natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I artikel7,stk. 1 fastlægges det,at ”hver onsdag fra kl. 13 giver medlemsstaterne pr. telefax og forden forudgående periode Kommissionen meddelelse om følgende:(a) de i artikel 1omhandlede ansøgninger om eksportlicens med forudfastsættelse af restitution,som erindgivet fra mandag til onsdag i den pågældende uge”.
Article 7(1) provides that ‘Member States shall communicate to the Commission,each Friday from 1 p.m.,by fax and for the preceding period:(a) the applications for export licences with advance fixing of refunds referred to in Article1 which were lodged from Monday to Friday of the same week…’.
1.6På baggrund af en fortolkning af ovennævnte bestemmelser vurderede Kommissionen, at de certifikater,som C. var i besiddelse af,og som blev udstedt i startenaf ugen mandag den 5. juli 2000,afventede hele ugen,indtil oplysningerne fra medlemsstaterne blev fremsendt til Kommissionen,hvilket var planlagt til fredag den 9. juli,og fradet tidspunkt indtil onsdag den følgende uge (dvs. den 14. juli 1999).
1.6On the basis of the interpretation of the above mentioned provisions,the Commissionconsidered that the certificates held by C.,which were issued to it at the beginning of theweek on Monday,5 July 1999,were pending all week until the information from the Member States was forwarded to the Commission,which was scheduled to take place on Friday, 9 July 1999,and from then until Wednesday of the following week (i.e. 14 July1999).
Da oplysningernevar blevet fremsendt,noterede Kommissionen sig den unormalt høje spekulationsprægedemængde ansøgninger,der var indgivet i løbet af den foregående uge,og vedtog derfortirsdag den 13. juli 1999 forordning nr. 1526/99,som trådte i kraft onsdag den 14. juli1999 og øjensynligt omfattede de certifikater,som C. var i besiddelse af.
After the information had been forwarded,the Commission noted the abnormallyhigh,speculative level of requests submitted during the previous week and thereforeadopted on Tuesday,13 July 1999 Regulation N°1526/1999,which entered into force on Wednesday, 14 July 1999 and evidently covered the certificates held by C.
1.7Ombudsmandens undersøgelser viste,at Kommissionens fortolkning af Kommissionens forordning nr. 1526/99 syntes rimelig.
1.7Based on the Ombudsman’s inquiries,the Commission’s interpretation of the Commission Regulation N°1526/1999 appeared reasonable.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ingentilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til klagerens primære klagepunkt.Ombudsmanden vil imidlertid gerne minde om,at Domstolen er højeste myndighed,hvadangår spørgsmål om anvendelse og fortolkning af fællesskabsretten.
Therefore,the Ombudsmanfound no maladministration as regards the main allegation put forward by the complainant.It should be recalled,however,that the Court of Justice is the highest authority in questions of application and interpretation of Community law.
Påstand om refusion og om ophævelse af depositaene
Claims for a refund and for cancelling the deposits
2.1Klageren krævede refusion for det økonomiske tab,klienterne havde lidt,da demistede både den eksportrestitution,som de ville have modtaget,og 60% af det beløb,somde var forpligtet til at betale som garanti ved ansøgning om licenserne. Desuden krævedeklageren,at de deposita,som klienterne havde indbetalt,skulle have været ophævet medtilbagevirkende kraft af Kommissionen.
2.1The complainant was claiming a refund to compensate the financial loss caused to hisclients since the loss of both the export refunds which it would have received and 60% ofthe amount which it was required to pay as a guarantee when applying for the licences.Furthermore,the complainant claimed that the deposits made by his clients should havebeen cancelled retroactively by the Commission.
2.2Ombudsmandens resultater i afgørelsens punkt 1.7 viste,at hverken kravet om refusion eller om ophævelse af depositaene kunne imødekommes.
2.2Based on the Ombudsman’s findings in point 1.7 of the decision,neither the claim forrefund nor the claim for cancelling the deposits arose in this case.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,there appears to have beenno maladministration by the European Commission.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingenaf sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closes thecase.
Ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1122/96 af 21. juni 1996,EFT L 149 af 22.6.1996,s. 17.
As amended in particular by Commission Regulation (EC) N°1122/96 of 21 June 1996,OJ 1996 L 149/17.
Den 9. november 1999 indgav S. en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand på egnevegne og på vegne af 14 andre europæiske forskere,der arbejdede i Japan under et stipendieprogram organiseret af Kommissionen.
