natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det fremgik, at Revisionsretten havde indledt en revision af Parlamentets ordning for udgiftsgodtgørelser.
It appeared that the Court of Auditors was conducting an audit of the Parliament's expenses and allowances system.
Derfor en kort beskrivelse af denne fællesskabsinstitution, som er oprettet i medfør af traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab.
It is worth to recall briefly the characteristics of this Community institution, set up by the Treaty establishing the European Community.
I henhold til EF­traktatens artikel 188 A varetager Revisionsretten revisionen af Fællesskabets regnskaber, og i artikel 188 Β hedder det, at
According to Article 188a of the Treaty the Court of Auditors is responsible for carrying out audits of the Community finances, and Article 188b provides that
"Revisionsrettens medlemmer udfører deres hverv i fuld­kommen uafhængighed og i Fællesskabets almene interesse.
"The Members of the Court of Auditors shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties.
Ved udførelsen af deres pligter må de ikke søge eller modtage instruktioner fra nogen regering eller noget andet organ.
In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. "
Således varetager Revisionsretten sine opgaver i fuldkommen uafhængighed.
Thus, the Court of Auditors is fully independent in carrying out its task.
EF­traktatens artikel 188 C indeholder en mere detaljeret beskrivelse af Revisionsrettens opgaver og under­søgelsesbeføjelser, herunder:
Article 188c of the Treaty specifies more in detail the task and the powers of inquiry which the Court has. Article 188c provides ¡.a.:
Revisionsretten reviderer regnskaberne over samtlige Fællesskabets indtægter og udgifter (...)
The Court of Auditors shall examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community...
Revisionsretten efterprøver lovligheden og den formelle rigtighed af indtægterne og udgifterne og sikrer sig, at den økonomiske forvaltning har været forsvarlig.
The Court of Auditors shall examine whether ail revenue has been received and all expenditure incurred in a lawful and regular manner and whether the financial management has been sound...
Revisionen foretages på grundlag af regnskabsbilag og i fornødent omfang ved undersøgelser på stedet i Fællesskabets øvrige institutioner og i medlemsstaterne (...)
The audit shall be based on records and, if necessary, per formed on the spot in the other institutions of the Community and in the Member States...
Alle dokumenter eller oplysninger, der er nødvendige til gen­nemførelse af Revisionsrettens opgave, afgives til Revisionsretten på dennes begæring af Fællesskabets øvrige institutioner" (Ombudsmandens understregninger).
The other institutions of the Community.. shall forward to the Court of Auditors, at its request, any document or information necessary to carry out its task. "
Således må Revisionsretten anses for en specialiseret instans, for så vidt angår spørgsmålet om lovlig anvendelse af offentlige midler og principperne for forsvarlig økonomisk forvaltning.
Thus, as to the questions of regular spending of public funds and principles of sound financial management, the Court of Auditors must be considered a specialized instance.
Den revision, Revisionsretten havde påbegyndt, tog hovedsagelig sigte på at evaluere ordningen for godtgørelser og bl.a. fastslå, om denne var i overensstemmelse med Parlamentets relevante bestemmelser, De Europæiske Fællesskabers finansforordning og principperne for forsvarlig økonomisk forvaltning.
According to the information available, the audit that the Court of Auditors was conduct ing at the time, concentrated on an evaluation of the allowances and expenses system, including an examination of the system's conformity with the Parliament's relevant regulation, with Community financial regulations and with principles of sound financial management.
Resultaterne heraf ville blive offentliggjort i en beretning.
The results of the audit were to be laid down in a report which would be made public in due course.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand fandt det således ikke begrundet at foretage yderligere undersøgelser og vedtog at afslutte behandlingen af sagen.
Against this background, the European Ombudsman did not consider any further inquiries justified. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
ANSÆTTELSE: NEGATIVE RESULTATER AF LÆGEUNDERSØGELSEN
RECRUITMENT: NEGATIVE RESULTS OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION
Afgørelse om klage 1021/14.11.96/NLP/ES/JMA over Europa-Parlamentet
Decision on complaint 1021114.11.96/NLP/ES/JMA against the European Parliament
I november 1996 klagede L.C. til Ombudsmanden over Europa-Parlamentets afgørelse om ikke at indsætte hende i en ledig stilling på grund af en negativ lægeudtalelse.
In November 1996, Ms L.C. complained to the Ombudsman concerning the decision of the European Parliament not to appoint her to a vacant post on the basis of negative medical advice.
