natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1.7I skrivelsen af 6. marts 1998 anførte klageren,at den drejede sig om manglende overholdelse af EF-traktaten og af protokol 2 til Finlands tiltrædelsesakt,og anmodede Kommissionen om at træffe foranstaltninger mod Finland.
1.7The complainant’s letter of 6 March 1998 stated that it concerned breach of the EC-Treaty and Protocol No 2 to the Act of accession of Finland and it requested the Commission to act against Finland.
Det må derfor have været tydeligt for Kommissionen,at klagerens hensigt var at indgive en formel klage i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 226.
It must therefore have been clear to the Commissionthat the complainant’s intention was to lodge a formal complaint under Article 226 of the EC-Treaty.
I denne forbindelse skal det påpeges,at en formel registreringaf skrivelsen ikke ville have forhindret Kommissionen i at konkludere,at den ikke villeundersøge sagen yderligere af de grunde,der var anført i dens skrivelse af 28. marts 2001til klageren.
In this respect,it should be pointed out that a formal registration of the letterwould not have prevented the Commission from drawing the conclusion that it would notinvestigate the matter further for the reasons mentioned in its letter of 28 March 2001 tothe complainant.
1.8Kommissionen skal handle i overensstemmelse med sine løfter i undersøgelsen påeget initiativ,303/97/PD38.
1.8The Commission shall act in accordance with its undertakings in the own-initiativeinquiry 303/97/PD38.
Manglende overholdelse af disse garantier udgør et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
A failure to respect those safeguards constitutes an instance of maladministration.
I nærværende klage undlod Kommissionen at registrere klagerensskrivelse som en klage og handlede dermed ikke i overensstemmelse med god forvaltningsskik.
In the present complaint,the Commission failed to register thecomplainant’s letter as a complaint,and thus failed to act in accordance with good administration.
Ombudsmanden vil derfor fremsætte en kritisk bemærkning over for Kommissionen.
The Ombudsman will therefore address a critical remark to the Commission.
På grundlag af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage var det påkrævet at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it is necessary to make thefollowing critical remark:
Kommissionen skal handle i overensstemmelse med sine løfter i undersøgelsen på egetinitiativ,303/97/PD39.
The Commission shall act in accordance with its undertakings in the owninitiative inquiry303/97/PD39.
Manglende overholdelse af disse garantier udgør et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
A failure to respect those safeguards constitutes an instance of maladminis- tration.
I nærværende klage undlod Kommissionen at registrere klagerens skrivelse som en klage og handlede dermed ikke i overensstemmelse med god forvaltningsskik.
In the present complaint,the Commission failed to register the complainant’sletter as a complaint,and thus failed to act in accordance with good administration.
For så vidt angår dette aspekt af klagen,søgte Ombudsmanden en mindelig løsning. Detsyntes imidlertid ikke at være muligt at nå frem til en mindelig løsning.
As regards this aspect of the case,the Ombudsman tried to pursue a friendly settlement ofthe matter.
KLAGEN
The
Se også Den Europæiske Ombudsmands afgørelse af 7. juni 2001 om klage 1194/2000/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen.
See also the European Ombudsman’s Decision of 7 June 2001 on complaint 1194/2000/JMA against the European Commission.
Denne afgørelse er tilgængelig på Ombudsmandens websted:http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int
Available on the Ombudsman’s Website:http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int
I perioden 23. august til 9. april 1999 indførte South Lodge 51 partier fra fire forskelligeleverandører i Cambodja.
Between 23 August 1994 and 9 April 1996,South Lodge made 51 imports from fourdifferent suppliers in Cambodia.
Hvert parti var forsynet med et A-oprindelsescertifikat og vardermed fritaget for told i henhold til GSP.
Each consignment was supported by a certificate oforigin Form A,and was thus cleared at a zero rate of customs duty under the GSP.
For at kontrollere,at oprindelsesreglerne var blevet overholdt,aflagde South Lodge leverandørerne i Cambodja et besøg,og disse forsikrede South Lodge om,at de beklædnings-genstande,de fremstillede,overholdt oprindelsesreglerne.
In order to check that the origin rules were adhered to,South Lodge visited the suppliersin Cambodia who assured South Lodge that the garments they were making met the originrules.
I 1996 fik South Lodge at vide,at de beklædningsgenstande af tekstil,der angiveligt stammede fra Cambodja,rent faktiskikke overholdt oprindelsesreglerne. South Lodge blev derefter indstævnet for VAT and Duties Tribunal i Det Forenede Kongerige af toldmyndighederne (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) i Det Forenede Kongerige.
