natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Jeg er sikker på, at han blot ønskede at udføre sit arbejde som ordfører så godt som muligt.
I am sure that he only wanted to carry out his job as rapporteur to the best of his ability. "
På et møde med Ombudsmandens tjenester bekræftede O, at han således som anført i hans bemærkninger ikke var interesseret i det økonomiske aspekt af sagen.
At a meeting with the Ombudsman's services, Mr C. confirmed that, as stated in his observations, he was not interested in the financial aspect of the matter.
Han anførte, at hans klage blev imødekommet derved, at Europa-Parlamentet gjorde vitterligt, at han havde handlet i god tro, og at der rent faktisk var blevet anmodet om forudgående tilladelse til under søgelsesrejsen til Paris.
He indicated that his complaint was satisfied by the European Parliament placing on the public record that he had acted in good faith and that prior authorisation of the mission to Paris was indeed sought.
Europa-Parlamentet gjorde vitterligt, at det accepterede, at kla geren handlede i god tro, og at der rent faktisk var blevet anmodet om forudgående tilladelse til undersøgelsesrejsen til Paris.
The European Parliament placed on the public record its acceptance that the complainant acted in good faith and that prior authorisation of the mission to Paris was indeed sought.
Klageren gjorde det for sit vedkommende klart, at han ikke søgte at kræve udgifter, som Parlamentet havde krævet tilbagebetalt på grundlag af artikel 22, stk. 8, og artikel 139, stk. 5, i Parlamentets forretningsorden, tilbage.1
The com plainant for his part made clear that he did not seek to reclaim the expenses which the Parliament had required to be repaid on the basis of Rules 22 (8) and 139 (5) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.1
Det fremgik af ovenstående, at efter Ombudsmandens initiativ til at nå frem til en mindelig løsning var der ingen omtvistede spørgsmål tilbage mellem klageren og Europa-Parlamentet.
It appeared from the above that, following the Ombudsman's initiative to seek a friendly solution, no issues remained in dispute between the complainant and the European Parliament.
Men det forudså, at fremtidige sager af denne art kunne erklæres i uoverensstemmelse med kravene for behandling, og fandt, at Ombudsmanden ikke burde optræde som voldgifts- eller appelmyndighed for medlemmer, hvis anmodninger bliver afvist af de kompetente parlamentsorganer.
However, it envisaged that future cases of this kind might be declared inadmissible and considered that the Ombudsman should not act as an "arbitration or appeal authority for Members whose requests are turned down by the competent parliamentary bodies. "
Som forklaret i årsberetningen for 1997 overvåger Ombudsmanden ikke Europa-Parlamentets politiske arbejde.
As explained in the Annual Report for 1997, the Ombudsman does not supervise the political work of the European Parliament.
AFGØRELSER anser, at klager vedrørende Parlamentets administrative arbejde er i uoverensstemmelse med kravene for behandling.
However, in the absence of any express provision in the Treaty or the Statute of the Ombudsman,1there is no legal basis for the Ombudsman to consider that complaints concerning the Parliament's administrative work are inadmissible.
Tilsvarende er der, selv om Den Europæiske Ombudsmand ikke opsøger en situation, hvor han skal betragtes som et retsmiddel i sager af denne art, ikke noget retsgrundlag for, at Ombudsmanden anser, at klager indgivet af MEP'er på egne vegne er i uoverensstemmelse med kravene for behandling, for udsat at alle de betingelser for overensstemmelse med kravene for behandling, som er fastsat i statutten, er opfyldt.
Similarly, although the European Ombudsman does not seek a situation in which he is to be considered as a means of redress in cases of this kind, there is no legal basis for the Ombudsman to consider that complaints made by MEPs on their own behalf are inadmissible, provided that all the conditions of admissibility laid down by the Statute are fulfilled.
Artikel 2, stk. 4, i statutten kræver, at der forud for en klage skal være rettet de for nødne administrative henvendelser, som i et tilfælde af denne art omfatter ansøgning til Parlamentets kompetente myndigheder.
Article 2(4) of the Statute requires a complaint to be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches which, in a case of this kind, include application to the competent authorities of the Parliament.
Sådanne tilfælde kunne normalt løses af disse myndigheder på en måde, som ikke giver anledning til yderligere klage.
Such cases could nor mally be solved by these authorities in a way that does not provide reason for further complaint.
I overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 138 E vedrører Ombudsmandens undersøgelser mulige tilfælde af fejl eller for sømmelser.
In accordance with Article 138e of the EC Treaty, the Ombudsman's inquiries concern possible instances of maladministration.
I forbindelse med hver undersøgelse foretaget af Ombudsmanden har den berørte institution mulighed for at bevise, at der ikke er begået fejl eller forsømmelser, ved at fremsætte en udtalelse, som omhyggeligt og korrekt behandler de relevante spørgsmål, for at sikre, at klagen behandles omgående og korrekt af Ombudsmanden.
In every inquiry by the Ombudsman, the institution con cerned has the opportunity to demonstrate that no maladministration has occurred by giving an opinion which deals carefully and correctly with the relevant issues, to secure that the complaint is dealt with promptly and properly by the Ombudsman.
AKTINDSIGT I KOMMISSIONSDOKUMENTER
ACCESS TO COMMISSION'S DOCUMENTS
Afgørelse om klage 1045/21.11.96/BH/IRUJMA over Europa Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1045/21.11.96/BH/IRUJMA against the European Commission
I november 1996 klagede X. til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen havde nægtet ham aktindsigt i et dokument vedrørende politikker til bekæmpelse af fattigdom i Unionen.
In November 1996 Mr H. complained to the Ombudsman concerning the refusal of the Commission to give him access to a document which con cerned policies against poverty in the Union.
Klagen blev fremsendt til Kommissionen, som i det væsentligste anførte følgende: gende:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission. In summary, the Commission's opinion was as follows:
I Kommissionens sociale handlingsprogram på mellemlang sigt for 1995-1997 havde Kommissionen meddelt, at der ville blive udarbejdet en beretning om alle relevante fællesskabsaktioner til bekæmpelse af fattigdom og social udstødelse.
In the Commission's medium-term social action programme for 19951997, it had been announced that a report on all relevant Community actions on poverty and social exclusion would be prepared.
Følgelig påbegyndte Kommissionen arbejdet med repræsentanter fra medlemsstaterne inden for rammerne af en Gruppe på Højt Plan om social udstødelse.
Accordingly, the Commission started working with representatives from Member States in the context of a High Level Group on Social Exclusion.
Efter en anmodning fra Kommissionen fra 1996 forelagde hver enkelt medlemsstat gruppen oplysninger om deres nationale kriterier for definition af fattigdom og social udstødelse såvel som en redegørelse for opbygningen og fast-
Following a request from the Commission in 1996, each Member State made available to the group information on its national criteria to define poverty and social exclusion, including an outline on how its policies were organised and determined.
Klagerens begæring vedrørte denne samling dokumenter fra medlemsstaterne.
The complainant's request concerned this compilation of documents from the Member States.
Kommissionen havde vedtaget ikke at fremsende en kopi af disse bidrag, eftersom de pågældende dokumenter ikke var et kommissionsdokument men et materiale, som oprindelig var produceret af forskellige medlemsstater og blot samlet af institutionen.
The Commission decided not to forward a copy of these contributions to him since the document in question was not a Commission document, but rather some material originally produced by different Member States that the Institution had merely put together.
Kommissionen havde på baggrund af Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter konkluderet, at det omhandlede materiale ikke kunne betragtes som et kommissionsdokument.
On the basis of the Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents, the Commission concluded that the requested material could not be considered to be a Commission document.
Kommissionen var af den opfattelse, at begæringen burde havde været stilet til dem, der havde oprettet dokumenterne, dvs. medlemsstaterne.
The Commission was of the view that the request should have been made to the authors of these different documents, namely the Member States.
Eftersom Kommissionens politik om aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter udelukkende vedrørte institutionens egne dokumenter, fandtes der ikke belæg for, at Kommissionen gav aktindsigt i dokumenter, der var oprettet af andre organer.
Since the Commission's policy on public access to Commission documents relates only to its own documents, it does not foresee that the Commission should give access to documents pro duced by other bodies.
Kommissionen påpegede dog, at den ville fremsende klageren den endelige beretning, når denne forelå.
The Commission pointed out, however, that it would make the final report available to the complainant once it had been completed.
Kommissionen foreslog, at klageren rettede henvendelse til det irske socialministerium angående de oplysninger, han havde udbedt sig.
The Commission suggested that the complainant liaise with the Irish Department of Social Welfare regarding the information he was seeking.
