natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ombudsmanden påpegede imidlertid, at det ville have været nemmere for Kommissionen at behandle klagerens klage, hvis den havde kunnet udlevere en udskriW af den pågældende telefonsamtale.
The Ombudsman pointed out, however, that it would have been easier for the Commission to have dealt with the complainant’s concerns in this regard, if it had been able to produce a wrimen record of the telephone conversation in question.
Ombudsmanden fremsame derfor en yderligere bemærkning til Kommissionen, hvori han foreslog, at Kommissionen burde overveje at revidere sine regler om udskrivning af telefonsamtaler i forbindelse med udbud med henblik på at undgå lignende problemer i fremtiden.
The Ombudsman therefore addressed a further remark to the Commission, in which he suggested that the Commission might wish to review its rules on telephone logs in the framework of calls for tender, with a view to avoiding similar problems from arising in the future.
TILGÆNGELIGHED AF DOKUMENTER ONLINE
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2066/2004/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2066/2004/TN against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde bl.a. gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at gøre dokumenter vedrørende høringsdokumentet om anvendelsen af direktivet om e-penge på mobiloperatører tilgængelige online i overensstemmelse med artikel 2, stk. 4, i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter10.
The complainant alleged, among other things, that the Commission had failed to make available online, in accordance with Article 2(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE industrien i den indledende fase ville være vildledende og kunne være til skade for neutraliteten i de fremtidige d r ø W elser med medlemsstaterne, skabe uforholdsmæssige og upassende reaktioner fra oTentligheden og have en negativ indvirkning på en eventuel fremtidig debat og et fremtidigt lovgivningsinitiativ.
The Commission argued, referring to Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, that to disclose Commission working documents and wrimen contributions prepared in a preliminary phase by Member States and industry would, at the stage in question, be misleading and could prejudice the neutrality of future discussions with Member States, trigger disproportionate or inappropriate reactions from the public, and negatively influence any future debate and legislative initiative.
Ombudsmanden fandt i sin afgørelse, at det overordnede formål med forordning 1049/2001, nemlig at give borgerne ret til at anmode om aktindsigt i et dokument, som ikke er blevet oTentliggjort, samt til at bestride et eventuelt afslag på en genfremsat begæring, er den primære mekanisme til at garantere den størst mulige aktindsigt i dokumenter.
In his decision, the Ombudsman took the view that, in the overall scheme of Regulation 1049/2001, the right of citizens to apply for access to a document that has not been made public and to contest an eventual refusal of a confirmatory application provides the primary mechanism to guarantee the widest possible access to documents.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at det ville være uforholdsmæssigt bebyrdende og upraktisk at kræve, at Kommissionen foretager samme dybtgående juridiske analyse i forbindelse med vurderingen af, hvorvidt der skal gives onlineadgang til et lovgivningsdokument, som i forbindelse med behandlingen af en genfremsat begæring om aktindsigt i et dokument.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that it would be disproportionate and impractical to require the Commission to carry out the same in-depth legal analysis when considering whether to make a legislative document available online, as it must when dealing with a confirmatory application for public access to a document.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen faktisk syntes at have overvejet, hvorvidt de pågældende dokumenter skulle gøres tilgængelige online.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission appeared genuinely to have considered whether to make the documents in question accessible online.
Endvidere havde klageren gjort brug af sin ret til at anmode om aktindsigt og havde haW mulighed til at genfremsæme sin begæring.
Furthermore, the complainant had exercised the right to apply for access and had had the opportunity to make a confirmatory application.
Under disse omstændigheder fandt Ombudsmanden det ikke beremiget at foretage yderligere undersøgelser af klagerens påstand.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the complainant’s allegation were justified. ed.
ADGANG TIL EN MISSIONSRAPPORT INDEN FOR RAMMERNE AF EN ARTIKEL 228-PROCEDURE
ACCESS TO A MISSION REPORT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN ARTICLE 228 PROCEDURE
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2821/2004/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2821/2004/OV against the European Commission
Klageren, en forening til bevarelse af havskildpadden, ansøgte Kommissionens GD Miljø om aktindsigt i en rapport fra Kommissionens tjenestegrenes mission på den græske ø Zakynthos, som havde haW til formål at undersøge situationen vedrørende beskymelse af havskildpadden.