In 1996,South Lodge was informed that textile garments supposedly originating in Cambodia did not in fact meet the required origin rules.
I sin kendelse fra 1999 fandt “the Tribunal”, at oprindelsesreglerne ikke var blevet overholdt,og at South Lodge skullebetale i alt 336.000 GBP i told og moms.
In its judgement from 1999,the Tribunal found that the rules of origin had notbeen met and South Lodge had to pay duty and VAT amounting to £ 336 000.
Ifølge klageren vidste Kommissionen allerede i 1994,at beklædningsgenstandene aftekstil ikke kunne stamme fra Cambodja og derfor ikke overholdt de påkrævede oprindelsesregler.
According to the complainant,the Commission knew already in 1994 that textile garmentscould not originate in Cambodia and consequently did not meet the required origin rules.It appeared that this information was made available only to the Commission.
Disse oplysninger var tilsyneladende kun tilgængelige for Kommissionen.Klageren anførte,at South Lodge ikke ville have købt beklædningsgenstande fra disseleverandører,hvis de havde haft adgang til de samme oplysninger som Kommissionen.South Lodge blev først underrettet i 1996,efter at Kommissionen havde aflagt besøg i Cambodja.
Thecomplainant stated that South Lodge would not have purchased garments from thesesuppliers if it had been aware of the information that was known to the Commission. South Lodge was informed only in 1996,following a visit by the Commission to Cambodia.
Ifølge klageren var Kommissionen forpligtet til at underrette de erhvervsdrivende i 1994,da Kommissionen blev bekendt med,at beklædningsgenstandene af tekstil ikke kunnestamme fra Cambodja og derfor ikke overholdt de påkrævede oprindelsesregler.
According to the complainant,the Commission had an obligation to notify economic operators in 1994 when it became aware of the fact that textile garments could not originate in Cambodia and consequently did not comply with the rules concerning required origin.
Klagerenhævdede,at Kommission ikke havde opfyldt denne forpligtelse.
Thecomplainant alleged that the Commission failed to comply with this obligation.
Kommissionen udtalte,at den i august 1994sendte en meddelelse til medlemsstaterne for at gøre dem opmærksomme på muligeproblemer i forbindelse med indførsel af visse tekstilvarer fra Cambodja.
In its opinion,the Commission statedthat in August 1994,it sent a message alerting the Member States to possible problemsconcerning importation of certain textile products from Cambodia.
Meddelelsenblev offentliggjort i henhold til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1468/81 af 19. maj 1981 omgensidig bistand mellem medlemsstaternes administrative myndigheder og om samarbejdemellem disse og Kommissionen med henblik på at sikre den rette anvendelse af told- oglandbrugsbestemmelserne (senere erstattet af forordning nr. 515/97).
The message wasissued under Regulation No 1468/81 on mutual assistance between the administrativeauthorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commissionto ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (laterreplaced by Regulation No 515/97).
I artikel 1940i forordning nr. 1468/81 fastlægges det,at “De oplysninger,der under denene eller den anden form meddeles i medfør af denne forordning,er fortrolige.
Article 1940of Regulation No 1468/81 provides that “Any information communicated inwhatever form pursuant to this Regulation shall be of a confidential nature.
De eromfattet af den tjenstlige tavshedspligt (…) må navnlig ikke meddeles andre personer enddem,der i medlemsstaterne eller i fællesskabsinstitutionerne i kraft af deres stilling erbemyndiget til at kende dem.”I lyset af denne bestemmelse,mente Kommissionen,at denikke kunne sende denne meddelelse om gensidig bistand fra 1994 til klageren.
It shall becovered by the obligation of professional secrecy (…) may not in particular be sent topersons other than those in the Member States or within the Community institutions whoseduties require that they have access to it.”In the light of this provision,the Commissionfound that it could not send the Mutual Assistance message issued in 1994 to thecomplainant.
Derudoveranførte Kommissionen,at meddelelsen hverken indeholdt fakta eller en vurdering afomfanget af de mulige uregelmæssigheder.
In addition,the Commission stated that the message contained neither established facts nor an evaluation of the scale of possible irregularities.
Artikel 45 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 515/97 af 13.3.1997,som i øjeblikket er gældende.
Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97,currently in force.
Kommissionen konkluderede,at den havde handlet i overensstemmelse med gældenderammelovgivning.
The Commission concluded that it had acted according to the legal framework in force.
