letter of formal notice to Sweden.
Den ansvarlige tjenestemand oplyste ved den lejlighed Ombudsmanden om,at åbningsskrivelsen var blevet sendt den 13. juni 2000.
The responsible official thereby informed the Ombudsman that the formal noticehad been sent on 13 June 2000.
De svenskemyndigheder havde svaret på skrivelsen den 29. august 2000.
The Swedish authorities had replied to the notice on 29August 2000.
Desuden havde Kommissionens GD Det indre marked foreslået,at der skulle sendes en begrundet udtalelse til Sverige,hvilket på det tidspunkt afventede godkendelse fra Kommissionen.
Moreover,the Internal Market DG of the Commission had made a proposalthat a reasoned opinion shall be sent to Sweden,which was presently awaiting approvalfrom the Commission.
Denansvarlige tjenestemand sagde,at klagerne regelmæssigt var blevet informeret pr. telefonog e-mail.
The responsible official stated that the complainants had beeninformed regularly by phone and with e-mails.
Undersøgelse af Sveriges opkrævning af punktafgifter
Investigation on the charging of excise duty in Sweden
1.1Klagerne gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen ikke havde behandlet klagenvedrørende Sveriges gennemførelse af direktiv 92/12/EØF og vedvarende overtrædelse affællesskabslovgivningen.
1.1The complainants alleged that the Commission had not investigated the complaintconcerning Sweden’s implementation of Directive 92/12/EEC and consistent breach of Community law.
En af klagerne anførte,at dette skyldtes et politisk pres.Klagerne angav,at Sverige uretmæssigt havde opkrævet punktafgifter for transport afmineralolie fra Finland til Sverige.
One complainant stated that this was due to political pressures. Thecomplainants stated that Sweden wrongly charged excise duty on the transport of mineraloil from Finland to Sweden.
Klagerne gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen skullegenoptage sin undersøgelse af sagen og undersøge,om Sverige har overtrådt fællesskabslovgivningen og især direktiv 92/12/EØF.
The complainants claimed that the Commission shouldresume its investigation of the matter and examine whether Sweden is in breach of Community law and then in particular of Directive 92/12/EEC.
1.2Kommissionen afviste klagepunktet om,at Kommissionen ikke havde behandletklagen på grund af et politisk pres.
1.2The Commission refuted the allegation that the Commission had failed to deal withthe complaint because of political pressures.
Kommissionen forklarede,at den rent faktisk havdereageret på skrivelsen fra den ene af klagerne,men at den havde afsluttet behandlingen af
The Commission explained that it had in fact
_BAR_ 2001 sagen,da den ikke havde modtaget yderligere oplysninger.
_BAR_ 2001 acted upon the letter of one complainant but had closed the file when no further information was received.
Yderligere korrespondance fraden klager var blevet registreret som en klage,og Kommissionen havde foreslået at sendeen åbningsskrivelse til Sverige. Kommissionen forklarede også de retslige rammer forpunktafgifter på mineralolie.
Further correspondence from that complainant had been registered as acomplaint and the Commission had made a proposal to send a formal notice to Sweden.The Commission also explained the legal framework of excise duty on mineral oil.
1.3Ombudsmanden bemærker,at det ligger inden for Kommissionens skønsmæssigebeføjelser at træffe afgørelse om at indbringe en sag mod medlemsstaterne i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 226.
1.3The Ombudsman notes that it comes within the Commission’s discretionary powersto decide on bringing legal proceedings against Member States under Article 226 of the EC-Treaty.
Imidlertid har Kommissionen forpligtiget sig at respektere visseadministrative garantier i dens behandling af klager vedrørende medlemsstaternes overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten,som det fremgår af dens svar i Ombudsmandens undersøgelse 303/97/PD på eget initiativ (afsluttet den 13. oktober 1997).
Nevertheless,in the Ombudsman’s owninitiative inquiry into the Commission’s administrative procedures for dealing with complaints concerning Member States’ infringement of Community Law (303/97/PD) which was closed on 13 October1997,the Commission undertook to respect certain procedural safeguards that thecomplainants enjoy in that procedure.
Der er ikke noget,dertyder på,at Kommissionen i nærværende sag ikke overholdt disse sikkerhedsforanstaltninger.
There is nothing to indicate that the Commission inthe present cases did not respect those safeguards.
1.4Hvad angår klagepunktet om,at Kommissionen ikke behandlede sagen af politiskegrunde,blev dette afvist af Kommissionen.
1.4As regards the allegation that the Commission did not investigate the matter for political reasons,the Commission refuted this.
Ombudsmanden finder,at den klager,derhævdede dette,ikke har fremlagt nogen beviser til støtte for et sådant klagepunkt.
The Ombudsman finds that the complainantstating this did not put forward any evidence to support the allegation.
