natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen havde også skrevet til klageren den20. oktober 2000 og bedt hende om at sende Kommissionen en kopi af de af hendes egnedokumenter,der var relevante for sagen.
The Commission had also written to the complainant,on 20October 2000,in order to ask her to supply the Commission with a copy of her own documents relevant to the case.
I sine bemærkninger (som blev fremsendt til Ombudsmanden,efter at klageren havdemodtaget Kommissionens skrivelse af 20. oktober 2000) hævdede klageren,at hun allerede indtil flere gange havde givet Kommissionen kopier af sine dokumenter. Hunhævdede også,at hun under sit besøg hos Kommissionen i november 1999 havde konsta-teret,at Kommissionen var i besiddelse af dokumenterne.
In her observations (which were addressed to the Ombudsman after the complainant hadreceived the Commission’s letter of 20 October 2000),the complainant claimed that shehad already provided the Commission with copies of her documents on several occasions.She also claimed that on the occasion of her visit to the Commission in November 1999she had found that the documents were with the Commission.
De dokumenter,der var relevante for betalingen,skulle under alle omstændigheder være at finde hos den af Kommissionens tjenestegrene,der var ansvarlig for udbetaling af sådanne beløb.
In any event,documentsrelating to the payment should be in the Commission’s service in charge of paying outsuch amounts.
Efter at have modtaget klagerens bemærkninger mente Ombudsmanden,at han behøvedeyderligere oplysninger for at kunne behandle klagen.
Having received the complainant’s observations,the Ombudsman considered that heneeded further information in order to deal with the complaint.
Han bad derfor Kommissionenoplyse,(1) hvorvidt allede relevante dokumenter på det tidspunkt var i det belgiske retsvæsens besiddelse,og (2) hvorvidt det belgiske retsvæsen havde svaret på dens skrivelseaf 6. september 2000,og,hvis dette ikke var tilfældet,hvilke foranstaltninger Kommissionen havde til hensigt at træffe for at behandle klagerens sag.
He therefore asked the Commission to inform him (1) whether allthe relevant documents were presently in thehands of the Belgian judiciary and (2) whether the Belgian judiciary had replied to itsletter of 6 September 2000 and,if not,what measures the Commission proposed to take inorder to deal with the complainant’s case.
I sin udtalelse fremsatte Kommissionen følgende bemærkninger:
In its reply,the Commission made the following comments:
Kommissionen havde i mellemtiden udarbejdet en ny kopi af de relevante sagsakter iarkivet hos Generaldirektoratet for Uddannelse og Kultur.
The Commission had in the meantime re-established a copy of the relevant file in thearchives of the Directorate-General Education and Culture.
Der var ikke fundet beviser påbetaling af det relevante beløb dér. Der var heller ingen spor efter nogen betaling frakontoret for teknisk bistand i Kommissionens interne bogføringssystem.
No proof of payment for therelevant sum had been found there.
Kommissionenstjenestegrene havde således foretaget en ny vurdering af sagen.
The Commission’s services had thus proceeded to a new evaluation of the file.
Denne vurdering havdeimidlertid ikke berettiget nogen afslutning af sagen,og det havde vist sig nødvendigt atudbede sig yderligere oplysninger fra klageren,især om spørgsmål fra Kommissionensrevisorer som følge af et kontrolbesøg i forbindelse med et andet Force-projekt,somklageren også havde været koordinator for.
However,thisevaluation had not permitted to close the file and it had turned out to be necessary to askthe complainant for further information notably in relation to questions raised by the auditors of the Commission as a result of a control mission concerning another ‘Force’projectfor which the complainant had also been the co-ordinator.
Kommissionen havde derfor skrevet tilklageren den 29. januar 2001.
The Commission had thereforewritten to the complainant on 29 January 2001.
Sagen ville blive behandlet på baggrund af de supplerendeoplysninger,som Kommissionen havde anmodet om. Kommissionens tjenestegrene villeprioritere denne sag.
The file would be dealt with on the basisof the supplementary information that had been requested.
De belgiske myndigheder havde svaret den 24. januar 2001 og givet Kommissionenadgang til de pågældende sagsakter.
The Belgian authorities had replied on 24 January 2001,allowing the Commission to haveaccess to the files concerned.
Kommissionen var rent faktisk i gang med at kontrollere de oplysninger,den nu var i besiddelse af,og sammenligne dem med oplysningerne ide oprindelige sagsakter.
The Commission was actually in the process of crosschecking the information in its possession with that contained in the original file.
I sine bemærkninger understregede klageren,at hun allerede flere gange havde sendt sinedokumenter til P. Louis.