I sine bemærkninger påpegede X. følgende:
In his observations Mr H. pointed out that:
Efter hans opfattelse herskede der ingen uklarhed om, hvilken doku menttype han havde anmodet om aktindsigt i.
In his view, there was no confusion as to the type of document he had asked for.
Hans begæring vedrørte et kommissionsdokument og ikke flere forskellige dokumenter, som var oprettet af medlemsstaterne. Eftersom dette materiale til dels var blevet oversat og udgivet med en kommissionsforside, burde dokumentet betragtes som et kommissionsdokument.
His request referred to a Commission document, and not to a number of different documents produced by the Member States.
Han havde anmodet det irske social ministerium om en kopi af dokumentet, men hans begæring var blevet afvist med den begrundelse, at den vedrørte et kommissionsdokument, og at det derfor kun var Kommissionen, der kunne bevilge aktindsigt heri.
Although he had asked the Irish Department of Social Welfare for a copy of the document, his request had been refused on the grounds that it referred to a Commission document, and therefore the decision to make it available rested entirely with the Commission.
X. kunne ikke tilslutte sig Kommissionens holdning. Eftersom det var Kommissionen, der havde samlet og udgivet dokumentet, burde det betragtes som et kommissionsdokument.
Mr H. disagreed with the point of view taken by the Commission.
Endelig understregede klageren, at Kommissionens holdning kunne skade gennemsigtigheden inden for Den Europæiske Union, og at han følgelig burde bevilges aktindsigt i gennemsigtighedens interesse.
Lastly, the complainant stressed that the Commission's reasoning could have negative consequences for transparency in the European Union. Hence, the document should be made available to him in the interests of transparency.
Ombudsmanden vedtog, at tekstens art og en tilfredsstillende løsning af problemet krævede, at tjenestemænd fra Ombudsmandens sekretariat inspicerede det pågældende dokument.
Given the nature of the dispute, and in order to reach a satisfactory solution to the problem, the Ombudsman decided that the document in question should be inspected by officials from his secretariat.
Denne inspektion havde til formål at fastslå, om dokumentet udelukkende var en samling af forskellige bidrag fra medlemsstaterne og følgelig ikke omfattet af bestemmelserne om aktindsigt.
The inspection aimed at assessing whether or not the document was simply a compilation of different contributions from Member States, and accordingly excluded from public access.
Den 10. oktober 1997 afholdtes et møde i Kommissionens lokaler i Bruxelles med henblik på den nævnte inspektion.
A meeting to carry out he inspection took place in the Commission premises in Brussels on 10 October 1997.
Kommissionen havde for udgående underrettet alle medlemmer af Gruppen på Højt Plan herom.
The Commission had given notice of the inspection beforehand to all members of the High Level Group.
Under mødet forklarede de tilstedeværende kommissionstjenestemænd, at dokumentet i 1995 oprindelig var blevet udarbejdet for at forbedre den gensidige forståelse blandt medlemsstaterne, for så vidt angik deres nationale politikker til bekæmpelse af social udstødelse og fattigdom.
In the course of the meeting, the Commission officials present explained that the document had been originally conceived in 1995 as a means to improve mutual understanding among Member States on their national policies on social exclusion and poverty.
Kommissionen havde i denne forbindelse sammensat en Gruppe på Højt Plan med deltagelse af nationale eksperter fra alle medlemsstater.
To that end a High Level Group was set up by the Commission with the participation of national experts from all Member States.
Kommissionen havde inden for rammerne af Gruppen på Højt Plan og som en forberedelse af drøftelserne omdelt et spørgeskema til alle medlemsstaterne ved udgangen af 1995. Kommissionen tjenestegrene havde samlet alle med lemsstaternes svar i et enkelt dokument, som var blevet omdelt under mødet i Gruppen på Højt Plan i juni 1996.
In the context of that High Level Group and in order to prepare discussions, the Commission distributed a questionnaire among all Member States towards the end of 1995.
Ombudsmanden henviste i sin skrivelse til Kommissionens rolle i forbindelse med det pågældende dokuments udarbejdelse og til det faktum, at en medlemsstat havde afvist klageren med den begrundelse, at begæringen skulle stiles til Kommissionen.
DECISIONS ly solution to the complaint. The Ombudsman referred in his letter to the role of the Commission in the preparation of the document in question, and the fact that a Member State had rejected the complainant on the grounds that he should address the request to the Commission.
