natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
H. întrucât Ombudsmanul consideră că nereușita Comisiei de a adopta o poziție definitivă cu privire la plângerea reclamantului privind nerespectarea dreptului comunitar constituie un exemplu de administrare defectuoasă;
H. whereas the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's failure to decide on a definitive position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint constitutes an instance of maladministration,
I. întrucât recomandarea Ombudsmanului adresată Comisiei este că aceasta ar trebui să soluționeze plângerea reclamantului cât mai repede și mai atent cu putință,
I. whereas the Ombudsman's recommendation to the Commission is that it should deal with the complainant's complaint as rapidly and diligently as possible,
Directiva 2003/88/CE, care a înlocuit și a abrogat Directiva 93/104/CE (JO L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
Directive 2003/88/EC, which replaced and repealed Directive 93/104/EC (OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
7. reamintește că propunerea a fost transmisă în septembrie 2004 și că nu există dovezi că de atunci Comisia a mai întreprins măsuri în vederea continuării investigației;
Recalls that that proposal was submitted in September 2004 and that there is no evidence that the Commission has taken any further steps since then in order to proceed with its investigation;
9. este de părere că legislația comunitară nu prevede posibilitatea ignorării legislațiilor și hotărârilor existente pe motiv că se iau în considerare noi norme; indică faptul că Comisia nu a reușit să soluționeze aspectele prevăzute în plângere care nu au legătură cu schimbările propuse la directiva aplicabilă;
Is of the opinion that Community law does not envisage the possibility of disregarding existing laws and judgments on the grounds that new rules are being considered; points out that the Commission also failed to deal with issues in the complaint that are not related to the proposed changes to the applicable Directive;
13. evidențiază încă o dată rolul foarte important al statelor membre în punerea corectă în aplicare a legislației comunitare și subliniază faptul că aplicarea practică a acesteia este decisivă în scopul sporirii relevanței Uniunii Europene pentru cetățenii săi;
Emphasises once again the key role of the Member States in correctly implementing Community legislation and underlines the fact that the practical application thereof is decisive for the purposes of increasing the relevance of the European Union for its citizens;
In November 2001, the complainant, a German doctor, requested the Commission to open infringement proceedings against Germany.
In November 2001, the complainant, a German doctor, requested the Commission to open infringement proceedings against Germany.
The complainant argued that Germany infringed Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time
The complainant argued that Germany infringed Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time
OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p.
OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p.
("Directive 93/104"), in so far as the activity of doctors in hospitals was concerned, in particular as regards time spent on call by these doctors.
("Directive 93/104"), in so far as the activity of doctors in hospitals was concerned, in particular as regards time spent on call by these doctors.
In the complainant's view, this resulted in a considerable risk for both staff and patients.
In the complainant's view, this resulted in a considerable risk for both staff and patients.
In this complaint (2333/2003/GG) the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint within an appropriate period of time.
In this complaint (2333/2003/GG) the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint within an appropriate period of time.
In the decision closing this inquiry the Ombudsman noted that nearly 15 months had passed in the present case before the Commission had started dealing with the objections raised by the complainant by sending a request for information to the Member State concerned.
In the decision closing this inquiry the Ombudsman noted that nearly 15 months had passed in the present case before the Commission had started dealing with the objections raised by the complainant by sending a request for information to the Member State concerned.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had failed to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time and that this constituted an instance of maladministration.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had failed to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time and that this constituted an instance of maladministration.
In the meantime Germany had adopted a new law in order to bring the German legislation in line with Directive 93/104/EC and the Commission needed to examine the compatibility of this new legislation with Community law in order to be able to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint.
In the meantime Germany had adopted a new law in order to bring the German legislation in line with Directive 93/104/EC and the Commission needed to examine the compatibility of this new legislation with Community law in order to be able to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint.
On 6 December 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that it had adopted a proposal for an amendment of the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC)
On 6 December 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that it had adopted a proposal for an amendment of the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC)
OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
9-19. and that it would examine the infringement complaint in the light of this proposal.
9-19. and that it would examine the infringement complaint in the light of this proposal.
On 2 November 2005, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman again (complaint 3453/2005/GG).
On 2 November 2005, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman again (complaint 3453/2005/GG).
