natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1 august og september 1995 rettede klageren henvendelse til Kommissionen med anmodning om ændring af den pågældende afgørelse.
The Ombudsman stated that principles of good administrative conduct demand that requests for information shall be replied to without undue delay.
Klageren påpegede, at Kommissionens håndhævelse af bestemmelserne om statsborgerskab for så vidt an gik personer med flere statsborgerskaber var fejlagtig.
Anyhow, in the concrete case it had not been established that the Commission received the request as the complainant, according to her own statement, was no longer in possession of the postal receipt.
Kommissionen undskyldte i sine svar, at den ikke tidligere havde forelagt mere præcise oplysninger om anvendelsen af bestemmelserne vedrørende statsborgerskab for så vidt angik personer med flere statsborgerskaber.
As to the allegation that the Commission's interpretation of the nationality condition as regards plurinationals was unlawful, the Ombudsman considered it established that at the moment the complainant's application was rejected, there was no written rule concerning the situation of plurinationals.
Kommissionen oplyste, at bestemmelserne var blevet gennemført i overensstemmelse med den praksis, der var blevet fastlagt under tidligere programmer, og at Kommissionen senere havde vedtaget en eksplicit bestemmelse vedrørende personer med flere statsborgerskaber, som var i overensstemmelse med den fastlagte praksis.
However, the Ombudsman found that this did not imply that the Commission had to accept that plurinationals qualified under the nationality condition in the case where they held both the nationality of the research country and another nationality.
Kommissionen opretholdt følgelig sin afgørelse.
The Commission had to take a stand on the question of plurinationals and the Ombudsman did not find that the stand taken infringed principles of law.
For så vidt angik spørgsmålet om retfærdighed, udtalte Kommissionen, at "for så vidt angår muligheden for adgang til programmet, har personer med flere statsborgerskaber en ekstra mulighed for at tilhøre de støtteberettigede lande, mens udvalget af værtslande bliver begrænset.
As to the allegation that the Commission's application of the nationality condition to plurinationals was unfair, the Ombudsman found that, in the present case, the allegation was unjustified.
Dog må det påpeges, at denne begrænsning som følge af bestemmelserne om statsborgerskab ikke udelukkende rammer ansøgere med flere statsborgerskaber.
Actually, it appeared from the file that the complainant was born in Portugal, performed all her studies (1976-1987) in Portugal, that she specialized in Canada and France (1988-1994) and that she took up professional activities in Portugal thereafter.
Ombudsmanden fandt således ikke at kunne konstatere fejl eller forsømmelser i denne sag og afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
Thus, the Ombudsman did not find an instance of maladministration in this case and therefore closed the case.
3.2 SAGER, SOM BLEV TRUKKET TILBAGE
CASES DROPPED BY THE COMPLAINANT
Afgørelse i klage 23/03.06.95/SL/PD/UK-en over Europa-Kommissionen og
23/03.06.95/SL/PD/UK-en against the European Commission and the
L., som er italiensk statsborger, indgav en klage over Europa-Kommissionen og Europa-Parlamentet, hvori hun gjorde gældende, at de to institutioners kontorer i Rom havde givet hende ukorrekte oplysninger om EF-udvælgelsesprøver.
Mrs L., an Italian national, lodged a complaint against the European Commission and the European Parliament. She put forward that the two institutions' offices in Rome had provided incorrect information to her about Community competitions.
I deres udtalelser om klagen anførte de to institutioner, at de ansatte på de to kontorer ikke havde nogen erindring om klagerens besøg på kontorerne, at institutionerne var overrasket over, at hun havde fået urigtige oplysninger, eftersom de oplysninger, klageren påstod at have modtaget, var i modstrid med institutionernes sædvanlige ansættelsespolitik, og informationskontorerne havde modtaget en på mindelse om deres opgaver på dette område.
In their comments on the complaint, the two institutions stated in substance that the staff in the two offices did not have any recollection of the complainant's visit to the offices; that the institutions were surprised that wrongful information had been supplied to her, as the contents of the information allegedly given ran contrary to the institutions' established recruitment policy, and that information offices had been re minded of their duties in this field.
Udtalelserne blev forelagt klageren, som meddelte ombudsmanden, at hun lod sagen falde.
The comments were forwarded to the complainant who informed the Ombudsman that she dropped the case.
På denne baggrund afsluttede ombudsmanden behandlingen af sagen.
Against this background the Ombudsman closed the case.
