natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Desuden gik hans klage på formatet og indholdet af identifi kationsdokumenter for heste (»hestepas«).
Furthermore, his complaint concerned the format and content of identification documents for horses (“horse passports”).
Klageren gjorde i det væsentlige gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at besvare hans henvendelser om en juridisk afklaring korrekt.
The complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his requests for legal clarification. cation.
Kommissionen fremførte i sin udtalelse, at den på grundlag af klagerens anbringender havde været i løbende kontakt med de kompetente østrigske myndigheder og havde givet dem anvisninger på den korrekte fortolkning af fællesskabsretten.
In its opinion, the Commission submi4 ed that, on the basis of the complainant’s submissions, it had been in constant contact with the competent Austrian authorities and had given them indications as to the correct interpretation of Community law.
Den havde sideløbende hermed ændret EU’s regler om hestepas.
In parallel, it had amended EU rules on horse passports.
Med hensyn til det generelle spørgsmål om anvendelsen af fællesskabsretten for organisationer, der fører stambøger, og som allerede havde været omfattet af en anmodning om en præjudiciel afgørelse ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol, havde den modtaget en overtrædelsesklage, som igen havde foranlediget den til at tage kontakt til de østrigske myndigheder.
As regards the general question of the application of Community law concerning organisations that maintain stud-books, which had already been the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice, it had received an infringement complaint, in the framework of which it had again contacted the Austrian authorities.
Derudover var Kommissionen i færd med at undersøge en ny klage fra klageren, hvori denne havde rejst mistanke om bedrageri i forbindelse med brugen af hestepas i Vorarlberg.
In addition, it was investigating a new complaint from the complainant, in which he had raised suspicions of fraud in relation to the use of horse passports in Vorarlberg.
Kommissionen gav efterfølgende en detaljeret redegørelse for de to klageprocedurer, der vedrørte klagerens påstande, som begge var ved at blive undersøgt.
Thereupon, the Commission gave a detailed overview of two complaint procedures related to the complainant’s concerns, both of which were still under investigation.
Den anførte, at de fleste af problemerne var blevet løst.
It stated that most of the problems had been resolved.
Alle problemer, der ikke var blevet løst, og som vedrørte fællesskabslovgivningen, var fortsat ved at blive undersøgt.
All problems that had not been resolved and that were related to Community law were still being investigated.
I sine bemærkninger og yderligere kontakter med Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene berettede klageren, at der var blevet opnået visse positive resultater, navnlig i relation til hestepassene.
In his observations and further contacts with the Ombudsman’s services, the complainant reported that certain positive results had been achieved, particularly in relation to the horse passports.
Han tilføjede, at han var fuldt tilfreds med den måde, hans klage var blevet håndteret på i EU-regi, både af Kommissionen og af Ombudsmanden, og anførte, at han var optimistisk med hensyn til, at Kommissionens fortsatte indsats ville føre til en løsning af de resterende problemer.
He added that he was entirely satisfied with the way his complaint had been handled at the EU level, both by the Commission and by the Ombudsman, and stated that he was optimistic that the Commission’s continued activity would lead to the resolution of the remaining problems.
Ombudsmanden takkede for de detaljerede redegørelser, som Kommissionen var kommet med i forbindelse med sin undersøgelse, og udtrykte tillid til, at den ville gøre sit yderste for at bidrage til løsningen af de resterende problemer.
The Ombudsman welcomed the detailed explanations the Commission had provided in the framework of his inquiry and expressed his confidence that it would do its best in order to contribute to the resolution of the remaining problems.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede, at Kommissionen syntes at have truffet tiltag til at få sagen bragt i orden og derved havde stillet klageren tilfreds.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission appeared to have taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Tvist vedrørende udformning af en voldgift saft ale
Dispute concerning formulation of an arbitration agreement
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1126/2006/SAB (fortrolig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1126/2006/SAB (Confidential) against the European Commission
Klageren arbejdede for en af Kommissionens delegationer i et tredjeland og var ansat på grundlag af en ALAT-kontrakt (lokalt ansat teknisk assistent).
The complainant was working for a Commission Delegation in a third country, on the basis of an ALAT (Administrative and Technical Local Sta�) contract.
