natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 15. december 1995 fremsendte de britiske myndigheder en anmodning om, at ordningen ikke længere skulle anvendes i England efter den31. marts 1996. Ifølge de britiske myndigheder var denne anmodningbegrundet i behovet for at holde de offentlige udgifter nede og finansiereandre prioriteter.
On 15 December 1995, the UK authorities presented a request to withdrawthe scheme in England after 31 March 1996.According to the UK authorities, this request was based on the need to contain UK public expenditureand to fund other priorities.
Inden Kommissionens tjenestegrene gennemførte procedurerne til godkendelse af denne anmodning, anmodede de de britiske myndigheder omat fremkomme med alle oplysninger om sagen.
Before carrying out the procedures to accept this request, the Commission Services asked the UK authorities to provide full clarification on the matter.
I sine bemærkninger til spørgsmålet om tidligere administrative henvendelser oplyste klageren, at Robin Teverson, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, gentagne gange havde forsøgt at få præciseret spørgsmåletom tilskud til svineproduktionen.
In observations on the question of prior administrative approaches, thecomplainant stated that Robin TEVERSON MEP had repeatedly soughtclarification from the Commission on the issue of subsidies for pig production.
Med hensyn til det materielle spørgsmål påpegede klageren, at Kommissionen kun syntes at have taget i betragtning, om Det Forenede Kongeriges reviderede enhedsprogrammeringsdokument opfyldte betingelserne for EF’s medfinansiering.
As regards the substantive issue, the complainant pointed out that the Commission appeared only to have considered whether the UK’s revised Single Programming Document met the requirements for Community co-financing.In his view, the Commission should also have been concernedthat, through the adoption of Decision 96/388 approving the UK’s proposal,it was setting up a market distortion.
Kommissionen burde efter hans opfattelse også have været opmærksom på, at den gennem vedtagelsen afbeslutning 96/388/EF, hvorved Det Forenede Kongeriges forslag blev godkendt, forårsagede en fordrejning af markedsvilkårene.
(ii) whether Decision 96/388 took possible effects on competition into account.
(ii) om beslutning 96/388/EF tog højde for eventuelle virkninger påkonkurrencen.
As regards (ii), the Ombudsman asked the Commission to inform him ofwhether it considered possible effects on competition in the procedureleading to the adoption of Decision 96/388 and, if so what steps it took toensure that it was adequately informed on the matter.
Kommissionen svarede, at den som led i den procedure, der førte til vedtagelsen af beslutning 96/388/EF, havde mulighed for at tage højde forpotentielle virkninger af foranstaltningen, herunder på konkurrencen ogmarkedet. Den afdeling, som er ansvarlig for konkurrence på landbrugsområdet, og markedsafdelingen for svinekød blev hørt, og endvidere varbeslutningen i overensstemmelse med udtalelsen fra Komitéen for Landbrugsstrukturerne og Udvikling af Landdistrikterne (STAR-komitéen).
The Commission answered that the procedure leading up to the adoptionof Decision 96/388/EC permitted it to take into account the potential effectsof the measure, including those on competition and the market.The division dealing with competition in agriculture and the market division for pigmeat were consulted and, furthermore, the decision was in accordancewith the opinion of the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (the STAR Committee).
Efter at have behandlet Kommissionens svar anmodede Ombudsmanden Kommissionen om at fremsende detaljeret dokumentation for, hvordan dervar taget højde for konkurrencespørgsmål som led i procedure i forbindelsemed vedtagelsen af beslutning 96/388/EF.
After considering the Commission’s answer, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide detailed evidence as to how competition issueswere taken into account in the procedure leading to the adoption of Decision 96/388/EC.
Som svar fremsendte Kommissionen Ombudsmanden en detaljeret redegørelse for de forskellige faser i den procedure, der førte til vedtagelsen afbeslutning 96/388/EF, sammen med kopier af de pågældende dokumenter.
In reply, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman a detailed accountof the various stages in the procedure leading to the adoption of Decision96/388/EC together with copies of the documents concerned.
I sit svar anførte klageren i det væsentlige, at dokumenterne viste, at Kommissionen havde indhentet passende råd, men at rådene var fejlagtige, for så vidt som virkningerne af den trufne foranstaltning ikke kunnehave været kendt, og at virkningen på den britiske svinekødsindustri varsærdeles omfattende.
