natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til den omstændighed, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til atbehandle klager over nogle former for praksis, som er bragt til ophør, fremlagde klageren en avisartikel, hvoraf det fremgik, at Kommissionen rentfaktisk behandler visse sager som denne.
As regards the fact that the Commission is not required to act on complaints denouncing practices that have ceased, the complainant put forward a newspaper article stating that the Commission does act in relationto certain cases like this.
Kommissionen besvarede ikke brevet af 21. juli 1998, hvori der i modsætning til det, Kommissionen anførte, blev fremført nye punkter.
The Commission did not answer the letter of 21 July 1998, which, contraryto what the Commission stated, raised new points.
Modsat det, Kommissionen siger, har den i henhold til artikel 14 i Rådetsforordning nr. 17 beføjelser til at foretage kontrolundersøgelser. Klagerenvar derfor ikke enig i Kommissionens udtalelse om, at den ikke kan fastslåpålideligheden af oplysninger, som forelægges den, da den kun er et forvaltningsorgan.
Contrary to what it says, the Commission has investigation powers under Article 14 of Council Regulation No.17.The complainant did therefore notagree with the Commission’s statement that it cannot establish the veracityof information submitted to it, being only an administrative body.
Hvad angår Kommissionens udtalelse om, at den forgæves forsøgte atfinde vægtige beviser til støtte for MOL’s påstande, gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionen bl.a. havde fået forelagt kopier af fakturaer ogunderskrevne ordrer, beedigede skriftlige erklæringer, import-/eksportdo-
As regards the Commission’s statement that it tried in vain to find solid evidence to support MOL’s allegations, the complainant put forward that it supplied the Commission with, amongst other things, with copies of invoicesand signed orders, sworn affidavits, import/export documents and bank
Hvis dette ikke var tilstrækkeligt bevismateriale, anmodede klageren Kommissionen om at præcisere, hvad den klassificerede som bevismateriale.
109 statements.If this was not evidence enough, the complainant asked the Commission to specify what it classed as evidence.
Endelig håbede klageren, at Kommissionen ville give fyldestgørende svarmed hensyn til såvel klagen som de fire spørgsmål, som Elliott, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, havde stillet Kommissionen.
Finally, the complainant hoped for the Commission to give full answersregarding both the complaint and the four questions submitted to the Commission by Mr.Elliott, MEP.
AFGØRELSEN1Indledende bemærkninger
THE DECISION1Preliminary remarks
I sine bemærkninger fremførte klageren nye punkter med hensyn tilden oprindelige klage. Disse punkter vedrørte anmodninger om oplysninger og en præcisering fra Kommissionen samt svar på de firespørgsmål, som Elliott havde stillet.
In the observations, the complainant raised new points in relation tothe original complaint.These points concerned requests for information and clarification from the Commission including receivinganswers to the four questions put forward by Mr Elliott.
Ombudsmanden fandt det ikkebegrundet at indlede undersøgelser af de nye punkter, der var fremført i klagerens bemærkninger, da de falder uden for den oprindeligeklages rammer og snarere kun udgjorde en anmodning om oplysninger.
The Ombudsman did not find it justified to start inquiries into the newpoints raised in the complainant’s observations as they went beyondthe scope of the original complaint and rather only constituted arequest for information.
Kommissionens sagsbehandling
The handling of the file by the Commission
Klageren gjorde gældende, at sagen ikke var behandlet eller undersøgt af Kommissionen. Endvidere havde den ikke besvaret klagerensbrev af 21. juli 1998.
The complainant claimed that the file was not handled or examined bythe Commission.Furthermore it had not answered to the complainant’s letter of 21 July 1998.
Kommissionen oplyste, at den behandlede klagen i årene 1988-1993,og at den havde talrige kontakter med klageren som vist i den oversigt, der var vedlagt dens udtalelse. Endvidere var den af den opfattelse, at et svar på brevet af 21. juli 1998 ikke var påkrævet, da derikke blev fremsat nye punkter i brevet.
The Commission stated that it examined the complaint during theyears 1988 through 1993 and that it had had numerous contacts withthe complainant as shown in the table enclosed to its opinion.Furthermore it felt that no reply was needed regarding the letter of 21July 1998, as no new points were raised in the letter.
