natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren gjorde bl.a. gældende, at Kommissionen burde tage skridt, herunder tilbageholdelse af finansiering, mod organisationer og virksomheder, som udsender jobannoncer, der forskelsbehandler.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in mamers of food safety, OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1.
Kommissionen gav et overblik over de seneste foranstaltninger, den havde t r u T et siden sag 659/2002/IP, såsom forskellige interne notater, som henledte tjenestegrenenes opmærksomhed på spørgsmålet.
The Commission gave an overview of the latest measures it had taken since case 659/2002/IP, such as various internal notes drawing its services’ amention to the issue.
Kommissionen henviste endvidere til de relevante artikler i finansforordningen samt til direktiv 2004/18 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved indgåelse af offentlige vareindkøbskontrakter med hensyn til udelukkelse fra indkøbsprocedurer som følge af en straYar handling i forbindelse med udøvelsen af et erhverv.
The Commission also referred to the relevant articles in the Financial Regulation and to Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the awarding of public contracts, with regard to exclusion from procurement procedures because of conviction for an oTence concerning professional conduct.
Som svar på Ombudsmandens yderligere undersøgelser påpegede Kommissionen, at fejl i forbindelse med udøvelsen af et erhverv kan opstå i mange forskellige situationer, og gjorde gældende, at det ikke er muligt at nævne alle sådanne situationer specifikt i indkøbsdokumenter eller indkaldelser af forslag.
In reply to the Ombudsman’s further inquiries, the Commission pointed out that professional misconduct may arise from many d iT erent situations and argued that it is not possible to mention each of those situations specifically in the procurement documents or call for proposals.
Som svar på Ombudsmandens spørgsmål vedrørende indsæmelse i kontrakter af en klausul med krav om ikke-forskelsbehandling gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at indsæmelse af flere særklausuler om meget specifikke situationer, som ligger uden for kontraktens anvendelsesområde, ville gøre kontrakternes indhold og struktur kompliceret og have en negativ indvirkning på konkurrencen.
In reply to the Ombudsman’s question concerning the possible insertion into its contracts of a clause requiring non-discrimination, the Commission argued that the multiplication of special clauses to cover very specific situations outside the scope of the contract would complicate the content and structure of the contracts and could have negative eTects on competition.
Kommissionen understregede endvidere, at de nationale jurisdiktioner er de eneste instanser med individuel kompetence til at behandle påstande om sproglig forskelsbehandling.
The Commission also underlined that the national jurisdictions remain the sole instances competent individually to evaluate alleged cases of linguistic discrimination.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens argumenter mod indsæmelse af en særlig klausul syntes at være rimelige.
The Ombudsman considered that the arguments put forward by the Commission against the inclusion of special contractual clauses did not appear to be unreasonable.
Han fandt det også rimeligt i lyset af subsidiaritetsprincippet for Kommissionen at fremføre, at påstande om sproglig forskelsbehandling skulle behandles på nationalt plan.
He also considered it reasonable, in view of the principle of subsidiarity, for the Commission to take the view that alleged cases of linguistic discrimination should be evaluated at national level.
Han fandt derfor ikke, at Kommissionen havde gjort sig skyldig i fejl eller forsømmelser.
No maladministration by the Commission was therefore found.
Ombudsmanden fremsame imidlertid en yderligere bemærkning om, at Kommissionen, hvis den får beviser på forskelsbehandling på grund af sprog fra en af sine kontrahenters eller stømemodtageres side, kunne oversende disse oplysninger til den relevante nationale myndighed med ansvar for at behandle en sådan sag eller give den person, der fremsender sådanne beviser, denne myndigheds kontaktoplysninger.
The Ombudsman however made a further remark that the Commission could, if it receives evidence of linguistic discrimination by one of its contractors or beneficiaries, transmit that information to the relevant national authority with responsibility for dealing with the mamer or provide the person submiming the evidence with the contact details of that authority.
