natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After a number of postponements the Commission finally submitted its detailed opinion on 18 August 2004 stating that its detailed opinion replied to both the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and the individual complaints on the same problem.
After a number of postponements the Commission finally submitted its detailed opinion on 18 August 2004 stating that its detailed opinion replied to both the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and the individual complaints on the same problem.
As regards the financial contribution of EU officials with excluded children with special educational needs the Commission referred to the new Article 1d(4)
As regards the financial contribution of EU officials with excluded children with special educational needs the Commission referred to the new Article 1d(4)
Article 1d (4)
Article 1d (4)
"For the purposes of paragraph 1, a person has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment that is, or is likely to be, permanent.
"For the purposes of paragraph 1, a person has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment that is, or is likely to be, permanent.
The impairment shall be determined according to the procedure set out in Article 33.
The impairment shall be determined according to the procedure set out in Article 33.
A person with a disability meets the conditions laid down in Article 28(e) if he can perform the essential functions of the job when reasonable accommodation is made.
A person with a disability meets the conditions laid down in Article 28(e) if he can perform the essential functions of the job when reasonable accommodation is made.
“Reasonable accommodation”, in relation to the essential functions of the job, shall mean appropriate measures, where needed, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training , unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer." of the Staff Regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2004, and pointed out that the principle of proportionality which governs relations between the Appointing Authority and the potential official should also be taken into account mutatis mutandis in relation to the obligations of the Appointing Authority towards the child of an official when that child has disabilities.
“Reasonable accommodation”, in relation to the essential functions of the job, shall mean appropriate measures, where needed, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training , unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer." of the Staff Regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2004, and pointed out that the principle of proportionality which governs relations between the Appointing Authority and the potential official should also be taken into account mutatis mutandis in relation to the obligations of the Appointing Authority towards the child of an official when that child has disabilities.
Referring to a number of other new elements, among others the obligation to give officials access to measures of a social nature, and arguing that the exclusion of children with disabilities from the European Schools results from the fact that their integration into the school environment goes beyond the material resources available, the Commission pointed out that steps could be taken to reinforce measures which benefit the children of officials who find themselves in the same situation as the complainant.
Referring to a number of other new elements, among others the obligation to give officials access to measures of a social nature, and arguing that the exclusion of children with disabilities from the European Schools results from the fact that their integration into the school environment goes beyond the material resources available, the Commission pointed out that steps could be taken to reinforce measures which benefit the children of officials who find themselves in the same situation as the complainant.
The Commission considered nevertheless that the measures of the allowance scheme in place are appropriate and sufficient to offset the costs imposed on the parents by their children's disabilities and pointed out that 99% of the costs which the complainant incurred for the education of her daughter were covered by the scheme.
The Commission considered nevertheless that the measures of the allowance scheme in place are appropriate and sufficient to offset the costs imposed on the parents by their children's disabilities and pointed out that 99% of the costs which the complainant incurred for the education of her daughter were covered by the scheme.
The Commission underlined that budgetary resources are limited and that it does not have the possibility to cover all costs, although the budget has seen an exceptional increase of 40% in 2004.
The Commission underlined that budgetary resources are limited and that it does not have the possibility to cover all costs, although the budget has seen an exceptional increase of 40% in 2004.
As social policy aimed at people with disabilities is a priority the Commission expressed its willingness to propose a "multi-annual programme" to the budgetary authority in order to give maximum possible budgetary security to this type of measures.
As social policy aimed at people with disabilities is a priority the Commission expressed its willingness to propose a "multi-annual programme" to the budgetary authority in order to give maximum possible budgetary security to this type of measures.
The Commission expressed its intention to mention the Ombudsman's position in this matter when its proposals are submitted to the budgetary authority, but noted that it might help if the Ombudsman were to approach the budgetary authority directly.
The Commission expressed its intention to mention the Ombudsman's position in this matter when its proposals are submitted to the budgetary authority, but noted that it might help if the Ombudsman were to approach the budgetary authority directly.
Finally the Commission stated its intention to take the necessary steps to obtain essential support from the budgetary authority so that children who demonstrably need to enter a special establishment can receive the greatest possible financial support.
Finally the Commission stated its intention to take the necessary steps to obtain essential support from the budgetary authority so that children who demonstrably need to enter a special establishment can receive the greatest possible financial support.
In her observations on the Commission's detailed opinion the complainant repeated her previous allegations, stating that in her view the proposals and actions of the Commission deny her daughter access to free compulsory education.
