natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
94/90/EKSF, EF, Euratom: Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter, EFTL46 af 18.2.1994, s. 58-61.
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom:Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents, OJ L 046, 18.02.94 p.0058-0061.
På baggrund af Kommissionens afslag bad klagerne Ombudsmanden indlede en undersøgelse af sagen med henblik på at fastslå, om der var taleom et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
In view of the refusal of the Commission, the complainants asked the Ombudsman to start an inquiry into the matter and to investigate whetheran instance of maladministration had taken place.
Klagerne anmodede om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter vedrørende beregningen for obligatorisk destillation af bordvin for produktionsåret 1993-94. Disse dokumenter havde været den faktiske støtte ogreference for Kommissionen til gennemførelse af forordning 343/94 af 15.februar 1994 om iværksættelse af obligatorisk destillation for producenteraf bordvin for produktionsåret 1993-9466.
The complainants requested access to Commission documents concerning the calculations for compulsory distillation of table wine in respectof the 1993/94 wine year.These materials had served as the factual support and reference for the Commission to enact Regulation n°343/94 of 15February 1994 opening compulsory distillation by producers of table winein respect of the 1993/94 wine year66.
Kommissionen anførte endvidere, at klagerne burde have sendt deresbegæring om fremlæggelse af dokumenterne direkte til Domstolen. Afsigerdenne institution kendelse om offentliggørelse af dokumenterne, kan Kommissionen ikke afslå at give aktindsigt i dem, medmindre der er taleom ”tvingende hensyn”.
Furthermore, the Commission stated that the complainants should haveaddressed their request for the disclosure of the documents directly to the Court of Justice.Should this institution order the release of the documents,the Commission could not have denied access to them except in the caseof particularly serious “higher reasons”.
Den henviste til, at en tilsvarende sag var under behandling i Retten i Første Instans (Sag T-124/96 Interporc Im- und Export Gmbh mod Kommissionen)67.
It referred to the fact that a case bearing on very similar matters waspending in the Court of First Instance (Case T-124/96 Interporc Im- und Export Gmbh v.Commission)67.
Kommissionens forordning (EF) 343/94 af 15. februar 1994 om iværksættelse af obligatorisk destillation som omhandlet i artikel 39 i Rådets forordning (EØF) 822/87 og om undtagelse fra vissebestemmelser om destillationens gennemførelse for produktionsåret 1993-94, EFTL44 af17.2.1994, s. 9.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory distillation asprovided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94wine year from certain detailed rules for the application thereof.OJ L 044 , 17.02.1994 p.9.
Klagerne gjorde endvidere gældende, at hvis Kommissionen afviser at giveaktindsigt i dokumenter under henvisning til en undtagelse i afgørelse94/90, skal den ifølge Fællesskabets retspraksis for hvert enkelt dokumentangive hensynene og dermed begrunde afslaget68.
Moreover, the complainants argued that, on the basis of existing Community caselaw, when the Commission denies access to documentsusing an exception of Decision 94/90, it has to specify the reasons for eachof the requested documents, and thus motivate the refusal68.
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen derimod i denne sag simpelthen havde afvist at give aktindsigt ud fra beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser uden at angive nøjagtige hensyn og uden at foretage en afvejningmellem dens ret til at forsvare og borgernes ret til at få aktindsigt.
The complainants alleged that in this case, by contrast, the Commissionhad simply denied access on the basis of the protection of public interest,without giving accurate reasons and without striking a balance between itsright of defence and the rights of citizens to have access to documents.
Afslag på at give aktindsigt i dokumenter vedrørende retsligeprocedurer
Refusal of access to documents connected to court proceedings
Der blev givet afslag på aktindsigt i Kommissionens arbejdsdokumenter om beregning af den obligatoriske destillation af vin for produktionsåret 1993-94 ud fra hensynet til beskyttelse af offentlige interesser som fastsat i første led i undtagelserne i Kommissionensafgørelse 94/90 om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter.
Access to the Commission’s working documents assessing the compulsory distillation of wine for the year 1993/94 was refused on thebasis of the need to protect public interest, as provided for in the firstindent of exceptions of Commission Decision 94/90 on public accessto Commission documents.