Hvad angår klagerens påstand om, at sagen ikke blev undersøgt,bemærkes det, at Kommissionen i sin artikel 6-skrivelse af 5. februar1993 anførte, at den havde foretaget en grundig undersøgelse afsagen, og at den havde fuldt kendskab til sagen. Der var intet i sagsakten, der tydede på, at Kommissionen ikke havde efterlevet denneudtalelse eller undersøgt sagen korrekt.
Concerning the complainant’s allegation that the file was not examined, it shall be recalled that the Commission in its Article 6 letter of 5February 1993 stated that it had carried out a thorough study of thecase and that it was fully aware of the case.There was nothing in thefile to indicate that the Commission had not fulfilled this statement orhad not properly examined the case.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at der ikke forelå et tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser med hensyn til dette aspekt af sagen.
Therefore, the Ombudsman found that there was no instance of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
Kommissionens udtalelse med hensyn til, om samhandelenmellem Norge og Det Forenede Kongerige betragtes som samhandel mellem medlemsstater
The Commission’s opinion as regards whether trade between Norway and the United Kingdom is considered to be tradebetween Member States
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen først var af den opfattelse, at samhandel mellem Norge og Det Forenede Kongerige kunnesidestilles med samhandel mellem medlemsstater som omhandlet i EF’s konkurrenceregler (EF-traktatens artikel 81 og 82), men at densenere med urette ændrede synspunkt. Først i 1998 var den igen enigi klagerens opfattelse, at den skulle sidestilles med samhandelmellem medlemsstater.
The complainant claimed that the Commission first considered thattrade between Norway and the United Kingdom was like tradebetween Member States in the meaning of the EC competition rules(Article 81 and 82 of the EC-Treaty), but later it wrongly changed itsopinion.Only in 1998, did it again agree with the complainants’viewthat it was to be seen like trade between Member States.
Kommissionen henviste til sin artikel 6-skrivelse af 5. februar 1993 oganførte, at da samhandelen mellem medlemsstater ikke var påvirket,var kravet i EF-traktatens artikel 81 ikke opfyldt.
The Commission referred to its Article 6 letter of 5 February 1993 andstated that since trade between Member States was not affected, therequirement of Article 81 of the EC-Treaty had not been met.
Hvad angår dette spørgsmål, syntes det nødvendigt at henvise tilartikel 6-skrivelsen af 5. februar 1993. Det hed i denne skrivelse:
As regards this question, it appeared necessary to refer to the Article6 letter of 5 February 1993.This letter stated:
“For så vidt angår EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, fremgårdet, at den samhandel, der er påvirket af den adfærd, Dehar klaget over, er direkte samhandel mellem Norge og Det
“So far as Article 85(1) EEC is concerned, the evidenceshows that the trade affected by the behaviour you havecomplained of is direct trade between Norway and the United Kingdom.While this does not mean that thebehaviour complained of cannot have an effect on tradebetween Member States, there is no evidence in this case
Ved læsningen af artikel 6-skrivelsen af 5. februar 1993 havde klageren tilsyneladende misforstået Kommissionens holdning. Detfremgik klart af skrivelsen, at Kommissionen ikke anførte, at samhandel mellem Norge og Det Forenede Kongerige aldrig kanbetragtes som samhandel mellem medlemsstater.
When reading the Article 6 letter of 5 February 1993, the complainanthad apparently misunderstood the position of the Commission.It wasclear from the letter that the Commission did not state that tradebetween Norway and the United Kingdom can never be seen as tradebetween Member States.With the wording “While this does not meanthat the behaviour complained of cannot have an effect on tradebetween Member States,…”rather the opposite view is taken by the Commission.
Kommissionens beføjelser til at foretage kontrolundersøgelser
The Commission’s investigation powers
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen med urette anførte, atden ikke var et undersøgelsesorgan, men baserede sig på indsendtskriftlig dokumentation, og at dens forvaltningsmæssige beføjelservar utilstrækkelige. Ifølge klageren er dette usandt, da Kommissionens beføjelser til at foretage kontrolundersøgelser erveletablerede, navnlig inden for konkurrenceretten.
The complainant alleged that the Commission wrongly stated that itwas not an investigative body but that it relied on written submissionsand that its administrative powers were insufficient.According to thecomplainant, this is not true since the Commission’s investigativepowers are well established, particularly in the area of competitionlaw.