Klagen vedrørte Kommissionens delvise afslag på at ændre ordlyden i sit udkast til den aftale, den havde tilbudt klageren, vedrørende mandatet for den voldgiftsinstans, som skulle afgøre om klageren havde ret til at modtage uddannelsestillæg for sine børn.
The complaint concerned the Commission’s refusal to change, in part, the wording of a draagreement it had proposed to the complainant concerning the mandate of the arbitration body which would decide on the complainant’s entitlement to an education allowance for his children.
Det relevante afsnit i udkastet til aftale vedrørte et tillæg for klagerens »to børn, som går i børnehave«.
The relevant part of the proposed agreement referred to an allowance for the complainant’s “two children who a4 end a kindergarten”.
Ifølge klageren var denne ordlyd misvisende, fordi hans børn gik i »maternelle« i den franske skole, som eft er hans mening var en fuldgyldig uddannelsesinstitution.
According to the complainant, this wording was misleading, given that his children a 4 ended the “maternelle” section of the French school, which was, in his opinion, a fully-fledged edged educational establishment.
Han anførte, at et udtryk som »kindergarten« i voldgift saft alen ville foregribe sagen i hans tilfælde.
He argued that to include an expression such as “kindergarten” in the arbitration agreement would pre-empt the issue in his case.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at der var tilstrækkelig grund til at indlede en undersøgelse af sagen og spurgte udtrykkeligt Kommissionen i sin indledende skrivelse, om den var rede til at acceptere hans forslag til en specifik alternativ formulering af det afgørende punkt i udkastet til voldgift saft ale.
The Ombudsman found su cient grounds for opening an inquiry into the ma4 er and, in his opening le4 er to the Commission, expressly asked it whether it was willing to accept his proposal for a specific alternative formulation of the crucial point of the dra arbitration agreement.
Kommissionen foreslog i sin udtalelse en ordlyd til voldgift saft alen, som var baseret på ombudsmandens forslag og også afhjalp Kommissionens bekymringer vedrørende den klare identifi kation af tvistens genstand.
In its opinion, the Commission proposed a wording for the arbitration agreement which, building upon the Ombudsman’s proposal, also met the Commission’s concerns in relation to the clear identification of the issue in dispute.
Klageren accepterede dette endelige forslag og bad Ombudsmanden afslutte sagen.
The complainant accepted this final proposal and asked the Ombudsman to close the case.
Ombudsmanden fandt således, at Kommissionen hermed havde afgjort sagen.
The Ombudsman, thus, considered that the Commission had se4 led the ma4 er.
Eft er sagens afslutning meddelte klageren Ombudsmanden, at voldgiftsinstansen havde afgjort sagen til hans fordel.
A er the closure of the case, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the arbitrators had ruled in his favour.
Han takkede Ombudsmanden for hans effektive indgreb og bemærkede, at dette havde muliggjort en retfærdig behandling i voldgiftsinstansen. sinstansen.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his e cient intervention, noting that it had allowed the arbitration to proceed in a fair way.
Uretmæssigt afslag på bud om oversættelsestjenester elsestjenester
Wrongful rejection of a translation tender
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2633/2006/WP over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2633/2006/WP against the European Commission
En oversætter bosiddende i Tyskland indsendte et bud som svar på et udbud fra Kommissionen vedrørende oversættelsesydelser til bulgarsk.
A translator living in Germany submi4 ed a bid in reply to an invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian, launched by the Commission.
Buddet blev afvist, fordi den sproglige kvalitet ifølge Kommissionen ikke havde opnået den påkrævede minimumkarakter på 5/10. Klageren mente imidlertid, at de fleste af de ord og vendinger, som var blevet markeret som værende ukorrekte i den bulgarske tekst, faktisk var korrekte.
The bid was rejected because, according
I sin udtalelse angav Kommissionen, at den i forlængelse af klagerens klage til ombudsmanden havde valgt at genindkalde det interinstitutionelle evalueringsudvalg for at foretage en fornyet gennemgang af udbuddet og undgå en eventuel uretfærdig behandling.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that, further to the complainant’s complaint to the Ombudsman, it had decided to convene the interinstitutional evaluation commi4 ee once again in order to reexamine the tender and to avoid any possible unfair treatment.
Evalueringsudvalget besluttede, bistået af yderligere to bulgarske sprogkyndige, at godtage to af klagerens argumenter.
