natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen understregede, at den for at rettedenne fejl havde registreret klagerens skrivelse som klage nr. 98/4483, ogat den den 4. juni 1998 havde sendt en bekræftelse på modtagelsen til klageren og meddelt ham, at Kommissionens tjenestegrene nu var i gangmed at undersøge klagen.
The Commission pointed out that in order to correct this failure, it had registeredthe complainant’s letter as complaint n°98/4483 and that it had sent anacknowledgement of receipt to the complainant on 4 June 1998 informinghim that the Commission services were examining the complaint.
Kommissionen erklærede endelig, at behandlingen af klagen nu foregik efter den sædvanlige procedure. I sin udtalelsemindede Kommissionen også om påstandene i den oprindelige klage, somvar følgende: a) klagerens bemærkninger til opførelsesprojektet var ikke blevet tagettil efterretning, som de skulle have været i henhold til artikel 6 i direktiv85/33745, og b) projektet ville have en skadelig indvirkning på den særligt beskyttede Prasiana-slugt.
The Commission finally stated that the handling of the complaint was now beingpursued according to the usual procedure.In its opinion, the Commissionalso recalled the allegations of the original complaint, which were that: a) the complainant’s observations concerning the construction projecthad not been taken into account, as they should have been pursuantto Article 6 of Directive 85/33745, and b) the project would negatively affect the special protection area of the Gorge of Prasiana.
Der blev ikke modtaget nogen bemærkninger. Men klageren sendte den18. januar 1999 en skrivelse, hvori han erklærede, at hans klage kun varblevet registreret på grund af Ombudsmandens indgriben, og at han sidenjuni 1998 ikke havde modtaget nogen yderligere oplysninger fra Kommissionen.
No observations were received.However, the complainant wrote on 18January 1999 stating that his complaint was only registered due to theintervention of the Ombudsman, but that since June 1998 he had receivedno further communication from the Commission.He referred also to the factthat he had made his initial complaint in August 1997.He thereforerequested the Ombudsman to inquire into the outcome of the complaint.
AFGØRELSENKommissionens manglende bekræftelse af modtagelsen
The failure of the Commission to send an acknowledgement ofreceipt
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen hverken havdebekræftet modtagelsen af den klage, han indsendte den 6. august1997, eller besvaret hans rykkerskrivelse af 27. november 1997, hvorihan udtrykkeligt bad om en bekræftelse på modtagelsen.Kommissionen bemærkede, at klagen ikke var blevet registreret pågrund af en beklagelig administrativ fejl.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had not acknowledgedreceipt of the complaint he sent on 6 August 1997 nor replied to hisreminder of 27 November 1997 in which he explicitly asked for anacknowledgement of receipt.The Commission observed that the complaint had not been registered because of a regrettable administrativeerror.To put an end to this failure the Commission finally registeredthe complaint, acknowledged its receipt on 4 June 1998 and informedthe complainant that its services were examining the case.Therefore,by having registered and acknowledged receipt of the complaint, the Commission had settled the matter.
For at rette op på denne fejlregistrerede Kommissionen omsider klagen, bekræftede modtagelsen heraf den 4. juni 1998 og meddelte klageren, at dens tjene-
In his letter of 18 January 1999 the complainant however informed the Ombudsman that since the acknowledgement of receipt of June 1998,
Rådet direktiv 85/337/EØF af 27. juni 1985 om vurdering af visse offentlige og private projekters indvirkning på miljøet, EFT1985 L175, s. 40.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain publicand private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175/40.
I sin skrivelse af 18. januar 1999 meddelte klageren imidlertid Ombudsmanden, at han siden bekræftelsen på modtagelsen i juni1998 ikke havde modtaget yderligere oplysninger fra Kommissionenstjenestegrene med hensyn til resultatet af hans klage. Klagerengjorde opmærksom på, at Kommissionen i sin udtalelse havde erklæret, at klagen ville blive behandlet efter den sædvanlige procedure.
DECISIONS no further communication was received from the Commission services with regard to the outcome of his complaint.The complainantdrew attention to the fact that in its opinion the Commission had statedthat the complaint would be processed according to the usual procedure.
