natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
På grund af en ændring i transmissionsnormerne og kodesystemet måtte seerne købe nye dekodere. Klageren mente, at detteudgjorde et misbrug af en dominerende stilling og var i modstrid med EF-traktatens artikel 86.
The complainant lived in Spain where the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) operates the English speaking pay-television channel World Service Television (WSTV).The channel is broadcast via satellite to viewersthroughout Europe.In order to be able to watch this channel, viewers hadto acquire a decoder and to take out a subscription.Due to a change in thetransmission norm and in the encryption system, viewers needed to buynew decoders.The complainant considered that this constituted an abuseof dominant position, contrary to Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
Den 28. april 1994 sendte GD IV klageren en foreløbig konklusion, i henhold til hvilken klagen var ubegrundet. Klageren svarede ved at korrigerefaktuelle fejl og bad om, at sagen blev taget op til fornyet behandling.
On 28 April 1994, DG IV sent the complainant a “provisional conclusionthat his complaint was unjustified”.The complainant replied correctingerrors of fact and asking for the case to be re-examined.
Den 4. oktober 1994 sendte Kommissionen en revideret udgave af sin skrivelse, hvori den erklærede, at sagen stadig ikke var begrundet. Klagerenafviste igen denne vurdering og sendte ny dokumentation til GD IV.
On 4 October 1994, the Commission sent a revised version of its letter inwhich it stated that the case was still not justified.The complainant againrejected this finding.He sent new evidence to DG IV.
I december 1995 meddelte Kommissionen klageren, at den havde tagetsagen op til fornyet overvejelse, og at undersøgelserne fortsatte.
In December 1995, the Commission wrote to the complainant that it wasreconsidering the issue and that the investigations were continuing.
I april 1996 skrev Kommissionen til klageren, at den havde bedt BBC omoplysninger, og at den ville kontakte klageren senere.
In April 1996, the Commission wrote to the complainant stating that it hadrequested information from the BBC and that it would contact the complainant in due time.
Klageren forsøgte nu at få et møde med de tjenestemænd i Kommissionen,der var ansvarlige for behandlingen af hans klage. Kommissionen svarede,at dens tjenestemænd ikke kunne mødes med klageren på det foreslåedetidspunkt.
The complainant then tried to meet with Commission officials responsiblefor his complaint.The Commission replied that its officials could not meetwith the complainant at the proposed time.
På denne baggrund indsendte klageren klagen til Ombudsmanden.
Against this background, the complainant lodged the complaint with the Ombudsman.
Hangjorde gældende, at Kommissionen trak hans sag i langdrag og behandlede den på en uhøflig måde. Han hævdede endvidere, at der var tale omunødig forsinkelse og inkompetence.
He alleged that his case was being handled in a dilatory anddiscourteous way by the Commission.He also alleged avoidable delay andincompetence.
Kommissionen anførte, at GD IV havde skrevet til klageren den 14. maj1993 og meddelt ham, at den ikke mente, hans klage var begrundet.Kommissionen sendte den 28. april 1994 en præ-artikel 6-skrivelse til klageren, hvori den konkluderede, at WSTV/BBC ikke havde en dominerendestilling og under alle omstændigheder ikke havde misbrugt denne i stridmed EF-traktatens artikel 86.
The Commission stated that DG IV wrote to the complainant on 14 May1993 informing him that it did not believe that his complaint was founded.A pre-Article 6 letter was sent to the complainant on 28 April 1994.In thatletter, the Commission concluded that WSTV/BBC did not hold a dominantposition, and that even if they did, no abuse contrary to Article 86 EC hadbeen committed.
YDERLIGERE UNDERSØGELSEREfter en grundig gennemgang af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger skrev Ombudsmanden igen til Kommissionen. Eftersom Kommissionen havde erklæret, at den agtede at sende en formel afgørelsetil klageren inden årets udgang, ønskede Ombudsmanden at vide, om ensådan afgørelse var blevet vedtaget og sendt.
After due consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’sobservations, the Ombudsman again wrote to the Commission.In view ofthe fact that the Commission had stated that it would send a formal decision to the complainant by the end of the year, the Ombudsman inquiredwhether such a formal decision had been adopted and sent.
Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene kontaktede derefter Kommissionen telefonisk for at høre, om denne afgørelse faktisk var blevet sendt til klageren.Kommissionen meddelte Ombudsmandens kontor, at den havde sendt enformel afgørelse til klageren den 30. oktober 1998, og Ombudsmandenmodtog en kopi af denne afgørelse.
