natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne afgørelse blev truffet før Kommissionen påtog sig at meddele klagere begrundelsen når den konkluderer, at lovbrud ikke har fundet sted.
That decision was taken before the Commission undertook to provide complainants with statements of reasons when concluding that no infringement had occurred.
Imidlertid har Kommissionen også undladt at behandle klagepunktet i dens udtalelser til nærverende klage; det fremgår således, at Kommissionen ikke er i stand til at give en passende begrundelse, hvilket udgør et tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelse.
However, the Commission has also failed properly to address the grievance in its opinions on the present complaint; thus, it appears that the Commission is unable to give adequate reasons, and this establishes an instance of maladministration.
Note: Efter ombudsmandens afgørelse blev det rapporteret i den spanske presse, at Kommissionen havde besluttet at genåbne sin undersøgelse af Itoiz-dæmningen.
Note: Following the Ombudsman's decision, it was reported in the Spanish press that the Commission decided to reopen its investigation of the Itoiz dam.
Afgørelse om klage 768/26.7.96/CP/UK/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 768/26.7.96/CP/UK/IJH against the European Commission
I juli 1996 klagede R til Ombudsmanden over en forskningskontrakt mellem hans selskab LWL Limited (LWL), to partnerselskaber (det ene portugisisk og det andet græsk) og Kommissionen.
In July 1996, Mr P. complained to the Ombudsman about a research con tract between his company LW Limited (LWL), two partner companies (one Portuguese, the other Greek) and the Commission.
Klagen gik ud på, at Kommissionens GD VI i) forsætligt satte sig for at ødelægge projektet ved at udbrede urigtige oplysninger om det; ii) uretmæssigt tilbageholdt den endelige betaling, som var skyldig i medfør af kontrakten; iii) anvendte ubillige regnskabsmetoder i forbindelse med omkostningerne for at reducere beløbet af den endelige skyldige betaling.
(i) deliberately set out to destroy the project by spreading false information about it;
Kommissionen erklærede i sin udtalelse, at den i henhold til kontrakten skulle betale halvdelen af de støtteberettigede udgifter op til et maksimum på 1.050.000 ecu.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that, under the contract, the Commission was to pay half of the eligible expenditure, up to a maximum of ECU 1,050,000.
Selskabet LWL var på alle kontrahenternes vegne ansvarligt for, at Kommissionen fik forelagt al dokumentation. Udtalelsen fortsatte som følger:
LWL was responsible for the submission of all documentation to the Commission on behalf of all contractors.
Enhver endelig skyldig saldo kunne kun betales inden for en frist på to måneder efter datoen for godkendelsen af det konsoliderede omkostningsskema og den seneste tekniske rapport, dokumentation og ethvert andet leverbart bilag, som krævedes i kontrakten (artikel 21, stk. 2, litra c), i bilag II).
Any final balance due could only be paid within two months of the date of approval of the consolidated cost statement and the last technical report, documentation and any other deliverable required by the con tract (Article 21.2 (c) of Annex II).
Kontrakten skulle derfor vedblive med at være i kraft indtil forelæggelsen af de oplysninger, Kommissionen krævede i overensstemmelse med kontrakten (artikel 13 i bilag II), eller indtil Kommissionens sidste betaling, alt efter hvilken af disse der var den seneste dato.
The contract should therefore remain in force until submission of the information required by the Commission in accordance with the contract (Article 13 of Annex II), or the last payment by the Commission, whichever is the later date.
I denne periode og i to år efter kontraktens udløb er Kommissionen med henblik på revision berettiget til at have adgang til alt relevant bogføringsmateriale og om nødvendigt at kræve forelæggelse af en sådan dokumentation (artikel 39 i bilag II).
During this period, as well as during the two years after expiry of the contract, the Commission is entitled for audit purposes to have access to all relevant book-keeping material and where necessary to require the submission of such documentary evidence (Article 39 of Annex II).
I henhold til bestemmelserne i artikel 6.1c og 6.5 i de "Generelle vilkår" i kontraktens bilag II... kan den koordinerende partner da betragte sig selv som løst fra sine forpligtelser, hvis Kommissionen ikke har fremsat nogen bemærkninger til de sidste rapportudkast inden for en frist på to måneder efter modtagelsen heraf.
Under the terms of Article 6.1c and 6.5 of the "General Conditions" set out in Annex II of the contract..., the coordinating partner can then con sider itself discharged from its obligations if the Commission has not made any comments on the last draft reports within two months of receiving them.