In her observations on the Commission's detailed opinion the complainant repeated her previous allegations, stating that in her view the proposals and actions of the Commission deny her daughter access to free compulsory education.
She also contested the figures presented by the Commission arguing that investment per child with special educational needs had decreased in 2003/2004.
She also contested the figures presented by the Commission arguing that investment per child with special educational needs had decreased in 2003/2004.
Her personal expenditures since 2000 had amounted to €19,205.
Her personal expenditures since 2000 had amounted to €19,205.
In December 2004 the Commission's Director-General for Personnel and Administration wrote to the Ombudsman restating the ideas set out in the detailed opinion and announcing that the Commission's multi-annual social policy programme will include a section on support for children with special educational needs.
In December 2004 the Commission's Director-General for Personnel and Administration wrote to the Ombudsman restating the ideas set out in the detailed opinion and announcing that the Commission's multi-annual social policy programme will include a section on support for children with special educational needs.
The programme would be submitted to the Commission in mid-2005, but the Director-General could not guarantee full reimbursement to parents of children with special educational needs.
The programme would be submitted to the Commission in mid-2005, but the Director-General could not guarantee full reimbursement to parents of children with special educational needs.
The Ombudsman's evaluation and recommendation
The Ombudsman's evaluation and recommendation
The Ombudsman's draft recommendation was intended to ensure that the Commission would not discriminate financially against officials with children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability.
The Ombudsman's draft recommendation was intended to ensure that the Commission would not discriminate financially against officials with children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability.
The Commission's detailed opinion was such that the Ombudsman did not find that this objective had been achieved.
The Commission's detailed opinion was such that the Ombudsman did not find that this objective had been achieved.
As regards the Commission's interpretation of the new Staff Regulations, whereby its power to limit the introduction of new measures because of their financial impact should also apply to any other measure involving people with disability, such as those regarding the education of children with special educational needs of EU officials, the Ombudsman considered that these provisions were solely confined to the recruitment of officials and not applicable to any other situation concerning the treatment of officials in connection with a situation of disability.
As regards the Commission's interpretation of the new Staff Regulations, whereby its power to limit the introduction of new measures because of their financial impact should also apply to any other measure involving people with disability, such as those regarding the education of children with special educational needs of EU officials, the Ombudsman considered that these provisions were solely confined to the recruitment of officials and not applicable to any other situation concerning the treatment of officials in connection with a situation of disability.
The Ombudsman also found it striking that although the Commission repeatedly referred to the financial limitations preventing it from covering the full educational costs of excluded children with special educational needs, the institution has not produced any estimate which might illustrate the size of those limitations, such as the number of officials affected or the likely costs of a change of policy.
The Ombudsman also found it striking that although the Commission repeatedly referred to the financial limitations preventing it from covering the full educational costs of excluded children with special educational needs, the institution has not produced any estimate which might illustrate the size of those limitations, such as the number of officials affected or the likely costs of a change of policy.
Although he appreciated the positive remarks from the Commission's Director-General for Personnel and Administration, the Ombudsman considered that they do not appear to eliminate unambiguously any discrimination against officials with children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability.
Although he appreciated the positive remarks from the Commission's Director-General for Personnel and Administration, the Ombudsman considered that they do not appear to eliminate unambiguously any discrimination against officials with children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability.
As regards the Commission's invitation to approach the budgetary authority the Ombudsman takes the view that it is not for him to intervene directly in this type of budgetary procedure.
As regards the Commission's invitation to approach the budgetary authority the Ombudsman takes the view that it is not for him to intervene directly in this type of budgetary procedure.
Instead he considered it more appropriate to submit a special report on this matter to the Parliament as a means of drawing this issue to its attention, not only in its role as an institution responsible for scrutinising the Commission but also as part of the Community budgetary authority.
Instead he considered it more appropriate to submit a special report on this matter to the Parliament as a means of drawing this issue to its attention, not only in its role as an institution responsible for scrutinising the Commission but also as part of the Community budgetary authority.
On the basis of his evaluation the Ombudsman re-stated his draft recommendations as a recommendation to the Commission and considered that his recommendation should also apply to the additional complaints received in the course of his inquiry.
On the basis of his evaluation the Ombudsman re-stated his draft recommendations as a recommendation to the Commission and considered that his recommendation should also apply to the additional complaints received in the course of his inquiry.
Your rapporteur notes that the Ombudsman carried out a thorough and comprehensive analysis of complaint 1391/2002/JMA.