Klageren deltog i interinstitutionel udvælgelsesprøve EUR/B/27 i 1993 og blev opført på en reserveliste.
The complainant took part in inter-institutional competition EUR/B/27 in 1993 and was placed on a reserve list.
I september 1994 indkaldte Europa-Kommissionens tjenestegrene med ansvar for personale og administration (GD IX) hende til en lægeundersøgelse i Bruxelles.
In September 1994, the European Commission services responsible for Personnel and Administration (DG IX) invited her to undergo a medical examination in Brussels.
Resultatet af lægeundersøgelsen blev ikke fremsendt til klageren.
The results of the medical examination were never forwarded to the complainant.
I februar 1996 blev L.C. ind kaldt til samtale i Europa-Parlamentet med henblik på besættelse af en ledig stilling.
In February 1996, Ms L.C. was interviewed by the European Parliament with a view to filling a vacancy.
Kort efter gav Parlamentets ansættelsestjeneste hende et telefonisk tilbud om ansættelse.
Soon after, the Parliament's recruitment service made an offer of employment to the complainant by telephone.
Eftersom L.C. ikke modtog nogen skriftlig meddelelse i fortsættelse af heraf, kontaktede hun Parlamentet i april 1996.
Not having received any further written communication, Ms L.C. contacted the Parliament in April 1996.
Parlamentet oplyste, at den ledige stilling var blevet tilbudt en anden ansøger.
She was informed that the vacancy had been offered to another candidate.
Afgørelsen var blevet truffet på grundlag af de negative resultater af den lægeundersøgelse, L.C. havde gennemgået.
The decision had been taken on the basis of the negative results of the medical examination Ms L.C. had undergone.
AFGØRELSER måneder i henhold til Parlamentets ansættelsespolitik for denne form for procedure) forlængst var udløbet.
The complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the institutions concerned did not comply with the provisions of Article 33 of the Staff Regulations;1 that her rights as a candidate for a post in the EC institutions had not been respected; and that the decision taken by the Parliament was apparently based on the results of a medical test performed in 1994, therefore well beyond the validity period (6 months) established in the Parliament's recruitment policy for this type of procedure.
Klagen blev fremsendt til Parlamentet.
The complaint was forwarded to the Parliament.
I sin udtalelse påpegede Parlamentet, at afgørelsen om ikke at udvælge klageren til den pågældende stilling var baseret på de negative resultater af den lægeundersøgelse, Kommissionens lægetjeneste havde foretaget.
In its opinion, the Parliament pointed out that the decision not to select the complainant for the vacancy was based on the negative results of the medical examination carried out by the Commission's Medical Service.
Parlamentet beklagede, at lægeundersøgelsens resultater ikke var blevet fremsendt til klageren.
The, Parliament expressed regret that the results of that medical examina tion were not forwarded to the complainant.
Klageren havde således ikke haft mulighed for at gøre indsigelse mod det negative resultat som foreskrevet i tjenemandsvedtægtens artikel 33.
As a result she did not have the opportunity to contest the negative results as required by Article 33 of Staff Regulations.
Parlamentet fandt dog ikke, at det kunne drages til ansvar for denne fejl.
The Parliament, however, considered that it had no responsibility in that failure.
I en introduktionsskrivelse til udtalelsen oplyste Europa-Parlamentet for mand, at selv om der ikke på nuværende tidspunkt var ledige stillinger, ville klageren blive indkaldt til en ny lægeundersøgelse, som ville blive foretaget af Europa-Parlamentets lægetjeneste.
In a covering letter to the opinion, the President of the European Parliament indicated that although no vacancies were available at the moment, the complainant would be invited to undergo a new medical examination to be carried out by the medical services of the European Parliament.
L.C. accepterede forslaget i formandens skrivelse om, at hun skulle under kastes en ny lægeundersøgelse.
In her observations, Ms L.C. agreed to the solution proposed in the President's letter that she should undergo a new medical examination.
Eftersom Parlamentet havde oplyst, at undersøgelsen ville blive foretaget med alle nødvendige garantier, frem satte klageren yderligere anmodninger, for så vidt angik visse specifikke aspekter af undersøgelsen.
Since the Parliament had indicated that the examination should be carried out "with all necessary guarantees", the complainant made some further requests as regards some particular aspects of the examination.
Det fremgik af Ombudsmandens undersøgelse, at Europa-Parlamentet havde truffet en afgørelse i sagen, som var tilfredsstillende for klageren.