On 9 November 1999,Mr S. made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf ofhimself and 14 other European researchers working in Japan under a fellowshipprogramme organised by the European Commission.
Ifølge klageren ansøgte forskerne om deresstipendiater med udgangspunkt i,at de ville blive betalt i yen. De blev imidlertid med kortvarsel tilbudt kontrakter,der angav betaling i euro,hvilke de underskrev.
According to the complainant,theresearchers applied for their fellowships on the basis that they would be paid in Yen.
Euroen faldtefterfølgende i værdi i forhold til yen med det resultat,at værdien af stipendierne varmindre end forudset.
Subsequently,the Euro fell in value against the Yen,with the result that thevalue of the fellowships was less then foreseen.
Afgørelse om klage1393/99/(IJH)/BB over Europa-Kommissionen
ALLEGEDDISCRIMINATIONIN FELLOWSHIPCONTRACTS FORRESEARCHERS:PAYMENTS MADEIN EURO INSTEADOF YEN
Forskernes påstand om forskelsbehandling er begrundet i,at nogle forskere,som arbejderunder lignende vilkår,betales i yen og ikke i euro.
The researchers allege discrimination,in that there are some researchers,in otherwisesimilar circumstances,who are paid in Yen and not Euro.
Forskerne hævder,at Kommissionen erjuridisk og moralsk forpligtet til at kompensere dem for deres kurstab.
The researchers claim that the Commission has a legal and moral duty to compensate them for the exchange loss.
Kommissionen fremsatte følgende bemærkninger:
The Commission made the followingcomments.
1Som angivet i en skrivelse af 8. oktober 1999 fra Maurice Bourène,ledende konsulent for videnskab og teknologi i Kommissionens delegation i Japan,til stipendiaterne har Kommissionen fuldt ud opfyldt den indgåede kontrakt.
1As indicated in a letter dated 8 October 1999 sent by Mr Bourène,First Counsellorfor science and technology at the Delegation of the European Commission in Japan,to thefellows,the Commission has fully respected the signed contract.
Der er derfor ingen juridiskforpligtelse til at kompensere stipendiaterne.
Therefore,there is nolegal duty to compensate the fellows.
2Som det imidlertid blev nævnt i ovenstående skrivelse,har Kommissionens tjenestegrene taget behørig højde for konsekvenserne af udsving i euroens vekselkurs over for yeni forbindelse med stipendiaternes indtægter og har således søgt at nå frem til en tilfredsstillende løsning på problemet.
2However,as mentioned also in that aforesaid letter,the Commission services haveduly taken into account the consequences of the fluctuations in the exchange rate of the Euro against the Yen on the fellows’incomes,and have therefore sought a satisfactorysolution to the problem.
3Den 21. december 1999 besluttede Kommissionen at tildele en supplerende godtgørelse til 33 stipendiater svarende til disses økonomiske tab i 1999 (Kommissionensbeslutning C (1999) 4774).
3On 21 December 1999,the Commission decided to grant a complementary indemnityto 33 fellows that matched the financial loss registered in 1999 (Commission decision C(1999)4774).
Kommissionens delegation i Japan var i færd med at udbetaledenne godtgørelse.
This indemnity was currently being paid by the Delegation of the European Commission in Japan.
4I de følgende uger skulle Kommissionen forelægge en kontraktændring for stipendiaterne for at forhindre,at deres indtægter i fremtiden blev påvirket af eventuelle udsving ieuroens vekselkurs over for yen.
4In the coming weeks,the Commission was to propose to the fellows an amendmentto their contract,in order to prevent the consequences on their incomes of any fluctuationin the exchange rate of the Euro against the Yen for the future.
Klageren fastholdt sin klage.
The complainant maintained his complaint.
I en e-mail af 16. maj 2000 underrettede han Ombudsmandenom,at Kommissionen rent faktisk havde tildelt en supplerende godtgørelse til stipendiaterne i slutningen af december 1999.
In an email of 16 May 2000,he informed the Ombudsman that the Commission had indeed paid a complementary indemnity to thefellows at the end of December 1999.
Denne godtgørelse dækkede imidlertid ikke hele1999,men kun året indtil oktober 1999.
This indemnity,however,did not cover the full year1999,only until October 1999.
Klageren påpegede,at Kommissionens tjenestegrene ikke havde informeret om de foreslåede kontraktændringer.
The complainant pointed out that the Commission serviceshad not provided any information as regards the proposed changes to their contracts.
