natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det første bør det bemærkes, at Ombudsmanden ikke fandt det berettiget at indlede undersøgelser vedrørende de nye spørgsmål, der var rejst i klagerens bemærkninger, eftersom de rakte ud over den oprindelige klages rammer.
Firstly, it should be remarked that the Ombudsman did not find it justified to start inquiries into the new questions raised in the complainant's observations as they went beyond the scope of his original complaint.
Det bør også bemærkes, at spørgsmålet om at finde en mindelig løsning på en klage kun opstår, når Ombudsmanden har påvist et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
It should also be remarked that the question of finding a friendly solution to a complaint only arises when the Ombudsman has established an instance of maladministration. ministration.
Dernæst bør det bemærkes, at Kommissionen ikke var berettiget til at til byde klageren en fast stilling, eftersom reservelisten ikke længere var gyldig, og at den omstændighed, at ansøgere er opført på en reserveliste, ikke giver dem ret til beskæftigelse i EU-institutionerne.
Thereafter, it should be noted that the Commission was not entitled to offer the complainant a permanent post, as the validity of the reserve list had expired, and that the fact of being on a reserve list does not give candidates a right to employment with the Community institutions.
AFGØRELSER anvendelse af eksternt og/eller midlertidigt personale syntes ikke at være relevant for vurderingen af dette spørgsmål.
Mr S.'s complaint raised in substance the question whether he was exposed to unlawful discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Behandlingen af dette spørgsmål faldt i to dele.
The Commission's use of external and/or temporary staff did not appear to be relevant for the assessment of this question.
For det første forskelsbehandling med hensyn til stillinger, hvorpå den generelle regel i artikel 27 i tjenestemandsvedtægten fandt anvendelse, og for det andet forskelsbehandling med hensyn til stillinger, hvorpå den generelle regel ikke fandt anvendelse i medfør af Rådets forordning nr. 626/95.
The examination of the ques­tion fell in two parts; firstly, discrimination as to posts to which the general rule in Article 27 of the Staff Regulations applied and secondly discrimina­tion as to posts to which the general rule did not apply by virtue of Council Regulation 626/95.
For så vidt angår den første del, skal der erindres om ordlyden af artikel 27:
As concerns the first part, the wording of Article 27 shall be recalled:
"Der skal ved ansættelse tilstræbes, at institutionen sikres medarbejdere, der opfylder de højeste krav til kvalifikationer, indsats og integritet; de skal udvælges på et så bredt geografisk grundlag som muligt blandt statsborgere i Fællesskabernes medlemsstater.
Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities.
Ingen stilling kan forbeholdes borgere fra en bestemt medlemsstat."
No posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.
Denne bestemmelse søger at skabe balance mellem behovet for at ansætte kvalificeret personale og en international organisations behov for at sikre personale fra de forskellige stater, der har oprettet organisationen. I henhold til Domstolens retspraksis indebærer denne bestemmelse:
This provision seeks to strike a balance between the need for recruiting qualified staff and the need that an international organisation has for ensur­ing staff from the different states that have founded the organisation.
"med hensyn til ansættelse, forfremmelse og placering af tjeneste mænd, at alle fællesskabsinstitutioner dels skal tage hensyn til tjene stens interesser, og ikke til statsborgerskab, dels skal sikre en udvælgelse på et så bredt geografisk grundlag som muligt blandt statsborgere i Fællesskabernes medlemsstater.
"..that when any Community institution recruits, promotes or assigns its officials to posts, it must be guided on the one hand of the interests of the service without regard to nationality and on the other hand must ensure that they are recruited on the widest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Member States of the Communities.
Institutionen afstemmer disse krav indbyrdes, jf. herved navnlig Domstolens dom af 6. maj 1969 (sag 17/68, Reinarz, Sml 1969, s. 24), når den i tilfælde, hvor de forskellige ansøgeres kvalifikationsbeviser stort set må ligestilles, anvender stats borgerskabet som udslaggivende faktor for at opretholde eller genskabe en geografisk ligevægt. "1
The institution reconciles those requirements, as the Court declared in par­■ ticular in its judgment of 6 May 1969 (case 17/68, Reinarz, [1969] ECR 61), when, in those cases where the qualifications of the various candi­dates are substantially the same, it makes nationality the overriding cri­terion in order to maintain or re­establish a geographical balance amongst its staff. "1
Det fremgik, at det generaldirektorat i Kommissionen, som var ansvarligt for ansættelse, aldrig havde modtaget noget forslag til ansættelse af klageren, og at der således ikke var blevet afslået noget forslag på grundlag af hans belgiske nationalitet.