He submitted that he had received no further information on the position the Commission proposed to adopt concerning his case.
He submitted that he had received no further information on the position the Commission proposed to adopt concerning his case.
He took the view that the Commission was delaying the matter and ignoring the Ombudsman.
He took the view that the Commission was delaying the matter and ignoring the Ombudsman.
He essentially repeated the allegation in his earlier complaint.
He essentially repeated the allegation in his earlier complaint.
In its opinion the Commission stated that it had a discretion as to whether to start or continue infringement proceedings.
In its opinion the Commission stated that it had a discretion as to whether to start or continue infringement proceedings.
The complainant alleged that EU law did not envisage the possibility of disregarding laws and judgments on the grounds that the Commission proposed new rules.
The complainant alleged that EU law did not envisage the possibility of disregarding laws and judgments on the grounds that the Commission proposed new rules.
If the fact that such proposals had been submitted made it lawful to disregard existing law, the legal order of the European Communities was, in the complainant's view, a farce.
If the fact that such proposals had been submitted made it lawful to disregard existing law, the legal order of the European Communities was, in the complainant's view, a farce.
By acting as it did, the Commission jeopardised the legal peace and deliberately distorted the law.
By acting as it did, the Commission jeopardised the legal peace and deliberately distorted the law.
On 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman addressed the following draft recommendation to the Commission:
On 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman addressed the following draft recommendation to the Commission:
The Commission should deal with the complainant's infringement complaint as
The Commission should deal with the complainant's infringement complaint as
rapidly and as diligently as possible.
rapidly and as diligently as possibl e.
The Ombudsman considered the following:
The Ombudsman considered the following:
- The fact that one directive (93/104) has been replaced by another one (2003/88) dealing with the same subject matter was not relevant for the complaint.
- The fact that one directive (93/104) has been replaced by another one (2003/88) dealing with the same subject matter was not relevant for the complaint.
- Under A rticle 211 of the EU Treaty it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that measures taken by the institutions are applied.
- Under A rticle 211 of the EU Treaty it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that measures taken by the institutions are applied.
- The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties.
- The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties.
It has stressed that this role is essential to the interests of European citizens and it has recognised the importance of the rule of law.
It has stressed that this role is essential to the interests of European citizens and it has recognised the importance of the rule of law.
Therefore, it is good administrative practice to deal with infringement complaints as rapidly and diligently as possible.
Therefore, it is good administrative practice to deal with infringement complaints as rapidly and diligently as possible.
- The Commission proposed to deal with the infringement complaint in the light of its proposal for an amendment of the relevant directive.
- The Commission proposed to deal with the infringement complaint in the light of its proposal for an amendment of the relevant directive.
Apparently the Commission assumed that Article 211 of the EC Treaty did not require it to ensure the application of a Directive which is in the process of being amended.
Apparently the Commission assumed that Article 211 of the EC Treaty did not require it to ensure the application of a Directive which is in the process of being amended.
- Directives 93/104 and 2000/88 both were in force and there was no rule or principle that would allow the Commission to disregard its duty under Article 211.
- Directives 93/104 and 2000/88 both were in force and there was no rule or principle that would allow the Commission to disregard its duty under Article 211.
- The Commission in the case of an infringement has discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
- The Commission in the case of an infringement has discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
However, this does not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that applicable law may be amended some time in the future.
However, this does not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that applicable law may be amended some time in the future.
- The Commission's failure to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time constituted maladministration.
- The Commission's failure to deal with the complainant's infringement complaint within a reasonable period of time constituted maladministration.
In its detailed opinion the Commission maintained that it had an established discretion whether to pursue infringement procedures against Member States, as well as over the way in which it managed such procedures.
In its detailed opinion the Commission maintained that it had an established discretion whether to pursue infringement procedures against Member States, as well as over the way in which it managed such procedures.
Therefore, it had decided not to advance with infringement procedures pending the results of the legislative process concerning its proposal for amendment of Directive 2003/88.
Therefore, it had decided not to advance with infringement procedures pending the results of the legislative process concerning its proposal for amendment of Directive 2003/88.
The Commission added that this discretion extended to all phases of complaints and proceedings, including the pre-litigation stage.
