natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I sit svar af 30. marts 1999 henviste Rådets generalsekretær til mødet den2. marts 1999 mellem Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens generalsekretærer og Ombudsmanden, hvor han havde tilkendegivet, at de foranstaltninger, som Ombudsmanden havde foreslået, uden tvivl ville bidrage tilat bringe borgerne tættere på fællesskabsinstitutionerne.Generalsekretæren bemærkede endvidere, at en kodeks snarere burdevedtages i form af en afgørelse truffet af Rådet end i form af en afgørelsetruffet af generalsekretæren. Han anførte, at han havde anmodet Rådetstjenestegrene om at undersøge spørgsmålet på baggrund af de særligeomstændigheder i Rådet samt de øvrige fællesskabsinstitutioners initiativer.
In his reply of 12 February 1999, the President of the Parliament welcomedthe initiative and indicated that the Parliament had already started theexamination of the matter of a Code of good administrative behaviour.Heobserved that the question had been on the agenda of the meetingbetween the Secretary General and the Directors General of 8 January1999.He indicated that, according to the progression of the work, the Bureau of the Parliament would be seized of a draft Code of good administrative behaviour which would be transmitted to the Ombudsman.Since12 February 1999, no draft Code has been received from the Parliament.
Udtalelser fra Fællesskabets øvrige institutioner, organer og decentrale organer
The opinions from the other Community institutions,bodies anddecentralised agencies
Revisionsrettenunderrettede den 24. november 1998 Ombudsmandenom, at den i fremtiden påtænkte at udarbejde en kodeks, som skulle værepræcis og tilgængelig for offentligheden.
The Court of Auditorsinformed the Ombudsman on 24 November 1998that it envisaged the elaboration of a Code in the future which should beprecise and accessible to the public.
Både Det Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg og Regionsudvalgethilste henholdsvis den 6. januar 1999 og den 4. december 1998 Ombudsmandensforslag velkomment og tilkendegav, at de var rede til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at vedtaget en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik.Regionsudvalgetanførte, at kodeksen ville blive vedtaget i form af enafgørelse truffet af dets Præsidium. Begge udvalg understregede ogsåbetydningen af, at kodeksen blev fælles for alle EU-institutioner og -organer.
Both the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions welcomed, respectively on 6 January 1999 and 4 December 1998,the Ombudsman’s proposal and indicated that they were prepared to takethe necessary steps in order to adopt a Code of good administrativebehaviour.The Committee of the Regionsindicated that the Code would beadopted in the form of a decision of its Bureau.Both Committees stressedalso the importance of the Code to be common to all European institutionsand bodies.
Den Europæiske Investeringsbank informerede den 2. december 1998Ombudsmanden om, at der allerede i april 1997 var vedtaget en adfærdskodeks gældende for EIB, og vedlagde en kopi af denne kodeks.Kodeksen var formelt blevet godkendt af Bankens direktion og er et supplement til tjenestemandsvedtægten. Banken oplyste Ombudsmanden om,at kapitel 2 i kodeksen, “Forbindelser udadtil”, indeholder principperne forgod forvaltningsskik for de ansatte i deres forbindelser med offentligheden,og at Bankens juridiske afdeling ville undersøge muligheden for i højeregrad at gøre denne del af dokumentet kendt i offentligheden.
The European Investment Bank informed the Ombudsman on 2 December1998 that a Code of Conduct applicable at the EIB had already beenadopted in April 1997 and enclosed a copy of this Code.The Code hadbeen formally approved by the Management Committee of the Bank and iscomplementary to the Staff Regulations.The Bank informed the Ombudsman that the Chapter 2 of the Code, “External Relations”, containsthe principles of good administrative behaviour for the staff in their relationswith the public, and that the legal department of the Bank would examinethe possibility of giving greater publicity to this part of the document.
Den Europæiske Centralbankinformerede den 4. februar 1999Ombudsmanden om, at den kun har få administrative relationer til denalmindelige offentlighed, da dens kontakter hovedsagelig er til centralbanker, finanssektoren, statslige organer og leverandører af varer og tjenesteydelser. Banken bemærkede imidlertid, at den i forbindelse med sinekontakter til borgerne ville overveje at vedtage en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik, så snart omstændighederne gav mulighed herfor, og informere Ombudsmanden om de trufne foranstaltninger.