In her observations,the complainant stressed that she had already sent her documents to Mr Louis on several occasions.
Med hensyn til det andet projekt,som Kommissionen havdenævnt (projekt E/92/2/1608),hævdede klageren,at hun aldrig havde modtaget den evalu-eringsrapport,som Kommissionen havde lovet at sende hende.
Regarding the other project mentioned by the Commission(project E/92/2/1608),the complainant claimed that she had never received the evaluationreport that the Commission had announced it would send to her.
Klageren fremsendte en kopi af Kommissionens skrivelse til hende af 29. januar 2001,hvori hun blev bedt om at fremskaffe diverse oplysninger inden 30 dage.
The complainant submitted a copy of the Commission’s letter to her of 29 January 2001in which she was asked to provide various items of information within 30 days. She
Hun påpegede,at fremskaffelsen af disse oplysninger ville medføre en del arbejde på grund af den tid,derallerede var gået.
99 pointed out that gathering this information would necessitate a lot of work,given the lapseof time that had occurred.
Klageren bad derfor om udsættelse26.
The complainant therefore asked for an extension of time26.
Den 31. marts 2001 underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at hun havde fremskaffetde oplysninger,hun var blevet anmodet om.
On 31 March 2001,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that she had provided theinformation that had been requested of her.
Efter en grundig gennemgang af udtalelsen og bemærkningerne samt resultaterne af deyderligere undersøgelser fandt Ombudsmanden,at Kommissionens svar på klagerenspåstand var utilstrækkeligt.
After careful consideration of the opinion and observations and the results of the furtherinquiries,the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission had respondedadequately to the complainant’s claims.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at i henhold til kontraktens artikel 5.1 skulle de resterende20% betales senest 60 dage,efter kontrahenten havde fremsendt rapporten og finansieringsoversigten ”med forbehold af godkendelse”fra Kommissionen.
The Ombudsman noted that according to Article 5.1 of the contract payment of theremaining 20% were to be made within 60 days of the submission of the report and thefinancial statement by the contractor “subject to acceptance”by the Commission.
Det viste sig, at Kommissionen i nærværende sag endnu ikke var overbevist om,at finansieringsoversigtenkunne godkendes.
Itappeared that in the present case the Commission had not yet been able to assure itself thatthe financial statement could be accepted.
Da klagerens krav om betaling var med forbehold af denne godken-delse,var Kommissionen tilsyneladende endnu ikke forpligtet til at betale et yderligerebeløb.
Since the complainant’s claim for payment wassubject to this acceptance,it appeared that the Commission was not yet bound to make afurther payment.
Kommissionen havde ikke hævdet,at dissebetingelser ikke var blevet opfyldt.
The Commission had not claimed thatthis duty had not been complied with.
Dette betød,at Kommissionen mere end seks år efterdenne dato stadig ikke kunne behandle klagerens påstand.
It followed that more than six years after that datethe Commission was still not able to deal with the complainant’s claim.
Ombudsmanden fandt,at denneforsinkelse var uforholdsmæssig stor,selv i betragtning af behovet for at verificere visseaspekter eller udbede sig yderligere oplysninger.
The Ombudsmanconsidered that even taking into account the need to verify certain issues or ask for furtherinformation this delay was manifestly excessive.
At denne forsinkelse til dels kunneskyldes Agenors manglende behandling af sagen fritog ikke Kommissionen.Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere,at selv om Kommissionen indledningsvis havdeanført,at den ikke kunne behandle sagen,eftersom de relevante dokumenter var blevetforseglet af det belgiske retsvæsen,havde den i sit svar på Ombudsmandens ønske omyderligere oplysninger anført,at den i mellemtiden havde udarbejdet en ny kopi af de relevante sagsakter i arkivet hos Generaldirektoratet for Uddannelse og Kultur.
The fact that part of this delay might bedue to a failure to proceed with the matter on the part of Agenor could not exonerate the Commission. The Ombudsman further noted that whilst the Commission had argued at thebeginning that it was unable to deal with the case since the relevant documents had beensealed by the Belgian judiciary,in its reply to his request for further information it hadstated that it had in the meantime re-established a copy of the relevant file in the archivesof the Directorate-General Education and Culture.
Ombudsmandens foreløbige konklusion ud fra disse betragtninger var derfor, at Kommissionens undladelse af at behandle sagen inden for rimelig tid kunne betragtes somet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion from these considerations,therefore,was thatthe failure by the Commission to deal with this matter within a reasonable period could bean instance of maladministration.
