Önnek panasza van egy uniós intézménnyel vagy szervvel szemben?

Keresés a vizsgálatok között

Szöveg keresés

Dokumentum típus

Érintett intézmények

Rendezés típusa

Ügyszám

Nyelv

Időszak

Kulcsszó

Vagy próbálkozzon régi kulcsszavakkal (2016 előttiekkel)

1 - 20 az 74 találatból

Decision in case 624/2020/MIG on the European Commission’s refusal of public access to documents concerning the classification of a product by the World Customs Organization

Hétfő | 22 június 2020

The case concerned a request for public access to documents held by the European Commission and pertaining to the classification of a smartphone by the World Customs Organization (WCO). The Commission consulted the author of the documents, the WCO, who objected to their disclosure. The Commission therefore refused to give public access relying on the need to protect the EU’s international relations with the WCO and its members.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s decision to refuse public access was reasonable and that it had provided the complainant with a sufficient explanation. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

Decision in case 2191/2019/EWM on the European Commission’s decision not to open an infringement procedure against Germany regarding discriminatory tax credits

Csütörtök | 14 május 2020

The case concerned the European Commission’s decision not to open an infringement procedure against Germany. The complainant’s infringement complaint concerned the German tax rules, which allow for a tax credit for dividends distributed by German companies only. The complainant stated that this practice is discriminatory and contrary to EU rules on the free movement of capital.

The Commission explained to the complainant why it considered that there was no infringement of EU law.

The Ombudsman noted that the Commission enjoys a wide margin of discretion in deciding whether to open an infringement against a Member State. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had properly explained how and why it had exercised its discretion. Thus, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration in this case.