natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I skrivelse af 11. marts 1997 blev klageren underrettet om beslutningen omat afslutte behandlingen af sagen samt om begrundelsen herfor.Kommissionen mente, at den gav klageren alle de begrundelser, der varrelevante for dens beslutning, bl.a. vedrørende de gældende retsakter ogde oplysninger, der var til rådighed for Kommissionen. Samtidig fulgte Kommissionen endvidere op på sagen med de græske myndigheder ved iskrivelse af 14. marts 1997 at udbede sig yderligere oplysninger om gennemførelsen af beskyttelsesforanstaltningerne og om oprettelsen af ennational marin naturpark i Laganasbugten.
On 21 July 1997, the Greek authorities communicated a Ministerial Decision to the Commission approving a specific environmental study for Laganas Bay and a draft Presidential Decree creating the National Marine Park of Zakynthos.Further information on the progress of adopting the Presidential Decree was forwarded to the Commission on 22 September1997.The Commission services studied the information provided by the Greek authorities and considered that the Presidential Decree positivelyaddressed the eco-system of the area as a whole.
Kommissionens tjenestegrenemodtog den 22. september 1997 yderligere oplysninger med hensyn tilpræsidentdekretets vedtagelse. Kommissionens tjenestegrene undersøgteoplysningerne fra de græske myndigheder og fandt, at præsidentdekretetklart tilgodeså økosystemet for området som helhed.
The complainant who was informed about these developments by the letterof 26 November 1997, was invited to provide the Commission with any relevant element showing a breach of Community environmental law, in whichcase the Commission would launch the Article 169 infringement procedure.
Klageren, der blev informeret om denne udvikling i en skrivelse af 26.november 1997, blev opfordret til at forelægge Kommissionen ethvert relevant element, der kunne vise en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, hvorefter Kommissionen i givet fald ville iværksætte en overtrædelsesprocedure i henhold til artikel 169.
Against this background the Commission rejected the three allegations bythe complainant.Firstly, as regards the allegation that the decision not totake legal action against the Greek authorities was unjustified and arbitrary,the Commission stated that it was diligent in dealing with the issue of turtleconservation and that it kept the file open until it was satisfied that substantial conservation measures were taken and that therefore there was nobreach of Community law.With regard to the second allegation, the Commission considered that during the two and a half year period betweenthe complaint registration and the decision not to start infringement proceedings, it had actively pursued the matter which was a complex and difficult nature conservation dossier, where precipitate action is inappropriate.Thirdly, as regards the alleged failure to reply by Commissioner Bjerregaard, the Commission pointed out that the Commissioner delegatedthis responsibility to her services which kept the complainant very wellinformed of the developments, in particular in the letter of 26 November1997 informing of the latest evolutions since the meeting with the Commissioner in June 1997.
På denne baggrund afviste Kommissionen nu klagerens tre påstande.
The complainant’s observations
Med hensyn til den tredje påstand om, at kommissær Bjerregaard ikke havde besvaret korrespondance, fremhævede Kommissionen, at kommissæren uddelegerede sine ansvarsområder til
In January 1998, further to the Commission’s letter of 26 November 1997asking the complainant to provide the Commission with new information
AFGØRELSER sine tjenestegrene, som på bedste måde havde holdt klageren informeretom sagens udvikling, især med skrivelse af 26. november 1997 om udviklingen efter mødet med kommissæren i juni 1997.
The complainant sent other information to the Commission on 29 June, 10and 14 July 1998, drawing the Commission’s attention to the complete lackof progress in the situation in Zakynthos and to the expiry of the 25 March1998 deadline for the establishment of the National Marine Park as agreedbetween the Greek government, the Bern Convention Standing Committeeand the EU.The Commission (DG XI - D/2) carried out an on the spotinvestigation in July 1998, but according to the complainant the localauthorities had taken measures in order to present a false and positive situation, which was contradicted by photographic evidence presented by thecomplainant to the Commission.On 6 October 1998 the complainant sentto the Ombudsman a copy of its latest report presented to the 18th meetingof the Bern Convention Standing Committee.
