natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen tilføjede, at den ikke fandt noget til hinder for, at klagenævnet påtog sig kompetence over afgørelser, der - i sådanne tilfælde - var truffet eft er den tidligere version af reglerne.
It added that it saw no objection to the Complaints Board accepting jurisdiction over decisions taken, in such cases, under the previous version of the rules.
Kommissionen rådede derfor klageren til på ny at forelægge sin sag for klagenævnet.
The Commission thus advised the complainant to re-submit her case to the Complaints Board.
Da der imidlertid mangler en udtrykkelig bestemmelse om tilbagevirkende kraft, afviste klagenævnet den genfremsatte klage.
However, in the absence of an express provision for retroactivity, the Complaints Board rejected the renewed appeal.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at sagen var opstået som følge af en yderst alvorlig foranstaltning truffet af en Europaskole, og at der var risiko for, at klageren ville komme til at stå uden den fornødne retsbeskyttelse.
The Ombudsman noted that the case arose from a particularly serious measure taken by a European School and that there was a risk that the complainant would be lewithout adequate legal protection.
Det var imidlertid hans opfattelse, at Kommissionens engagement i Europaskole-systemet er af et sådant omfang, at den skal spille en aktiv rolle for at sikre, at Europaskolerne lever op til principperne for god forvaltningsskik.
He considered that the importance of the Commission’s involvement in the European Schools system is such that it must play an active role in order to ensure that the Schools comply with principles of good administration.
Ombudsmanden opfordrede derfor Kommissionen til at sikre, at der blev forelagt styrelsesrådet et forslag om ændring af de relevante regler.
The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the Commission ensure that a proposal was presented to the Board of Governors for an amendment of the relevant rules.
Kommissionen mindede om, at den allerede havde gjort styrelsesrådet opmærksom på spørgsmålet, men at den var det eneste af dets medlemmer, der gik ind for en udvidelse af klagenævnets kompetence, således at det fi k kompetence med tilbagevirkende kraft.
The Commission recalled that it had already drawn the a4 ention of the Board of Governors to the issue, but that it was the only member in favour of a retroactive extension of the Complaints Board’s competences.
Kommissionen tilføjede imidlertid, at da den fortsat var overbevist om sin holdning, så havde den insisteret på, at
However, it added that, since it remained convinced of its position, it had insisted that the Secretary-General of the European Schools put the ma4 er on the agenda again.
ÅRSBERETNING 2007 generalsekretæren for Europaskolerne skulle sætte sagen på dagsordenen igen.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
Ombudsmanden værdsatte Kommissionens vedholdende indsats og afsluttede derfor sagen med den konklusion, at der ikke var tale om fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
The Ombudsman appreciated the Commission’s sustained e� orts and closed the case with a finding of no maladministration on the part of the Commission.
Da klagerens problem imidlertid stadig ikke var løst, besluttede Ombudsmanden at informere den nye generalsekretær for Europaskolerne og den tyske regering om sagen.
However, since the complainant’s problem had still not been resolved, the Ombudsman decided to inform the new Secretary-General of the European Schools and the German government of the case.
Midlertidige antidumpingforanstaltninger
Anti-dumping provisional measures
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 943/2006/MHZ over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 943/2006/MHZ against the European Commission
Klageren var part i Kommissionens undersøgelse, som førte til vedtagelsen af midlertidige antidumpingforanstaltninger vedrørende import af bestemte typer fodtøj, hvis overlæder kommer fra Kina og Vietnam5.
The complainant was an interested party in the Commission’s investigation leading to the adoption of anti-dumping provisional measures on imports of certain footwear with leather uppers originating from China and Vietnam5.
Før vedtagelsen af den pågældende forordning offentliggjorde Kommissionen på sit websted oplysninger om de pågældende antidumpingforanstaltninger, og klageren bad efterfølgende Kommissionen om at få adgang til dennes resultater og at få mulighed for at fremlægge sine synspunkter.
Before the relevant regulation was adopted, the Commission published on its website information concerning the anti-dumping measures in question, and the complainant thereupon asked the Commission for a disclosure of its findings and for the opportunity to present its views.
Disse anmodninger blev afvist.
Its requests were refused.
