natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I sin udtalelse fremsatte Kommissionen følgende bemærkninger vedrørende klagen:
In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments with regard tothe complaint:
Ifølge de rapporter, som eksportøren havde udarbejdet i henhold til detnævnte tilsagn, og de Eurostat-tal, som Kommissionen havde til rådighed,havde der ikke været nogen import af den pågældende vare siden 1989.
According to the undertaking reports submitted by the exporter and the Eurostat figures available to the Commission, there had been no imports ofthe product concerned since 1989.During the review investigation, thecomplainant had refused to provide some essential information to the Commission.
Iforbindelse med den fornyede undersøgelse havde klageren nægtet atfremlægge en række væsentlige oplysninger for Kommissionen.Kommissionen havde undersøgt alt det materiale, der forelå, og var nåetfrem til den konklusion, at antidumpingforanstaltningerne ikke længere var
The Commission had examined all the evidence availableand come to the conclusion that the antidumping measures were nolonger warranted on the basis of the following facts:First, there had beena major diversification from the product concerned due to the introduction
Hvad angik den angiveligt forkerte vurdering af de faktiske omstændigheder, havde klagerens nægtelse af at fremlægge visse væsentlige oplysninger gjort, at Kommissionen ikke havde andet valg end at basere sig påde oplysninger, der allerede forelå. Klageren havde ikke fremlagt dokumentation for, at Kommissionens resultater var forkerte.
As to the allegedly wrong assessment of facts, the complainant’s refusal toprovide certain essential information had left the Commission with nooption other than to use the information already in the file.The complainanthad not produced any evidence that the Commission’s findings werewrong.
Kommissionen understregede endvidere, at klageren kunne have indbragtden omstridte afgørelse for Fællesskabets domstole.
The Commission also stressed that the complainant could have attackedthe contested decision before the Community courts.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage og understregede sinopfattelse af, at den kendsgerning, at den pågældende vare var blevet
In its observations, the complainant maintained its complaint.It stressedthat in its view the fact that the relevant product had been imported into the EC during the period concerned was also confirmed by the Eurostat figuresthemselves.
YDERLIGERE UNDERSØGELSERAnmodning om yderligere oplysninger
FURTHER INQUIRIESRequest for further information
På baggrund af ovenstående fandt Ombudsmanden, at han behøvedeyderligere oplysninger for at kunne videreføre undersøgelsen af klagen. Isin skrivelse af 27. maj 1999 anmodede Ombudsmanden derfor Kommissionen om (1) at oplyse, om den var af den opfattelse, at denpågældende vare var (eller ikke var) blevet importeret til EF siden 1989, oghvorfor den i givet fald havde fundet, at det ikke var godtgjort, at denneimport var af kinesisk oprindelse, samt at kommentere klagerens påstandom, at det fremgik af Eurostat-tallene (og tallene fra Statistisches Bundesamt), at der rent faktisk havde fundet en sådan import sted, og atfremlægge de Eurostat-tal, som den baserede sig på, (2) at kommentereklagerens påstand om, at de forskellige varer, som Kommissionen havdehenvist til, ikke blev fremstillet af den kinesiske producent, men af enanden virksomhed og (3) at anføre, hvilken dokumentation Kommissionenhavde baseret sig på til støtte for sin konklusion, at det i betragtning af deomkostninger, som ville være forbundet med at omlægge produktionen tilden pågældende vare, og på baggrund af den højere rentabilitet af andreprodukter, ville være usandsynligt, at der ville finde eksport sted af denpågældende vare til EF.
On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman considered that he needed further information in order to proceed with the examination of the complaint.In his letter of 27 May 1999, the Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission (1) to indicate whether it considered that the product concerned had (or had not) been imported to the EC since 1989 and, if so, whyit had considered that it was not established that these imports were of Chinese origin, and to comment on the complainant’s claim that the Eurostat figures (and the figures of the German Federal Statistical Office)showed that such imports had in fact taken place, and to produce the Eurostat figures on which it relied, (2) to comment on the complainant’sallegation that the variousproducts referred to by the Commission were notmanufactured by the Chinese producer but by another company and (3) toindicate the evidence on which the Commission had relied to support itsconclusion that in view of the costs involved for switching production to theproduct concerned and given the higher rentability of other products,exports of the product concerned to the EC would be unlikely.