I sin e-mail af 18. juni2000 underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at han den 23. maj 2000 blev kontaktetaf Kommissionens tjenestegrene,der oplyste,at GD Forskning i april 2000 havde indledtprocedurer for at indhente tilladelse fra de forskellige myndigheder til at udbetale denanden godtgørelse. Der forventes at gå mindst en eller to måneder til processen er tilendebragt og godtgørelsen kommer til udbetaling.
In hise-mail of 18 June 2000,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that on 23 May 2000,the Commission services contacted him indicating that the procedures to obtain clearancefrom the different authorities for the second compensatory payment was launched by DGResearch in April 2000.
Klageren var i tvivl om, hvorvidt Kommission ville udnytte situationen og vente med at udbetale de sidste beløb tilnovember 2000.
The complainant hadsome doubts that the Commission might take advantage from the situation and never makethe remaining payments until November 2000.
Efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger fremgik det,at der var behov for yderligere undersøgelser.
After careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observa-tions,it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.
For at kunne foretageyderligere undersøgelser besluttede Ombudsmanden den 10. juli 2000,at han villeanmode Kommissionen om yderligere oplysninger på følgende punkter:
In order to pursue his inquiries intothe complaint,the Ombudsman decided on 10 July 2000 to request further informationfrom the Commission on the following points:
”Ifølge punkt 3 i Kommissionens udtalelse besluttede Kommissionen den 21. december1999 at udbetale supplerende godtgørelse til klageren og andre forskere i Japan for atkompensere dem for deres kurstab i 1999.
“According to point 3 of the Commission’s opinion,the Commission decided on 21December 1999 to pay a supplementary indemnity to the complainant and otherresearchers in Japan to compensate for exchange rate loss in 1999.
Ifølge klageren dækker det udbetalte beløb ikkehele 1999,men kun året indtil oktober 1999.
According to thecomplainant,the amount that has been paid does not cover the whole of the year 1999 butonly the period up to October 1999.
Desuden fremhæver klageren,at den udbetalte godtgørelse ikke dækker de to indledende betalinger for rejsen til og bosættelsen i Japan.
Furthermore,the complainant points out that theindemnity paid does not cover the two initial payments for travel to and installation in Japan.
Ifølge punkt 4 i Kommissionens udtalelse vil Kommissionen i nær fremtid foreslå stipendiaterne en kontraktændring for at undgå negative konsekvenser af svingninger i euroensvekselkurs over for yen.
According to point 4 of the Commission’s opinion,the Commission will in the near futurepropose to the grant-holders an amendment to their contract to avoid negative effects inthe future of Yen/Euro exchange rate fluctuations.
Ifølge klageren foreligger der endnu ikke noget forslag til kontraktændring.
According to the complainant,theamended contract has not yet been proposed.
Klageren mener,at Kommissionen er urimelig forsinket i gennemførelsenheraf.”
The complainant considers that the delay inimplementing the Commission’s undertaking on this matter is excessive.”
Den 21. september underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at forskerne havdemodtaget den anden godtgørelse i midten af august 2000 for perioden november 1999 tilapril 2000.
On 21 September 2000,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the researchershad received the second compensation payment in the middle of August 2000 for theperiod from November 1999 to April 2000.
Klageren nævnte,at de ikke vidste,hvornår godtgørelsen for den sidste periodefra maj 2000 til november 2000 ville blive udbetalt.
The complainant mentioned that they did notknow when the payment for the last period from May 2000 to November 2000 would bemade.
Kommissionen bekræftede,at den havde besluttet at tildele en supplerende godtgørelse tilforskerne,udelukkende for den indvirkning,som udsving i euroens vekselkurs over foryen havde på deres normale indtægter,for at forhindre eventuelle negative konsekvenserfor deres levestandard og deres kapacitet med hensyn til at gennemføre forskningsprojekter.
The Commission confirmed that it had decided to grant complementary indemnities to theresearchers with respect to the sole effect of the fluctuations in exchange rate of the Euroagainst the Yen on their regular incomes,to prevent any adverse consequence on their standard of living and their capacity to carry out their research projects.
Derfor dækker disse godtgørelser kun den faste månedlige ydelse,der betales kvartalsvisi hele kontraktens løbetid,og ikke de ydelser til dækning af rejse- og bosættelsesudgifter,som blev betalt indledningsvis.
As a consequence,these indemnities cover only the flat-rate monthly allowance paid on aquarterly basis throughout the duration of the contract,and not the allowances to covertravel and installation that were paid in the beginning.
Den resterende periode af 1999 indgår i det første kvartal afår 2000,der slutter i februar,og det er derfor først efter slutningen af dette kvartal,at tabetkan opgøres.