Artikel 6 findes i bilag ll's A-del, som kun vedrører arbejdets gennemførelse og finder anvendelse på kontrahenternes forpligtelser med hensyn til arbejdets tekniske udførelse.
Article 6 comes in Part A of Annex II, which concerns only the implementation of the work and applies to the contractors' obligations in respect of the
I denne forbindelse konkluderede Kommissionens personale, at det ikke havde nogen grund til at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved det udførte arbejdes konformitet med projektets målsætninger.
DECISIONS technical performance of the work. In this connection the Commission staff concluded that they had no reason to question the conformity of the work done with the objectives of the project.
Kommissionens udtalelse indeholdt også sammenfattet følgende punkter: i)
The Commission's opinion also included, in summary, the following points:
På grundlag af de indgivne skemaer over støtteberettigede udgifter er der fortsat en saldo på 47.967 ecu tilbage at betale, hvoraf et beløb på 14.370 ecu er skyldigt til LWL.
On the basis of the statements of eligible expenditure submitted there remains a balance of ECU 47,967 to be paid, of which 14,370 is due to LWL.
LWL meddelte den 17. august 1995 Kommissionen, at Tenerifes myndigheder i maj 1994 havde vedtaget, at projektets struktur var ulovlig.
LWL informed the Commission on 17 August 1995 that, in May 1994, the Teneriffe authorities had decided that the project structure was illegal.
Den portugisiske partner meddelte den 31. august 1995 Kommissionen, at den ikke havde modtaget beløbet på 16.088 ecu til dækning af det andet års arbejde fra selskabet LWL.
(iv) The Portuguese partner informed the Commission on 31 August 1995 that it had not received from LWL the sum of ECU 16,088 in respect of the second year's work.
Den portugisiske partner omtalte også uoverensstemmelser med LWL med hensyn til den videnskabelige anskuelse og tekniske ændringer af projektet, der betragtedes som betydelige.
The Portuguese partner also mentioned differences of scientific opinion with LWL as well as technical alterations to the project which they considered major.
Kommissionen afholdt den 27. november 1995 et møde med alle tre partnere, som bekræftede, at LWL skulle fortsætte i rollen som projektets videnskabelige koordinator.
The Commission organised a meeting on 27 November 1995 with all three partners, which confirmed that LWL was to continue in its role as scientific coordinator of the project.
Efter at have bestilt og modtaget en uvildig ekspertrapport i juli 1996 accepterede Kommissionen de videnskabelige rapporter, som var blevet indgivet i forbindelse med projektet.
(vi) After commissioning an independent expert report and receiving the expert's opinion in July 1996, the Commission accepted the scientific reports that had been submitted for the project.
Efter at Kommissionen havde fremsat flere anmodninger om supplerende oplysninger, blev der i midten af maj 1996 fremsendt en rettet udgave af dens konsoliderede omkostningsskemaer.
After the Commission had made several requests for additional information, a corrected version of its consolidated expenditure statements was sent in mid-May 1996.
Men på det tidspunkt var den portugisiske og den græske partners konsoliderede rapporter endnu ikke blevet fremsendt til Kommissionen.
However, by that date the consolidated reports of the Portuguese and Greek partners had still not been sent to the Commission.
viii) I betragtning af ovennævnte punkt iii) og iv) besluttede Kommissionen, at projektet fremover skulle betragtes som et "tvivlsomt" projekt, der berettigede til en nærmere undersøgelse.
(viii) In view of points (iii) and (iv) above, the Commission decided that the project should henceforth be considered a "doubtful" project which warranted closer scrutiny.
Kommissionen indtog derfor en forsigtig holdning og besluttede, at det ikke var hensigtsmæssigt at foretage yderligere betalinger.
The Commission therefore took a prudent stance and decided it was not appropriate to make a further payment.
Kommissionen indbød den portugisiske partner og LWL til et møde den 11. juli 1996 for at klarlægge situationen.
The Commission invited the Portuguese partner and LWL to a meeting on 11 July 1996 to clarify the situation. The Portuguese
Den portugisiske partner havde forfald.
DECISIONS partner was unable to attend.
På mødet anmodede Kommissionen gentagne gange LWL om at levere den manglende økonomiske doku mentation.
At the meeting, the Commission repeatedly requested LWL to supply the missing documentary financial evidence.
LWL indtog imidlertid den holdning, at artikel 6.1 c og 6.5 i kontrakten indebar, at det var løst fra sine kontraktmæssige forpligtelser og insisterede på, at Kommissionen skulle foretage den endelige betaling.
