natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I april 1997 klagede hr. R. til Ombudsmanden og sagde, at den måde, hvorpå Kommissionen havde behandlet hans ansættelse, udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelser.
In April 1997, Mr R. complained to the Ombudsman that the way in which the Commission had dealt with his recruitment constituted maladministration. tion.
I juni 1994 havde hr. R. gennemgået en udvælgelsesprocedure arrangeret af Kommissionen med henblik på at oprette en reserveliste til besættelse af midlertidige stillinger i kategorien A7/6, 65T/XXIII/93.
In June 1994, Mr R. had passed a selection procedure organized by the Commission for establishing a reserve list for the recruitment of temporary posts in grades A7/6, 65T/XXIII/93.
I september 1996 blev hr. R., mens han arbejdede i Peru, kontaktet af en embedsmand fra Kommissionens GD IB, der ønskede at vide, om han ville være interesseret i en stilling angående Latinamerika.
In September 1996, while he was work ing in Peru, Mr R. was called by a Commission official from DG IB, who wanted to know if he would be interested in a post concerning Latin America.
Hr. R bekræftede denne interesse.
Mr R. confirmed his interest.
I november 1996 modtog hr. R. et brev fra Generaldirektorat IX, der inviterede ham til en samtale i Bruxelles og til de nødvendige lægeundersøgelser, hvis han blev tilbudt stillingen.
In November 1996, Mr R. received a letter from Directorate General IX inviting him to an interview in Brussels and to the necessary medical examina-
Samtalen og lægeundersøgelserne fandt sted senere samme måned.
The interview and the medical exarrv ¡nations took place later the same month.
Den 6. december 1996 blev hr. R. mundtligt informeret af GD IB om, at han blev tilbudt den pågældende stilling.
On 6 December 1996 Mr R. was informed orally by DG IB that he was offered the post in question.
I skrivelse af 16. december 1996 bad GD IB GD IX om at sætte ansættelsesproceduren i gang så hurtigt som muligt.
By note of 16 December 1996, DG IB asked DG IX to put the recruitment procedure in motion as soon as possible.
Han fik at vide, at hans ansættelse var sikker, og at han ville modtage en fax i den forbindelse i løbet af en uge.
He was told that his recruit ment was certain and that he would receive a fax to that effect within a week.
Den 16. januar 1997 meddelte GD IX hr. R., at ansættelsesproceduren var blokeret på grund af en beslutning om at lukke den pågældende reserveliste, og at han derfor ikke kunne blive ansat.
On 16 January 1997, DG IX informed Mr R. that the recruitment pro cedure was blocked by a decision to close the relevant reserve list, and therefore he could not be recruited.
Hr. R blev aldrig informeret skriftligt om, at reservelisten var blevet lukket.
Mr R. was never informed in writing that the reserve list had been closed.
I brev af 15. marts 1997 meddelte hr. R. Kommissionen, at han ikke fandt denne fremgangsmåde korrekt.
By letter of 15 March 1997, Mr R. informed the Commission that he did not find this way of proceeding appropriate.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden hævdede hr. R., at Kommissionens frem gangsmåde var et tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelse.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr R. claimed that the Commission's way of proceeding constituted maladministration.
Den viste efter hans opfattelse mangelfulde procedurer, mangel på professionel bevidsthed i Kommissionens tjenestegrene, manglende respekt for borgerne samt dårlig finansiel styring, idet hr. R.'s returbillet Lima-Bruxelles var blevet betalt af Kommissionen.
In his view, it showed faulty procedures, lack of professional conscience within the Commission's services, disrespect for the citizen as well as bad financial management, as Mr R.'s return ticket Lima-Brussels had been paid by the Commission.
I sin udtalelse erklærede Kommissionen, at den den 13. november 1996 vedtog en ny afgørelse angående sin politik over for midlertidigt ansatte i henhold til art. 2a i Gældende bestemmelser for andre ansatte (herefter "den nye afgørelse").
In its opinion, the Commission stated that on 13 November 1996 it adopted a new decision concerning its policy towards temporary agents governed by Art. 2a of the Rules Applicable to Other Agents (hereinafter; "the new decision").
Man havde rådført sig grundigt med tjenestegrene og personalerepræsentation forud for vedtagelsen af afgørelsen, der trådte i kraft den 1 .december 1996.
Detailed consultation with services and staff representation had preceded the adoption of the new decision, which entered into force on 1 December 1996.