The European Central Bankinformed the Ombudsman on 4 February 1999that it has few administrative relations with the general public, given that itscontacts are primarily with central banks, the financial industry, governmental bodies and suppliers of goods and services.The Bank howeverobserved that, for its dealings with the citizens, it would consider the adoption of a Code of good administrative behaviour as soon as circumstancesallowed it and inform the Ombudsman of the steps taken.
Ni af de ti decentrale EU-organervar positivt indstillede over for Ombudsmandens forslag og tilkendegav, at de agtede at vedtage enkodeks for god forvaltningsskik, som skulle godkendes af deres forskelligebestyrelser.
Nine of the ten decentralised Community agencieswelcomed positively the Ombudsman’s proposal and expressed their intention to adopt a Code ofgood administrative behaviour, which should be approved by their respec-
Harmoniseringskontoret erklærede derfor, at det allerede pånuværende tidspunkt overholdt de materielle og proceduremæssige principper, der er indeholdt i Ombudsmandens forslag til en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik (f.eks. bekræftelse på modtagelsen inden for 15 dage, direktekontakt til den ansvarlige embedsmand, ret til kontradiktion, forpligtelse tilat begrunde afgørelser, en ankeprocedure, en informationstjeneste og enkoordineringsenhed for klager).
On 2 December 1998, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market(OHIM)indicated to the Ombudsman that, given its special activity of intellectual property, it functions not as a common administration but rather likea private company which has to satisfy at its utmost its clients.The OHIMtherefore described in detail the numerous procedural and substantialguarantees (contained in various Commission and Council Regulations) itoffers for those who deposit a Community trademark.For this reason the OHIM indicated that, at this stage, it already complied with the substantialand procedural principles contained in the Ombudsman’s proposal for a Code of good administrative behaviour (such as the acknowledgement ofreceipt within 15 days, a direct contact with the responsible official, therights of the defence, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, anappeal procedure, an information service and a complaint coordinationunit).
Vurdering af den nuværende situation med hensyn til en kodeks forgod forvaltningsskik
Evaluation of the present situation as regards a Code of good administrative behaviour
På baggrund af oplysningerne fra Fællesskabets forskellige institutioner,organer og decentrale organer fremgår det, at ingen af dem på nuværendetidspunkt har vedtaget en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik som foreslået af Ombudsmanden.
On the basis of the information obtained from the different Community institutions, bodies and decentralised agencies, it appears that, for the moment,none of them has adopted a Code of good administrative behaviour as proposed by the Ombudsman.
Kommissionener begyndt at udarbejde et udkast til en adfærdskodeks foransatte i Europa-Kommissionen, hvori afsnit 5 vedrører kommissionstjenestemændene relationer til offentligheden. Ombudsmanden blev imidlertidinformeret om, at denne kodeks endnu ikke var blevet vedtaget, og at enformel opfølgning af udkastet til kodeks ikke var mulig under de givne omstændigheder.
The Commissionhas started to elaborate a draft Code of Conduct for staffof the European Commission, section 5 of which deals with the relations ofthe Commission officials with the public.The Ombudsman was howeverinformed that this Code had not yet been adopted and that in the given circumstances no formal followup to the draft Code was possible.
Parlamentet, Rådet, Revisionsretten, Det Økonomiske og Social Udvalg,Regionsudvalget og Den Europæiske Centralbankgik ind på, men harendnu ikke vedtaget en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik for deres tjenestemænd i deres forbindelser med offentligheden.
The Parliament, the Council, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions andthe European Central Bankagreed to but have not yet adopted a Code of good administrative behaviour for their officials in their relations with the public.
På den anden side har Den Europæiske Investeringsbank allerede i april1997 vedtaget en adfærdskodeks gældende for EIB. Det fremgår imidlertid, at denne kodeks, som er et supplement til tjenestemandsvedtægten,hovedsagelig vedrører relationerne mellem EIB’s ansatte og institutionenselv, og at selv kapitel 2 med titlen “Forbindelser udadtil” ikke rigtig indeholder bestemmelser, som virkelig vedrører relationerne til borgerne.
On the other hand, the European Investment Bank has already in April1997 adopted a detailed Code of Conduct applicable at the EIB.However,it appears that this Code, which is complementary to the Staff Regulations,mainly concerns the relations of the staff of the EIB with the institution itselfand that even Chapter 2 entitled “External Relations”does not really contain provisions which effectively deal with relations with the citizens.
