natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen anmodedeklageren om at fremskaffe de rapporter, som han skulle kommentere,fra en myndighed i den medlemsstat, som undersøgelsen vedrørte.Klageren var derfor nødt til at give afkald på sin anonymitet for atkunne deltage normalt i undersøgelsen af sin klage.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into the first aspect of the complaint, it appeared from the Commission’s comments and the complainant’sobservations that the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter andthereby satisfied the complainant.
Som følge afdette krav holdt Kommissionen ikke det løfte, den har givet i standardformularen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into the second aspect of thecomplaint, it was necessary to make the following critical remarks:
Eftersom dette aspekt af sagen vedrørte procedurer i forbindelse med specifikke hændelser i fortiden, var det ikke hensigtsmæssigt at forfølge enmindelig løsning. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen afsagen.
Given that this aspect of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in the past it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlementof the matter.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
SUPPLERENDE BEMÆRKNING
FURTHER REMARK
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionens procedure i forbindelsemed undersøgelser af en klage over en medlemsstats overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten endnu ikke er tilrettelagt som en normal administrativ procedure, hvor klageren behandles som en part. I en normal administrativprocedure bør Kommissionen selv stille alle de dokumenter til rådighed forklageren, som den opfordrer vedkommende til at kommentere.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission’s procedure for investigatinga complaint about an infringement of Community law by a Member State isnot yet organised as a normal administrative procedure, in which the complainant is treated as a party.In a normal administrative procedure, the Commission should itself supply the complainant with all the documents onwhich it invites comments.
UBESVAREDE SKRIVELSERAfgørelse om klage 102/98/(XD)ADB over Europa-Kommissionen
UNANSWERED LETTERSDecision on complaint 102/98/(XD)ADB against the European Commission
I januar 1998 klagede R. til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen ikkehavde besvaret hans skrivelser.
In January 1998, Mr R.complained to the Ombudsman concerning the Commission’s failure to answer his letters.
Efter disse kontakter modtog klageren aldrig noget svar, bortset fra to brochurer (især en om Den Europæiske Ombudsmand) fra “Centred’Informations sur l’Europe - Sources d’Europe” i Paris.
Following these contacts, the complainant never received an answer,except two brochures (in particular one about the European Ombudsman)from the “Centre d’Informations sur l’Europe - Sources d’Europe”in Paris.
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.The opinion of the Commission on the complaint was, in summary, the following:
Men Kommissionen beklagede dog, at klageren ikke havde modtaget en midlertidig skrivelse.
The issue raised by the complainant in his letter to the Commission, whichwas subject to an infringement procedure brought before the Court of
Med hensyn til den information, han havde anmodet om fra Kommissionens repræsentation i Marseille, erklærede Kommissionen, atklageren ikke boede inden for dette kontors geografiske kompetenceområde.
Justice, was simultaneously dealt with by Directorate General (DG) XV and DG V of the Commission.Given the fact that the cases were still pendingbefore the Court of Justice, the substantive answer to the complainant’srequest was postponed.However, the Commission regretted that noholding reply was addressed to the complainant in the meantime.
Derfor var anmodningen blevet videresendt til Paris, og klageren fiktilsendt det relevante materiale fra “Sources d’Europe”.
As regards the information requested from the Commission representationin Marseilles, the Commission stated that the complainant did not livewithin this office’s geographic zone of competence.As a consequence, therequest was transmitted to Paris, and the complainant was sent the relevant information through “Sources d’Europe”.
I sit svar på Ombudsmandens forespørgsel af 12. februar 1998 vedlagde Kommissionen en kopi af en skrivelse, der var tilsendt klageren den 20.februar 1998, hvori han blev informeret om overtrædelsesproceduren mod Frankrig.
In its reply to the Ombudsman’s request of 12 February 1998, the Commission enclosed a copy of a letter which was sent to the complainanton 20 February 1998, which informed him of the infringement procedureagainst France.
I sine bemærkninger fremhævede klageren, at han efter Kommissionenssvar sendt den 20. februar 1998 to gange havde henvendt sig til Kommissionen, henholdsvis den 2. marts 1998 og en rykkerskrivelse den8. juni 1998. Han ønskede at vide, om klagen var blevet endeligt registreret, eller om han skulle indgive en ny klage, og om han ville blive underrettet om, hvordan sagen udviklede sig.
