natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren opretholdt dog klagen.
However, the complainant maintained his complaint.
I sine efterfølgende bemærkninger erkendte Kommissionen, at den ikke havde over holdt de frister for behandling af begæringer, der var fastlagt i afgørelsen af 8. februar 1994, og udtalte, at den for fremtiden på enhver måde ville bestræbe sig på at overholde fristerne.
In its second comments, the Commission acknowledged that it had not adhered to the deadlines for processing applications laid down in its decision of 8 February 1994 and stated that in the future it would make every effort to meet the deadlines. As regards the reason given for the original refusal of the application, the Commission acknowledged that it was invalid in pursuance of the decision.
Angående begrundelsen for det oprindelige afslag, erkendte Kommissionen, at den var ugyldig.
Where access cannot be granted, the applicant must be informed that he has one month in which to complain about the refusal.
For så vidt angik begrundelsen for at afvise begæringen, påpegede ombudsman den, at den ikke var omfattet af den i Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 indeholdte opregning af grunde for afvisning af en begæring. Han betragtede der for afvisningen som uhjemlet og ukorrekt.
As to the grounds given for refusing the application for access, the Ombudsman re marked that they were not included in the list of considerations which in the Commission's decision of 8 February 1994 can justify refusing an application.
Ombudsmanden noterede sig dog, at klageren havde modtaget den beretning, han havde anmodet om adgang til, så snart Kommissionens generalsekretariat havde rettet fejlen.
However, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had received the report he had applied for access to, as the Secretary-General of the Commission had rectified the mistake made.
På denne baggrund og under henvisning til, at generalsekretæren i sit svar på ombudsmandens anmodning om oplysninger åbent havde erkendt fejlen på Kommissionens vegne, og havde udtalt, at Kommissionen fremover på alle måder ville bestræbe sig på at forhindre gentagelser, fandt ombudsmanden ingen grund til yderligere behandling af klagen og afsluttede således behandlingen heraf.
In view of this and the fact that the Secretary-General, when replying to the Ombudsman's requests for information, had openly acknowledged the mistake on the Commission's behalf and that the Commission would in the future make every effort to prevent any recurrence of such mistakes, the Ombudsman found no grounds for further consideration of the complaint. He therefore closed the case.
FORTROLIG INFORMATION OM NUKLEARE MATERIALERS
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT NUCLEAR MATERIALS
I oktober 1995 skrev L. til den europæiske ombudsmand for at klage over de svar, Europa-Kommissionen havde givet på to skriftlige parlamentariske forespørgsler om nukleare materialer.
In October 1 995 Mr L. wrote to the European Ombudsman to complain about the answers given by the European Commission to two written parliamentary questions relating to nuclear materials.
Klageren kunne ikke se nogen begrundelse for, at Kommissionen i sit svar på forespørgslerne havde henvist til bestemmelserne vedrørende hemmeligholdelse i Euratom-traktatens artikel 194 som grund til ikke at give oplysninger om udtømte uranlagre eller om kontrakter om leverancer til et nukleart anlæg.
The complainant could see no justification for the Commission to invoke the secrecy clause of Article 1 94 of the Euratom Treaty in its answers to the questions as area son for not divulging information on depleted uranium stocks or on supply contracts for nuclear installations.
Han anmodede den europæiske ombudsmand om at tvinge Kommissionen til at handle i en ånd af åbenhed og frigive de oplysninger, der var anmodet om.
He asked the Ombudsman to press the Commission to act in a spirit of openness and to release the information requested.
Den europæiske ombudsmand anmodede Kommissionen om bemærkninger til klagen.
The Ombudsman asked for the Commission's comments on the complaint.
Kommissionens bemærkninger
The comments of the Commission
For så vidt angår det første spørgsmål citerede Kommissionen Euratom-traktatens artikel 194 som grund for, at den ikke havde givet oplysninger om udtømte uranlagre på visse steder i Det Forenede Kongerige.
As to the first question, the Commission quoted Article 1 94 of the Euratom Treaty as a reason not to disclose information on stocks of depleted uranium at certain sites in the United Kingdom.
I det øjeblik en medlemsstat har klassificeret visse oplysninger under et sikkerhedssystem, betragter Kommissionen sig bundet af denne klassificering og forventes at holde sådanne oplysninger hemmelige.
Once a Member State had classified certain information as subject to a security system, the Commission considered itself to be bound by that classification and to be required to keep such information secret.