Han fandt Kommissionens erklæringom,at dens meddelelse fra 1994 til medlemsstaterne var fortrolig og omfattet af den tjenstlige tavshedspligt,latterlig.
He found the Commission’s statement that its message from 1994 to the Member States was confidential and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy to be ludicrous.
Klageren henviste til de advarsler,Kommissionen havdeoffentliggjort i EF-Tidende om oprindelsescertifikater fra Israel og Bangladesh.
The complainantreferred to warning notices published by the Commission in the Official Journalconcerning certificates of origin from Israel and Bangladesh.
Klagerenhævdede ligeledes,at Rådet i 1996 havde pålagt Kommissionen straks at undersøge GSP-problemet (Rådets afgørelse af 28.5.1996,EFT 1996 C 170,s. 1),men at Kommissionenindtil videre havde undladt at handle.
The complainant also allegedthat the Council had instructed the Commission in 1996 to urgently examine the GSPproblem (Council Decision of 28 May 1996,OJ 1996 C 170/1),but so far the Commissionhad failed to act.
På grund af Kommissionens manglende underrettelse af South Lodge havde virksomheden måttet lukke,og 46 ud af 50 ansatte var blevetafskediget.
Due to the failure by the Commission to inform South Lodge,the business had effectively closed down and 46 of the 50 employees were made redundant.
Klageren konkluderede,at det springende punkt i klagen var,at Kommissionenvidste,at der var et problem,men ikke underrettede de erhvervsdrivende,selv om Kommissionen var forpligtet til det.
Thecomplainant concluded that the central point of the complaint was that the Commissionknew there was a problem but did not advise the economic operators although the Commission had an obligation to do so.
I en senere skrivelse fra januar 2000 henviste klageren til,at Kommissionen i sin beretningom rejsen til Cambodja af den 28. marts 1996 henviste til forespørgsler,som medlemsstaterne havde foretaget i 1994.
In a further letter of 20 January 2000,the complainant referred to the fact that the Commission’s Report on the mission to Cambodia of 28 March 1996 made reference toenquiries conducted by Member States in 1994.
Klageren mente,at disse forespørgsler måtte have henledt Kommissions opmærksomhed på uregelmæssigheder i forbindelse med GSP-ordningen.Klageren anførte også,at efter Kommissionens konklusioner i rejseberetningen fra 1996gik der yderligere tre måneder,før Kommissionen underrettede de erhvervsdrivende.Klageren henviste til South Lodges besøg i Cambodja i 1995,hvor virksomheden mødtesmed premierministeren og andre højtstående regeringsrepræsentanter og blev forsikretom,at beklædningsgenstandene overholdt oprindelsesreglerne i GSP-ordningen.
The complainant also stated that after the Commission’s findings in the 1996Mission Report,it took the Commission another three months to inform the economicoperators. The complainant referred to South Lodge’s visit to Cambodia in 1995 were itmet the Prime Minister and other high ranking Government officials and was assured thatthe garments qualified for GSP origin.
Trodsihærdige forespørgsler kunne South Lodge ikke have fastslået de faktiske forhold.
Despite rigorous enquiries,South Lodge could nothave established the true position.
I en anden skrivelse fra august 200 påpegede klageren,at der de seneste år var blevetudstedt ugyldige oprindelsescertifikater i Bangladesh.
In another letter of 2 August 2000,the complainant pointed out that in Bangladesh,invalidcertificates of origin had been issued over the past years.
De bangladeshiske myndighederhavde nægtet at svare på kontrolforespørgsler.
The Bangladeshi authorities hadrefused to reply to verification enquiries.
Toldmyndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige foreslog,at der ikke skulle tilbagebetales told,hvilket klageren glædede sigover,eftersom EU-importører ikke havde mulighed for at kontrollere gyldigheden af etoprindelsescertifikat i overensstemmelse med GSP-ordningen.
The UK Customs and Excise proposed not tocollect any back duty which the complainant welcomed,as EU importers had no controlover the validity of a Preference origin certificate.
Hvad angår den aktuelleklages status,måtte South Lodge dog tilbagebetale told og blev ruineret,fordi de cambodjanske myndigheder samarbejdede med Kommissionen.
However,as regards the situation of thepresent complaint,because the Cambodian authorities co-operated with the Commission,South Lodge had to pay back duty and was completely ruined.
Fordi de bangladeshiske myndigheder ikke samarbejdede med Kommissionen,skulle EU-importørerne slet ikketilbagebetale told.