It appeared from the Ombudsman's inquiry, that the European Parliament had taken steps to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the complainant.
UNDLADELSE AF AT LEVERE UDBUDSMATERIALE PÅ TILBUDSGIVERENS SPROG
FAILURE TO PROVIDE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE TENDERER
Afgørelse om klage 606/97/VK/OV over Europa-Parlamentet
Decision on complaint 606/97/VK/OV against the European Parliament
I juni 1997 klagede Z. til Ombudsmanden på vegne af et nederlandsk tømrerfirma.
In June 1997 Mr Z. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of a Dutch carpentry firm.
Z. læste en officiel bekendtgørelse i en nederlandsk avis om et udbud vedrørende levering af møbler til Europa-Parlamentet til møde værelser i Leopold-Bygningen i Bruxelles.
Mr Z. read an official notice published in a Dutch newspaper of a call for tenders to provide furniture to the European Parliament for the conference rooms of the Leopold building in Brussels.
Han anmodede om udbudsmaterialet, som blev sendt til ham på fransk, ikke på nederlandsk. Han kontaktede Parlamentets tjenester, som bekræftede, at udbudsmaterialet kun forelå på fransk.
He asked for the contract documents which were sent to him in French not Dutch.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde Z. gældende, at man for at sikre ligheden mellem tilbudsgivere burde sende dem udbudsmaterialet på deres eget sprog.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr Z. alleged that, in order to guarantee equality between them, tenderers should receive the contract documents in their own language.
Parlamentets udtalelse
THE INQUIRY The Parliament's opinion
Parlamentet bemærkede først i sin udtalelse, at udbuddet var blevet offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende af 27. maj 1997 og i medlemsstaternes aviser, her under en nederlandsk avis.
In its opinion, the Parliament first observed that the call for tenders had been published in the Official Journal of 27 May 1997, as well as in national newspapers including a Dutch newspaper.
For så vidt angår de sproglige krav til bekendtgørelser om udbud, henviste Parlamentet til artikel 9 i Rådets direktiv 93/36/EØF af 14. juni 1993 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved offentlige indkøb.1 Det fastsættes i denne artikel, at den bekendtgørelse om udbuddet, hvorved en ordregivende myndighed ønsker at indgå en offentlig indkøbsaftale, skal offentlig gøres i sin helhed i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende på originalsproget, og at et resumé af bekendtgørelsens hovedindhold skal offentliggøres på Fællesskabernes officielle sprog, dog således at kun udgaven på originalsproget er autentisk.
As regards the linguistic requirements of the notices of the call for tenders, the Parliament referred to Article 9 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply con tracts.1 This article provides that the tender notice by which a contracting authority wishes to award a public supply contract shall be published in full in the Official Journal of the European Communities in its original lan guage, and a summary of the important elements of each notice shall be published in the official languages of the Communities, the text in the original language alone being authentic.
Parlamentet konkluderede derfor, at udbudsbekendtgørelsen i den foreliggende sag, som var blevet offentlig gjort på alle Unionens officielle sprog, havde opfyldt disse krav.
The Parliament concluded therefore that the tender notice in the present case, which had been published in all the official languages of the Union, had respected those requirements.
For så vidt angår udbudsmaterialet, bemærkede Parlamentet, at de nationale ordregivende myndigheder i henhold til fællesskabsretten ikke er for pligtede til at oversætte det, og at, for så vidt angår offentlig tilvejebringelse af materiale fra EU-institutionerne, hvor materialet ofte er omfattende, havde det også været praksis i Parlamentet og andre EU-institutioner ikke at oversætte udbudsmaterialet. Derfor forelå udbudsmaterialet i den foreliggende sag kun på fransk.
As regards the contract documents, the Parliament observed that the national contracting authorities have no obligation under Community law to translate them, and that, as regards public procurement by the Community institutions where the contract documents are often voluminous, the practice of the Parliament and of other institutions had also been not to trans-
AFGØRELSER
DECISIONS late the contract documents.
Parlamentets undladelse af at levere klageren udbudsmateriale på nederlandsk
The failure of the Parliament to provide the complainant with contract documents in the Dutch language
I forbindelse med udbud fra EU-institutioner er det. generelle princip om forbud mod forskelsbehandling, der udøves på grundlag af nationalitet, som er fastsat i EF-traktatens artikel 6, gentaget i artikel 62 i finansforordningen, som fastsætter følgende: "Ved aftaler indgået af Fællesskaberne må der ikke finde forskelsbehandling sted mellem medlemsstaternes statsborgere på grund af deres nationalitet".