The complainant responded by stating, in summary, that the documentsshowed that the Commission took proper advice, but that the advice waserroneous insofar as the effects of the action taken could not have beenknown and the effect on the British pig industry was immense.
Forudgående administrative henvendelser
THE DECISION1Prior administrative approaches
I sin udtalelseerklærede Kommissionen imidlertid, at klageren ikke tidligere havdehenvendt sig til Kommissionen. Klagerens bemærkninger henviste tiltidligere kontakter, som klagerens medlem af Europa-Parlamentet,Robin Teverson, havde haft til Kommissionen.
In the standard form on which the complaint was submitted, the complainant referred to discussions with Commission officials.In itsopinion, however, the Commission stated that the complainant hadnot previously addressed himself to the Commission.The complainant’s observations referred to previous contacts with the Commission by the complainant’s MEP, Mr Robin TEVERSON.
Ombudsmanden underrettede Kommissionen om, at han ville videreføre behandlingen af klagen, da yderligere administrative henvendelser ikke var en hensigtsmæssig måde at behandle de materiellespørgsmål på, som fortsat var uløste efter Kommissionens udtalelseog klagerens bemærkninger.
The Ombudsman informed the Commission that he would continue todeal with the complaint, since further administrative approaches werenot an appropriate way to deal with the substantive questions whichremained unresolved following the Commission’s opinion and thecomplainant’s observations.
Vedtagelsen af beslutning 96/388/EF
The adoption of Decision 96/388/EC
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen bevidst lod en situationudvikle sig, som var konkurrencebegrænsende og fordrejede markedskræfterne, idet svineproduktionen modtog tilskud i andre medlemsstater, men ikke i Det Forenede Kongerige.
DECISIONS forces, in that pig production is subsidised in other Member States butnot in the UK.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse viste, at Kommissionen i 1994 godkendte en støtteordning for landbrugsinvesteringer for Det Forenede
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that in 1994 the Commissionapproved an agricultural investment subsidy scheme for the UK,24jointly funded by the UK authorities and the Community under
De britiske myndigheder begrundede anmodningen med, at det var nødvendigt at holde de offentlige udgifter nedeog finansiere andre prioriteter.
, the Commission approved a request from the UK authorities to withdraw the scheme in England.The UK authorities based the request on the need to con- tain public expenditure and to fund other priorities in England.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse viste endvidere de nærmere enkeltheder ved Kommissionens procedurer, der førte til vedtagelsen afbeslutning 96/388/EF: den pågældende afdeling i GD VI udarbejdedeet arbejdsdokument og et udkast til beslutning, som andre afdelingeri GD VI, herunder afdelingerne med ansvar for konkurrence og for svinekødssektoren, og andre Generaldirektorater og Juridisk Tjenesteblev hørt om. Sagen blev derpå behandlet som led i en mundtlig procedure på Kommissionens ugentlige møde og godkendt til at blivevedtaget på grundlag af delegerede beføjelse efter oversendelse til Komitéen for Landbrugsstrukturerne og Udvikling af Landdistrikterne(STAR-komitéen), som afgav en enstemmig positiv udtalelse.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry also revealed the details of the Commission’s procedures leading to the adoption of Decision 96/388:the relevant division of DG VI prepared a working document and draftdecision, on which there was consultation with other divisions of DGVI, including those responsible for competition and for the pigmeatsector and with other Directorates General and the Legal Service.Thematter was then dealt with through an oral procedure at the Commission’s weekly meeting and authorised to be adopted underdelegated powers, after transmission to the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development (STAR Committee), which gave aunanimous favourable opinion.
Godkendelse blev givet ved Kommissionens beslutning 94/836/EF (EFT1994 L352, s. 12) om godkendelse af enhedsprogrammeringsdokumentet vedrørende forarbejdning og afsætning af landbrugsprodukter i Det Forenede Kongerige for perioden 1994 til 1999.
Approval was given by Commission Decision 94/836/EC (1994 OJ L 352/12) approving a Single Programming Document for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products in the United Kingdom between 1994 and 1999.
Rådets forordning 866/90 af 29. marts 1990 om forbedring af vilkårene for forarbejdning og afsætning af landbrugsprodukter, EFT1990 L91, s. 1.
