natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens femtende beretning om kontrollen med gennemførelsen af fællesskabsretten(1997), forord s. III-IV (KOM (1998) 317 endelig udg.).
In June 1998, Mr T.made a complaint against the European Commission,on behalf of two companies.Since 1992, the two complaining companieshad been involved in a variety of Community funded research projects.Theinvolvement did not give rise to any problems.
103 udgør direktivets anvendelsesområde. Med hensyn til den påståedeovertrædelse af direktiv 77/187/EØF om overførsel af virksomhedererklærede Kommissionen, at uddannelsesreformloven, navnlig paragraf 172 (“Beføjelser til at overflytte personale”), vedrører uddannelsesreformer og overflytningen af visse personalekategorier efter ILEA’s nedlæggelse og således sigter mod at beskytte de ansatteserhvervede rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder.
Commission that the audit had revealed problems.The Commission thereafter reviewed the scope of its contractual commitments with the two com-panies.It appeared that there were in total 17 contracts, managed by different services and on different legal bases.Within the Commission, the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention, UCLAF took over the fileconcerning the two companies.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at Kommissionen i denne sag havdeoverholdt de tilsagn, som den afgav i forbindelse med artikel 226-pro-ceduren, og over for klageren havde begrundet, hvorfor den besluttede ikke at iværksætte en overtrædelsesprocedure mod de britiskemyndigheder. Kommissionen holdt sig således inden for rammerne afsine retlige beføjelser, og der blev ikke konstateret tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser.
In July 1997 the companies were informed that all payments to them fromthe Commission would be suspended.From 7 to 10 October 1997, the Commission undertook an on-the-spot inspection at the premises of thecompanies.Representatives of the companies participated in the inspec-tion.Also in October 1997, other Commission services refused to enter intoproject contracts, in which the two companies would be involved.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingentilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side.Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
On 10 March 1998 the Commission asked the companies to supply evidence in addition to the one supplied at the inspection.By letter of 24March 1998, the complainant replied to this letter.According to the complainant, the Commission had received all necessary information and the Commission’s behaviour was harming the two companies.
I juni 1998 indgav T. på vegne af to virksomheder en klage over Europa-Kommissionen.
- the Commission had unfairly suspended payments to the two companies, without first hearing them;
De to klagende virksomheder havde siden 1992 deltaget ien lang række fællesskabsfinansierede forskningsprojekter.
- the Commission had unfairly excluded the companies from participating in projects, and
Deltagelsengav ikke anledning til nogen problemer.
- the Commission had acted with undue delay since the inspection.
I februar 1997 underrettede Revisionsretten Kommissionens GD XIII om, at revisionen havde afsløret problemer.
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
I juli 1997 blev virksomhederne underrettet om, at alle udbetalinger til demfra Kommissionen ville blive suspenderet.
The complaint was forwarded to the European Commission.
Den 7.-10. oktober 1997 foretog Kommissionen en inspektion på stedet i virksomhedernes lokaler.Repræsentanter for virksomhederne deltog i inspektionen. Også i oktober1997 afviste andre af Kommissionens tjenestegrene at indgå projektkontrakter, som de to virksomheder ville deltage i.
The Commission stated that the audit carried out by the Court of Auditorsshowed that important irregularities had taken place in the two companies’way of handling Community funding.Therefore, precautions were immediately taken at the Commission, i.e.payments to the companies were sus-pended.According to the Commission, the on-site inspection made by the Commission services confirmed the findings of the Court of Auditors, inparticular:
Den 10. marts 1998 anmodede Kommissionen virksomhederne om atfremsende yderligere dokumentation ud over den dokumentation, der varfremlagt ved inspektionen.
- expenditure statements were not based on real expenditure but systematically and substantially overcharged, especially as regards staffexpenses and general expenses;
Ifølge klageren havde Kommissionen modtaget alle nødvendige oplysninger og Kommissionens adfærd skadede de to virksomheder.
- - a co-financing obligation imposed on the companies by the contractsin question had not been complied with.