I sin klage til ombudsmanden hævede klageren, at Kommissionen (i) ikke sikrede klagerens ret til kontradiktion og overtrådte princippet om god forvaltningsskik ved ikke at offentliggøre sine resultater forud for vedtagelsen af midlertidige foranstaltninger og ved ikke at acceptere klagerens anmodning af 13. marts 2006 om at fremlægge sine bemærkninger, (ii) havde overtrådt proportionalitetsprincippet (klageren fremførte, at Kommissionen ikke havde fundet en »rimelig balance« mellem på den ene side forbrugernes interesser og interesserne hos de selskaber, som antidumpingafgifterne fandt anvendelse på og på den anden side de selskaber, som afgifterne ikke fandt anvendelse på), (iii) baserede sin beslutning på ukorrekte oplysninger (klageren henviste til den pågældende offentliggørelse på Kommissionens websted) og fejlagtigt havde valgt Brasilien som referenceland, og (iv) handlede på en måde, som ikke var åben, ved ikke at ville offentliggøre identiteten på de klagende EU-producenter og de EU-producenter, som havde været genstand for stikprøver.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission (i) failed to ensure the complainant’s rights of defence and breached the principle of sound administration, by failing to disclose its findings prior to the formal adoption of provisional measures and by failing to accept the complainant’s request of 13 March 2006 to present its comments; (ii) infringed the principle of proportionality (the complainant argued that the Commission did not respect the “fair balance” between the interests, on the one hand, of consumers and those companies to which the anti-dumping duties apply, and, on the other, of those companies to which the duties do not apply); (iii) based its decision on erroneous information (the complainant referred to the relevant publication on the Commission website) and wrongly selected Brazil as the reference country; and (iv) acted in a way that was not transparent, by failing to disclose the identity of the complaining EU producers and of the sampled EU producers.
Klageren fastholdt sine påstande og krav i sine betragtninger.
In its observations, the complainant maintained its allegations and claims.
Kommissionen påpegede i sin udtalelse, at det i medfør af grundforordningen om antidumping6 ikke var påkrævet at fremlægge sine resultater, før de midlertidige foranstaltninger blev truffet.
, it was not required to disclose its findings before the provisional measures had been taken.
Kommissionen afviste at have overtrådt klagerens ret til kontradiktion og at have gjort sig skyldig i manglende åbenhed. Den henviste til begrundelsen i forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006.
The Commission denied any infringement of the complainant’s right of defence and any errors or lack of transparency.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at der var udvist forsømmelighed.
The Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration.
Han understregede, at klagen vedrørte midlertidige foranstaltninger, som har en særlig karakter og kan ændres på et senere tidspunkt.
He underlined that the complaint concerned the provisional measures which have a specific character and may be changed a erwards.
Han påpegede også, at ombudsmandens undersøgelser er begrænsede i komplekse, økonomiske sager.
He also pointed out the limited character of the Ombudsman’s review in cases concerning complex economic ma4 ers.
Ombudsmanden tog i sin afgørelse hensyn til Kommissionens grønbog7, der i mellemtiden var blevet fremlagt til offentlig høring og omhandlede det emne, som klageren havde rejst.
In reaching his decision, the Ombudsman took into consideration the Commission’s Green Paper7 submi4 ed for public consultation in the meantime and reflecting the issue raised by the complainant.
Påstået undladelse af at handle i en kriminalsag
Alleged failure to act in a criminal ma4 er
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1166/2006/WP over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1166/2006/WP against the European Commission
Klageren, en tysk statsborger, blev i 1997 af en tysk domstol dømt for ulovlig våbenbesiddelse. Dommen blev gjort betinget.
The complainant, a German citizen, was convicted of illegal possession of arms by a German court in 1997.
I 1998 blev klageren imidlertid idømt, in absentia, 16 års fængsel af en italiensk domstol.
However, in 1998, the complainant was sentenced, in absentia, to 16 years in prison by an Italian court.
I 2002 blev han arresteret på grundlag af en international arrestordre, og han har været fængslet lige siden.
In 2002, he was arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant and has been imprisoned since that time.
I 2003 informerede klagerens advokat Kommissionen om sagen.
In 2003, the complainant’s lawyer informed the Commission about this case.
