natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Men eftersom det endelige arbejde ikke var i overensstemmelse medkontraktens specifikationer,nægtede Kommissionen at betale det udestående beløb på10.800 EUR.
However,given that the final work was not in conformitywith the contract specifications,the Commission refused to pay that outstanding amount of 10800.
1.4I maj 2000 meddelte klageren imidlertid Ombudsmanden,at Kommissionen havdebetalt de 10.800 EUR og takkede ham for hans hjælp i denne sag.
1.4However,in May 2000,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the
Ombudsmanden vurderede derfor,at Kommissionen havde forsøgt at løse sagen til klagerens tilfredshed,hvadangår denne del af klagen.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that with regard to this aspect of the case, the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Påstand om straf på grund af indgivelse af en klage
The alleged penalisation because of the lodging of a complaint
2.1Klageren gjorde gældende,at på grund af sin klage til Ombudsmanden havde de relevante tjenestegrene i Kommissionen straffet M. ved at nægte at medvirke i flere drøftelser,ikke kun om klagens indhold,men også om arbejdsprogrammet for 2000.
2.1The complainant alleged that,as a result of his complaint to the Ombudsman,the relevant services of the Commission had penalised M. by refusing further discussions not onlyas regards the payments which were the subject of the complaint,but also as regards thework programme for the year 2000.
2.2Kommissionen meddelte,at den aldrig havde straffet klageren på grund af hans klagetil Ombudsmanden.
2.2The Commission stated that it had never penalised the complainant because of thecomplaint to the Ombudsman.
Kommissionen angav,at et møde med klageren var blevet aflyst idecember 1999 med henblik på at respektere den klageprocedure,som klageren havdeindledt,og eftersom klagen endnu ikke var sendt til de ansvarlige tjenestegrene.Kommissionen afholdt imidlertid møde med klageren den 5. januar 2000 samt den 13.januar 2000 for at drøfte aktivitetsprogrammet for 2000.
The Commission indicated that a meeting with thecomplainant had been cancelled in December 1999 in order to respect the complaintprocedure started by the complainant,and given that the text of the complaint had still notarrived at the responsible services.
Desuden oplyste klageren den 21.
However,the Commission afterwards met the
2.3På baggrund af ovenstående betragtninger vurderede Ombudsmanden derfor, at Kommissionen havde forsøgt at løse sagen til klagerens tilfredshed,hvad angår denne delaf klagen.
2.3On the basis of the above considerations,the Ombudsman found that with regard tothis aspect of the case,the Commission had taken steps to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Det fremgik af Europa-Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
It appears from the European Commission’s comments and the complainant’s observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and thereby satisfied thecomplainant. The Ombudsman therefore decides to close the case.
AFVISNING AF ATBETALE EN KUNST-NER I FORBINDELSEMED OPHAVSRET
REFUSAL TO PAYAN ARTIST INRESPECT OF HISCOPYRIGHTS
Hun blev anmodet om at tegne otte illustrationer til Europa-Kommissionens Generaldirektorat X,som skulle anvendes i informationsbrochurer om Den Europæiske Union (“Spørgsmål og svar om EU”).Disse brochurer blev offentliggjortførste gang i 1996.
She was asked to provide Directorate General X of the European Commission with 8 illustrations to be used in information brochures about the European Union (“Questions and answers about the EU”). These brochures were firstpublished in 1996.
Nogle af dem blev genoptrykt,men klageren blev aldrig informereteller betalt.
Some were reissued but the complainant was never informed or paidfor it.
Afgørelse om klage81/2000/ADB over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint81/2000/ADB againstthe European Commission
Ifølge klageren var der i den oprindelige ordreformular kun tale om én udgave.
According to the complainant,the initial order form only foresaw one edition.
Den indeholdt hverken oplysninger om betaling for yderligere udgaver eller overdragelse afophavsretten til Europa-Kommissionen.
It neitherforesaw the payment of further editions,nor the transfer of the copyright to the European Commission.
Klageren kontaktede derfor Kommissionen for atindgå aftale om yderligere betaling i forbindelse med sin ophavsret til genoptrykkene.Kommissionen nægtede dette,fordi det ikke indgik i den oprindelige aftale.
The complainant therefore contacted the Commission to agree on additionalpayments in respect of her copyrights for the reissues. The Commission refused becauseit was not foreseen in the initial agreement.
Klageren indgav derfor en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand vedrørende Kommissionens afvisning af at betale hende for hendes ophavsret til de illustrationer,dervar blevet udgivet af Europa-Kommissionens GD X.