In his observations, the complainant put forward that further to the replysent by the Commission on 20 February 1998, he had addressed the Commission twice, on 2 March 1998, and as a reminder on 8 June 1998.He wished to know whether his complaint had been finally registered or ifhe needed to lodge a new complaint, and whether he would be informedabout the progress of the procedure.
Den 30. august 1998 meddelte klageren Ombudsmanden, at han endnuikke havde modtaget noget svar på sine skrivelser af 2. marts og 8. juni1998, og han udtrykte alvorlig tvivl med hensyn til den beklagelse,Kommissionen havde givet udtryk for i sin udtalelse til Ombudsmanden.
On 30 August 1998, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he hadnot yet received any reply to his letters of 2 March and 8 June 1998, andexpressed serious doubts about the regrets mentioned by the Commissionin its opinion to the Ombudsman.
AFGØRELSEN1Manglende svar til klageren
THE DECISION1Failure to reply to the complaint
Klageren fremhævede, at han ikke havde modtaget noget svar på enklage, han havde fremsendt til Kommissionen.
The complainant put forward that he received no reply to a complainthe lodged with the Commission.The Commission explained that thedelays were caused by the fact that the subject matter raised by thecomplainant was at that time being investigated by the Court of Justice.
Kommissionen forklarede, at forsinkelserne skyldtes, at det spørgsmål, klageren havderejst, på det tidspunkt blev undersøgt af Domstolen.
Nevertheless, the Commission apologised for the absence ofa holding reply.
Ikke desto mindreundskyldte Kommissionen, at den ikke havde sendt en midlertidigskrivelse.
1.2 According to the information contained in the opinion of the Commission as regards its own procedures for dealing with com-
I oplysningerne indeholdt i Kommissionens udtalelse om dens egenprocedure for behandling af klager (sendt til Ombudsmanden i forbindelse med hans undersøgelse på eget initiativ, ref. 303/97/PD) stårfølgende:
DECISIONS plaints (sent to the Ombudsman in the framework of his own initiativeinquiry ref.303/97/PD) :
“Alle klager, Kommissionen modtager, registreres i Generalsekretariatet. Der gøres ingen undtagelser herfra.(...)
“All complaints which reach the Commission are registeredin the Secretariat-General.No exceptions are made.(...)
Det første Kommissionen gør, når den modtager en klage,er at bekræfte modtagelsen. Med bekræftelsen vedlæggeset bilag, hvori formålet med og nærmere oplysninger omovertrædelsesproceduren beskrives.”
When it receives a complaint, the first thing the Commission does is to acknowledge receipt.The letteracknowledging receipt is accompanied by an annex settingout the purpose and giving details of the infringement proceeding.”
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen den 11. juni 1998 iforbindelse med Ombudsmandens undersøgelse udtrykkeligterkendte problemet og undskyldte forsinkelsen og manglen på enmidlertidig skrivelse. Men på trods af denne beklagelse og to yderligere henvendelser fra klageren blev klagen, indsendt den 1.november 1997, først formelt registreret den 30. september 1998, ogdette krævede en yderligere indgriben fra Ombudsmandens side.
The Ombudsman noted that on 11 June 1998, in the framework of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Commission expressly recognisedthe problem, and apologised for the delay and the absence of aholding reply.However, despite those regrets, and two additionalrequests by the complainant, the complaint lodged on 1 November1997 was only formally registered on 30 September 1998, andrequired an additional intervention of the Ombudsman.
Ifølge Kommissionens egne bemærkninger i forbindelse med Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PD, gøresder ingen undtagelse fra reglen om, at alle klager, Kommissionenmodtager, registreres, og der fremsendes inden for en rimelig frist enbekræftelse på modtagelsen. At Kommissionen, da den blev klar overforsinkelsen, erkendte og undskyldte den, men stadig ikke skyndte sigat registrere klagen, var et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
According to the Commission’s own observations in the framework ofthe Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD, no exceptions aremade to the rule that all complaints received by the Commission areregistered and a timely acknowledgement receipt is sent.The fact thatin the present case, the Commission, once it was made aware of,recognised and apologised for the delay, did still not hasten to registerthe complaint, constituted an instance of maladministration.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at han ikke havde modtaget nogen oplysninger, da han henvendte sig til Kommissionens repræsentation i Marseille.