The complainant, an association for the protection of sea turtles, applied to the Commission’s DG Environment for access to a report of a mission by the Commission services to the Greek island of Zakynthos, which had investigated the situation regarding the protection of sea turtles.
Missionen var blevet gennemført inden for rammerne af Kommissionens iværksæmelse af en procedure mod Grækenland i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 228 pga. undladelse af at t r æ T e de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at e W erkomme en dom fra Domstolen.
The mission had been carried out in the framework of the Commission’s initiation of a procedure against Greece under Article 228 of the EC Treaty for failure to take all the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice.
EWer en genfremsat begæring blev der givet delvis aktindsigt med undtagelse af de dele, der indeholder tekniske eller juridiske vurderinger eller udtalelser vedrørende den igangværende sag.
Following a confirmatory application, partial access to the report was given, excluding those parts containing technical or legal assessments or opinions related to the ongoing proceedings.
I klagen til Ombudsmanden krævede foreningen ubegrænset aktindsigt i rapporten.
In the complaint to the Ombudsman, the association demanded unrestricted access to the report.
Kommissionen begrundede sit afslag på at give aktindsigt i dele af rapporten med artikel 4, stk. 2, tredje led, og artikel 4, stk. 3, første afsnit, i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter11 og gjorde gældende, at den oTentlige interesse i udbredelse af disse dele ikke opvejede risikoen for, at det ville gribe ind i den igangværende undersøgelse og d r ø W elserne med de græske myndigheder.
The Commission justified its refusal to disclose certain parts of the report on the basis of Articles 4(2), third indent and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents11 and argued that the public interest in disclosure of these parts did not outweigh the risk of aTecting the ongoing investigation and the discussions with the Greek authorities.
I lyset af at den pågældende inspektionsrapport var et dokument, som var udarbejdet til Kommissionens interne brug, og at den havde forbindelse med en igangværende artikel 228-procedure, fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen var beremiget til at mene, at den kunne give afslag på aktindsigt i medfør af artikel 4, stk. 2, og artikel 4, stk. 3, første afsnit, i forordning 1049/2001, med forbehold af en mulig mere tungtvejende oTentlig interesse i udbredelse af dokumentet.
Taking into account that the inspection report in question was a document drawn up for internal use by the Commission and that it related to an ongoing procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission could reasonably take the view that it was entitled to refuse access on the basis of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001, subject to the question of a possible overriding public interest in disclosure.
Ombudsmanden undersøgte der e W er klagernes argumenter for, at der havde været en mere tungtvejende oTentlig interesse i udbredelse af dokumentet, idet det ene argument kun var relevant for artikel 4, stk. 2, og det andet kun for artikel 4, stk. 3, første afsnit, i forordning 1049/2001.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
I lyset af konklusionen om, at Kommissionen kunne gøre artikel 4, stk. 3, første afsnit, gældende, beslumede Ombudsmanden imidlertid ikke at trække afgørelsen i sagen ud ved at inspicere dokumentet.
However, given his conclusion that the Commission could rely on Article 4(3), first subparagraph, the Ombudsman decided not to delay a decision on the case in order to inspect the document.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede derfor intet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
The Ombudsman thus found no maladministration by the Commission.
UDSKIFTNING AF PROJEKTLEDER I HONDURAS
REPLACEMENT OF PROJECT DIRECTOR IN HONDURAS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3110/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3110/2004/GG against the European Commission
Han blev på anmodning fra Kommissionens delegation i Managua ud sk i W et med en anden person.
At the request of the Commission’s Delegation in Managua, he was replaced by another person.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde klageren bl.a. gældende, at forberedelserne til projektet havde været mangelfulde, og at der var sket unødvendige forsinkelser.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged, among other things, that the preparation of the project had been deficient and that there had been unnecessary delays.
Han gjorde endvidere gældende, at Kommissionen havde handlet på en diskriminerende måde, da den kun undersøgte problemet med brugen af servicebiler i hans projekt.