The evaluation commi4 ee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant’s arguments.
Det endelige antal fejl indeholdt i buddet var derfor blevet reduceret til fem, således at det kunne indgå i resten af udvælgelsesproceduren.
The final number of errors contained in the bid had therefore been reduced to five, so that the tender had been admi4 ed to the rest of the selection procedure.
Buddet blev endeligt godtaget med en kvalitetskarakter på 12/20.
The bid had finally been accepted with a quality mark of 12/20.
Kommissionen undskyldte ulejligheden over for klageren.
The Commission apologised to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Kommissionen informerede endvidere ombudsmanden om, at klageren nu var blevet tilbud en rammekontrakt.
The Commission furthermore informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been o � ered a framework contract.
Klageren meddelte ombudsmandens kontor, at han var fuldt ud tilfreds med den måde, Kommissionen havde løst hans problem på.
The complainant told the Ombudsman’s services that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem.
Han udtalte ligeledes, at han var imponeret over den korte tid, det havde taget at løse sagen, og takkede ombudsmanden for hans indgriben.
He also stated that he was impressed by the short period of time it had taken to se4 le the ma4 er and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
Ombudsmanden glædede sig over, at Kommissionen hurtigt havde behandlet og løst det problem, der var blevet rejst af klageren, og at den havde undskyldt over for klageren.
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission had rapidly addressed and resolved the problem raised by the complainant and that it had apologised to him.
Han konkluderede, at Kommissionen havde gjort en indsats for at løse sagen og derved stillet klageren tilfreds.
He concluded that the Commission had taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Manglende ordentlig håndtering af betaling i henhold til en kontrakt
Failure properly to handle payment due under a contract
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3495/2006/GG (fortrolig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3495/2006/GG (Confidential) against the European Commission
Klageren, et tysk universitet, deltog i et projekt under Erasmus-programmet.
The complainant, a German university, took part in a project under the Erasmus Programme.
Europa-Kommissionen havde givet tilsagn om at yde et makismalt støttebeløb på 45 156 EUR.
The European Commission agreed to provide a maximum grant of EUR 45 156.
En forudbetaling på 40 640 EUR blev foretaget.
An advance payment of EUR 40 640 was made.
Klagerens samlede udgifter androg i alt 42 833 EUR. Et ‘kontor for faglig bistand’ (KFB) blev betroet håndteringen af projektet.
At the end, the complainant’s total expenditure amounted to EUR 42 833.
I marts 2002 meddelte KFB klageren, at to udgiftsposter, som beløb sig til 5 395 EUR og 4 111 EUR, ikke ansås for at være støtt eberett igede.
In March 2002, the TAO informed the complainant that two items of expenditure amounting to EUR 5 395 and EUR 4 111 were not considered eligible.
KFB bemærkede, at det endelige støttebeløb udgjorde 33 327 EUR.
The TAO noted that the final grant amounted to EUR 33 327.
Klageren accepterede fratrækningen af beløbet på 5 395 EUR og returnerede dette beløb til KFB.
The complainant accepted the deduction of the amount of EUR 5 395 and returned this amount to the TAO.
Eft er klagernes indvendinger accepterede Kommissionen dog, at beløbet på 4 111 EUR var støtt eberett iget.
However, following the complainant’s objections, the Commission accepted that the amount of EUR 4 111 was eligible.
Kommissionen meddelte klageren, at det beløb, som skulle refunderes, således udgjorde 3 202 EUR.
The Commission informed the complainant that the sum to be reimbursed thus amounted to EUR 3 202.
Ifølge klageren var denne beregning ikke korrekt.
According to the complainant, this calculation was erroneous.
Kommissionen havde tilsyneladende lagt de 4 111 EUR oven i beløbet på 33 327 EUR, som var blevet godkendt, og havde fratrukket dette beløb (på 37 438 EUR) fra forskuddet på 40 640 EUR, som allerede var frigjort.
It appeared that the Commission had added the amount of EUR 4 111 to the amount of EUR 33 327 that had already been accepted and then deducted this sum (of EUR 37 438) from the advance of EUR 40 640 that had already been released.
Kommissionen havde således ikke taget hensyn til, at klageren allerede havde returneret et beløb på 5 395 EUR.
The Commission had thus omi4 ed to take into account the fact that the complainant had already returned an amount of EUR 5 395.