I sin skrivelse foreslog Ombudsmanden,at Kommissionen hurtigst muligtfærdiggjorde sin vurdering af klagerens påstand og udbetalte det relevante beløb (i detomfang Kommissionen anerkendte dette).
In his letter,the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission should finaliseits assessment of the complainant’s claim as quickly as possible and pay out the relevantamount (to the extent that it was finally recognised by the Commission).
I en telefonsamtale med Ombudsmandens kontor den 26. februar 2001 fik klageren at vide,at alle sådanne forespørgsler skulle rettes til Kommissionen.
In a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman’s Office on 26 February 2001,the complainant was advisedthat any such request had to be addressed to the Commission.
I sine bemærkninger af 24. august 2001 underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at hunvar tilfreds med betalingen fra Kommissionen.
_BAR_ 2001 however,that interest should be paid by the Commission on account of the delay inpayment and of the costs she incurred pursuing her claim.
DEN SUPPLERENDE UNDERSØGELSE
THE ADDITIONAL INQUIRY
Klageren supplerende påstand videresendtes til Kommissionen til udtalelse. Den 12.november 2001 bekræftede Kommissionen,at der skulle betales 7,5% i rente for perioden27. februar 1995 til 25. juni 2001 (betalingsdatoen).
The complainant’s additional claim was submitted to the Commission for its opinion.
Beløbet på 3.422,62 EUR ville bliveudbetalt til klageren.
The resulting sum of 3422,62 would be paid out to the complainant.
Den 23. november 2001 underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at det af Kommissionen beregnede beløb var acceptabelt. Hun insisterede imidlertid på, at Kommissionen skulle betale dette beløb inden årets udgang.
On 23 November 2001,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the sum calculatedby the Commission was acceptable.
Manglende betaling af det relevante beløb
Failure to pay the relevant sum
1.1Klageren hævdede,at Kommissionen skulle betale det udestående beløb i henhold tilden i 1994 indgåede kontrakt mellem et tysk konsulentfirma repræsenteret af klageren og Kommissionen om konsulentydelser inden for rammerne af Forceprogrammet (projekt D/93B/1/3120/Q-FPC).
1.1The complainant claimed that the Commission should pay the balance due under thecontract concluded in 1994 between a German consultancy firm represented by thecomplainant and the Commission for the provision of consultancy services within theframework of the ‘Force’Programme (Project D/93B/1/3120/Q-FPC).
1.2Den 16. juli 2001 underrettede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om,at klageren havdefået udbetalt et beløb på 7.403 EUR,og at klageren var blevet underrettet herom.
1.2On 16 July 2001,the Commission informed the Ombudsman that a sum of 7403had been paid to the complainant and that the complainant had been informed accordingly.
1.3Klageren underrettede Ombudsmanden om,at hun var tilfreds med Kommissionensbetaling.
1.3The complainant informed the Ombudsman that she was satisfied with the paymentmade by the Commission.
1.4Det fremgår af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen har taget skridt til at imødekomme denne del af klagen og derved hartilfredsstillet klageren.
1.4It appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant’s observations thatthe Commission has taken steps to settle this aspect of the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Skyldig rente
Interest to be paid
2.1I sine bemærkninger til Kommissionens svar på Ombudsmandens forslag til enmindelig løsning hævdede klageren,at Kommissionen burde betale renter på grund af denforsinkede betaling og de omkostninger,hun havde afholdt i løbet af sagen.
2.1In her observations on the Commission’s reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for afriendly solution,the complainant claimed that interest should be paid by the Commissionon account of the delay in payment and of the costs she incurred pursuing her claim.
2.2Den 12. november 2001 bekræftede Kommissionen,at klageren ville få udbetalt etrentebeløb på 3.422,52 EUR.
2.2On 12 November 2001,the Commission acknowledged that interest amounting to3422,62 would be paid out to the complainant.
2.3Den 23. november 2001 underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at det af Kommissionen beregnede beløb var acceptabelt. Hun insisterede imidlertid på, at Kommissionen skulle betale dette beløb inden årets udgang.
2.3On 23 November 2001,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the sumcalculated by the Commission was acceptable.
2.4Ombudsmanden sætter sin lid til,at Kommissionen hurtigst muligt betaler det relevante beløb.
2.4The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will pay the relevant sum as quickly aspossible.
2.5Det fremgår således,at Kommissionen har taget skridt til at imødekomme denne delaf klagen og derved har tilfredsstillet klageren.
2.5It thus appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle this aspect of thecomplaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Det fremgår af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af den foreliggende klage,at Kommissionen har taget skridt til at afklare sagen og derved har tilfredsstillet klageren.Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it appears thatthe Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied thecomplainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes his file.