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at Kommissionen ikke havde sendt enbekræftelse på modtagelsen, fremgik det af Kommissionens udtalelse ogklagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løsesagen, og at den dermed havde tilfredsstillet klageren. Ombudsmandenafsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
As regards the alleged failure of the Commission to send an acknowledgement of receipt, it appeared from the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations that the Commission had taken steps to settle thematter and had thereby satisfied the complainant.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
FORNYET BEHANDLING I KOMMISSIONEN AF FINANSIERING AFET PROJEKT TILSTØTTE FOR VOLDSOFRE I BASKERLANDET
RECONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION OF FUNDING FOR PRO-JECT TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE IN THE BASQUE REGION
Afgørelse om klage 669/98/JMAover Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 669/98/JMA against the European Commission
I juni 1998 overførte den regionale ombudsmand i Baskerlandet (Ararteko),Spanien, en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand, som klageren påvegne af en ngo havde indgivet til denne institution. Klagen vedrørte Kommissionens påståede uberettigede nægtelse af at forlænge fristen forafslutningen af projekt 96/018 (“Intervención Psicoterapéutica con Víctimas de la Violencia de Origen Político-Ideológico”), som finansieres af Kommissionens tjenestegrene (GD IA/A).
In June 1998, the regional ombudsman of the Basque Region (Ararteko),in Spain, transferred to the European Ombudsman a complaint lodged bythe complainant, on behalf of a NGO, with that institution.The complaintconcerned the allegedly unjustified refusal by the Commission to extendthe timescale for the completion of project 96/018 (“Intervención Psicoterapéutica con Víctimas de la Violencia de Origen Político-Ideológico”), funded by the Commission’s services (DG IA/A).
Kommissionen ydede i 1996 50000 ECU til ngo’en i San Sebastian tildækning af psykologisk bistand til ofre for politisk vold i Baskerlandet i Spanien. Dette beløb skulle udbetales over en periode på 12 måneder,med start i september 1996, som led i Det Europæiske Fællesskabs program for menneskerettigheder og demokrati.
In 1996 the Commission granted 50.000 ECUs to the NGO in San Sebastian, in order to pay for psychological assistance to victims of political violence in the Basque Region of Spain.This grant was to be paid fora period of 12 months, starting in September 1996, under the European Community’s Human Rights and Democratisation Programme.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands Årsberetning 1997, s. 270.
Annual Report 1997 of the European Ombudsman, p.270.
Ved afslutningen af den aftalte periode, i september 1997, forelagdengo’en en rapport og anmodede om en forlængelse på seks måneder.Anmodningen blev også formelt fremsat ved brev fra december 1997.Kommissionen mente ikke, at anmodningen var i overensstemmelse medgrundlaget for programmet, da den først blev fremsat, efter at den oprindelige kontrakt var udløbet, og den imødekom den derfor ikke.
From the outset, their relations with the Commission had been difficult, particularly as regards the gathering of information concerning the examination of the project.Although the complainant recognised his lack of experience with Community matters, he had always informed the Commission ofthe work.Accordingly, before sending the final report (September 1997),the NGO had forwarded an activity report in February.The complainantalso recognised that the NGO had overestimated the work that could bedone in the original contract period.
Kommissionen anmodede derfor ngo’en om at tilbagebetale de uudnyttedemidler. Da organisationen fandt, at afgørelsen var uberettiget og ikke togbehørigt hensyn til virkningerne af projektet for væsentlige befolkningsgrupper i Baskerlandet, indgav den en klage til den regionale ombudsman,som overførte sagen til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand.
In May 1999, the complainant wrote again to the Ombudsman stating thatdespite the Commission’s assurances, final payment of the grant had notbeen yet made.Having contacted the responsible Commission services,the Ombudsman was informed that the bank transfer to the complainanthad already taken place.A copy of the bank operation was forwarded to thecomplainant in June 1999.
Kommissionen gjorde først rede for baggrunden for sagen.
REIMBURSEMENT OF A GRANT UNDER THE SOCRATES PROGRAMME
Der var endvidere fremsat anmodningom, at de uudnyttede midler blev tilbagebetalt.
Decision on complaint 968/98/ME against the European Commission
Kommissionen tog sagen op til fornyet behandling i marts 1998 og tog i denforbindelse hensyn til, at dens holdning ville have betydet, at den skullesøge tilbagebetaling af et betydeligt beløb, som var blevet anvendt afngo’en efter kontraktperiodens udløb.