The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerningthe Commission’s refusal to pay her in respect of her copyrights for illustrations publishedby DG X of the European Commission.
Europa-Kommissionens udtalelse
The European Commission’s opinion
I sin udtalelse om klagen anførte Europa-Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary thefollowing:
Ifølge ordreformularen blev klageren anmodet om at tegne otte illustrationer til 6.000 FRFpr. stk. Klageren anførte på fakturaen kun,at kunstneren ville bevare ejendomsretten tilillustrationerne,som skulle returneres i perfekt stand.
According to the order form the complainant was asked to create 8 illustrations for6.000FF each. On her invoice the complainant only mentioned that the artist wouldremain the owner of the illustrations which ought to be returned in a perfect condition.
Betalingen på 48.000 FRF bleveffektueret den 25. oktober 1996.
Thepayment of 48.000 FF was made on 25 October 1996.
Klageren havde aldrig nævnt,at denne betaling kunangik selve udarbejdelsen af illustrationen og ikke offentliggørelse af den.
The complainant had nevermentioned that this payment was only for the creation and not for the publication of theillustration.
Kommissionenville aldrig have betalt for udarbejdelse af værkerne uden at få retten til at offentliggøredem.
The Commission would never have paid only for the creation of works withouthaving the right to publish them.
Seks af illustrationerne er rent faktisk blevet genoptrykt med en lidt anden tekst.
Six illustrations have indeed been reissued with a slightlymodified text.
Denye udgaver var næsten identiske med de tidligere udgaver.
The new editions were almost identical to the previous ones.
Klageren blev derfor ikkeinformeret.
Thus thecomplainant had not been informed.
Ikke desto mindre ville Kommissionen på trods af de forskellige fortolkninger kontakteklageren med henblik på at forsøge at opnå en mindelig løsning.
Nevertheless,despite the discrepancy of interpretations between the complainant and the Commission the latter would contact the complainant in order to try to find a friendlysettlement.
Det skulle baseres på de beløb,der normalt udbetales for ophavsrettil værker,der kopieres på seks millioner brochurer og udsendes i hele Den Europæiske Union.
It should be based on payments usually made in respect of copyrights for works copied on 6 million brochures and distributed throughout the European Union.
Klageren meddelte den 16. august 2000 Ombudsmanden,at på trods af Kommissionensløfte af 11. maj 2000 om at kontakte klageren med henblik på at finde en mindelig løsning,var der endnu ikke sket noget. Ombudsmanden kontaktede derfor den 8. september 2000Kommissionen for at spørge om forsinkelsen.
On 16 August 2000,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that despite the Commission’s commitment of 11 May 2000 to contact the complainant in order to achievea friendly settlement,no action had been taken.
Kommissionen meddelte den 16. november2000 Ombudsmanden,at forsinkelsen skyldtes,at man havde udskiftet personale i detansvarlige GD,samt sommerferien.
On 16 November 2000, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that delays had occurred because of staff changesin the responsible DG and because of the summer holidays.
Kommissionen havde i mellemtiden kontaktetklageren.
In the meantime, the Commission had contacted the complainant.
Kommissionen oplyste den 31. januar 2001 Ombudsmanden om sit tilbud om atbetale 36.000 FRF til klageren.
On 31 January 2001,the Commissioninformed the Ombudsman of its offer to pay 36.000 FF to the complainant.
Klageren oplyste den 26. marts 2001 Ombudsmanden om,at Kommissionen i sit forslaghavde udeladt vigtige kriterier i forbindelse med vurderingen af det beløb,der skullebetales til klageren.
On 26 March 2001,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that in its proposal, the Commission had left out important criteria when evaluating the amount to be paid to thecomplainant.
Klageren mente,at Kommissionens tilbud var utilstrækkeligt,og foreslog et forlig på 50.000 FRF. Ombudsmanden videresendte disse oplysninger til Europa-Kommissionen.
The complainant considered the Commission’s offer to be insufficient andproposed to agree on 50.000 FF.
Klageren meddelte den 15. maj 2001 Ombudsmanden,at hun havde accepteret Kommissionens seneste tilbud på 42.000 FRF med henblik på at få afsluttet tvisten.
On 15 May 2001,the complainant informed the Ombudsman that in order to put an end tothe dispute,she had accepted the Commission’s latest proposal to pay her 42.000 FF.