Som svar på den bekræftede begæring fremhævede Kommissionen,at de ønskede dokumenter tjente til gennemførelse af Kommissionens forordning 343/94 om iværksættelse af obligatoriskdestillation for produktionsåret 1993-94, hvis lovmæssighed for øjeblikket blev anfægtet ved Domstolen69. Den anførte, at klagerneburde have sendt deres begæring om dokumenter direkte til Domstolen.
In reply to the confirmatory application, the Commission pointed outthat the requested documents were instrumental for the enactment of Commission Regulation 343/94 opening compulsory distillation for the1993/94 wine year, whose legality was being contested before the Court of Justice69.It argued that the complainants should haveaddressed their request for documents directly to the Court of Justice.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor at:
The Commission concluded therefore that :
“Beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser i tilfælde af retsligeprocedurer giver den beføjelse til i henhold til adfærdskodeksen at afslå at give aktindsigt i dokumenter vedrørendeen igangværende retslig procedure”.
“The protection of public interest in the case of court proceedings gives it the power, in the framework of the Codeof Conduct, to refuse access to documents which relate toa pending legal case”.
Undtagelsen fra det almindelige princip om aktindsigt i kommissionsdokumenter ud fra hensynet til beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser,
“[...] a distinction must be drawn between documentsdrafted by the Commission for the purpose of a particularcourt case [...], and other documents which exist independently of such proceedings.Application of the exception
Sag T-105/95, WWF UK (World Wide Fund for Nature) mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, Sml. 1997 II, s. 313.
Case T-105/95, WWF UK (World Wide Fund for Nature) v.Commission of the European Communities [1997] ECR II-0313.
Domstolen har allerede afsagt dom af 29. oktober 1998 i denne sag (Femte Afdeling). Sag C-375/96, Galileo Zaninotto mod Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse: Pretura circondariale di Treviso); endnu ikke meddelt.
The case has already been decided by judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 1998;Case C-375/96, Galileo Zaninotto v Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi(reference for a preliminary ruling:Pretura circondariale di Treviso);not yet reported.
En anvendelse afundtagelsen med hensyn til beskyttelsen af offentlige interesser kan kun være begrundet, for så vidt angår den førstekategori af dokumenter”.71
161 based on the protection of the public interest can be justified only in respect of the first category of documents”.71
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at de af klagerne ønskede dokumentervar udarbejdet for at vurdere Kommissionens lovgivningsmæssigemuligheder og ikke med specielt henblik på en retslig procedure.Disse dokumenter havde derfor ingen sammenhæng med den retslige procedure vedrørende lovmæssigheden af Kommissionens forordning 343/94, som de dog dannede grundlag for.
The Ombudsman noted that the documents requested by the complainants had been prepared to evaluate the legislative options of the Commission, and were not created to serve a particular purpose inthe context of a court proceeding.These documents were thereforeindependent of the court case regarding the legality of Commission Regulation n°343/94, for which, however, they laid the ground.
I deres skrivelse til Ombudsmanden gjorde klagerne ligeledes gældende, at Kommissionens afslag på deres begæring ikke var i overensstemmelse med Fællesskabets retspraksis, idet der ikke var henvist til hvert enkelt dokument.
In their letter to the Ombudsman, the complainants also argued thatthe Commission’s refusal of their request did not comply with established Community caselaw since it did not refer to each specific document.
Da Ombudsmanden havde konkluderet, at Kommissionen skulle tagesin afgørelse i denne sag op til fornyet behandling, var det ikkepåkrævet at tage stilling den denne yderligere klage.
Since the Ombudsman had concluded that the Commission shouldreconsider its decision in this case, there was no need to assess themerits of this additional claim.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne sag afslørede et tilfælde af fejleller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side. Det var derforpåkrævet at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
The Ombudsman’s inquiries into this case revealed a case of maladministration on the part of the European Commission.It appeared necessarytherefore to make the following critical remark:
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at de af klagerne ønskede dokumentervar udarbejdet for at vurdere Kommissionens lovgivningsmæssigemuligheder og ikke med specielt henblik på en retslig procedure.Disse dokumenter havde derfor ingen sammenhæng med den rets-
The Ombudsman noted that the documents requested by the complainants had been prepared to evaluate the legislative options of the Commission, and were not created to serve a particular purpose inthe context of a court proceeding.These documents were thereforeindependent of the court case regarding the legality of Commission Regulation n°343/94, for which, however, they laid the ground.