1.5Hvad angår klagernes krav om,at Kommissionen skulle genoptage sin undersøgelse,bemærker Ombudsmanden,at Kommissionen indledte en ny undersøgelse af sagen efterat have modtaget skrivelsen af 28. september 1998.
1.5Regarding the complainants’claim that the Commission should resume its investiga-tion,the Ombudsman notes that following the letter of 28 September 1998, the Commission initiated a new investigation into the matter.
Kommissionen afholdt ligeledes etmøde med klagerne og fremlagde et forslag om at sende en åbningsskrivelse til Sverige.Kommissionen imødekom derfor klagernes krav.
The Commission also met withthe complainants and put forward a proposal to send a letter of formal notice to Sweden.The Commission therefore met the complainants’claim.
Desuden fik Ombudsmanden oplyst,atåbningsskrivelsen var blevet sendt den 13. juni 2000,at de svenske myndigheder havdesvaret den 29. august 2000,og endvidere,at et forslag om at sende en begrundet udtalelsetil Sverige afventede godkendelse.
Moreover,the Ombudsman wasinformed that the formal notice had been sent on 13 June 2000,that the Swedish authorities had replied on 29 August 2000 and further that a proposal to send a reasoned opinionto Sweden was awaiting approval.
Ombudsmanden finder derfor,at der ikke forelå fejleller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was nomaladministration on behalf of the Commission.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af disse klager viste ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into these complaints,there appears to havebeen no maladministration by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen af sagerne.
The Ombudsman therefore closes thecases.
Klageren er ledelseskonsulent og deltog i 1997-1998 i udviklingen af et Phare-projekt.Han havde arbejdet som konsulent for et konsortium,som fungerede som Phare-kontra-hent.
The complainant is a management consultant who,between 1997 and 1998,took part inthe development of a PHARE project . He had acted as a consultant for a consortium,which acted as a PHARE contractor.
Han havde til opgave at forberede studieture og arrangere workshops af korterevarighed.
The tasks assigned to him consisted in the preparation of study tours and the organisation of short-term workshops.
PÅSTAND OM URE-GELMÆSSIGHEDERI GENNEMFØREL-SEN AF ET PHARE-PROJEKT
ALLEGED IRREGU-LARITIES IN THEIMPLEMENTATIONOF APHAREPROJECT
Afgørelse om klage634/2000/JMA(fortro-lig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint634/2000/JMA(Confidential) againstthe European Commission
Klageren indsendte i slutningen af marts 1998 sin timeseddel for det arbejde,han havdeudført i forbindelse med Phare i løbet af måneden.
At the end of March 1998,the complainant submitted his timesheet for the PHARE-related work performed during that month.
Konsortiets gruppeleder nægtede imidlertid at godkende den,og derfor modtog klageren ingen betaling for nogle af de opgaver,han hævdede at have udført i forbindelse med PHARE.
The consortium’s team leader,however,refused to endorse it,and as a result,the complainant received no payment for some of thetasks he had allegedly performed for PHARE-related work.
Efter klagerens mening var dennesituation en konsekvens af,at han havde nægtet at bestikke en højtstående medarbejder iprojektforvaltningsenheden (PMU).
In the complainant’s view,thissituation was a consequence of his refusal to agree to pay a bribe to a senior staff memberof the Project Management Unit (PMU).
Han forklarede,at han i slutningen af marts i forbindelse med sit arbejde i PMU var blevet kaldt til direktørens kontor,hvor han blev bedt omat indvillige i at betale 3.000 USD som betingelse for at udføre en af projektets aktiviteter.
He explained that at the end of March 1998,andduring his work at the PMU,he was summoned to the offices of the Director,and wasasked to agree to pay $ 3.000 as a condition for undertaking one of the project’s activities.
Eftersom konsortiet nægtede at anerkende en del af hans arbejde,skrev klageren til Kommissionen og anmodede den om at anerkende,at det arbejde,der var angivet i hanstimeseddel for marts 1998,faldt ind under programmets formål.
As the consortium refused to acknowledge part of his work,the complainant wrote to the Commission, asking it to recognise that the work reflected in his March 1998 timesheetfell within the programme’s objectives.
Han foreslog også,at derskulle indføres antikorruptionsbestemmelser i fremtidige kontrakter.
He also suggested that some anti-corruptionclauses be inserted in future contracts.
Efter en række skriftlige udvekslinger med Kommissionens tjenestegrene konkluderede den ansvarlige direktøri GD Udvikling og den ansvarlige for gennemførelsen af Phare-programmet,i en skrivelsetil klageren dateret den 27. januar 2000,at Kommissionen ikke var i stand til at bedømme,
Following a number of written exchanges with the Commission services,the responsible Director in the DG Enlargement and responsible for