I marts 2004 meddelte klageren Kommissionen, at den mente, at der var sket en fejl, og at Kommissionen derfor skyldte klageren et beløb på 2 193 EUR (dvs. forskellen mellem Kommissionens krav på 3 202 EUR og det allerede refunderede beløb på 5 395 EUR).
In March 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that it considered that an error had occurred and that the Commission in e� ect owed it an amount of EUR 2 193 (i.e., the di� erence between the Commission’s claim over EUR 3 202 and the amount already reimbursed of EUR 5 395).
Kommissionen meddelte imidlertid i maj 2004 klageren, at da beløbet på 3 202 EUR ikke var blevet refunderet, ville dette blive modregnet andre krav, som klageren havde fremsendt til Kommissionen.
However, in May 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that, given that the sum of EUR 3 202 had not been reimbursed, it would be set o� against other claims that the complainant had against the Commission.
Klagerens yderligere bestræbelser på at overbevise Kommissionen om, at der var sket en fejl, mislykkedes.
The complainant’s further e� orts to convince the Commission of the fact that a mistake had occurred were unsuccessful.
Klageren gjorde navnlig gældende i sin klage til Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen ikke havde håndteret sagen ordentligt.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed to handle the ma4 er properly.
Klageren fremførte, at Kommissionen skulle refundere et beløb på 5 395 EUR med tillæg af renter på et beløb af 44,47 EUR.
It claimed that the Commission should reimburse an amount of EUR 5 395, as well as interest amounting to EUR 44.47.
I sin udtalelse understregede Kommissionen, at den eft er at have foretaget en undersøgelse og i lyset af den dokumentation, som klageren havde fremsendt, hurtigt havde betalt beløbet på 5 393 EUR tilbage til klageren.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that, a er having carried out an examination and in view of the evidence submi4 ed by the complainant, it had hastened to pay back the amount of EUR 5 395 to the complainant.
Kommissionen bemærkede desuden, at betalingen var debiteret dennes konto den 20. december 2006.
It went on to state that this payment had been debited to its account on 20 December 2006.
Kommissionen refunderede desuden rentebeløbet til klageren.
The Commission also took the initiative of reimbursing the interest to the complainant.
Klageren bekræftede i sine bemærkninger, at det fulde beløb var blevet refunderet, og at man var tilfreds med sagens afgørelse.
In its observations, the complainant confirmed that the relevant amount had been reimbursed in its entirety and that it was satisfied with the outcome of this case.
Klageren takkede Ombudsmanden for hjælpen i denne sag.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance in this case.
Ombudsmanden glædede sig over, at Kommissionen havde truffet foranstaltninger til at løse sagen og dermed havde opfyldt klagerens krav.
The Ombudsman was pleased to note that the Commission had taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Ombudsmanden understregede i sin afgørelse, at den tjenestegren under Kommissionen, som var ansvarlig for sagen (Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Uddannelse og Kultur), havde handlet hurtigt i denne sag.
In his decision, the Ombudsman stressed that the service of the Commission in charge of the ma4 er (the Commission’s Directorate-General Education and Culture) had acted rapidly to deal with this ma4 er.
Det lod til, at hovedspørgsmålet blev løst den 20. december 2006, dvs. mindre end to uger eft er at klagen var blevet sendt til Kommissionen.
It appeared that the main issue was e� ectively solved by 20 December 2006, i.e., less than two weeks a er the complaint had been forwarded to the Commission.
Ombudsmanden roste derfor Kommissionen generelt og især Generaldirektorat for Uddannelse og Kultur for den eksemplariske måde, som klagen var blevet håndteret på.
The Ombudsman therefore commended the Commission, in general, and its Directorate-General Education and Culture, in particular, for the exemplary way in which this complaint had been handled.
Afvisning af en ansøgning om praktikophold som følge af tidligere erhvervserfaring
Rejection of application for a traineeship due to prior work experience
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 471/2007/VIK over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 471/2007/VIK against the European Commission
Klageren, der er portugisisk statsborger, ansøgte om et internt praktikophold i Kommissionen.
The complainant, a Portuguese national, applied for an in-service traineeship at the Commission.