Council Regulation 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditionsfor agricultural products, 1990 OJ L 91/1.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingen tilfælde af fejleller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden afsluttedederfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
YDERLIGERE BEMÆRKNING FRADEN EUROPÆISKE OMBUDSMAND
FURTHER REMARK BY THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
Ombudsmanden bemærker, at klageren fortsat er foruroliget over, at denbritiske regerings anmodning om, at der ikke længere skal anvendes investeringstilskud, har medført, at svinekødssektoren i England ikke længereer konkurrencedygtig i forhold til svinekødssektoren i andre medlemsstater,hvor der fortsat er tilskud til rådighed. Ombudsmanden bemærker endvidere, at klageren har ret til at indgive et andragende til Europa-Parlamentetom ethvert forhold, der henhører under områder, som Fællesskabetbeskæftiger sig med, og som vedrører den pågældende direkte.
The Ombudsman notes the complainant’s continued concern that the withdrawal of investment subsidies, at the request of the UK government, hascaused the pig industry in England to become uncompetitive, as comparedto the pig industry in other Member States where subsidies continue to beavailable.The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant has the right topetition the European Parliament on any matter which comes within the Community’s fields of activity and which concerns him directly.
REGIONALE FORSKELLE I MULIGHEDEN FOR AT OPFYLDE ETUDBUDSKRITERIUM
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ABILITY TO MEET A TENDER CRITERION
Afgørelse om klage 1037/97/VK over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1037/97/VK against the European Commission
I november 1997 klagede P. til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionenuberettiget havde afvist det bud, hun havde afgivet i forbindelse med enudbudsprocedure om tildeling af oversættelseskontrakter.
In November 1997, Mrs P.made a complaint to the Ombudsman allegingthat the Commission wrongly refused the bid she submitted in a tender procedure for the award of translation contracts.
Klageren, der er professionel oversætter, ansøgte om en oversættelseskontrakt i forbindelse med Kommissionens udbudsprocedurer.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In summary, the Commission’s opinion was as follows:
Hendesansøgning blev afvist med den begrundelse, at den ikke opfyldte punkt 13fi adgangskriterierne27, i henhold til hvilket ansøgerne skulle dokumentere,
The Translation Service of the Commission published a call for tenders fortranslation services into German in order to conclude a new set of frame-
Begrænset udbud fra Europa-Kommissionen, Afdelingen for Ekstern Freelanceoversættelse (97/S62 - 36298/FR).
Restricted tender of the European Commission, External Translation Unit, (97/S 62 - 36298/FR).
AFGØRELSER at de havde oversat mindst 1.500 sider til målsproget fra et hvilket somhelst sprog gennem en nærmere specificeret treårs periode.
DECISIONS work contracts and to continue to meet its needs for external translationservices without interruption.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at dette kriterium ikke kunne opfyldes afansøgere fra delstater i det tidligere Østtyskland, da disse havde færremuligheder for at nå op på et så højt antal oversatte sider. Det eksportorienterede regionale marked havde ifølge klageren ikke stor efterspørgselefter oversættelser fra fransk til tysk.
In order to select the applicants, the awarding authority had to establish thetechnical and economic competence of those who responded to the call fortenders.The selection criteria set out in point 13 of the notice constituted aset of requirements which reasonably could be met by an established, fulltime professional translator.Applicants had to meet all the requirementsunder point 13 of the tender notice in order to be considered for selection.
Ansøgerne skulle opfylde samtlige krav under punkt 13 i udbudsbekendtgørelsen for at komme i betragtning ved udvælgelsen.
Any applicant failing to supply full and satisfactory information under any ofthe sub-points of section 13 was rejected.
Afdelingen for Freelanceoversættelse opbevarer oplysninger om samtligeansøgere og opfordrer dem til at opdatere disse med nye relevante oplysninger. De kan på denne måde blive underrettet om Kommissionens kommende udbud om oversættelse til de officielle sprog.
The External Translation Unit keeps details of all applicants on file, andencourages them to update their files with any new information which maybe relevant.In this way they may be informed of any future calls for tenderswhich the Commission may publish for the provision of translation servicesinto its official languages.
Klagerens bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage.
The complainant’s observations In her observations, the complainant maintained her complaint.