- selv om de to virksomheder over en periode på mere end seks årregelmæssigt havde orienteret Kommissionen om kontraktgennemførelsen, havde Kommissionen ikke reageret på disse oplysninger;Kommissionen havde således med urette givet virksomhederne detindtryk, at alt var i orden,
As concerns the complainant’s first individual grievance, the Commissionstated in summary that the reports supplied over the years by the companies did not reveal any problems with regard to the conformity of the facts.The Commission thus did not have any reason to start inquiring earlier intothe use of funds by the companies.It was only after the audit of the Courtof Auditors that the Commission was prompted to carry out an in-depthinspection, which involved examination of supporting documents.Thesesupporting documents had not been attached to the reports supplied overthe years.
Kommissionen havde handlet med en unødig forsinkelse sideninspektionen.
In the observations, the complainant maintained the complaint.In particular, the complainant stressed that all relevant rules of Greek law had beencomplied with by the companies.
UNDERSØGELSENKommissionens udtalelse
THE DECISION1Scope of the inquiry
- - en samfinansieringforpligtelse, som virksomhederne havde fåetpålagt på grundlag af kontrakterne, var ikke blevet opfyldt.
The complaining companies were involved in 17 contracts with the Commission, funded by Community resources.After approximatelysix years, an audit of the companies was carried out by the Court of
105 undersøge virksomhedernes brug af midler. Det var først efter Revisionsrettens revision, at Kommissionen var foranlediget til at foretageen indgående inspektion, som omfattede en undersøgelse af bilagene.Disse bilag var ikke vedlagt de rapporter, der var indgivet gennem årene.
Auditors.Further to the audit, the Commission suspended the payments to the companies under the contracts.The Commission’s antifraud unit proceeded to an on-site inspection of the companies’premises which, according to the Commission, established seriousirregularities.Therefore the Commission did not want to enter into anyfurther contracts with the companies and issued recovery orders forsums paid under existing contracts.The complainant considered thatthe Commission’s behaviour was unfair and that the Commission hadacted with undue delay.
For så vidt angår det andet klagepunkt, anførte Kommissionen, at denhavde pligt til at beskytte Fællesskabets finansielle interesser, når den somi denne sag blev stillet over for alvorlige uregelmæssigheder i forbindelsemed disse finansielle interesser. Det var derfor berettiget, at Kommissionentilbageholdt betalinger til virksomhederne, indtil den havde undersøgtsagen nærmere. Endvidere viste inspektionen på stedet, at dette var berettiget, da væsentlige beløb, som allerede var udbetalt, skulle tilbagebetales.
Thus, the framework of the case were contractual relationshipsbetween the Commission and the two companies concerned andbasically, the complainant questioned the Commission’s powers whenit is not satisfied with the performance of the other party to a contract.
Hvad angår det fjerde klagepunkt, fandt Kommissionen, at den havdebehandlet sagen rettidigt og uden unødig forsinkelse i betragtning af denkomplekse retsstilling og det forhold, at virksomhederne ikke forelagdeyderligere oplysninger. Den anførte, at der i perioden mellem inspektionenog rapportens udarbejdelse fandt en lang række møder sted internt i Kommissionen for at sikre koordinering.
Therefore it had to be recalled that the European Ombudsman doesnot seek to establish whether either party has acted in conformity withthe contract.That question can only be dealt with effectively by a courtof competent jurisdiction which would have the possibility to heararguments of the parties concerning the relevant national law and toevaluate conflicting evidence on the disputed issues of fact.However,as a matter of good administration, a public authority engaged in acontractual dispute with a private party should always be able to provide the Ombudsman with a coherent account of the legal basis for itsactions and why it believes its view of its position to be justified.
Klagerens bemærkninger
Unfair treatment by the Commission
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage. Klageren understregedenavnlig, at virksomhederne havde overholdt alle gældende bestemmelseri græsk lov.
In the first grievance, the complainant reproached the Commission fornot having reacted to the companies’reports for years.According tothe Commission, the irregularities committed were of such a naturethat the Commission would not have been able to detect them on thebasis of the companies’periodic reports to the Commission and couldnot lead the complainant to believe that things were in order.
Klageren fandt, at Kommissionen havde handlet med urette,og at Kommissionen havde handlet med en unødig forsinkelse.
The Ombudsman therefore found that there was no maladministrationin these aspects of the complaint.
I det første klagepunkt bebrejdede klageren Kommissionen, at den imange år ikke havde reageret på virksomhedernes rapporter.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,there appeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens forklaring på, hvorfor denikke havde handlet, var rimelig og ikke kunne udgøre fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med de to pågældende virksomheder.
PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMUNITY MILK MARKET REGIMEDecision on complaint 619/98/(IJH)/GG against the European Commission
Med hensyn til det andet og det tredje klagepunkt om, at Kommissionen ikke var berettiget til at suspendere betalinger og undlade at indgå fremtidige kontrakter med virksomhederne, fremgik det,at Kommissionen gjorde dette for at beskytte Fællesskabets finansielle interesser, stillet over for det, som Revisionsretten og den selvanså for at være alvorlige uregelmæssigheder gennem mange år.
Regulation No.1001/98 was adopted on 13 May 1998 and published in the Official Journal on 14 May 1998.Pursuant to its Article 2, it entered intoforce on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal.Theregulation provided for certain penalties if purchasers (i.e.the dairies towhom the milk was delivered by producers) did not inform the nationalcompetent authorities on deliveries by 14 May each year.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at der ikke forelå fejl eller forsømmelseri forbindelse med disse aspekter af klagen.
In June 1998, a member of a provincial authority in Italy lodged a complaintwith the Ombudsman.He argued that the institutions of the EU should nothave adopted a regulation on the day before it was to be applied and published it on the day when it was to be applied.He was of the opinion thatcompliance with the regulation was very much put at risk in view of the factthat the national authority in Italy had not yet made available the relevantinstructions and forms in the German language.
UNDERSØGELSENKommissionens udtalelse Klagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen.
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.
I sin udtalelse påpegede Kommissionen, at opkøbernes forpligtelse til atfremsende de pågældende oplysninger til de nationale myndigheder indenden 15. maj hvert år fremgik af artikel 3, stk. 2, førsteafsnit, i forordning nr.536/93 (som ikke var blevet ændret ved forordning nr. 1001/98). Artikel 3,
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the obligation for purchasers to provide the relevant information to the national authoritiesbefore 15 May each year had been established by Article 3 (2) firstsub-paragraph of Regulation No.536/93 (which had not been modified by Regulation No.1001/98).Article 3 (2) secondsubparagraph of Regulation No. 536/93 provided for certain penalties in case that this information wasnot supplied in time.The penalty to be paid was the amount of levy due fora 0.1% overrun of the reference quantity.It could not exceed ECU 20000,however.
På baggrund af ovenstående konkluderede Kommissionen følgende:
On the basis of the above, the Commission drew the following conclusions:
Fristen for at fremsende de relevante data (14. maj) blev ikke ændretved forordning nr. 1001/98.
The deadline for the transmission of the relevant information (14 May)was not changed by Regulation No.1001/98.
For meddelelser, der blev fremsendt mellem den 15. maj og den 31.maj, var sanktionen nøjagtigt den samme som på grundlag af denoprindelige udgave af forordning nr. 536/93, kun med den undtagelse,at der blev fastsat en minimumssanktion.
For communications made between 15 May and 31 May the penaltyapplicable was exactly the same as under the original version of Regulation No.536/93, with the sole exception that a minimumpenalty was fixed.
Artikel 2 i forordning nr. 1001/98 fastsatte udtrykkeligt, at minimumssanktionerne først fandt anvendelse fra 1999.
Article 2 of Regulation No.1001/98 expressly provided that the minimum penalties did not apply until 1999.
En opkøber befandt sig derfor ikke i en anden situation som følge afændringerne, medmindre han stadig ikke havde fremsendt meddelelsen den 31. maj 1998.
A purchaser was therefore in no different position as a result of themodifications unless he had still failed to transmit the communicationby 31 May 1998.
Hvad angår problemet med at overholde fristen den 14. maj som følge af,at der ikke forelå vejledninger og formularer på tysk, bemærkede Kommissionen, at opkøbernes forpligtelse til at stille de pågældende datatil rådighed var blevet fastsat i forordning nr. 536/93 og har fundet anvendelse siden den 1. april 1993. Opkøbere i alle medlemsstater havde derforværet helt klar over denne frist.
As to the difficulty to meet the deadline of 14 May as a result of the lack ofinstructions and forms in German, the Commission observed that the obligation of the purchasers to provide the relevant information had beenestablished by Regulation No.536/93 and had been applicable since 1April 1993.Purchasers in all member states had therefore been fully awareof this deadline.In the Commission’s view, there was no possible connection between the availability of such instructions and forms in the German
Der var efter Kommissionens opfattelseingen mulig forbindelse mellem tilgængeligheden af sådanne vejledningerog formularer på tysk og bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1001/98, da vejledningerne og formularerne skulle stilles til rådighed af de italienske myndigheder.