ADGANG TIL MEP-DELTAGERLISTE
ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ATTENDANCE OF MEPS
De anførte, at de den 13. juli 1995 ytrede ønske om at se deltagerlisterne for Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer, som var placeret uden for den mødesal, hvor Parlamentet afholder sine plenarmøder i Strasbourg (Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer skal skrive under på disse lister, når de går ind i mødesalen), hvilket Parlamentets betjente havde modsat sig.
They stated that on 1 3 July 1995 they wished to consult the record of at tendance of Members of the European Parliament, which is located outside the Chamber in which Parliament holds its part-sessions in Strasbourg (Members of Parliament are supposed to sign the list when they enter the Chamber), and the par liamentary ushers stopped them.
Klagerne anførte bl.a., at listerne befandt sig på et område, som var frit tilgængeligt for
The complainants claim that the lists were in an area totally open to the public, with no physical barrier, and there was no notice banning the public from consulting the lists.
UNDERSØGELSEN
THE DECISION
Europa-Parlamentets bemærkninger til klagen blev forelagt klagerne, som derefter fremkom med deres kommentarer.
The Ombudsman first pointed out that, in the absence of general rules adopted by the Community legislator on public access to documents of the Community institu tions, it was a matter for each Community institution to lay down rules in this connection by virtue of its power of internal organization.
Parlamentet anførte i det væsentlige, at deltagerlisterne var interne dokumenter, som bl.a. anvendes af Parlamentets administration til fastlæggelse af de forskellige godtgørelser, medlemmerne er berettiget til.
On these grounds the Ombudsman found that, by virtue of its power of internal or ganization Parliament may refuse to allow public access to these lists, and that the lists were intended above all for administrative purposes.
Ombudsmanden erindrede først om, at der ikke forelå en generel bestemmelse fra fællesskabslovgiveren vedrørende aktindsigt i fællesskabsinstitutionernes dokumenter, hvorfor det var op til hver enkelt institution at fastlægge reglerne på området i medfør af institutionens interne organisationsbeføjelser.
However, if Parliament did not wish the public to consult these lists, the Ombudsman thought it inappropriate to place them in an area open to the public where it was virtually impossible to ensure such a ban was observed.
Endvidere bemærkede ombudsmanden, at listernes oplysende værdi var meget be grænset, for så vidt angik spørgsmålet om medlemmernes tilstedeværelse i mødesalen på et bestemt tidspunkt, eftersom medlemmerne frit kan gå ind og ud af mødesalen uden på ny at skulle skrive under på de omhandlede lister.
For that reason the Ombudsman finally suggested that as long as the lists were outside the Chamber, public access should not be prevented and that, by means of a note drawn up for the purpose, the parliamentary ushers might provide information about the official lists and the rollcall votes to people who were particularly interested. ted.
På denne baggrund fandt ombudsmanden, at Parlamentet i medfør af sine interne organisationsbeføjelser kunne nægte offentligheden adgang til de pågældende lister, som ¡sær tjente administrative formål.
In response to this suggestion, Parliament stated that the Secretary-General had been asked to put the lists back inside the Chamber and, if that was impossible, a written note about means of obtaining information about the presence of Members would be offered to persons interested.
Hvis Parlamentet imidlertid ønskede, at offentligheden ikke skulle have adgang til
Given Parliament's above-mentioned power of internal organization and the measures taken, the Ombudsman decided to close the case.
3.3.2 RÅDET
THE COUNCIL
AKTINDSIGT TIL DOKUMENTER I RÅDETS BESIDDELSE
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS HELD BY THE COUNCIL
Afgørelse i klage 45/26.7.95/JPB/PD/B-dk over Rådet for Den Europæiske
45/26.7.95/JPB/PD/B-dk against the Council of the European
B., dansk statsborger, indgav klage over Rådet.
Mr Β., α Danish national, lodged a complaint against the Council.
Han krævede, at alle oplysninger, der var nødvendige for at forstå gældende lovgivning, blev offentliggjort, og anførte, at han som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet havde behov for kendskab til al lovgivning, herunder Rådets mødeprotokoller.
He requested that all information necessary to understand existing legislation should be made pu­blic and that, as a Member of the European Parliament, he needed to have know­ledge of all legislation, including minutes.
Vedlagt klagen var en kopi af et no tat fra Rådets ¡uridiske tjeneste med kritik af Rådets praksis vedrørende erklæringer til optagelse i protokollerne fra Rådets møder.
Enclosed with the complaint was a copy of a note from the Council's legal service criticizing the Council's practice as re­gards statements for inclusion in the minutes of Council meetings.