In September 1998, Mrs K.made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning the treatment of her application for a grant under the Socrates pro-
Kommissionens forslag til en løsning i sagen var dateret juli 1998 og dækkede den periode, hvori udgifterne kunne komme i betragtning, indtiludgangen af september 1998.
In February 1996, Mrs K., a teacher at a public school of education foradults, had applied for a grant under the Socrates programme of DG XXIIof the Commission.The grant was meant to widen the intellectual horizonof low-educated women by meeting people in the same situation in other Member States.A decision on the awarding of the grant should have beencommunicated to the complainant in June 1996.Only in September 1996was she informed that she had been awarded ECU 2000 to performpreparatory visits.The money finally arrived in May 1997, 89 months later.
Klageren fremsætte endvidere en række bemærkninger til følgendepunkter:
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
AFGØRELSEN
Page 120
TILBAGEBETALING AF STØTTE UNDER SOCRATES-PROGRAMMETAfgørelse om klage 968/98/ME over Europa-Kommissionen
The complainant’s observations In her observations, the complainant stated the following:
I september 1998 klagede K. til Ombudsmanden over behandlingen afhendes anmodning om støtte under Socrates-programmet og især over, at Europa-Kommissionen havde bedt om at få støtten tilbagebetalt.
The complainant contested that she had changed the conditions of thecontract unilaterally, referring to the letters sent to the Technical Assistance Office, asking to postpone the visit and the fact that she did not receive anyreplies from the Office.The complainant further pointed out, that she underno circumstances had the intention of not fulfilling the commitments of thecontract.She stated that this was obvious from her letter of 10 June 1998,in which she welcomed the evaluation request and submitting of the finalreport.
Beslutningen om at tildele støtte skulle have væremeddelt klageren i juni 1996, men hun blev først underrettet i september1996 om, at hun var blevet tildelt 2.000 ecu til udførelse af forberedendebesøg.
In a telephone call from the Office of the Ombudsman to the complainant,the complainant expressed satisfaction with the fact that the reimbursement request had been withdrawn.
Hun modtog ikkenoget svar, hvilket hun anså for et positivt svar.
THE DECISIONThe Commission’s request for reimbursement of the grant
Den understregede derefter, at årsagen til den forsinkede udbetaling, fra september 1996til maj 1997, var, at klageren hverken havde sendt Kommissionen bankangivelser eller en underskrift fra den juridisk ansvarlige for projektet. Men Kommissionen udtrykte dog forståelse for, at yderligere forsinkelser havdeskabt problemer for klageren.
It appeared from the Commission’s comments and the complainants’sobservations that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter andhad thereby satisfied the complainant.The Ombudsman therefore closedthe case.
Den besluttede derfor at forlænge aftaleperioden, så det besøg,klageren havde gennemført, ville falde inden for perioden.
Decision on complaint 1123/98/IJH against the European Commission
Kommissionen bemærkede endelig, at ansøgeren skulle opfylde sine forpligtelser, som var beskrevet i aftalebetingelserne.
In February 1995 a Phare Contract was signed between the Commissionand Glasgow City Council and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions.
Dette omfattede, at hungav Kommissionen alle oplysninger om udskiftning af samarbejdspartnersamt den endelige rapport. Kommissionen ville derefter foretage den endelige godkendelse af projektet.
In 1995 the managing agents estimated that there would be a significant underspend on the project.Following discussions with the Commission, it was decided how the underspend would be used.The managing agents were later told by the Commission that an addendum wouldbe necessary and the preparations for an addendum started in June 1996.In July 1997, the Commission formally accepted the need to issue anaddendum and requested information from the complainants which wasdelivered to the Commission in October 1997.Because of the Commission’s failure to issue the addendum to the contract, in October1998 the complainants complained to the Ombudsman.
Klagerens bemærkninger Klageren udtalte i sine bemærkninger følgende:
THE INQUIRYFurther information from the complainants
Klageren var tilfreds med, at det tekniske kontor ikke ville udelukke, atadministrative uregelmæssigheder kunne have fundet sted, da man badom tilbagebetaling af støtten.
In February 1999, the complainants informed the Ombudsman that the Commission had now issued the addendum to the contract, although nopayment had yet been made under the addendum.
I et telefonopkald fra Ombudsmandens kontor til klageren udtrykte denneendvidere tilfredshed med, at anmodningen om tilbagebetaling var blevettrukket tilbage.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion the Commission stated that it had reexamined its position and settled the dispute with the complainants.