I sit svar af 27. juli 1999 fremsatte Kommissionen følgende bemærkninger:
In its reply of 27 July 1999, the Commission made the following statements:
Kommissionen fandt, at der ikke havde været nogen import af den pågældende vare siden 1989. De toldkodekser, som den pågældende vare varomfattet af, var “ex”-koder, hvilket betød, at disse kodekser ikke kun dækkede den pågældende vare, men også omfattede andre varer. For en merepræcis analyse ville Taric-koderne skulle anvendes (officielle Eurostatkoder, som Kommissionen anvender ved administrationen af antidumpingforanstaltninger).
The Commission considered that there had been no imports of the productconcerned since 1989.The customs codes under which the relevantproduct fell were “ex”codes, which meant that these codes did not onlycover the product concerned but included also other products.A more precise analysis required the use of the Taric codes (official Eurostat codesused by the Commission in the administration of antidumping measures).On the basis of the 10-digit Taric codes, it appeared that some minor quantities had been imported into the Community from China under the relevantcodes.However, these quantities were negligible and could not be interpreted as evidence of a likelihood of recurrence of material injury to the Community producer.Furthermore, price and quantity relationships wereso different from those observed in the investigation, that the Commissionconcluded that the product imported under these 10-digit codes was notthe product covered by the investigation.The complainant had failed toshow otherwise.There was no contradiction in the Commission’s comments of 23 September 1998.When referring, on page 5 of these comments, to imports which were “either dumped, in sufficient volumes or atprices that could be considered to be injurious, or in contravention of theterms of the undertaking”, the reference was to the figures which the complainant had claimed were evidence of dumped imports, not to the Eurostatfigures available to the Commission which showed no imports of theproduct concerned from China.
På grundlag af de 10-cifrede Taric-koder fremgik det, atder var blevet importeret en mindre mængde til Fællesskabet fra Kinaunder de pågældende koder. Disse mængder var imidlertid ubetydelige ogkunne ikke udlægges som et bevis for, at det var sandsynligt, at EF-pro-ducenten igen ville blive påført materiel skade.
The complainant had submitted statistics from the German Federal Statistical Office which contained an 11-digit code for imports from China.The Commission had been unable to accept these figures since the com-
Det kontrolbesøg, der var blevet aflagt hos den uafhængige importør, derer henvist til i pkt. 5 c) i den omstridte afgørelse, bekræftede også, at derikke havde fundet import sted.
197 plainant had failed to show that the German statistics referred to the relevant product.
Oplysningerne om de varer, som den kinesiske producent fremstillede, ogom de omkostninger, der var forbundet med at omlægge produktionen,havde været af ikke-fortrolig art, var derfor blevet set af klageren og varikke blevet anfægtet af denne.
The information on the products manufactured by the Chinese producerand on the costs of switching production had been in the non-confidentialfile, had therefore been seen by the complainant and had not been challenged by the latter.
Forkert vurdering af de faktiske omstændigheder og fejlfortolkning af dokumentation
Wrong assessment of the facts and wrong interpretation of submissions
Klageren gjorde navnlig gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havdetaget højde for, at der havde fundet import sted til EF fra tredjelande iden pågældende periode. Endvidere gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionen heller ikke havde underbygget sin påstand om, at denkinesiske producent fremstillede en lang række andre varer, og sitargument om, at en omlægning af produktionen til den pågældendevare ville være forbundet med betydelige omkostninger for den kinesiske producent og derfor var usandsynlig.
The complainant claimed in particular that the Commission had failedto take into account the fact there had been imports into the EC fromthird countries during the relevant period.It further claimed that the Commission had also failed to prove its allegation that the Chineseproducer produced several other products and its argument that aswitch to the production of the relevant product would entail substantial costs for the Chinese producer and was therefore unlikely.
Kommissionen svarede, at der ikke havde været nogen import af denpågældende vare fra Kina siden 1989, og at den havde undersøgt alforeliggende dokumentation, inden den var nået frem til den konklusion, at det ikke længere var berettiget at opretholde antidumpingforanstaltningerne.
