natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den 15. juli 1999 svarede Kommissionens generalsekretær, at kommissær Gradin havde tilsluttet sig den nævnte definition af begrebet fejleller forsømmelser på vegne af Kommissionen den 14. juli 1998 i Europa-Parlamentet. Generalsekretæren bekræftede endvidere, at Kommissionen snart ville tage sin fortolkning af den pågældende bestemmelse op til fornyet vurdering, og at Kommissionen ufortøvet ville informere Ombudsmanden om resultatet heraf.
On 15 July 1999 the Secretary General of the Commission replied, statingthat Commissioner Gradin had agreed to the abovementioned definitionof maladministration on behalf of the Commission on 14 July 1998 in the European Parliament.The Secretary General also confirmed that the Commission’s review of its interpretation of the provision in question wasunder way and that the Commission would inform the Ombudsman in aprompt manner of its outcome.
Somled i undersøgelsen på eget initiativ blev 19 fællesskabsinstitutioner ogorganer anmodet om at oplyse, om de allerede havde vedtaget eller villegå ind på at vedtage en sådan kodeks for deres tjenestemænd i deres forbindelser med offentligheden.
COMPLAINTS in their relations with the public.The owninitiative inquiry asked nineteen Community institutions and bodies whether they had already adopted, orwould agree to adopt, such a Code for their officials in their relations withthe public.
Ombudsmanden forventer at forelægger en særlig rapport om spørgsmåletfor Europa-Parlamentet i begyndelsen af 2000.
The Ombudsman expects to make a Special Report on the matter to the European Parliament early in 2000.
KLAGENS ANTAGELSE TILBEHANDLING
ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINTS
En klage, der ligger inden for Ombudsmandens mandat, skal yderligereopfylde en række andre kriterier for antagelse til behandling, før Ombudsmanden kan indlede en undersøgelse. Disse, der er nævnt i Ombudsmandens statut, er følgende:
A complaint that is within the mandate of the Ombudsman must meet further criteria of admissibility before the Ombudsman can open an inquiry.The criteria as set out by the Statute of the Ombudsman are that:
1 klagen skal indeholde angivelse af klagens indhold og klagerens navn(artikel 2, stk. 3, i statutten)
1 the author and the object of the complaint must be identified (Art.2.3of the Statute)
Ombudsmanden kan ikke gribe ind i en sag, der er anlagt ved endomstol, eller anfægte, at en retsafgørelse er begrundet (artikel 1, stk.3)
3 the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which thefacts on which it is based came to the attention of the complainant(Art.2.4),
4 der skal forinden være rettet de fornødne administrative henvendelsertil de berørte institutioner eller organer (artikel 2, stk. 4)
The complaint must have been preceded by appropriate administrative approaches to the institution or body concerned (Art.2.4)
5 klager, der vedrører arbejdsforholdene mellem Fællesskabets institutioner eller organer og deres tjenestemænd eller øvrige ansatte, kankun indbringes for Ombudsmanden, hvis de interne administrativeansøgnings- eller klagemuligheder er udtømt (artikel 2, stk. 8).
5 in the case of complaints concerning work relationships between theinstitutions and bodies and their officials and servants, the possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaintsmust have been exhausted before lodging the complaint (Art.2.8).
Eksempler på klager, der ikke kan antages til behandling på grund af verserende retssag
Examples of inadmissibility because of Court proceedings
I juli 1998 indgav organisationen Énergie pour l’Arménieen klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand. Organisationen gjorde gældende, at Europa-
In July 1998 the Organisation Énergie pour l’Arménie lodged a complainant with the European Ombudsman.It claimed that the European Commission refused to pay an invoice for work carried out in the framework of a contract signed under the TACIS programme.The complaint wassent to the Commission for an opinion, and the complainant was given theopportunity to comment on it.Some further inquiries were made.
Som led i undersøgelserne af klagen underrettede klageren Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om, at de påståede forhold i hans klage til Ombudsmanden var under retslig behandling ved belgiske domstole.
Ombudsman were the subject of legal proceedings before Belgian Courts.
Det hedder i artikel 2, stk. 7, i Ombudsmandens statut, at når Ombudsmanden må afslutte sin behandling af en klage på grund af enretssag, henlægges resultaterne af de undersøgelser, han måtte haveforetaget forinden. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen afsagen.
