natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde klageren følgende gældende:
In his complaint to the Ombudsman the complainant claimed that:
(i) Kommissionen burde have givet ham besked om, at derville blive truffet beslutning om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen, og opfordret ham til af fremsætte bemærkningerinden for en rimelig frist, i overensstemmelse med det tilsagn, den havde givet Den Europæiske Ombudsmand i forbindelse med hans undersøgelse på eget initiativ vedrørende overtrædelsesprocedurer,
(i) the Commission should have warned him that the decision to close the file was foreseen and invited observationswithin a reasonable period, in accordance with the undertaking which it had given to the European Ombudsman inhis owninitiative inquiry into the infringement procedure;
Formålet med Ombudsmandens undersøgelser afklagen var derfor at undersøge, om der var sket fejl eller forsømmelser iforbindelse med handlinger foretaget af Europa-Kommissionen.
DECISIONS fore directed towards examining whether there was maladministration inthe activities of the European Commission.
Ved skrivelse af 23. april1997 anmodede Kommissionen de græske myndigheder om nærmereoplysninger om sagen. De græske myndigheder svarede den 6. juni 1997,og sagen blev behandlet på et bilateralt møde mellem Kommissionen ogde græske myndigheder i Athen i slutningen af juni 1997.
In summary, the Commission’s opinion was as follows.The Commissionservices carefully examined the complaint which was submitted on behalfof the consortium Casino d’Athènes.By letter dated 23 April 1997, the Commission asked the Greek authorities for an explanation of the matter.The Greek authorities replied on 6 June 1997 and the matter was discussed at a bilateral meeting between the Commission and the Greekauthorities, which was held in Athens at the end of June 1997.
Med hensyn til klagerens første påstand var det i udtalelsen anført, at Kommissionen nu havde truffet alle de nødvendige interne foranstaltningerfor at underrette sine tjenestegrene om det tilsagn, den havde givet Ombudsmanden i forbindelse med hans undersøgelse af overtrædelsesprocedurer. På det tidspunkt, hvor beslutningen om at afslutte behandlingen af denne sag blev truffet, havde Kommissionen imidlertid endnu ikkegennemført de interne foranstaltninger for at sikre den konkrete gennemførelse af sit tilsagn.
As regards the complainant’s first claim, the opinion stated that the Commission has now taken all the necessary internal measures to informits services of the undertaking which it gave to the Ombudsman in theframework of his inquiry into infringement procedures.However, at the timewhen the decision to close the file in this case was taken, the Commissionhad not yet put in place the internal measures to give effect to its undertaking.
Kommissionens udtalelse blev videresendt til klageren med en opfordringtil at fremsætte bemærkninger, men der blev ikke modtaget nogenbemærkninger.
The Commission’s opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations, but no observations were received.
Efter omhyggeligt at have undersøgt Kommissionens udtalelse anmodede Ombudsmanden om en kopi af Kommissionens skrivelse af 11. november1997 til klageren. Kommissionen fremsendte skrivelsen i januar 1999.
In December 1998, after carefully examining the Commission’s opinion, the Ombudsman requested a copy of the Commission’s letter to the complainant dated 11 November 1997.The Commission forwarded the letter in January 1999.
Den 1. marts 1999 underrettede Ombudsmanden Kommissionen om, athan havde afsluttet sine undersøgelser af det første aspekt af klagen.
On 1 March 1999, the Ombudsman informed the Commission that he hadcompleted his inquiries into the first aspect of the complaint.As regards the
Medhensyn til det andet aspekt af klagen erklærede Ombudsmanden, at detvar nødvendigt for hans tjenestegrene at gennemse de pågældende kommissionsdokumenter, i overensstemmelse med artikel 3, stk. 2, første led i Ombudsmandens statut32.
85 second aspect of the complaint, the Ombudsman stated that it was necessary for his services to inspect the relevant Commission file, in accordance with Article 3 (2) 1st indent32 of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
I et svar af 14. april 1999 fremsendte Kommissionen yderligere oplysningerom den procedure, som førte til, at behandlingen af klagen fra Casinod’Athènes blev afsluttet. Kommissionen anførte, at ifølge Kommissionensinterne overtrædelsesprocedurer skulle sagen behandles på Kommissionens møde den 15. oktober 1997.
In a reply dated 14 April 1999, the Commission gave further informationconcerning the procedure which led to the closure of its file on the Casinod’Athènes complaint.The Commission stated that under the Commission’sinternal infringement procedures, the case was due to be discussed at the Commission’s meeting of 15 October 1997.