Hun fi k oplyst, at hendes ansøgning var blevet afvist, da hun ikke opfyldte kriterierne i punkt 2.3 i Regler for Europa-Kommissionens officielle praktikordning (herefter kaldet »Reglerne«).
She was informed that her application had been rejected as she did not meet the eligibility criteria described in Point 2.3 of the Rules governing the o cial traineeship scheme of the Commission (“the Rules”).
Ifølge punkt 2.3 i Reglerne accepterer Kommissionen ikke ansøgninger fra personer, der i over seks uger allerede har nydt godt af enhver form for intern uddannelse.
According to Point 2.3 of the Rules, applications from persons who had already benefited from any kind of in-service training for more than six weeks were not accepted by the Commission.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden anførte klageren, at hendes ansøgning var blevet afvist på et forkert grundlag, da hendes erhvervserfaring var optjent i ikke sammenhængende perioder under Parlamentets plenarforsamlinger, som tilsammen kun varede tre uger i alt.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman the complainant alleged that her application had been incorrectly rejected, as her non-consecutive work experience took place during Parliament’s plenary sessions and lasted a total of only three weeks.
Hun fremførte endvidere, at den elektroniske ansøgningsformulars format ikke gjorde det muligt for ansøgere i hendes situation at oplyse om ikke sammenhængende perioder med erhvervserfaring, og at Kommissionen ikke havde ændret formularen i overensstemmelse hermed.
She further alleged that the format of the electronic application form did not allow applicants in her situation to declare non-consecutive work experience and that the Commission had failed to change the form accordingly.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ligeledes havde afvist hendes forsøg på at genansøge om et praktikophold.
The complainant submi4 ed that her a4 empt to reapply for a traineeship had also been rejected by the Commission.
Hun hævdede, at hun burde have haftlov til at indgive en ansøgning om et praktikophold, og at den elektroniske ansøgningsformular burde ændres, så der kunne oplyses om erhvervserfaring i ikke sammenhængende perioder.
She claimed that she should be allowed to submit an application for a traineeship and that the electronic application form should be altered so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.
Kommissionen forklarede i sin udtalelse, at klagerens ansøgning var blevet afvist med den begrundelse, at forberedende arbejde og opfølgende arbejde til plenarmøderne må have krævet mere end blot tilstedeværelse under møderne.
In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant’s application had been rejected on the grounds that preparatory and followup work for the plenary sessions must have required more than mere a4 endance during the sessions.
Endvidere havde den erfaret, at klageren havde været i besiddelse af et tjenestekort, som var gyldigt i tre måneder.
Furthermore, it had learned that the complainant had had a service card which was valid for three months.
Kommissionen gjorde imidlertid gældende, at den eft er at have behandlet hendes sag endnu en gang og navnlig erklæringen fra det medlem af Parlamentet, som hun havde arbejdet for, havde accepteret klagerens ansøgning som berettiget og forelagt den for forhåndsudvælgelsesudvalgene for den uddannelsesperiode, der starter i oktober 2007.
However, the Commission pointed out that, a er having reviewed her fi le again and in particular the declaration from the MEP with whom she had worked, it had proposed to accept the complainant’s application as eligible and to submit it to the pre-selection commi4 ees for the training period to begin in October 2007.
Med hensyn til den elektroniske ansøgningsformulars format forklarede Kommissionen, at ansøgerne blev opfordret til kun at oplyse om relevant erhvervserfaring af mindst en måneds varighed i formularen.
As regards the format of the electronic application form, the Commission clarified that the applicants were invited to declare in the form only relevant professional experience with a minimum duration of one month.
Kommissionen forklarede, at erhvervserfaring af mindre end en måneds varighed på det tidspunkt, hvor ansøgningsformularen blev udformet, ikke blev anset for at være relevant og derfor ikke skulle oplyses.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 professional experience of less than one month had not been considered relevant and thus did not need to be declared.
Klageren bekræftede, at hun var tilfreds med den måde, hvorpå Kommissionen havde løst spørgsmålet.
The complainant confirmed that she was satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved the ma4 er.
Ombudsmanden lukkede derfor sagen, som Kommissionen havde bilagt.
The Ombudsman closed the case as se4 led by the institution.
Undladelse i første omgang af betaling af udestående beløb
Initial failure to pay outstanding amount
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1471/2007/(CC)/RT over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1471/2007/(CC)/RT against the European Commission