De nye regler var meget strengere end de gamle, idet de begrænsede ansættelse af midlertidige agenter i kategorien A7/6 til ansøgere, der stod på en reserveliste oprettet i forbindelse med en ekstern udvælgelsesprøve eller til ansøgere, der havde gennemgået en udvælgelsesprocedure for særlige professioner.
The new rules were much stricter than the old ones, because they limited the recruitment of temporary agents in grade A7/6 to applicants who were on a reserve list established under an external competition or to applicants who had passed a selection procedure for specific professions.
Faktisk skulle ansættelse af midlertidige agenter ifølge den nye afgørelse hovedsageligt foregå i kategorien A5/4, sa man derved satte institutionen i stand til at disponere over specialiseret viden.
In fact, according to the new decision, recruitment of temporary agents was mainly to take place in the grade A5/4 so as to enable the institution to dis pose of specialised knowledge.
Derudover besluttede Kommissionens administration, at alle reservelister oprettet under udvælgelsesproceduren for midlertidige stillinger skulle lukkes med virkning fra og med 1. december 1996, så man nystartede politikken over for midlertidige agenter med den nye afgørelse som grundlag.
Furthermore, the Commission administration decided that all reserve lists, established under selection procedures for temporary posts, should be closed as from 1 December 1996, so as to relaunch the policy towards temporary agents on the basis of the new deci sion.
Generaldirektører og afdelingsledere blev underrettet om den nye afgørelse den 3. december 1996.
General Directors and Heads of Service were informed of the new decision on 3 December 1996.
Kommissionen meddelte videre, at det var rigtigt, at GD IB under processen, der førte til vedtagelse af den nye afgørelse, var i kontakt med hr. R., og at han havde en samtale angående en stilling i GD IB.
The Commission further stated that it was true that during the process leading to the adoption of the new decision, DG IB was in contact with Mr R. and that he had an interview for a post with DG IB.
Men da GD IB's anmodning om at ansætte hr. R ikke blev fremsat før den 16. december 1996, måtte GD IX på det tidspunkt rette sig efter de nye regler og afslå anmodningen.
However, as DG IB's request for recruiting Mr R. was not made until 16 December 1996, DG IX until had to apply the new rules and therefore reject the request.
Da hr. R. blev bedt om at komme til Bruxelles, var den nye afgørelse endnu ikke vedtaget, og derfor kunne GD IX ikke afvise GD IB's anmodning om at invitere hr. R til en samtale.
When Mr R. was asked to come to Brussels, the new decision had not yet been adopted and therefore DG IX could not refuse DG IB's request to invite Mr R. for an interview.
At stå på en reserveliste giver ikke den pågældende person ret til en stilling.
The fact of being on a reserve list does not confer any right to a post upon the person concerned.
Reelt er det kun GD IX's generaldirektør, der har bemyndigelse til at beslutte ansættelse af midlertidige agenter, og kun GD IX's tjenestegrene der har beføjelse til at tilbyde job i Kommissionens navn.
In fact only the Director General of DG IX is authorized to decide on the recruitment of temporary agents and only the services of DG IX are empowered to address job offers in the name of the Commission.
Det er klarlagt, at hr. R. aldrig modtog et sådant brev.
It is established that Mr R. never received such a letter.
Kommissionen besvarede hr. R.'s brev af 15. marts 1997.
Mr R.'s letter of 15 March 1997 received a reply from the Commission.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt hr. R. sin klage.
In his observations, Mr R. maintained his complaint.
Især understregede han, at han anså Kommissionens fremgangsmåde for at være imod princippet om beskyttelse af berettigede forventninger.
In particular he emphasised that he considered the Commission's way of proceeding con trary to the principle of legitimate expectations.
Han mente, at den kendsgerning, at Kommissionens tjenestegrene både i december og i januar mundtligt bekræftede det tilbud om job, han ville modtage, det vil sige efter den nye afgørelse trådte i kraft, bekræftede hans opfattelse af, at Kommissionens procedurer var mangelfulde.
He considered that the fact that the Commission services both in December and in January confirmed orally the job offer that he was about to have, i.e. after the new decision came into force, confirmed his view that the Commission's procedures were faulty.