Det var beklageligt, at klage rens begæring om aktindsigt i dokumentet var blevet afvist af både med lemsstaten og Kommissionen.
It was therefore regrettable that the complainant's attempts to obtain the document had met with a negative response both from a Member State and the Commission.
Endvidere fandt Ombudsmanden, at manglende gennemsigtighed på netop dette område kunne skade offentlighedens tillid til Fællesskabets forvaltning og hindre virkeliggørelsen af de mål, der blev fastlagt i erklæring nr. 17 om retten til adgang til oplysninger, som er vedføjet Traktaten om den Europæiske Union.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman considered that the lack of transparency in this particular case could undermine public confidence in the Community administration, and frustrate the aims of Declaration 17 attached to the Treaty on European Union, concerning the right of access to information.
Ud fra disse overvejelser foreslog Ombudsmanden en mindelig løsning, hvorved Kommissionen bevilligede klageren aktindsigt i det omhandlede dokument.
In view of these considerations, the Ombudsman proposed a friendly solution by which the Commission would agree to give the complainant access to the requested documents.
I denne henseende havde Kommissionen anmodet samtlige medlemsstater om tilladelse til at offentliggøre deres bidrag.
To that end, it had requested authorization from all Member States to have their contributions released.
Den 13. maj og 14. juli 1998 modtog Ombudsmanden supplerende oplysninger fra Kommissionen vedrørende svarene på disse anmodninger.
On 13 May and on 14 July 1998 the Ombudsman received further information from the Commission concerning the replies received to his request.
AFGØRELSER menter til klageren, og at flere havde fremsat visse forbehold, for så vidt angik gengivelse og ophavsret.
It appeared that all Member States had agreed to forward their documents to the complainant, and that some of them had done so under certain restrictions regarding reproduction and copyright.
Endvidere havde Kommissionen indvilget i at sende X. en kopi af de noter, Kommissionens tjenestegrene havde udarbejdet under mødet i Gruppen på Højt Plan om Social Udstødelse i juni 1996.
Furthermore, the Commission had even agreed to send Mr H. a copy of the notes taken by its services during the meeting of the High Level Group on Social Exclusion in June 1996.
I to skrivelser til Ombudsmanden af 20. maj og 24. juli 1998 oplyste X., at han allerede havde modtaget alle de dokumenter, han oprindelig havde begæret aktindsigt i, i overensstemmelse med Ombudsmandens forslag til en mindelig Jøsning.
In two letters to the Ombudsman of 20 May and 24 July 1998, Mr H. indicated that all the documents initially requested had already been forward ed to him, as proposed in the Ombudsman's initiative for a friendly solution.
Klageren takkede Ombudsmanden for det arbejde, han havde udført, og erkendte, at der var sket betydelige fremskridt.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for the work undertaken and acknowledged the significant progress which had been made.
Han fandt, at Ombudsmanden havde gjort alt, hvad hans beføjelser og autoritet tillod ham, og indvilgede derfor i, at Ombudsmanden afsluttede behandlingen af sagen.
In his view, the Ombudsman had done all that was within his powers and authority, and therefore he agreed to the closing of the case.
Klageren gav dog mere generelt udtryk for en vis foruroligelse, for sa vidt angik anvendelsen af de dokumenter, han havde mod taget, såvel som procedurerne vedrørende aktindsigt inden for EU.
Nonetheless, the com plainant expressed some general concern as to the use of the documents which he had received, and more generally, to the procedure for public access to documents in the European Union.
Ombudsmandens initiativ gav anledning til, at Kommissionen og klageren nåede frem til en mindelig løsning.
Following the Ombudsman's initiative, a friendly solution had been agreed between the institution and the complainant.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor sin behandling af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
I december 1996, indgav X. en klage til Ombudsmanden over et udbud om besættelse af en stilling som finanschef under PHARE-programmet, som afholdtes af Kommissionens GD1A.
In December 1996, X made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning a tender exercise for a post of finance manager under the PHARE pro gramme, carried out by DG 1A of the Commission.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 2, stk. 3, i Ombudsmandens statut ønskede X.. klagen behandlet fortroligt.
In accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, X requested that the com plaint should be treated confidentially.
I august 1994 blev stillingen flyttet til et andet land.
In August 1994, the post was re-located to another country.
Efter at have modtaget uformelle tilsagn om længden af den forventede ansættelsesperiode flyttede X. til det pågældende land med sin familie.