The Ombudsman’s services then contacted the Commission by telephoneto inquire whether this decision had actually been sent the complainant.The Commission informed the Ombudsman’s services that a formal decision had been sent to the complainant on 30 October 1998. The Ombudsman received a copy of the decision letter.
AFGØRELSENInkompetent behandling og forsinkelse af klagen
THE DECISIONAlleged incompetent and dilatory handling of the complaint:
De procedurer, der finder anvendelse i forbindelse med Kommissionens behandling af sådanne klager, er hovedsagelig fastlagt I Rådets forordning 17/62 og Kommissionens forordning 99/63.
The procedural framework within which the Commission assessesthese complaints is determined mainly by the Council Regulation17/62 and Commission Regulation 99/63.
Kommissionen har pligt til grundigt at undersøge alle de klager, derfremsættes. Ifølge artikel 6 i forordning 99/63 skal Kommissionen,hvis den finder, der er utilstrækkeligt grundlag for at tage en begæringtil følge, underrette klageren om begrundelsen herfor og fastsætte enfrist, inden for hvilken den pågældende skriftligt kan fremsætte eventuelle bemærkninger.
The Commission is required to examine thoroughly all complaintslodged.Article 6 of Regulation 99/63 provides that if the Commissionconsiders that there are insufficient grounds for granting the application, it shall inform the applicant of its reasons and fix a time for theapplicant to submit any further comments in writing.
Kommissionen bad om udførlige oplysninger fra BBC. Den sendtederefter en såkaldt præ-artikel 6-skrivelse til klageren den 28. april1994, hvori den meddelte, at den konkluderede, at WSTV/BBC ikkeindtog en dominerende stilling og under alle omstændigheder ikkehavde overtrådt EF-traktatens artikel 86.
The Commission requested detailed information from the BBC.It thensent a so-called pre Article 6 - letter to the complainant on 28 April1994 informing him that it had concluded that WSTV/BBC did not holda dominant position, and even if they did, no abuse contrary to Article86 EC had been committed.
OFFENTLIGGØRELSE AF EN VURDERINGSRAPPORTAfgørelse om de forenede klager 620/97/PD og 306/98/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
DISCLOSURE OF ASSESSMENT REPORTDecision on joined complaints 620/97/PD and 306/98/PD against the European Commission
I juni 1997 indsendte C., medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand på vegne af den svenske avis “VästerbottensKuriren”. Klagen vedrørte Europa-Kommissionens afvisning af en anmodning om udlevering af en vurderingsrapport, som et konsulentfirma havdeudarbejdet for Kommissionen i forbindelse med undersøgelse af en sag omstatsstøtte mod Sverige.
In June 1997, Mr C.MEP submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman, on behalf of the Swedish newspaper “Västerbottens-Kuriren”.The complaint concerned the European Commission’s refusal todisclose an assessment report produced by a consultancy firm for the Commission in the context of a state aid investigation against Sweden.
I marts 1998 modtog Ombudsmanden en klage, 306/98/PD, fra to andre EP-medlemmer, S. og W., angående aktindsigt i den samme rapport. Forat behandle klagerne så effektivt som muligt besluttede Ombudsmanden atbehandle dem under ét.
In March 1998, the Ombudsman received a complaint which concernedaccess to the same report, complaint 306/98/PD by two other MEPs,Messrs S.and W.To deal with the complaints as efficiently as possible, the Ombudsman decided to treat them jointly.
Baggrunden for klagerne var i det væsentligste følgende: Den rapport, klagerne ønskede aktindsigt i, var udarbejdet af konsulentfirmaet Price Waterhouse på Kommissionens anmodning. Rapporten drejede sig om en Volvo-fabrik i det nordlige Sverige, og Kommissionen anvendte den i sineundersøgelser til at fastslå, hvorvidt det var foreneligt med fællesmarkedet,at Sverige gav statsstøtte til fabrikken.
The background to the complaints was in brief the following:The report towhich the complainants wanted access was drawn up by a consultancyfirm, Price Waterhouse, at the Commission’s request.The report concerned a Volvo factory in the north of Sweden and the Commission used itin its investigations to establish whether it was compatible with the Common Market that Sweden gave State aid to the factory.
