natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
49 behandlingen af en klage, han havde indgivet til Kommissionen angåendemyndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige.
ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISIONDecision on complaint 106/97/PD against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde i hovedsagengældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde givet tilstrækkelig begrundelse forsin konklusion, nemlig at Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder ikkehavde overtrådt direktiv 85/337.
In February 1997, Mr B.lodged a complaint on behalf of an association,Friends of the Lake District, concerning a decision by the European Commission to close the file on a complaint that he had lodged with the Commission concerning the UK authorities.In substance, the complainantalleged that the Commission had failed to give adequate reasons for itsfinding that the UK authorities had not acted in breach of Directive 85/337.
Sammenslutningen mente endvidere, at Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder havde overtrådt artikel 5 i direktiv 85/337 ved ikke at kræve, atden ansøgende virksomhed forelagde og offentliggjorde oplysninger ommulige alternativer til RCF-projektet.
Moreover, the association considered that the UK authorities had acted inbreach of Article 5 of Directive 85/337 by not requiring the applicant company to provide and make public information on possible alternatives to the RCF project.
Da sammenslutningen fandt Kommissionens svar utilfredsstillende, indgavden klagen til Ombudsmanden. I hovedsagen gik klagen ud på, at Kommissionen ikke i tilstrækkelig grad havde begrundet, hvorfor RCF-pro-jektet kunne ses særskilt fra et muligt underjordisk deponeringssted til bortskaffelse af atomaffald, og hvorfor man ikke havde anset oplysninger omalternative steder for nødvendige.
Considering that reply from the Commission unsatisfactory, the associationlodged the complaint with the Ombudsman.In the complaint, it was in substance put forward that the Commission had failed to give adequate reasoning why the RCF project was dissociable from a possible deep repository for the disposal of nuclear waste and why information on alternativesites was not considered necessary.
I Den Europæiske Ombudsmands statut hedder det specifikt, at handlinger foretaget afenhver anden myndighed eller person ikke kan indklages for Ombudsmanden.
To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to recall that the EC Treatyempowers the European Ombudsman to inquire into possible instances of
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse af denne klage gik derfor ud på at fastslå,om der var tale om fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med handlingerforetaget af Europa-Kommissionen.
The Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint were therefore directedtowards examining whether there had been maladministration in the activities of the European Commission.
Kommissionens udtalelse
The Commission’s opinion
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse gentog Kommissionen i det væsentligste den begrundelse, den tidligere havdegivet klagerne.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion, the Commission in substance repeated the reasoning previously given to thecomplainants.
Klagernes bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt sammenslutningen klagen.
The complainants’ observations In its observations, the association maintained the complaint.
Efter en nøje gennemgang af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagernesbemærkninger fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen kunne have givetet mere fyldestgørende svar på de relevante argumenter, klageren havdefremført. Kommissionen blev derfor for det første bedt om at redegøre for,hvorfor RCF-projektet ifølge Kommissionen kunne ses særskilt fra detplanlagte projekt til bortskaffelse af atomaffald og, for det andet, på hvilketgrundlag Kommissionen havde konkluderet, at Det Forenede Kongerigeikke havde handlet i modstrid med direktiv 85/337, da det havde afstået fraat kræve, at den ansøgende virksomhed forelagde oplysninger om muligealternativer.
After careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman considered that the Commissioncould have replied more adequately to the relevant arguments put forwardby the complainant.The Commission was therefore requested to clarify,firstly, why the Commission had considered the RCF project dissociablefrom the planned nuclear waste deposit project;secondly, on what basisthe Commission had concluded that the UK had not acted contrary to Directive 85/337 when refraining from requesting the applicant company togive information on project alternatives.
Kommissionens anden udtalelse
The Commission’s second opinion
Klagerens yderligere bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt sammenslutningen sin klage.
The complainant’s further observations In its observations, the association maintained the complaint.
Efter en nøje gennemgang af Kommissionens anden udtalelse og klagerens yderligere bemærkninger bad Ombudsmanden Kommissionen om atuddybe sin begrundelse for, hvorfor RCF-projektet var et særskilt projekt,og hvorfor oplysninger om alternative steder ikke var nødvendige.
