natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De dokumenter,som det udøvende organ for projektet,det ungarske Ministerium for Transport,Kommunikation og Vandforvaltning fremlagde, overbeviste Banken om,at selv om Ungarn ikke havde nogen miljølovgivning,der svarede til direktiv85/337,var indvirkningen af omfartsvejens anlæg og drift på land,vand,luften,land-skabet,bebyggede områder og dyreliv blevet grundigt undersøgt,og desuden at projektetomfattede passende foranstaltninger til at reducere og afhjælpe indvirkningen på miljøet(landskabspleje,vildtbeskyttelseshegn,støjbarrierer osv.).
The documents submitted by the executingagency for the project,the Ministry of Transport,Communication and Water Managementin Hungary,demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Bank that although Hungary did nothave an environmental legislation comparable to Directive 85/337,the impact of the bypass construction and operation on land,water,air,landscape,built-up areas and fauna hadbeen fully investigated,and further,that appropriate environmental impact reductions andmitigation measures (landscaping,game protection fences,noise barriers,etc.) had beenincluded in the design of the project.
Banken påpegede,at der er grænser for dens ansvar på dette område,og henviste til artikel16 i Bankens miljøpolitiske erklæring.
The Bank pointed out that there are limits to its responsibilities in this field and referredto Article 16 of the Bank’s Environmental Policy Statement.
Det er projektadministratoren,der skal sikre,atprojektet overholder de lovgivningsmæssige forpligtelser og standarder,der relaterer sigtil miljøet.
It is for the promoter of theproject to make sure that the project complies with legal obligations and standards relatingto the environment.
Banken havde også allerede påpeget over for klageren,at Banken ikke kankommentere de nationale lovgivningsprocedurer for udstedelse af projekttilladelser ogandre tilladelser. Hvis et projekt skal høres i retten,vil dette blive drøftet med projektadministratoren.
The Bank had also already pointed out to the complainant that it is notfor the Bank to comment on national legal procedures for granting project permits andother permissions.
Derudover meddelte Banken,at den går helt ind for en aktiv informationspolitik,men atdens rolle som finansiel institution samt dens kommercielle aktiviteters beskaffenhed tilen vis grad stiller krav om tilbageholdenhed i forbindelse med specifikke operationer.
Furthermore,the Bank stated that it is fully committed to an active information policyalthough its role as a financial institution together with the nature of its commercial activities imposes a certain degree of reserve as regards specific operations.
Klageren påpegede i sine bemærkninger,at M0-ringvejen ifølge Banken var en del af Helsinki-korridorerne (kaldet ”Kretakorridor V”af Banken). Klageren sagde imidlertid,
In its observations,the complainant pointed out that the M0 ring road was,according tothe Bank,part of the Helsinki corridors (referred to as “Crete Corridor V”by the Bank).The complainant however stated that the particular section of the M0 ring road that is thesubject of the complaint,was not part of the Helsinki corridors.
Hvad angår miljøaspektet,erklærede klageren,at resultaterne af de hidtil gennemførteundersøgelser ifølge uafhængige eksperter er baseret på forkerte beregninger.
As regards the environmental aspect,the complainant stated that according to independentexperts,results of the studies done so far are based on incorrect calculations.
Der manglede i særdeleshed en fyldestgørende undersøgelse og analyse af den negative virkning påluftkvaliteten og boligkvarterene,som anlægget af den pågældende motorvejssektion villehave.
In particular,a satisfactory investigation and analysis of the adverse impacts on air quality and residential areas resulting from the construction of the motorway segment in question weremissing.
Klageren kommenterede også Bankens informationsforpligtelser generelt med hensyn tilde projekter,den finansierer.
The complainant also commented on the Bank’s information duties in general regardingprojects that it is financing.
Efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af Bankens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkningerfremgik det,at der var behov for yderligere undersøgelser.
After careful consideration of the Bank’s opinion and the complainant’s observations,itappeared that further inquiries were necessary.
Ombudsmanden anmodedederfor Banken om at give en mere detaljeret redegørelse for,hvordan den i dette tilfældeundersøgte den nuværende og fremtidige miljølovgivning samt projektadministratorensvurderinger af virkningerne på miljøet.
The Ombudsman therefore asked the Bankto specify in more detail how in this specific case it examined the present and likely futureenvironmental legislation and the environmental impact assessments performed by thepromoter.