Kommissionen gav følgende begrundelser for at nægte aktindsigt:
In refusing access, the Commission provided the following grounds:
For det første var de oplysninger, Kommissionen havde fået udleveretfor at udarbejde rapporten, udtrykkeligt blevet klassificeret som “fortrolige” af de svenske myndigheder.
Firstly, business information provided to the Commission for the purpose of producing the report had been explicitly labelled “secret”bythe Swedish authorities.
For det andet indgik rapporten i en undersøgelse udført af Kommissionen.
Secondly, the report was part of an investigation conducted by the Commission.
En offentliggørelse af rapporten kunne skade denneundersøgelse, idet rapporten ville være taget ud af sin sammenhæng.
Releasing the report could be damaging to that investigation since the report would be placed out of its context.
69 og Volvo-fabrikken på tidspunktet for afslaget ikke længere krævede fortrolighed for de oplysninger, der var udleveret til rapporten.
The complainants considered that these grounds did not warrant a refusalto give access.In particular, they indicated and provided evidence that, atthe moment of the refusal, the Swedish authorities and the Volvo factory didnot any longer request confidentiality in respect of information provided forthe report.
Kommissionen mente endvidere, at kravet om fortrolighed fra den svenskeregering og Volvo forpligtede den til ikke at offentliggøre denne rapport.
The Commission also considered that the secrecy requests by the Swedish Government and the Volvo company obliged it not to disclose the report.
Endelig fremhævede Kommissionen, at en offentliggørelse ville skade Kommissionens undersøgelse og forsvarets rettigheder.
Finally, the Commission put forward that disclosure would be prejudicial tothe Commission’s investigation and the rights of defence.
Klagernes bemærkninger
The complainants’observations
Klagerne blev fastholdt. Klagerne tilføjede, at Kommissionen kunne havebesluttet at offentliggøre en kopi af rapporten uden kommercielt følsommedata og således have tilladt en delvis offentliggørelse.
The complaints were maintained.The complainants added that the Commission could have decided to disclose a copy of the report without thecommercially sensitive data, thus allowing partial disclosure.
Ombudsmandens forsøg på at opnå en mindelig løsning
The Ombudsman’s efforts to achieve a friendly solution
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens afslag på aktindsigt i rapportenumiddelbart måtte anses for et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser. Han badderfor Kommissionen om at overveje sin holdning endnu en gang medhenblik på at opnå en mindelig løsning, idet han bl.a. bemærkede, at denprocedure, som lå til grund for rapporten, nu var afsluttet, og at fortrolighedskravet var trukket tilbage.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s refusal to release thereport constituted a prima facie instance of maladministration.He thereforeasked the Commission to review its position with a view to a friendly solution, observing inter alia that the procedure for which the report had beenproduced was now closed and that the requests for confidentiality had beenwithdrawn.
Ombudsmanden fremsatte derfor et forslag til enmindelig løsning.
THE DECISIONPartial disclosure of the report
FORSINKELSE VED BEHANDLING AF KLAGE OVER STATSSTØTTEAfgørelse om klage 632/97/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
DELAY IN PROCESSING COMPLAINT ON STATE AIDDecision on complaint 632/97/PD against the European Commission
Da Kommissionen ikke forelagde klageren nogen oplysninger om behandling af klagen, indbragte klageren sagen for Den Europæiske Ombudsmand. I sin klage fremhævede klageren, at han forstod,Kommissionen var underlagt et stort arbejdspres, men at han alligevelfandt det uacceptabelt, at den i en periode på tre år ikke havde forelagtvæsentlige oplysninger om hans klage.
As the Commission did not provide the complainant with any information onthe processing of the complaint, the complainant lodged the complaint withthe European Ombudsman.In his complaint, the complainant put forwardthat he appreciated that the Commission operates under great pressure ofwork, but that he considered it unacceptable that the Commission failed togive him any substantive communication concerning his complaint over aperiod of three years.
Dom af 5. marts 1997 i sag T-105/95, WWFmod Kommissionen,Sml.
See judgment of 5 March 1997 in case T-105/95, WWF v Commission,[1997] ECR II-313 and theorder of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 1998 in case T-610/97 R, Carlsenand others v.Council, [1998] ECR II-485.
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse anførte Kommissionen følgende:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion the Commission stated the following:
Sagerne opdeles i to kategorier, hhv. a) anmeldt støtte og b) ikke-anmeldtstøtte. Undersøgelsen af anmeldt støtte har førsteprioritet, idet Domstolenhar fastsat en frist på to måneder for en indledende undersøgelse, jf. domaf 11. december 1973 i sag C-10/73, Lorenz, Sml., s. 1471.