LWL, however, took the position that Article 6.1 c and 6.5 of the contract meant that it was discharged from its obligations under the contract and insisted that the Commission should make the final payment.
Kommissionens Afdeling for Samordning af Foranstaltninger til Bekæmpelse af Svig (UCLAF) havde indledt en undersøgelse, fordi LWL ikke havde været i stand til at levere bogføringsdokumentation til støtte for sine udgiftskrav.
(xi) The Commission's anti-fraud unit UCLAF had begun an investigation because LWL had not been able to supply book-keeping evidence to support its expenditure claims.
Bemærkningerne indeholdt sammenfattet følgende punkter: i)
The observations included, in summary, the following points:
De periodiske statusrapporter og den endelige rapport, som kræves i kontrakten, blev fremsendt i rette tid af LWL.
The periodic progress reports and final report required by the con tract were submitted by LWL in due time.
Kommissionen fremsendte aldrig bemærkninger om rapporterne eller gav meddelelse om behovet for en længere periode til at fremsende bemærkninger.
The Commission never submitted observations on the reports or notified the need for a longer period to submit observations.
Derfor anses Kommissionen i overens­stemmelse med kontraktens artikel 6.1b og 6.1c for at have god­kendt rapporterne, og LWL er løst fra sine kontraktmæssige for­pligtelser i overensstemmelse med artikel 6.5.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 6.1b and 6.1c of the contract the Commission is deemed to have approved the reports and LWL is discharged from its obligations under the contract in accordance with Article 6.5.
Af en faxet skrivelse fra Kommissionen dateret den 18. april 1996, hvori der krævedes en bestemt rettelse af det konsoliderede omkostningsskema, fremgik det, at Kommissionen havde gennemgået og godkendt den økonomiske rapport, og at betaling ville følge, så snart de videnskabelige rapporter var god­kendt.
A faxed letter from the Commission dated 18 April 1996 requested that a specific correction be made to the consolidated cost statement and stated that the Commission had examined and approved the financial report and that payment would follow as soon as the scientific reports were approved.
Kommissionen brød kontrakten, da den undlod at foretage den endelige skyldige betaling i henhold til kontraktens artikel 21, stk. 2, litra c) senest to måneder efter den skønnede godkendelse.
The Commission was in breach of contract by failing to make the final payment due under Article 21 (2) (c) of the contract within two months of the deemed approval.
Den første gang, Kommissionen anmodede om en klarlæggelse vedrørende statusrapporterne, var den 24. maj 1996.
(iv) The first time the Commission sought clarification on the progress reports was on 24 May 1996.
Denne klar­læggelse fremsendtes den 25. maj 1996, men blev ikke godkendt af Kommissionen.
This clarification was supplied on 25 May 1996 but not acknowledged by the Commission.
Kommissionen nægtede uden forklaring eller råd at give LWL tilla­delse til at gøre brug af de muligheder, kontrakten giver for at over­føre omkostninger fra den ene kategori til den anden.
The Commission refused, without explanation or advice, to allow LWL to make use of possibilities provided by the contract to trans fer costs between categories.
Kommissionen nægtede navnlig at acceptere et forslag fra LWL om, at omkostninger, der oprindelig var vurderet under over­skriften "varigt udstyr", blev behandlet som "hjælpeudstyr" for at afspejle deres sande natur som omkostninger, der afskrives under projektets forløb.
In particular the Commission refused to accept a proposal from LWL that costs originally estimated under the heading "durable equipment" be treated as "consumable equipment" to reflect their true nature as costs written off during the course of the project.
I slutningen af projektets andet år stod det klart, at den portugi­siske partner ikke havde i sinde at opfylde sine forpligtelser.
By the end of the second year of the project, it was clear that the Portuguese partner had no intention of carrying out their responsibilities.
LWL meddelte Kommissionen dette mundtligt og blev mundtligt under­rettet om, at dets primære pligt var "at levere resultater" i over­ensstemmelse med kontraktens artikel 2, som fastsætter, at kon­trahenter skal "opfylde sendrægtige kontrahenters forpligtelser".
LWL informed the Commission of this orally and was oral ly advised that its primary responsibility was "to deliver the results", in accordance with Article 2 of the contract which pro-
Kommissionens beskrivelse af revisionen den 5. juli 1996 var en stærkt forvansket gengivelse af begivenheden.
(viii) The Commission description of the audit on 5 July 1996 grossly misrepresented the event.