I sine bemærkninger til klagen anførte Rådet følgende tre forhold:
In its comment on the complaint, the Council put forward three elements:
Rådet fremførte, at klagen ikke påviste, at Rådet havde begået fejl, og at notatet fra den juridiske tjeneste ikke udgjorde et bevis på fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Council's argument was that the complaint did not show that the Council's ac­tions constituted maladministration and that the note from its legal service did not constitute proof of maladministration.
Rådet bemærkede endvidere, at klageren havde forelagt spørgsmålet for om budsmanden i sin egenskab af medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, og at klagerens ønske om kendskab til al gældende lovgivning var politisk betinget.
The Council also stated that the complainant had referred the matter to the Ombudsman in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament and that the complaint's desire for knowledge of all existing legislation was the expression of a political wish.
For det andet anførte Rådet, at klageren ikke havde rettet de fornødne administrative
Secondly, the Council argued that the complainant had not made the necessary ad­ministrative approaches to the Council before he lodged his complaint with the European Ombudsman.
Fællesskabsinstitutionerne og -organerne er naturligvis velkomne til at tilkendegive deres synspunkter desangående over for ombudsmanden.
tions and bodies are naturally welcome to make their views on the subject known to the Ombudsman.
Det kan ved en klages antagelse til realitetsbehandling ikke kræves, at klageren skal føre fuldt bevis for de fejl eller forsømmelser, der klages over.
When examining the admissibility of a complaint, it cannot be required that the complainant shall provide conclusive evidence of the maladministration complai ned of.
I denne sammenhæng må det erindres, at det også påhviler ombudsmanden at forbedre forbindelserne mellem Fællesskabets institutioner og Europas borgere. Ombudsmandshvervet blev oprettet på baggrund af Unionens tilsagn om en åben, demokratisk og ansvarlig forvaltning.
In this context it has to be borne in mind that the Ombudsman's task is also to improve relations between Community institutions and European citizens; the of fice of Ombudsman was created in support of the Union's commitment to open, de mocratic and responsible administration.
At kræve, at en borger fører bevis for fejl eller forsømmelser ved indgivelsen klagen, ville indebære en uforholdsmæssig byrde for borgeren og vanskeliggøre den pågældendes adgang til ombudsmanden.
Requiring a citizen to provide evidence of maladministration when lodging a complaint would put an unreasonable burden on him and make it more difficult for him to have access to the Ombudsman.
Et så dant krav synes i øvrigt at være uhjemlet.
Nor does such a requirement seem to have any legal basis.
I henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 138 E, stk. 1, andet afsnit, skal ombudsmanden foretage undersøgelser af "de påståede forhold" ("alleged facts" på engelsk og "faits allégués" på fransk) og ikke af på viste forhold.
It appears from the second paragraph of Article 1 38e (1) of the EC Treaty that the Ombudsman conducts en quiries into 'alleged facts' ('faits allégués' in French), not proven facts.
I artikel 3, stk. 1, i ombudsmandens statut fastslås det, at ombudsman den foretager undersøgelser af "mulige tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser" ("suspected maladministration" på engelsk og "cas éventuel de mauvaise administration" på fransk).
Article 3 (1) of the Statute of the Ombudsman states that the Ombudsman may conduct enquiries into 'suspected maladministration' (cas éventuel de mauvaise administration' in French).
I klagen gjordes det gældende, at ikke al eksisterende lovgivning var tilgængelig.
In the complaint, it was alleged that not all existing legislation was accessible.
Et notat var vedlagt som en integreret del af klagen.
A note was attached as an integral part of the complaint.
Notatet var yderst kritisk over for Rådets praksis med hensyn til erklæringer til mødeprotokollerne.
The note was extremely critical of the Council's practice as regards statements annexed to the minutes of Council mee tings.
I klagen gjordes det således klart gældende, at der var tale om fejl.
The complaint thus clearly alleged that there had been maladministration.
Klagerens stilling som medlem af Europa-Parlamentet havde ingen betydning for sagen. I henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 8 D kan "enhver" unionsborger henvende sig til ombudsmanden.
The complainant's status as a Member of the European Parliament had no bearing on the matter.
Intet forhindrer således medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet i at klage til ombudsmanden.
There is therefore nothing to exclude Members of the European Parliament from complaining to the Ombudsman.
For så vidt angår Rådets argument om, at klagen var "politisk", bemærkede ombudsmanden, at han var af den opfattelse, at offentlig adgang til gældende lovgivning er et grundlæggende krav til en demokratisk resstat.