Ombudsmanden anmodede også Banken om atfremlægge de dokumenter,der var indgivet af projektets udøvende organ (Ministeriet for Transport, Kommunikation og Vandforvaltning),som syntes at være de dokumenter,Banken henholdt sig mest til,da den besluttede sig for at bevilge lånet,hvad angår projektets miljøaspekter.
The Ombudsman also asked the Bank to supply the documents submitted by theexecuting agency for the project (the Ministry of Transport,Communication and Water Management) which appeared to be the main documents taken into account by the Bankwhen deciding to grant the loan,as regards the environmental aspects of the project.
Den Europæiske Investeringsbanks anden udtalelse
The European Investment Bank’s second opinion
Banken erklærede i sin anden udtalelse,at beslutningen om at finansiere det pågældendeprojekt blev taget af Bankens bestyrelse,efter at Europa-Kommissionen havde fremlagt enpositiv udtalelse,i henhold til artikel 21 i Bankens statut.
In its second opinion,the Bank stated that the decision to finance the project in questionwas taken by the Bank’s Board of Directors following the favourable opinion of the European Commission,pursuant to Article 21 of the Bank’s Statute.
Bestyrelsens beslutningerkræver,at den udøver de omfattende skønsmæssige beføjelser,som er tillagt den ved Bankens statut.
Such decisions by the Board of Directors entail an exercise of the wide discretionary power,which has beenconferred on the Board through the Bank’s Statute.
Dette ses af,at Bankens bestyrelses afgørelser i henhold til EF-traktatensartikel 237,stk. c,ikke kan ankes,medmindre de omhandler artikel 21 i Bankens statut,hvilket er blevet bekræftet af Retten i Første Instans15.
This is reflected in the fact that thedecisions by the Bank’s Board of Directors are not,according to Article 237 (c) of the ECTreaty,subject to judicial review with the limited exceptions of matters relating to theapplication of Article 21 of the Bank’s Statute,as has been confirmed by the Court of First Instance15.
Desuden mente Banken,at den indgivne klage og anmodningen om en undersøgelse ikkehenhørte under undersøgelser af fejl eller forsømmelser,som de er beskrevet i Den Europæiske Ombudsmands årsberetning for 1997 (afsnit 2.2.1).
Moreover,the Bank was of the opinion that the complaint lodged and the request to inves-tigate,did not fall within the scope of investigation into maladministration in the sense thatit had been defined by the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997 (Section2.2.1).
Banken fandt det derforikke passende,at kommentere sagen yderligere.
The Bank did therefore not find it appropriate to make any further comments onthis particular matter.
Efter at have modtaget Bankens anden udtalelse,som Ombudsmanden betragtede som etafslag på at samarbejde yderligere i undersøgelsen af klagen,skrev Ombudsmanden igentil Banken og gentog sin anmodning om flere oplysninger.
Following the Bank’s second opinion,which the Ombudsman understood to be a refusalto co-operate further in the inquiry into the complaint,the Ombudsman wrote again to the Bank repeating the request for further information.
Heri påpegede Ombudsmanden, at hans arbejde ikke er underlagt EF-traktatens artikel 237,men artikel195. Desuden undersøgte Ombudsmanden mulige fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelsemed den administrative procedure,der gik forud for Bankens afgørelse om at finansiereprojektet.
In doing so the Ombudsman pointedout that his activities are not governed by Article 237 of the EC Treaty,but by Article 195.Furthermore,what the Ombudsman was examining was a possible instance of maladministration in the administrative procedure,which led up to the Bank’s decision to financethe project.
Den Europæiske Investeringsbanks tredje udtalelse
The European Investment Bank’s third opinion
Banken afviste i sin tredje udtalelse,at den havde nægtet at samarbejde i undersøgelsen.Banken ville imidlertid ikke acceptere,at klagen drejede sig om fejl eller forsømmelser iden betydning,der er angivet i EF-traktatens artikel 195,og henviste til definitionen i Ombudsmandens årsberetning for 1997.
In its third opinion,the Bank contested that it refused to co-operate in the inquiry.However,the Bank did not accept that the complaint related to an instance of maladministration in the meaning of Article 195 of the EC Treaty and referred to the definition inthe Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997.
Ifølge Banken omfatter Ombudsmandens kompe-
According to the Bank,the Ombudsman’s
_BAR_ 2001 tenceområde ikke en vurdering af Bankens udlånspolitik og heller ikke det skøn,somderes ansøgninger omfatter,hvad enten det er i Bankens bestyrelse eller i forbindelse medden evaluering,som Bankens tjenestegrene udfører,eller de forslag,der godkendes afdirektionen til fremlæggelse for bestyrelsen.