“Som forberedelse til dette møde udarbejdede Kommissionens tjenestegrene (3. september 1997) dennødvendige “fiche infraction”, hvor de nævnte, at de afventede yderligere oplysninger, som klageren måtte ønske atafgive. Den 30. september havde tjenestegrenenes forslagværet det samme, men det var klart for dem, at der ikkeville komme yderligere elementer, da der var gået mere endto måneder, siden den pågældende anmodning var blevetfremsat.
“In preparation of that meeting, the Commission servicesprepared (3 September 1997) the requisite “fiche infraction”where they mentioned that they were waiting for furtherinformation the complainant might want to submit.By 30September the services’proposal had remained the same,but it was evident to them that no additional elements wereforthcoming since more than two months had elapsed sincethe relevant request was made.In view of these elements,when the case was discussed at the meeting of the headsof Cabinets of 9 October 1997, since it was clear that noinformation was to be expected any more from the complainant, the decision was therefore taken to propose to the Commission the closure of the file.The Commission actedon that proposal and closed the file on 15 October 1997.”
Da det således var klart, at der ikke længerekunne forventes oplysninger fra klageren, da sagen blevbehandlet på mødet mellem kabinetschefer den 9. oktober1997, traf man derfor beslutning om at foreslå Kommissionen, at sagsbehandlingen blev afsluttet.Kommissionen tog dette forslag til følge og afsluttede sagsbehandlingen den 15. oktober 1997.”
The Commission also enclosed, on a confidential basis, a copy of the standard form used for recording the progress of each Commission investigation into an alleged infringement (fiche infraction) and a timetable of events.The Commission stated that these were the only documents in the filewhich relate to the circumstances of its closure and that, for that reason,the Commission took the liberty of sending them to the Ombudsman ratherthan have his staff put to the trouble of inspecting them in situ.
Kommissionen vedlagde endvidere som fortroligt materiale en kopi af denstandardformular, der anvendes til registrering af forløbet af enhver undersøgelse, som Kommissionen foretager af en påstået overtrædelse (ficheinfraction) og en tidsplan over hændelsesforløbet. Kommissionen erklærede, at dette var de eneste dokumenter i sagsakten, som vedrørte omstændighederne omkring dens afslutning, og at Kommissionen derfor tillod
The Commission also stressed that in their letter to the complainant of 11November 1997, the Commission services informed him that new infringement proceedings could be initiated, provided he supplied the requisiteadditional facts and arguments, but that this invitation remains unanswered.
Fællesskabets institutioner og organer er forpligtet til at give ombudsmanden de oplysninger, hananmoder om, og give ham adgang til de pågældende dokumenter.
The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information he has requested of them and give him access to the files concerned.They may refuse onlyon duly substantiated grounds of secrecy.
Ombudsmanden gjorde endvidere Kommissionen opmærksom på, at han efter en omhyggelig behandling af de oplysninger og dokumenter, som Kommissionen havde fremsendt til ham den 14. april 1999, fandt det nødvendigt at indhentevidneforklaringer fra de embedsmænd i GD XV, som behandlede klagenfra Casino d’Athenès, i overensstemmelse med artikel 3, stk. 2, fjerde led,i Ombudsmandens statut.33
Casino D’Athenès complaint, in accordance with Article 3 (2) 4ththe Statute of the Ombudsman.33
Som svar opfordrede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden til at kontakte Kommissionens Generalsekretariat for at træffe de nødvendige aftaler medhenblik på inspektion af sagsdokumenter og indhentning af vidneforklaringog underrettede ham om, at de pågældende embedsmænd i GD XV var Alfonso Mattera, direktør, og Konstantinos Tomaras, administrator.
In reply, the Commission invited the Ombudsman to contact the General Secretariat of the Commission to make the necessary arrangements for theinspection of the file and for the taking of oral evidence and informed himthat the DG XV officials concerned are Mr Alfonso MATTERA, director and Mr Konstantinos TOMARAS, Administrator.
Efter en yderligere korrespondance vedrørende procedurerne i forbindelsemed indhentningen af vidneforklaring blev både inspektionen af sagsdokumenterne og indhentningen af vidneforklaring foretaget af Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene den 24. juni 1999.
After further correspondence concerning the procedures for the taking oforal evidence, both the inspection of the file and taking of oral evidencewere carried out by the Ombudsman’s services on 24 June 1999.