After careful consideration of the Commission’s second opinion and the further observations from the complainant, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to elaborate further its opinion on why the RCF was a dissociable project and why information on alternative sites was not considerednecessary.
Kommissionens tredje udtalelse
The Commission’s third opinion
I sin tredje udtalelse redegjorde Kommissionen først for sin begrundelse forat adskille de to sager.
In its third opinion, the Commission first provided further clarification of theissue of dissociability.As for the information on project alternatives, the Commission took the view that since the two projects were dissociable, the
51 adskilles fra et muligt deponeringssted for atomaffald, mente Kommissionen ikke, at oplysninger om alternative steder var nødvendige.
RCF project fell within Annex II of Directive 85/337.Thus, the matter wasconsidered in relation to Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, which states thatprojects listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.The RCF project being dissociable from a possible repository for the disposal of nuclearwaste, the Commission considered that information on alternative siteswas not needed.
Klagerens bemærkninger til Kommissionens tredje udtalelse
The complainant’s observations on the Commission’s third opinion
I sine bemærkninger til Kommissionens tredje udtalelse fastholdt sammenslutningen især klagepunktet, at Kommissionen ikke havde givet et fyldestgørende svar med hensyn til alternative steder.
In its observations on the Commission’s third opinion, the association maintained in particular the grievance that the Commission had failed to explainitself adequately on the question of alternative sites.
AFGØRELSENMangel på tilstrækkelig begrundelse
THE DECISIONFailure to give adequate reasons
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at myndighederne giver tilstrækkeligbegrundelse for de afgørelser, de tager i forbindelse med borgerneshenvendelser. I dette tilfælde fremgik det klart, at Kommissionen iførste instans havde undladt at give tilstrækkelig begrundelse vedrørende klagerens to problemer, RCF-projektets særskilte behandlingog nødvendigheden af oplysninger om alternative steder.
Principles of good administration require the administration to giveadequate reasons for the decisions it takes on submissions that citizens have made to it.In this case, it was apparent that the Commission initially failed to give adequate reasons on the complainant’s two concerns, the dissociability of the RCF project and theneed for information on alternative sites.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede derfor, at Kommissionen havde afhjulpetsin oprindelige forsømmelse med hensyn til at give en tilstrækkeligbegrundelse.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Commission has rectified its original failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Kommissionens side. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derforbehandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to be no maladministration by the Commission.The Ombudsmantherefore closed the case.
Afgørelse om klage 298/97/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
HANDLING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE UK AUTHORITIESDecision on complaint 298/97/PD against the European Commission
I april 1997 klagede C., medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand på vegne af sammenslutningen ”Save Our Shoreline Southport” (SOS).
In April 1997, Mr C.MEP complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of theassociation Save Our Shoreline Southport (SOS).The complaint allegedfailure of the Commission to enforce Community environmental legislation
AFGØRELSER
DECISIONS in the UK, as well as procedural errors in the handling of complaints from SOS.
I klagen til Kommissionen gjorde SOS opmærksom på, at det område, hvorbetonmolen skulle opføres, havde status som beskyttet område ifølgedirektiv 92/43 om levesteder og direktiv 79/409 om vilde fugle.Sammenslutningen mente, at betonmolen både ville skade fauna og floradirekte og indirekte ved at øge trafikken voldsomt. Sammenslutningen badderfor Kommissionen vurdere, om den lokale myndighed havde handlet istrid med sine forpligtelser ifølge ovennævnte direktiver.
In the complaint to the Commission, SOS drew attention to the protectedstatus of the area in which the concrete sea wall was to be constructed, astatus which is provided by Directive 92/43 on habitats and Directive79/409 on wild birds.The association considered that the concrete sea wallwould cause direct damage to fauna and flora, as well as indirect damageby facilitating a heavy increase in traffic.The association therefore askedthe Commission to assess whether the local authority had acted in breachof its obligations under the above Directives.