The Commission added that this discretion extended to all phases of complaints and proceedings, including the pre-litigation stage.
In a Communication to the Parliament and the Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law of 2002, the Commission had indicated that, as a general rule, it would decide whether to open infringement proceedings or to close the file within a year from the date of the registration of the complaint.
In a Communication to the Parliament and the Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law of 2002, the Commission had indicated that, as a general rule, it would decide whether to open infringement proceedings or to close the file within a year from the date of the registration of the complaint.
However, this did not limit the discretion of the Commission when it seemed justified to adopt a different approach more adapted to the particular facts of the case.
However, this did not limit the discretion of the Commission when it seemed justified to adopt a different approach more adapted to the particular facts of the case.
The Ombudsman noted the following:
The Ombudsman noted the following:
- The Commission had entered into certain commitments as regards the handling of infringement complaints.
- The Commission had entered into certain commitments as regards the handling of infringement complaints.
- In its Communication the Commission had stated that as a general rule its departments will investigate complaints with a view to arriving at a decision to issue a formal notice or to close the case within not more than a year from the date of registration of the complaint and that it would inform the complainant in writing where this time limit is exceeded.
- In its Communication the Commission had stated that as a general rule its departments will investigate complaints with a view to arriving at a decision to issue a formal notice or to close the case within not more than a year from the date of registration of the complaint and that it would inform the complainant in writing where this time limit is exceeded.
The Ombudsman considered that the one-year time limit is justified only if the Commission is indeed still investigating a case.
The Ombudsman considered that the one-year time limit is justified only if the Commission is indeed still investigating a case.
- The Commission would deal with the complaint in the context of its proposal for amendment of the Directive which was submitted in September 2004.
- The Commission would deal with the complaint in the context of its proposal for amendment of the Directive which was submitted in September 2004.
It seems the Commission had not taken any further steps since in order to proceed with the investigations.
It seems the Commission had not taken any further steps since in order to proceed with the investigations.
- According to the Commission's Communication an investigation of an infringement complaint can result in one of two possible decisions.
- According to the Commission's Communication an investigation of an infringement complaint can result in one of two possible decisions.
Either the Commission decides to issue a formal notice i.e. to initiate formal infringement proceedings against a Member State or it decides to close the case.
Either the Commission decides to issue a formal notice i.e. to initiate formal infringement proceedings against a Member State or it decides to close the case.
It appears that in this particular case the Commission has abstained from taking any further action as regards its investigations.
It appears that in this particular case the Commission has abstained from taking any further action as regards its investigations.
- The Commission stressed its discretionary powers and that its commitments in its Communication did not limit its discretion when it seemed justified to follow a different approach.
- The Commission stressed its discretionary powers and that its commitments in its Communication did not limit its discretion when it seemed justified to follow a different approach.
However, the Commission confirms that its Communication sets out "the administrative measures for the benefit of the complainant with which it undertakes to comply when handling his/her complaint and assessing the infringement in question".
However, the Commission confirms that its Communication sets out "the administrative measures for the benefit of the complainant with which it undertakes to comply when handling his/her complaint and assessing the infringement in question".
Taking full account of the Commission's discretionary powers, if the Commission were allowed to depart form its commitments in the Communication whenever it considers this to be justified would deprive the Communication of its very meaning.
Taking full account of the Commission's discretionary powers, if the Commission were allowed to depart form its commitments in the Communication whenever it considers this to be justified would deprive the Communication of its very meaning.
The Commission's discretionary powers should be exercised within the framework of the Communication and the failure to reach a decision cannot be justified by the Commission's discretionary powers.
The Commission's discretionary powers should be exercised within the framework of the Communication and the failure to reach a decision cannot be justified by the Commission's discretionary powers.
- Moreover the Commission did not deal with aspects of the complainant's complaint that were independent of the case-law the Commission refers to.
- Moreover the Commission did not deal with aspects of the complainant's complaint that were independent of the case-law the Commission refers to.
- The identified instance of maladministration consists in the Commission's failure to adopt a definite position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint.
- The identified instance of maladministration consists in the Commission's failure to adopt a definite position as regards the complainant's infringement complaint.
If an investigation were completed and an infringement were found the Commission would have discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
If an investigation were completed and an infringement were found the Commission would have discretion as to whether or not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
However, the Commission has not yet taken such a decision.