After receiving informal assurances about the length of the prospective period of employment, X moved to the other country with his family.
Efter næsten et år blev stillingen som finanschef gjort til genstand for et udbud, hvor X. ikke blev tilgodeset.
After approximately one year, the post of finance manager was subject to a ten der exercise, in which X was unsuccessful.
I klagen til Ombudsmanden gjorde X. gældende, i) at udbuddet ikke var blevet gennemført i overensstemmelse med PHARE- forordningerne, ii) at den udvalgte bydende end ikke tilnærmelsesvist opfyldte kravene til stillingen, og
In the complaint to the Ombudsman, X claimed that:
AFGØRELSER iii) at den udvalgte bydende tidligere havde befundet sig i en situation, hvor det var muligt at få kendskab til, hvor stort et vederlag X. tidligere havde modtaget som finanschef.
The successful tenderer had previously been in a position to know the level of the fees which X had previously received as finance manager.
I sin udtalelse forelagde Kommissionen oplysninger om PHARE-programmets organisatoriske og kontraktmæssige opbygning.
In its opinion, the Commission provided information about the organisational and contractual framework of the Phare programme.
I særdeleshed anførte Kommissionen, at stillingen som finanschef ikke havde været genstand for et udbud men for en sammenlignende vurdering af to ansøgeres kvalifikationer, herunder X's. Udtalelsen var vedføjet flere dokumenter vedrørende udvælgelsesproceduren.
In particular it stated that there had not been a call for tenders for the post of finance officer, but a comparative evaluation of the qualifications of two candidates, of whom X was one. The opinion also included several annexed documents concerning the selection process.
I bemærkningerne gjorde klageren indsigelse mod flere punkter i Kommissionens udtalelse.
The observations contested several of the points made by the Commission.
I særdeleshed henviste klageren til en skrivelse til X. af 22. december 1995 fra en tjenestemand i Kommissionens GD1A.
In particular, they referred to a letter dated 22 December 1995 which was addressed to X by an official of DG 1A of the Commission.
Denne skrivelse, hvoraf X. fremsendte en kopi til Ombudsmanden, blev ind ledt som følger:
This letter, a copy of which X supplied to the Ombudsman, began as follows:
"Jeg må med beklagelse meddele Dem, at bedømmelsesudvalget, som var ansvarlig for udbuddet, (....) ikke fandt, at Deres bud som det mest gunstige."
"7 regret to inform you that the final choice made by the Evaluation Committee, responsible for the call for tender (...) did not retain your offer as most advantageous. "
X. påpegede endvidere, at Kommissionen ikke havde besvaret punkt ii) og iii) i klagen.
X also remarked that the Commission had not responded to points (ii) and (iii) of the complaint.
OMBUDSMANDENS FORSØG AT OPNÅ EN MINDELIG LØSNING
THE OMBUDSMAN'S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
Efter behandling af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at der umiddelbart syntes at foreligge et tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelser, eftersom der var uoverensstemmelser mellem Kommissionens udtalelse, hvori den oplyste, at stillingen ikke havde været genstand for et udbud, og skrivelsen til X. fra GD1A, hvori der henvises til resultatet af et udbud.
After examining the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman considered that there was prima facie evidence of maladministration in the discrepancy between the Commission's opinion, which stated that no call for tenders had taken place, and the letter addressed to X by DG 1 A, which referred to the outcome of a tender exercise. cise.
I medfør af statuttens artikel 3, stk. 5, foreslog Ombudsmanden i en skriftlig henvendelse til Kommissionens generalsekretariat, at Kommissionens og Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene på et uformelt møde drøftede mulighederne for at nå frem til en mindelig løsning i sagen.
In accordance with Article 3 (5) of the Statute, therefore, the Ombudsman wrote to the Secretariat-General of the Commission to propose an informal meeting between the Commission services and the Ombudsman's services to discuss the possibility of a friendly solution to the complaint.
Efter dette møde meddelte Kommissionen Ombudsmanden, at der var ind ledt drøftelser mellem Kommissionens tjenestegrene og X. Senere med delte X. Ombudsmanden via fax, at han var nået til enighed med Kommissionen om en finansiel løsning.
Following the meeting, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that dis cussions between the Commission services and X were taking place. Subsequently X informed the Ombudsman by fax that he had reached agreement with the Commission on the terms of a financial settlement of the complaint.