Ifølge punkt 13f i udvælgelseskriterierne skulle ansøgerne dokumentere mindst 1.500 sider oversat til tysk gennem en nærmere specificeret treårs periode.
Point 13f of the selection criteria required applicants to provide evidence of at least 1500 pages translated into German during a specified 3-year period.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke burde haveanvendt kriteriet, fordi ansøgere fra forskellige regioner havde forskellige muligheder for at opfylde dette kriterium.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should not have usedthe criterion because of differences in the ability of contractors fromdifferent regions to meet to criterion.
AFGØRELSE OM AT AFSLUTTE BEHANDLINGEN AF EN ARTIKEL169 (NYARTIKEL226) -KLAGE
DECISION TO CLOSE THE FILE ON AN ARTICLE 169 (NEW ARTICLE 226) COMPLAINT
Afgørelse om klage 1060/97/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1060/97/OV against the European Commission
I november 1997 klagede formanden for Medasset (middelhavssammenslutning til havskildpadders bevarelse), V., til Ombudsmanden over Kommissionens behandling af hendes klage af 15. juni 1994, i hvilken hungjorde gældende, at den græske regering på øen Zakynthos havde overtrådt Rådets direktiv 92/43/EØF samt nationale og internationale bestemmelser om bevarelse af havskildpadder.
In November 1997, Mrs V., President of Medasset (“Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles”) made a complaint to the Ombudsmanconcerning the way the Commission dealt with her complaint of 15 June1994 alleging violation by the Greek government, on the island of Zakynthos, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC and of national and international law on the preservation of sea turtles.
Den 15. juni 1994 indgav Medasset en klage til Kommissionen om, at dengræske regering på den ioniske ø Zakynthos i Laganasbugten overtrådtedirektiv 92/4328om bevarelse af havskildpadder (Caretta caretta).Klageren gjorde især gældende, at den græske regering ikke havde gennemført direktiv 92/43 inde for den frist på to år, der var fastsat i direktivet.Medasset gjorde i sin klage ligeledes Kommissionen opmærksom på dengræske regerings forskellige overtrædelser af nationale og internationalebestemmelser, nærmere bestemt konventionen om bevarelse af vilde dyrog planter i Europa samt af disses naturlige miljø (Bern-konventionen,Europarådet). Klageren havde fornyet sin klage hvert år siden 1994 ogholdt Kommissionens GD XI (miljø) underrettet om situationen på Zakynthos ved at sende den fotografisk dokumentation og de særligeopfølgende rapporter om havskildpaddernes situation på Zakynthos, som Medasset havde forelagt for Europarådets miljøgeneralsekretariat29.
On 15 June 1994 Medasset lodged a complaint to the Commission aboutviolation by the Greek government, in the Laganas Bay of the Ionian islandof Zakynthos, of Directive 92/4328with regard to the preservation of sea turtles (Caretta caretta).The complainant particularly alleged that the Greekgovernment failed to transpose Directive 92/43 into Greek national lawbefore the two years deadline stipulated in the Directive.In its complaint,Medasset equally drew the Commission’s attention to various violations bythe Greek government of national and international law, more particularlythe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the “Bern”Convention, Council of Europe).The complainantrenewed its complaint each year since 1994 and kept DG XI (Environment)of the Commission regularly informed about the situation in Zakynthos bysending photographic evidence and special followup reports on the situation of the sea turtles in Zakynthos which Medasset had presented to the Environment Secretariat General of the Council of Europe29.
Den 26. april 1996 modtog Medasset en skrivelse fra Kommissionen, hvoriden meddelte, at den var tilfreds med den indsats, regeringen havde ydetfor at beskytte Caretta caretta på Zakynthos, idet der var truffet betydeligeforanstaltninger til sikring af en omfattende beskyttelse af havskildpadderne i Laganasbugten.
On 26 April 1996, Medasset received a letter from the Commissionaccording to which the Commission was satisfied with the efforts made bythe government to protect the Caretta caretta in Zakynthos, given that significant steps for the substantial protection of the sea turtles in the Laganas Bay had been taken.Therefore the handling of the complaint had been sus-pended.By letter of 11 March 1997 the complainant was finally informed bythe Head of the Legal Affairs Unit of DG XI - B, that the file on the case hadbeen closed.