Because Bangladeshiauthorities did not co-operate with the Commission,EU importers have to pay no backduty at all.
Klageren gjorde gældende,at der var tale om uretfærdig behandling.
The complainant alleged that there was unfair treatment.
1Ombudsmanden henviste til Rådets afgørelse af 28. maj 1996 om efterfølgendeopkrævning af toldskyld,ifølge hvilken Kommissionen anmodes om at foretage en undersøgelse med henblik på at finde en samlet løsning på opkrævningsproblemerne og forelægge et forslag,der omfatter såvel den hidtidige som den fremtidige situation.Ombudsmanden anmodede Kommissionen om at oplyse ham om,hvorvidt en sådanundersøgelse var blevet foretaget og i bekræftende fald om resultatet heraf og undersøgelsens betydning for South Lodge.
1The Ombudsman referred to the Council Decision of 28 May 1996 on the post-clear-ance recovery of the customs debt,according to which it is requested that a study shouldbe carried out by the Commission with a view to finding a solution to the recovery problems and making a proposal covering past and future situations. The Ombudsman askedthe Commission to inform him if any study was carried out and if so,of the results and theimplication of the study for South Lodge.
Ombudsmanden anmodede ligeledes Kommissionen omat oplyse ham om eventuel anden udvikling på dette område,som ville være af betydningfor South Lodge.
The Ombudsman also asked the Commission toinform him of any other development in this field which would have implications for South Lodge.
2Ifølge Rådets afgørelse af 28. maj 1996 var ordningen og de i maj 1996 gældenderegler uretfærdige for EF’s virksomheder.
2According to the Council Decision of 28 May 1996,the system and the rules in forcein May 1996,were seen as unfair to Community traders.
Ifølge Rådets afgørelse skulle Kommissionensforslag også omfatte den hidtidige situation.
The Council Decision also statedthat the Commission proposal should cover past situations.
Ombudsmanden anmodede om Kommissionens bemærkninger til disse udtalelser.
The Ombudsman asked the Commission to comment on these statements.
3Sidst anmodede Ombudsmanden om Kommissionens bemærkninger til oplysningerne i klagerens skrivelser af 20. januar og 2. august 2000.
3The Ombudsman finally asked the Commission to comment on the informationcontained in the complainant’s letters of 20 January and 2 August 2000.
Kommissionen fik ligeledes tilsendt en kopi af klagerens bemærkninger.
A copy of the complainant’s observations was also sent to the Commission.
I sin anden udtalelse anførte Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
In its second opinion,the Commission put forward in summary the following:
Efter Rådets afgørelse af 28. maj 1996 om efterfølgende opkrævning af toldskyld udarbejdede Kommissionen den 23. juli 1997 en meddelelse om forvaltningen af toldpræfe-renceordningerne,KOM(1997) 402.
Following the Council Decision of 28 May 1996 on post-clearance recovery of customsdebt,the Commission adopted on 23 July 1997 a Communication on the management ofpreferential tariff arrangements,Document COM (97) 402 final.
I meddelelsen foreslås en række aktioner,der kaniværksættes.
The Communicationoutlines the action that might be taken.
I forhold til den hidtidige situation anfører Kommissionen,at det vil værenødvendigt at afgøre tidligere sager på baggrund af de regler,der var gældende på det tids-punkt,da omstændighederne blev fastslået,i overensstemmelse med juridisk præcedens,der fastlægger,at tiltro til oprindelsescertifikatet normalt ikke er beskyttet,men udgør ennormal erhvervsrisiko.
As regards past situations,the Communicationstates that it will be necessary to settle previous cases on the basis of regulations existingat the time that the facts were established,in conformity with the legal precedent settingout that faith in the certificate of origin is not normally protected,but constitutes a “normalcommercial risk”.
Kommissionen forklarede,at EF-toldkodeksen var blevet ændret for at tage højde forproblemer i forbindelse med god tro41.
The Commission explained that the Community Customs Code was amended to takeaccount of the problems concerned with good faith41.
Artikel 220,stk. 2,litra b) blev ændret for at defi- nere betegnelserne fejl,som toldmyndighederne har begået,og god tro fra debitors side.Importører,der handler i god tro,vil fremover i højere grad blive beskyttet og under visseomstændigheder fritaget for at betale afgifter.
Article 220(2)(b) was amended for the purpose of defining the concepts of error on the part of the customs authorities and ofgood faith on the part of the person liable for payment. Importers acting in good faith willin the future enjoy a higher level of protection and under certain circumstances,the dutieswill not be levied.