DECISIONS language and the provisions of Regulation No.1001/98, as the instructionsand forms were to be provided by the Italian authorities.
Endelig bemærkede Kommissionen, at klageren ikke tidligere havde rettetadministrative henvendelser til den.
The Commission finally noted that no previous administrative approacheshad been made to it by the complainant.
Der blev ikke modtaget bemærkninger fra klageren til disse kommentarerfra Kommissionen.
No observations on these comments by the Commission were receivedfrom the complainant.
AFGØRELSEN1Antagelse til realitetsbehandling
THE DECISION1Admissibility
Datoen for anvendelsen af forordning nr. 1001/98
Date of applicability of Regulation No.1001/98
Klageren gjorde gældende, at forordning nr. 1001/98 blev vedtagetdagen før, den skulle finde anvendelse, og offentliggjort den dag, hvorden skulle finde anvendelse (14. maj).
The complainant alleged that Regulation No.1001/98 was adopted onthe day before it was to be applied and published on the day when itwas to be applied (14 May).It would therefore have been difficult forpurchasers (i.e.the dairies to whom the milk is delivered by producers) to comply with their obligation to forward, by 14 May, to thenational competent authorities information on deliveries.
Det ville derfor have været vanskeligt for opkøberne (dvs. de mejerier, hvortil producenterne leverermælken) at opfylde deres forpligtelse til inden den 14. maj at fremsende oplysninger om leverancerne til de nationale myndigheder.Kommissionen svarede, at den pågældende dato allerede var blevetfastsat i forordning nr. 536/93, og at en opkøber uanset ændringernemed hensyn til sanktionerne for manglende opfyldelse af denne forpligtelse, som blev indført ved forordning nr. 1001/98, ikke befandt sigi en anden situation end tidligere, medmindre han stadig ikke havdefremsendt meddelelsen den 31. maj 1998.
The Commission replied that the relevant date had already been fixed by Regulation No.536/93 and that, notwithstanding the modifications inrelation to penalties for non-compliance with this obligation that wereintroduced by Regulation No.1001/98, a purchaser was in no differentposition than before, unless he had still failed to transmit the communication by 31 May 1998.
Europa-Parlamentets afgørelse nr. 94/262/EKSF, EF, Euratom af 9. marts 1994 vedrørendeombudsmandens statut og de almindelige betingelser for udøvelsen af hans hverv
Decision no.94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the Ombudsman’s duties.
Manglende vejledninger og formularer på tysk
Lack of instructions and forms in German
Klageren henholdte sig til, at de italienske myndigheder med ansvarfor spørgsmål i forbindelse med mælkekvoter ikke havde stillet denødvendige vejledninger og formularer til rådighed på tysk inden den14. maj 1998. Kommissionens reaktion herpå var, at forordning nr.1001/98 ikke havde noget at gøre med fristen den 14. maj, som allerede var blevet fastsat ved forordning nr. 536/93, og at vejledningerneog formularerne under alle omstændigheder skulle stilles til rådighedaf de italienske myndigheder.
The complainant relied on the fact that the Italian authorities in chargeof matters relating to milk quotas had not made the necessary instructions and forms available in the German language before 14 May1998.The Commission retorted that Regulation No.1001/98 hadnothing to do with the deadline of 14 May which had already beenfixed by Regulation No.536/93 and that the instructions and formswere in any event to be provided by the Italian authorities.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingentilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,there appeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
KOMMISSIONENS BEHANDLING AF EN KONKURRENCESAGAfgørelse om klage 75/99/ME over Europa-Kommissionen
THE COMMISSION’S HANDLING OF A COMPETITION CASEDecision on complaint 75/99/ME against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde gældende, at MOLi mange år havde forsøgt at få oplysninger og svar på spørgsmål i forbindelse med den klage, der var indgivettil Kommissionen.
