Traduction de «motivation » (Français → Anglais) :

23. Highlights the fact that in 2011 the Commission received 64 reasoned opinions within the meaning of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which represents a considerable increase in comparison to 2010; notes, however, that these 64 reasoned opinions represented barely 10 % of the total of 622 opinions forwarded to the Commission by national parliaments in 2011 within the terms of the political dialogue in question; also draws attention to the fact that no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow or orange card procedures’ under the ...[+++] Protocol; notes, however, that on 22 May 2012 a ’yellow card procedure’ was for the first time triggered by a Commission proposal (proposal for a Council regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, i.e. the proposal for the ‘Monti II’ Regulation); stresses that the Commission withdrew the proposal, not because it considered the principle of subsidiarity to have been infringed upon, but because it realised that the proposal was unlikely to gain enough political support in Parliament and the Council to ensure its adoption;

13. Highlights the fact that in 2011 the Commission received 64 reasoned opinions within the meaning of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which represents a considerable increase in comparison to 2010; notes, however, that these 64 reasoned opinions represented barely 10 % of the total 622 opinions forwarded to the Commission by national parliaments in 2011 within the terms of the political dialogue in question; also draws attention to the fact that no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow or orange card procedures’ under the Pr ...[+++]otocol; notes, however, that on 22 May 2012 a ‘yellow card procedure’ was for the first time triggered by a Commission proposal (proposal for a Council regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, i.e. the proposal for the ‘Monti II’ Regulation); stresses that the Commission withdrew the proposal, not because it considered the principle of subsidiarity to have been infringed upon, but because it realised that the proposal was unlikely to gain enough political support in Parliament and the Council to ensure its adoption;

22. Highlights the fact that in 2011 the Commission received 64 reasoned opinions within the meaning of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which represents a considerable increase in comparison to 2010; notes, however, that these 64 reasoned opinions represented barely 10 % of the total of 622 opinions forwarded to the Commission by national parliaments in 2011 within the terms of the political dialogue in question; also draws attention to the fact that no Commission proposal received a sufficient number of reasoned opinions to trigger the ‘yellow or orange card procedures’ under the ...[+++] Protocol; notes, however, that on 22 May 2012 a ‘yellow card procedure’ was for the first time triggered by a Commission proposal (proposal for a Council regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, i.e. the proposal for the ‘Monti II’ Regulation); stresses that the Commission withdrew the proposal, not because it considered the principle of subsidiarity to have been infringed upon, but because it realised that the proposal was unlikely to gain enough political support in Parliament and the Council to ensure its adoption;

G. whereas in Sweden, 2011 statistics for the category of hate crimes motivated by anti‑religious grounds show that the number of hate crimes motivated by Islamophobia decreased, while the number of hate crimes motivated by anti-Semitism increased; whereas, however, the biggest category was xenophobic/racist crimes; whereas only 7 % of hate crimes in Sweden are solved by the police, compared with 17 % of crimes in general; whereas there have been several reports of anti-Semitic violence in Malmö, noted by the UN and the US President among others; whereas in September 2012 a bomb detonated outside the Mosaic Church in Malmö and wherea ...[+++]s two young men were arrested on suspicion of having committed the crime;

For the purposes of the present appeal, it must first be stated that the Civil Service Tribunal recalled that any decision relating to a specific individual which is taken under the Staff Regulations and adversely affects that person must state the reasons on which it is based, on the one hand, to enable the competent court to review the legality of the decision and, on the other, to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable him to decide whether to bring an action. It added, however, referring to Case C‑254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I‑3423, paragraphs 24 to 28, that, as far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in a competi ...[+++]tion, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, secrecy which was instituted with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings. Thus, observance of this secrecy precludes both disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates and that the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned, which, at the stage of examination of the abilities of the candidates, are primarily comparative in character and accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those proceedings (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal).

Thus, further information could have been provided during the proceedings, depriving of its purpose the ground of appeal alleging the absence of a statement of reasons, bearing in mind, however, that the Commission was not entitled to substitute an entirely new statement of reasons for the initial, erroneous, statement (see, to that effect, Berlingieri Vinzek v Commission, paragraph 23 above, paragraph 79, and Case T‑277/02 Pascall v Council [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑137 and II‑621, paragraph 31).