natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dem e vil findes under »Årsberetninger« på Ombudsmandens websted. Der kan på samme måde for dem e dokument bestilles en papirudgave eller cd-rom fra Ombudsmandens kontor.
This will be accessible via the “Annual reports” section of the Ombudsman’s website.
SAGER, HVOR DERIKKEER KONSTATERET FEJLELLERFORSØMMELSER
CASES WHERE NO MALADMINISTRATION WASFOUND
UNDLADELSE AF AT HANDLE I FORBINDELSE MED EN KLAGE OVER FORSKELSBEHANDLING PÅ GRUND AF SEKSUEL ORIENTERING
FAILURE TO ACT ON A COMPLAINT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1687/2003/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1687/2003/JMA against the European Commission
Ifølge klagerne skyldtes afvisningen, at de er af samme køn, og udgør dermed forskelsbehandling på grund af seksuel orientering.
According to the complainants, the refusal was based on the fact that they are of the same gender and thus constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde behandlet deres klage korrekt, idet den havde fortolket de gældende fællesskabsbestemmelser urimeligt restriktivt.
The complainants alleged that the Commission had not handled their complaint properly, in that it had interpreted the applicable Community rules in an unduly restrictive manner.
De fastholdt, at de gældende fællesskabsbestemmelser fandt anvendelse på deres situation, og at Kommissionen burde have anlagt sag mod de spanske myndigheder på grund af overtrædelse af fællesskabslovgivningen, herunder især EF-traktatens artikel 13, som forbyder alle former for forskelsbehandling, herunder på grund af seksuel orientering, og artikel 20 og 21 i chartret om grundlæggende remigheder samt bestemmelserne i direktiv 2000/78 om ligebehandling med hensyn til beskæWigelse1 og direktiv 2000/43 om ligebehandling af alle uanset race eller etnisk oprindelse2.
They insisted that the Community rules in force were applicable to their situation and that the Commission should have instituted proceedings against the Spanish authorities for infringement of Community law, notably Article 13 of the EC Treaty which prohibits all discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the provisions of Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment1, and Directive 2000/43 concerning discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin2.
Rådets direktiv 2000/78/EF af 27. november 2000 om generelle rammebestemmelser om ligebehandling med hensyn til beskæWigelse og erhverv, EFT L 303 af 2.12.2000, s. 16.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2002 L 303, p. 16.
Rådets direktiv 2000/43/EF af 29. juni 2000 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af alle uanset race eller etnisk oprindelse, EFT L 180 af 19.7.2000, s. 22.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2002 L 180, p. 22.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at det problem, som klagerne havde oplevet, lå uden for rammerne af fællesskabslovgivningen, og foreslog, at de skulle henvende sig til de nationale myndigheder eller Den Europæiske Menneskeremighedsdomstol. ighedsdomstol.
The Commission argued that the problem encountered by the complainants fell beyond the scope of Community law and suggested that they seek redress at the national level or before the European Court of Human Rights.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at princippet om ikke-forskelsbehandling, herunder på grund af seksuel orientering, udgør et grundlæggende princip i fællesskabslovgivningen, som er knæsat både i traktaten og i chartret om grundlæggende remigheder.
The Ombudsman noted that the principle of non-discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law, enshrined both in the Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
I henhold til artikel 13 i EF-traktaten kan Rådet t r æ T e hensigtsmæssige foranstaltninger til at bekæmpe forskelsbehandling på grund af seksuel orientering, men kun inden for rammerne af de beføjelser, som traktaten tillægger Fællesskabet.
Article 13 of the EC Treaty empowers the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation but only within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty.
Samtidig gælder artikel 20 og 21 i chartret om grundlæggende remigheder kun for medlemsstaterne, når de gennemfører EU-lovgivningen.
Similarly,Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are addressed to Member States only when they are implementing Union law.