Article 2 (7) of the Statute of the Ombudsman provides that, when the Ombudsman has to terminate his consideration of a complaint because oflegal proceedings, the outcome of any inquiries he has carried out up tothat point shall be filed without any further action.The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
Sag 739/98/ADB
Case 739/98/ADB
I juli 1999 klagede P. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over, at Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber havde nægtet hendeadgang til de skriftlige prøver i forbindelse med udvælgelsesprøve KOM/A/12/98.
In July 1999, Mrs P.made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the refusal of the Commission of the European Communities toadmit her to the written examination of Competition COM/A/12/98.
Klagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen til udtalelse.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission for its opinion.
I november 1999underrettede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om, at klageren havde indbragt sagen for Retten i Første Instans vedrørende de forhold, der vargjort gældende i klagen. Da klageren havde indbragt en sag for Retten i Første Instans, afsluttede Ombudsmanden, efter at have hørt klagerenom dette spørgsmål, sin behandling af klagen i december 1999 i overensstemmelse med EF-traktatens artikel 195.
In November 1999, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that thecomplainant had initiated legal proceedings before the Court of First Instance concerning the facts which had been put forward in the com-plaint.Because the complainant had brought an action before the Courtof First Instance, the Ombudsman, after having heard the complainant onthis issue, terminated his consideration of the complaint in December1999 in accordance with Article 195 of the EC Treaty.
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 7, i Ombudsmandens statut blev resultaterne afde undersøgelser, som Ombudsmanden havde foretaget forinden, henlagt.
In accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiries carried out up to that point was filedwithout further action.
Af de 5270 klager, der er registreret siden Ombudsmanden begyndte sineaktiviteter, stammer 16% fra Frankrig, 14% fra Tyskland, 14% fra Spanien,9% fra Det Forenede Kongerige og 12% fra Italien. En samlet analyse afklagernes geografiske fordeling kan ses i bilag A, Statistik.
Of the 5270 complaints registered from the beginning of the activity of the Ombudsman, 16% originated from France, 14% from Germany, 14% from Spain, 9% from the UK, and 12% from Italy.A full analysis of the geographical origin of complaints is provided in Annex A, Statistics.
I løbet af 1999 blev undersøgelserne af, om klagerne ligger inden for mandatet og giver grundlag for at indlede en undersøgelse, afsluttet i 93% aftilfældene.
During 1999, the process of examining complaints to see if they are withinthe mandate, meet the criteria of admissibility and provide grounds to open
Europa-Parlamentet vedtog en beslutning,hvori Udvalget om Institutionelle Anliggender indtrængende blev opfordrettil at overveje at ændre artikel 3, stk. 2, i Ombudsmandens statut somforeslået i betænkningen af Udvalget for Andragender4.
COMPLAINTS an inquiry was completed in 93% of the cases.27% of the complaintsexamined appeared to be within the mandate of the Ombudsman.Of these,243 met the criteria of admissibility, but 42 did not appear to providegrounds for an inquiry.Inquiries were therefore begun in 201 cases.
For at fremme denne proces udarbejdede Ombudsmanden følgende forslag til en ændring af teksten i artikel 3, stk. 2, og fremsendte det til Europa-Parlamentets formand i december 1999:
Most of the complaints that led to an inquiry were against the European Commission (77%).As the Commission is the main Community organ thatmakes decisions having a direct impact on citizens, it is normal that itshould be the principal object of citizens’complaints.There were24com-plaints against the European Parliament and 7 complaints against the Council of the European Union.
Fællesskabets institutioner og organer er forpligtet til atgive Ombudsmanden de oplysninger, han anmoder om, oggive ham adgang til at kontrollere og tage kopier af alledokumenter eller af indholdet af enhvert data medium.
The main types of maladministration alleged were lack of transparency (66 cases), discrimination (31 cases), unsatisfactory procedures or failureto respect rights of defence (33 cases), unfairness or abuse of power (32cases), avoidable delay (45 cases) negligence (29 cases), failure toensure fulfilment of obligations, that is failure by the European Commissionto carry out its role as “Guardian of the Treaties”vis-à-vis the Member States (9 cases) and legal error (29 cases).
De giver adgang til andre dokumenter fra en medlemsstatefter at have underrettet den pågældende medlemsstatherom.
ADVICE TO CONTACT OTHER AGENCIES AND TRANSFERS
Medlemmerne af og de ansatte i Fællesskabets institutioner og organer aflægger efter anmodning fra Ombudsmanden vidneforklaring. De skal afgive fuldstændige og sande oplysninger.