Han nedlagde påstand om, at den italienske domstol havde overtrådt ne bis in idem-princippet, som forbyder strafforfølgning to gange for de samme handlinger.
He alleged that the Italian court had violated the ne bis in idem principle, which prohibits the institution of legal proceedings twice for the same cause of action.
Kommissionen begyndte at interessere sig for sagen.
The Commission took interest in the case.
Den forklarede imidlertid, at den ikke var kompetent til at gennemgå anklagemyndighedens afgørelser, og at der ikke var nogen mulighed for at gennemføre overtrædelsesprocedurer mod en medlemsstat i kriminalsager.
However, it explained that it was not competent to review the decisions of prosecution authorities and that there was no possibility of conducting infringement proceedings against a Member State in criminal ma4 ers.
Den eneste måde, hvorpå den overhovedet kunne handle, ville være at forelægge en tvist for EF-Domstolen i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 35, stk. 7, vedrørende fortolkningen af en aftale, f.eks. konventionen om gennemførelse af Schengen-aftalen, hvori princippet om ne bis in idem var nedfældet på europæisk niveau. Da der imidlertid manglede visse oplysninger, foreslog Kommissionen advokaten, at han skulle gå videre med sagen på nationalt niveau.
The only way in which it could possibly act would be to submit, under Article 35(7) of the EU Treaty, a dispute to the European Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of an agreement, for example the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which laid down the ne bis in idem principle at European level.
I 2005, og eft er en negativ afgørelse fra den italienske appeldomstol, konkluderede Kommissionen endelig, at der ikke var tilstrækkeligt grundlag for den til at gribe ind.
In 2005, and a er a negative decision of an Italian appeals court, the Commission finally concluded that there were not su cient reasons for it to act.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden argumenterede klageren, at Kommissionen burde have taget affære.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that the Commission should have taken action.
Han tilføjede, at han blot havde fulgt Kommissionens råd for at give den et grundlag at handle på.
He added that he had followed the Commission’s advice only in order to give it a basis on which to act.
Da Kommissionen dernæst havde undladt at handle, havde han spildt penge på juridisk bistand.
Since the Commission had then failed to act, it had made him waste money on his legal representation.
Kommissionen forklarede i sin udtalelse, at den havde nævnt EU-traktatens artikel 35, stk. 7, fordi den italienske domstol i 1998 havde stadfæstet, at ne bis in idem princippet ikke fandt anvendelse i Italien.
In its opinion, the Commission explained that it had mentioned Article 35(7) of the EU Treaty because the Italian court had held in 1998 that the ne bis in idem principle was not applicable in Italy.
Denne udtalelse er imidlertid ikke stadfæstet af senere afgørelser fra italienske domstole.
However, this statement had not been upheld by later decisions of the Italian courts.
Derfor var der ikke noget, der tydede på en generel uenighed mellem Kommissionen og Italien.
Therefore, there was no sign of a general disagreement between the Commission and Italy.
Kommissionen understregede, at den ikke havde lovet at træffe foranstaltninger over for Italien i tilfælde af en negativ afgørelse fra den italienske appeldomstol, og at man af en sådan negativ afgørelse ikke kunne udlede, at dens råd ikke var korrekt og ikke i klagerens interesse.
The Commission emphasised that it had not promised to take action against Italy in the case of a negative decision of the Italian appeals court and that such a negative decision did not imply that its advice was not correct and not in the complainant’s interest.
Ombudsmanden mindede om, at den del af fællesskabsretten, der vedrører det retslige samarbejde i kriminalsager, fortsat primært afgøres ved mellemstatslige procedurer, således at Kommissionens muligheder for at handle er temmelig begrænsede.
The Ombudsman recalled that the area of EU law concerning judicial cooperation in criminal ma4 ers is still mainly decided through intergovernmental procedures, so that the Commission’s possibilities of taking action are rather limited.
Han bemærkede, at ordlyden af Kommissionens breve var ekstremt forsigtig.
He noted that the wording of the Commission’s le4 ers was extremely cautious.
Kommissionen forpligtede sig ikke til at handle, men meddelte, at den ville overveje eventuelle videre skridt, eft er at der var indhentet yderligere oplysninger.
The Commission did not commit itself to taking action but announced that it would consider further possible steps a er additional information had been obtained.