Failure to provide the complainant with the necessary information
Kommissionen forklarede, at hans anmodning var blevetvideresendt til den geografisk kompetente repræsentation, og at hanmodtog den relevante information fra “Centre d’Informations surl’Europe - Sources d’Europe” i Paris.
The complainant claimed that he didn’t receive any information whenhe addressed the Representation of the Commission in Marseilles.The Commission explained that his request had been transferred tothe geographically competent Representation and that he receivedthe adequate information from the “Centre d’Informations sur l’Europe- Sources d’Europe”in Paris.
Kommissionens repræsentation i Marseille kontaktede den kompetente tjeneste for at give klageren de relevante oplysninger om muligheden for at gøre indsigelse mod Kommissionens manglende besvarelse.
The Commission Representation in Marseille contacted the competent services to provide the complainant with the adequate information about the possible appeals against a failure to reply by the Commission.
Det fremgik således, at der ikke var begået fejl ellerforsømmelser, for så vidt angik dette aspekt af klagen.
Thus, there appeared to have been no instance of maladministration concerning this aspect of the complaint.
På baggrund af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af detandet aspekt af klagen fremgik det, at der ikke var begået fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into the second aspect of thecase, there appeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
Med hensyn til det første aspekt af sagen var det nødvendigt at fremsættefølgende kritiske bemærkning:
As far as the first aspect of the case was concerned, it appeared necessaryto make the following critical remark:
Ifølge Kommissionens egne bemærkninger i forbindelse med Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PD gøres deringen undtagelse fra reglen om, at alle klager, Kommissionen modtager, registreres, og der sendes inden for en rimelig tid en bekræftelse på modtagelsen.
According to the Commission’s own observations in the framework ofthe Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD, no exceptions are
Den kendsgerning, at Kommissionen i dettetilfælde, da den blev klar over, erkendte og undskyldte forsinkelsen,ikke skyndte sig at registrere klagen, udgjorde et eksempel på fejleller forsømmelser.
171 made to the rule that all complaints received by the Commission areregistered and a timely acknowledgement receipt is sent.The fact thatin the present case, the Commission, once it was made aware of,recognised and apologised for the delay, did still not hasten to registerthe complaint, constitutes an instance of maladministration.
Det kunne ikke lade sig gøre at finde en mindelig løsning, eftersom disseaspekter vedrørte et overstået hændelsesfor. Ombudsmanden afsluttedederfor behandlingen af sagen.
Given that these aspects of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in the past, it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
ANNULLERING AF INDKALDELSE AF FORSLAGAfgørelse om klage 130/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
CANCELLATION OF A CALL FOR PROPOSALSDecision on complaint 130/98/OV against the European Commission
I januar 1998 klagede MEPCaroline Jackson på vegne af en fond til Ombudsmanden over GD XXIII’s påståede fejl og forsømmelser i forbindelse med en indkaldelse af forslag. Følgende oplysninger er relevante forsagen:
In January 1998, Mrs Caroline Jackson MEP made a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of a foundation, alleging maladministration by DGXXIII in a call for proposals procedure.The relevant facts were as follows:
Den 13. december 1996 indsendte fonden (herefter benævnt “klageren”)en ansøgning som svar på Europa-Kommissionens (GD XXIII) indkaldelseaf forslag 96/C246/15 bekendtgjort som led i Kommissionens aktion tilfordel for programmet for andelsselskaber, gensidige selskaber, foreningerog fonde.
On 13 December 1996, the foundation (hereafter “the complainant”) submitted an application in response to the Call for proposals - 96/C246/15issued by the European Commission (DG XXIII) under its Action in Favourof Cooperatives, Mutual Societies, Associations and Foundations programme.
Indkaldelsen af forslag blev offentliggjort den 24. august 1996 (EFTC246/1996, s.15) og havde til formål at samfinansiere projekter med deltagelse af andelsselskaber, gensidige selskaber, foreninger og fonde fra budgetkontoen for socialøkonomiske foranstaltninger (budgetpost B5-321 ibudgettet for 1997).