Vidneforklaringerne blev indhentet på grundlag af følgende procedure:
Oral evidence was taken using the following procedure:
Hvert vidne blev afhørt enkeltvis og uden ledsagelse.
Each witness was heard separately and was not accompanied.
Arbejdssproget blev aftalt mellem Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene og Kommissionens Generalsekretariat.
The language of the proceedings was agreed between the Ombudsman’s services and the Secretariat General of the Commission.
Efter anmodning fra vidnerneblev fransk benyttet som arbejdssprog.
At the request of the witnesses the proceedings wereconducted in French.
Hvert vidne fik forklaret proceduren, inden forklaringen blev aflagt.
The procedure was explained to each witness before the oral evidence was taken.
Spørgsmålene og svarene blev optaget og transskriberet af Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene.
The questions and answers were recorded and transcribed by the Ombudsman’s services.
Fællesskabets tjenestemænd og øvrige ansatte skal efter anmodning fra ombudsmanden aflæggevidneforklaring; de udtaler sig på vegne af og efter instrukser fra deres administrationer og harfortsattavshedspligt
Officials and other servants of Community institutions and bodies must testify at the request of the Ombudsman; they shall speak on behalf of and in accordance with instructions from their administrations and shall continue to be bound by their duty of professional secrecy.
Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene underrettede telefonisk klageren om, atder var foretaget inspektion af sagsdokumenterne og indhentet vidneforklaringer. Klageren oplyste, at hans klienter ikke længere var interesseredei sagen, og at han derfor ikke ønskede at kommentere vidneforklaringerne.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that at the time when it took thedecision to close the file in this case, it had not yet put in place theinternal measures to give effect to the abovementioned undertaking.However, it also stated that it has now taken all the necessary internalmeasures to inform its services of the undertaking.
Klageren indgav en klage til Kommissionen over, at de græske myndigheder havde overtrådt fællesskabsretten i Casino d’Athènessagen.
The Commission’s decision to close the file on the Casino d’Athènescase was contemporaneous with the letter of 13 October 1997 bywhich the European Ombudsman informed the Commission of theclosure of the abovementioned owninitiative inquiry.
Han gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde afsluttetbehandlingen af sagen i oktober 1997 uden at give ham lejlighed til atfremsætte bemærkninger, hvilket var i modstrid med det tilsagn, denhavde givet Den Europæiske Ombudsmand i forbindelse med hansundersøgelse på eget initiativ vedrørende overtrædelsesprocedurer.
The Ombudsman’s letter also informed the Commission of the importancewhich he attached to the undertaking it had given.The Commission’sexplanation of why it did not apply the undertaking in this case istherefore reasonable.Furthermore, it seems that the Commission hasnow taken all the necessary internal measures to give effect to theundertaking.There appears therefore to be no maladministration inrelation to this aspect of the case.
I april 1997 indledte Ombudsmanden en undersøgelse på eget initiativ af mulighederne for at forbedre kvaliteten af Kommissionenssagsbehandling af klager over medlemsstaters overtrædelse af fæl-lesskabsretten.34Som led i undersøgelsen påtog Kommissionen sigat underrette klageren, når den havde til hensigt af afslutte behandlingen af sagen, og om begrundelsen herfor, undtagen i tilfælde, hvorklagen tydeligvis savnede ethvert grundlag, eller hvor klageren ikkehavde ladet høre fra sig. Klagere bør derfor have mulighed for at kommentere og kritisere Kommissionens standpunkt, inden beslutningenom at afslutte behandlingen af sagen træffes.
The complainant claimed that the decision to close the file on hiscomplaint about an alleged infringement of Community law by the Greek authorities was made on the basis of a meeting of the heads ofthe Commissioners’Cabinets, whilst the case was still being dealt withby the competent service, DG XV.
I sin udtalelse oplyste Kommissionen, at den på det tidspunkt, hvorden traf beslutningen om at afslutte behandlingen af denne sag,endnu ikke havde gennemført de interne foranstaltninger for at sikreden konkrete gennemførelse af det nævnte tilsagn. Den erklærededog også, at den nu har truffet alle nødvendige interne foranstaltninger for at underrette sine tjenestegrene om tilsagnet.
Article 211 of the EC Treaty establishes the role of the Commission asthe “Guardian of the Treaty”.Its duty is to ensure that the provisions ofthe Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant theretoare applied.