Sammenslutningen fremførte endvidere sin mistankeom, at man forsætligt havde valgt betonmolen for at øge trafikken, et målder var til skade for områdets miljø. Denne skade burde have været overvejet i en vurdering af indvirkningen på miljøet i henhold til direktiv 85/337.
The association considered that the sea wall would have a significant effecton the area.In contrast, the local authority had considered that the sea wallwas not “likely to have a significant effect”and had therefore not proceededto conduct a full assessment of the environmental implications.The association contested the local authority’s conclusions and put forward that anatural alternative to the concrete sea wall should have been considered.An adequate alternative would, according to the association, be sanddunes.The association also stated their suspicion that a concrete sea wallhad deliberately been chosen to make increased traffic possible, an objective which would cause damage to the area’s environment.This damageshould have been considered in the environmental impact assessmentunder Directive 85/337.
Den 4. juli 1996 bad Kommissionen Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder om at kommentere sagen. Den pågældende myndighed var English Nature, en offentlig virksomhed under ministeriet for miljø, transport ogregionerne.
On 4 July 1996, the Commission asked the UK authorities for comments onthe matter.The UK authority which supplied the comments was English Nature, a statutory body under the Department of Environment, Transport
Fællesskabets miljølovgivning. Den 3. februar 1997 blev sammenslutningen underrettet om denne afgørelse.
49 and the Regions.The opinion produced by English Natureconcluded thatthe contested sea wall project would not breach Community environmentallegislation.In addition to the information from English Nature, the Commission undertook an on-site inspection early September 1996.On 30September 1996 the Commission concluded that there was no breach of Community environmental law.On 3 February 1997 the association wasinformed of this decision.
Da sammenslutningen var utilfreds med Kommissionens konklusioner ogdens behandling af klagen, skrev den til sit lokale medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, der sendte sagen videre til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand.Sammenslutningen gjorde primært gældende, at Kommissionen:
Being dissatisfied with the Commission’s conclusions and its handling ofthe complaint, the association wrote to its local Member of the European Parliament who forwarded the matter to the European Ombudsman.In substance, the association claimed that the Commission:
- havde undladt at inddrage sammenslutningen i sin inspektion påstedet i begyndelsen af september 1996.
- failed to involve the association in its on-site inspection in early September 1996.
- havde undladt at informere sammenslutningen rettidigt om resultaterne af dens undersøgelse.
- failed to inform the association in good time about the results of itsinvestigation.
- fortolkede Fællesskabets miljølovgivning forkert. Man burde haveopfattet byggetilladelserne som ulovlige, fordi man i den indledendeproces havde undladt at overveje muligheden af naturlige sandbankeri overensstemmelse med bevaringsmålsætningerne og -kravene idirektiv 92/43 og 85/337.
- interpreted Community environmental legislation incorrectly.The planning permissions should have been considered illegal because theplanning process failed to consider natural sand dune defences inaccordance with the conservation objectives and requirements under Directives 92/43 and 85/337.
For at undgå misforståelser er det vigtigt at minde om, at EF-traktaten kungiver Den Europæiske Ombudsmand beføjelse til at undersøge muligetilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med handlinger foretaget af Fællesskabets institutioner eller organer.
To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to recall that the EC Treatyempowers the European Ombudsman to inquire into possible instances ofmaladministration only in the activities of Community institutions andbodies.The Statute of the European Ombudsman specifically provides thatno action by any other authority or person may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.
I Den Europæiske Ombudsmands statut hedder det specifikt, at handlinger foretaget afenhver anden myndighed eller person ikke kan indklages for Ombudsmanden.
The Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint were therefore directedtowards examining whether there had been maladministration in the activities of the European Commission.
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In summary the Commission’s opinion made the following points:
Med hensyn til det tredje klagepunkt anførte Kommissionen, at den udløsende faktor for anvendelsen af sikkerhedsforanstaltningerne i ovennævntedirektiver var sandsynligheden af, at en plan eller et projekt påvirkede enlokalitet væsentligt.
As for the second grievance, the Commission acknowledged that the delaywas excessive, and informed the Ombudsman that measures had beentaken to avoid similar delays in the future.