Kommissionen erklærede, at den ikke har samme mulighed som ennational domstol for at afhøre vidner, og at den derfor ikke kan fastslåpålideligheden af oplysninger, som andre parter fremlægger.
The Commission stated that it does not possess the same means asa national court to hear witnesses and it can therefore not establishthe veracity of information provided by other parties.
I henhold til artikel 14 i forordning nr. 17 har Kommissionen ret til at “afkræve mundtlige forklaringerpå stedet”. Artikel 14 finder imidlertid kun anvendelse på de kontrolundersøgelser, som Kommissionen foretager i virksomhedenslokaler, og endvidere har Domstolens retspraksis anerkendt en begrænset fritagelse for selvanmeldelse, således at virksomheden ikkehar pligt til at besvare spørgsmål, som ville indebære en indrømmelseaf netop den strafbare handling, Kommissionen er ved at under-søge.42Endvidere har Kommissionen ingen etableret ret til at indkalde vidner eller at søge mundtlige forklaringer uden for anvendelsesområdet for artikel 14 i forordning nr. 17.
Regulation No.17, the Commission has the right “to ask for oral explanations on the spot”.However, Article 14 applies to investigations ofthe Commission performed in the premises of the undertaking andfurther, the case law of the Court of Justice has recognised a limitedprivilege against self-incrimination to the effect that an undertaking isnot required to answer to questions which would be an admission ofthe very offence which the Commission is investigating.42Moreover,there is no established right for the Commission to call witnesses, orto seek oral explanations outside the remit of Article 14 of Regulation No. 17.
Selv om alle fysiske eller juridiske personer med en berettiget interesse kan klage til Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 2, litra b, iforordning nr. 17, fremgår det klart af Domstolens retspraksis, atdenne ret ikke omfatter retten til at udstede en beslutning efter EF-traktatens artikel 249 om, hvorvidt den påståede overtrædelse fore-ligger.43Dette tyder yderligere på, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtettil at undersøge pålideligheden af de dokumenter, der forelæggesden.
Although any natural or legal person with a legitimate interest maycomplain to the Commission in accordance with Article 3 (2)(b) of Regulation No.17, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justicethat this right does not include the right to obtain a decision, within themeaning of Article 249 of the EC-Treaty, as to the existence or otherwise of the alleged infringement.43This further indicates that the Commission has no obligation to inquire into the veracity of the documents submitted to it.
Det fremgik, at Kommissionen ikke overtrådte en bindende regel elleret bindende princip, da den erklærede, at den ikke havde sammemulighed som en national domstol for at afhøre vidner, og at den ikkekan fastslå pålideligheden af oplysninger, der fremlægges.Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at der ikke forelå et tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser med hensyn til dette aspekt af sagen.
It appeared that the Commission did not break any rule or principlebinding upon it when stating that it did not possess the same meansas a national court to hear witnesses and that it cannot establish theveracity of submitted information.The Ombudsman, therefore, foundthat there was no instance of maladministration in relation to thisaspect of the case.
Kommissionens afvisning af at genoptage sagen
The Commission’s refusal to reopen the file
“Hvad angår Deres anmodning om en genoptagelse afsagsbehandlingen, som første gang blev fremsat i 1997 oggentaget i 1998, beklager jeg at måtte konstatere, at Kommissionen derved blot igen vil skulle undersøge forhold, som angiveligt har fundet sted i perioden 1988-1993.De anfører som begrundelse, at der på daværende tidspunkt blev fremlagt falsk bevismateriale.
“With regard to your request, introduced in 1997 and confirmed in 1998, for reopening of the examination of thecase, I regret to note that it merely seeks to have the Commission re-examine facts alleged to have occurredbetween 1988 and 1993.The justification you put forward isthat false evidence was supplied at the time.You yourselfconcede, however, that the alleged infringement hasceased and that currently you carry out no relevant economic activity.
De indrømmerimidlertid selv, at den påståede overtrædelse er ophørt, og
The Commission considers that it is not required to takeaction on complaints denouncing practices which haveceased (Court of First Instance, case T-77/95, SFEI andothers v Commission, ([1997] ECR II-1, paragraph 57).Thereopening of your case would involve use of the Commission’s resources which would be out of proportion
Engenoptagelse af Deres sag ville være forbundet med brugaf Kommissionens ressourcer, som ikke ville stå i et rimeligt forhold til den påståede overtrædelses betydning forfællesmarkedets funktion. Sagens interesse for Fællesskabet er derfor ikke tilstrækkelig til at begrunde, atundersøgelsen af klagen blev genoptaget.”
