natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter en positiv udtalelsefra Thermie-udvalget traf Kommissionen beslutningen om at yde støtte tilprojektet på maksimalt 1830924 ECU.
Power Ltd.requested to withdraw from the contract and was replaced by Nordtank Energy Group.
Efter Kommissionens beslutning sluttede National Power Plc. sig sammenmed British Aerospace Plc. og Taylor Woodraw Construction Holding Ltd.og oprettede virksomheden National Wind Power Ltd. for at videreføre National Power Plc.’s udviklings- og forskningsarbejde inden for vindmølleparker. Projektets initiativtagere anmodede Kommissionen om at lade National Wind Power Ltd. træde i stedet for National Power Plc.Kommissionen accepterede denne ændring.
The case was examined by UCLAF, which did not consider it necessary toinitiate an investigation.The main allegations made were related to mattersof environment, nuisance or safety, rather than to suspicions of improperuse of Community funds.The information received from the authorisingofficer who looked into the matter confirmed that there was nothing to suggest that the Community’s financial interests might have been harmed.
Den 15. januar 1992 blevkontrakt nr. WE/225/91 undertegnet mellem Fællesskabet og National Wind Power Ltd., Nordtank Energy Group A/S og Dr. H. En kontraktændring blev undertegnet af Kommissionen den 23. december 1996, hvorkoordinatoren National Wind Power Ltd. anmodede om at træde tilbage frakontrakten og blev erstattet af Nordtank Energy Group.
Although small and medium size enterprises benefit from preference in the selection process (Article 6.3), the Regulation does not contain specific criteria or limits with regard to the size of the promoters.
Sagen blev behandlet af UCLAF, som ikke fandt det nødvendigt at iværksætte en undersøgelse. De hovedpåstande, der blev fremsat, vedrørte miljøanliggender, genevoldende faktorer eller sikkerhedsaspekter og ikke eneventuel mistanke om uretmæssig brug af fællesskabsmidler.Oplysningerne fra den anvisningsberettigede, som undersøgte spørgsmålet, bekræftede, at intet tydede på, at Fællesskabets finansielle interesser var blevet skadet.
With regard to the alleged failure to reply by DG XVII, the Commissionobserved that in November 1997 DG XVII was informed by Mrs M.that, forthe project n°WE/225/91, the Commission had been misled.In late November 1997 Mrs M.submitted supporting evidence and was informedby the Commission that a written answer would be forwarded in duecourse.Following a finalisation of the in depth analysis which revealed noevidence that the Commission had been misled, DG XVII replied to Mrs M.on 28 April 1998.
Med hensyn til klagernes første påstand bemærkede Kommissionen, atden traf beslutningen om at støtte projektet, som var et formidlingsprojekt,da alle krav, kriterier for støtteberettigelse og udvælgelsesbetingelser i forbindelse med Thermie var fuldt ud opfyldt.
UCLAF also received several letters from the complainants and other citi-zens.After the final analysis of all the data, UCLAF informed all the complainants on 19 May 1998 that it had not initiated investigations.
Projektet var i det indsendte forslag ikke beskrevet som et landbrugerstyret og lokalt orienteret projekt, ogdet havde heller ikke været nødvendigt eller relevant på grundlag afbestemmelserne i forordningen. Selv om der i udvælgelsesprocessengives forrang til små og mellemstore virksomheder (artikel 6, stk. 3), indeholder forordningen ikke særlige kriterier eller lofter for størrelsen af deerhvervsdrivendes virksomhed.
No observations were received from the complainants.However, in theircommon letter of 30 April 1998, the complainants stated that, with regardto the absence of an environmental impact assessment for the project,which had been the subject of petitions 71/96, 155/96 and 160/96, they didnot agree with the way their petitions had been dealt with by the Committeeon Petitions.They alleged that the facts stated in their petitions had manifestly been misunderstood and incorrectly stated.
Hvad angår påstanden om manglende svar fra GD XVII, bemærkede Kommissionen, at M. i november 1997 informerede GD XVII om, at Kommissionen var blevet vildledt i forbindelse med projekt nr. WE/225/91.I slutningen af november 1997 fremsendte M. dokumentation herfor ogblev af Kommissionen informeret om, at et skriftligt svar til sin tid ville blivefremsendt.