I forhold til klagerens skrivelser fra januar og august 2000 påpegede Kommissionen først,at de erhvervsdrivende,der drager fordel af toldpræferenceordningen,og de toldmyndigheder i medlemsstaterne,der kontrollerer indførsler og fortoldningsbegæringer,også erdem,der håndterer præferenceordningerne.
As regards the complainant’s letters from January and August 2000,the Commission firstpointed out that the economic operators benefiting from the preferential tariffs and thecustoms authorities in the Member States verifying imports and customs declarations arethe ones involved in the handling of the preferential arrangements.
Kommissionen er ikke direkte involveret idette arbejde,men hvis den får kendskab til svig eller fejl eller forsømmelser (via deundersøgelser,der er foretaget af toldmyndighederne i medlemsstaterne,eller via oplysninger fra de erhvervsdrivende),er der intet til hinder for,at Kommissionen udarbejder enmeddelelse til importørerne i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens meddelelse omunderrettelse af de erhvervsdrivende og medlemsstaternes administration,når der foreligger begrundet mistanke vedrørende oprindelsen af varer,KOM(2000) 550.
The Commission is notdirectly involved in these operations but if it is notified of fraud or maladministration (byvirtue of investigations carried out with customs officials of the Member States or viainformation from economic operators),there is nothing to prevent it from publishing anotice for importers in accordance with the Commission’s Communication concerninginformation to economic operators and Member State administrations of cases of reasonable doubt as to the origin of goods,Document COM (2000) 550.
Situationer,hvor toldafgiften påløb før den
In that context and also
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2700/2000 af 16.11.2000 om ændring af Rådets forordning(EØF) nr. 2913/92 om indførelse af en EF-toldkodeks,EFT 2000 L 311,s. 17.
Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code,OJ 2000 L 311/17.
I sine bemærkninger til Kommissionens anden udtalelse understregede klageren endnu engang,at det var skandaløst,at Kommissionen betragtede de oplysninger,som den var ibesiddelse af i 1994 om problemer med oprindelsescertifikater i Cambodja,som fortrolige.
In the complainant’s observations on the Commission’s second opinion,he again underlined that it was outrageous that the Commission found the information it was in possession of in 1994 concerning problems with origin certificates issued in Cambodia to beconfidential.
Kommissionen har en omsorgspligt over for alle de små og mellemstore virksomheder i EU og skal sikre,at sådanne oplysninger videregives til erhvervslivet.
The Commission has a duty of care to EU small and medium seized enterprises and should and must ensure that such issues are published to the business community.
Klagerenanførte,at han ingen steder i nogen af Kommissionens udtalelser kunne finde en henvisning til en berettigelse for den manglende underrettelse af erhvervslivet. Derudover havdeklageren bevist,at Kommissionen allerede i 1994 kendte til problemerne,men at Kommissionen ikke havde kommenteret dette.
The complainant stated that nowhere in either of the Commission’s opinions did hefind a reference to its justification of lack of information to the business community.Moreover,the complainant had provided proof that the Commission knew about the problems already in 1994,but the Commission failed to comment on this.
Klageren henviste til skrivelsen fra handelsministeren i Cambodja til formanden for Kommissionen, hvori de cambodjanske myndigheder påtager sig ansvaret for fejlene ioprindelsescertifikaterne.
The complainant referred to the letter from the Minister of Commerce in Cambodia to the President of the Commission in which the Cambodian authorities accept responsibility forthe errors in the origin certificates.
I Bangladesh blev der ikke krævet tilbagebetaling af told,damyndighederne ikke samarbejdede med Kommissionen.
In the case of Bangladesh,because the authorities didnot co-operate with the Commission,no back duty demand was issued.
Klageren fandt dette urimeligt.
The complainantfound this inequitable.
Klageren påpegede,at Kommissionens anden udtalelse drejede sig om spørgsmålet omfremtidige situationer,som nu var blevet medtaget i EF-toldkodeksen,som trådte i kraftden 19. december 2000,fire år efter Rådet havde pålagt Kommissionen at behandlespørgsmålet.
The complainant pointed out that the Commission’s second opinion dealt with the question of future situations which had now been addressed in the Community Customs Codewhich came into force on 19 December 2000,four years after the Council instructed the Commission to deal with the issue.
Kommissionen havde dog ikke fulgt opfordringen om også at finde enløsning på hidtidige situationer.
However,the Commission did not address the instruction that it should also find a solution to situations in the past.