Derfor var behandlingen af klagen blevet suspenderet. I skrivelse af 11. marts 1997 blev klageren endelig underrettet afchefen for afdelingen for juridiske anliggender i GD XI om, at sagen varblevet afsluttet.
The complainant therefore wrote to the Ombudsman in November 1997alleging that the decision of the Commission not to take legal action againstthe Greek government in this case was unjustified and arbitrary.Secondly,the complainant alleged that the period between the registration of thecomplaint and the letter by which the Commission informed the complainant that it would not start proceedings against the Greek governmentwas too long (more than two and a half years).Finally, in June 1997
Rådets direktiv 92/43/EØF af 21. maj 1992 om bevaring af naturtyper samt vilde dyr og planter, EFT1992 L206, s. 7.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wildfauna and flora, OJ 1992 L 206/7.
Forskellige opfølgende rapporter forelagt af Medasset på det 14., 15., 16. og 17. møde i det ståendeudvalg om konventionen om beskyttelse af Europas vilde dyr og planter samt naturlige levesteder(Bern-konventionen) vedrørende bevarelsen af havskildpadderne på Zakynthos (Laganasbugten) i Grækenland.
Different followup reports presented by Medasset to the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th meetings of the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), concerning marine turtle conservation in Zakynthos (Laganas Bay),Greece.
Endelig gjordeklageren gældende, at perioden mellem klagens registrering og Kommissionens skrivelse til klageren om, at den ikke ville indlede en procedure mod den græske regering, var for lang (mere end to et halvt år).Endelig havde Medasset i juni 1997 stillet forskellige spørgsmål til kommissær Bjerregaard, ansvarlig for miljø, men ikke modtaget noget svar.Klageren vedlagde omfattende dokumentation om emnet, herunder de forskellige opfølgende rapporter, der havde været forelagt Europarådet.
Medasset put forward different questions on the matter to Commissioner Bjerregaard, responsible for environment, but never received a reply.Thecomplainant enclosed extensive documentation on the subject, includingthe different followup reports presented to the Council of Europe.
Kommissionen registrerede klageskrivelsen af 15. juni 1994 som en formelklage (jf. P94/4667). Klageren gjorde gældende, at den græske regeringikke havde overholdt direktiv 92/43/EØF og Bern-konventionen30i forbindelse med bevarelse af havskildpadderne i Laganasbugten ved Zakynthos.Siden registreringen af klagen havde Kommissionen aktivt fulgt sagengennem officiel korrespondance, pakkemøder og inden for rammerne af Bern-konventionen.
The Commission registered the complaint letter of 15 June 1994 as aformal complaint (ref.P 94/4667).The complaint alleged failure of the Greek government to comply with Directive 92/43/EEC and the Bern Convention30 with regard to the conservation of sea turtles in the Laganas Bay in Zakynthos.Since the registration of the complaint the Commissionhad actively followed the case through official correspondence, packagemeetings and within the framework of the Bern Convention.
Den 18. april 1996 informerede Kommissionen klageren om indholdet afskrivelsen fra de græske myndigheder og bad om dennes kommentarer.
On 18 April 1996 the Commission informed the complainant about the content of the letter by the Greek authorities and asked for comments on it.Thecomplainant was not satisfied with the measures which it considered insuf-ficient.Another organisation which had also complained made overall positive comments on the development of the situation.The positive developments referred to by the Greek authorities were also confirmed by theresults of a programme which dealt with the protection of Caretta carettaand which was financed by the Commission.
Efter dette svar og yderligere drøftelser under et pakkemøde i Athenbesluttede Kommissionen at afslutte behandlingen af sagen på grund afmanglende bevis for overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, men den fulgtestadig udviklingen gennem bilaterale kontakter til de græske myndighederfor at sikre en konkret gennemførelse af de meddelte tiltag, især oprettelsen af en marin naturpark.
By letter dated 11 March 1997, the complainant was informed about thedecision to close the file, as well as of the reasons which led to that decision.The Commission considered that it gave the complainant all the reasons which were relevant for its decision, i.e.those related to the nature ofthe legal requirements and to the nature of the information available to it.At the same time the Commission further pursued the case with the Greekauthorities by letter of 14 March 1997 requesting additional information onthe implementation of protection measures and on the progress in the creation of the National Marine Park in the Laganas Bay.