Hvad angår de enkelte direktiver, som omhandler princippet om ikke-forskelsbehandling, påpegede Ombudsmanden, at der indtil videre kun er én retsakt, nemlig direktiv 2000/78, som omhandler forskelsbehandling på grund af seksuel orientering, men at denne retsakt kun gælder i sager om beskæWigelse.
As regards the individual directives addressing the principle of non-discrimination, the Ombudsman pointed out that, to date, only one legal instrument, Directive 2000/78, addresses discrimination based on grounds of sexual orientation but that this legal instrument only applies to mamers pertaining to employment.
Ombudsmanden gennemgik endvidere de eksisterende fællesskabsdirektiver om tredjelandsstatsborgeres indrejse på Unionens territorium med henblik på at slume sig til en statsborger eller bosiddende i EU, nemlig direktiv 2003/86 om familiesammenføring3 og direktiv 2004/38 om unionsborgeres ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit4.
The Ombudsman also reviewed the existing Community directives concerning the entry of a third-country national into the territory of the Union, in order to join a Union citizen or resident, namely Directive 2003/86, on the right to family reunification3 and Directive 2004/38 on the right to free movement of EU citizens4.
Anvendelsesområdet for disse direktiver er imidlertid begrænset, e W ersom de kun gælder for henholdsvis tredjelandsstatsborgere, der har lovligt ophold på medlemsstaternes område, og unionsborgere, der rejser til eller tager ophold i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor vedkommende er statsborger.
The scope of these directives, however, is limited, since they only apply, respectively, to third-country nationals who already reside lawfully in the territory of the Member States and to Union citizens who have moved to, or resided in, a Member State other than their state of origin.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at Kommissionens begrundelse for at afvise klagen over de spanske myndigheder syntes at være rimelig, og at der ikke syntes at foreligge et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the justification given by the Commission for rejecting the complaint against the Spanish authorities appeared to be reasonable and that there appeared to be no maladministration.
OPSIGELSE AF EN KONTRAKT
TERMINATION OF A CONTRACT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2191/2003/TN (fortrolig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2191/2003/TN (Confidential) against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde gældende, at han e W er aflevering af et politisk oplæg som del af sit arbejde blev udsat for krænkelser og trusler og derfor var tvunget til at sige op.
The complainant argued that, following the submission of a policy paper as part of his work, he became subject to insults and threats and was therefore forced to resign.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde gjort noget for at forhindre denne situation.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had allowed this situation to occur.
Han nedlagde påstand om, at han skulle have udbetalt sin løn indtil den dato, hvor hans kontrakt oprindeligt udløb.
He claimed that he should receive payment of his salary until the date foreseen in his original contract.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at klageren ved at oTentliggøre dem e politiske oplæg havde overtrådt sin fortrolighedsforpligtelse og var gået ud over målene og ansvarsområderne i kontrakten.
The Commission argued that, by making the policy paper public, the complainant had breached his obligation of confidentiality and had gone beyond his contractual objectives and responsibilities.
Kommissionen kunne derfor ikke gøres ansvarlig for krænkelserne og truslerne.
The Commission could therefore not be held responsible for the insults and threats.
Ombudsmanden forstod det sådan, at Kommissionen mente, at e W ersom klageren havde overtrådt sine kontraktlige forpligtelser og derfor selv var skyld i problemerne, var den ikke forpligtet til at hjælpe ham.
The Ombudsman understood the Commission to argue that, since the complainant had breached his contractual obligations and was therefore the author of his own misfortune, it was not obliged to assist him.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede foreløbigt, at der forelå et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, idet Kommissionen havde undladt at hjælpe klageren i henhold til de almindelige betingelser for de enkelte eksperters kontrakter.
The Ombudsman made a provisional finding of maladministration on the basis that the Commission had failed to assist the complainant in accordance with the General Conditions governing individual experts’ contracts.
Han fremsame endvidere et forslag til en mindelig løsning.
He also made a proposal for a friendly solution.