He also alleged that the Commission had acted in a discriminatory way, by only examining the problem of the use of service cars in his project.
Privat brug af servicebiler var altid blevet tolereret i andre projekter.
The private use of service cars had always been tolerated in other projects.
Endvidere gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionens anmodning om, at han blev ud sk i W et, var uberemiget og ubegrundet.
Furthermore, the complainant alleged that the Commission’s request that he be replaced was unjustified and unfounded.
Ifølge Kommissionen skyldtes forsinkelserne i projektet både klagerens overdrevne perfektionisme og hans manglende overholdelse af Kommissionens udbudsprocedurer og instrukser ved flere lejligheder.
According to the Commission, the delays from which the project had s u T ered had been caused both by the complainant’s excessive zeal for perfection and by his failure to respect the Commission’s tender procedure and instructions on several occasions.
Endvidere havde klagerens arbejde ikke levet op til den forventede standard.
Moreover, the complainant’s performance had not been up to the expected standard.
Delegationen havde observeret, at det anspændte forhold mellem klageren og hans underordnede havde alvorlige konsekvenser for projektets gennemførelse.
The Delegation had observed that the tense relationship between the complainant and his subordinate had had serious adverse implications for the functioning of the project.
Hvad angår brugen af servicebiler til privatformål, påpegede Kommissionen, at det klart fremgik af de relevante regler, at bilerne kun måme bruges til arbejdsformål.
Concerning the use of service cars for private purposes, the Commission pointed out that the relevant rules clearly stated that the vehicles were only to be used for work purposes.
På trods af gentagende pålæg fra delegationen var dem e ikke blevet overholdt i denne sag.
Despite repeated instructions by the Delegation, this had not been respected in the present case.
EWer en grundig gennemgang af beviserne konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at klageren ikke havde påvist nogen af sine anbringender, og konstaterede derfor ingen fejl eller forsømmelser.
AWer a careful review of the evidence, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant had not established any of his allegations and therefore found no maladministration.
Hvad angår klagerens anbringende om forskelsbehandling, fandt Ombudsmanden på grundlag af Fællesskabets domstoles retspraksis, at det, at andre personer ulovligt måme have brugt servicebiler til privatformål uden at blive stoppet af Kommissionen, ikke forhindrede Kommissionen i at handle over for klageren, som den havde gjort.
As regards the complainant’s allegation of discrimination, the Ombudsman took the view, on the basis of the case-law of the Community courts, that the fact that other persons may illegally have used service cars for private purposes without being stopped by the Commission did not prevent the Commission from acting as it did towards the complainant.
I en yderligere bemærkning tilføjede Ombudsmanden imidlertid, at han ville finde det nymigt og i overensstemmelse med principperne for god forvaltningsskik, hvis Kommissionen ville overveje at undersøge dem e spørgsmål igen med hensyn til de andre kontrakter i samme program.
However, in a further remark, the Ombudsman added that he would find it most useful, and in keeping with principles of good administration, if the Commission could consider re-examining this issue in so far as the other contracts in the same programme were concerned.
Kommissionen svarede senere med henvisning til Ombudsmandens yderligere bemærkning, at der findes klare regler, som fastslår, at servicebiler kun må bruges til arbejdsformål.
The Commission subsequently reacted to the Ombudsman’s further remark by stating that there were clear rules that stipulated that service cars are to be used exclusively for work purposes.
Ifølge disse regler skal administrationen endvidere føre streng kontrol med brugen af disse biler ved at føre en logbog.
These rules also foresee that a strict control on the use of vehicles is eTected by the administration by means of an updated logbook.
Europa-Kommissionen og Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
The European Commission and the Council of the European Union
PÅSTAND OM MANGEL PÅ PARKERINGSPLADSER TIL HANDICAPPEDE VED KOMMISSIONENS OG RÅDETS BYGNINGER
ALLEGED LACK OF PARKING SPACES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE NEAR COMMISSION AND COUNCIL BUILDINGS
Sammendrag af afgørelser om klage 2415/2003/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen og klage 237/2004/JMA over Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
Summary of decisions on complaint 2415/2003/JMA against the Commission and complaint 237/2004/JMA against the Council of the EU
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen og Rådet havde undladt at tage de nødvendige skridt til at sikre et tilstrækkeligt antal parkeringspladser til handicappede tæt ved Kommissionens og Rådets hovedbygninger i Bruxelles.