The complainants insisted once again on the fact that an environmentalimpact assessment should have been carried out for this project, but thatthe Ceredigion County Council ignored the advice received from differentbodies to do so.The complainants further provided details showing thecommercial interests involved in the Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project.
Påstanden med hensyn til den måde, hvorpå Udvalget for Andragender behandlede andragenderne
The allegation concerning the way in which the Committee on Petitions dealt with the petitions
Klagernes første påstand var, at der ikke var gennemført en miljøindvirkningsvurdering i forbindelse med vindmølleparkprojektet i Mynydd Gorddu.
The first allegation of the complainants was that no environmentalimpact assessment was carried out for the Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project.
Klagerne kritiserede derfor den måde, hvorpå Europa-Parlamentets Udvalg for Andragender havde behandlet og afsluttetundersøgelsen af andragende nr. 71/96, 155/96 og 160/96. I disseandragender havde klagerne gjort gældende, at der ikke var gennemført en miljøindvirkningsvurdering.
The complainants therefore criticised the way in which the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament had dealt withand concluded its examination of petitions 71/96, 155/96 and 160/96.In those petitions, the complainants had alleged the absence of anenvironmental impact assessment.
Da Udvalget for Andragender som et politisk organ under Europa-Parlamentet behandler andragender som en af Parlamentets politiskeopgaver anses klager over fejl eller forsømmelser begået af Udvalgetfor Andragender ikke for at ligge inden for Den Europæiske Ombudsmands mandat.
Since the Committee on Petitions, as a political body of the European Parliament, deals with petitions as a political task of the Parliament,complaints alleging maladministration by the Committee on Petitionsare not considered to be within the mandate of the European Ombudsman.
Derfor kunne Ombudsmanden ikke behandledette aspekt af klagerne.
For this reason the Ombudsman could not deal with thisaspect of the complaints.
Den påståede tildeling af Thermie-støtte uden passende undersøgelse til vindmølleparkprojektet i Mynydd Gorddu
The alleged awarding of a Thermie grant without proper inquiriesto the Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde tildelt vindmølleparkprojektet i Mynydd Gorddu Thermie-støtte uden at have foretagetpassende undersøgelser, f.eks. i form af en undersøgelse på stedet.Dette var resulteret i, at der var ydet støtte til et projekt, som blevbeskrevet som et innovativt, landbrugerstyret og lokalt orienteret projekt, men som i realiteten blev styret af multinationale kommercielleinteresser. Kommissionen bemærkede, at den traf beslutningen om atstøtte projektet, som var et formidlingsprojekt, da alle krav, kriterier forstøtteberettigelse og udvælgelsesbetingelser i forbindelse med Thermie var fuldt ud opfyldt.
The complainants alleged that the Commission awarded a Thermiegrant to the Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project without making properinquiries, for example by an on the spot investigation.This had as aresult that a grant had been awarded to a project which was promotedas an innovative, farmer led and locally orientated scheme, but whichwas in fact led by multinational commercial interests.The Commissionobserved that it took the decision to support the project, which was adissemination project, because all the Thermie requirements, eligibility criteria and conditions for selection were fully met.The projectwas not described in the submitted proposal as a farmer led andlocally oriented scheme, nor would it have been necessary or relevantunder the terms of Regulation n°2008/90.
Endelig bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at UCLAF behandlede sagen,men ikke fandt det nødvendigt at iværksætte en undersøgelse.Oplysningerne modtaget fra UCLAF fra den anvisningsberettigedebekræftede, at intet tydede på, at Fællesskabets finansielle interesservar blevet skadet. Af ovennævnte årsager blev der ikke fundet tilfældeaf fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til tildelingen af Thermie-støttetil vindmølleparkprojektet i Mynydd Gorddu.
The Ombudsman finally noted that UCLAF examined the matter butdid not feel it necessary to initiate an investigation.The informationreceived by UCLAF from the authorising officer confirmed that therewas nothing to suggest that the Community’s financial interests mighthave been harmed.For the above reasons, no instance of maladministration was found with regard to the awarding of a Thermie grant tothe Mynydd Gorddu Windfarm Project.