113 to the importance of the alleged infringement for the functioning of the common market.There is therefore no sufficient Community interest to justify the reopening of theinvestigation of the complaint.”
Ombudsmandenfandt derfor, at Kommissionen holdt sig inden for rammerne af sineretlige beføjelser, da den afviste en genoptagelse af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the Commission actedwithin the limits of its legal authority when denying the reopening ofthe case.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingen tilfælde af fejleller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
SPROGREGLER FOR FÆLLESSKABSINSTITUTIONERAfgørelse om klage 281/99/VK over den Europæiske Centralbank
LANGUAGE RULES FOR COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONSDecision on complaint 281/99/VK against the European Central Bank
I marts klagede P. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over Den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB).
In March 1999 Mr P.made a complaint to the European Ombudsmanagainst the European Central Bank (ECB).The complainant hadaddressed the Bank’s director for external relations, Dr.Manfred Körber,concerning the fact that the information on the European Central Bank’s Website is available only in English and not in other Community languages.In his reply, Dr.Körber referred to the cost of presenting information in alllanguages.He also stated that the ECB’s Website contains links to the Websites of all the national central banks, which could provide the necessary information in the other languages.
Klageren havde rettet henvendelse til bankens direktørfor eksterne relationer, Dr. Manfred Körber, vedrørende det forhold, at
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that the ECBshould comply with the same language rules as other Community institu-
119 oplysningerne på Den Europæiske Centralbanks websted kun er tilgængelige på engelsk og ikke på andre fællesskabssprog.
DECISIONS tions and that provision of the information on the Website only in English isdiscriminatory.
UNDERSØGELSENCentralbankens udtalelse
THE INQUIRYThe Central Bank’s opinion
ECB anførte, at den på baggrund af ikke blot behovet for den størst muligeeffektivitet og betimelighed, men også som følge af stramme budgetter, varaf den opfattelse, at den løsning, som den havde valgt, indtil videre var etforsvarligt kompromis.
The ECB stated that, in view not only of the need for optimum efficiencyand timeliness, but also of budgetary constraints, it considered that thesolution it has adopted is a justifiable compromise for the time being.
Banken påpegede endvidere, at den først var blevetoprettet for bare et år siden, og at den var overbevist om, at de første skridti den retning, som klageren ønskede, snart ville kunne ses.
The Bank also pointed out that it was established only one year ago and that itwas confident that first steps in the direction suggested by the complainantwould become visible in due course.
Klageren fremsatte ingen bemærkninger.
The complainant’s observations The complainant did not make any observations.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at det var diskriminerende, at oplysningerne på ECB’s websted kun blev stillet til rådighed på engelsk. Hanvar af den opfattelse, at ECB skulle overholde de samme sprogreglersom andre fællesskabsinstitutioner.
The complainant alleged that the provision of information on the ECB’s Website only in English is discriminatory.He considered thatthe ECB should comply with the same language rules as other Community institutions.
ECB forklarede, at de fleste af dens dokumenter blev udarbejdet påengelsk og offentliggjort på engelsk på dens websted af hensyn tilomkostningseffektiviteten og for at offentliggøre dem hurtigst muligt.Dens websted indeholder links til de nationale centralbankers websteder, som indeholder oplysninger på andre sprog.
The ECB explained that most of its documents are drafted in Englishand are published on its Website in English for reasons of cost efficiency and in order to make them public as quickly as possible. Its Website contains links to the Websites of the national central banks,which contain information in other languages.
Ombudsmanden er ikke bekendt med, at bestemmelserne i fællesskabsretten vedrørende brugen af sprog44kunne forhindre et fælles-
The Ombudsman is not aware that the provisions of Community lawconcerning use of languages44could prevent a Community body publishing on a Website, as a public service, documents in the languagein which they are drafted.
På baggrund af ovenstående syntes der derfor ikke at foreligge fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Den Europæiske Centralbanks side. Ombudsmandenafsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the above, there appeared to have been no maladministration by the European Central Bank.The Ombudsman therefore closedthe case.