The complainant alleged that the Commission and the Council had failed to take the necessary steps to ensure a s u U cient number of parking spaces for people with disabilities near the main Commission and Council buildings in Brussels.
Kommissionen forklarede, at alle dens bygninger i Bruxelles har mindst to handicappladser.
The Commission explained that all its buildings in Brussels have at least two parking spaces reserved for disabled people.
Der kan på anmodning reserveres flere pladser til handicappede gæster.
Spaces for disabled visitors can be made available upon request.
Handicappladserne på vejene omkring Kommissionens bygninger i Bruxelles er de belgiske myndigheders ansvar.
Parking spaces reserved for disabled people in the streets near its buildings in Brussels are the exclusive responsibility of the Belgian authorities.
EWersom kun f i re af Kommissionens 60 bygninger i Bruxelles har handicappladser, havde institutionen anmodet de lokale myndigheder om at t r æ T e yderligere foranstaltninger.
Since only four of the 60 Commission buildings in Brussels have parking spaces for disabled people, the institution had asked the local authorities to take additional measures.
Ombudsmanden glædede sig over Kommissionens anmodning til de belgiske myndigheder om at etablere yderligere handicappladser ved dens bygninger i Bruxelles og opfordrede Kommissionen til at holde ham underremet om resultaterne af denne anmodning.
The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s request to the Belgian authorities to ensure additional parking places for disabled people near its buildings in Brussels and invited the Commission to keep him informed of the results of this initiative.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen i sin meddelelse fra 2000 »På vej mod et Europa uden barrierer for handicappede« havde lovet at udvikle og støme en bred og integreret strategi, som kan tage hånd om de sociale, arkitektoniske og designmæssige barrierer, som normalt begrænser handicappedes adgang.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission, in its 2000 Communication on a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities, had agreed to develop and support a comprehensive and integrated strategy to tackle social, architectural and design barriers that unnecessarily restrict access for people with disabilities.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede imidlertid, at Kommissionen endnu ikke havde vedtaget de nødvendige opfølgningsforanstaltninger.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that the Commission had not yet adopted the necessary follow-up measures.
Ombudsmanden mente ikke på grundlag af de forhåndenværende oplysninger, at det var beremiget at foretage yderligere undersøgelser.
In view of the information available, the Ombudsman did not consider it justified to pursue further inquiries.
Han mindede om, at han i forbindelse med sin igangværende undersøgelse på eget initiativ OI/3/2003 var i færd med at undersøge det mere overordnede spørgsmål om Kommissionens integration af handicappede, og at adgangen til Kommissionens bygninger for handicappede i bil bør være omfamet af denne undersøgelse.
He recalled that, in the framework of his ongoing own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2003, he was reviewing the more general issue of the Commission’s integration of persons with disabilities and that accessibility to the Commission’s premises by disabled people travelling by car should constitute an element of that inquiry.
Rådet forklarede, at alle dets bygninger i Bruxelles har en række pladser til handicappet personale, men at disse pladser af sikkerhedshensyn ikke kan stilles til rådighed for oTentligheden.
The Council explained that all its buildings in Brussels have a number of parking spaces reserved for its disabled staT although, for security reasons, those parking facilities cannot be made available to the public.
Institutionen forklarede, at dets tjenestegrene havde kontaktet de kompetente belgiske myndigheder og anmodet dem om at etablere en række yderligere parkeringspladser tæt ved alle Rådets bygninger i Bruxelles, som skulle reserveres til handicappede.
The institution explained that its services had contacted the competent Belgian authorities and asked them to establish a number of additional parking spaces near all its buildings in Brussels to be reserved for disabled people.
Ombudsmanden glædede sig over Rådets anmodning til de belgiske myndigheder om at etablere yderligere handicappladser ved dets bygninger i Bruxelles og opfordrede Rådet til at holde ham underrettet om resultaterne af denne anmodning.