In the fieid of tenders by Community institutions, the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, set out in Article 6 of the EC Treaty, is repeated in Article 62 of the Financial Regulation, which provides that "in respect of contracts entered into by the Communities, there shall be no discrimination between nationals of Member States on grounds of nationality".
Derfor udtrykte Ombudsmanden tilfredshed med Parlamentets initiativ, som den 27. november 1997 førte til, at Den Rådgivende Komité for Indkøb og Udbud vedtog henstillingen (CCAM nr. 4 - 1997) om anvendelse af de officielle sprog til dets egne tilbudsgivere.
Therefore the Ombudsman welcomed the initiative of the Parliament which led on 27 November 1997 to the adoption by the Advisory Committee on Purchases and Tenders of the Recommendation (CCAM N° 4 -1997) on the use of the official languages for its own tenders.
For EU-borgere rummer det den værdifulde anbefaling af, at udbudsmateriale, der fremsendes af institutionen til en person eller et selskab, som er underlagt en medlemsstats domsmyndighed, principielt skal udfærdiges pa den medlemsstats sprog eller på det sprog, som er anvendt i anmodningen.
For the European citizens, it con tains the valuable recommendation that the contract documents sent by the institution to a person or company subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State shall in principle be drafted in the lan guage of that State, or in the language used in the request.
Det var beklageligt, at klageren ikke kunne deltage i udbuddet, fordi han ikke fik udbudsmaterialet på sit eget sprog, hvilket kunne udgøre en overtrædelse af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grund af nationalitet.
It was regrettable that the complainant could not take part in the tender because he did not get the contract documents in his own language, which might constitute an infringement of the principle
Det fremgik imidlertid af ovenstående, at Parlamentet havde reageret positivt og omgående på denne klage og ville ændre sin praksis med hensyn til udbudsmateriale.
However, it appeared from the above that the Parliament had reacted positively and promptly to this complaint and was going to change its practice as regards the contract documents.
Dette vil gøre det muligt for klageren i lighed med andre til budsgivere at deltage på lige betingelser i fremtidige udbud, der organiseres af Parlamentet.
This will enable the complainant like other tenderers to participate under equal conditions in future tenders organized by the Parliament.
Det fremgik derfor af Europa-Parlamentets udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Parlamentet havde taget skridt til at løse problemet og fyldestgøre klageren.
Therefore, it appeared from the European Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations that the Parliament had taken steps to settle the matter and satisfy the complaint.
STATSSTØTTE: KOMMISSIONENS HÅNDHÆVELSE AF FÆLLESSKABETS LOVE
STATE AIDS: ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW BY THE COMMISSION
Afgørelse om klage 852/3.9.96/SJB/UK/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 852/3.9.96/SJB/UK/UH against the European Commission
I august 1996 klagede advokatfirmaet S.J.B. til Ombudsmanden over Kommissionen på vegne af deres klient, Ladbroke. Klagen vedrørte
In August 1996, S.J.B. - a firm of solicitors - made a complaint to the Ombudsman against the Commission on behalf of their clients Ladbroke.
Kommissionens reaktion på påstanden om, at de franske myndigheder havde ydet statsstøtte til franske væddeløbs- og totalitatorselskaber.
The complaint concerned the Commission's dealings in relation to alleged state aid granted by the French authorities to undertakings in the French racing and betting industries.
S.J.B. ønskede oprindelig klagen behandlet fortroligt, men bekræftede senere skriftligt, at Ladbrokes navn kunne offentliggøres i Ombudsmandens afgørelse om sagen.
S.J.B. originally asked for the complaint to be treated confidentially, but later wrote to confirm that Ladbroke's name could be disclosed in the Ombudsman's decision closing the case.
I henhold til klageren indgav Ladbroke en række klager til Kommissionen i perioden 1989-1995 over de franske myndigheders statsstøtte til franske hestevæddeløbsselskaber og til Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU).
According to the complainant, Ladbroke made a number of complaints to the Commission between 1989 and 1995 about alleged state aids granted by the French authorities to French racing associations and to the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU).
Ladbroke mente, at denne statsstøtte i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, skulle have været genstand for en forudgående anmeldelse til Kommissionen og en kommissionsbeslutning, jf. artikel 93, stk. 2, eller artikel 93, stk. 3, vedrørende støttens forenelighed med det indre marked.