It appeared that the Commission Directorate General responsible for recruitment had never received any proposal for the complainant's recruit­ment and thus, that no proposal had been turned down on the grounds of his Belgian nationality.
Endvidere kunne man i betragtning af, at fire af de otte belgiere på reservelisten var blevet ansat i Kommissionen, vanskeligt fæste lid til påstanden om, at der var en generel hindring for ansættelse af belgiere.
Furthermore, given the fact that four of the eight Belgians on the reserve list had received employment with the Commission, it appeared difficult to give credit to the claim that there was a general bar on recruitment of Belgians.
Det var således ikke påvist, at Kommissionen gjorde sig skyldig i ulovlig forskelsbehandling mod belgiske ansøgere.
Thus, it was not established that the Commission engaged in unlawful discrimination against Belgian appli­cants.
AFGØRELSER onen, når den tager sig af borgernes sager, overholder de regler, som er bindende for den.
Principles of good administration require that the administration in its dealings with citizens comply with the rules that are binding upon it.
Eftersom de udtalelser, S. henviste til, let kunne misforstås derhen, at tjenestemændene ikke overholdt deres forpligtelser i hen hold til artikel 27 i tjenestemandsvedtægten, fremsatte Ombudsmanden en kritisk bemærkning om, at Kommissionen, når den havde med ansøgere at gøre, skulle sikre, at dens personale overholder artikel 27 i tjenestemandsvedtægten. vedtægten.
As the declarations to which Mr S. referred could easily be misunderstood to the effect that the officials concerned did not respect their obligations under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, the Ombudsman addressed a critical remark to the Commission to the effect that it should ensure that, in dealing with applicants, its staff respect Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.
For så vidt angår stillinger forbeholdt borgere fra Østrig, Finland eller Sverige, fastsætter artikel 1 i Rådets forordning nr. 626/95:
As concerns the posts reserved for nationals of Austria, Finland or Sweden, Article 1 of Council Regulation 626/95 provides:
"Indtil 31. december 1999 kan ledige stillinger uanset... artikel 27, stk. 3 ... i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber besættes med østrigske, finske og svenske statsborgere inden for rammerne af de stillinger, de ansvarlige institutioner har afsat hertil i forbindelse med budgetforhandlingerne. "
"Notwithstanding ...the third paragraph of Article 27 ...of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, provision maybe made until 31 December 1999 for vacant posts to be filled by Austrian, Finnish and Swedish nationals up to the limit set in the context of budgetary discussions within the institution responsible. "
Det fremgik tydeligt, at denne forordning fastslog en fravigelse af den generelle regel i artikel 27, stk. 3, i tjenestemandsvedtægten. Eftersom forord ningen ikke var blevet bestredet, var Kommissionen forpligtet til at anvende den.
It appeared clearly that this Regulation established a derogation from the general rule in the third paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.
Det kunne derfor lægges til grund, at Kommissionen var fuldt ud berettiget til at forbeholde borgere fra et af de tre lande stillinger, der skulle besættes.
Thus, it appeared that the Commission was fully entitled to reserve posts to be filled for nationals from one of the three countries.
Det kunne derfor med hensyn til begge klagerens klagepunkter lægges til grund, at Kommissionen ikke havde gjort sig skyldig i ulovlig forskelsbehandling.
Thus, as concerned both the complainant's grievances, it appeared that the Commission had not engaged in unlawful discrimination.
Det fremgik, at bestemmelserne i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder ikke havde nogen indflydelse på dette resultat.
The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights did not appear to have any bearing on this result.
Det fremgik af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelse af denne klage, at det var nødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appeared necessary to make the following critical remark:
Kommissionen skal sikre, at dens personale, når det har med ansøgere at gøre, er klar over sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 27 i tjeneste mandsvedtægten.
The Commission shall ensure that, in its dealings with applicants, its staff is aware of its obligations under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.