Klagerens bemærkninger
FURTHER INQUIRIES
I januar 1998, efter Kommissionens skrivelse af 26. november 1997, hvoriklageren opfordredes til at forelægge nye oplysninger om en eventuel overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, sendte klageren Kommissionen en kopi afsin rapport til mødet i det stående udvalg om Bern-konventionen(Europarådet, december 1997). Klageren bemærkede, at situationen forhavskildpadderne på Zakynthos ikke havde ændret sig de sidste tre år, idetde ulovlige bygninger stadig befandt sig på stedet, de illegale værtshusestadig var åbne, og den nationale marine naturpark kun eksisterede påpapiret.
In order to know which followup the Commission had reserved to the newinformation sent by the complainant and to the on the spot investigationcarried out in July 1998, the Ombudsman’s office contacted the responsibleunit of the Commission (DG XI - D/2).The Commission informed the Ombudsman’s office that, further to the on the spot investigation of July1998, it decided in October 1998 to open ex officio a new infringement procedure against the Greek authorities, which was communicated in a pressrelease.The Commission informed the complainant of the new infringement procedure in December 1998 at the 18th meeting of the Bern Convention Standing Committee in Strasbourg.
Den 6. oktober 1998 sendte klageren Ombudsmanden en kopi af sin seneste rapport, fremlagt på det 18. mødei det stående udvalg om Bern-konventionen.
The allegation that the decision to close the file on the complaintwas unjustified and arbitrary
For at få at vide, hvilke opfølgende aktiviteter Kommissionen havde planlagt i forbindelse med de nye oplysninger, klageren havde indsendt, ogefter undersøgelsen på stedet i juli 1998 kontaktede Ombudsmandenskontor det ansvarlige kontor i Kommissionen (GD XI - D/2). Kommissionenmeddelte Ombudsmandens kontor, at den efter sin undersøgelse på stedeti juli 1998 i oktober 1998 ex officio besluttede at indlede en ny traktatbrudsprocedure mod de græske myndigheder, hvilket blev meddelt i en pressemeddelelse.
The complainant alleged that the Commission’s decision to close thefile on the complaint, and not to take legal action against the Greekauthorities, was unjustified and arbitrary.This aspect of the complaintthus alleged maladministration in the administrative procedure fordealing with a complaint for infringement of Community law by a
Når Kommissionen træffer en beslutning om at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure eller afslutte behandlingen af en sag, har den pligt tilbehørigt at begrunde sin beslutning og meddele klageren dennebegrundelse. Hvorvidt der foreligger en sådan begrundelse, kansåledes kontrolleres af Ombudsmanden.
Member State (Article 169 procedure).When the Commission takes adecision to open an infringement procedure or to close the file, it hasthe duty to state the reasons for this decision and to communicatethose reasons to the complainant.This obligation to give reasons fora decision can also be subject of supervision by the Ombudsman.
Ombudsmandens behandling af denne del af klagen omfattede derfor en undersøgelse af, om Kommissionen behørigt havde begrundet sin beslutning om atafslutte klagesagen.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry into this part of the complaint therefore examined whether the Commission duly gave reasons for its decision toclose the file on the complaint.
I skrivelse af 11. marts 1997 blev klageren underrettet af ledelsen af GD XI’s juridiske afdeling, direktorat B, om beslutningen om at afsluttebehandlingen af sagen.
The complainant was informed about the decision to close the file bythe letter of the Head of the Legal Affairs Unit of DG XI - Directorate B, dated 11 March 1997.The Ombudsman noted that, in this detailedletter of two pages, the Commission first informed the complainantthat it took into consideration the new commitments undertaken by the Greek authorities at the meeting in Athens in May 1996.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen i denne detaljerede skrivelse på to sider først meddelte klageren, at den havde taget hensyn til de nye forpligtelser, degræske myndigheder havde påtaget sig på mødet i Athen i maj 1996.Kommissionen evaluerede derefter de oplysninger, klageren havdesendt i en skrivelse til kommissær Bjerregaard den 17. februar 1997,samt andet materiale der stod til rådighed for Kommissionens tjenestegrene.
The Commission further evaluated the information provided by the complainant in a letter to Commissioner Bjerregaard dated 17 February1997, as well as other information available to the Commission’s services.
Kommissionen besluttede, at disse elementer ikke viste tegn på enovertrædelse af fællesskabsretten. Kommissionen tog især hensyn til,at de græske myndigheder havde taget en række konkrete skridt forat beskytte havskildpaddernes yngle- og redeområder ved Zakynthos.Kommissionens skrivelse indeholdt en beskrivelse af disse foranstaltninger.