The files are classified into two categories :a) Notified aids and b) non notified aids.The examination of notified aids is a priority as the Court of Justice has imposed a time limit of two months for the preliminary examination, cf.judgement of 11 December 1973 in case C-10/73, Lorenz, [1973]ECR 1471.
Men siden klagen blev indgivet, havde Kommissionen undersøgt ti støtteordninger, der i mellem tiden faktisk var blevet anmeldt af de nederlandskemyndigheder, og som var dækket af klagen. I disse sager havde Kommissionen ikke fundet nogen overtrædelse af traktaten.
However since the lodging of the complaint the Commission had examinedten aid schemes which in the meantime had indeed been notified by the Dutch authorities and which were covered by the complaint.In these casesthe Commission had not found any violation of the Treaty.
Med skrivelse af 5. december 1997, som Ombudsmanden modtog i kopi,meddelte Kommissionen klageren navn og telefonnummer på den tjenestemand, der var ansvarlig for sagen, så klageren kunne kontakte denne,hvis han ønskede det. Kommissionen nævnte også i skrivelsen, at det villevære nyttigt, hvis klageren nærmere kunne angive, hvilke Landbouwschap-ordninger, han mente, var i modstrid med fællesskabsretten.
By letter of 5 December 1997, of which the Ombudsman received a copy,the Commission informed the complainant about the name and telephonenumber of the official in charge of the file so that the complainant couldmake contact if he so wished.The Commission also stated in its letter thatit would be useful if the complainant indicated in more detail whichschemes of the Landbouwschap he considered to violate Community law.
I sine bemærkninger erklærede klageren, at Kommissionens udtalelse varutilfredsstillende, og at den ikke bragte noget nyt om undersøgelsen afhans klage.
In his observations the complainant stated that the Commission’s opinionwas unsatisfactory as it did not bring any news on the examination of hiscomplaint.
Efter en grundig gennemgang af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerensbemærkninger henvendte Ombudsmanden sig igen til Kommissionen. I sinskrivelse erklærede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen gentagne gangehavde erkendt, at klager fra enkeltpersoner fortsat er det vigtigste grundlagfor Kommissionens kontrol med fællesskabsrettens gennemførelse.
After careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and of the complainant’s observations the Ombudsman addressed the Commission again.In his letter, the Ombudsman stated that the Commission had repeatedlyrecognised that complaints from individuals remain the most importantsource on which the Commission bases its task of monitoring the application of Community law.As concerns complaints related to Article 169 of the
Hvad
Page 66
AFGØRELSER angik klager i henhold til artikel 169 i EF-traktaten, havde Kommissionenerkendt, at de burde være behandlet i løbet af et år efter registreringen.Overholdelse af denne forpligtelse syntes at være specielt vigtig i sager omstatsstøtte, idet Kommissionen var den eneste instans, der havde kompetence til at vurdere overensstemmelse med EF-traktaten. På denne baggrund spurgte Ombudsmanden, hvad Kommissionen havde tænkt sig atgøre for at besvare klagerens oprindelige klage.
EC Treaty, the Commission had recognised that complaints should normally be dealt with within one year from registration.The respect of thiscommitment seemed of particular importance in case of State aids, as the Commission is the sole instance competent to assess compatibility with the EC Treaty.Against this background, the Ombudsman asked to know whichmeasures the Commission envisaged taking in order to reply to the complainant’s original complaint.
Kommissionen ville i så fald prioritereen undersøgelse af disse ordninger.
The Commission would then give priority to the examination of these schemes.
Ombudsmanden modtog ingen bemærkninger til Kommissionens andenudtalelse.
The complainant’s further observations No observations were received on the Commission’s second opinion.
AFGØRELSENForsinkelse i behandling af klagerens oprindelige klage
THE DECISIONThe delay in processing the complainant’s original complaint
Kommissionen erkendte for eksempel, hvad angår klager i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169, at førnævnte principper indebærer, atklagen skal behandles i løbet af maksimalt et år, medmindre der foreligger en speciel begrundelse.
As concerns for instance complaints relating to Article 169 of the ECTreaty, the Commission acknowledged that the said principles implythat the complaint shall be processed within a maximum period of oneyear, unless there are special reasons.