The Commission replied that there had been no imports of theproduct concerned from China since 1989 and that it had examinedall the evidence available before coming to the conclusion that themaintaining of the antidumping measures was no longer justified.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at Kommissionen tager hensyn til al relevant dokumentation, når den træffer afgørelse om, hvorvidt antidumpingforanstaltninger skal opretholdes.
It was good administrative practice for the Commission to takeaccount of all relevant evidence when deciding as to whether or not tocontinue antidumping measures.In its contested Decision, the
I sin omstridte afgørelsegjorde Kommissionen gældende, at der ikke havde været nogenimport af den pågældende vare siden 1989. Kommissionen erklærede endvidere, at klageren ikke have fremlagt tilstrækkeligebeviser for sin påstand om, at antidumpingforanstaltningerne varblevet omgået ved hjælp af import via tredjelande såsom Schweiz.Selv om Kommissionen også henviste til andre faktorer, som der ikkehersker alvorlig uenighed om mellem parterne (dvs. nedgangen iefterspørgslen), til underbygning af sin konklusion, at antidumpingtolden ikke burde opretholdes, er det klart, at det forhold, atder ikke havde været nogen import, spillede en væsentlig rolle i denneforbindelse.
Commission claimed that there had not been any imports of theproduct concerned since 1989.The Commission also claimed that thecomplainant had not produced sufficient evidence to corroborate itsallegation that the antidumping measures had been circumvented byimports transiting through third countries like Switzerland.Althoughthe Commission also referred to other factors which are not seriouslyin dispute between the parties (namely the decline in demand) inorder to support its conclusion that the antidumping measures shouldnot be continued, it is clear that the absence of imports played anessential role in this context.
Til støtte for sin påstand om, at der i modsætning til Kommissionensopfattelse rent faktisk havde fundet en sådan import sted, havde klageren forelagt Kommissionen statistiske oplysninger fra Statistisches Bundesamt, som viste import fra Kina.
In order to support its allegation that, contrary to what the Commission believed, there had indeed been such imports, the complainant had furnished to the Commission statistics from the German Federal Statistical Office which showed imports from China.
Kommissionen anførte, atdisse tal var irrelevante, da de vedrørte en anden vare. Ved en førstebetragtning syntes den fremlagte dokumentation imidlertid atbekræfte, at en vare, der svarede til definitionen på den pågældendevare, var blevet importeret til EF fra Kina i den pågældende periode.Det argument, som Kommissionen havde fremført, var således ikkeoverbevisende.
The Commission claimed that these figures were irrelevant since theyreferred to another product.However, at first sight the evidence submitted would appear to confirm that a product matching the definitionof the relevant product was imported to the EC from China during therelevant period.The argument put forward by the Commission thusfailed to convince.
205 forsøg på at rydde denne modsigelse af vejen.
199 that the complainant had been enjoying a monopoly position in the EC.
Det samme var tilfældet medpåstanden om, at det kontrolbesøg, der var blevet aflagt hos den uafhængige importør, også havde bekræftet, at der ikke havde fundetimport sted. Denne påstand blev fremført første gang i Kommissionens svar på Ombudsmandens anmodning om yderligereoplysninger.
It could not be considered to be good administrative practice tobase a decision not on the arguments mentioned therein but on arguments which were only disclosed to an interested party when thelatter has lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman.The same appliedto the allegation that the absence of imports had been confirmed bythe verification visit carried out at the premises of the unrelatedimporter.This allegation appeared for the first time in the Commission’s reply to the Ombudsman’s request for further information.
1.10Da dokumentationen for denne import var blevet fremsendt til Kommissionen af klageren, var Kommissionens påstand om, at klageren ikke havde fremlagt væsentlige oplysninger, irrelevant i denneforbindelse.
1.10Since the evidence relating to these imports had been submitted tothe Commission by the complainant, the Commission’s allegation thatthe complainant had failed to provide essential information was irrelevant in this context.
1.11Med hensyn til klagerens påstand om, at Kommissionen fejlagtigthavde lagt til grund, at den kinesiske producent også producerede enlang række andre varer, skulle det påpeges, at den brochure fra denkinesiske producent, som klageren selv havde fremsendt, henviste tilen produktion af andre varer.