Ovennævnte sag T-83/96, præmis 50.
Supra case T-83/96, par.50.
I Kommissionens afgørelse 94/90 hedder det udtrykkeligt, at en borger,hvis bekræftede begæring om aktindsigt i dokumenter ikke efterkommes,skal underrettes om muligheden for at klage til Ombudsmanden.Ombudsmandens kritiske bemærkning indebar, at Kommissionen skulletage klagernes bekræftede begæring af 24. marts 1997 op til fornyetbehandling og give aktindsigt i de ønskede dokumenter, medmindre en afundtagelserne i afgørelse 94/90 fandt anvendelse.
DECISIONS ical remark implied that the Commission should reconsider the com-plainants’confirmatory application dated 24 March 1997 and give accessto the documents requested, unless one of the exceptions contained in Decision 94/90 applied.Since it was for the Commission to carry out thisreconsideration and communicate the result to the complainants, the Ombudsman closed the case.
KOMMISSIONENS PROCEDURE I FORBINDELSE MED UNDERSØGELSE AF PÅSTÅET OVERTRÆDELSE (EF-TRAKTATENS ARTIKEL226)
COMMISSION PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATING ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT (ARTICLE 226 EC)
Afgørelse om klage 749/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 749/97/IJH against the European Commission
Kommissionen havde ikke sørget for en fyldestgørende videnskabeligforundersøgelse af den planlagte firesporede vej. Den havde ikkekrævet, at de irske myndigheder foretog en vurdering af indvirkningenpå miljøet på grundlag af direktiv 85/337/EØF.
The Commission had failed to ensure an adequate scientific appraisalof the planned dual carriageway.It had not insisted that the Irishauthorities produce an Environmental Impact Assessment under Directive 85/337/EEC.Given the established environmental importance of the Ballyseedy Wood, it was not in line with the Directive tobase a decision only on informal information submitted by the Irishauthorities.Furthermore, the Commission had failed to perform a visitto the site or to send its own experts in order to obtain independentinformation.
I betragtning af Ballyseedy Woods anerkendte miljømæssige betydning var det ikke ioverensstemmelse med direktivet kun at basere en afgørelse på uformelle oplysninger, som de irske myndigheder havde forelagt.Endvidere havde Kommissionen ikke aflagt besøg på stedet ellerudsendt sine egne eksperter med henblik på at indhente uafhængigeoplysninger.
The procedure used by the Commission was unfair in that the Irishauthorities were put in a much better position than the objectors, whohave very limited resources.In particular, the Commission had giventhe Irish authorities over a year to respond to the Commission’s investigation, but gave the objectors only six weeks to comment on thestandpoint of the Irish authorities.Furthermore, the Commission didnot itself supply him with the reports submitted by the Irish authoritiesbut instead referred him to Kerry County Council for access to thereports.
Den procedure, som Kommissionen fulgte, var uretfærdig, da de irskemyndigheder blev stillet meget bedre end modstanderne, som harmeget begrænsede ressourcer.
The Commission further pointed out that the fact that the Irish authorities hadfailed to complete a formal Irish list of sites intended for conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC, was subject to a separate infringement procedureaddressing that issue.
Navnlig havde Kommissionen givetde irske myndigheder over et år til at reagere på Kommissionens
As regards the complainant’s allegation that six weeks for commenting onthe Irish authorities’response was too short, the Commission stated thatthe position of the complainant is different to that of the Member State.
AFGØRELSER undersøgelse, men gav kun modstanderne seks uger til at kommentere de irske myndigheders svar. Desuden stillede Kommissionenikke selv de af de irske myndigheder forelagte rapporter til rådighedfor ham, men henviste ham i stedet til Kerry County Council for at fåadgang til rapporterne.
Finally, the Commission stated that the complainant had been kept fullyinformed of all critical stages in the investigation and that a meeting hadtaken place between the complainant and the Commission services in theautumn of 1997.The Commission concluded by stating that it would keepthe complainant informed of further developments.
Klagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen.