I oktober 2000 klagede en advokat over Europa-Parlamentet på vegne af et medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, Koldo Gorostiaga,og et tidligere medlem af Europa-Parlamentet,Karmelo Landa.
In October 2000,a lawyer complained against the European Parliament on behalf of a Member of the European Parliament,Mr Koldo GOROSTIAGA and a former MEP, Mr Karmelo LANDA.
3.4 SAGERAFSLUTTET MEDEN KRITISKBEMÆRKNINGFRAOMBUDS-MANDEN
3.4 CASESCLOSED WITH ACRITICALREMARK BYTHEOMBUDSMAN
Ifølge klagen opfordrede Koldo Gorostiaga Karmelo Landa til at hjælpe sig med sitarbejde i forbindelse med Europa-Parlamentets første mødeperiode i Strasbourg i oktober2000.
According to the complaint,Mr GOROSTIAGA invited Mr LANDA to assist him in hiswork during the first part-session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg in October2000.
Som tidligere parlamentsmedlem havde Karmelo Landa et adgangskort,som gavham adgang til Europa-Parlamentets lokaler.
As a former MEP,Mr LANDA was in possession of an entry permit,which entitledhim to have access to the premises of the European Parliament.
Parlamentets Sikkerhedstjeneste havde i juni2000 kontaktet Karmelo Landa for at aflevere dette adgangskort til ham.
The security service of the European Parliament had contacted Mr LANDA in order to deliver this entry permit tohim in June 2000.
Torsdag den 5. oktober 2000 kom to betjente fra Europa-Parlamentets Sikkerhedstjenestetil Koldo Gorostiagas kontor for at udføre en ordre om at bortvise Karmelo Landa fra Parlamentets lokaler.
On Thursday 5 October 2000,two officers of the security services of the European Parliament came to the office of Mr GOROSTIAGA MEP,in order to carry out an orderto expel Mr LANDA from the premises of the Parliament.
Sikkerhedsbetjentene sagde,at Europa-Parlamentets formand havdetruffet afgørelse herom.
The security officers said thatthe President of the European Parliament had made a decision to this effect.
De kunne imidlertid ikke fremvise en kopi af denne afgørelse påanmodning.
However,theywere unable to produce a copy of the decision when requested to do so.
Sikkerhedsbetjentene ringede til Formandens Kabinet.
The security officers made a telephone call to the services of the Presidency.
Dette sendte derefteren fax med Præsidiets afgørelse af 14. juli 1997 om at inddrage alle Karmelo Landasrettigheder som tidligere MEP.
Those services then faxed adecision of the Bureau of the Parliament,dated 14 July 1997,to withdraw all Mr LANDA’s rights as a former MEP.
Denne afgørelse var aldrig blevet meddelt til Karmelo Landa, som indtil dette tidspunkt ikke vidste,at den eksisterede.
This decision had never been notified to Mr LANDA,who was previously unaware of it.
INDDRAGELSE AFADGANGSKORTUDSTEDT TIL TIDLI-GERE MEDLEMMERAF EUROPA-PARLA-MENTET
Decision on complaint1250/2000/(JSA)IJHagainst the European Parliament
Endelig mødte to højtstående EP-tjenestemænd op på Koldo Gorostiagas kontor.
Finally,two high officials of the European Parliament came to the office of Mr GOROS-TIAGA.
De fjernede det adgangskort,som Karmelo Landa som tidligere MEP var i besiddelse af,oghævdede,at dette skete i overensstemmelse med Præsidiets afgørelse af 14. juli 1997.
They took away Mr LANDA’s entry permit as a former MEP,purportedly inapplication of the Bureau’s decision of 14 July 1997.
Degav Karmelo Landa et gæsteadgangskort,som gjaldt for den 5. oktober 2000.
They provided Mr LANDA with avisitor’s entry permit,valid for 5 October 2000.
På baggrund af ovenstående kendsgerninger gør klageren gældende:
On the basis of the above facts,the complaint is that:
-at Præsidiets afgørelse af 14. juli 1997 er ugyldig af følgende grunde:Den manglerethvert retsgrundlag,blev hverken underskrevet eller meddelt den vedrørte person; og denblev truffet uden at respektere indsigelsesrettighederne,eftersom Karmelo Landa ikkehavde mulighed for at fremsætte mundtlige eller skriftlige bemærkninger;
- the Bureau’s decision of 14 July 1997 is null and void for the following reasons:it lacksany legal basis,was neither signed nor notified to the person concerned; and was takenwithout respecting the rights of the defence since Mr LANDA had no opportunity to makeoral or written observations;
Klagerne gør gældende,at:
The complainants claim that:
Karmelo Landa skal genindsættes i alle sine rettigheder som tidligere MEP,
- Mr LANDA should be re-established in all his rights as a former MEP
-de personer,der er ansvarlige for hændelsen,bør sanktioneres for at afskrække andrefra at handle på samme måde fremover.