Desuden forekom Kommissionens argument for ikke at forfølge sagen yderligere, nemlig at de italienske domstole nu generelt accepterede anvendelsen af princippet om ne bis in idem, at være rimeligt.
Furthermore, the Commission’s argument for not pursuing the ma4 er further, namely, that the Italian courts now generally accepted the application of the ne bis in idem principle, appeared to be reasonable.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor sagen og konkluderede, at der ikke forelå tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Påstand om manglende svar på en ansøgning fra et tyrkisk-cypriotisk universitet
Alleged failure to reply to an application from a Turkish Cypriot University
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2280/2006/MF over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2280/2006/MF against the European Commission
Klageren er rektor for EMU, Eastern Mediterranean University, en tyrkisk-cypriotisk uddannelsesinstitution i den nordlige del af Cypern. I oktober 2004 ansøgte EMU Kommissionen om et EUC, Erasmus University Charter.
The complainant is the rector of the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), a Turkish Cypriot educational institution located in the northern part of Cyprus.
En forudsætning for at få et EUC er, at den »nationale uddannelsesmyndighed« bekræfter EMU’s status som højere uddannelsesinstitution.
A precondition for receiving an EUC was that the “national authority for education” should confirm the status of the EMU as an institution of higher education.
ÅRSBERETNING 2007 klageren nægtede Cyperns undervisningsministerium at give EMU status af højere uddannelsesinstitution.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
Han påstod i sin klage til Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen ikke havde besvaret EMU’s ansøgning om et EUC inden for en rimelig tidsfrist og ikke havde gjort rede for denne unødige forsinkelse.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to provide a reply to the EMU’s application for the EUC within a reasonable period of time and to provide an explanation for this avoidable delay.
Kommissionen fremførte i sin udtalelse, at årsagen til, at man angiveligt ikke hurtigt havde fremsendt et formelt svar på EMU’s ansøgning var, at den relevante myndighed ikke havde bekræftet, at EMU var en godkendt institution.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the reason for its alleged failure to provide a prompt and formal reply to the EMU’s application was the absence of confirmation by the relevant authority that the EMU was an eligible institution.
Den 12. maj 2005 sendte Kommissionen et brev til EMU med en formel bekræftelse af, at man ikke havde efterkommet universitetets ansøgning om et EUC, fordi den relevante nationale myndighed ikke havde anerkendt det som berettiget til at deltage i Socrates-/Erasmus-programmet.
On 12 May 2005, the Commission sent a le4 er to the EMU formally confirming that its application for a EUC had not been successful because it had not been recognised by the relevant national authority as eligible to participate in the Socrates/Erasmus programme.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke, at den tid, der var gået mellem EMU’s ansøgning og Kommissionens svar den 12. maj 2005, skyldtes forsinkelser, som kunne tilskrives Kommissionen, men at disse snarere skyldtes, at EMU nægtede at ansøge undervisningsministeriet i Nicosia om status som højere uddannelsesinstitution.
The Ombudsman considered that the period of time which elapsed between the EMU’s application and the Commission’s reply of 12 May 2005 was not due to delays which could be a4 ributed to the Commission, but rather appeared to be due to the fact that the EMU refused to apply to the Ministry of Education in Nicosia for the status of an institution of higher education.
Spørgsmålet om støtt eberett igelse affødte følsomme spørgsmål på grund af den politiske situation på Cypern. Kommissionen kunne ikke holdes ansvarlig for forsinkelser, der var et direkte resultat af denne politiske situation.
This issue of eligibility raised sensitive questions due to the political situation in Cyprus.
Endvidere havde Kommissionen åbenbart regelmæssigt informeret klageren om de relevante initiativer, den havde taget for at bekræfte, at EMU’s ansøgning var berettiget.
Furthermore, the Commission appeared to have regularly informed the complainant of the relevant steps taken to confirm the eligibility of the EMU’s application.
Ombudsmanden mente desuden ikke, at det var Kommissionens opgave at komme med en detaljeret redegørelse for andre end sin egen adfærd.
The Ombudsman further considered that it was not for the Commission to provide any detailed explanation as regards the behaviour of parties other than the Commission.