Ladbroke considered that, according to Article 93 (3) of the EC Treaty, these State aids should have been notified to the Commission before implementation, leading to a decision by the Commission, under either Article 93 (2) or 93 (3), as to their compatibility with the common market.
I klagen til Ombudsmanden henvistes specifikt til tre klager, som S.J.B. havde indgivet til Kommissionen på vegne af Ladbroke: a)
The complaint to the Ombudsman referred specifically to three complaints which S.J.B. had made to the Commission on behalf of Ladbroke:
Klage af 23. december 1992, fremsendt pr. fax, over en tildeling på FF 600 mio, som de franske myndigheder ikke havde anmeldt til Kommissionen som statsstøtte.
A complaint made by fax dated 23 December 1992, concerning a grant of FF 600 million which had not been notified to the Commission by the French government as a State aid.
Med skrivelse af 12. maj 1993 meddelte Kommissionen (GD IV) S.J.B., at klagen ville blive behandlet under referencen NN 35/93.
By letter dated 12 May 1993, the Commission (DG IV) informed S.J.B. that the complaint would be dealt with under the number NN 35/93.
De næste tre år modtog S.J.B. ikke yderligere oplysninger fra Kommissionen.
S.J.B. received no further response from the Commission during the next three years.
Klage af 25. august 1994, fremsendt pr. brev, vedrørende oplysninger i pressen om tildeling af en yderligere støtte på FF 1.500 mio til PMU over de næste fem år.
A complaint made by letter dated 25 August 1994, concerning a further FF 1,500 million of aid which, according to press reports, the PMU was to receive over five years.
S.J.B. modtog intet svar fra Kommissionen på denne klage.
S.J.B. received no response from the Commission to this complaint.
Klage af 27. marts 1995, fremsendt pr. brev, vedrørende en tildeling af yderligere FF 450 mio til de franske væddeløbsselskaber og PMU, som var blevet omtalt i pressen.
A complaint made by letter dated 27 March 1995, concerning a further grant of FF 450 million to the French racing associations and the PMU which had been reported in the press.
S.J.B. gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at undersøge Ladbrokes klager og at håndhæve bestemmelserne om medlemsstaternes forpligtelse i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, til at anmelde alle nye støtteforanstaltninger til Kommissionen.
S.J.B. claimed that the Commission had failed both to investigate Ladbroke's complaints and to enforce the obligation imposed on Member States by Article 93 (3) EC to notify all new state aids to the Commission.
S.J.B. informerede endvidere Ombudsmanden om visse andre klager, Kommissionen havde modtaget over andre tilfælde af statsstøtte fra de franske myndigheder til franske hestevæddeløbs- og totalitatorselskaber.
S.J.B. also informed the Ombudsman of certain other complaints that it had made to the Commission concerning other incidents of alleged State aid granted by the French authorities to French racing and betting undertakings.
Disse klager var blevet indbragt for Retten i Første Instans eller for nationale domstole.
These complaints were the subject of judicial proceedings before the Court of First Instance, or in national courts.
S.J.B. klagede ikke til Ombudsmanden for så vidt angik Kommissionens behandling af disse klager, og i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 138 E og artikel 1, stk. 3, i Ombudsmandens statut, indgik disse ikke i Ombudsmandens undersøgelse.
S.J.B. made no complaint to the Ombudsman in respect of the Commission's handling of these com plaints and, in accordance with Article 138e EC and Article 1 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, they did not form part of the Ombudsman's inquiry.
Den indholdsmæssige side af klagen vedrørte den franske afgift på spil på hestevæddeløb, som var blevet ændret ved fem dekreter udstedt mellem marts 1993 og december 1995.
The subjectmatter of the complaint concerned French tax legislation in relation to racing betting levies, which was amended by five Decrees issued between March 1993 and December 1995.
Kommissionen havde rettet seks anmodninger om nærmere oplysninger om spørgsmålet til de franske myndigheder mellem januar 1993 og november 1995.
Six requests for information to clarify the matter were sent to the French authorities between January 1993 and November 1995.
Inden Kommissionen traf en formel afgørelse om Ladbrokes klage, var det nødvendigt først
Before taking a formal decision on Ladbroke's complaint it was first necessary to
- at gennemgå de forskellige ændringer af den franske lov givning,
- review the successive amendments to the French legislation,