FORVALTNING AF MIDLER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE FOND FOR REGIONALUDVIKLING
MANAGEMENT OF EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 732/2004/ELB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 732/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Klageren, som var direktør for et center, der var blevet udvalgt til at modtage et tilskud finansieret af Den Europæiske Fond for Regionaludvikling (EFRU), gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at sikre korrekt forvaltning af EFRU-midlerne.
The complainant, who was the director of a Centre that was selected to receive a grant financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), alleged that the Commission had failed to ensure the proper management of ERDF funds.
Han nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen skulle kontakte de italienske myndigheder med ansvar for forvaltning af disse midler i Italien med henblik på at kræve betaling af de ud g i W er, som klageren havde haW, forpligte disse myndigheder til at opfylde kontrakten og betale morarenter og muligvis s t r aT e Italien for den dårlige forvaltning af midlerne.
He claimed that the Commission should contact the Italian authorities responsible for managing these funds in Italy, in order to request payment of the expenses incurred by the complainant, oblige those authorities to comply with the contract and to pay interest for late payment, and, possibly, sanction Italy for its poor management of the funds.
Ifølge Kommissionen er medlemsstaterne ansvarlige for forvaltningen af programmer under strukturfondene og for at udpege betalings- og forvaltningsmyndigheder.
According to the Commission, Member States are responsible for the management of Structural Funds programmes and for designating the managing and the paying authorities.
Inden for sine kontrol- og opfølgningsbeføjelser sikrede Kommissionen overholdelse af princippet om remidig betaling af stømebeløb, som anført i artikel 32, stk. 1, femte led, i forordning 1260/1999 om vedtagelse af generelle bestemmelser for strukturfondene8.
Within its powers of control and follow-up, the Commission ensured compliance with the principle of timely payment of contributions, provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, fi W h indent, of Regulation 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds8.
Kommissionen havde anmodet om oplysninger fra de italienske myndigheder, på baggrund af hvilke den konkluderede, at klageren var ansvarlig for nogle forsinkelser, da hans bankoplysninger var ufuldstændige.
The Commission had requested information from the Italian authorities, from which it concluded that the complainant was responsible for some delays, as his bank data were incomplete.
I april 2004 underremede betalingsmyndigheden Kommissionen om, at stømemodtageren var blevet betalt.
In April 2004, the paying authority informed the Commission that the beneficiary had been paid.
Kommissionen skrev til forvaltningsmyndigheden for at anmode om oplysninger om programmets finansielle ordninger og for at anmode om, at dem e spørgsmål blev sat på dagsordenen for det næste møde i overvågningsudvalget.
The Commission wrote to the managing authority to request information on the financial arrangements of the programme and to request that this issue be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the monitoring commimee.
Overvågningsudvalget beslumede at analysere, hvorvidt betalingsmyndighedens finansielle ordning var hensigtsmæssig, samt at tage skridt til at a]orte betalingsfristerne.
The monitoring commimee decided to analyse the appropriateness of the financial arrangements chosen by the paying authority
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1260/1999 af 21. juni 1999 om vedtagelse af generelle bestemmelser for strukturfondene, EFT L 161 af 26.6.1999, s. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY and to take measures to reduce the deadlines.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at, selv om de betalingsmyndigheder, medlemsstaterne udpeger, er ansvarlige for remidig betaling af EFRU-midler, omfamer Kommissionens ansvar for den korrekte forvaltning af EFRU-midler, at den skal sikre sig, at de forvaltnings- og kontrolsystemer, som den får oplyst af medlemsstaterne, er passende og tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at betalingsmyndighederne overholder deres forpligtelse til remidig betaling.
The Ombudsman considered that, although the paying authorities designated by the Member States are responsible for the timely payment of ERDF funds, the Commission’s responsibility for the proper management of ERDF funds includes satisfying itself that the management and control systems communicated to it by Member States are appropriate and adequate to ensure that paying authorities comply with their obligation of timely payment.