The Ombudsman welcomed the Council’s request to the Belgian authorities to ensure additional parking places for disabled people near its buildings in Brussels and invited the Council to keep him informed of the results of this initiative.
Ombudsmanden mente ikke på grundlag af de forhåndenværende oplysninger fra Rådet, at det var berettiget at foretage yderligere undersøgelser.
In view of the information provided by the Council, the Ombudsman did not consider it justified to pursue further inquiries.
Ombudsmanden fremsatte endvidere en yderligere bemærkning til Rådet, hvor han satte spørgsmålstegn ved dets politik om at begrænse adgangen til handicappladser af sikkerhedshensyn.
The Ombudsman also addressed a further remark to the Council, in which he queried its policy of limiting access to parking spaces for disabled people on grounds of security.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at andre EU-institutioner, såsom Kommissionen, har en anden politik, som tilsyneladende ikke forringer sikkerheden.
The Ombudsman pointed out that other EU institutions, such as the Commission, have put in place a d iT erent policy, without apparently creating risks to security.
Ombudsmanden opfordrede derfor Rådet til at genoverveje sin holdning og give adgang til, at alle reserverede parkeringspladser kan bruges af alle handicappede, som har en god grund til at besøge Rådets bygninger.
The Ombudsman therefore invited the Council to
Det Europæiske Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO)
The European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO)
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2097/2003/(ADB)PB over Det Europæiske Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO)
Summary of decision on complaint 2097/2003/(ADB)PB against the European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO)
Klageren deltog i en udvælgelsesprocedure, som havde til formål at opstille en liste over egnede tysksprogede sekretærer.
The complainant participated in a competition held to establish a reserve list of German-speaking typists.
Klageren bestod ikke og anmodede derfor om yderligere oplysninger om evalueringen af sin prøve.
Having failed to obtain the pass mark, the complainant requested more information on the evaluation of her test.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde hun gældende, at EPSO havde undladt at underreme hende om evalueringskriterierne for prøven.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she alleged that EPSO had failed to inform her about the criteria used to mark the test.
Hun anførte, at hun ønskede aktindsigt med henblik på at kunne klare sig bedre i fremtidige udvælgelsesprøver.
She stated that she wanted access so as to be able to improve her performance in future recruitment competitions.
EPSO gjorde gældende, at evalueringskriterierne var omfamet af den fortrolighedsforpligtelse, der var fastlagt i artikel 6 i bilag III til tjenestemandsvedtægten, samt at forpligtelsen til at give begrundelser for ansæmelsesbeslutninger i henhold til retspraksis blev opfyldt gennem oTentliggørelse af karaktererne for ansøgeren.
EPSO argued that the evaluation criteria were covered by the secrecy referred to in Article 6 of Annex III of the StaT Regulations and that, according to established case-law, the duty to give reasons for recruitment decisions was satisfied by communicating the marks to the applicant.
Ombudsmanden undersøgte den relevante retspraksis og bemærkede, at aktindsigt i evalueringskriterierne syntes at være forenelig med Den Europæiske Unions politik og lovgivning om gennemsigtighed og aktindsigt i dokumenter, som er blevet udviklet betydeligt siden den retspraksis, EPSO henviser til.
The Ombudsman examined the relevant case-law and noted that allowing access to evaluation criteria appeared to be consistent with the European Union’s policy and legislation on transparency and public access to documents, which has developed significantly since the case-law referred to by EPSO.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at EPSO havde undladt at give tilstrækkelige begrundelser for sit afslag på aktindsigt.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that EPSO had failed to give adequate reasons for refusing access.
Ombudsmanden udarbejdede et forslag til henstilling, ifølge hvilket EPSO skulle genoverveje sit afslag på at give klageren aktindsigt i evalueringskriterierne og give denne aktindsigt, medmindre der var gyldige grunde til ikke at oTentliggøre dem.
The Ombudsman made a draW recommendation, according to which EPSO should reconsider its refusal to give the complainant access to the evaluation criteria and give access unless valid grounds prevented their disclosure.