Revisorerne påviste tre mindre poster, som de betragtede som ikke-støttebe-rettigede.
The auditors identified three minor items which they considered ineligible.
I to tilfælde fandt LWL, at posterne var støtteberettigede, og anmodede Kommissionen om klarlæggelse den 8. juli 1996.
In two cases, LWL considered that the items were eligible and sought clarification from the Commission on 8 July 1996.
Selskabet modtog ikke noget svar. Den tredje post var en faktura til garanteret levering næste dag af den undertegnede kontrakt til Kommissionen i Bruxelles, som ikke var støtteberettiget, fordi fakturaen var dateret en dag før kontraktens ikrafttræden.
No reply was received.
Revisorerne anmodede også om at se daglige arbejdssedler for projektets personale, undertegnet og attesteret mindst hver måned af koordinatoren.
(ix) The auditors also asked to see daily time sheets for personnel working on the project signed and certified at least monthly by the project manager.
Det var ikke praktisk eller hensigtsmæssigt til enhver tid at opbevare en sådan dokumentation for et lille team, der arbejder i to og undertiden tre eller fire lande.
It was not practical or appropriate for such records to be kept for a small team working in two, and sometimes three or four countries at any one time.
Der blev tilvejebragt arbejdsdagbøger, som indeholdt daglige optegnelser over individuel tilstedeværelse og andre oplysninger.
Working diaries were pro duced which contained daily records of individual attendance and other details.
Otte kommissionstjenestemænd og P. var til stede på mødet den 11. juli 1996. Spørgsmål, der blev rejst om Kommissionens håndtering af kontrakten, blev ikke besvaret.
The meeting on 11 July 1996 was attended by eight Commission officials and Mr P. Questions raised about the Commission's handling of the contract were not answered.
Efter sagens behandling fandt Ombudsmanden det nødvendigt at foretage supplerende undersøgelser.
After examination of the file, the Ombudsman considered that it was necessary to conduct further inquiries.
Han skrev til Kommissionen med anmodning om at blive informeret om
He wrote to the Commission asking to be informed of
1 a) årsagerne til, at Kommissionen nægtede at acceptere LWL's forslag om, at visse omkostninger blev behandlet som tilladelige i henhold til kontrakten, og b) om, hvorvidt disse årsager var blevet meddelt LWL;
(a) the reasons why the Commission refused to accept the pro posals made by LWL that certain costs should be treated as allow able under the contract and (b) whether these reasons were com municated to LWL;
2 retsgrundlaget for Kommissionens holdning gående ud på, at der ikke kunne gøres yderligere fremskridt med hensyn til sagens økonomiske aspekter, før klageren og de øvrige kontrahenter havde givet specificerede oplysninger;
2 the legal basis for the Commission's position that no further progress could be made on financial aspects of the dossier until specified information was supplied by the complainant and the other contractors. In this connexion the Ombudsman referred to the Commission's letter to the complainant dated 18 April 1996;
3 hvorvidt undersøgelser foretaget af UCLAF var blevet fuldført, og i så fald resultatet af dem.
3 whether inquiries by UCLAF had been completed and, if so, their outcome.
Som svar på spørgsmål 1 a) henviste Kommissionen til sin anmodning om yderligere dokumentation fra LWL.
In reply to question 1 (a) the Commission referred to its request for further documentation from LWL.
Med hensyn til spørgsmål 1 b) anførte den, at årsagerne blev meddelt P. både under revisionen og på mødet i Bruxelles den 11. juli 1996.
As regards question 1 (b) it stated that the reasons were communicated to Mr P. both during the audit and at the meeting held in Brussels on 11 July 1996.
Som svar på spørgsmål 2 anførte Kommissionen, at den portugisiske part ners konsoliderede omkostningsskema, der var det sidste dokument, som krævedes i henhold til kontraktens artikel 21.2 (c), blev modtaget den 25. november 1996.
In reply to question 2, the Commission stated that the consolidated cost statement of the Portuguese partner, which was the last document required by Article 21.2 (c) of the contract, was received on 25 November 1996.
Alene på grundlag af artikel 21.2 (c) skulle betaling have været foretaget senest i januar 1997. Dette var imidlertid ikke tilfældet, fordi
On the basis of Article 21.2 (c) alone, payment should have been made at the latest in January 1997.
AFGØRELSER der forelå en anmodning fra Kommissionen om supplerende oplysninger, fremsat i juli 1996, som stadig ikke var blevet efterkommet.