Your rapporteur notes that the Ombudsman carried out a thorough and comprehensive analysis of complaint 1391/2002/JMA.
In the course of his inquiry he carried out a detailed examination of both the complainant's allegations and the statements submitted by the Commission.
In the course of his inquiry he carried out a detailed examination of both the complainant's allegations and the statements submitted by the Commission.
The complainant has provided further testimony to your rapporteur about the impact of the Commission's actions on her family.
The complainant has provided further testimony to your rapporteur about the impact of the Commission's actions on her family.
As a Commission official the complainant cannot exercise certain rights, such as access to educational facilities, in her host country.
As a Commission official the complainant cannot exercise certain rights, such as access to educational facilities, in her host country.
In these circumstances the Commission and the European Institutions assume the role of "surrogate State" responsible for the provision of certain services, such as educational facilities.
In these circumstances the Commission and the European Institutions assume the role of "surrogate State" responsible for the provision of certain services, such as educational facilities.
On this basis 3 of the complainant's children receive free compulsory education at the European School.
On this basis 3 of the complainant's children receive free compulsory education at the European School.
But one child, who has special educational needs, has been excluded from that school and obliged to enrol in a fee-paying school at considerable cost to her parents.
But one child, who has special educational needs, has been excluded from that school and obliged to enrol in a fee-paying school at considerable cost to her parents.
It is surely unacceptable that these parents suffer a significant financial penalty in having to pay school fees for one of their children while her siblings, and peers, are entitled to free education.
It is surely unacceptable that these parents suffer a significant financial penalty in having to pay school fees for one of their children while her siblings, and peers, are entitled to free education.
The family concerned incurred costs totalling €19,205 for the 4 school-years between 2000 and 2004, and are faced with the prospect of having to fund similarly high costs for an additional 7 years until their child reaches the age of 18.
The family concerned incurred costs totalling €19,205 for the 4 school-years between 2000 and 2004, and are faced with the prospect of having to fund similarly high costs for an additional 7 years until their child reaches the age of 18.
Your rapporteur finds that the Commission has been particularly insensitive in arguing that 99% of the family's costs were covered by the scheme which pays double the dependent child allowance to an official whose child has a disability.
Your rapporteur finds that the Commission has been particularly insensitive in arguing that 99% of the family's costs were covered by the scheme which pays double the dependent child allowance to an official whose child has a disability.
The Commission has unilaterally withheld the sums due under that scheme from this particular family, to offset some of the educational costs resulting from their child's exclusion from the European School.
The Commission has unilaterally withheld the sums due under that scheme from this particular family, to offset some of the educational costs resulting from their child's exclusion from the European School.
The Commission has thus denied this particular family the financial resources available to others entitled to the double child allowance whose children with disabilities are educated free, leaving such families to allocate the extra allowance on non-educational costs.
The Commission has thus denied this particular family the financial resources available to others entitled to the double child allowance whose children with disabilities are educated free, leaving such families to allocate the extra allowance on non-educational costs.
The Commission has pointed out that if an official applies for assistance under budget line A-4103 ("supplementary aid for the disabled") it is stipulated in Article 5a of the provisional guidelines that he/she must make a contribution depending on taxable family income.
The Commission has pointed out that if an official applies for assistance under budget line A-4103 ("supplementary aid for the disabled") it is stipulated in Article 5a of the provisional guidelines that he/she must make a contribution depending on taxable family income.
However the Commission has failed to deal with the fact that budget line A-4103 is not intended to address educational needs, which should be covered free of cost for children with disabilities as they are in respect of children with no disabilities.
However the Commission has failed to deal with the fact that budget line A-4103 is not intended to address educational needs, which should be covered free of cost for children with disabilities as they are in respect of children with no disabilities.