For så vidt angår det andet spørgsmål i forbindelse med kommercielle oplysninger om kontrakter om leverancer til et nukleart anlæg i Fællesskabet, henviser Kommissionen også til Euratom-traktatens artikel 194 og bestemmelserne heri som grund til ikke at give sådanne kommercielle oplysninger.
As to the second question relating to commercial information about a supply contract for a nuclear installation in the Community, the Commission also referred to Article 1 94 of the Euratom Treaty and Regulations made thereunder as the reason for not divulging such commercial information. This information had been
Disse oplysninger blev fremsendt til Kommissionen af aktørerne i henhold til Euratom-traktatens kapitel VI på tidspunktet for indgåelsen af kontrakten, men er fortsat de pågældende aktørers ejendom.
communicated to the Commission by the operators in accordance with Chapter VI of the Euratom Treaty at the time of negotiation, but remained the property of those operators.
Klagerens kommentarer til Kommissionens bemærkninger
The complainant's observations on the Commission's comments
I henhold til klagerens bemærkninger bør Kommissionen på ny overveje sin fastholdelse af hemmeligholdelse, da både Euratom-traktatens artikel 194 og forordningerne i henhold hertil vedtoges inden for to helt forskellige politiske rammer.
According to the observations of the complainant, the Commission should reconsi­der its insistence on secrecy because both Article 194 of the Euratom Treaty and the Regulations made thereunder were decided upon in two completely different politi­cal contexts.
Den kolde krig og nuklear spionage var virkelige trusler, og situationen er naturligvis ændret siden.
The Cold War and nuclear espionage were real threats and self-evi-dently the situation had changed since.
Da Kommissionen i begge tilfælde henviste til artikel 194, blev spørgsmålet om hemmeligholdelse behandlet samtidigt for begge parlamentariske forespørgsler.
Article 194 provides that:
Artikel 194 indeholder følgende bestemmelse:
The members of the Institutions of the Community (...) who (...) are called upon to acquire (...)
Medlemmerne af Fællesskabets institutioner, (...) der (...) skal indhente (...) oplysninger (...) der er undergivet hemmelighedsbeskyttelse i henhold til bestemmelser truffet af en Medlemsstat, (...) har (...) forpligtelse til at bevare disse hemmeligheder over for enhver ikke bemyndiget person såvel som over for offentligheden.
It seems clear from the letter and the spirit of Article 1 94 that its provisions are bind­ing for the institutions of the European Community, which are required to keep se­cret any information which is subject to a security system in accordance with provi­sions laid down by a Member State.
Det synes klart ud fra skrivelsen og ånden i artikel 194, at dens bestemmelser er
In its comments to the Ombudsman of 21 May 1996, the Commission explained that:
/ overensstemmelse med Euratom­traktatens kapitel VI (...) skal aktørerne til Agenturet fremsende kommercielle oplysninger, herunder selve den kontrakt, der skal indgås.
nicate to the Agency commercial Information, including the contract Itself for conclu sion.
Disse oplysninger er og forbliver disse aktørers ejendom.
This information Is and remains the property of those operators.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene er ikke i stand til at give sådanne kommercielle oplys­ninger, som er de pågældende aktørers ejendom.
The services of the Commission are not able to divulge such commercial Information which is the property of the operators concerned. '
Med henblik på at kunne afgøre, om dette argument er lovligt, må man undersøge de betingelser, hvorunder offentligheden har adgang til Kommissionens dokumen­ter.
In order to determine the lawfulness of this argument, one has to examine the conditions under which the public has access to documents held by the Commission.
Spørgsmålet blev afgjort med Kommissionens beslutning af 8. februar 1994 om offentlig adgang til Kommissionens dokumenter.
The issue is settled by Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents.
Denne beslutning indfører princippet om generel adgang for offentligheden til Kommissionens dokumenter, samtidig med at man tager hensyn til visse undtagelser i relation til beskyttelse af offentlige eller private interesser.
This decision establishes the principle of wide access of the public to Commission documents, while taking into account certain derogations relating to the protection of public interest or privacy.