Hvad angår klagerens påstand om, at Kommissionen havde undladt at sikre korrekt forvaltning af EFRU-midler, fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen syntes at have taget passende og tilstrækkelige skridt til at opfylde sit ansvar med hensyn til korrekt forvaltning af EFRU-midlerne.
As regards the complainant’s allegation that the Commission had failed to ensure the proper management of ERDF funds, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate and adequate steps to discharge its responsibilities for the proper management of ERDF funds.
Han konstaterede derfor ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
He therefore found no maladministration.
Hvad angår klagerens påstande, fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen syntes at have t r u T et passende foranstaltninger til at sikre, at klageren blev betalt.
As regards the complainant’s claims, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate action to ensure payment to the complainant.
Han påpegede, at ansvaret for betaling af rente ligger hos den italienske betalingsmyndighed.
He pointed out that the responsibility for paying interest would fall on the Italian paying authority.
Endelig fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionens forklaringer om sine manglende beføjelser til at pålægge Italien straf var rimelige.
Finally, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s explanations as regards its lack of power to impose sanctions on Italy appeared reasonable.
EVALUERING AF ET PROJEKTFORSLAG (1)
EVALUATION OF A PROJECT PROPOSAL (1)
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 758/2004/ELB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 758/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Klagerens forslag til Kommissionen om et indirekte projekt om forskning, teknologisk udvikling og demonstration blev afvist.
The complainant’s proposal to the Commission for an indirect RTD (Research, Technological development and Demonstration) project was rejected.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at de ua[ængige eksperter, som havde beslumet, at hendes forslag om udvikling af intraokulære linser var irrelevant for det pågældende strategiske mål, havde begået en fejl.
The complainant alleged that the independent experts who decided that her proposal for the development of intraocular lenses was irrelevant to the Strategic Objective concerned had made an error.
Hun gjorde ligeledes gældende, at proceduren var uretfærdig, e W ersom det ikke var muligt at anfægte eksperternes beslutning eller indsende et nyt forslag.
She also alleged that the procedure was unfair, since it was not possible to challenge the decision taken by the experts or to submit a second proposal.
Endelig gjorde hun gældende, at hun havde modtaget utilstrækkelige og uklare oplysninger i løbet af proceduren, og at hun modtog oplysningerne for sent til, at det var muligt at overveje at indsende et nyt forslag.
Finally, she alleged that the information available to her during the procedure was inadequate and unclear and that information arrived too late for her to consider making a new submission.
Ifølge Kommissionen skal et forslag evalueres inden for rammerne af det pågældende strategiske mål, dets fokuspunkter og arbejdsprogrammets overordnede mål.
According to the Commission, a proposal must be evaluated in the context of the Strategic Objective concerned, its focal points and the overall objectives of the Work Programme.
De tre ua[ængige eksperter vurderede enstemmigt, at forslaget helt klart ikke var relevant.
The unanimous opinion of the three independent experts was that the proposal was clearly not relevant.
Kommissionen havde gennemgået denne udtalelse og konkluderet, at den var beremiget.
The Commission had reviewed this opinion and concluded that it was justified.
For at sikre retfærdig og lige behandling er der ikke kontakt mellem Kommissionen og ansøgerne vedrørende forslagene, før evalueringen er afslumet. Når først evalueringen er færdig, kan Kommissionen imidlertid på ansøgerens anmodning uddybe forklaringerne i den sammenfamende evalueringsrapport.
To ensure fair and equal treatment, there is no contact between the Commission and applicants on their proposal until a W er completion of the evaluation.
Hvad angår indsendelse af et nyt forslag, gjorde Kommissionen gældende, at klageren på baggrund af oplysningerne om styrkerne og svaghederne ved klagerens forslag kunne vurdere, om det var hensigtsmæssigt at indsende et forslag ved den næste indkaldelse.
As regards a new submission, the Commission argued that, based on the information it had supplied about the strengths and weaknesses of the complainant’s proposal, the complainant could judge the suitability of making a submission under the next call.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at det krævede videnskabelig og teknisk ekspertviden at besvare spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt klagerens forslag faldt inden for rammerne af det relevante strategiske mål, samt at hans undersøgelser af klagens saglige indhold derfor skulle fokuseres på en vurdering af, hvorvidt Kommissionens beslutning om at b e k r æ W e evalueringsresultatet syntes at være åbenbart urimelig.