Påstand om manglende svar fra GD XVII og Direktorat F (UCLAF)under Kommissionens Generalsekretariat
The alleged failure to reply by DG XVII and Directorate F (UCLAF)of the Secretariat General of the Commission
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at en lang række breve, der var sendt til GD XVII og Direktorat F (UCLAF) i november og december 1997, ikkevar blevet besvaret af Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse bemærkede Kommissionen, at efter den endelige analyse af de rejste spørgsmålsvarede både GD XVII og UCLAF klagerne henholdsvis den 28. april1998 og den 19. maj 1998.
The complainants alleged that several letters sent to DG XVII as wellas to Directorate F (UCLAF) of the Secretariat General in Novemberand December 1997 had not received a reply from the Commission.In its opinion, the Commission observed that, after the final analysisof the points raised, both DG XVII and UCLAF replied to the complainants respectively on 28 April 1998 and 19 May 1998.
Kommissionen vedlagde kopier af dissesvar.
The Commission annexed copies of those replies.
I betragtning af, at både GD XVII og UCLAF svarede og undskyldte forsinkelsen, fandt Ombudsmandensåledes ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til detteaspekt af sagen.
95 tion.Given thus that both DG XVII and UCLAF replied and apologisedfor the delay, no maladministration was found by the Ombudsman withregard to this aspect of the case.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denne klage viste ingenfejl eller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,there appeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
Ombudsmandenafsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at foruden påstandene om fejl eller forsømmelser fra Europa-Kommissionens side indeholdt klagerne forskelligeandre påstande om fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med den måde,hvorpå de lokale britiske myndigheder (Ceredigion County Council) gavvindmølleparkprojektet en byggetilladelse, uden at der var blevet gennemført en miljøindvirkningsvurdering. Af de årsager, der er redegjort forovenfor, kunne disse påstande ikke behandles inden for rammerne afdenne undersøgelse.
The Ombudsman noted that, alongside the allegations of maladministrationby the European Commission, the complaints contained various other allegations of maladministration in the way the local UK authorities (Ceredigion County Council) granted a planning permission to the Windfarm Project,without an environmental impact assessment having been carried out.Forthe reasons explained above, those allegations could not be dealt with inthe framework of this inquiry.
Ombudsmanden gjorde dog klagerne opmærksom på muligheden for atfremsætte disse påstande i en klage til Commissioner for Local Administration i Wales (Derwen House, Court Road, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, UK-Wales CF31 1BN, tlf.: 165 666 1325, fax: 165 665 8317).
However, the Ombudsman drew the attention of the complainants on thepossibility to bring those allegations in a complaint to the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales (Derwen House, Court Road, Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, UK-Wales CF31 1BN, tel:165 666 1325, fax:165 665 8317).
PÅSTAND OM MANGLENDE IVÆRKSÆTTELSE AF EN OVERTRÆDELSESPROCEDURE MOD DET FORENEDE KONGERIGE FOR OVERTRÆDELSE AF DIREKTIV 77/187/EØF OG 76/207/EØF
ALLEGED FAILURE TO START AN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE AGAINST THE UK FOR VIOLATION OF DIRECTIVES 77/187/EEC AND 76/207/EEC
Afgørelse om klage 33/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 33/98/OV against the European Commission
I januar 1998 klagede D. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over, at Europa-Kommissionen havde afvist at indbringe Det Forenede Kongerigefor Domstolen for overtrædelse af Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF (overførsel
In January 1998 Mr D.lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsmanconcerning an alleged refusal of the European Commission to take the United Kingdom before the European Court of Justice for infringement of Council Directives 77/187/EEC (transfer of undertakings)37and76/207/EEC (equal treatment for men and women)38.According to thecomplainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
Klageren, en ansat ved Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), blev uberettiget afskediget sammen med 30000 andre ansatte i tilknytning tiluddannelsesreformloven fra 1988 (og to bekendtgørelser), hvorved ILEAblev nedlagt med virkning fra den 1. april 1990. Han klagede derfor til Europa-Kommissionen i september 1997 og anvendte standardformularenfor klager 89/C26/07.