Afvisning af at betale klageren i forbindelse med ophavsret
Refusal to pay the complainant in respect of her copyrights
1.1 Klageren indgav en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over Kommissionensafvisning af at betale hende for hendes ophavsret til de illustrationer,der var blevet udgivetaf Europa-Kommissionens GD X.
1.1The complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the Commission’s refusal to pay her in respect of her copyrights for illustrations published by DG X of the European Commission.
1.2Kommissionen erkendte,at der havde været uoverensstemmelse mellem Kommissionens og klagerens fortolkning af den oprindelige kontrakt.
1.2The Commission admitted that there had been a discrepancy between the Commission’s and the complainant’s interpretation of the original contract.
Den havde ikkedesto mindre til hensigt at finde en mindelig løsning på sagen.
Neverthelessit had the intention to find a friendly settlement to the matter.
Det fremgår,at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.
It appears that the Commission took the steps to settle the matter and thereby satisfied thecomplainant.
Bemærk:Den 31. august 2001 takkede klageren Ombudsmanden og meddelte ham, at Kommissionen havde foretaget den lovede betaling.
Note :On 31 August 2001,the complainant thanked the Ombudsman and informed himthat the Commission had proceeded with the promised payment.
KOMMISSIONENSFORSINKEDE BETA-LING AF PROJEKTOM FOREBYGGELSEAF AIDS
COMMISSION’SLATE PAYMENT OFPROJECT ON AIDSPREVENTION
Klageren indgav i januar 2000 en klage til Ombudsmanden,registreret som 52/2000/RI,på vegne af GAP Network.
Acting on behalf of the GAP Network,the complainant lodged a complaint registered52/2000/RI with the Ombudsman in January 2000.
Klageren gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen ikke havde foretaget den sidste udbetaling til hans organisations projekt,som blev finansieret af Fællesskabet (”Programme of evaluation on HIV/AIDS prevention targeting homosexuallyactive men in the European Union by a Network of European homosexual organisations”).
The complainant claimed that the Commission had not made the last payment for a Community financed project undertakenby his organisation (“Programme of evaluation on HIV/AIDS prevention targeting homosexually active men in the European Union by a Network of European homosexual organisations”).
Afgørelse om klage423/2000/(IJH)JMAover Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint423/2000/(IJH)JMAagainst the European Commission
Klageren forklarede,at GAP Network havde lagt et stort beløb ud med henblik på atafslutte programmet ved udgangen af 1998,hvilket var del af den oprindelige plan.
The complainant explained that the GAP Network had advanced a large sum of money tofinalise the programme by the end of 1998,as originally scheduled.
Selvom det fra officiel side blev bekræftet,at klagerens projekt var blevet evalueret positivt,havde Kommissionen endnu ikke betalt de skyldige beløb.
Despite official assurances that the project carried out by the complainant had been evaluated positively, the Commission had not yet reimbursed the amounts due.
På baggrund af de oplysninger,som klageren opgav i sin første e-mail,syntes han ikke tidligere at have rettet nogen administrative henvendelser til den ansvarlige institution.
In the light of the informationsubmitted by the complainant in his first e-mail,it did not appear that any previous administrative approaches had been made towards the responsible institution.
Da det var klart,at der ikke tidligerevar rettet administrative henvendelser,hvilket kræves i artikel 2,stk. 4,i Ombudsmandensstatut,blev klagen erklæret uantagelig,og Ombudsmanden afsluttede behandlingen afsagen.
In the apparentabsence of any previous administrative approaches,as required by Article 2,par. 4 of the Ombudsman Statute,the complaint was declared inadmissible and the Ombudsmandecided to close the case.
Da klageren i marts 2000 fremsendte yderligere oplysninger,som viste,at han havde haften del korrespondance med Kommissionen vedrørende betalingen af det skyldige beløb,besluttede Ombudsmanden at indlede en ny sag (423/2000/(IJH)JMA) samt en undersøgelse af klagen. Klagerens nye oplysninger beskrev skriftlig korrespondance med deansvarlige tjenestegrene i Kommissionen og vedlagde kopier af disse skrivelser.
When the complainant forwarded additional information in March 2000 which showedthat he had had several exchanges with the Commission concerning the payment of hisdues,the Ombudsman decided to open a new complaint (423/2000/(IJH)JMA),and to startan inquiry into the matter.
Klageren anmodede i det væsentlige om,at Kommissionen skulle udbetale de skyldigebeløb til afslutning af projektet,som var finansieret af institutionen.