However, this was not the case because there was a request of the Commission for further information, made in July 1996, which was still outstanding.
Endvidere havde Kommissionen anmodet P. om at give bevis for de beløb, han hævdede at have overført til sine partnere, men dette havde han ikke gjort.
Furthermore, the Commission had asked Mr P. to show evidence of the amounts he alleged to have transferred to his partners but he had failed to do so.
Kommissionen henviste også til den "forsigtige holdning" omtalt i punkt viii) i sin udtalelse.
The Commission also referred to the "prudent stance" mentioned in point (viii) of its opinion.
Som svar på spørgsmål 3 erklærede Kommissionen, at UCLAF's under søgelser fortsatte.
In reply to question 3, the Commission stated that the UCLAF inquiries were continuing.
Sammenfattet bemærkede R, at Kommissionen havde undladt at besvare spørgsmål 1 a), og han hævdede, at dens svar på spørgsmål 1 b) var usandt.
In summary, Mr P. noted that the Commission had failed to answer question 1 (a) and he asserted that its answer to 1 (b) was untrue.
Med hensyn til svaret på spørgsmål 2 hævdede P., at alle doku menter blev leveret separat i henhold til Kommissionens instrukser efter mødet den 27. november 1995.
As regards the answer to question 2, Mr P. claimed that all documents were delivered separately on the instructions of the Commission following the meeting of 27 November 1995.
P. vedlagde også kopier af bankoverførsler til den portugisiske partner, som han allerede havde sendt kopier af til Kommissionen den 24. maj 1996.
Mr P. also enclosed copies of bank transfers to the Portuguese partner which he had already copied to the Commission on 24 May 1996.
Med hensyn til UCLAF henviste R til korrespondance, han havde frem sendt til Ombudsmanden i juli 1997.
As regards UCLAF, Mr P. referred to correspondence which he had for warded to the Ombudsman in July 1997.
UCLAF havde anmodet ham om at fremsende kopier af alle projektets økonomiske og administrative doku menter.
UCLAF had requested him to supply copies of all the project's financial and administrative records.
Han havde meddelt UCLAF, at han betragtede kravet om at kopiere tusindvis af dokumenter som urimeligt, eftersom LWL ikke havde noget betalt personale til at udføre arbejdet, og han foreslog i stedet en yderligere revision på stedet i overensstemmelse med kontraktens artikel 39.
He had informed UCLAF that he considered the requirement to copy thousands of documents to be unreasonable, since LWL had no paid staff to undertake the work, and proposed instead a further on-the-spot audit in accordance with Article 39 of the contract.
Kommissionen meddelte i sit svar af 12. november 1997 Ombudsmanden, at UCLAF ikke længere krævede, at LWL skulle levere kopier af dokumen­terne, at der skulle foretages en kontrol på stedet, og at dette var blevet meddelt Ρ.
In its reply of 12 November 1997, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that UCLAF was no longer demanding that LWL supply copies of the documents; that an on-the-spot inspection was to take place and that Mr P. had been informed accordingly.
I forbindelse med tvisten vedrørende kontrakten fremgik det af Kommissionens svar, at for hver periodisk betaling havde Kommissionen sendt LWL en skrivelse med et økonomisk skema, der udviste både de påståede udgifter og de støtteberettigede udgifter med en redegørelse for enhver forskel.
In relation to the contractual dispute, the Commission's reply stated that, for each periodic payment, the Commission had sent to LWL a letter including a financial table presenting both expenditure claimed and eligible expenditure, with the explanation of any difference.
Kommissionen anførte også, at retsgrundlaget for ikke at have betalt slutsaldoen var, at Kommissionen endnu ikke havde godkendt LWL's endelige omkostningsskema.
The Commission also stated that the legal basis for not having paid the final balance was that the Commission had not yet approved the final cost statement of LWL.
Kommissionens skrivelse blev fremsendt til klageren, som bestred de punkter, Kommissionen fremførte i forbindelse med tvisten vedrørende kon­trakten, og insisterede på, at Kommissionen havde sat sig for at ødelægge projektet ved at meddele andre berørte parter, at det var en teknisk og øko­nomisk fiasko.
The Commission's letter was forwarded to the complainant, who contested the points made by the Commission in relation to the contractual dispute and insisted that the Commission had set out to destroy the project by informing other interested parties that it was a technical and economic fail ure.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Rækkevidden af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser og afgørelsen
1 Scope of the Ombudsman's inquiries and of the decision
UCLAF's undersøgelse
The UCLAF investigation