Det fremgår endvidere, at ni af de ti decentrale organergik ind på at træffede nødvendige foranstaltninger til at vedtage en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik, men stadig venter på, at Kommissionens kodeks bliver endeligtgodkendt, således at de som led i en fælles strategi kan vedtage lignendekodekser.
It further appears that nine of the ten decentralised agenciesagreed to takethe necessary steps in order to adopt a Code of good administrativebehaviour, but are still waiting for the Commission’s Code to be definitivelyapproved in order to adopt, in a concerted manner, similar Codes.
225 var mulig under de givne omstændigheder. På baggrund heraf og også ibetragtning af, at navnlig de decentrale organer venter på, at Kommissionens kodeks skal blive vedtaget, således at de kan godkendelignende kodekser, fremsatte Ombudsmanden allerede den 28. juli 1999nærværende forslag til henstillinger over for Kommissionen.
Finally, from its reply it appears that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market already complies with most of the substantial and procedural principles contained in the Ombudsman’s proposal for a Code ofgood administrative behaviour.However, those guarantees do not concernall relations with the citizens, but are limited to the Community trademarkprocedure.
Den 29. juli1999 blev det samme forslag til henstillinger også fremsat over for Parlamentet og Rådet.
Draft Recommendations already made to the Commission, the Parliament and the Council
De tre institutioner blev anmodet om at fremsendederes udtalelse senest den 30. november 1999.
In March and April 1999 the Ombudsman was informed that the Commission’s Code of Conduct had not been adopted and that no formalfollow-up was possible in the given circumstances.Therefore, and givenalso that the decentralised agencies in particular are waiting for the Commission’s Code to be adopted in order to approve similar Codes, the Ombudsman made the present draft recommendations to the Commissionalready on 28 July 1999.On 29 July 1999, the same draft recommendations were also addressed to the Parliament and the Council.The threeinstitutions were requested to send their opinion by no later than 30November 1999.
Nødvendigheden af en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik for Fællesskabets tjenestemænd i deres forbindelser med offentligheden
The necessity of a Code of good administrative behaviour for the Community officials in their relations with the public
I sin mandatperiode havde Ombudsmanden modtaget en lang rækkeklager, som gjorde ham opmærksom på tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Fællesskabets forskellige institutioners og organers side.Disse er blevet beskrevet i Ombudsmandens årsberetninger.Ombudsmanden fandt, at mange af disse tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser kunne have været undgået, hvis der havde været klare oplysninger tilgængelige om de EU-ansattes administrative forpligtelserover for borgerne i form af en kodeks for god forvaltningsskik.
During his mandate the Ombudsman received numerous complaintswhich brought to his attention instances of maladministration by thedifferent Community institutions and bodies.These have beenreported in the Ombudsman’s annual reports.The Ombudsman considered that many of these instances of maladministration could havebeen avoided if clear information had been available, in the form of a Code of good administrative behaviour, about the administrativeduties of the Community staff towards the citizens.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Amsterdamtraktaten udtrykkeligtindførte åbenhedsprincippet i traktaten om Den Europæiske Union,hvori det hedder: “Denne traktat udgør en ny fase i processen henimod en stadig snævrere union mellem de europæiske folk, hvorbeslutningerne træffes så åbent som muligt og så tæt på borgernesom muligt” (artikel 1 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Union). I henseende hertil fandt Ombudsmanden, at der var behov for en kodeks,som indeholder grundprincipperne for god forvaltningsskik for tjenestemænd i deres forbindelser med offentligheden med henblik på atbringe forvaltningen tættere på borgerne og sikre en bedre kvalitet afdenne.
The Ombudsman noted that the Amsterdam Treaty explicitly introduced the concept of openness into the Treaty on European Union, bystating that “This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creatingan ever closer union among the people of Europe, in which decisionsare taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the cit-izen”(Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union).With regard to this,the Ombudsman considered that, in order to bring the administrationcloser to the citizens and to guarantee a better quality of administration, a Code which contains the basic principles of good administrative behaviour for officials when dealing with the public was neces-
En sådan kodeks vil være nyttig dels for Fællesskabets tjenestemænd, da den på detaljeret vis orienterer dem om de regler, deskal følge i deres forbindelser med offentligheden, og dels for borgerne, da den sikrer dem information om, hvilke principper der gælderinden for Fællesskabets forvaltning, og om den adfærdsstandard, dekan forvente i deres forbindelser med Fællesskabets forvaltning.