In summary,the complainant requested that the Commission pay him the sums due for thecompletion of the project financed by the institution.
Kommissionen forklarede først baggrunden forproblemet.
The Commission first explained thebackground of the problem.
Den angav,at Kommissionen og GAP Network havde indgået en kontrakt omgennemførelsen af projektet ”Programme of Evaluation of HIV/AIDS Prevention Targeting Homosexually Active Men in the European Union by a Network of European Homosexual Organisations”,som gjaldt fra december 1997 til december 1998.
It indicated that the Commission and the GAP Network hadsigned a contract for the implementation of the project “Programme of Evaluation of HIV/AIDS Prevention Targeting Homosexually Active Men in the European Union by a Network of European Homosexual Organisations”,for a period of validity from December1997 to December 1998.
Den finansielle bistand til dette projekt blev bevilget inden for rammerne af Fællesskabets programtil forebyggelse af AIDS og visse andre overførbare sygdomme.
The financial support for this project was granted within theframework of the Community programme for prevention of aids and certain other transmissible diseases.
Kontrakten foreskrev, at GAP Network skulle indsende den endelige projektrapport i midten af marts måned 1999.
The contract stipulated that the GAP Network should submit the finalproject report in mid-March 1999.
Kommissionen var klar over,at den tredje og sidste udbetaling til gennemførelse afprojektet,som klageren angav,endnu ikke var foretaget,og beklagede de langtrukneforhandlinger,der var forbundet med afslutningen af denne sag.
The Commission was aware that,as claimed by the complainant,the third and finalpayment for the implementation of the project had not yet been made,and regretted theprotracted negotiations related to the closure of the file.
Institutionen forklarede,at der i april 1998 samt i februar 1999 blev foretaget en delændringer i kontrakten.
The institution explained that in April 1998,as well as in February 1999,a series ofchanges in the contract had been made.
Desuden lå en del af skylden hos Euroskills,det agentur,der varansvarlig for opfølgning på gennemførelsen af projektet.
Moreover,part of the problem lay with Euroskills,the agency responsible for following-up the implementation of the project.
Kontoret for teknisk bistand,Euroskills,havde indtil slutningen af juli 1999 hjulpet de ansvarlige tjenestegrene i Kommissionen med gennemførelsen af programmet til forebyggelse af AIDS,da der ikkevar tilstrækkeligt med ledige ressourcer i Kommissionen til den daglige administrative ogtekniske forvaltning af projektfilerne.
Until the endof July 1999,the office for technical assistance,Euroskills,had assisted the responsible Commission services with the implementation of the aids prevention programme,due tothe lack of available resources within the Commission for the day-to-day administrativeand technical management of project files.
Den endelige rapport var dateret marts 1999.
The final project report was dated March 1999.
Euroskills udbad sig imidlertid yderligereoplysninger fra GAP Network,som straks blev fremsendt.
However,Euroskills requested supplementary information from the GAP Network,which was forwarded without delay.
77 personalet i Direktoratet for folkesundhed det arbejde,der tidligere blev udført af Euroskills.
77 the large number of project files,Euroskills had not been able to settle the final paymentrequest before its contract with the Commission came to an end,at the end of July 1999.At that time,staff within the Public Health Directorate took over the work previously doneby Euroskills.
Kommissionen meddelte,at tjenestegrenene skulle bekræfte og godkende de faktiskeudgifter på grundlag af dokumentation for at overholde bestemmelserne om finansielforvaltning.
The Commission indicated that its services had to verify and approve the actual expenditure incurred on the basis of supporting documents,in order to respect provisions of financial management.
I slutningen af juni 2000 blev der foretaget analyse af den sidste betalingsan-modning,som også vedrørte færdiggørelsen af ændringerne i kontrakten.
An analysis of the request for final payment,also involving finalisationof contractual changes,had been made at the end of June 2000.
Eftersom betalingsanmodningen ikke indeholdt tilstrækkelig dokumentation,blev der sendt en skrivelsetil GAP Network.
Since the payment requestdid not contain sufficient supporting documents a letter was sent to the GAP Network.
Kommissionen modtog i juli 2000 en skrivelse fra GAP Network,derindeholdt dokumentation.
In July 2000,the Commission received a letter from the GAP Network containing supportingdocuments.
På baggrund af de beviser,som klageren fremsendte,foretog Kommissionen den tredje ogendelige betaling til projektet.
On the evidence submitted by the complainant,the Commission made the third and finalpayment for the project.