The Call for proposals was published on 24 August 1996 (OJ 1996 C246/16) and was intended to cofinance from the budget line on socialeconomy (heading B5-321 of the 1997 Budget) projects in which cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations (CMAFs) wereinvolved.These projects had to respect the principles laid down in the Commission’s proposal for a multi-annual (1994-1996) work programme for CMAFs.
Forenede sager C-239/96 R og C240/96 R, Det Forenede Kongerige mod Kommissionen, Sml.1996 I, s. 4475.
Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R, United Kingdom v.Commission, [1996] ECR I-4475.
Denne procedure var i overensstemmelse med gældende praksis for gennemførelse af forberedendeaktioner og nyskabende projekter.
As regards the allegation that the Commission published a Call for proposals based on a programme which was not approved by the Council, the Commission observed that it believed that, in accordance with normal practice, the programme would have been adopted and that the action forfinancing projects would have been continued through the next budgetaryyear.This position was reinforced by the fact that the Budgetary Authoritydecided that appropriations should be given for the social economy line for1997 on the same grounds as it had been during the previous years.
Kommissionen bemærkede endvidere,at GD XXIII havde besluttet ikke at udarbejde foreløbige svar på individuelle forespørgsler, før alle juridiske problemer var løst i juli 1997.
As regards the allegation concerning the late cancellation of the programme, the Commission observed that it withdrew the project in July 1997only after it became clear that there was no chance even for a late adoption of the programme.
Derforkunne Kommissionen ikke give klageren et klart svar i marts eller juni 1997.Kommissionen gjorde endvidere gældende, at den havde informeretansøgerne snarest muligt, efter at beslutningen var truffet, dvs. 12 arbejdsdage efter den 29. juli 1997, hvilket ikke er en urimelig forsinkelse.
As regards the alleged failure of information and the alleged delay, the Commission first stated that the Official Journal notice clearly mentionedthat the programme was still a proposal to be adopted by the Council.Thisway of proceeding was in accordance with the practice at the time for carrying out preparatory actions and innovative projects.The Commission further observed that DG XXIII decided, until all legal problems were sortedout in July 1997, not to prepare preliminary replies to individual enquiriesbefore that date.Therefore the Commission could not give a clear answerto the complainant in March or June 1997.The Commission further statedthat if informed the applicants as soon as possible after the decision hadbeen taken, i.e.12 working days after 29 July 1997, which is not an unreasonable delay.
Hvad angik den påståede manglende informering om årsagerne til annulleringen, bemærkede Kommissionen, at den, eftersom annulleringen afprogramforslaget i alt væsentligt var et teknisk spørgsmål, der ikke havdenoget at gøre med ansøgningernes beskaffenhed, havde besluttet, at detvar mest hensigtsmæssigt at sende en standardskrivelse, som ikke komind på de komplekse juridiske og politiske årsager til annulleringen af programmet.
As regards the alleged failure to inform about the reasons for the cancellation, the Commission observed that, since the cancellation of the proposalfor a programme was essentially a technical question unrelated to themerits of the applications, it decided that a standard letter which did not gointo the complex legal and political reasons for cancelling the programmewas most appropriate.
Endelig svarede Kommissionen på påstanden om, at klageren aldrig varblevet informeret om, at dennes ansøgning ikke opfyldte programmets kriterier, at det var normal praksis først at informere ansøgerne, når denendelige beslutning var truffet og ikke på hver enkelt stadium af udvælgelsesproceduren.
Finally, as regards the allegation that the complainant was never informedthat its application failed to meet the criteria of the programme, the Commission answered that it is normal practice to inform applicants onlywhen the final decision is taken and not at each stage of the selection procedure.
Klageren indgav ingen skriftlige bemærkninger. Men i en telefonsamtalemed Ombudsmandens kontor gjorde klagerens repræsentant gældende,at denne ikke var tilfreds med de svar, der var givet på deres klager.
The complainant did not submit any written observations.However, in atelephone conversation with the Ombudsman’s office, the representative ofthe complainant stated that it was not satisfied with the answers given totheir complaint.