_BAR_ 2001 remit is not extended to an assessment of the Bank’s lending policies,nor to the exerciseof discretion that their applications entail,whether at the level of the decisions of the Board of Directors,or at the level of the appraisal conducted by the Bank’s services,orthat of the proposals adopted by the Management Committee for submissions to the Boardof Directors.
Banken vedlagde også nogle dokumenter,derrelaterer sig til klagen,som f.eks. oplysninger fra et nyligt besøg på projektområdet,oghåbede,at disse oplysninger ville hjælpe Ombudsmanden til at forstå det pågældendeprojekts generelle rammer.
The Bank also enclosed some documents relating to the complaint,such asinformation deriving from a recent site visit to the project,and hoped that the informationwould help the Ombudsman to better understand the general context of the project whichwas the subject of the complaint.
Klagerens bemærkninger til den tredje udtalelse
The complainant’s observations on the third opinion
Bankens tredje udtalelse blev sendt til klageren.
The third opinion of the Bank was sent to the complainant.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klagerensin klage og fremlagde i det væsentlige følgende:Den nordlige del af M0-motorvejen blevslet ikke nævnt i den ungarske bekendtgørelse,der indeholder de nationale hovedveje,derskal anlægges.
In its observations,thecomplainant maintained the complaint and put forward in summary the following:Thenorthern part of the M0 motorway was not even mentioned in the Hungarian decree,whichlists the main national roads to be constructed.
Der fandtes ikke nogen dokumentation for,at vejen ville reducere den eksisterende miljøforringelse,som skyldtes den trafik,der krydser Budapests centrum.Desuden erkendte den ungarske trafikminister i august 1999,at han ikke havde nogen dataom den forventede virkning på miljøet af den nordlige del af motorvejen.
There was no proof that the road wouldreduce the existing environmental degradation caused by the traffic crossing central Budapest. Further,the Hungarian Minister of Transport admitted in August 1999,that hehad no data on the expected environmental impacts of the northern part of the motorway.
Klageren henviste også generelt til Bankens udlånspolitik.
The complainant also referred in general to the Bank’s lending policies.
Klageren angav,at et af destørste problemer med Bankens aktiviteter var,at der ikke findes nogen særlig miljøpo-litik,som den kan rette sig efter,og desuden at de miljømæssige overvejelser kunne bliveprioriteret lavere end økonomiske eller andre overvejelser.
It thereby statedthat one of the greatest problems of the Bank’s activity was that there is no specific environmental policy for it to follow and further,the importance of the environmental considerations could have a lower priority than economical or other considerations.
Der findes ikke nogen passendejuridiske rammer for Banken,som kunne gøre Banken mere ansvarlig over for offentligheden med hensyn til sine lån.
There is noappropriate legal framework for the Bank,which would make the Bank more responsiblefor its loans before the public.
Efter at have gennemset Bankens tredje udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger mente Ombudsmanden stadig ikke,at Banken havde fremsendt de ønskede oplysninger.Ombudsmanden skrev derfor igen til Banken og erklærede,at det var sidste gang,han villeanmode Banken om oplysningerne.
Following the Bank’s third opinion and the complainant’s observations,the Ombudsmanwas still not satisfied that the Bank had supplied the requested information. The Ombudsman therefore wrote again to the Bank stating that it was the last time that heasked the Bank to supply the information.
Ombudsmanden orienterede også Banken om,at hvis Banken igen nægtede at samarbejde,ville han blive nødt til at underrette Europa-Parlamentet i henhold til artikel 3,stk. 4,i Ombudsmandens statut.
The Ombudsman also informed the Bank that,if the Bank refused again to co-operate,the Ombudsman would have to inform the European Parliament in accordance with Article 3 (4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.
Den Europæiske Investeringsbanks fjerde udtalelse
The European Investment Bank’s fourth opinion
I sin fjerde udtalelse bestred Banken ikke Ombudsmandens mandat til at undersøgeklagen.
In its fourth opinion,the Bank did not dispute the Ombudsman’s mandate to inquire intothe complaint.
Banken mente,at klagen omhandlede en undersøgelse af det skøn,som anvendelsen af Bankens udlånspolitik medfører i Bankens bestyrelses beslutningstagning,hvilket således er i strid med de skønsmæssige afgørelser,der er truffet om et særligtprojekt.