Institutionen angav,at GAP Network allerede skulle havemodtaget den endelige betaling,som Kommissionens tjenestegrene allerede havde foretaget i starten af august 2000.
The institution indicated that the GAP Network should havealready received the final payment which had been made by the Commission services atthe beginning of August 2000.
Klageren sendte i juni 2000 yderligere oplysninger til Ombudsmanden om den senesteudvikling i sagen.
In June 2000,the complainant sent additional information to the Ombudsman concerningthe latest development of the case.
Han angav,at Kommissionen havde kontaktet GAP Network i juni,hvorde havde fortalt klageren,at den forsinkede udbetaling skyldtes,at visse formalitetervedrørende ændringerne i den oprindelige kontrakt skulle afklares. Kommissionens tjenestegrene udbad sig også et antal dokumenter vedrørende projektets økonomiske rapport.Klageren sendte disse dokumenter til Kommissionen i juli 2000 og oplyste Ombudsmanden om dette.
He indicated that the Commission had contacted the GAP Network in June,informing the complainant that the delay in the payment of thecontract had been due to the need to complete the formalities resulting from the amendments introduced twice in the original contract.
Klageren bekræftede i en e-mail i december 2000,at Kommissionen endelig havde betaltde skyldige beløb,og takkede Ombudsmanden for hans indsats i forbindelse med at findeen løsning på problemet.
By an electronic mail of December 2000,the complainant confirmed that the Commissionhad finally paid the sums due and expressed his gratitude to the Ombudsman for his assistance in finding a solution to the problem.
Det fremgik af klagerens oplysninger og Europa-Kommissionens udtalelse, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.
On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the opinion submitted bythe European Commission,the Ombudsman concludes that the case has been settled bythe European Commission to the complainant’s satisfaction.
På den baggrund afslutter Den Europæiske Ombudsmand behandlingen af sagen.
Against this background,the European Ombudsman therefore decides to close the case.
Klageren indgav i marts 2000 en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand med påstand om Europa-Kommissionens manglende betaling i forbindelse med sin datters død. Datterenvar tidligere ansat i Kommissionen.
In March 2000,the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsmanconcerning the European Commission’s alleged failure to make payments in relation to thedeath of his daughter,a former employee of the Commission.
Klagerens advokat havde i flere måneder uden heldforsøgt at få pengene udbetalt.
The complainant’s solicitorhad tried for several months to obtain payment,without success.
Klageren krævede:1) godtgørelse af begravelsesomkost-ninger,2) udbetaling af løn og 3) godtgørelse af lægeomkostninger.
The complainantclaimed:1) reimbursement of funeral expenses; 2) payment of salary and 3) payment ofmedical expenses.
Afgørelse om klage469/2000/ME over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint469/2000/ME againstthe European Commission
Faxen blev besvaret den 14. december 1999,men der forelå stadigikke tilstrækkelige oplysninger.
On 13December 1999,the Commission had requested further information by fax concerning thecomplainant’s bank account.
Intetsvar blev på disse faxer blev modtaget.
Another financial details form was sent in April 2000.
Der blev sendt endnu en formular i april 2000.Kommissionen modtog den udfyldte formular fra klageren den 2. maj 2000,og denne filblev endelig godkendt den 16. maj 2000.
The Commission received the completed form from the complainant on 2 May 2000 and thisfile was finally validated on 16 May 2000.
Hvad angår de andre krav,havde der været problemer med at bekræfte klagerens bankkonto og med,at disse udgifter ikke kunne betales,før udgifterne til at fragte liget hjemvar betalt.
As regards the other claims,problems had occurred in relation to the validation of thecomplainant’s bank account and the fact that these expenses could not be paid until thecosts for the transportation of the body had been honoured.
Klageren meddelte i sine bemærkninger,at han også opfattede sagen som afsluttet.
In his observations,the complainant stated that he also considered the case closed.
Hantakkede Ombudsmanden for at have undersøgt sagen vedrørende datterens død og for hansindblanding i sagen.
Hethanked the Ombudsman for his attention to the matter related to his daughter’s death andfor his intervention in the case.
Klageren medgav,at problemer med banken og andre individer havdeforårsaget nogen forsinkelse,men udtrykte sin tvivl om Kommissionens afsendelse affaxer,eftersom han ikke havde et faxnummer.
The complainant agreed that problems with his bank andother individuals had caused some delay,but expressed doubts as to the Commission’smention of sent faxes,since he did not have a fax number.