The complainant claimed that MOL tried for many years to get informationand answers to questions arising from the complaint lodged with the
Kommissionen erklærede, at den ikke var et undersøgelsesorgan, menbaserede sig på indsendt skriftlig dokumentation, og at dens forvaltningsmæssige beføjelser var utilstrækkelige. Ifølge klageren er dette usandt, da Kommissionens beføjelser til at foretage kontrolundersøgelser er veletablerede, navnlig inden for konkurrenceretten.
The Commission stated that it was not an investigative body but that itrelied on written submissions and that administrative powers were insuffi-cient.According to the complainant, this is not true since the Commission’sinvestigative powers are well established, particularly in the area of competition law.
Desuden besvarede Kommissionen aldrig klagerens skrivelse af 21. juli1998.
Moreover, the Commission never replied to the complainant’s letter of 21July 1998.
I marts 1999 skrev Elliott, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, til Kommissionen vedrørende MOL-sagen i Kommissionen, og han sendte enkopi af sit brev til Ombudsmanden.
In March 1999, Mr Elliott, MEP wrote to the Commission regarding MOL’scase at the Commission and he sent a copy of his letter to the Ombudsman.
I sit brev stillede han i det væsentlige Kommissionen følgende fire spørgsmål i forbindelse med MOL-sagen:
In his letter he asked the Commission in summary the following four questions in relation to MOL’s case:
Hvilke undersøgelser havde Kommissionen foretaget af nøjagtigheden af de oplysninger, der var fremsendt til Kommissionen, ibetragtning af MOL’s påstande om, at det fremlagte bevismaterialevar falsk?
What examination was carried out by the Commission of the accuracyof the statements submitted to the Commission, bearing in mind MOL’s claims that the evidence submitted was false?
Denne fortolkning blevikke begrundet. På hvilket grundlag blev denne afgørelse truffet, oghvorfor blev MOLikke oplyst ordentligt om dette?
The Commission stated that the behaviour of Dynopack did notappear to have any effect on trade between Member States.Noreason was given for this interpretation.On what grounds was thatdecision taken, and why was MOL not properly advised of this?
Klagerens brev af 21. juli 1998 blev af Kommissionen betragtet som enbekræftelse på modtagelsen af dens egen skrivelse af 16. juli 1998, da desamme argumenter blev gentaget. Efter Kommissionens opfattelse var etsvar ikke påkrævet.
The complainant’s letter of 21 July 1998 was regarded by the Commissionas an acknowledgement of receipt of its own letter of 16 July 1998 sincethe same arguments were being repeated.The Commission felt that noreply was called for.
Kommissionen understregede, at den ikke har samme mulighed som ennational domstol for at afhøre vidner, og at den derfor ikke kan fastslå pålideligheden af oplysninger, som andre parter fremlægger.
The Commission pointed out that it does not possess the same means asa national court to hear witnesses and it can therefore not establish theveracity of information provided by other parties.
Endvidere var dette genstand for to skriftlige forespørgsler fra Elliott,medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, til Kommissionen. Elliott skrev ogsådirekte til og modtog et svar fra Sir Leon Brittan i 1991.
Moreover, this was the subject of two written questions by Mr Elliott, MEPto the Commission.Mr Elliott also wrote directly to and received an answerfrom Sir Leon Brittan in 1991.
Klagerens bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger anførte klageren i det væsentligste følgende:
In its observations the complainant put forward in summary the followingpoints:
Det var ikke muligt fuldt ud at kommentere Kommissionens oversigt overbreve og svar, som var vedlagt dens udtalelse, da oversigtens side tremanglede. Der var ikke tale om utallige uformelle drøftelser mellem MOLog Kommissionen.
It was not possible to comment fully on the Commission’s list of letters andreplies annexed to its opinion, because page three of the list was lacking.There were no numerous informal discussions between MOL and the Commission.
Der var ingen beviser på, at sagen i realiteten blevundersøgt.
There was no evidence to show that the file was in fact examined.
MOLhandlede ikke i perioden 1994-1997, da det var klart for virksomheden, at Kommissionen ikke agtede at reagere herpå. Det var først, davenner og advokater oplyste MOLom, at Kommissionen skulle have svaret MOL, at virksomheden genoptog kontakten til Kommissionen via sin forretningsrepræsentant.
MOL did not act between 1994 and 1997 because it was clear to them thatthe Commission had no intention to respond to them.It was only whenfriends and lawyers advised MOL that the Commission should haveanswered MOL, that it resumed contact with the Commission through itsbusiness representative.