The Commission decided that those elements did not disclose abreach of Community law.In particular, the Commission took accountof the fact that the Greek authorities had taken a range of concretemeasures to protect the breeding and nesting places of the sea turtlein Zakynthos.The letter contained a description of those measures.
Med hensyn til anlæggelsen af en marin naturpark henviste Kommissionen til, at de græske myndigheder havde forpligtet sig til atgøre arbejdet færdigt inden den 25. marts 1998. Kommissionen erklærede endvidere, at den kun kunne overvåge, at de græske myndigheder overholdt kravene i direktiv 92/43, men at den ikke kunne gribeind og gennemføre foranstaltninger, som hører under national kompetence.
As regards the construction of the Marine Park, the Commissionreferred to the obligation which the Greek authorities undertook tofinish the works before 25 March 1998.The Commission furtherstated that it can only supervise that the Greek authorities comply withthe obligations of Directive 92/43, but that it can not intervene in theform of the implementing measures which is a matter of national competence.
Kommissionen meddelte endelig klageren, at GD XI ville følge gennemførelsen af foranstaltningerne, og at den ville indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure, hvis der ikke skete fremskridt. Endelig påtog Kommissionen sig at holde klageren informeret om resultatet afsagen.
The Commission finally informed the complainant that DG XI wouldbe following the progress in the implementation of the measures and,in case no progress was made, initiate infringement proceedings.Theletter concluded by stating that the complainant would be keptinformed about the outcome of the case.
AFGØRELSER den i detaljeret form havde meddelt klageren denne begrundelse.Endvidere besluttede Kommissionen ex officio at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure mod de græske myndigheder efter sin undersøgelsepå stedet. Kommissionen informerede klageren om denne beslutningi december 1998.
It appeared from the above that the Commission had duly given reasons for its decision to close the file and had informed the complainantin a detailed manner of those reasons.Moreover, the Commissiondecided to open ex officio an infringement procedure against the Greek authorities after the on the spot investigation.The Commissioninformed the complainant in December 1998 of this decision.
Kommissionen havde således handlet inden forrammerne af sine beføjelser, og det fremgik hermed, at der ikke forelåfejl eller forsømmelser.
The Commission had thus acted within the limits of its legal authority andthere appeared to have been no maladministration.
Påstanden om tidsperioden mellem klagens registrering ogbeslutningen om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen
The alleged excessive time period between registration of thecomplaint and the decision to close the file
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at tidsperioden fra registrering afklagen til beslutningen om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen var for lang,bemærkede Kommissionen, at det helt klart fremgik af de detaljeredeoplysninger, den havde fremlagt, at den i denne tidsperiode aktivthavde arbejdet med sagen.
Commission observed that it was evident from the details it furnishedthat during this time it had actively pursued the matter.
Kommissionen gjorde også opmærksompå, at en for tidlig indgriben i komplekse og vanskelige sager omnaturbevaring ofte er uhensigtsmæssig.
The Commission also drew the attention to the fact that, in complex anddifficult nature conservation cases, precipitate action is often inappropriate.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen med hensyn til detteaspekt af en artikel 169-procedure i sine kommentarer i forbindelsemed Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PDbemærkede, at en beslutning om at afslutte en sag uden yderligereforanstaltninger eller en beslutning om at indlede en officiel traktatbrudsprocedure ifølge Kommissionens egne interne bestemmelserskulle træffes i hver enkelt klagesag inden et år efter registreringsdatoen, undtagen i særlige tilfælde, som Kommissionen skulle redegørefor31. Forsinkelser i behandlingen af klager skyldes ofte, at drøftelserog kontakter med de nationale myndigheder er meget tidskrævende.
The Ombudsman noted that, as regards this aspect of the Article 169procedure, the Commission has, in its comments in the framework ofthe Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD, observed that,under its internal rules of procedure, a decision to close a file withouttaking any action or a decision to initiate official infringement proceedings must be taken on every complaint within a maximum periodof one year from the date it was registered, except in special cases,the reasons for which must be stated31.Those reasons may relate tothe considerable time taken for discussions and exchanges withnational authorities.