AFGØRELSENKommissionens anmodning om tilbagebetaling
The complainants’observations
Kommissionen anmodede om tilbagebetaling af støtten, fordi klagerenhavde udført det forberedende besøg uden for den tidsplan, der var nævnti kontrakten, og fordi klageren ensidigt havde ændret kontraktvilkårene.Kommissionen erklærede imidlertid, at den ikke kunne udelukke, at administrative uregelmæssigheder kunne have fundet sted, da man anmodedeom tilbagebetaling af støtten. Kommissionen besluttede derfor at forlængeaftaleperioden, så det besøg, klageren havde gennemført, faldt inden forperioden.
The Ombudsman asked the complainants to comment on the opinion of the Commission but no written observations were received by the com-plainants.However, in a telephone call from the Ombudsman’s services tothe complainants, they confirmed that the addendum had been made andthat the case, as far as the original complaint was concerned, was settled.They further stated that they had not yet received payment on theaddendum but it appeared that they did not wish to pursue the paymentissue at this stage.
Det fremgik af Kommissionens kommentarer og klagerens bemærkninger,at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen, og den havdedermed tilfredsstillet klageren. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The complainants complained about the Commission’s failure to issue anaddendum to a Phare contract.During the inquiry, the Commission reexamined its position and issued the addendum to the contract.The complainants expressed satisfaction with the action of the Commission.
KOMMISSIONENS MANGLENDE UDFÆRDIGELSE AF ET TILLÆG TILEN PHARE-KONTRAKT
REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL COSTS FOR CANDIDATES IN ANNULLED TESTS
Afgørelse om klage 1123/98/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 1288/98/PD against the European Commission
Pågrund af Kommissionens manglende udfærdigelse af tillægget til kontrakten indgav klagerne i oktober 1998 en klage til Ombudsmanden.
In November 1998 Mr S.made a complaint against the European Commission. On 14 September 1998 the Commission organised writtentests in competition COM/A/11/98.Shortly after the tests, the Commissionconsidered itself obliged to annul the tests, in particular because there hadbeen a leak of the questions asked to the applicants.
Klagerne informerede i februar 1999 Ombudsmanden om, at Kommissionen nu havde udfærdiget tillægget til kontrakten, selv om derendnu ikke var blevet foretaget udbetalinger på grundlag af tillægget.
Against this background, he lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman.
Kommissionens udtalelse
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
Klagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse anførte Kommissionen, at den havde taget sin holdning op til vurdering og løst tvisten med klagerne.
In its opinion the Commission regretted that it had had to annul the tests inquestion.Furthermore it explained that normally, it did not dispose of sufficient budgetary funds for reimbursing applicants.However, given theexceptional character of the situation, it had decided to reimburse applicants for their travel costs, provided that they participated in the testsorganised in replacement of the annulled ones.The reimbursement wouldbe subject to maximum limits.
Ombudsmanden anmodede klagerne om at kommentere Kommissionensudtalelse, men modtog ingen skriftlige bemærkninger fra klagerne. I et telefonopkald fra Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene til klagerne bekræftede de,at tillægget var blevet udfærdiget, og at spørgsmålet var løst, for så vidtangik den oprindelige klage.
No observations were lodged.In the absence of observations, the Ombudsman’s services contacted the complainant.The complainantexpressed satisfaction with the Commission’s action and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
AFGØRELSEN
Page 123
Det fremgik af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagernes bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klagerne. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen afsagen.
It appeared from the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter and hadthereby satisfied the complainant.The Ombudsman therefore decided toclose the case.
Afgørelse om klage 1288/98/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
PAYMENT OF COMPLAINANT’S INVOICESDecision on complaint 1331/98/JMA against the European Commission
I november 1998 indgav S. en klage over Europa-Kommissionen.Kommissionen afholdt den 14. september 1998 skriftlige prøver i forbindelse med udvælgelsesprøve KOM/A/11/98. Kort tid efter prøverne så Kommissionen sig tvunget til at annullere prøverne, navnlig fordi spørgsmålene til ansøgerne var sivet ud forinden.
In December 1998, Mr J.sent a complaint to the European Ombudsman onbehalf of FIAB, a Spanish Federation, concerning the failure of the European Commission to pay the amounts due for a contract signed withthe institution (ALR/B7-311/95 138/E3/001), as well as to properly reply tohis numerous written requests.