The remaining period of1999 being included in the first quarterly period of the year 2000 that ends in February,itis therefore only after its completion that the loss can be effectively quantified.
For år 2000 har Kommissionen allerede den 24. juli besluttet at tildele en supplerendegodtgørelse for årets to afsluttede kvartaler,dvs. fra den 15. november 1999 til den 15. maj2000.
For the year 2000,the Commission has already decided on 24 July 2000 to grant a complementary indemnity in relation to the two completed quarterly periods of the year,that isfrom 15 November 1999 to 15 May 2000.
Kommissionens delegation i Japan er i færd med at betale denne godtgørelse.
This indemnity is currently being paid by the Delegation of the European Commission in Japan.
Kommissionen bekræftede,at den,som stipendiaterne gentagne gange havde fået fortalt,vil fortsætte denne fremgangsmåde,indtil kontrakterne udløber.
The Commission confirmed,as the fellows have been told repeatedly,that it will continueto follow this approach until the end of these contracts.
Hvis konsekvenserne afovennævnte kursudsving fortsætter,tildeles der supplerende godtgørelse for de resterendeto kvartaler ved kontraktens udløb.
Should the consequences of theabove-mentioned fluctuations persist,a final complementary indemnity for the remainingtwo quarterly periods will be granted at the end of the contract.
Da det er nødvendigt og endvidere tilstrækkeligt med en beslutning fra Kommissionen forhver af disse supplerende godtgørelser,er det tilsyneladende ikke nødvendigt med enkontraktændring.
As a Commission decision is necessary and also sufficient for each of those complementary indemnities,an amendment to the contract does finally not appear to be required.
Klageren har tilsyneladende ikke fremsendt sine bemærkninger.
The complainant appears not to have sent his observations.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands sekretariat sendte den 20. februar 2001 en e-mail for at forespørge,omklageren havde modtaget godtgørelsen for det resterende kvartal.
The Secretariat of the European Ombudsman sent an email on 20 February 2001 in order to inquire whether thecomplainant had received the indemnity for the remaining quarterly period.
Sekretariatet modtogintet svar fra klageren.
The Secretariat received no reply from the complainant.
Påstand om forskelsbehandling i stipendiekontrakter til forskere på grund afbetaling i euro i stedet for i yen
Alleged discrimination in the fellowship contracts for researchers due to payments made in Euro instead of Yen
1.1Klagerens påstand om forskelsbehandling er begrundet i,at nogle forskere,somarbejder under lignende vilkår,betaltes i yen og ikke i euro.
1.1The complainant alleged discrimination,in that there were some researchers,in otherwise similar circumstances,who were paid in Yen and not Euro.
1.2Ifølge Kommissionen havde dennes tjenestegrene taget behørigt hensyn til konsekvenserne af udsving i euroens vekselkurs over for yen for forskernes indtægter og havdederfor søgt at nå frem til en tilfredsstillende løsning på problemet.
1.2According to the Commission,its services had duly taken into account the consequences of the fluctuations in exchange rate of the Euro against the Yen on the researchers’incomes,and had therefore sought a satisfactory solution to the problem.
Den 21. december 1999besluttede Kommissionen at tildele en supplerende godtgørelse til 33 stipendiater svarendetil disses økonomiske tab i 1999 (Kommissionens beslutning C (1999) 4774).
On 21 December1999,the Commission decided to grant a complementary indemnity to 33 fellows thatmatched the financial loss registered in 1999 (Commission decision C (1999) 4774).
1.3I sin anden udtalelse anførte Kommissionen,at den supplerende godtgørelse, som Kommissionen havde vedtaget den 21. december 1999,svarede til det registrerede økonomiske tab for de tre kvartaler,som afsluttedes i 1999 (fra februar til den 15. november1999).
1.3In its second opinion the Commission stated that the complementary indemnitydecided by the Commission on 21 December 1999 matched the financial loss registered atthe occasion of the three quarterly periods that were completed in 1999 (from February to15 November 1999).
Den resterende periode af 1999 indgik i det første kvartal af år 2000,der slutter ifebruar,og det var derfor først efter slutningen af dette kvartal,at tabet kunne opgøres.
The remaining period of 1999 being included in the first quarterlyperiod of the year 2000 that ends in February,it was therefore only after its completionthat the loss could be effectively quantified.