1.11In so far as the complainant’s claim that the Commission wronglyassumed that the Chinese producer also produced several otherproducts was concerned, it had to be pointed out that the brochure ofthe Chinese producer submitted by the complainant itself referred toa production of other products.In these circumstances the Ombudsman was of the view that there was not enough evidence toshow that the Commission had made a mistake when it relied on thefact that the Chinese producer manufactured a number of productsother than the relevant product.
Under disse omstændigheder fandt Ombudsmanden, at der ikke var tilstrækkelig dokumentation for, at Kommissionen havde begået en fejl ved at henholde sig til, at denkinesiske producent fremstillede en række andre varer end denpågældende vare.
1.12Finally, in reply to the complainant’s claim that there was no evidenceto support the claim that a switch to the production of the relevantproduct would entail substantial costs for the Chinese producer andthus be unlikely, the Commission alleged that the relevant informationhad been contained in the non-confidential file, had thus been accessible to the complainant and had not been challenged at the time.However, even if the complainant should have seen the relevant documents (which it denied), the fact remained that in its letter of 30March 1998 it had challenged the view of the Commission.The argument relied on by the complainant in this context was not devoid ofpersuasiveness.However, the Commission did not appear to havetaken this argument into account when adopting its Decision.
1.12Som svar på klagerens påstand om, at der ikke var nogen beviser forpåstanden om, at en omstilling af produktionen til den pågældendevare ville være forbundet med betydelige omkostninger for den kinesiske producent og således være usandsynlig, gjorde Kommissionenendelig gældende, at de pågældende oplysninger havde været af
1.13It was good administrative practice that the Commission should, whenadopting decisions, consider all the relevant facts and arguments.Inthe present case, the Commission had failed to take proper accountof the evidence and the complainant’s arguments in so far as importsfrom third countries and the costs for the Chinese producer of
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde manipuleret meddokumentationen, da den vedtog den omstridte afgørelse.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had manipulated theevidence when adopting the contested Decision.
Ifølge Kommissionen var der intet, der tydede på, at Kommissionenshavde manipuleret med dokumentationen for bevidst at nå frem til etresultat, som var ugunstigt for klageren.
The Commission argued that there was nothing to suggest that theevidence had been manipulated by the Commission in order to deliberately engineer an outcome unfavourable to the complainant.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at selv om Kommissionen efter hans opfattelse havde begået en fejl ved ikke at have taget passende hensyn tildokumentationen og klagernes argumenter, for så vidt angik de toovennævnte spørgsmål, var der intet, der tydede på, at Kommissionen bevidst havde manipuleret med dokumentationen.
The Ombudsman considered that although the Commission had in hisview committed a mistake by failing to take proper account of the evidence and the complainant’s arguments in so far as the two issuesreferred to above were concerned, there was no evidence whichwould have suggested that the Commission had deliberately manipulated the evidence.
På baggrund af ovenstående syntes der ikke at have foreligget fejleller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, for så vidt angik denanden påstand, som klageren havde fremsat.
On the basis of the above, there appeared to have been no maladministration on the part of the Commission in so far as the secondallegation put forward by the complainant was concerned.
Ombudsmanden fandtdet derfor ikke nødvendigt, at han behandlede klagerens anmodningi brev af 20. september 1999 om at træffe forholdsregler over for kommissionstjenestemændene med ansvar for antidumpingproceduren.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that there was no need for him toconsider the request by the complainant, in its letter of 20 September1999, to take steps against the Commission officials in charge of theanti-dumping proceeding.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at Kommissionen tager hensyn til allefaktiske omstændigheder og argumenter, når den vedtagerafgørelser.
Given that this aspect of the case concerned a specific event in the past, itwas not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
I den foreliggende sag havde Kommissionen ikke taget
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
UDSÆTTELSE AF MUNDTLIG PRØVE UNDER USÆDVANLIGE OMSTÆNDIGHEDER
POSTPONEMENT OF ORAL EXAMINATION IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Afgørelse om klage 687/98/BB over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 687/98/BB against the European Commission
Klageren havde deltaget i den interne udvælgelsesprøve KOM/T/A/98.Han havde bestået to skriftlige prøver. Den 27. april 1998 aflagde han denmundtlige prøve.