I den foreliggende sag, hvor beslutningen om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen blev truffet efter en periode på næsten tre år, fremgik det, at Kommissionen havde givet tilstrækkelig begrundelse for denne langeperiode. Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at der ganske rigtigt var taleom en kompleks og vanskelig klagesag om bevarelse af naturen.
In the present case, where the decision to close the file was takenafter a period of nearly 3 years, it appeared that the Commission hadprovided sufficient justification for this long period.The Ombudsmanobserved that the complaint was indeed a complex and difficult caseabout nature conservation.It appeared from both the information provided by the complainant and the details contained in the Commission’s observations that, between July 1994 and March 1997,the Commission had actively been inquiring into this complaint, andinvolved also the complainant in its inquiry.In particular, the Ombudsman noted that, after having registered the complaint andhaving gathered the relevant information, including from the Councilof Europe, the Commission wrote in August 1994 to the Greek authorities, which answered in November 1994.Dissatisfied with theresponse from the Greek authorities, the Commission wrote again in June 1995 and December 1995 with a request for information on themeasures taken.In November and December 1995 correspondencewas exchanged between Commissioner Bjerregaard and the complainant who remained also in close contact with DG XI.In February1996 the Greek authorities informed the Commission about the measures already implemented and additional measures to be taken.
Detfremgik af såvel oplysninger fra klageren som detaljer indeholdt i Kommissionens bemærkninger, at sidstnævnte mellem juli 1994 ogmarts 1997 aktivt havde arbejdet med denne klage og også involveretklageren i sine undersøgelser.
In April 1996 the Commission informed the complainant, in a three pageletter, of those measures and requested comments.In June 1996 thecomplainant presented observations to the Commission.
Især bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen efter at have registreret klagen og indsamlet de relevante oplysninger, herunder fra Europarådet, i august 1994 skrev tilde græske myndigheder, som svarede i november 1994.Kommissionen, der var utilfreds med svaret fra de græske myndigheder, skrev igen i juni 1995 og i december 1995 og bad om at fåoplysninger om de tiltag, der var iværksat.
After the complainant’s reply and discussions during the meeting in Athens in May 1996, the Commission finally decided to close the caseand informed the complainant of its decision in March 1997.
I november og december1995 blev der udvekslet korrespondance mellem kommissær Bjerregaard og klageren, som også bevarede en tæt kontakt til GD XI.I februar 1996 informerede de græske myndigheder Kommissionenom de foranstaltninger, der allerede var gennemført og de, der yderligere ville blive taget. I april 1996 underrettede Kommissionen kla-
It appeared thus from the above that, given the many exchanges ofinformation which took place between the Commission, the Greekauthorities and the complainant, the long period between the registration of the complaint and the decision to close the file could not beconsidered as an instance of maladministration.
303/97/PD, beskrevet i Den Europæiske Ombudsmands Årsberetning for 1997,s. 272
303/97/PD, reported in the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997, p 272.
Efter klagerens svar og drøftelserne på mødet i Athen i maj 1996besluttede Kommissionen endeligt at afslutte sagsbehandlingen, ogden meddelte klageren sin beslutning i marts 1997.
The alleged failure to reply by Commissioner Bjerregaard
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at kommissær Bjerregaard ikke skriftligt besvarede de spørgsmål, hun havde fået stillet under sit besøg i Athen i juni 1997, bemærkede Kommissionen, at kommissærenuddelegerede dette ansvarsområde til sine tjenestegrene, som påbedste måde havde holdt klageren informeret om sagens udvikling,især via skrivelse af 26. november 1997.
As regards the allegation of the complainant that Commissioner Bjerregaard did not reply in writing to questions which were put to herduring her visit in Athens in June 1997, the Commission observed thatthe Commissioner delegated this responsibility to her services whichkept the complainant very well informed of the developments, in particular by the letter of 26 November 1997.
I november 1997 klagede L. til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionenhavde nægtet at udlevere kopier af otte udvalgte forslag, der var blevet indgivet i forbindelse med Save II-programmet.
In November 1997, Mr L.complained to the Ombudsman against the Commission’s refusal to provide him with copies of eight successful proposals which had been submitted in connection to the SAVE II Programme.
Baggrunden for klagen var følgende: I 1997 offentliggjorde Kommissionenen indkaldelse af forslag med henblik på at fremme energieffektiviteten iDet Europæiske Fællesskab som led i EU’s energispareprogram, “Save II”.