Sandsynligheden skal ikke blot ses i forhold til selveplanen eller projektet, men også i forhold til andre planer eller projekter.Efter at have behandlet henvendelserne fra myndighederne i Det Forenede Kongerige havde Kommissionen konkluderet, at projektet ikke var en overtrædelse af Fællesskabets miljølovgivning eller -politik, da der ikke forelåen negativ vurdering af virkningerne på lokaliteten under hensyn til bevaringsmålsætningerne for denne.
As concerns the third grievance, the Commission stated that the trigger forapplying the safeguards under the above mentioned Directives is the likelihood that a plan or project will have a significant effect on the site con-cerned.This likelihood is not only to be seen in terms of the plan or projectitself, but also in terms of other plans or projects.After considering the submissions from the UK authorities, the Commission had concluded that theproject would not breach Community environmental law or policy, sincethere was no negative assessment of the implications for the site in view ofthe site’s conservation objectives.
Klagerens bemærkninger Klageren fastholdt principielt sin klage.
The complainant’s observations In substance, the association maintained its complaint.
Efter en nøje gennemgang af Kommissionens udtalelse og sammenslutningens bemærkninger fremgik det, at der stadig var udestående forskellemellem Kommissionen og sammenslutningen, navnlig med hensyn tilspørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Kommissionen havde undersøgt muligheden afat lade sandbanker danne en naturlig mole, og hvorfor Kommissionen ikkemente, at projektet ville påvirke området væsentligt, jf. artikel 6 i direktiv92/43. Derfor bad Ombudsmanden Kommissionen afgive en udtalelse omdisse punkter.
After a careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the associa-tion’observations it appeared that there were still outstanding differencesbetween the Commission and the association, in particular as concerns thequestion whether the Commission investigated the option of allowing sanddunes to develop natural sea defences and as concerns the question whythe Commission considered that the project would not have a significantimpact on the area concerned in the meaning of Art 6 of Directive 92/43.Accordingly, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to submit an opinionon these issues.
AFGØRELSEN1Indledende bemærkninger
THE DECISION1Preliminary observation
I sine henvendelser rejste sammenslutningen spørgsmål, der ikke varnævnt i den oprindelige klage, især dens bekymring over planer omat styrke og øge brugen af kystveje i Southport.
In its submissions, the association raised issues which were not putforward in the original complaint, in particular concerns about plans tostrengthen and increase the use of coastal roads in Southport.
Ombudsmanden skal her bemærke, at han har modtaget en klage fraen anden sammenslutning over planer om at styrke og øge brugen afkystveje i Southport, klage 813/98/PD.
The Ombudsman shall observe that he has received a complaint fromanother association concerning the plans to strengthen and increasethe use of coastal roads in Southport, complaint 813/98/PD.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at disse nye spørgsmål snarere burde undersøges som led i undersøgelsen af denne anden klage; der ville derforikke blive truffet afgørelse herom som led i denne undersøgelse.
The Ombudsman found that the substance of these new issues wasbetter investigated within the inquiry of this other complaint, for whichreason they were not to be decided on in the present inquiry.
Klagerens deltagelse i mødet på stedet
The complainant’s participation in the on-site meeting
At udelukke en klager fra et møde, hvor genstanden for klagen drøfteseller på anden måde diskuteres, er ud fra en umiddelbar betragtningurimelig i en normal administrativ procedure, hvori klageren indgårsom part. Ud over klagerens individuelle interesse i at deltage isådanne møder kan en sådan deltagelse desuden bringe særdelesrelevante oplysninger og overvejelser for dagens lys og såledesskabe større tillid til, at Kommissionens endelige konklusioner er korrekte.
The exclusion of a complainant from a meeting intended to negotiateor otherwise discuss the subject matter of the complaint would primafacie be unreasonable in a normal administrative procedure in whichthe complainant is a party.In addition, beyond the complainant’s individual interest in participating in such meetings, the participation canassist to bring about the most relevant information and deliberationand thus ensure a higher confidence in the correctness of the Commission’s final conclusions.