Den indeholder i den vedføjede adfærdskodeks om offentlig adgang til Kommissionens og Rådets dokumenter bestemmelser om, at
It provides in the annexed Code of Conduct concerning public access to Commission and Council documents that: 'The institutions will refuse access to any document where disclosure could under mine:
­ beskyttelsen af kommerciel eller industriel hemmeligholdelse
- the protection of commercial and industrial secrecy
Det fremgår derfor, at Kommissionen ved at svare, at de oplysninger, der anmodes om, ikke kan gives på grund af beskyttelsen af kommerciel hemmeligholdelse, og ved at råde det ærede medlem til direkte at anmode den pågældende aktør om så danne oplysninger, med denne holdning er i overensstemmelse med sin beslutning af 8. februar 1994.
It appears therefore that the Commission's attitude, by answering that the information requested cannot be divulged because of the protection of commercial secrecy and by advising the Honourable Members to request such information directly from the operator concerned, is in accordance with its Decision of 8 February 1 994.
På denne baggrund har den europæiske ombudsmand ikke kunne påvise nogen fejl eller forsømmelser i Kommissionens holdning i denne sag.
In view of these findings, the European Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration in the Commission's attitude in this case.
Han fandt det derfor ikke begrundet med yderligere undersøgelser og afsluttede behandlingen af sagen.
He therefore decided that no further inquiries were justified and closed the case.
TRUFNE FORANSTALTNINGER EFTER OPHÆVELSEN AF TOLDFORMALITETERNE VED GRÆNSERNE
MEASURES TAKEN AFTER ABOLITION OF CUSTOMS OPERATIONS AT BORDERS
I oktober 1995 skrev P. til den europæiske ombudsmand for at klage over Europa-Kommissionen.
In October 1995 Mr P. lodged a complaint against the European Commission with the European Ombudsman.
Efter ophævelsen af grænserne i Den Europæiske Union i januar 1993 måtte han lukke sit toldklareringskontor og led store økonomiske tab.
After the abolition of borders in the European Union in January 1993, he had been obliged to close his customs clearing office and had suffered big financial losses.
Han var af den opfattelse, at han burde modtage økonomisk kompensation.
He considered that he should receive financial com pensation.
Kommissionen havde desuden ikke besvaret hans brev af 5. november 1993.
Moreover, the European Commission had not answered his letter of 5 November 1993.
Den europæiske ombudsmand anmodede Kommissionen om dens bemærkninger til klagen.
The Ombudsman asked for the Commission's comments on the complaint.
I sit svar fremførte Kommissionen, at i henhold til subsidiaritetsprincippet var det ikke Fællesskabet, som skulle efterleve medlemsstaternes ansvar for det pågældende erhverv.
In its reply, the European Commission considered that it was not for the Community to meet the responsibilities of the Member States and of the profession concerned, owing to the principle of subsidiarity.
Men på grund af den exceptionelle karakter at den situation, som var opstået på grund af den pågældende virksomhed, fandt Kommissionen det begrundet af foreslå ledsageforanstaltninger på fællesskabsplan.
However, given the exceptional nature of the situation resulting from the type of activities in question, the Commission considered it justified to propose Community accompanying measures.
Med hensyn til Grækenland, klagerens hjemland, blev der i henhold til disse foranstaltninger ydet et beløb på over tre mio ECU til 39 projekter udvalgt af de græske myndigheder efter en licitation.
Under these measures, with regard to Greece, the country of origin of the complai nant, an amount of over three million ECUs had been allocated to 39 projects selected by the Greek authorities after a call for tender.
Fristen for indgivelse af ansøgninger var 31. marts 1993, og i henhold til de oplysninger Kommissionen råder over, havde P. ikke frem sendt noget projekt til disse myndigheder (økonomiministeriet).
The deadline for submission of dossiers had been 31 March 1993 and, according to the information available to the Commission, Mr P. had not submitted a project to these authorities (Ministry of the National Economy).
Kommissionens bemærkninger blev fremsendt til P. med henblik på at indhente hans bemærkninger hertil.
The comments of the European Commission were sent to Mr P. for observations.
I sit svar slog klageren på ny til lyd for, at han burde modtage økonomisk kompensation.
In his reply, the complainant repeated his view that he should receive financial com pensation.
Han fremførte også, at han havde fremsendt en ansøgning til de græske myndigheder.
He also claimed that he had submitted a dossier to the Greek authorities.
For så vidt angår Kommissionens manglende besvarelse af hans skrivelse fra no vember 1993, var dette naturligvis beklageligt, og Kommissions opmærksomhed er blevet henledt på, at sådanne undladelser ikke burde gentage sig.