The Ombudsman considered that to answer the question of whether the complainant’s proposal fell within the scope of the relevant Strategic Objective required the application of expert scientific and technical knowledge and that the scope of his substantive review should therefore be limited to assessing whether the Commission’s decision to confirm the evaluation results appeared manifestly unreasonable.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke, at Kommissionens beslutning var åbenbart urimelig.
The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s decision was not manifestly unreasonable.
Ombudsmanden fandt endvidere, at eksperternes rolle, som defineret i de relevante oTentliggjorte retningslinjer, er at yde videnskabelig og teknisk rådgivning for at hjælpe Kommissionen med at t r æ T e de mest eTektive beslutninger for at fremme Fællesskabets mål, og at eksperternes ua[ængighed bidrager til at gøre processen både eTektiv og retfærdig.
The Ombudsman also took the view that the role of the experts as defined in the relevant published Guidelines is to provide scientific and technical advice to assist the Commission to make the most eTective decisions to promote the Community’s objectives and that the experts’ independence is conducive to both the eTectiveness and the fairness of the process.
Under disse omstændigheder fandt han ikke, at manglen på en mekanisme til at klage over eksperternes evaluering i sig selv kunne udgøre strukturelle eller systemiske fejl eller forsømmelser.
In these circumstances, he did not consider that the absence of an appeal mechanism against the experts’ evaluation could, in itself, constitute structural or systemic maladministration.
BEHANDLING AF EN ARTIKEL 226-KLAGE
HANDLING OF AN ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1298/2004/PB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1298/2004/PB against the European Commission
Klageren havde indgivet en klage til Kommissionen med påstand om, at Det Forenede Kongerige havde overtrådt direktiv 73/239/EØF om samordning af de administrativt eller ved lov fastsame e
The complainant had submimed a complaint to the Commission concerning alleged breaches by the United Kingdom of Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance9.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde hun gældende, at hun havde modtaget en utilfredsstillende forklaring på Kommissionens undladelse af at besvare et brev, hun havde sendt den 29. maj 2003.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she alleged that she had received an unsatisfactory explanation for the Commission’s failure to reply to a lemer that she had sent on 29 May 2003.
Hun gjorde ligeledes gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at besvare hendes spørgsmål om, (i) hvorfor Kommissionen havde opgivet en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Det Forenede Kongerige i 1978, (ii) hvorfor Kommissionen (som hun så det) gav Det Forenede Kongerige lov til at overtræde fællesskabsremen, og (iii) hvordan hun selv kunne få en afgørelse fra EF-Domstolen.
She also alleged that the Commission had failed to reply to her questions as to (i) why the Commission withdrew a planned infringement proceeding against the United Kingdom in 1978, (ii) why the Commission allowed (as she saw it) the United Kingdom to infringe Community law, and (iii) how she herself could obtain a judgment by the European Court of Justice.
Endelig gjorde hun gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at oplyse hende om en procedure i Det Forenede Kongerige, hvorigennem en borger kan få erstatning for tab og/eller skader som følge af overtrædelser af fællesskabsremen. en.
Finally, she alleged that the Commission had failed to provide her with information as to an established procedure in the United Kingdom enabling a citizen to obtain compensation for loss and/or damage caused by infringement of Community law.
EWer en undersøgelse af den relevante korrespondance fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen generelt syntes at have bestræbt sig på at være omhyggelig i sin håndtering af meddelelser fra klagerne, samt at den havde undskyldt over klageren og t r u T et foranstaltninger til at a[jælpe den forsinkelse, der var sket. Ombudsmanden fandt endvidere, at Kommissionens forklaring på forsinkelsen syntes at være troværdig.