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint and madethe following points:
Kommissionen var for øjeblikket ved at vurdere de modtagneoplysninger. Endvidere var der endnu ikke ydet fællesskabsmidler til projektet, da Kommissionen afventede resultatet af undersøgelserne.
As regards the fact that the complainant had to obtain the reports from Kerry County Council, the complainant pointed out that the Commissionfirstly said that it would guard the anonymity of the complainants and thenreferred them to their adversaries for obtaining the relevant reports.
Kommissionen kommenterede endvidere varigheden af sin undersøgelse,som oversteg den periode på et år, som generelt er fastsat til afslutningenaf en undersøgelse af en klage.
The complainant also underlined that his complaint was not against thestaff of the Commission but against the established procedures.Thesewere unfair to the complainants in that they left unreasonable and unfairadvantages to the Member State with its massive resources.
På den anden side var Kerry
Page 163
County Council forpligtet til at sikre adgang til rapporterne i henhold tildirektiv 90/313/EØF om fri adgang til miljøoplysninger.
It also informed the Ombudsman that a copy of the study hadbeen provided directly to the complainant.
Det blev undersøgt, om projektet overholdt bestemmelserne i direktiv85/337/EØF. Klageren var blevet opfordret til at kommentere de irske myndigheders svar, og der ville blive taget hensyn til hans kommentarer.
The complainant expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the study,however he pointed out that he had not received any further information ornotice of a final decision by the Commission.
Der foretages undertiden sådanne besøg i forbindelse med vigtige levesteder, der er truet.Indtil tidspunktet for klagen til Ombudsmanden havde der imidlertid ikkeværet behov for et besøg på stedet, da indhentningen af oplysninger ogevalueringen heraf forløb tilfredsstillende gennem korrespondance.
On the general issue of the procedure used, the complainant expressedconcern that there had been no mention of an independent committee ofexperts until after the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Endelig anførte Kommissionen, at klageren var blevet holdt fuldt ud informeret om alle afgørende faser i undersøgelsen, og at der i efteråret 1997havde fundet et møde sted mellem klageren og Kommissionen tjenestegrene. Kommissionen erklærede afslutningsvis, at den ville holde klagerenunderrettet om det videre forløb.
The complainant also stated that requesting the reports from Kerry County Council had indeed revealed his identity as a complainant.After havingrequested and obtained the reports, he received a letter from Kerry County Council saying that he should send to it copies of the documents and letters which he had sent to the Commission.
Klagerens bemærkninger
THE DECISION
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage og fremsatte følgendebemærkninger:
The alleged failure to ensure an adequate scientific appraisal ofthe planned dual carriageway
Da modstanderne fik at vide, at de kun havde seks uger til at kommenterede irske myndigheders forskellige omfattende rapporter, opgav de ethverthåb om at fremskaffe midlerne og finde frem til eksperter, der kunne imødegå de fremførte argumenter. Den fastsatte frist var fuldstændig urimelig.Dette var navnlig uheldigt, da rapporterne var fyldt med fejl.
1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to ensure anadequate scientific appraisal of the planned Tralee dual carriagewaybecause it had failed to insist that the Irish authorities produce an Environmental Impact Assessment under Directive 85/337/EEC72andhad failed to perform a visit to the site, or send its own experts toobtain independent information.
Klageren understregede endvidere, at hans klage ikke var over Kommissionens ansatte, men over de gældende procedurer. Disse varuretfærdige over for klagerne, da de gav medlemsstaten med dens omfattende ressourcer urimelige og uretfærdige fordele.
Principles of good administration require the Commission to basedecisions involving scientific assessments on accurate informationand to ensure, when appropriate, that there is opportunity for criticalappraisal of relevant data and that different opinions are heard.If submissions from the Member State and the complainant are inadequatefor this purpose, the Commission should take appropriate steps toensure that it obtains accurate information.
Efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger fandt Ombudsmanden, at der var behov for yderligereundersøgelser.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projectson the environment, OJ 1985 L 175/40.
I løbet af Ombudsmandens undersøgelse lod Kommissionen eksterne eksperter foretage en miljøundersøgelse af den planlagte firesporede vej som led i sin undersøgelse af, om projektet overholdtbestemmelserne i direktiv 85/337/EØF. Klageren udtrykte tilfredshedmed konklusionerne af undersøgelsen.