I sit svar på forslaget anerkendte Kommissionen, at den havde en forpligtelse til at hjælpe klageren i henhold til de almindelige betingelser for de enkelte eksperters kontrakter, og forklarede, hvordan den e W er sin mening havde ydet denne hjælp.
In reply to the proposal, the Commission recognised that it had an obligation to provide assistance to the complainant under the General Conditions governing individual experts’ contracts and explained in what way it considered itself to have provided such assistance.
Rådets direktiv 2003/86/EF af 22. september 2003 om ret til familiesammenføring, EUT L 251 af 3.10.2003, s. 12.
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/38/EF af 29. april 2004 om unionsborgeres og deres familiemedlemmers ret til at færdes og opholde sig frit på medlemsstaternes område, om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 1612/68 og om ophævelse af direktiv 64/221/EØF, 68/360/EØF, 72/194/EØF, 73/148/EØF, 75/34/EØF, 75/35/EØF, 90/364/EØF, 90/365/EØF og 93/96/EØF (EØS-relevant tekst), EUT L 158 af 30.4.2004, s. 77.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.
På grundlag af yderligere oplysninger fra Kommissionen fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen syntes at have t r u T et passende foranstaltninger til at hjælpe klageren.
On the basis of the further information provided by the Commission, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate action to assist the complainant.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede derfor ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, men fandt det dog nymigt at fremsæme en yderligere bemærkning, hvori han anførte, at det ville have bidraget til at skabe et bedre forhold mellem Kommissionen og klageren, hvis Kommissionen i sin første udtalelse om klagen havde forklaret, hvad den havde gjort for at hjælpe klageren, i stedet for at give det indtryk, at den primært forsøgte at bevise, at klageren selv var skyld i problemerne.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission but considered it useful to make a further remark in which he stated that it would have been conducive to bemer relations between the Commission and the complainant if the Commission’s first opinion on the complaint had explained what the Commission had, in fact, done to help the complainant in the di U cult situation in which he found himself, rather than giving the impression that the Commission was mainly concerned to show that the complainant was the author of his own misfortune.
Kommissionen undskyldte e W erfølgende for, at den i sin første udtalelse gav et ufuldstændigt indtryk af de foranstaltninger, den havde t r u T et for at hjælpe klageren, og lovede at tage Ombudsmandens bemærkning til e W erretning.
The Commission subsequently apologised for the fact that its first opinion gave an incomplete impression of the actions taken to assist the complainant and it promised to take note of the remark for the future.
ANVENDELSE AF ØKONOMISK BISTAND FRA EU
USE OF EU FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 274/2004/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 274/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Klagen omhandlede Kommissionens undladelse af at underreme klageren om sin behandling af en klage over en beslutning fra de regionale myndigheder i Madrid om at reducere et tilskud til klageren til tilremelæggelse af uddannelseskurser for medarbejdere.
The complaint concerned the Commission’s failure to inform the complainant about its handling of a complaint concerning the decision of the regional authorities of Madrid to reduce the level of a grant awarded to the complainant for the organisation of training courses for employees.
Tilskuddet var finansieret gennem Den Europæiske Socialfond.
The grant was financed through the European Social Fund.
Reduktionen af en del af tilskuddet skyldtes, at nogle deltagere i uddannelseskurserne ikke var spanske statsborgere.
The reduction of part of the funding was based on the fact that some participants in the training courses were not Spanish nationals.
Klageren mente, at dem e var forskelsbehandling.
The complainant considered this to be discriminatory.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen i flere måneder e W er indgivelsen af klagen havde undladt at oplyse ham om sin behandling af klagen.
The complainant alleged that, several months a W er having complained to the Commission, it had failed to provide him with any information on the handling of his case.
Kommissionen beklagede, at dens første vurdering af sagen ikke var blevet fremsendt til klageren.
The Commission regremed that its first assessment of the case had not been forwarded to the complainant.