Efter en grundig vurdering af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger bad ombudsmanden Kommissionen sende ham en kopi af afgørelsen af 13. november 1996 og at give ham oplysninger om følgende punkter:
After due consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to forward to him a copy of the decision of 13 November 1996 and to inform him about the following points:
Var der i ovennævnte beslutning tale om nogen former for overgangstiltag i forbindelse med igangværende ansættelsesprocedurer?
Did the above-mentioned decision provide for any transitional measures for ongoing recruitment procedures?
Hvis det ikke var tilfældet, hvad var da begrundelsen herfor?
If the decision did not provide for any such measures, what were the reasons for that?
Omfattede den intensive rådføring med tjenesterne GD IB?
Did the intensive consultation with services involve DG IB?
Hvornår var arbejdet med afgørelsen afsluttet, og hvornår blev proceduren for indsendelse af den nye afgørelse til Kommissionens godkendelse sat i gang?
When was the work on the decision finalised, and when was the procedure for submitting the new decision for the Commission's approval set in motion?
Hvordan blev Kommissionens tjenestegrene informeret om den nye afgørelse efter dens vedtagelse?
How were the Commission's services informed about the new decision after its adoption?
I sit svar fremsendte Kommissionen beslutningen af 13. november 1996 og en skrivelse fra GD IX stilet til Kommissionens generaldirektører og afdelingsledere dateret den 3. december 1996, angående afgørelsen.
In its reply, the Commission forwarded the decision of 13 November 1996 as well as a note from DG IX addressed to the Directors General and Heads of services of the Commission, dated 3 December 1996, concern ing the decision.
Endvidere fremsendte Kommissionen en kopi af hr. R.'s curriculum vitae.
Furthermore the Commission forwarded a copy of Mr R.'s curriculum vitae.
Kommissionen erklærede endvidere, at det under den nye afgørelse ikke var muligt at tage hr. R.'s uddannelse i statskundskab i betragtning.
The Commission further stated that it was not possible to consider Mr R.'s education in political science as a specific profession under the new deci sion.
Endelig erklærede Kommissionen, at den procedure, der førte til vedtagelsen af den nye afgørelse havde fundet sted i fuld åbenhed, og at alle Kommissionens tjenestegrene jævnligt var blevet informeret om det igangværende arbejde, det vil sige både via ugentlige assistentmøder og gennem skrivelsen af 3. december 1996.
Finally the Commission stated that the procedure leading to the adoption of the new decision had taken place in all transparency and that all the Commission services had been regularly informed of the ongoing work, e.g. during the weekly meetings of assistants, as well as by the note of 3 December 1996.
I sine bemærkninger til Kommissionens anden udtalelse fastholdt hr. R. sin klage.
In observations on the second opinion of the Commission, Mr R. main tained his complaint.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at administrationen behandler borgerne på en rimelig og retfærdig og måde.
Principles of good administration require that the administration deals with citizens in a fair and just way.
Det er Kommissionens ansvar at tilrettelægge sine procedurer, så de overholder dette krav.
It falls upon the Commission to organize its procedures so as to comply with that requirement.
I nærværende sag lå det klart, at den nye afgørelse om ansættelse af midlertidige agenter trådte i kraft den 1. december 1996, og at der i denne blev stillet krav om, at ansøgerne har en specialiseret beskæftigelse.
In this case, it was established that the new decision concerning recruit ment of temporary agents came into force on 1 December 1996 and that the new decision laid down the requirement that applicants have a special ized profession.
Det lå også klart, at hr. R. ikke opfyldte dette krav og derfor ikke blev ansat.
It was also established that Mr R. did not fulfill that require ment and therefore was not recruited.
Endvidere var det fastslået, at hr. R. under de gamle regler med held havde gennemgået samtaler og lægeundersøgelser og var blevet udvalgt af den ansvarlige tjenestegren.
Furthermore, it was established that, under the old rules, Mr R. had under gone interviews and medical examinations successfully and had been retained by the service responsible.
Det så ud til, at hr. R. ville være blevet ansat, hvis de gamle regler fortsat havde været gældende efter den 30. november 1996.
It appeared that if the old rules had continued in force after 30 November 1996, Mr R. would have been recruit ed.
Spørgsmålet var derfor, om det var fair i hr. R's tilfælde at anvende et nyt krav, der ikke var trådt i kraft, da han på vellykket vis gennemgik ansættelsesproceduren.
Thus, the question was whether it was fair to apply to Mr R.'s case a new requirement which was not in force at the moment when he was success ful in the recruitment procedure.