219 sary.Such a Code is useful for both the Community officials, as itinforms them in a detailed manner of the rules they have to followwhen dealing with the public, and the citizens, as it can provide themwith information on which principles apply in the Community administration and on the standard of conduct which they are entitled toexpect in dealings with the Community administration.
En kodeks for god forvaltningsskik kan kun være effektiv, hvis den steret for borgerne offentligt tilgængeligt dokument. Det er derfor hensigtsmæssigt, at den offentliggøres i form af en afgørelse på linje medden adfærdskodeks for aktindsigt i Kommissionens dokumenter, derer indeholdt i Kommissionens afgørelse (94/90/EKSF, EF, Euratom) af
A Code of good administrative behaviour can only be efficient if it is apublicly accessible document for the citizens.Therefore it is appropriate that it is published in the form of a decision, as has been thecase for the Code of Conduct concerning public access to Commission documents, contained in the Commission decision(94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom) of 8 February 199487.Also, in order to beunderstandable and not confusing for the public, such a Code shouldbe a unique document which contains rules exclusively on the relations of the officials with the public, and not on the relations of the officials with their institution (rights and obligations, explanation of provisions of the Staff Regulations), as in the draft Code of Conduct forstaff of the European Commission.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere, at Europa-Parlamentet isine beslutninger C4-0270/9888og C4-0138/99 understregede detpresserende behov for, at der så hurtigt som muligt udarbejdes enadfærdskodeks for god administrativ praksis, og at denne kodeks såvidt muligt bør være identisk for alle EU’s institutioner og organer, såden bliver let tilgængelig og forståelig for offentligheden. Parlamentetanførte ligeledes, at en sådan kodeks skal være tilgængelig for alle EU-borgere og offentliggøres i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.
The Ombudsman further noted that, in its Resolutions on the Annual Report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 1997 and199888, the European Parliament stressed the urgent need to draw upas soon as possible a Code of good administrative behaviour, and theimportance for such a Code to be, for reasons of public accessibilityand understanding, as identical as possible for all European institutions and bodies.The Parliament equally indicated that such a Codeshould be accessible to all European citizens, and be published in the Official Journal.
På baggrund af de oplysninger, som Fællesskabets forskellige institutioner, organer og decentrale organer forelagde for Ombudsmanden, fremgik det, at ingen af dem havde vedtaget enkodeks for god forvaltningsskik som foreslået af Ombudsmanden.
On the basis of the information supplied to the Ombudsman by the different Community institutions, bodies and decentralised agencies, itappeared that none of them had adopted a Code of good administrative behaviour as proposed by the Ombudsman.
For at sikre, at reglerne let kan forstås af borgerne, bør de kun vedrøre de ansattes relationer til offentligheden. Hvis institutionen ellerorganet også har til hensigt at vedtage regler vedrørende de ansattesrelationer til institutionen, kan dette gøres i et særskilt, offentligt tilgængeligt dokument.
In order to ensure that they can be easily understood by citizens, therules should deal only with the relations of the officials with the public.If the institution or body also intends to adopt rules concerning therelations of officials with the institution, it could do so in a separate,publicly available, document.
For at reglerne kan være effektive og tilgængelige for borgerne, børde vedtages i form af en afgørelse og offentliggøres i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.
In order to be efficient and accessible to the citizens, the rules shouldbe adopted in the form of a decision and be published in the Official Journal.
Institutionerne, organerne og de decentrale organer blev underrettet omdette forslag til henstillinger og blev i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 6, i Ombudsmandens status anmodet om at fremsætte en detaljeret udtalelseinden tre måneder. I det foreliggende tilfælde skulle udtalelsen fremsættessenest den 31. december 1999.
The institutions, bodies and decentralised agencies were informed of thesedraft recommendations and were requested, in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, to send a detailed opinion withinthree months.In the present case, the opinion had to be sent by no laterthan 31 December 1999.
UNØDIG FORSINKELSE OG MANGLENDE SVAR TILANSØGERE IEN PROJEKTKONKURRENCE
UNDUE DELAY AND FAILURE TO REPLY TO APPLICANTS IN A DESIGN COMPETITION
Forslag til henstilling i de forenede klager 507/98/OV (fortrolig), 515/98/OV, 576/98/OV og 818/98/OV over Europa-Parlamentet
Draft recommendation in the joined complaints 507/98/OV (Confidential), 515/98/OV, 576/98/OV and818/98/OV against the European Parliament
I maj og juli 1998 indgav X en klage (507/98/OV) til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over manglende oplysninger fra Europa-Parlamentet i forbindelse med projektkonkurrence (ref. 96/S 195-116670) vedrørendeanlægsarbejder i Europa-Parlamentets Léopoldområde i Bruxelles.