Det fremgik af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.
The complaint was forwarded to the European Commission.Its opinion wasin summary the following:
I december 1998 klagede J. på vegne af FIAB, en spansk sammenslutning,til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over, at Europa-Kommissionen ikkehavde betalt de skyldige beløb i forbindelse med en kontrakt, der var indgået med institutionen (ALR/B7-311/95 138/E3/001), og ikke havde svaretbehørigt på hans utallige skriftlige anmodninger.
FIAB’s final report was only submitted on 12 November 1998.However,since it did not contain all relevant documents, the Commission had toremind the complainant a few days later of the need to submit the missingdocumentation as a condition for the payment of the second and finalinstalments.
I brevet gjorde han gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde betalt de skyldige beløb, og at institutionen ikke havde svaret behørigt på hans anmodning om oplysninger.
Finally the Commission regretted that payments had been delayed,although it considered that its services had done their best under the prevailing circumstances.
UNDERSØGELSENKommissionens udtalelse
The complainant’s observations
Endelig beklagede Kommissionen, at betalingerne var blevet forsinket,selv om den fandt, at dens tjenestegrene havde gjort deres bedste underde givne omstændigheder.
FAILURE TO REPLY – INTER-REGIONAL PROJECTSDecision on complaint 19/99/(XD)ADB against the European Commission
Klagerens bemærkninger
THE COMPLAINT
Klageren understregede endvidere, at problemet viste ineffektiviteten af Kommissionens procedure og behovet for mere entydige regler.Klageren gjorde gældende, at som følge af, at der ikke findes klare proceduremæssige retningslinjer på fællesskabsplan, ved de europæiske borgere ikke, hvad de kan forvente af EU-forvaltningen, eller hvem de skalhenvende sig til.
Having received no answer to these letters the complainant contacted DGXIII again on 24 December 1996, and DG XVI on 14 November 1997,explicitly referring to his previous correspondence.These letters were notreplied to either.As the complainant considered this to be a very negativeattitude by the Commission towards his two important initiatives, he askedthe European Ombudsman to investigate the matter.
I sin udtalelse om klagen anførte Europa-Kommissionen i det væsentligstefølgende:
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary as follows:
133 ning over for de anliggender, der var af interesse for klageren.
Regarding the letters addressed to its DG XIII, the Commission recognisedthat they had been received and duly attributed to the former Head of Unit XIII/E/6.
Efter engenerel omorganisering af GD XIII blev de opgaver, som kontor XIII/E/6havde, overført til kontor XIII/E/4, som udarbejdede et svar på klagerensbrev den 22. marts 1999.
The Commission deeply regretted that no appropriate follow-uphad been given and stressed that the failure to reply was caused by someadministrative problems which by no means implied a negative attitudetowards the issues of concern to the complainant.Following a general reorganisation of DG XIII, the tasks of unit XIII/E/6 were transferred to unit XIII/E/4 which prepared an answer to the complainant’s letters on 22 March1999.
Den Europæiske Ombudsman videresendte Kommissionens udtalelse tilklageren med opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger. Der er ikke modtaget bemærkninger fra klageren.
The European Ombudsman forwarded the Commission’s opinion to thecomplainant with an invitation to make observations.The complainant didnot send in any observations.
Den 1. september 1999 blev klageren kontaktet telefonisk af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands tjenestegrene. Han oplyste Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om, at han faktisk havde modtaget en skrivelse fra GD XIII,og at han i mellemtiden også modtog mange bud, som formentlig vil væreaf interesse for hans organisation.
On 1 September 1999 the complainant was contacted by the European Ombudsman’s services by telephone.He informed the European Ombudsman that he had indeed received a letter from DG XIII and that inthe meantime he also received several calls for tender likely to be ofinterest for his organisation.
Klageren takkede Ombudsmanden for hans indsats og erklærede sig fuldtud tilfreds med de oplysninger, han havde fået fra Kommissionen, selv omhan beklagede de indtrufne forsinkelser.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention, and,although he regretted the delays that had occurred, declared to be fully satisfied with the information obtained from the Commission.
AFGØRELSENManglende svar på anmodninger om oplysninger
THE DECISIONFailure to reply to requests for information