During the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commissionemployed outside experts to carry out an environmental study of theplanned dual carriageway as part of its investigation of the project’scompliance with Directive 85/337/EEC.The complainant expressedsatisfaction with the conclusions of the study.
Hvad angår dette aspekt af sagen, fremgår det derfor, at Kommissionen har taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved har tilfredsstillet klageren.
As regards this aspect of the case, therefore, it appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Procedurens retfærdighed
The fairness of the procedure
Klageren gjorde gældende, at den procedure, som Kommissionenfulgte, var uretfærdig, da de irske myndigheder blev stillet megetbedre end modstanderne.
The complainant alleged that the procedure used by the Commissionwas unfair, because the Irish authorities were put in a much betterposition than the objectors.In particular, the Commission gave the Irish authorities one year to respond to its investigation, whereas theobjectors had only six weeks to comment on the Irish response.Furthermore, the complainant objected to the fact that the Commission did not supply him with the reports submitted by the Irishauthorities but referred him to Kerry County Council, thereby jeopardising his anonymity as a complainant.
Navnlig havde Kommissionen givet deirske myndigheder et år til at reagere på sin undersøgelse, mensmodstanderne kun fik seks uger til at kommentere de irske myndigheders svar.
2.2 As regards the general procedure adopted by the Commission, the Ombudsman’s inquiry showed that the complaint was registered bythe Commission and that the complainant was informed about therepresentations made to the Irish authorities and about the latter’sresponse, on which he was invited to comment.The Commission services also met with the complainant.After having evaluated theresponse from the Member State and the comments from the objectors, the Commission engaged outside experts to perform a study oncertain aspects of the case, including a visit to the site.
Endvidere gjorde klageren indvendinger imod, at Kommissionen ikke stillede de af de irske myndigheder forelagte rapporter til rådighed for ham, men henviste ham til Kerry County Council, hvorved han ikke kunne bevare sin anonymitet som klager.
The Commission informed the complainant of the outcome of this study.Although the time for the investigation exceeded the normal period ofone year, the Commission explained this by reference to the complextechnical and scientific issues raised.It appears, therefore, that ingeneral the Commission acted in accordance with principles of goodadministration by respecting the procedures to which it committeditself to in the Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD.73 The Commission further stated that it would keep the complainantinformed of the development of the investigation, which is also in linewith the commitments it gave in the Ombudsman’s own initiativeinquiry.
Rådets direktiv 85/337/EØF om vurdering af visse offentlige og private projekters indvirkning på miljøet, EFT1985 L175, s. 40.
Decision in the own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD.See Annual Report for 1997, heading 3.7, OJ 1998C 380/1.
Da dette blev undersøgt af Ombudsmanden, oplyste Kommissionen, at dens bestemmelser omaktindsigt i dokumenter gjorde det muligt for den at henvise klagerentil rapporternes ophavsmand.
167 it to supply the reports since it was not the author.However, when thiswas queried by the Ombudsman the Commission stated that its ruleson access to documents allowed it to refer the complainant to theauthor of the reports.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at en administrativ myndighed gør sitbedste for at holde sine løfter over for borgerne. Ifølge den standardformular, som Kommissionen har opfordret enkeltpersoner til atanvende ved indgivelse af klager, forpligter Kommissionen sig til atoverholde de gængse bestemmelser om fortrolighed ved sagens behandling74.Selv om klageren ikke er forpligtet til at kommenteremedlemsstatens svar, er muligheden for en sådan deltagelse ennormal del af undersøgelsesproceduren.
It is a principle of good administration that an administrative bodyshould do its best to keep its promises to citizens.The standard formon which the Commission has invited individuals to submit complaintsgives an undertaking to observe the customary rules of confidentialitywhen investigating the complaint.74Although there is no obligation onthe complainant to comment on the Member State’s response, thepossibility of such participation is a normal part of the investigationprocedure.The Commission required the complainant to obtain thereports on which to comment from an authority of the Member Statewhich was under investigation.The complainant therefore had to sacrifice his anonymity in order to be able to participate normally in theinvestigation of his complaint.By this requirement the Commissionfailed to keep the promise made in its standard form.