I Ombudsmandens skrivelse blev Kommissionen også gjortopmærksom på, hvilken betydning Ombudsmanden tillagde det tilsagn, den havde givet.
According to the written evidence supplied by the Commission, thecase of Casino d’Athènes was due to be examined by the
Klageren gjorde gældende, at beslutningen om at afslutte behandlingen af hans klage over en påstået overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten fra de græske myndigheders side blev truffet på grundlag af etmøde mellem kommissærernes kabinetschefer, mens sagen stadigblev behandlet af den ansvarlige tjenestegren, GD XV.
The explanation and documents supplied by the Commissionappeared not to exclude the possibility that the proposal to close thefile had been made by the heads of Cabinets without giving the competent service enough time to complete an adequate investigation ofthe complaint.The Ombudsman therefore inspected the Commission’s file on the complaint and took oral evidence both fromthe director of the unit in DG XV which dealt with the case, Mr MAT-TERA, and the official who dealt with the file, Mr TOMARAS.
I henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 211 er det Kommissionens pligt som“traktatens vogter” at drage omsorg for gennemførelsen af de i traktaten indeholdte bestemmelser og af de bestemmelser, som medhjemmel heri træffes af institutionerne.
The inspection of the file revealed no documents containing the reasons why the heads of Cabinet had apparently proposed to close thefile on the complaint although the competent service had proposedthat it should remain open.
Ombudsmanden foretogderfor inspektion af Kommissionens dokumenter i forbindelse medklagen og indhentede vidneforklaringer fra såvel direktøren for detkontor i GD XV, som sagen henhørte under, Mattera, og den embedsmand, som behandlede sagsdokumenterne, Tomaras.
In view of the above findings of fact, there appeared to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
Inspektionen af sagsdokumenterne viste ingen dokumenter, somangav årsagerne til, at kabinetscheferne øjensynlig havde stillet forslag om at afslutte behandlingen af klagen, selv om den ansvarligetjenestegren havde anmodet om, at den blev holdt åben.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
THERMIE-STØTTE TILET VINDMØLLEPARKPROJEKT: PÅSTAND OM MANGLENDE UNDERSØGELSE AF PROJEKTET
THERMIE GRANT TO A WINDFARM PROJECT:ALLEGED FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE PROJECT
Afgørelse om de forenede klager 1152/97/OV, 142/98/OV og 149/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on joined complaints 1152/97/OV, 142/98/OV and 149/98/OV against the European Commission
Ifølge klagerne var de relevante faktiske omstændigheder følgende:Ansøgerne til Thermie-støtten var National Power plc., Nordtank Energy Group og Dr. H. Den 13. august 1991 godkendte Kommissionen forslagetog meddelte ansøgerne, at de havde fået tildelt støtte på ca. 1,3 mio. GBP.
According to the complainants, the relevant facts were as follows:Theapplicants for the Thermie grant were National Power plc., Nordtank Energy Group, and Dr.H.On 13 August 1991, the Commission acceptedthe proposal and notified the award of a grant of approximate GBP 1.3 million to the applicants.
Klagernes hovedpåstand vedrørte den omstændighed, at vindmølleparkprojektet i Mynydd Gorddu blev beskrevet som et “innovativt, landbrugerstyret og lokalt orienteret” projekt, hvilket var grunden til, at det opfyldtebetingelser for at modtage støtte som led i Thermie-programmet, men blev
The main allegation of the complainants concerned the fact that the Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project was promoted as an “innovative, farmerled and locally orientated”scheme, the reason why it qualified for a grantunder the Thermie Programme, but in fact was led by multinational commercial interests.The company Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Ltd was set upin June 1991 by the already existing National Power plc.and National Wind Power Ltd, in order to run the project as a commercial enterprise.Two ofthe directors were each directors of some 50 other windfarm companies,which would not appear to correspond to the “innovative”description of theproject.For those reasons, the project had, contrary to its presentation, nolink with the local community, which would not receive any benefit from it.
AFGØRELSER i realiteten styret af multinationale kommercielle interesser. Selskabet Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Ltd blev oprettet i juni 1991 af de allerede eksisterende selskaber National Power plc. og National Wind Power Ltd ogskulle stå for projektet som en kommerciel virksomhed.
DECISIONS cants without any attempt, before awarding the grant, to make an on thespot investigation or to verify thoroughly the information contained in theproposal.
Klagerne gjordeendvidere gældende, at Ceredigion County Council begik en alvorlig fejlved at give tilladelsen uden at kræve en miljøredegørelse.