The background to the complaint was the following:In 1997 the Commission published a call for proposals for the promotion of energy efficiency in the European Community under a Community energy saving programme, “SAVE II”.The complainant submitted a proposal which was notselected by the Commission.When informed that his project had not beenselected, he wrote to the Commission requesting copies of eight successfulproposals submitted under the procedure.The complainant’s letter to the Commission indicated that he wished to assess whether the successfulproposals were as cost-effective as his own project or more so.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionen uberettiget havde nægtet ham aktindsigt i otte udvalgte forslag, og at den havde spildt offentlige midler ved at udvælge unødigt dyreprojekter.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that the Commission had wrongly refused him access to the eight successful proposals, and had wasted public money by selecting unduly expensive projects.
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse gentog Kommissionen, at den var forpligtet til at handle i overensstemmelse medbestemmelserne i indkaldelsen af forslag om, at alle udbudsforslag skulleforblive fortrolige.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion, the Commission repeated its view that it was bound to act in accordance withits undertaking in the call for Proposals to keep all tender proposals confidential.
Klagerens bemærkninger Klageren fastholdt sin klage.
The complainant’s observations The complainant maintained his complaint.
Der synes ikke at være bevis for klagerens anden påstand om spildaf offentlige midler. Ombudsmanden fandt det derfor ikke nødvendigtat undersøge denne påstand yderligere.
As concerns the complainant’s second allegation about waste ofpublic money, there appeared to be no elements in support for thisallegation.The Ombudsman therefore found that any further inquiryinto the allegation was not justified.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, og Ombudsmanden afsluttedederfor behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
DEN GRÆSKE REGERINGS ANNULLERING AF ET UDBUD (EF-TRAKTATENS ARTIKEL226)
CANCELLATION OF A TENDER BY THE GREEK GOVERNMENT (ARTICLE 226 EC)
Afgørelse om klage 1140/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1140/97/IJH against the European Commission
I november 1997 indgav en advokat på vegne af en klient, konsortiet Casino d’Athènes, en klage til Ombudsmanden. Ifølge klageren var der taleom følgende faktiske omstændigheder:
The complaint was made to the Ombudsman in November 1997.The complainant is a lawyer acting on behalf of a client, the consortium Casinod’Athènes.According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
Efter et internationalt udbud meddelte den græske regering den 13. januar1995 konsortiet Casino d’Athènes en tilladelse til at drive kasino. Over etår senere annullerede den græske regering tilladelsen.
The consortium Casino d’Athènes was awarded a casino licence by the Greek government on 13 January 1995, following an international call fortenders.More than a year later, the Greek government cancelled thelicence.
Den 20. december 1996 indgav klageren på vegne af sine klient klage til Kommissionen, idet han gjorde gældende, at den græske regering havdeovertrådt Fællesskabets direktiver om offentlige kontrakter. Den 24. februar1997 informerede kommissær Monti klageren om, at sagen ville blivebehandlet af GD XV/B/3.
On 20 December 1996, the complainant made a complaint to the Commission on behalf of his client claiming that the Greek government hadinfringed the Community Directives on Public Procurement.On 24February 1997, Commissioner MONTI informed the complainant that thematter would be dealt with by DG XV/B/3.
Den 20. juni og 17. juli 1997 havde klageren møde med direktøren for GDXV/B, Mattera, og forelagde på sidstnævnte dato supplerende materialevedrørende klagen. Det blev aftalt, at GD XV ville videreføre undersøgelsen af sagen.
On 20 June and 17 July 1997, the complainant had interviews with the Director of DG XV/B, Mr MATTERA, and on the latter date, handed overadditional material concerning the complaint.It was agreed that DG XVwould continue to investigate the case.
I ugen 13.-18. oktober 1997 læste klagerens klienter i den græske presse,at behandlingen af deres sag var blevet afsluttet af Kommissionen.Klageren erfarede senere, at Kommissionen havde afsluttet behandlingenaf sagen på et møde den 15. oktober 1997.
During the week 13-18 October 1997, the complainant’s clients read in the Greek press that their case had been closed by the Commission.The complainant subsequently learnt that the Commission had closed the case at ameeting on 15 October 1997.