I en anden og mere detaljeret vurdering havde Kommissionen accepteret, at en del af reduktionen af tilskudsbeløbet skyldtes, at to af deltagerne ikke var spanske statsborgere.
In a second and more detailed assessment, the Commission had accepted that part of the reduction in the amount of the grant was based on the fact that two students were not Spanish nationals.
Kommissionen havde derfor fremsat en henstilling til de ansvarlige spanske myndigheder om at tilbagebetale det relevante beløb til klageren og _erne alle henvisninger til nationalitet fra fremtidige programmer.
The Commission had therefore made a recommendation to the responsible Spanish authorities to repay the relevant sum to the complainant and to exclude any reference to nationality from future programmes.
Ombudsmanden fandt det ikke nødvendigt at foretage yderligere undersøgelser i lyset af, at Kommissionen havde indvilliget i at fremsende de oplysninger, som klageren havde bedt om, og havde anerkendt og undskyldt for, at den ikke havde kontaktet klageren på et tidligere tidspunkt.
The Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to pursue any further inquiries, given that the Commission had agreed to provide the information requested by the complainant and had acknowledged and apologised for its failure to contact the complainant earlier.
EWersom Kommissionen ikke havde nævnt nogen kriterier for den procedure, som dens tjenestegrene bør følge i behandlingen af klager over anvendelsen af økonomisk bistand fra EU, fandt Ombudsmanden det hensigtsmæssigt at fremsæme en yderligere bemærkning.
However, since the Commission had not mentioned any criteria seming out the procedure which its services ought to follow to deal with complaints concerning the use of EU financial assistance, the Ombudsman considered it useful to make a further remark.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen for at forbedre eTektiviteten og gennemsigtigheden i sine forbindelser med borgerne kunne overveje at udarbejde og oTentliggøre procedurer for modtagelse og behandling af klager over anvendelsen af økonomisk bistand fra EU på linje med procedurerne i sin meddelelse fra 2002 til Europa-Parlamentet og Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsremen5. en5.
The Ombudsman noted that, with a view to improving the eUciency and transparency of its relationship with citizens, the Commission could consider establishing and publicising procedures for receiving and handling complaints concerning the use of EU financial assistance, analogous to those applicable in its 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law5.
ARTIKEL 226-KLAGE VEDRØRENDE FØDEVARELOVGIVNINGEN
ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT RELATING TO FOOD LAW
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 295/2004/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 295/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Klageren indgav en klage til Kommissionen med påstand om, at en række oTentlige myndigheder og private virksomheder var ansvarlige for en dårlig fødevaresikkerhed i Spanien.
The complainant lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging that a number of public authorities and private enterprises were responsible for a lack of food safety in Spain.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at Kommissionens beslutning om at afslume behandlingen af hans klage var vilkårlig.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission’s decision to close his complaint was arbitrary.
Han klagede endvidere over, at det havde taget lang tid at behandle hans sag, at han ikke havde modtaget oplysninger, samt at institutionen havde foretaget en forkert juridisk fortolkning af den gældende EU-lovgivning.
He also complained about the long delay in the handling of his case, the lack of information received, and the institution’s flawed legal interpretation of the applicable EU legislation.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at klagen var blevet behandlet inden for den normale frist, og endvidere at de oplysninger, der var fremsendt med klagen, ikke var tilstrækkelige til, at dens tjenestegrene klart kunne identificere klagens genstand.
The Commission argued that the complaint had been assessed within the normal time limit and furthermore that the information included with the complaint did not allow its services to clearly identify its object.
Hvad angår påstanden om de spanske myndigheders undladelse af at informere forbrugerne om risici, bemærkede Kommissionen, at bestemmelserne i forordningen vedrørende oplysning af forbrugerne endnu ikke fandt anvendelse, idet der er fastlagt en overgangsperiode indtil den 1. januar 2007.