The complainant, an employee of the Inner London Education Authority(ILEA), was unfairly made redundant together with 30.000 other employeesfurther to the Education Reform Act of 1988 (and two Statutory Instruments) which abolished the ILEA with effect from 1 April 1990.Hetherefore complained to the European Commission in September 1997using the standard complaint form 89/C26/07.He alleged that the UK
Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF af 14. februar 1977 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning omvaretagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder, bedriftereller dele af bedrifter (EFT1977 L61, s. 26).
Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,businesses of parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61/26).
Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandlingaf mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelsesamt arbejdsvilkår (EFT1976 L39, s. 40).
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equaltreatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion,and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39/40).
21. januar 1998 og bekræftede, at der ikke var tale om en klar overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, og at genstanden for klagen snarere syntes atvære et spørgsmål, der skulle løses på grundlag af britisk lov.
In November 1997 he received a letter from DG V (Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs) from which he concluded that the Commissionwas not going to start an infringement procedure against the UK.In thisletter, dated 6 November 1997, the complainant was informed that the two Directives had been transposed into national UK law, and that therefore itis primarily the responsibility of the competent UK judicial authorities to seethat national law is correctly applied.In a dispute, the national court concerned may ask for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the applicable Community law.DG V also informed the complainant that there is no Community legislation dealing specifically withindividual dismissal.
Da klagerenikke var tilfreds med Kommissionens afgørelse, indgav han denne klage til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen ikke indbragte de britiske myndigheder for Domstolen.
The complainant then wrote back to President Santer on 15 November1997 asking for a review of the decision.He stated that the fact that the UKhas transposed the Directives into national law did not mean that other UKacts might infringe the Directives.The Director General of DG V replied on21 January 1998 confirming that there was not an obvious breach of Community law and that the subject of the complaint would rather appearto be a matter for seeking remedy under UK law.Not satisfied with the Commission’s decision, the complainant lodged the present complaint withthe Ombudsman alleging that the Commission was not taking the UKauthorities before the Court of Justice.
Med hensyn til den påståede overtrædelse af direktiv 77/187/EØF omoverførsel af virksomheder samt klagerens udtalelse om, at anvendelsenaf uddannelsesreformloven fra 1988 var resulteret i hans uberettigedeafskedigelse, erklærede Kommissionen, at denne lovgivning på ingenmåde var i modstrid med direktivet. Uddannelsesreformloven, navnligparagraf 172 (“Beføjelser til at overflytte personale”), vedrører uddannelsesreformer og overflytningen af visse personalekategorier efter ILEA’snedlæggelse og sigter således mod at beskytte de ansattes erhvervederettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder.
As regards the alleged infringement of the Directive 77/187/EEC on transfers of undertakings, and the complainant’s statement that the applicationof the 1988 Education Reform Act led to his unfair dismissal, the Commission stated that this legislation in no way breached the Directive.The Education Reform Act, more specifically section 172 (“Power totransfer staff”) deals with educational reforms and the transfer of certaincategories of staff following the abolition of the ILEA, and thus aims to protect the acquired rights of employees in the event of the transfer of under-takings.The Commission also indicated that Article 4 of the Directive does
Kommissionenanførte endvidere, at artikel 4 i direktivet ikke er til hinder for, at der kan skeafskedigelser af organisatoriske årsager, der medfører beskæftigelsesmæssige ændringer.
97 not prohibit dismissals that might take place for organisational reasonsentailing changes in the workforce.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at enhver uenighed om kriterierne og de praktiske foranstaltninger i forbindelse med afgørelsen om, hvilke ansatte derudfører opgaver i tilknytning til overførslen, ligger inden for de behørigenationale organers kompetence, navnlig de relevante retter, som klagereni givet fald kunne indbringe sagen for.
The Commission observed that all disputes concerning the criteria andpractical arrangements for determining which employees perform tasksassociated with the transfer are within the jurisdiction of the appropriatenational bodies, particularly the relevant court and tribunals to which thecomplainant might, if appropriate, take his case.
Hvad angår den påståede overtrædelse af direktiv 76/207/EØF om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder og klagerens udtalelse om, at en række tidligere ILEA-ansatte blev behandlet gunstigere end andre, bemærkede Kommissionen, at det klart fremgik af klagerens oplysninger, at han ikkehenviste til forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, som udgør direktivetsanvendelsesområde.