I betragtning af, at dette aspekt af sagen angik procedurer, som vedrørte bestemte hændelser i fortiden, var det ikke hensigtsmæssigt at forfølge en mindelig løsning på sagen.
Given that this aspect of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in the past, it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
UFORHOLDSMÆSSIG FORSINKELSE VED SVAR PÅ KORRESPONDANCE
UNDUE DELAY IN REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE
Afgørelse om klage 1087/97/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1087197ΙΟΊ against the European Commission
I november 1997, klagede direktøren for en ikke-regeringsstyret organisation, der tilbyder lægehjælp til alvorligt sårede børn fra krigs- og kriseområder, hr. G, til Ombudsmanden over afvisningen af hans ansøgning om støtte fra Kommissionens GD VIII (Udvikling). Formålet med det påtænkte
In November 1997, Mr G., director of a non-governmental organisation offering medical care to seriously injured children from war and crisis areas, complained to the Ombudsman about the rejection of his application for funding by DG VIII (Development) of the Commission.
AFGØRELSER projekt var at integrere hjemløse børn i udvalgte nye familier, idet børnehjem ikke kunne give dem den familiestruktur, der var nødvendig for deres følelsesmæssige udvikling.
The project con­cerned was intended to integrate homeless children into selected new fam­ilies, given that orphanages would not give them the family structure nec­essary for their emotional development.
Projektet var udformet af AAD (Angolan Action for Development, Luanda) og godkendt af det relevante angolanske ministerium.
The project had been conceived by AAD (Angolan Action for Development, Luanda) and approved by the rele­vant Angolan Ministry.
Men på grund af mangel på tilstrækkelige økonomiske ressourcer indsendte klageren den 30. august 1996 en ansøgning til GD VIII om støtte til projektet under budgetposten B7-7020 (Fremme af menneskerettigheder og demokrati i udviklingslandene).
However, given the absence of adequate financial resources, the complainant made on 30 August 1996 an application to DG VIM for funding the project under the budget heading B77020 (Promotion of human rights and democracy in the developing countries).
Den 3. december 1996 blev klageren underrettet om, at hans ansøgning var blevet afvist på grund af manglende ressourcer på budgetposten B77020, og fordi hans projekt ikke passede nøjagtigt ind i kriterierne for bud getposten. GD VIII meddelte ligeledes klageren, at man tvivlede på, at de nye familier, der allerede da stod overfor enorme daglige problemer, kunne være ideelle hjem for disse sårbare børn.
On 3 December 1996, the complainant was informed that his application had been rejected because of the limited resources of the budget line B77020 and because his project did not fit exactly into the criteria of the bud­get line.
Klageren, der fandt beslutningen uklar og ikke tilstrækkeligt begrundet, skrev fire gange til Kommissionen mellem december 1996 og september 1997 og bad om yderligere forklaringer på afslaget på hans ansøgning med henblik på eventuelt at omformulere projektets koncept.
Finding the rejection decision unclear and not sufficiently motivated, the complainant wrote four times between December 1996 and September 1997 to the Commission asking for more explanations for the rejection of his application, in order to eventually reformulate the concept of the project.
Han modtog ikke noget svar før november 1997, da Kommissionen efter en telefonisk forespørgsel fra Ombudsmandens kontor besvarede hans korrespondance.
He received no reply until November 1997 when, further to a telephone request from the Ombudsman's office, the Commission answered his cor­respondence.
Klageren var imidlertid stadig utilfreds med begrundelsen for beslutningen om afslag, som han betragtede som selvmodsigende, ikke objektiv og ikke tilstrækkeligt klar.
However, the complainant was still unsatisfied with the rea­soning of the rejection decision, which he considered contradictory, not objective and not clear enough.
Han klagede derfor til Ombudsmanden, idet han hævdede, at Kommissionen
He therefore complained to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had failed
(i) ikke havde givet tilstrækkelig begrundelse for beslutningen om afslag
(i) to give him adequate reasons for the rejection decision, and
(ii) gennem adskillige måneder ikke havde svaret på hans korrespondance. dance.
(ii) to reply during several months to his correspondence.
Klagen blev indsendt til Kommissionen.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.