Kommissionen havde ikke udvist nogen overvældende interesse i at gøre dette.
The Commission had not indicated any overriding interest in doing so.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at det ikke kunne betragtes som fair at anvende et krav over for hr. R., som ikke var gældende på det tidspunkt, hvor han med held havde gennemgået ansættelsesproceduren.
The Ombudsman found that it could not be considered fair to apply to Mr R. a requirement which was not in force at the moment when he was successful in the recruitment procedure.
Det så derfor ud til, at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt kravet om at til rettelægge sine procedurer, så den behandlede borgerne på en retfærdig og ordentlig måde.
Thus, it appeared that the Commission had not met the requirement to organize its procedures so as to deal with the citizen in a fair and just way.
På baggrund af undersøgelserne af denne klage lod det derfor til at være nødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the inquiries into this complaint, it appeared necessary to make the following critical remark:
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at administrationen behandler borgerne på en rimelig og retfærdig måde.
Principles of good administration require that the administration deals with citizens in a fair and just way.
I denne sag fremgik det, at en ansøger, der med held havde gennemført samtaler angående et job og derefter lægeundersøgelser, og som var blevet udvalgt af den ansvarlige tjeneste, ikke var blevet ansat. Begrundelsen herfor var, at Kommissionen underlagde ansættelsen et krav, som ikke var gældende på det tidspunkt, da ansøgeren blev udvalgt til jobbet.
In this case it appeared that an applicant, who had successfully undergone interviews for a job and medical examinations and had been retained by the service responsible, was
AFGØRELSER
DECISIONS not recruited.
Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
ANSÆTTELSESPROCEDURER
RECRUITMENT PROCEDURES
Afgørelse om klage 588/97/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 588/97/PD against the European Commission
I juni 1997 indgav S. en klage til Ombudsmanden om Kommissionens und ladelse af at tilbyde ham en stilling, efter at han havde bestået en generel udvælgelsesprøve for fuldmægtige, COM/A/720, som Kommissionen afholdt i 1992.
In June 1997, Mr S. made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning the Commission's failure to offer him a post after he had succeeded in a general competition for administrators, COM/A/720, organised by the Commission in 1992.
Senere ansøgte S. om stillinger i Kommissionen ved flere lejligheder og havde jobsamtaler med forskellige kontorledere.
Subsequently, Mr S. applied for jobs at the Commission on several occasions and had interviews with different heads of service.
Til trods for, at hans kvalifikationer generelt blev anerkendt, havde han endnu ikke fået til budt en stilling.
In spite of the fact that his qualifications were generally recognized, he had not yet been offered a job.
Ifølge Kommissionens oplysninger var årsagerne hertil for det første, at ledige stillinger skulle besættes med ansøgere fra de nye medlemsstater, dvs. Østrig, Finland og Sverige, som tiltrådte Den Europæiske Union den 1. januar 1995, og for det andet, at der allerede var mange tjenestemænd af belgisk nationalitet.
According to what he was told at the Commission, the reasons for this were, firstly, that vacant posts were to be filled with candidates from the new Member States, i.e. Austria, Finland and Sweden, which joined the European Union on 1 January 1995, and secondly that there were already many officials of Belgian nationality.
Klageren betragtede disse årsager, som han mundtligt fik kendskab til under sine kontakter med Kommissionen, som værende i modstrid med de grundlæggende rettigheder således som fastsat i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder og artikel 27 i tjenestemandsvedtægten, der fastsætter, at ingen stilling kan forbeholdes borgere fra en bestemt medlemsstat.
The complainant considered these reasons, of which he learned orally in his contacts with the Commission, to be contrary to fundamental rights as established by the European Convention on Human Rights and to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations which establishes that no posts can be reserved for a particular nationality.
Endvidere betragtede klageren det som paradoksalt, at opgaver inden for Kommissionen blev givet til forskellige slags midlertidigt personale, dvs. tjenesteydere, hjælpeansatte og midlertidigt ansatte, hvorimod der ikke fandt ansættelse sted af ansøgere, der havde bestået en udvælgelsesprøve.
Furthermore, the complainant considered it paradoxical that tasks within the Commission were given to different kinds of temporary staff, i.e providers of services, auxiliary and temporary agents, while there was no recruitment of applicants who had passed a competition.
S. anmodede Ombudsmanden om at intervenere, således at hans ansøgning om et job kunne blive behørigt behandlet.
Mr S. asked the Ombudsman to intervene so that his application for a job would be duly examined.