If a complaint is outside the mandate or inadmissible, the Ombudsmanalways tries to give advice to the complainant as to another agency whichcould deal with the complaint.If possible the Ombudsman transfers a complaint directly to another competent agency with the consent of the complainant, provided that there appear to be grounds for the complaint.
Ovennævnte forslag var til dels udarbejdet på grundlag af forordningenvedrørende de beføjelser, som Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig (OLAF) har til at foretage undersøgelser, hvorefter det uden varsel ogomgående skal have adgang til alle oplysninger og ret til at tage kopi af alledokumenter, som institutionerne og organerne er i besiddelse af5.
During 1999, advice was given in 708 cases, most of which involved issuesof Community law.In 314 cases the complainant was advised to take thecomplaint to a national or regional Ombudsmen or similar body.In addition,with the consent of the complainant 8 complaints were transferred directlyto a national Ombudsman.142 complainants were advised to petition the European Parliament and, additionally, 71 complaints were transferred tothe European Parliament, with the consent of the complainant, to be dealtwith as petitions.In 149 cases the advice was to contact the European Commission.This figure includes some cases in which a complaint againstthe Commission was declared inadmissible because appropriate administrative approaches had not been made to the Commission.In 101 casesthe complainant was advised to contact other agencies.
Det hedder i artikel 3, stk. 2, i Ombudsmandens statut:
THE OMBUDSMAN’S POWERS OF INVESTIGATION
“Fællesskabets tjenestemænd og øvrige ansatte skal efteranmodning fra ombudsmanden aflægge vidneforklaring; deudtaler sig på vegne af og efter instrukser fra deres administrationer og har fortsat tavshedspligt “.
In the Annual Report for 1998 the Ombudsman proposed that his powersof investigation should be clarified, both as regards the inspection of documents and the hearing of witnesses.The European Parliament adopted a Resolution which urged the Committee on Institutional Affairs to consideramending Article 3 (2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, as proposed inthe report drawn up by the Committee on Petitions.4
Betænkning fra Udvalget for Andragender om Den Europæiske Ombudsmands årsberetning for1998 (A4-0119/99). Ordfører: Laura De Esteban Martin.
Report of the Committee on Petitions on the Annual Report of the activities of the European Ombudsman in 1998 (A4-0119/99) Rapporteur:Laura De Esteban Martin.
I løbet af 1999 påberåbte Ombudsmanden sig for første gang dennebestemmelse i to sager, som vedrørte Kommissionen.
“Officials and other servants of the Community institutionsand bodies must testify at the request of the Ombudsman;they shall speak on behalf of and in accordance withinstructions from their administrations and shall continue tobe bound by their duty of professional secrecy”.
Den ene af sagerne(1140/97/IJH) blev afsluttet i 1999 og er beskrevet nedenfor (s.87).Undersøgelsen af den anden sag (995/98/OV) vil blive fortsat i 2000.
During 1999, the Ombudsman invoked this provision for the first time in twocases involving the Commission.One of the cases (1140/97/IJH) wasclosed in 1999 and is reported below (p.83).The inquiry into the other case(995/98/OV) continued into 2000.
På grundlag af erfaringerne med at foretage afhøringer skrev Ombudsmanden den 7. juli 1999 til Kommissionens generalsekretær oginformerede ham en generel procedure, som skulle anvendes i fremtidigesager:
On the basis of the experience of conducting hearings, the Ombudsmanwrote to the Secretary General of the Commission on 7 July 1999 settingout a general procedure to apply in future cases:
Datoen, tidspunktet og stedet for indhentningen af vidneforklaringeraftales mellem Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene og Kommissionens Generalsekretariat, som underretter vidnet/vidnerne herom.Vidneforklaringerne aflægges normalt i Ombudsmandens lokaler i Bruxelles.
The date, time and place for the taking of oral evidence are agreedbetween the Ombudsman’s services and the Secretariat General ofthe Commission, which informs the witness(es).Oral evidence istaken on the Ombudsman’s premises, normally in Brussels.
Hvert vidne afhøres enkeltvis og uden ledsagelse.
Each witness is heard separately and is not accompanied.
Arbejdssproget/arbejdssprogene aftales mellem Ombudsmandenstjenestegrene og Kommissionens Generalsekretariat.
The language or languages of the proceedings is agreed between the Ombudsman’s services and the Secretariat General of the Commission.
Såfremt etvidne forinden anmoder herom, benyttes vidnets modersmål somarbejdssprog.
If a witness so requests in advance, the proceedings areconducted in the native language of the witness.