In May and July 1998 X made a complaint (507/98/OV) to the European Ombudsman concerning an alleged failure of information by the European Parliament with regard to the design competition (ref.96/S 195-116670) forworks in the Espace Léopold of the European Parliament in Brussels.
I henholdsvis maj 1998 (515/98/OV), juni 1998 (576/98/OV) og april 1998(818/98/OV) indgav andre personer lignende klager. Ombudsman besluttede derfor at undersøge de fire klager under ét.
In May 1998 (515/98/OV), June 1998 (576/98/OV) and April 1998(818/98/OV) respectively, other persons have lodged similar complaints.The Ombudsman therefore decided to join the four complaints for the purpose of his inquiry.
To af klagerne meddelte senere Ombudsmanden, at det først var den 17.juni 1998, dvs. 17 måneder efter ansøgningsfristen, at generaldirektørenfor Parlamentets administration informerede klagerne om udvælgelseskomitéens endelige afgørelse om ikke at udvælge nogen af de 6 projekter(udvalgt af Det Rådgivende Udvalg blandt de 15 ansøgere) til at modtageen præmie.
The Ombudsman was later also informed by two of the complainants thatit was only on 17 June 1998, i.e.17 months after the application deadline,that the Director General of the Parliament’s Administration informed thecomplainants of the Selection Board’s final decision not to chose any of the6 projects (selected from the 15 applications by the Advising Committee)for the designation of a laureate.
Klagerne skrev derfor til Ombudsmanden og gjorde gældende, 1) at deefter den 15. januar 1997 (ansøgningsfristen) ikke havde modtaget oplysninger om resultaterne af deres ansøgninger, og 2) at Parlamentet ikkehavde besvaret deres breve, hvori de forespurgte om resultaterne af deresansøgninger.
Therefore, the complainants wrote to the Ombudsman alleging that 1)since 15 January 1997 (deadline for the applications) they had not receivedany information on the outcome of their applications, and that 2) the Parliament failed to reply to their letters inquiring about the results of theirapplications.
Parlamentet bemærkede i sin udtalelse, at udvælgelseskomitéens udtalelse blev afgivet den 29. maj 1998, og at ansøgerne blev underrettet omdenne afgørelse ved personligt brev. Parlamentet vedlagde kopier af dissebreve.
In its opinion, the Parliament observed that the opinion of the Selection Board was delivered on 29 May 1998 and that the candidates were notifiedof this decision by personal letter.The Parliament annexed copies of thoseletters.
Parlamentet forklarede, at forsinkelsen med hensyn til at underretteansøgerne om resultaterne af konkurrencen skyldtes den tid, som udvælgelseskomitéen havde brugt på at nå frem til sin afgørelse, som på sin sideskyldtes komitémedlemmernes arbejdsbyrde i Parlamentet. Parlamentetgjorde endvidere opmærksom på, at det svar, som administrationen heletiden gav, når ansøgerne ringede, var, at da udvælgelseskomitéen endnuikke havde afsluttet sit arbejde, kunne resultaterne af konkurrencen endnuikke oplyses.
The Parliament explained that the delay in notifying the candidates of theresults of the competition was due to the length of time taken by the Selection Board to reach its decision, which in its turn was the result of theparliamentary workload of its members.The Parliament also pointed outthat the administration’s invariable reply to telephone calls from candidateswas that, since the Selection Board had not yet completed its deliberations,the results of the competition could not yet be disclosed.
Ombudsmanden modtog bemærkninger fra klagerne i sag 576/98/OV.Klageren bemærkede, at det var beklageligt, at konkurrencepræmiernealdrig blev uddelt, og at ingen modtog en kontrakt med henblik på arbejdets gennemførelse.
The Ombudsman received observations from the complainants in case576/98/OV.The complainants observed that they were unhappy that thecompetition prizes were never awarded and that nobody received a con-
Ombudsmanden modtog ingen bemærkninger fra de øvrige klagere.
The Ombudsman did not receive any comments from the other complainants.
Påstand om manglende rettidig underretning af klagerne omresultaterne af deres ansøgninger
The alleged failure to notify the complainants in due time aboutthe outcome of their applications