As regards the Council's argument that the request was 'political', the Ombudsman remarked that in his view, the public accessibility of the legislation in force is a basic requirement of a democratic legal system.
I den danske udgave anvendes ganske vist termen "fornødne", som giver det indtryk, at sådanne administrative henvendelser er nødvendige.
pectively which seems to imply that suitable administrative approaches must be made.
Det tilkommer ombudsmanden at afgøre, hvad der i en given sag må anses for passende.
It is up to the Ombudsman to decide what in a specific case is suitable.
I denne sag fremgik det, at erklæringer til optagelse i protokollerne fra Rådets møder var blevet betragtet som en hindring for disse protokollers offentliggørelse.
In this case, it appeared that statements for inclusion in the minutes of Council meet ings had been regarded as obstacles to the publication of the minutes.
Dette syntes endvidere til fulde bekræftet af, at Rådet efterfølgende fandt det nød vendigt at vedtage en adfærdskodeks om offentliggørelsen af Rådets protokoller og erklæringer til optagelse i protokollerne.
This seemed moreover to be entirely confirmed by the fact that the Council subsequently considered it necessary to adopt a Code of Conduct on the publication of Council minutes and statements for inclusion in the minutes.
Det måtte derfor lægges til grund, at en for udgående administrativ henvendelse ville være blevet afvist.
Therefore, it had to be assumed that a prior administrative approach would have been rejected.
Under disse omstændigheder fandt ombudsmanden ikke nogen grund for at ændre sin oprindelige afgørelse om at behandle klagen under hensyntagen til Rådets an det argument.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman found no grounds for changing his original decision to consider the complaint admissible in view of the Council's second argument. ment.
For så vidt angik sagens realitet, bemærkede ombudsmanden, at aktindsigt som en foranstaltning til at fremme gennemsigtigheden inden for Unionen prioriteres højt af institutionerne (¡f. f.eks. erklæring nr. 17 vedføjet Maastricht-traktaten om retten til adgang til oplysninger og Rådets erklæring af 22. januar 1996 i anledning af Kommissionens lovgivningsprogram for 1996).
As regards the merits of the case, the Ombudsman noted that access to documents as a measure to promote transparency in the Union is highly valued by the institu tions (see for instance Declaration No 17 annexed to the Maastricht Treaty on the right of access to information and the Council's Declaration of 22 January 1 996 in connection with the Commission's legislative programme for 1996).
Som tidligere anført var formålet med oprettelsen af ombudsmandshvervet at un derstrege Unionens ønske om gennemsigtighed.
As mentioned above, the purpose of creating the office of Ombudsman was to em phasize the Union's commitment to transparency.
Det var derfor indlysende, at gen nemsigtighed og retten til aktindsigt var af stor betydning for ombudsmanden.
It is therefore clear that transparency and the right of access to documents are matters of great concern to the Ombudsman.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Rådet med vedtagelsen af adfærdskodeksen den 2. oktober 1995 havde truffet de foranstaltninger, som måtte anses for påkrævet for frem over at sikre aktindsigt til den type dokumenter, klagen omhandlede.
He found that by adopting the Code of 2 October 1995, the Council had taken the steps that must be deemed necessary to give access in future to the type of document requested in the complaint.
Ombudsmanden fandt det derfor ikke begrundet at foretage yderligere undersøgel ser og afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore found that there were no grounds for further consideration of the complaint and therefore closed the case.
Kort før konferencen skulle finde sted, blev den aflyst af Kommissionen.
Shortly before the conference was to take place, the Commission cancelled it.
Aflysningen skyldtes åbenbart, at den ansvarlige tjenestemand i Kommissionen ikke havde fået budgetmæssig dækning til konferencen, hvilket var til skade for virksomheden, bl.a. økonomisk tab i form af penge og tid, som allerede var blevet brugt til tilrettelæggelse af konferencen.
The cancellation was apparently due to the failure of the competent officer within the Commission to obtain budget clearance for the conference, and it resulted in injury to the enterprise, including financial losses in the form of money and time already spent on the organization of the conference.
Efterfølgende korrespondance og kontakter med Kommissionen førte ikke til nogen erstatning for den skade, virksomheden havde lidt.
Subsequent correspondence and contacts with the Commission had not led to any reparation of the injury caused to the enterprise.
Da den europæiske ombudsmand ikke påbegyndte sit virke før 27. september 1995, var han ikke i stand til umiddelbart at tage sig af klagen.