Med hensyn til begrundelsen for beslutningen om afslag bemærkede Kommissionen, at det med de begrænsede økonomiske midler (ECU 17 millioner til brug i omkring 100 lande) var nødvendigt at opretholde en streng procedure, og at de udvalgte projekter var de, der sandsynligvis ville have den størst mulige indvirkning på at styrke demokratiet, retssikkerheden og respekten for menneskerettighederne i landet.
As regards the reason­ing of the rejection decision, the Commission observed that, given the lim­ited financial resources (ECU 17 million for use in around 100 countries), a strict selection procedure was necessary, and that the projects selected were those which were likely to have the maximum impact on strengthen­ing democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country.
Kommissionen erklærede endvidere, at det pågældende projekt var blevet behandlet under samme procedure og på samme objektive måde som de øvrige.
The Commission further stated that the present project was dealt with under the same procedure and in the same objective manner as the oth-
Med hensyn til ikke at have besvaret klagerens korrespondance angående yderligere forklaringer erklærede Kommissionen, at ventetiderne for at svare klageren (3 uger for brevet af 8. april 1997 og 8 uger for brevet af 12. november 1997) var rimelige i forhold til arbejdsbyrden og de menneske^ lige ressourcer, der var til rådighed.
With regard to the failure to reply to the complainant's correspondence ask ing for explanations, the Commission stated that the periods for answering to the complainant (3 weeks for the letter of 8 April 1997 and 8 weeks for the letter of 12 November 1997) were reasonable considering the workload and the human resources available.
Klageren bemærkede, at Kommissionen så bort fra den angolanske regerings godkendelse af projektet.
The complainant observed that the Commission ignored the approval of the project by the Angolan government.
Mere specielt angående begrundelsen for beslutningen om afslaget fastslog klageren, at Kommissionen aldrig havde underrettet ham om de nøjagtige udvælgelseskriterier, og hvorfor hans projekt ikke opfyldte disse kriterier.
As regards more particularly the reasoning of the rejection decision, the complainant stated that the Commission never informed him of the exact selection criteria and why his project did not fulfil those criteria.
Derfor bad klageren ombudsmanden om at fortsætte sine undersøgelser.
Therefore the complainant asked the Ombudsman to continue his investigation.
Med hensyn til den manglende besvarelse bemærkede klageren, at Kommissionens svar af 8. april 1997 reelt var et svar på brevet af 6. marts 1997, der allerede var en erindringsskrivelse af brevet af 27. december 1996.
As regards the failure to reply, the complainant observed that the Commission's reply of 8 April 1997 was in fact an answer to the letter of 6 March 1997 which was already a reminder of the letter of 27 December 1996.
Derfor var Kommissionens bemærkning, at den havde svaret i løbet af 3 uger ikke korrekt.
Therefore the observation of the Commission that it replied within 3 weeks was not correct.
Efter nøje at have overvejet Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger så det ud til, at der var behov for yderligere undersøgelser, mere nøjagtigt for at afgøre hvilke udvælgelseskriterier for at modtage støtte under budgetpost B77020, klageren ikke havde opfyldt.
After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion and the com plainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary, more particularly in order to determine which selection criteria for the fund ing under budget heading B77020 had not been fulfilled by the com plainant.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at klageren var blevet informeret om udvælgelseskriterierne (indvirkning på at styrke demokratiet, retssikkerheden og respekten for menneskerettighederne i landet), at han havde modtaget de generelle betingelser for budgetpost B77020, og at han havde udfyldt det standardskema, der var vedlagt disse.
The Commission observed that the complainant had been informed of the selection criteria (impact on strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in the country), having received the general con ditions governing the budget heading B77020 and having completed the standard form attached to them.
Kommissionen erklærede imidlertid, at det i betragtning af det store antal ansøgninger om støtte, man modtog (mere end 300 om året, hvoraf kun 20% kunne imødekommes), var svært at give en detaljeret forklaring på hvert enkelt afslag.
The Commission stated however that, in view of the large number of fund ing applications received (over 300 a year, only 20 % of which can be met), it was difficult to give a detailed explanation for each refusal.
I den foreliggende sag erklærede Kommissionen, at projektet overvejende var af social og medicinsk karakter (psykologisk pleje af børn) og derfor ikke faldt ind under budgetpostens direkte prioriteter.
In the present case, the Commission stated that the project was primarily socially and medically orientated (psychological care of children), and therefore not covered by the direct priorities of the budget line.
Beslutningen om afslag var derfor i højere grad baseret på projektets art.
The rejection decision was thus rather based on the nature of the project.
Klageren medgav, at han havde modtaget de generelle betingelser for bud getposten.
The complainant admitted having received the general conditions governing the budget heading.
Han bemærkede dog, at disse var meget bredt formulerede og åbne for fortolkningsmuligheder.
However, he observed that those conditions were
AFGØRELSER
DECISIONS very extensive and subject to interpretation.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Den påståede manglende begrundelse for beslutningen om afslag
THE DECISION 1 The alleged failure to state reasons for the rejection decision
Klageren påstod, at beslutningen af 3. december 1996, med hvilken Kommissionen afviste han ansøgning om støtte, var uklar og manglede tilstrækkelig begrundelse.
The complainant alleged that the decision of 3 December 1996 by which the Commission rejected his funding application was unclear and failed to state sufficient reasons.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at den havde informeret klageren om udvælgelseskriterierne, og at man kun kunne støtte projekter, der bidrog til den demokratiske udvikling af landet.
The Commission observed that it had informed the complainant about the selection criteria and that only projects which contributed to the democratic development of the country could be funded.
I sine yderligere kommentarer bemærkede Kommissionen, at det på grund af det store antal ansøgninger var svært at give en detaljeret forklaring på hvert enkelt afslag.
In its additional com­ments, the Commission stated that, in view of the large number of applications, it was difficult to give a detailed explanation for each refusal.
I henhold til Domstolens retspraksis skal begrundelsen fra den myndighed, der har gennemført en handling, formidles på en klar og utvetydig måde, så de pågældende personer på den ene side bliver klar over begrundelserne for handlingen, så de dermed bliver i stand til at forsvare deres rettigheder og, så Domstolen på den anden side bliver i stand til at udøve sin kontrollerende domsmyndighed.1 myndighed.1
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the reasoning followed by the authority which adopted the measure must be dis­closed in a clear and unequivocal fashion so as, on the one hand, to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the mea­sure and thereby enable them to defend their rights, and, on the other, to enable the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.1
Kommissionen afviste i sit brev af 3. december 1996 ansøgningen på følgende måde:
By its letter of 3 December 1996, the Commission rejected the application in the following terms :
Efter at have undersøgt Deres ovennævnte forslag sammen med vores delegation i Angola og den geografiske tjeneste med ansvar for Angola beklager jeg at måtte meddele Dem, at Kommissionen ikke har mulighed for at tage Deres projekt i betragtning.
After having examined your above-mentioned proposal together with our Delegation in Angola and with the geo­graphical service responsible for Angola I regret to inform you that the Commission is not able to take your project into con­sideration.
De begrænsede ressourcer til budgetpost B7-7020 i forhold til store antal lande og aktivitetsområder, der dækkes, kræver, at der opsættes prioriteter for at sikre en geografisk og tematisk balance ved tildeling af støtte.
In fact, the limited resources of budget line B77020 in relation with the numerous countries and fields of activities covered, impose the setting up of priorities, in order to ensure a geo­graphic and thematic balance in the allocation of subventions.
Selv om Deres projekt fokuserer på et meget aktuelt og vigtigt problem opfylder det ikke nøjagtigt kriterierne for budgetpost B7-2070.
Your project, although centred on a very opportune and impor­tant problem, does not fit exactly in the criteria of budget line B7-2070.
Hvad angår det pågældende projekts indhold tvivler vi end videre på, at de "nye familier", der allerede nu står over for enorme daglige problemer, kan være ideelle hjem for disse sårbare børn (...)".
Moreover, as far as the content of this project is concerned, we doubt that the "new families" which already face enormous daily problems could be the ideal home for these vulnerable children (...)".
I sit brev af 12. november 1997 svarede Kommissionen på følgende måde:
In the letter of 12 November 1997, the Commission replied in the following terms:
Sag T-166/94, Koyo Seiko versus Rådet [1995] Samling af Afgørelser 11-2129, stk. 103.
Case T-166/94, Koyo Seiko ν Council [1995] ECR 11-2129, paragraph 103.