The Bank put forward that the complaint concerned an assessment of theexercise of discretion that the application of the Bank’s lending policies entails in the deci-sion-making by the Bank’s Board of Directors,thus reflecting a disagreement with thediscretionary judgements that have been made on a particular project.
Disse skønsmæssige afgørelser er underlagt rammerne for Bankens retsligebeføjelser samt de overordnede rammer for samme autoritet,som er fastlagt af Domstolens retspraksis,og som kræver,at Banken skal handle i overensstemmelse medgrundlæggende retsprincipper.
These discretionaryjudgements are subject to the limits of the Bank’s legal authority and to general limits onlegal authority as established by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice requiring that the Bank should act in accordance with fundamental principles of law.
Banken havde forstået det sådan,at Ombudsmandensundersøgelse drejede sig om,hvorvidt Banken havde handlet inden for disse rammer,daden besluttede at finansiere det pågældende projekt.
The Bank understoodthe Ombudsman’s inquiry to concern whether the Bank had indeed acted within theselimits when deciding to finance the project in question.
Hvad angår det projekt,som Banken besluttede at finansiere i 1993,tog Banken hensyn tilsin klients,den ungarske regerings,investeringsprioriteter,herunder at modernisere detnationale og internationale vejnet ved at genopbygge de eksisterende veje og anlægge nye,hvilket blandt andet havde til formål at reducere den trafikale overbelastning i byerne ogdermed forbedre miljøkvaliteten.
As regards the project that the Bank decided to finance in 1993,the Bank took into consideration the investment priorities of its client,the Government of Hungary,among whichthe modernisation of its national and international road network through the rehabilitationof existing roads and the construction of new roads,aiming at,inter alia,reducing urbantraffic congestion and thereby improving the quality of the environment.
Banken anvendte derefter sine sædvanlige kriterier for atvurdere projektets økonomiske,tekniske,miljømæssige og finansielle levedygtighed.Banken vedlagde en liste over alle de dokumenter,der var taget i betragtning i forbindelsemed vurderingen af projektet.
The Bank thenapplied its usual criteria in examining the project’s viability from an economic,technical,environmental and financial point of view. The Bank enclosed a list of all documents takeninto consideration during the appraisal of the project.
Banken henviste igen til,at selv om Ungarn ikke havde en miljølovgivning,der kunnesammenlignes med direktiv 85/337,viste dokumenterne fra Ministeriet for Transport,Kommunikation og Vandforvaltning,at indvirkningen af omfartsvejens anlægning og driftpå land,vand,luften,landskabet,bebyggede områder og dyreliv var blevet undersøgt,og
The Bank again referred to the fact that although Hungary did not have an environmentallegislation comparable to Directive 85/337,the documents submitted by the Ministry of
Banken fulgte også op på de miljømæssige spørgsmål efter,at beslutningen om at finansiere projektet var taget.
The Bank also followed up on environmental issues after the decision to finance theproject.
I 1995 indledte Europa-Kommissionen en særlig vurdering afvirkninger på miljøet i samarbejde med Banken. Formålet med denne vurdering var atsammenligne kravene i Ungarns og Fællesskabets miljølovgivning,som netop dettevejprojekt var underlagt.
In 1995,a special Environmental Impact Study was initiated by the European Commission in co-ordination with the Bank.
I forbindelse med fase III ogden relevante omfartsvej fik disse miljøtilladelse i juli 1996 og byggetilladelse i september1996.
Further,the Bankmade disbursement of its loan conditional to receipt of confirmation by the Hungarianauthorities that the relevant project components had received final environmental approvaland development consent,which occurred in the period 1993-1996,and for phase III andthe relevant bypass in July 1996 as regards the final environmental permission and in September 1996 as regards the construction permit.
Klagerens bemærkninger til den fjerde udtalelse
The complainant’s observations on the fourth opinion
Ombudsmanden sendte Bankens fjerde udtalelse til klageren med en opfordring til atfremsætte eventuelle bemærkninger.
The Bank’s fourth opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submitobservations.
Klageren synes ikke at have fremsendt sådannebemærkninger.
No observations appear to have been received from the complainant.
Efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af Bankens og klagerens oplysninger fandt Ombudsmanden det nødvendigt at undersøge de dokumenter,der var tilsendt Banken fra Ministeriet for Transport,Kommunikation og Vandforvaltning i Ungarn. Ombudsmandenskrev derfor til Banken og meddelte,at han ønskede at undersøge disse dokumenter.