Furthermore, all the complainants in the present case, aswell as other residents, wrote letters to Directorate F (Unit for coordinationof fraud prevention - UCLAF) of the Secretariat General of the Commissionand to DG XVII (Energy) in November and December 1997.
Under disse omstændigheder gjorde klagerne gældende, at Europa-Kommissionen syntes at have været alt for hurtig til at godkendeansøgernes projekt, uden at den inden støttens tildeling havde gjort nogetforsøg på at foretage en undersøgelse på stedet eller foretage en grundigkontrol af de oplysninger, der var indeholdt i forslaget.
In its answer to the complainants, the Commission stated that the UKauthorities had informed the Commission that, although the developer ofthe windfarm was not required to submit an environmental statement, thelocal planning authority had consulted widely about the proposal.More particularly, in reaching the decision to grant development consent, it hadtaken the views of consultees, the public and the consultant landscapearchitect into account.The Commission also indicated that, since the introduction of new UK legislation in April 1994, competent authorities mayrequire wind farm proposals to be subject to an environmental impactassessment prior to the granting of development consent.The Commissionhowever added that under the terms of Directive 85/337/EEC35, wind farmsmight require an environmental impact assessment where Member Statesconsider that their characteristics so require.The Commission thereforestated that Member States have a great margin of discretion to decidewhether projects shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment.For those reasons, the Commission considered that there was no breachof Community environmental law in this case.
I 1996 blev der indgivet en lang række klager til Europa-Kommissionenvedrørende manglende miljøindvirkningsvurdering, hvoraf én var underskrevet af M., F. og af andre borgere. Siden maj 1996 er der ligeledes indgivet en lang række andragender til Europa-Parlamentet af professor T. (nr.71/96), M. (nr. 155/96) og F. (nr. 160/96).
This answer equally constituted the Commission’s common position onpetitions n°71/96, 155/96 and 160/96, on the basis of which the Committeeon Petitions concluded its examination of the petitions in January 1998.
Endvidere skrev alle klagere idenne sag samt andre borgere i november og december 1997 til Direktorat F (taskforce for koordinering af bedrageribekæmpelse - UCLAF) under Kommissionens Generalsekretariat og til GD XVII (energi).
Not satisfied with this answer, the complainants wrote to the Ombudsman.In addition to their complaint alleging the absence of an environmentalimpact assessment, which had been dealt with by the Committee on Petitions, they put forward two other complaints:
Rådets direktiv 85/337/EØF af 27. juni 1985 om vurdering af visse offentlige og private projektersindvirkning på miljøet, EFT1985 L175, s. 40.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain publicand private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175/40.
For det andet gjorde klagerne gældende, at mange af de breve, somde havde sendt til GD XVII og til Generalsekretariatets Direktorat F(UCLAF) ikke var blevet besvaret af Kommissionen. Klagernes klagervar vedlagt adskillige bilag, bl.a. dokumentet “Mynydd Gorddu: a Summary”, som i detaljer beskriver de nærmere omstændighederomkring vindmølleparkprojektets godkendelse.
Secondly, the complainants alleged that several letters they had sentto DG XVII and to Directorate F (UCLAF) of the Secretariat Generalhad not been answered by the Commission.The complainantsenclosed numerous annexes to their complaints, amongst which thepaper “Mynydd Gorddu:a Summary”, which describes in detail thewhole background of how the Windfarm Project got approved.
Projektet blev vurderet som et “formidlingsprojekt”, da det tog sigte på atoverføre en teknologi, der allerede havde været udnyttet i praksis underforskellige geografiske forhold.
The project was evaluated as a “dissemination project”since it concernedthe transfer of an already proven technology under different geographicalconditions.Although the proposal mentioned that locally based skills wouldbe used if possible, the project was not described as a farmer led andlocally oriented scheme.The selection process, in which two independentexperts and an expert of the Commission participated, examined whether,on the basis of the information submitted, the proposal met the eligibilitycriteria for support, including those directly related to the status of the promoting companies and their capacity (letters e and f of Article 6 of the Regulation).
Selv om det i projektet var anført, at der ommuligt ville blive anvendt lokale færdigheder, blev projektet ikke beskrevetsom et landbrugerstyret og lokalt orienteret projekt.
Following the favourable opinion of the Thermie Committee,the Commission took the decision to grant support to the project for a maximum amount of ECU 1.830.924.