Kommissionen anførte i sin udtalelse, at den pågældende reservelistes gyldighed blev forlænget to gange og udløb endeligt den 30. juni 1995.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the validity of the reserve list in question was pro longed twice and finally expired on 30 June 1995.
Det var således ikke længere muligt at ansætte S., eftersom den reserveliste, hvorpå han var opført, ikke længere var gyldig.
It was thus no longer possible to recruit Mr S., as the reserve list, on which he was placed, was no longer valid.
Kommissionen erindrede endvidere om, at i henhold til Domstolens retspraksis indebærer den omstændighed, at en person er opført på en reserveliste, ikke en berettigelse til en stilling i EU-institutionerne. nerne.
The Commission furthermore recalled that according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the fact that a person is on a reserve list does not entail an entitlement to a job with the Community institutions.
AFGØRELSER borgere fra en bestemt medlemsstat.
DECISIONS
På grundlag af reservelisterne udvælger Kommissionens tjenestegrene de ansøgere, hvis faglige profil synes at stemme overens med tjenestens behov, hvorefter de fremsætter et tilsvarende forslag om ansættelse til det relevante generaldirektorat, GD IX.
On the basis of reserve lists, the Commission services select those applicants whose pro fessional profile appears to match the needs of the service, after which they make the corresponding proposal for recruitment to the relevant Directorate General, DG IX.
Kommissionen understregede, at GD IX ikke havde modtaget noget for slag vedrørende S. Kommissionen henviste endvidere til den omstændighed, at ud af otte belgiere på den pågældende reserveliste var de fire blevet ansat.
The Commission stressed that DG IX had not received any proposal concerning Mr S.. Furthermore, the Commission referred to the fact that out of eight Belgians on the reserve list in question, four had been recruited.
For det andet anførte Kommissionen, at i forbindelse med de tre omtalte medlemsstaters tiltrædelse havde Rådet vedtaget forordning nr. 626/95 om, at visse stillinger skulle være forbeholdt borgere fra de pågældende medlemsstater.
Secondly, the Commission stated that in the context of the accession of the three mentioned Member States, the Council adopted Regulation 626/95 to the effect that certain posts should be reserved for the holders of one of the three nationalities concerned.
Denne forordning udgør således en lovlig foranstaltning til fravigelse af den generelle regel om, at ingen stilling er forbeholdt borgere fra en bestemt medlemsstat.
This Regulation thus constitutes a lawful derogatory measure to the general rule that no post is reserved for a particular nationality.
For så vidt angår anvendelsen af midlertidigt personale, anførte Kommissionen, at budgetmyndighederne allokerer faste og midlertidige stillinger til Kommissionen og bevillinger til ansættelse af midlertidigt ansatte og tjenesteydere.
Concerning the use of temporary staff, the Commission stated that the budgetary authorities allocate permanent and temporary posts to the Commission and appropriations to employ auxiliary agents and service providers.
Derfor påvirker anvendelsen af denne type per sonale ikke mulighederne for at ansætte tjenestemænd i faste stillinger.
Consequently, the use of this kind of staff does not affect the possibilities for recruiting civil servants to permanent posts.
S. fastholdt i sine bemærkninger vedrørende Kommissionens bemærkninger indholdet i sin klage.
In his observations on the Commission's comments, Mr S. in substance maintained his complaint.
Endvidere rejste han en række nye spørgsmål som f.eks. reservelisters gennemsnitlige gyldighedsperiode, omkostningerne i forbindelse med afholdelsen af en udvælgelsesprøve og årsagerne til, at Kommissionen besluttede at opslå en stilling, hvortil han følte sig kvalificeret, efter reservelistens udløb.
Furthermore, he raised a number of new questions such as the average period of validity of reserve lists, the reasons for the Commission to decide not to prolong the validity of a reserve list, the cost involved in organising a competition and the reasons for which the Commission decided to publish a post, for which he considered himself qualified, after the expiration of the reserve list.
I en yderligere skrivelse anmodede S. om oplysninger om, hvad Ombudsmanden havde foretaget sig med henblik på at finde en mindelig løsning på hans klage, hvorved hans ansættelse i Kommissionen til sin tid fremmedes.
In a further letter, Mr S. asked to be informed about the action undertaken by the Ombudsman with a view to finding a friendly solution to his com plaint, facilitating in due course his employment with the Commission.