After careful consideration of the information supplied by the Bank and the complainant,the Ombudsman found it necessary to inspect the documents submitted to the Bank by the Hungarian Ministry of Transport,Communication and Water Management.
1.1Eftersom Den Europæiske Investeringsbank i forbindelse med undersøgelsen førstbestred Ombudsmandens mandat til at undersøge påstande,der drejer sig om skønsmæssige beslutninger,finder Ombudsmanden det nødvendigt at fremsætte følgende indledendebemærkninger.
1.1In the light of the fact that during the inquiry the European Investment Bank at firstcontested the Ombudsman’s mandate to conduct inquiries into allegations relating todiscretionary decision,the Ombudsman finds it necessary to make the following preliminary remarks.
1.2I henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 195 skal Ombudsmanden foretage undersøgelserenten på eget initiativ eller på grundlag af de klager,der forelægges ham,af fejl ellerforsømmelser i forbindelse med handlinger foretaget af Fællesskabets institutioner ellerorganer,med undtagelse af Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans under udøvelsen af deresdomstolsfunktioner.
1.2According to Article 195 of the EC-Treaty,the Ombudsman conducts inquiries,eitheron his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him,concerning instancesof maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies,with theexception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicialrole.
Der er i EF-traktatens artikel 195 ikke angivet andre undtagelser,enddem,der drejer sig om Fællesskabets domstole under udøvelse af deres domstolsfunktioner.
Article 195 of the EC-Treaty does not provide for any exceptions other than thoserelating to the Community courts acting in their judicial role.
Der angives heller ikke nogen undtagelser for Banken.
Specifically,it does notprovide for any exception relating to the Bank.
1.3Ombudsmandens årsberetning for 199716indeholdt følgende definition af fejl ellerforsømmelser:Der foreligger fejl eller forsømmelser,når en offentlig myndighed ikkehandler i overensstemmelse med en bindende regel eller et bindende princip.
1.3The Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 199716contained the following definition ofmaladministration:Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand – Årsberetning 1997,afsnit 2.2.1,EFT C 380 af 7.12.1998,s.14.
The European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997,Section 2.2.1,OJ 1998 C 380/14.
1.5Ombudsmanden bemærkede også i sin årsberetning for 1997,at der er grænser for,hvad der skal betragtes som forsømmelser eller fejl.
1.5The Ombudsman also noted in his Annual Report for 1997 that there are limits towhat could be considered as maladministration.
Ved udførelsen af de administrativeopgaver,som de har fået pålagt ved EF-traktaten,kan de forskellige fællesskabsinstitutioner og -organer have beføjelse til at vælge mellem to eller flere mulige fremgangsmåder.Ombudsmanden stiller ikke spørgsmålstegn ved skønsmæssige forvaltningsspørgsmål,forudsat at den pågældende institution eller det pågældende organ har holdt sig inden forrammerne af sine retlige beføjelser.
When carrying out the administrativetasks conferred on it by the EC Treaty,a Community institution or body may have the legalauthority to choose between two or more possible courses of action. The Ombudsman doesnot seek to question such discretionary administrative decisions,provided that the bodyconcerned has acted within the limits of its legal authority.
Således betyder skønsmæssige beføjelser ikke absolutte beføjelser.
Discretionary powers do thusnot mean absolute powers.
Den generelle afgrænsning af disse beføjelser foretages i Domstolens rets-praksis,der eksempelvis kræver,at forvaltningen handler konsekvent og i god tro,undgårforskelsbehandling,overholder proportionalitetsprincippet,lighedsprincippet og princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning og respekterer menneskerettighederne og de grundlæggende friheder18.
General limits to the discretionary powers are established bythe jurisprudence of the Community Courts which requires,for example,that administrative authorities should act consistently and in good faith,avoid discrimination,complywith the principles of proportionality,equality and legitimate expectations and respecthuman rights and fundamental freedoms18.
Bankens finansiering af den nordlige del af M0-motorvejen i Ungarn
The Bank’s financing of the northern part of the M0 motorway in Hungary
2.1Klageren gjorde gældende,at Den Europæiske Investeringsbanks finansiering af dennordlige del af M0-ringvejen rundt om Budapest både var i strid med den ungarske forfatning og andre ungarske love samt Rådets direktiv 85/337/EØF.
2.1The complainant alleged that the European Investment Bank’s financing of thenorthern part of the M0 orbital motorway around Budapest violated both the Hungarian Constitution and other Hungarian laws,as well as Council Directive 85/337/EEC.