The complainant had participated in Internal Competition COM/T/A/98.Hehad passed the two written examinations.On 27 April 1998 he took the oralexamination.
Den 2. april 1998 havde han været udsat for en ulykke, som en uge seneremedførte en alvorlig blodprop i hans ben. Klageren havde således ikkeværet i stand til at arbejde i mere end tre uger før tidspunktet for denmundtlige prøve.
On 2 April 1998, he had sustained an accident which one week later led toa serious thrombosis in his leg.Thus, the complainant was not able to workfor more than three weeks up until the day of the oral examination.In orderto be able to participate in the examination he returned to work.He had notasked for a postponement of the examination date as the invitation letterunambiguously stated that this was not possible.He was under medicationon doctor’s orders when he took part in the oral examination.The medication made him unusually tired, a state he tried to compensate with a corresponding consumption of coffee.During the oral examination he experienced that this had increased his nervousness.
For at kunne deltage i prøven havde han genoptagetarbejdet. Han havde ikke anmodet om en udsættelse af prøvedatoen, dadet klart fremgik af indkaldelsesbrevet, at dette ikke var muligt.
On 15 May 1998, the Selection Board sent the complainant a letterinforming him of the results and explaining that he had not passed as hehad obtained only 88.33 points whereas the minimum required was 90.
Den 15. maj 1998 fremsendte udvælgelseskomitéen et brev til ham medoplysning om resultaterne og besked om, at han ikke var bestået, da hankun havde opnået 88,33 point, mens kravet var mindst 90.
On 23 June 1998, the complainant wrote again to the President of the Selection Board.He pointed out that he only resumed work on 27 April1998, the day of his oral examination and that it was only during the oralexamination that he became aware of the abnormal reaction of his bodyunder stressful conditions.
Den 10. juni 1998bekræftede Kommissionen, at de opnåede point svarede nøjagtigt til dem,komitéen havde oplyst.
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
Den 23. juni 1998 skrev klageren igen til formanden for udvælgelseskomitéen.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion the Commission made the following points:
Han påpegede, at han først havde genoptaget arbejdet den 27. april1998, den dag, hvor den mundtlige prøve skulle finde sted, og at det førstvar under den mundtlige prøve, at han blev klar over sin krops abnormereaktion under stressende omstændigheder.
The complainant appeared at the oral examination in the normal way,making no mention of any health problems either prior to or on the day ofthe examination.
Først efter at være blevet informeret om de opnåede resultater underrettede klageren udvælgelseskomitéen om sin ulykke og sine helbredsproblemer. Ansøgeren havde hverken kontaktet den ansvarlige for udvælgelsesprøvens organisering eller nævnt problemet for medlemmerne afudvælgelseskomitéen under den mundtlige prøve, således at der kunnehave været taget skridt til at ændre datoen for prøvens afholdelse.
Only after having been informed of his results did the complainant informthe Selection Board of his accident and health problems.The candidatehad neither contacted the secretary responsible for organising the competition, nor mentioned the matter to the members of the Selection Boardduring the oral examination so that steps might have been taken to rearrange the date of the examination.
Kommissionen påpegede, at den ikke kunne tilbyde ansøgeren mulighedfor at aflægge endnu en mundtlig prøve eller genoptage proceduren, nårudvælgelsesprøven var afsluttet.
The Commission pointed out that it was unable to offer a candidate thepossibility of a second oral examination, nor could it reopen a procedureonce the competition was finished.
Kommissionen gjorde opmærksom på, at såfremt de underrettes herom afansøgerne, træffer både Ansættelseskontoret og udvælgelseskomitéernealle mulige foranstaltninger, som måtte være nødvendige for at sikre enkorrekt gennemførelse af de mundtlige prøver, såfremt usædvanlige omstændigheder forhindrer en ansøger i at møde op på det tidspunkt, derfremgår af indkaldelsen.
The Commission pointed out that, if informed by candidates, both the Recruitment Unit and the selection boards take all possible steps whichmight be necessary for the correct running of the oral examinations, ifexceptional circumstances prevent a candidate from attending on the dayindicated in the invitation.