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om statsstøtte skal det bemærkes, at Kommissionen har eksklusive beføjelser til at vurdere en statsstøttesforenelighed med traktaten. Følgelig kan borgere, der mener, at enstatsstøtte er uforenelig med traktaten, ikke bede andre end Kommissionen om en vurdering.
In the field in question in this case, that is State aids, it shall beobserved that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to assess thecompatibility of State aid with the Treaty.Thus, if citizens consider a State aid to be incompatible with the Treaty, they have nobody else toturn to for an assessment than the Commission.In the interest of goodadministration and the fundamental rules of the Treaty relating to State aid, the Commission must therefore conduct a diligent examination of complaints alleging aid to be incompatible with the Treaty,within reasonable time.
Med hensyn til anmeldt statsstøtte har Domstolen fastslået, at Kommissionen skal foretage sin indledende undersøgelse af støtten iløbet af to måneder.
As concerns notified State aid, the Court of Justice has held that the Commission shall conduct its preliminary investigation of the aidwithin two months.
Hvad angår ikke-anmeldt statsstøtte, synes der ikke at være nogentvingende grund til, at tidsgrænsen for at undersøge klager over ensådan støtte principielt skulle være forskellig fra tidsgrænsen på et årfor klager over medlemsstaters overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten,artikel 169-klager. Derfor må den maksimale tidsgrænse for behandling af klager over ikke-anmeldt statsstøtte være et år, medmindrespecielle grunde taler for andet.
As concerns non notified State aid, there appears to be no imperativereasons why the time limit for examining complaints concerning suchaid should in principle be different from the time limit of one year thatapplies to complaints related to Member States’breach of their obligations under Community law, Art 169 complaints.Thus, the maximum time limit for processing complaints concerning non notified Stated aid must be one year, unless there are special reasons.
Der er i dette tilfælde gået tre år, siden den oprindelige klage blev indsendt til Kommissionen, uden at klageren har modtaget nogen formfor meddelelse om behandlingen af hans klage. Dette er ikke i overensstemmelse med god forvaltningsskik.
In this case, three years had passed since the lodging of the originalcomplaint with the Commission, without the complainant receivingany communication concerning the processing of his complaint.Thisis not in accordance with principles of good administration.
Det fremgik dog også af Kommissionens anden udtalelse, at denhavde undskyldt dette, at den havde sat sig i forbindelse med klageren og taget skridt til at sikre en reel behandling af sagen. På dennebaggrund fandt Ombudsmanden ikke, at der var grundlag for yderligere undersøgelse af klagen.
However, it also appeared from the Commission’s second opinion thatthe Commission had apologised for this, that it had established communication with the complainant and taken steps to ensure the properprocessing of the file.Against this background, the Ombudsman foundthat there were no reasons for inquiring further into the complaint.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to be no maladministration by the European Commission.
Afgørelse om klage 1007/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
ANTI-COMPETITIVE SUBVENTION OF THE PIG PRODUCTIONDecision on complaint 1007/97/IJH against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen bevidst lod en situationudvikle sig, som var konkurrencebegrænsende og fordrejede markedskræfterne.
The complainant claimed that the Commission deliberately allowed a situation to develop which is anti-competitive and distorts market forces.According to the complaint, the Commission did this by allowing the United Kingdom to withdraw from an agricultural investment subsidy scheme, withthe result that pig production is now subsidised in other Member States butnot in the UK.
Ifølge klageren gjorde Kommissionen dette ved at efterkomme Det Forenede Kongeriges anmodning om ikke længere at anvende en støtteordning for landbrugsinvesteringer, som resulterede i, at svineproduktionen derpå modtog tilskud i andre medlemsstater, men ikke i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.The Commission statedthat the complaint had not been preceded by any administrativeapproaches to it.Nonetheless, it provided the following information:
Den giver medlemsstaterne mulighed forat foreslå ordninger til strukturforbedring i sektorerne for forskellige produkter og ansøge om EF’s medfinansiering på indtil 50%.
DECISIONS pose schemes to improve the structures of various product sectors and torequest Community co-financing up to 50%.
Ved beslutning 94/836/EF23godkendte Kommissionen et enhedsprogrammeringsdokument for EF’s strukturinterventioner vedrørende forarbejdningog afsætning af landbrugsprodukter i Det Forenede Kongerige for perioden1994 til 1999.
By Decision 94/836/EC23the Commission approved a Single Programming Document for Community structural measures for improving the processingand marketing conditions for agricultural products in the United Kingdombetween 1994 and 1999.