As to the Commission's failure to answer his letter of November 1993, it was of course regrettable, and the Commission's attention has been drawn to the fact that such failures should not happen again.
På denne baggrund fandt den europæiske ombudsmand det ikke begrundet af foretage yderligere undersøgelser og afsluttede behandlingen af sagen.
In view of these findings, the European Ombudsman decided that no further inqui ries were justified and closed the case.
P. indgav klage i oktober 1995 om problemet med for mange elever i Europaskolen Bruxelles II.
Mr P. lodged a complaint in October 1995 regarding the problem of overcrowding at the Brussels II European School.
Han gjorde opmærksom på, at klasserne befandt sig i lokaler, som oprindelig var blevet brugt til et andet formål, at antallet af børn i hver klasse var for højt, at de sanitære installationer lod meget tilbage at ønske, og at sikkerhedskravene ikke blev overholdt i denne skole.
He drew attention to the fact that the classrooms were located in premises originally designed for another purpose, that the number of children per class was too high, that the sanitary facilities were inadequate, and that safety standards were not being met.
Den europæiske ombudsmand informerede Kommissionen om klagen.
The Board of Governors now comprises the Community Member States and the Commission, which has one vote.
Kommissionen fremsendte sine bemærkninger til ombudsmanden og erindrede om den historiske og ¡uridiske baggrund for oprettelsen af Europaskolerne.
The Belgian Government is responsible for providing premises for the Brussels II school, and for the upkeep of those premises.
Den rede gjorde desuden for beføjelser og kompetence i forbindelse med forvaltningen af Europaskolerne.
In its capacity as a Community institution and a member of the Board of Governors, the Commission has taken various steps to encourage the Belgian authorities to re solve the problems caused by overcrowding at the Brussels II school.
Kommissionens bemærkninger blev fremsendt til klageren, som ikke fremsatte kom mentarer.
Given, therefore, its limited powers with regard to the running of the European schools and the approaches it had made to those responsible for such matters (the Belgian authorities) with a view to tackling the problem of overcrowding at the Brussels II European school, the European Ombudsman decided that the Commission could not be held responsible for any act of maladministration in this case, and closed the case.
AFGØRELSEN
Commission
Oprettelsen af Europaskolerne har sit retsgrundlag i aftalen om oprettelse af Europaskolerne af 12. april 1957 undertegnet af Fællesskabets oprindelige seks stater.
Mr V, who had been placed on a reserve list following a European Commission competition, complained to the European Ombudsman that he had not been contacted by the Commission with a view to his recruitment.
Med denne aftale indførtes en ren mellemstatslig samarbejdsmodel, da Europaskolerne udelukkende var oprettet medlemsstaterne imellem. Disse var aftalens eneste kontraherende parter og de eneste, som havde sæde i Det Øverste Råd, som er det øverste organ på det administrative, pædagogiske og finansielle område.
The Commission had launched a new competition in the same domain without first exhausting the reserve list of the previous competition.
Det Øverste Råd består således for øjeblikket af Fællesskabets medlemsstater og Kommissionen, som deltager med én stemme.
In its reply, the Commission explained that being on a reserve list did not automatically oblige the institution to recruit the candidate.
Afgørelserne træffes med enstemmighed på de budgetmæssige og pædagogiske områder og med 2/3 flertal på det administrative område.
Furthermore, when new staffing requirements arose, the Commission was not obliged to wait for a reserve list to be exhausted before launching a new competition.
Bygningerne og udstyret i skolen Bruxelles II samt deres vedligeholdelse henhører derimod under de belgiske myndigheder.
The Commission's comments were sent to the complainant, with an invitation to submit observations if he so wished.
Som fællesskabsinstitution og medlem af Det ¥verste Råd har Kommissionen i denne forbindelse taget forskellige skridt med henblik på at tilskynde de belgiske myndigheder til at råde bod på problemerne i forbindelse med for mange elever i skolen Bruxelles II.
It was indicated to the complainant that, on the basis of the complaint and the comments, the Ombudsman would have to close the case if no observations were submitted.
På baggrund af Kommissionens begrænsede beføjelser i forvaltningen af Europaskolerne og de skridt, den har taget over for de kompetente myndigheder, nærmere bestemt de belgiske myndigheder, for så vidt angår for mange elever i Europaskolen Bruxelles II, fandt den europæiske ombudsmand ikke, at Kommissionen kunne gøres ansvarlig for eventuelle fejl og forsømmelser, og han af sluttede derfor behandlingen af klagen.