Som en service over for borgerne kunne det være hensigtsmæssigt, hvis ECB’s websted på alle fællesskabssprog forklarede ECB’s informationspolitik og indeholdt alt relevant materiale, navnlig juridiske tekster, som allerede findes på alle fællesskabssprog.
As a service to the citizens, it could be useful for the ECB’s Website toexplain, in all Community languages, the ECB’s information policy and tocontain all relevant material, especially legal texts, which already exists inall Community languages.
NB: ECB har nu på sit websted (http://www.ecb.int) stillet en samling af ECB’s retlige instrumenter til rådighed på alle de officielle sprog.
Note:it appears that the ECB has now made available on its website(http://www.ecb.int) a compendium of ECB legal instruments in all the official languages.
TACIS-PROGRAMMET: NÆGTELSE AF BETALING AF EN FAKTURAAfgørelse om klage 739/98/ADB over Europa-Kommissionen
TACIS PROGRAMME:REFUSAL TO PAY AN INVOICEDecision on complaint 739/98/ADB against the European Commission
I henhold til artikel 195 i traktaten om oprettelse af Den Europæiske Unionmå Den Europæiske Ombudsmand ikke foretage undersøgelser i detilfælde, hvor de påståede forhold er under eller har været under retsligbehandling.
In accordance with Article 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the European Ombudsman may not conduct inquiries wherethe alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings.
Som led i undersøgelserne af klagen underrettede klageren Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om, at de påståede forhold i hans klage til Ombudsmanden var genstand for en retssag ved belgiske domstole.
During the investigations on the complaint, the complainant informed the European Ombudsman that the facts alleged in his complaint to the Ombudsman were the subject of legal proceedings before Belgian Courts.
Det hedder i artikel 2, stk. 7, i Ombudsmandens statut, at når Ombudsmanden må afslutte sin behandling af en klage på grund af en
Article 2 (7) of the Statute of the Ombudsman provides that, when the Ombudsman has to terminate his consideration of a complaint because oflegal proceedings, the outcome of any inquiries he has carried out up tothat point shall be filed without any further action.
NÆGTELSE AF ADGANG TILUDVÆLGELSESPRØVE KOM/A/12/98Afgørelse om klage 867/99/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
REFUSAL OF ADMISSION TO COMPETITION COM/A/12/98Decision on complaint 867/99/GG against the European Commission
I november 1999underrettede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om, at klageren havde indbragt sagen for Retten i Første Instans vedrørende de forhold, der var gjortgældende i klagen.
In November 1999, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had initiated legal proceedings before the Court of First Instanceconcerning the facts which had been put forward in the complaint.
Da klageren havde indbragt en sag for Retten i Første Instans, afsluttede Ombudsmanden, efter at have hørt klageren om dette spørgsmål, sinbehandling af klagen i december 1999 i overensstemmelse med EF-trak-tatens artikel 195.
Because the complainant had brought an action before the Court of First Instance, the Ombudsman, after having heard the complainant on thisissue, terminated his consideration of the complaint in December 1999 inaccordance with Article 195 of the EC Treaty.
KLAGE OVER OVERTRÆDELSE AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN: PÅSTAND OM KOMMISSIONENS MANGLENDE BEKRÆFTELSE AF MODTAGELSE AF KLAGEN
COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW:ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMPLAINT
Afgørelse om klage 245/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 245/98/OV against the European Commission
I februar 1998 klagede P. til Ombudsmanden, idet han gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen fejlagtigt havde undladt at bekræfte modtagelsen af hansklage over en mulig overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten begået af degræske myndigheder.
In February 1998, Mr P.made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerningan alleged failure of the Commission to acknowledge receipt of his complaint about a possible infringement of Community environmental law bythe Greek Authorities.
I udtalelsen erkendte Kommissionen, at P. havde fremsendt en klage i august 1997, og at hanhavde sendt en rykkerskrivelse den 27. november 1997. Men på grund afen beklagelig fejl var skrivelsen fra klageren ikke omgående blevet registreret som en klage.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion, the Commission recognised that Mr P.had made a complaint in August 1997and had sent a reminder on 27 November 1997.However, because of aregrettable administrative error, the correspondence received from thecomplainant had not been promptly registered as a complaint.