Forår 2000 havde Kommissionen allerede den 24. juli besluttet at tildele en supplerende godtgørelse for årets to afsluttede kvartaler,dvs. fra den 15. november 1999 til den 15. maj2000. Kommissionen underrettede Ombudsmanden om,at Kommissionens delegation i Japan var i færd med at udbetale denne godtgørelse.
For the year 2000,the Commission hadalready decided on 24 July 2000 to grant a complementary indemnity in relation to the twocompleted quarterly periods of the year,that is from 15 November 1999 to 15 May 2000.The Commission informed the Ombudsman that the indemnity was being paid by the Delegation of the European Commission in Japan.
1.4Den Europæiske Ombudsmand bemærker,at Kommissionen har besluttet at betalesupplerende godtgørelse til 33 forskere svarende til deres økonomiske tab som følge afudsving i euroens vekselkurs over for yen.
1.4The European Ombudsman notes that the Commission has decided to pay a complementary indemnity to 33 researchers matching the financial loss due fluctuations in theexchange rate of the Euro against the Yen.
Derudover har Kommissionen bekræftet,athvis konsekvenserne af udsvingene fortsætter,vil der ved kontraktens udløb blive tildeltsupplerende godtgørelse for de resterende to kvartaler.
Furthermore,the Commission has given confirmation that should the consequences of the fluctuation persist,a final complementaryindemnity for the remaining two quarterly periods would be granted at the end of thecontract.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmandmener derfor,at der ikke foreligger fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side medhensyn til klagerens påstand.
The European Ombudsman finds,therefore,that there is no instance of maladministration by the Commission as regards the allegation made by the complainant.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,there appears to have beenno maladministration by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Klageren i klage 227/2000/ME var en statsborger,der var bosiddende i Nordsverige tæt på grænsen til Finland,og han indgav sin klage ifebruar 2000.
The complainant incomplaint 227/2000/ME was a citizen residing in northern Sweden close to the border of Finland and he submitted his complaint in February 2000.
Desuden havde klageren i klage 227/2000/ME tætte forbindelser med foreningen “Norrbottens Frihandelsförening”,hvorfor de to klager var indbyrdes forbundet.
Moreover,the complainant incomplaint 227/2000/ME had close contacts with the association “Norrbottens Frihandelsförening” and the two complaints were thus interlinked.
Samlet set anførte klagerne i det væsentligste følgende:
Taken together,the complainants put forward in summary the following:
PÅSTAND OM SVE-RIGES OVERTRÆ-DELSE AF FÆLLES-SKABSRETTEN IFORBINDELSE MEDOPKRÆVNING AFPUNKTAFGIFT –KOMMISSIONENSBEHANDLING AFSAGEN
Decision on joinedcomplaints1554/99/ME and227/2000/ME againstthe European Commission
Klagerne angav,at Sverige uretmæssigt havde gennemført Rådets direktiv 92/12/EØF omden generelle ordning for punktafgiftspligtige varer,om oplægning og omsætning herafsamt om kontrol hermed.
The complainants stated that Sweden had wrongly implemented Council Directive92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on theholding,movement and monitoring of such products.
Sverige har dermed konsekvent overtrådt fællesskabslovgivningen ved at opkræve punktafgifter på transport af mineralolie fra Finland til Sverige.
Sweden thereby consistentlybreached Community law by charging excise duty on the transport of mineral oil from Finland to Sweden.
En af klagerne forklarede,at det i Nordsverige var og i årtier havde været almindeligt atimportere mineralolie fra Finland til personligt brug.
One complainant explained that in northern Sweden,import for personal use of mineraloil from Finland was common and had been so for decades.
Siden Sverige og Finland tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union er kontrollen med denne handel forøget.
Since Sweden and Finlandentered the European Union,the control of this trade had intensified.
I henhold til artikel 9,stk. 3,i direktiv 92/12/EØF kan medlemsstaterne fastsætte,at punktafgiften forfalder,hvis mineralolien transporteres med en atypisk transportform.
According to Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC,the Member State may charge exciseduty if the mineral oil is transported using atypical modes of transport.
Artiklenfastlægger også,at transport i køretøjernes brændstoftanke eller i en egnet reservedunkikke skal betragtes som en atypisk transportform.
The Article alsostates that transportation in the tank of vehicles or in appropriate reserve fuel canistersshould not be seen as atypical transports.
Klagerne mente,at de svenske skattemyndigheder opfatter begrebet ”atypiske transportformer”som værende alle private transporter af mineralolie.
The complainants stated that the Swedish Taxation authority interprets the term “atypical modes of transportation”as including allprivate transports of mineral oil.