Your rapporteur therefore finds that the Ombudsman's conclusions that the financial aspects of the situation constituted an unjustified discrimination are based on a balanced appraisal and fully endorses his recommendation, namely that
Your rapporteur therefore finds that the Ombudsman's conclusions that the financial aspects of the situation constituted an unjustified discrimination are based on a balanced appraisal and fully endorses his recommendation, namely that
Zvláštní zpráva evropského veřejného ochránce práv týkající se stížnosti na Evropské školy
Report by the European Ombudsman following a complaint against the European Schools
PETI 17.11.2005
PETI 17.11.2005
Proinsias De Rossa 13.9.2005
Proinsias De Rossa 13.9.2005
13 pro, 0 proti, 0 zdrželo hlasování
13 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions
Robert Atkins, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Mairead McGuinness, Manolis Mavrommatis, Andreas Schwab, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Proinsias De Rossa, Inés Ayala Sender, Alexandra Dobolyi, David Hammerstein Mintz, Marcin Libicki,
Robert Atkins, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Mairead McGuinness, Manolis Mavrommatis, Andreas Schwab, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Proinsias De Rossa, Inés Ayala Sender, Alexandra Dobolyi, David Hammerstein Mintz, Marcin Libicki,
PE 369.853v02-00
PE 369.853v02-00
o udělení absolutoria za plnění souhrnného rozpočtu Evropské unie na rozpočtový rok 2004 Oddíl I – Evropský parlament 3
on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section I – European Parliament 3
obsahujícího připomínky, které jsou nedílnou součástí rozhodnutí o udělení absolutoria za plnění souhrnného rozpočtu Evropské unie na rozpočtový rok 2004, Oddíl I – Evropský parlament 5
with comments forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section I – European Parliament 3
POSTUP 19
PROCEDURE 3
o udělení absolutoria za plnění souhrnného rozpočtu Evropské unie na rozpočtový rok 2004, Oddíl I – Evropský parlament (N6-0027/2005 – C6‑0357/2005 – 2005/2091(DEC) )
on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2004, Section I – European Parliament (N6-0027/2005 – C6 ‑0357/2002 – 2005/2091(DEC) )
– s ohledem na výkaz příjmů a výdajů a na účetní rozvahu za rozpočtový rok 2004 ( C6-0357/2005 ),
– having regard to the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet in respect of the financial year 2004 ( C6‑0357/2005 ),
– s ohledem na výroční zprávu interního auditora,
– having regard to the Internal Auditor’s annual report,
– s ohledem na výroční zprávu Účetního dvora týkající se rozpočtového roku 2004
– having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the Implementation of the Budget, together with the institutions’ replies
– s ohledem na prohlášení o věrohodnosti účetnictví a o legalitě a řádnosti podkladových operací, které předložil Účetní dvůr podle článku 248 Smlouvy o ES
– having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty
L 248, 16.9.2002, s. 1. („finanční nařízení“), a zejména na články 145, 146 a 147 tohoto nařízení, a na článek 13 vnitřních předpisů pro plnění rozpočtu Evropského parlamentu
1. (the ‘Financial Regulation’), and in particular Articles 145, 146 and 147 thereof, and to Article 13 of the Internal Rules for the implementation of the European Parliament’s budget
PE 349.540. ,
PE 349.540. ,
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro rozpočtovou kontrolu ( A6‑0119/2006 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control ( A6‑0119/2006 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že Účetní dvůr poukázal na nedostatky monitorovacích a kontrolních systémů (bod 9.16), které však byly většinou formální povahy; chyby by neměly mít zásadní vliv na zákonnost a řádnost provádění správních výdajů (bod 9.27),
A. whereas the Court of Auditors pointed to weaknesses in supervisory and control systems (paragraph 9.16), albeit mostly of a formal nature; whereas, according to the Court, the errors did not materially affect the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying administrative expenditure (paragraph 9.27),
B. vzhledem k tomu, že finanční nařízení a jednací řád Parlamentu v pozměněném znění ze dne 23 října 2002
B. whereas the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament as amended on 23 October 2002
C 300 E, 11.12.2003, s. 303. platí s účinností od 1. ledna 2003 pro procesní pravidla, kterými se řídí postup udělování absolutoria,
303. apply with effect from 1 January 2003 as regards procedural rules governing the discharge,
C. vzhledem k tomu, že jednací řád Parlamentu byl dne 23. října 2002 změněn v tom smyslu, že absolutorium se uděluje předsedovi, a nikoli generálnímu tajemníkovi,
C. whereas Parliament’s Rules of Procedure were amended on 23 October 2002 to provide that discharge is to be given to the President rather than to the Secretary-General,
vzhledem k tomu, že finanční nařízení a jednací řád Parlamentu v pozměněném znění ze dne 23. října 2002
B. whereas the Financial Regulation and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament as amended on 23 October 2002
C 300 E 11.12.2003, s. 303. platí s účinností od 1. ledna 2003 pro procesní pravidla, kterými se řídí postup udělování absolutoria,
303. apply with effect from 1 January 2003 as regards procedural rules governing the discharge,
D. vzhledem k tomu, že po usnesení o udělení absolutoria za rok 2003 ze dne 12. dubna 2005
D. whereas its resolution of 12 April 2005