Det blev senere præciseret, at punkt 6 også indebærer, at klageren modtager en kopi af den underskrevne udskrift og får mulighed for at fremsættebemærkninger.
It was subsequently clarified that point 6 also implies that the complainantreceives a copy of the signed transcript and has the opportunity to makeobservations.
I løbet af 1999 blev Ombudsmandens beføjelser til at foretage inspektionaf sagsakter og dokumenter i forbindelse med en undersøgelse bragt ianvendelse ved flere lejligheder.
During 1999, the Ombudsman’s powers to inspect files and documentsrelating to an inquiry were invoked on several occasions.
I en brevveksling mellem Kommissionen og Ombudsmanden blev det gjortklart, at retten til at foretage inspektion omfatter muligheden for at læsedokumenter, gøre notater og tage fotokopier.
In correspondence between the Commission and the Ombudsman it wasmade clear that the right to inspect includes the possibility to read the documents, to make notes, and to take photocopies.
I Ombudsmandens instruktioner til sine ansatte i forbindelse med inspektion af dokumenter indgår følgende:
The Ombudsman’s instructions to his staff concerning inspection of documents include the following points:
Den juridiske medarbejder må ikke underskrive nogen som helst formfor tilsagn eller godkendelse, bortset fra en liste over de dokumenter,der er foretaget inspektion af eller taget kopi af.
The legal officer is not to sign any form of undertaking or any acknowledgement other than a simple list of the documents inspected orcopied.If the services of the institution concerned make such a proposal, the legal officer transmits a copy of it to the Ombudsman.
Hvis den pågældendeinstitutions eller organs tjenestegrene fremsætter et sådant forslag,
If inspection of any document is refused the legal officer asks the services of the institution or body concerned to state the duly substantiated ground of secrecy on which the refusal is based.
I 1999 indledte Ombudsmanden 206 undersøgelser, 201 i forbindelse medklager og 5 på eget initiativ. (Yderligere oplysninger findes i bilag A,Statistik).
In some cases, the institution or body itself takes steps to settle the caseto the satisfaction of the complainant.If the opinion and observations showthis to be so, the case is then closed as “settled by the institution”.In someother cases, the complainant decides to drop the complaint and the file isclosed for this reason.
62 sager blev løst af institutionen eller organet selv. Heraf var 39 sager,hvor Ombudsmandens indgreb medførte et svar på ubesvaret korrespondance (jf. afsnit 2.9 i årsberetningen for 1998 for yderligere oplysninger omden procedure, der anvendes i sådanne sager).
If the complaint is neither settled by the institution nor dropped by the complainant, the Ombudsman continues his inquiries.If the inquiries reveal noinstance of maladministration, the complainant and the institution or bodyare informed accordingly and the case is closed.
Fem sager blev frafaldetaf klageren. I 107 sager afslørede Ombudsmandens undersøgelser intettilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
If the Ombudsman’s inquiries reveal an instance of maladministration, ifpossible he seeks a friendly solution to eliminate it and satisfy the complainant.
Institutionerne godkendte to forslag til henstillinger i 1999, hvorafdet ene var et forslag til henstilling, der var fremsat i 1998 (sag 1055/96/IJHog 633/97/(PD)IJH, jf. s. 239 og 241).
A critical remark is considered appropriate for cases where the instance ofmaladministration appears to have no general implications and no followup action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
Rapporten, som er offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende6og på Ombudsmandens websted på alle sprog, indeholder følgende henstilling:
If a Community institution or body fails to respond satisfactorily to a draftrecommendation, Article 3 (7) provides for the Ombudsman to send areport to the European Parliament and to the institution or body concerned.The report may contain recommendations.
Kommissionen bør i fremtidige udvælgelsesprøver ogsenest fra den 1. juli 2000 give alle ansøgere, der måtteanmode herom, aktindsigt i deres egne rettede prøvebesvarelser.
In 1999 the Ombudsman began 206 inquiries,201 in relation to complaintsand 5 own-initiatives.(For further details, see Appendix A,Statistics p.289)
“Kommissionen ser med tilfredshed på de henstillinger, Defremsatte i denne rapport, og vil foreslå de nødvendige retlige og organisationsmæssige foranstaltninger, således atansøgere kan få aktindsigt i deres egne rettede prøvebesvarelser senest fra den 1. juli 2000.”
“The Commission welcomes the recommendations youmade in this report and will propose the necessary legaland organisational arrangements to give candidates accessto their own marked examination papers, upon request,from 1 July 2000 onwards.”