As regards the alleged failure by the Spanish authorities to inform consumers of risks, the Commission noted that the provisions of the Regulation concerning information to consumers were not yet applicable, since Member States enjoy a transitional period until 1 January 2007.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at de procedurer, som Kommissionen skal følge i sin behandling af klager, er anført i dens meddelelse fra 2002 til Europa-Parlamentet og Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsremen7 en7
The Ombudsman noted that the procedures to be followed by the Commission in its handling of complaints are set out in its 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European
Han vurderede derfor, hvorvidt klagerens specifikke påstande var beremigede i lyset af bestemmelserne i denne meddelelse.
He therefore assessed whether the specific allegations made by the complainant had any foundation in the light of the provisions of that Communication.
Hvad angår den tid, det tog at behandle sagen, bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at klageren havde indgivet sin klage til Kommissionen i januar 2003, og at Kommissionen e W er afslutningen af sin undersøgelse i november 2003 havde underremet ham om sit forslag om at afslume sagen.
As regards the time taken to handle the case, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had submimed his complaint to the Commission in January 2003 and that, having completed its inquiry, the Commission informed him in November 2003 of its proposal to close the case.
Derfor konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen havde gennemført sin undersøgelse af klagen inden for det år, der kræves i dens egen meddelelse.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had completed its examination of the complaint within the one-year rule set out in its own Communication.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede endvidere, at klageren i flere meddelelser skriWlig t var blevet informeret om alle de skridt, Kommissionen havde taget i forbindelse med hans klage, i overensstemmelse med kriterierne i meddelelsen.
The Ombudsman also concluded that the complainant had, through several communications, been informed in writing of all the steps taken by the Commission in relation to his complaint, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Communication.
Endelig konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at det syntes rimeligt for Kommissionen at påberåbe sig artikel 4, stk. 3, i forordning 178/2002, hvori det kræves, at »[d]e eksisterende principper og procedurer i fødevarelovgivningen tilpasses hurtigst muligt og senest den 1. januar 2007 [...]«.
Finally, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s reliance on Article 4(3) of Regulation 178/2002, which requires that “[e]xisting food law principles and procedures shall be adapted as soon as possible and by 1 January 2007 at the latest [...]” appeared to be reasonable.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at Kommissionen havde handlet i overensstemmelse med sine retlige beføjelser, da den beslumede at afslume sagen e W er at have konkluderet, at der ikke var nogen begrundelse for at indlede en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Spanien på grundlag af oplysningerne i klagen.
The Ombudsman therefore took the view that the Commission acted within its legal authority when it decided to close the case a W er having considered that, on the basis of the information contained in the complaint, there were no grounds to initiate infringement proceedings against Spain.
PÅSTAND OM FORSKELSBEHANDLING I JOBANNONCER
ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY JOB ADVERTISEMENTS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 338/2004/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 338/2004/OV against the European Commission
Den europæiske esperanto-sammenslutning (European Esperanto Union) indgav en klage over Kommissionen med påstand om sproglig forskelsbehandling i europæiske organisationer, som f i finansieres af Kommissionen, og i virksomheder med kontrakter med Kommissionen. Ombudsmanden har allerede behandlet en klage fra esperanto-verdensforbundet (World Esperanto Association) (659/2002/IP) vedrørende samme anliggende.
The European Esperanto Union made a complaint against the Commission concerning alleged linguistic discrimination by European organisations that are financed by the Commission and by companies that have contracts with the Commission.
I den foreliggende klage påpegede den europæiske esperanto-sammenslutning, at forskellige organisationer og virksomheder fortsat udsendte jobannoncer med krav om »engelsk som modersmål« eller »modersmålskompetence«, og at Kommissionen ikke havde taget retlige skridt.
In the present complaint, the European Esperanto Union pointed out that various organisations and companies continued to publish job announcements requiring “English mother tongue” or an “English native speaker” and that the Commission had not taken legal action. The complainant