As regards the alleged infringement of the Directive 76/207/EEC on equaltreatment for men and women, and the complainant’s statement that someex-ILEA employees were treated more favourably than others, the Commission observed that it was clear from the information supplied by thecomplainant that he did not refer to discrimination on the grounds of sexwhich is the scope of the Directive.
Klagerens bemærkninger Klageren fremsatte ingen bemærkninger til Kommissionens udtalelse.
The complainant’s observations The complainant made no observations on the Commission’s opinion.
Påstand om manglende iværksættelse i Kommissionen af en overtrædelsesprocedure mod de britiske myndigheder for overtrædelse afdirektiv 77/187/EØF og 76/207/EØF
The alleged failure of the Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against the UK authorities for violation of Directives77/187/EEC and 76/207/EEC
Klagerens hovedpåstand var, at Kommissionen ikke havde iværksaten overtrædelsesprocedure mod de britiske myndigheder for overtrædelse af direktiv 77/187/EØF og 76/207/EØF, på grund af hansuberettigede afskedigelse i tilknytning til uddannelsesreformloven fra1988.
The complainant’s main allegation consisted in the fact that the Commission did not initiate an infringement procedure against the UKauthorities for violation of Directives 77/187/EEC and 76/207/EEC,because of his unfair dismissal further to the 1988 Education Reform Act.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at der ikke var tale om overtrædelse af de nævnte direktiver, og at den den 6. november 1997 havdeunderrettet klageren om sin beslutning om ikke at forfølge sagen.
The Commission observed that there was no breach of the said Directives and that it had informed the complainant on 6 November1997 of its decision not to pursue the case.
I denne sag fremgik det, at klagerens brev af 26. september 1997 til Kommissionen blev registreret i Generalsekretariatet den 2. oktober1997, og at der blev sendt et svar til klageren den 6. november 1997.Det fremgik endvidere, at Kommissionen den 21. januar 1998 besvarede klagerens andet brev, der var adresseret til kommissionsformand Santer den 15. november 1997, og hvori der blev anmodet om, at dettidligere svar blev taget op til vurdering.
In the present case it appeared that the complainant’s letter of 26September 1997 to the Commission was registered at the Secretariat-General on 2 October 1997 and that a reply was sent to the complainant on 6 November 1997.It further appeared that, on 21 January
I begge svar informerede Kommissionen klageren om, at der ikke vartale om en klar overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, at de nævntedirektiver var blevet omsat til national britisk ret, og at klageren derforburde gå til de relevante britiske retter, som har kompetence i forbindelse med sådanne tvister. Kommissionen oplyste endvidere klageren om, at den pågældende nationale ret i tilfælde af en tvist kananmode Domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse om fortolkningen afgældende fællesskabsret.
In both replies, the Commission informed the complainant that therewas no obvious breach of Community law, that the said Directives hadbeen transposed into national UK law, and that therefore, the complainant should seek remedy before the relevant UK courts and tribunals which have jurisdiction over such disputes.The Commissionalso indicated to the complainant that, in the event of a dispute, thenational court seized may ask for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the applicable Community law.
I sin udtalelse til Ombudsmanden gav Kommissionen klageren endnuflere oplysninger om årsagerne til, at der ikke var tale om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten. Hvad angår den påståede overtrædelse afdirektiv 76/207/EØF om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, bemærkede Kommissionen, at det klart fremgik af klagerens oplysninger, athan ikke henviste til forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn, som
In its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Commission provided the complainant with even more details on the reasons why there was nobreach of Community law.As regards the alleged infringement of the Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment for men and women, the Commission observed that it was clear from the information suppliedby the complainant that he did not refer to discrimination on thegrounds of sex which is the scope of the Directive.As regards thealleged infringement of the Directive 77/187/EEC on transfers ofundertakings, the Commission stated that the Education Reform Act,more specifically section 172 (“Power to transfer staff”), deals witheducational reforms and the transfer of certain categories of staff following the abolition of the ILEA, and thus aims to protect the acquiredrights of employees in the event of the transfer of undertakings.