As the European Ombudsman did not take up his office until 27 September 1 995, he was not able to give the complaint immediate attention.
Den 31. oktober 1995 anmodede han Kommissionen om at fremsende bemærkninger til klagen.
On 31 October 1995, he asked the Commission to submit to him its comments on the complaint.
Med fax af 15. ¡anuar 1996 og skrivelse af 17. januar 1996 informerede Kommissionen ombudsmanden om, at den i november 1995 havde tilbudt virksomheden at yde erstatning til endelig afgørelse af alle de afholdte udgifter.
By fax of 15 January 1996 and by letter of 1 7 January 1 996, the Commission in formed the Ombudsman that it had made in November 1 995 an offer to the enter prise to pay financial compensation as a final settlement for all costs occurred.
Tilbuddet var blevet accepteret, hvorfor virksomhedens krav omsider var bilagt.
The offer had been accepted and thus the firm's claim had finally been settled.
Da det problem, som havde foranlediget klagen, var blevet løst på en for parterne tilfredsstillende måde, afsluttede den europæiske ombudsmand behandlingen af klagen.
As the subject-matter of the complaint had been solved in a mutually satisfactory way, the European Ombudsman closed the case.
Virksomheden rettede en tak til ombudsmanden for hans undersøgelse "som havde ansporet Kommissionen til seriøse forhandlinger".
The firm thanked the Ombudsman for his investigation "which spurred the Commission into negotiating seriously".
Ian HARDEN, sekretariatschef, forelægger en sag for mødet.
Mr Ian HASDEN, Principal Officer, introducing a case to the meeting
FORSINKET BESVARELSE AF ANMODNING OM OPLYSNINGER
DELAY IN ANSWERING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Den 28. april 1995 indgav P. en klage til den europæiske ombudsmand mod Europa-Kommissionen med påstand om, at Kommissionen ikke havde besvaret hans skrivelser af 12. oktober 1994 og 15. februar 1995.
On 28 April 1995, Mr P. lodged α complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission alleging that the Commission had not answered his letters of 12 October 1994 and 15 February 1995.
Eftersom ombudsmanden først tiltrådte den 27. september 1995, kunne han ikke behandle klagen øjeblikkeligt.
As the Ombudsman did not take up his duties until 27 September 1 995, he was not able to give immediate attention to the complaint.
Ombudsmanden anmodede Europa-Kommissionen om en udtalelse om sagen den 27. oktober 1995.
He asked the European Commission to comment on the matter on 27 October 1 995.
Ved skrivelse af 26. januar 1996 forelagde Kommissionen sine kommentarer til klagen til ombudsmanden, hvori den erkendte, at besvarelsen af klagerens henvendelser var blevet usædvanligt forsinket.
By letter of 26 January 1996, the Commission forwarded its comments on the com­plaint to the Ombudsman, admitting that the delay in replying to the complainant had been unusually long.
Klagerens anmodning om oplysninger til Kommissionen i Luxembourg fra oktober 1994 og februar 1995 var først blevet besvaret den 31. maj 1995.
The request for information the complainant had addres­sed to the Commission in Luxembourg in October 1994 and February 1995 had not been answered until 31 May 1995.
Kommissionen meddelte ombudsmanden, at general direktorat V i Kommissionen siden da havde ændret proceduren for behandling af denne form for henvendelser for fremover at undgå sådanne forsinkelser.
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that Directorate General V of the Commission had since revised its procedure for re­plying to correspondence of this nature, with a view to avoiding such delays in fu­ture.
En tredje skrivelse fra klageren af 12. juni 1995, stilet direkte til Kommissionen i Bruxelles, var blevet besvaret den 7. juli 1995.
A further letter of the complainant of 1 2 June 1 995, addressed directly to the Commission in Brussels had received a reply by letter of 7 July 1 995.
Eftersom klageren havde modtaget svar på sin anmodning, og ombudsmanden fandt Kommissionens procedureændringer tilfredsstillende, vedtog ombudsmanden at yderligere undersøgelser var ubegrundede og afsluttede behandlingen af sagen.
As the complainant had received an answer to his request and as the Ombudsman found satisfactory the revision the Commission had made to its procedure for cor­respondence, the Ombudsman decided that no further inquiries were justified and closed the case.
MANGLENDE UDBETALING AF STØTTE
FAILURE TO PAY A PROMISED SUBSIDY
Afgørelse i klage 95/30.8.95/IMI/EF/NL-en over
Decision on complaint