Following his examination of the relevant correspondence, the Ombudsman found that the Commission appeared generally to have made eTorts to act diligently in its handling of communications from the complainant and that it had apologised to the complainant and taken corrective measures in relation to the one delay that did occur.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere, at Kommissionen havde forklaret klageren, (i) at Kommissionens tjenestegrene var blevet overbevist af Det Forenede Kongeriges l ø W e om at vedtage den krævede lovgivning, (ii) at den ikke mente, at den havde ladet Det Forenede Kongerige overtræde fællesskabsremen, samt (iii) at de nationale domstole ville have kompetence til at vurdere spørgsmålet om den nationale lovgivnings tidligere forenelighed med fællesskabsremen.
The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission had explained to the complainant (i) that the Commission’s services had been satisfied with the United Kingdom’s undertaking to adopt the required legislation, (ii) that it had not considered that it had allowed the United Kingdom to infringe Community law, and (iii) that the national courts would be competent to rule on the past conformity of national legislation with Community law.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at disse svar fra Kommissionen var fyldestgørende.
The Ombudsman considered that these replies from the Commission were adequate replies.
Ombudsmanden mente, at det var rimeligt for Kommissionen i sine meddelelser til privatpersoner vedrørende konkrete sager at begrænse sine oplysninger om spørgsmål vedrørende erstatningskrav mod medlemsstaterne til de remigheder, der er fastlagt gennem Domstolens retspraksis. Kommissionen kunne ikke e W er Ombudsmandens mening være forpligtet til at yde juridisk rådgivning vedrørende nationale procedurer.
The Ombudsman considered that it was reasonable for the Commission, in its communications with private individuals relating to concrete cases, to limit its information on issues of compensation claims against Member States to the rights established in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede derfor intet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration.
EVALUERING AF ET PROJEKTFORSLAG (2)
EVALUATION OF A PROJECT PROPOSAL (2)
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1365/2004/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1365/2004/TN against the European Commission
Klagen omhandlede Kommissionens evaluering af et projektforslag indsendt under det sjeme rammeprogram for forskning.
The complaint concerned the Commission’s evaluation of a project proposal submimed under the Sixth Research Framework Programme.
Et konsortium af europæiske virksomheder havde ansøgt om finansiering af et oT s h o r e v ind kraW projekt ud for den irske kyst.
A consortium of European companies had applied for funding
Rådets første direktiv 73/239/EØF af 24. juli 1973 om samordning af de administrativt eller ved lov fastsame bestemmelser om adgang til udøvelse af direkte forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring, EFT L 228 af 16.8.1973, s. 3.
First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY for an oTshore wind power project oT the Irish coast.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at de eksperter, der evaluerede projektforslaget om oT s h o r e v ind kraW, fandt, at de begrænsede oplysninger om den danske partner ikke var overbevisende.
The Commission argued that the experts evaluating the oTshore wind project proposal considered that the limited information provided about the Danish partner was not convincing.
Ombudsmanden mindede i sin afgørelse om, at hans opgave ikke var at evaluere projektforslaget igen, men at undersøge, om der var sket en klar fejl i Kommissionens evaluering.
In his decision, the Ombudsman recalled that his task was not to re-evaluate the project proposal in question but to investigate whether there had been a manifest error of evaluation by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at projektforslagets ret begrænsede oplysninger om den danske partner ikke indeholdt nogen henvisninger til, at virksomheden skulle være specialist eller verdens førende på det relevante område.
The Ombudsman found that the project proposal’s rather brief information on the Danish partner contained no reference to the company being a specialist or world leader in the relevant field.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at klageren, selv om man antog, at denne havde ret mht. den danske partners status, ikke havde bevist, at Kommissionen eller dennes eksperter, som gennemførte evalueringen af forslaget, skulle have været klar over partnerens status uanset oplysningerne i forslaget.
The Ombudsman took the view that, even assuming that the complainant was correct as regards the Danish partner’s standing, the complainant had not demonstrated that the Commission or its experts who carried out the evaluation of the proposal should have been aware of the partner’s standing regardless of the information provided in the proposal.