Undladelse af at informere klageren rettidigt om resultaterne af Kommissionens undersøgelse
The failure to inform the complainant in good time about theresults of the Commission’s investigation
Sammenslutningen mente, at Kommissionen havde undladt at informere den rettidigt om resultaterne af dens undersøgelse.
The association considered that the Commission had failed to informit in good time about the results of its investigations.
I 1997 gennemførte Ombudsmanden en undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PD af Kommissionens administrative procedurer vedbehandling af klager som denne.
In 1997 the Ombudsman carried out an own initiative inquiry303/97/PD concerning the Commission’s administrative procedures incomplaints like the present one.As a result, the Commission under-
Kommissionens konklusioner om ikke-overtrædelse
The Commission’s conclusions concerning non-infringement
Sammenslutningens centrale punkter var for det første, at Kommissionen tog fejl i sin konklusion om, at det ikke var sandsynligt,at moleprojektet ville påvirke det pågældende beskyttede områdevæsentligt, og for det andet at man burde have overvejet naturligealternativer til betonmolen. Sammenslutningen henviste til direktiv92/43 og direktiv 85/337.
The central points put forward by the association were, firstly, that the Commission wrongly concluded that the sea wall project was not likelyto have a significant effect on the protected site in question, and secondly, that natural alternatives to a concrete sea wall should havebeen considered.The association referred to Directive 92/43 and Directive 85/337.
Kommissionen erkendte, at man skal overveje alternativer i henholdtil direktiv 92/43, hvis det pågældende projekt “kan påvirke en sådanlokalitet væsentligt”. Det centrale punkt var derfor Kommissionensvurdering af, hvorvidt lokaliteten kunne ”påvirkes væsentligt” eller ej.Ombudsmandens undersøgelser sigtede på at afdække, om Kommissionen havde handlet korrekt og omhyggeligt i forbindelsemed denne vurdering.
The Commission acknowledged that alternatives must be consideredunder Directive 92/43 ifthe project in question is deemed “likely tohave a significant effect”.The overall issue therefore turned on the Commission’s assessment of whether such “significant effect”waslikely or not.The Ombudsman’s inquiry was aimed at investigatingwhether the Commission had acted correctly and diligently in makingthis assessment.
I sager som denne skal Kommissionen som regel kun vurdere, om denationale myndigheder har overholdt procedurebestemmelserne, omkendsgerningerne er blevet korrekt fremført, og om der har været taleom en åbenbar vildfarelse eller magtfordrejning.
In cases like the present one, the Commission’s assessment is normally limited to verifying whether national authorities have compliedwith procedural rules, whether the facts have been accurately statedand whether there has been any manifest error of appraisal or misuseof power.
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 have been no maladministration by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede derforbehandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
YDERLIGERE BEMÆRKNINGER
Annual Report 1997, chapter 3.7.
AFGØRELSER
FURTHER REMARKS
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionen i en situation, hvor dens ansvarlige tjenestegrene befinder sig på stedet på grund af en klage, bør tageskridt til også at mødes med klageren.
It appeared in this case that a local association had lodged a complaint withthe Commission concerning a local building project, alleging that the project infringed Community environmental law.In the course of the examination of the complaint, the Commission services responsible participated inan on-site inspection of the project, at the invitation of the authority con-cerned.The Ombudsman found that in such a situation, where the Commission services responsible are on the site because of the complaint,they should take steps to meet also with the complainant.
AFSLAG PÅ AT GIVE EN ANSØGER I EN ÅBEN UDVÆLGELSESPRØVE EN KOPI AF DEN RETTEDE PRØVE
REFUSAL TO ALLOW A CANDIDATE IN AN OPEN COMPETITION A COPY OF THE MARKED TEST
Afgørelse om klage 365/97/JMAover Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 365/97/JMA against the European Commission
I april 1997 videresendte den regionale ombudsmand i Catalonien,Spanien, en klage indgivet af E. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand.
In April 1997, the regional ombudsman of Catalonia, in Spain, transferredto the European Ombudsman a complaint lodged by Mrs E.