Offentliggørelse af indkaldelse af forslag baseret på et program,der endnu ikke var vedtaget af Rådet
The advertisement of a Call for proposals based on a programmewhich had still not been approved by the Council
Den første påstand vedrører den kendsgerning, at Kommissionenhavde offentliggjort en indkaldelse af forslag til et program, der endnuikke var vedtaget af Rådet.
The first allegation concerns the fact that the Commission invitedapplications for a programme that had still no Council approval.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at den havdeværet i god tro, da den mente, at programmet ville blive vedtaget itide, og at denne opfattelse var blevet styrket ved, budgetmyndighedens afgørelse om at tildele bevillinger til budgetposten om socialøkonomiske foranstaltninger (B5-321) for 1997 på samme grundlagsom i de foregående år.
The Commission observed that it believed in good faith that the programme would have been adopted on time, and that this position wasreinforced by the fact that the Budgetary Authority decided that appropriations should be given for the budget line on social economy (B5321) for 1997 on the same grounds as it had been during the previousyears.
AFGØRELSER havde afgivet positiv udtalelse på deres respektive plenarmøder, menat Rådet ikke havde afsluttet sin gennemgang af forslaget. Dennefremgangsmåde var ligeledes i overensstemmelse med praksis forgennemførelse af forberedende aktioner og nyskabende projekter.Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at offentliggørelsen af indkaldelseaf forslag 96/C246/15 på et tidspunkt, hvor Kommissionen stadigafventede en vedtagelse af dens programforslag i Rådet, udgjorde ettilfælde af fejl og forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman notes that the Commission’s proposal for a Council Decision relating to a multi-annual work programme for CMAFs wassent to the Council on 17 February 1994.The Call for proposals,which was based on this draft programme, was published on 24August 1996.It appears that, at that time, the Commission believedthat the programme would be adopted by the Council.This information is confirmed by the fact that the Call for proposals itself clearlymentioned in footnote (1) that the European Parliament, as well as the Economic and Social Committee had given a favourable opinion attheir respective plenary sessions, but that the examination of the proposal by the Council was not complete.This way of proceeding wasalso in accordance with the practice for carrying out preparatoryactions and innovative projects.The Ombudsman therefore considersthat the publication of the Call for proposals 96/C246/15 on a datewhen the Commission was still waiting for its draft programme to beadopted by the Council, did not constitute an instance of maladministration.
Den påståede sene annullering af programmet i juli 1997
The alleged late cancellation of the programme in July 1997
Hvad angik den påståede sene annullering af programmet, gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at den først havde trukket sit program tilbage i juli 1997, da det stod klart, at der end ikke var chance for stensen vedtagelse i Rådet. Kommissionen gjorde ligeledes gældende, atden havde besluttet at tage hensyn til resultaterne af bedømmelsenaf ansøgningerne for at drage nytte af det arbejde, der var gennemført indtil da.
As regards the alleged late cancellation of the programme, the Commission stated that it withdrew its programme only in July 1997when it became clear that there was no chance even for a late adoption by the Council.The Commission also stated that it had decided totake into account the results of the evaluation of the applications, inorder to usefully turn out the work carried out until that date.
Skriftlig forespørgsel 3169/97 af Raymonde Dury til Kommissionen, EFTC 196/1998, s. 2.
Written Question No.3169/97 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission, OJ 1998 C 196/2.
181 nemgang af forslaget ikke var afsluttet.
The alleged failure to inform the complainant
Påstanden om, at ansøgerneikke var blevet orienteret herom, kunne således ikke tages til følge.
As regards the allegation that the Commission did not inform theapplicants that the programme was still subject to Council approval,the Commission answered by referring to the notice of the Official Journal.
Den påståede manglende begrundelse af annulleringen
The alleged failure to give reasons for the cancellation
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde meddeltårsagerne til annulleringen af programmet og ikke tidligere havdeinformeret om, at ansøgningen ikke opfyldte kriterierne i programmet.Kommissionen bemærkede, at den havde fundet det mest hensigtsmæssigt med en standardskrivelse, der ikke kom ind på de komplekse juridiske og politiske årsager til at annullere programmet.
The complainant alleged that the Commission did not communicatethe reasons of the cancellation of the programme and did not informearlier that its application did not meet the criteria of the programme.The Commission observed that a standard letter which did not go intothe complex legal and political reasons for cancelling the programmewas considered most appropriate.