However, the Commission has not yet taken such a decision.
- An examination of the question whether the Commission has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion could be the subject for a discussion in the European Parliament.
- An examination of the question whether the Commission has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion could be the subject for a discussion in the European Parliament.
AVIZ al Comisiei pentru ocuparea for Ț ei de muncă Ș i afaceri sociale
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
privind raportul special al Ombudsmanului European în urma proiectului de recomandare prezentat Comisiei Europene în plângerea 3453/205/GG
on the Special report from the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 3453/205/GG
Comisia pentru ocuparea forței de muncă și afaceri sociale recomandă Comisiei pentru petiții, competentă în fond, includerea următoarelor sugestii în propunerea de rezoluție ce urmează a fi adoptată:
The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Petitions, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
5. subliniază că nu a fost analizat faptul că există o lege germană, adoptată la 1 ianuarie 2004, care cuprinde totuși o dispoziție tranzitorie privind acordurile colective care autorizează derogările de la Directiva 2003/88/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 4 noiembrie 2003 privind anumite aspecte ale organizării timpului de lucru
Notes that no account was taken of the introduction, on 1 January 2004, of German legislation which nevertheless contained a transitional provision concerning the existing collective agreements allowing derogations from Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
JO L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p.
7. prin urmare, invită, de asemenea, statele membre să respecte pe deplin normele de igienă și securitate la locul de muncă, aplicând principiul potrivit căruia, în caz de incertitudine, trebuie aleasă interpretarea care favorizează sănătatea și securitatea lucrătorilor (in dubio pro operario).
Also urges all the Member States, in the light of the foregoing, to apply faithfully all the rules relating to health and safety at work on the basis of the principle that, in event of any doubt, the interpretation of the law which is most favourable to the health and safety of workers should prevail ( in dubio pro operario ).
Françoise Castex, Gabriela Crețu, Sepp Kusstatscher, Roberto Musacchio, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Csaba Sógor, Tatjana Ždanoka
Françoise Castex, Gabriela Creţu, Sepp Kusstatscher, Roberto Musacchio, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Csaba Sógor, Tatjana Ždanoka
Sir Robert Atkins, Margrete Auken, Inés Ayala Sender, Victor Boștinaru, Michael Cashman, Proinsias De Rossa, David Hammerstein, Marian Harkin, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Marcin Libicki, Manolis Mavrommatis, Mairead McGuinness, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
Sir Robert Atkins, Margrete Auken, Inés Ayala Sender, Victor Boştinaru, Michael Cashman, Proinsias De Rossa, David Hammerstein, Marian Harkin, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Marcin Libicki, Manolis Mavrommatis, Mairead McGuinness, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
Membri suplean ț i (articolul 178 alineatul (2)) prezen ț i la votul final
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
referitor la propunerea modificată de directivă a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind cerințele minime de securitate și sănătate pentru folosirea de către lucrători a echipamentului de lucru la locul de muncă (a doua directivă specială în sensul articolului 16 alineatul (1) din Directiva 89/391/CEE) (versiune codificată)
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (codified version)
ANEXĂ: AVIZUL GRUPULUI CONSULTATIV AL SERVICIILOR JURIDICE ALE PARLAMENTULUI EUROPEAN, CONSILIULUI ȘI COMISIEI 6
ANNEX: OPINION THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION 6
referitoare la propunerea de directivă a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind cerințele minime de securitate și sănătate pentru folosirea de către lucrători a echipamentului de lucru la locul de muncă (a doua directivă specială în sensul articolului 16 alineatul (1) din Directiva 89/391/CEE) (versiune codificată)
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (codified version)
– având în vedere propunerea Comisiei prezentată Parlamentului European și Consiliului ( COM(2008)0111 ),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2008)0111 ),
– având în vedere articolul 251 alineatul (2) și articolul 137 alineatul (2) din Tratatul CE, în temeiul cărora propunerea a fost prezentată de către Comisie ( C6‑0127/2008 ),
– having regard to Articles 251(2) and Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0127/2008 ),
– având în vedere raportul Comisiei pentru afaceri juridice ( A6‑0290/2008 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0290/2008 ),