- the persons responsible for the incident should be subject to exemplary sanctions in orderto prevent such actions in future.
Europa-Parlamentets udtalelse
The European Parliament’s opinion
I sin udtalelse fremsatte Europa-Parlamentet i det væsentlige følgende:
The opinion of the European Parliament made,in summary,the following points.
Afgørelsen om at inddrage Karmelo Landas adgangskort
The decision to withdraw Mr LANDA’s entry permit
På mødet den 16. juli 1997 konkluderede Kvæstorkollegiet,at de regler og procedurer,dergjaldt for æresmedlemmer,ligeledes burde gælde for tidligere MEP’er,hvis rettigheder ogprivilegier grundlæggende kan sammenlignes med dem,der tilstås æresmedlemmerne.Artikel 4 i reglerne om æresmedlemmer,som Præsidiet vedtog den 30. november 1988,fastlægger,at et æresmedlems titel og privilegier i tilfælde af misbrug kan inddrages vedformandens afgørelse på forslag af Kvæstorkollegiet efter høring af Præsidiet.
At its meeting of 16 July 1997,the College of Quaestors concluded that the rules andprocedures applicable to honorary members should be extended to former MEPs,whoserights and privileges are essentially comparable to those accorded to honorary members.Article 4 of the rules concerning honorary members,adopted by the Bureau on 30November 1988,provides that the title and privileges of an honorary member may be with-
Karmelo Landa kunne ikke have anfægtet Præsidiets afgørelse i henhold til EF-traktatensartikel 230,da den ikke havde retligt bindende virkninger,som kunne berøre hans interesser gennem en væsentlig ændring af hans retsstilling27.
At the meeting of the Bureau on 17 July 1997,Mr BALFE,a Quaestor,recalled that therights accorded to former MEPs are in the nature of social facilities and in no way authorise them to pursue their political activities in Parliament.
Desuden kan Præsidiet ikke sammenlignes med et administrativt organ,der udarbejderregler,som skaber rettigheder og pligter.
Mr GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ,Vice-President,declared that Mr LANDA had acted as an apologist for murders carried out inthe Spanish Basque country by a terrorist organisation.
Karmelo Landas interesser blev heller ikke alvorligt krænket,idet han den 5. oktober 2000 var i stand til at komme ind i Europa-Parlamentet og blive der,selv efter hans adgangskort som tidligere MEP blev inddraget.
Mr VERDE I ALDEA,Vice-President,criticised Mr LANDA for pursuing anti-democratic activities from the Parliament. The Bureau then decided unanimously to withdraw the advantages accordedto Mr LANDA as a former MEP.
For så vidt angår klagerens argument om,at alle de afgørelser,der er ugunstige for enperson,skal underskrives og meddeles til den berørte person,med begrundelser,eksistererder ikke en sådan generel pligt i fællesskabslovgivningen.
The security service did not withdraw Mr LANDA’s entry permit following the Bureau’sdecision since they did not have his address,nor did they note his presence on the premises of the Parliament.
Europa-Parlamentets almindelige praksis er,at Præsidiets afgørelser meddeles til MEP’er via protokollerne,som allemedlemmer får en kopi af.
The security service made an error in agreeing to Mr LANDA’srequest for a new entry permit in June 2000.
Under alle omstændigheder var Præsidiets afgørelse tilstrækkeligt begrundet,ogafgørelsen blev meddelt klagerne den 5. oktober 2000.
Contrary to what the complainants appear to believe,former MEPs have no right to enjoythe facilities that Parliament accords to them.
Klagerne havde derfor ikkelængere nogen legitim interesse i dette aspekt af klagen.
These facilities are accorded to them in theexercise of Parliament’s power of internal organisation.
Hvis Præsidiet skulle vedtage en lignende afgørelse i dag,ville det,i det mindste politiskset,være forpligtet til at tage hensyn til retten til god forvaltning i artikel 41 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.
From a legal perspective,the decision to withdraw privileges given to a former MEP and,in particular,the decision as to what constitutes an abuse of such privileges is a politicalactivity of the European Parliament,dealt with by a political body according to politicalcriteria.