Ombudsmanden bifaldt også, at Kommissionen åbenbart havde fundet en alternativ, praktisk løsning, som giver studerende og lærere i Nordcypern muligheder, der svarede til de muligheder, som et EUC gav.
The Ombudsman also applauded the fact that the Commission appeared to have found an alternative practical solution which would help students and teachers in Northern Cyprus, by a � ording them opportunities which were similar to those resulting from the EUC.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at Kommissionen havde udvist forsømmelighed i henseende til klagerens påstand.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission as regards the complainant’s allegation.
Påstået unøjagtige oplysninger på Kommissionens websted
Allegedly inaccurate information on the Commission’s website
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2403/2006/(WP)BEH (fortroligt) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2403/2006/(WP)BEH (Confidential) against the European Commission
Klagen vedrørte påstået forkerte oplysninger på webstedet for Kommissionens generaldirektorat for Erhvervs- og Virksomhedspolitik.
The complaint related to allegedly wrong information given on the website of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.
Den relevante side havde titlen »Beskyttelse af dine idéer«.
The relevant page was entitled “Protecting your ideas”.
Nærmere betegnet fremgik det af den tyske udgave af siden, at Kommissionen ville gribe ind over for »Diebstahl von geistigem Eigentum«, det vil ordret oversat sige »tyveri af intellektuel ejendom«.
In particular, the German version of the page stated that the Commission would take action against “Diebstahl von geistigem Eigentum”, that is, literally, “the of intellectual property”.
I denne forbindelse hævdede klageren, at »idéer« ikke kunne beskyttes af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, da en sådan beskyttelse var forbeholdt opfindelser og arbejder baseret på idéer, og at begrebet »tyveri« ikke kunne anvendes på intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder.
In this regard, the complainant alleged that “ideas” could not be protected by intellectual property rights, since such protection was reserved for inventions and works based on ideas, and that the notion of “the ” could not be applied to intellectual property rights.
Da begge Kommissionens udtalelser derfor måtte anses for at være forkerte, anmodede klageren Kommissionen om at fjerne dem for at undgå, at målgruppen blev vildledt.
Since both Commission statements would therefore have to be considered to be wrong, the complainant asked the Commission to remove them, in order to avoid misleading the target audience.
Kommissionen påpegede i sin udtalelse, at de pågældende informationer på dens websted udgjorde en del af en informationspakke, der havde til formål at formidle information om komplekse spørgsmål, såsom beskyttelse af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, til journalister og til den brede befolkning i et klart og tydeligt sprog. Den forklarede, at de anvendte formuleringer var i overensstemmelse med de formuleringer og begreber, som andre internationale organisationer anvender.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the relevant information on its website formed part of an information package whose aim was to provide information on complex issues, such as the protection of intellectual property rights, to journalists but also to the general public, in clear and understandable language.
Kommissionen forklarede ligeledes, at den havde fået meget positiv feedback fra erhvervsorganisationer, der havde stillet informationspakken til rådighed for deres medlemmer.
The Commission also stated that it had received very positive feedback from business organisations, which had made the information package available to their members.
Den konkluderede, at informationerne på webstedet opfyldte målet om at formidle information til den brede befolkning i et klart og tydeligt sprog.
It concluded that the information provided on the website fulfilled the objective of providing information to the general public in a clear and understandable format.
Samtidig understregede han, at dette ikke forhindrer Kommissionen i at forenkle indholdet på sit websted med det formål at gøre oplysningerne på webstedet så lettilgængelige for målgruppen som muligt.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS underlined that this did not prevent the Commission from simplifying content, on its website, with a view to making the information contained in it as accessible as possible for the target audience.
Han konkluderede, at selv om det ganske vist ikke var fuldt tilfredsstillende ud fra et akademisk synspunkt, så gav de enkle og lettilgængelige formuleringer menigmand en grundlæggende viden om, hvad intellektuel ejendomsret indebærer.
He concluded that, while arguably not fully satisfactory from an academic point of view, the simple and accessible terms conveyed, to a layperson, a basic notion of what intellectual property entailed.
Da webstedet ikke foregav at formidle en fuldstændig og kompliceret forklaring af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, var de anvendte udtryk tilstrækkeligt klare.
Given that the website did not purport to give a complete and sophisticated explanation of intellectual property rights, the expressions used were su ciently clear.