The complainant did not submit any observations and the Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
ANSÆTTELSE FRA EN RESERVELISTE EFTER EN UDVÆLGELSESPRØVE
NATIONALITY AS A CONDITION FOR A GRANT
Afgørelse i klage 225/13.
Decision on complaint
I sit svar forklarede Kommissionen, at det forhold, at man er opført på en reserveliste, ikke automatisk forpligter institutionen til at ansætte kandidaten.
Mrs N.d C, α Portuguese national, lodged a complaint to the European Ombudsman about the European Commission.
Opførelse på listen giver kun mulighed for at blive ansat i henhold til arbejdets nødvendighed.
She put forward that the Commission, Directorate General XII, had wrongly denied her a research grant.
De bemærkninger, Kommissionen fremsatte, blev videresendt til klageren, således at han kunne fremkomme med sine kommetarer, såfremt han ønskede det.
The complainant had submitted in May 1995 an application for a grant under the Community Programme for Training and Mobility of Researchers, in answer to a Call for Proposals which had been published in the Official Journal on 17 January 1 995.
Klageren blev oplyst om, at sagen ville blive afsluttet på grundlag af klagen og Kommissionens bemærkninger, hvis han ikke fremsatte kommentarer.
This Programme was adopted by the Council on 15 December 1 994 and its aim was to enhance mobility of researchers. The Commission was responsible for the implementation of the Programme.
Klageren fremsatte ikke kommentarer og ombudsmanden besluttede at afslutte be handlingen af sagen
A condition for receiving a grant under the programme is that the researcher does not hold the nationality of the country where he intends to undertake the research for which the grant is given.
STATSBORGERSKAB SOM BETINGELSE FOR STIPENDIAT
The complainant had both Portuguese and French nationalities and applied for a grant in order to undertake research at the "Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnologica" in Portugal.
Afgørelse i klage 258/27.
She did not receive any answer to this request for in­formation.
N.d C, portugisisk statsborger, indgav en klage til den europæiske ombudsmand mod Europa-Kommissionen med påstand om, at Kommissionens generaldirektorat XII fejlagtigt havde nægtet hende et forskningsstipendiat.
The complainant addressed the Commission in August and September 1995 in or­der to make the Commission change the decision taken. She put forward that the Commission's application of the nationality condition to plurinationals was wrong.
Klageren indgav i maj 1995 en ansøgning om stipendiat under fællesskabs programmet vedrørende forskeres uddannelse og mobilitet som svar på en indkaldelse af forslag offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende af 17. januar 1995. Det omhandlede program var vedtaget af Rådet den 15. december 1994 og havde til formål at fremme forskeres mobilitet.
In the complaint, the complainant said that she was never properly informed about the way the Commission would apply the nationality condition to plurinationals, as the Commission had never replied to her request for information and that there was no legal basis for the Commission's application.
Kommissionen var ansvarlig for programmets gennemførelse.
In any case, she considered the Commission's application to be unfair.
Klageren havde både portugisisk og fransk statsborgerskab og søgte om et stipendiat med henblik på forskning ved "Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnologica" i Portugal.
In its comments on the complaint, the Commission stated that it had no record in its files of any request for information previous to the lodging of the complainant's application in May 1995.
Klageren oplyste, at hun, inden hun indsendte sin ansøgning, havde rettet henvendelse til Kommissionen i en skrivelse af 17. januar 1995 for at få oplyst, hvordan Kommissionen ville anvende betingelsen om statsborger skab på personer med mere end et statsborgerskab i en situation som hendes.
The Commission recognized that it had not adopted a for mal provision dealing with the problem of plurinationals until after the rejection of the complainant's application; anyhow, it stressed that this formal provision only stated what was already the practice and that it was lawful to apply the nationality condition to plurinationals to the effect that grants could not be given for research projects in any of the countries of which the plurinational holds the nationality.
Hun modtog intet svar på denne anmodning om oplysninger.
Contrarily, It limits the choice of host coun tries.
Med skrivelse af 12. juli 1995 besvarede Kommissionen hendes ansøgning. Den oplyste, at hun ikke var be rettiget til stipendiatet, eftersom hun var statsborger i det land, forskningsinstitutionen var beliggende i.
However, It should be stressed that this limitation due to the nationality criterion does not affect only plurinational candidates.