SAGER, HVOR DER IKKE ER KONSTATERET FEJLELLER FORSØMMELSER
CASES WHERE NO MALADMINISTRATION WAS FOUND
GENNEMSIGTIGHED I PROCEDUREN I FORBINDELSE MED EN UDVÆLGELSESPRØVE AFHOLDT AF EN POLITISK GRUPPE I EUROPA-PARLAMENTET
TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF A COMPETITION ORGANISED BY A POLITICAL GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Afgørelse om klage 1163/97/JMAover Europa-Parlamentet
Decision on complaint 1163/97/JMA against the European Parliament
I december 1997 klagede M. til Ombudsmanden over en række uregelmæssigheder i forbindelse med den almindelige udvælgelsesprøve A1/97 (spanske fuldmægtige), som blev afholdt af Den Socialistiske Gruppei Europa-Parlamentet.
In December 1997, Mrs M.made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning a number of irregularities in open competition A 1/97 (Spanishadministrators) organised by the Socialist Group of the European Parliament.
Hendes påstande vedrørte udvælgelseskomitéenssammensætning og gennemsigtigheden i proceduren i forbindelse medudvælgelsesprøven.
Her allegations referred to the composition of the competition’s Selection Board, and the transparency of its proceedings.
Klageren deltog i den pågældende almindelige udvælgelsesprøve i 1997.Ifølge klageren var hun ikke blevet optaget på reservelisten i forbindelsemed udvælgelsesprøven, selv om hun havde nået det sidste punkt i udvælgelseproceduren og var blevet interviewet af udvælgelseskomiteèn.
The complainant participated in that open competition in 1997.Accordingto her, even though she reached the last stage in the selection procedure,and was interviewed by the Selection Board, her name was not finallyincluded in the competition’s reserve list.
Udvælgelseskomitéen svarede, at da densarbejde var fortroligt, som det fremgik af tjenestemandsvedtægten og Domstolens retspraksis, kunne den ikke give hende aktindsigt i hendesskriftlige prøver. Det fremgik endvidere af brevet, at selv om hun havdeopnået høje point i de skriftlige prøver (83 point ud af 100), kunne hun ikkeoptages på reservelisten på baggrund af de samtaler, som udvælgelseskomitéen havde afholdt.
Mrs M.wrote to the secretariat of the Selection Board requesting to haveaccess to her written tests.The Selection Board replied that since its workwas confidential, as set out in the Staff Regulations and recognised by thecase-law of the Court of Justice, it could not give access to her written test.The letter added that, although she had obtained high marks in the writtentests (83 points out of 100), in view of the interviews carried out by the Selection Board, her name could not be included in the reserve list.
Som svar på endnu en anmodning fra klageren meddelte udvælgelseskomitéen hende i november 1997, at tre ansøgere var blevet optaget påreservelisten i forbindelse med denne udvælgelsesprøve, hvoraf to varblevet udvalgt til at beklæde de ledige stillinger. Brevet henviste kun til navnene på disse ansøgere.
Following another request by the complainant, the Selection Boardinformed her in November 1997 that three candidates had been included inthe reserve list for this competition, two of which had been selected to fillthe available posts.The letter only referred to the names of these candi-dates.The reply did not mention the candidates’results, because of theconfidential nature of the deliberations of the Selection Board.This decisionwas confirmed by the President of the political group responsible for theorganisation of the competition.
I svaret indgik ikke ansøgernes resultater pågrund af den fortrolige karakter af udvælgelseskomitéens arbejde.
The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman, putting forward the following claims:
Klageren indgav derfor en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand oggjorde følgende gældende:
Article 8.1.5:no representative of the Staff Committee was presentduring the oral tests;the Selection Board included more than twomembers of the same nationality/language of the competition
Overtrædelse af Den Socialistiske Gruppes interne procedurer
(Spanish);the decision taken by the selection board had been signedby one of its members without voting rights.
Artikel 8.1.5: ingen repræsentant for personaleudvalget var til stedeunder de mundtlige prøver; mere end to medlemmer af udvælgelseskomitéen repræsenterede samme nationalitet/sprog for prøven(spansk).
Article 8.1.6:the number of candidates included in the reserve list wasless than three times the number of vacant post.
Artikel 8.1.6: det antal ansøgere, der blev optaget på reservelisten,var mindre end tre gange antallet af ledige stillinger.
Failure to provide information and lack of transparency: