natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ombudsmanden fandt, at dette synspunkt blev underbygget af de internationale organisationers praksis.
The Ombudsman found that this view was confirmed by the practice of international organisations.
I lyset af ovenstående fandt Ombudsmanden ikke, at der var tale om et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, sådan som klageren havde påstået.
On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration corresponding to the complainant’s allegation.
Påstand om ukorrekte og ærekrænkende beskyldninger mod Greenpeace
Allegation about inaccurate and defamatory accusations against Greenpeace
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2740/2006/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2740/2006/TN against the European Commission
Denne påståede praksis blev underbygget med information om arbejdsrelationer mellem bestemte personer i Kommissionen og den kemiske industri.
It illustrated the alleged practice by providing information on the working relationships of certain persons with the Commission and the chemical industry.
En talsmand for Kommissionen bemærkede senere i et svar på relevante spørgsmål fra medierne, at »vedrørende disse navngivne enkeltpersoner har to af dem faktisk aldrig arbejdet med REACH.
A Commission spokesperson subsequently commented, in response to relevant questions put to him by the media, that “Regarding the ... individuals singled out, two of them have never actually worked on REACH.
Så det er et mysterium, hvordan man overhovedet kan fremsætte en påstand om svingdøre og ukorrekt adfærd. (…) Jeg finder disse påstande fuldstændig ubegrundede, urimelige og eksempler på sjusket efterforskning«.
So it is a mystery to me how one can possibly try to construct a claim of revolving doors, improper behaviour. (...) I u4 erly find these allegations unfounded, unfair and based on sloppy research”.
Greenpeace klagede til Ombudsmanden med en påstand om, at Kommissionen havde fremsat ukorrekte, vildledende og ærekrænkende beskyldninger i forbindelse med en rapport fra Greenpeace.
Greenpeace complained to the Ombudsman, alleging that the Commission had made inaccurate, misleading and defamatory accusations in relation to a study issued by Greenpeace.
Han bemærkede især, at termen ’svingdøre’ i lyset af den sammenhæng, hvori den forekom i rapporten9, med rimelighed kunne opfattes som om, der blev sat spørgsmålstegn ved de pågældende personers integritet, og som om de udførte deres funktioner i henhold til tjenestemandsvedtægten korrekt.
He noted, in particular, that, viewed in the context in which it was presented in the report9, the term “revolving doors” could reasonably be considered as calling into question the integrity of the persons concerned and the proper discharge of the duties imposed on them by the Sta� Regulations.
Disse anklager blev ikke dokumenteret tilstrækkeligt i rapporten, hvilket i rimelig grad kunne begrunde talsmandens kraftige reaktion.
Such accusations were not duly substantiated in the report, which could reasonably explain why the spokesperson reacted strongly.
Ombudsmanden fandt således ikke, at der var tale om forsømmelighed som anført i klagerens påstand, men han understregede også vigtigheden af gennemsigtighed i relation til de lobbyaktiviteter, der pågår i løbet af den lovgivningsmæssige proces.
While finding no instance of maladministration corresponding to the complainant’s allegation inquired into, the Ombudsman also underlined the importance of transparency in relation to lobbying activities exercised during the legislative procedures.
Ombudsmanden erkendte den vigtighed, som Kommissionen har tillagt dette i sit løbende initiativ for øget åbenhed10, hvor den erkender, at spørgsmålet om lobbyvirksomhed også hænger sammen med nuværende eller tidligere EU-tjenestemænds og -ansattes adfærd, og at det udtrykkeligt er omfattet af tjenestemandsvedtægten.
The Ombudsman acknowledged the importance a4 ached to this in the Commission’s ongoing initiative for increased openness10, which recognises that the question of lobbying is also related to the behaviour of current or former o cials and agents of the EU and is a ma4 er which is explicitly addressed in provisions of the Sta�
Ombudsmanden understregede, at en korrekt, konsekvent gennemførelse af disse bestemmelser er vigtig for at sikre en stor grad af gennemsigtighed, hvilket EU betragter som en del af enhver moderne forvaltnings legitimitet.
Regulations. The Ombudsman emphasised that the correct and thorough implementation of these provisions is essential to guarantee the achievement of the high standards of transparency that the EU considers are part of the legitimacy of any modern administration.
F.eks. at afsnittet i rapporten om ’svingdøre’ var illustreret med en mekanisk dukke, der kan trækkes op, og at rapportens forside viste en marionetdukke, som blev styret af en ansigtsløs person.
For instance, that the ”revolving doors” part of the report was illustrated by a wind-up doll and that, on the front page of the report, there was a marione4 e operated by a person whose face was not visible.
Der kan indhentes yderligere oplysninger om det europæiske initiativ om gennemsigtighed på htt p://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/transparency_en.htm
More information on this ”European Transparency Initiative” is available on h4 p://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/transparency_en.htm
Afvisning af at give aktindsigt i en finansieringskontrakt finansieringskontrakt
Refusal to provide public access to a finance contract
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 948/2006/BU over Den Europæiske Investeringsbank (EIB)
Summary of decision on complaint 948/2006/BU against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Da EIB afviste anmodningen, påberåbte den sig en undtagelsesbestemmelse i dens regler om aktindsigt, hvori nævnes den tavshedspligt og faglige etik samt de regler og den praksis, der gælder i bank- og finanssektoren.
In rejecting the application, the EIB relied on an exception in its rules on public access to documents which mentioned the obligation of professional secrecy and professional ethics, rules and practices applicable in the banking and financial sector.
EIB meddelte imidlertid klageren, at den ikke havde indvendinger imod, at låntageren eller den slovakiske regering gav adgang til finansieringskontrakten. finansieringskontrakten.
The EIB informed the complainant, however, that it would have no objection to the disclosure of the finance contract by the borrower, or the Slovak Government.
I klagen til Ombudsmanden fremførte klageren det argument, at EIB, ved at uddelegere ansvaret for aktindsigt til medlemsstaternes myndigheder, diskriminerer borgere, der ikke taler sproget i den pågældende medlemsstat.
In the complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that, by delegating responsibility for disclosure to the Member States’ authorities, the EIB discriminates against citizens who do not speak the language of the Member State concerned.
Klageren henviste også til Århus-konventionen, hvori der fastlægges en individuel ret til adgang til miljøoplysninger.
The complainant also referred to the Aarhus Convention, which provides for an individual right of access to environmental information.
I sin udtalelse om klagen fremførte EIB det argument, at den som bank måtte sikre gensidig tillid i forhold til sine aftalepartnere, der med rette kan forvente, at banken handler inden for de fastlagte retlige rammer og ikke udbreder oplysninger, der er beskyttet af bankhemmeligheden.
In its opinion on the complaint, the EIB argued that, as a bank, it must ensure mutual trust with its counterparts, which have the legitimate right to expect that it will act within the established legal framework and will not divulge information protected by the obligation of banking confidentiality.
På dette punkt henviste EIB til sine regler om aktindsigt, der var blevet opdateret den 28. marts 2006 som led i dens politik for aktindsigt.
In this regard, the EIB referred to its rules on public access, which had been updated from 28 March 2006 as part of its public disclosure policy.
Både de gamle og de nye regler indeholder en undtagelsesbestemmelse for oplysninger, der er omfattet af tavshedspligten.
Both the old and the new rules provide for an exception for information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
De nye regler understreger dette forhold ved udtrykkeligt at nævne, at der ikke er aktindsigt i finansieringskontrakter. Endelig anførte EIB, at den går ind for øget aktindsigt, og at det, for dokumenter, der ikke foreligger på alle officielle EU-sprog, kan komme på tale at få et dokument oversat, såfremt der viser sig at være bred interesse for et bestemt dokument.
The new rules reinforce the position by explicitly mentioning the non-disclosure of finance contracts.
I Ombudsmandens afgørelse anerkendes EIB’s dobbelte rolle som både pengeinstitut, der opererer på finansmarkederne, og som fællesskabsorgan.
The Ombudsman’s decision recognized the EIB’s dual role as both a banking institution operating in the financial markets and a Community body.
Ombudsmanden var af den opfattelse, at EIB var i sin ret til at afvise aktindsigt på grundlag af de gamle regler, der var gældende på det tidspunkt.
The Ombudsman considered that the EIB had been entitled to reject access on the basis of its old rules, which applied at the time.
Det var endvidere hans opfattelse, at EIB, ved også at henvise til sine nye regler, der udtrykkeligt udelukker aktindsigt i finansieringskontrakter, gjorde opmærksom på, at den etablerede praksis var, at der, i lyset af det fortrolige, bankmæssige forhold mellem banken og dens aftalepartnere, ikke under nogen omstændigheder gives adgang til finansieringskontrakter, og at den således slet ikke vurderede muligheden af delvis aktindsigt.
The Ombudsman understood that, by also referring to its new rules, which explicitly mention the non-disclosure of fi finance contracts, the EIB indicated that the established practice was, in light of the confidential dential banking relationship between itself and its business partners, not to disclose finance contracts under any circumstances, and thus not to assess the possibility of partial disclosure.
Hvad angår Århuskonventionen bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at forordning 1367/200611 er bindende for EIB, men at den kun har været gældende siden den 28. juni 2007.
As regards the Aarhus Convention, the Ombudsman noted that Regulation 1367/200611 is binding on the EIB, but that it has been applicable only since 28 June 2007.
Den var således ikke gældende på tidspunktet for klagerens anmodning.
Thus it did not apply at the time of the complainant’s request.
Hvad angår de eventuelle sproglige problemer, som borgere kan komme ud for, når de retter henvendelse til nationale myndigheder, fremsatte Ombudsmanden en yderligere bemærkning, hvori han opfordrer EIB til at overveje fremover at tage kontakt til de nationale myndigheder for at sikre fuldstændig eller i det mindste delvis aktindsigt i finansieringskontrakter, hvortil borgere har anmodet om, at banken giver dem adgang.
As regards the possible problem of languages which citizens might encounter in addressing requests to national authorities, the Ombudsman made a further remark encouraging the EIB to consider contacting the national authorities in the future, in order to ascertain the possibility of total or, at least, partial disclosure of the finance contracts to which citizens request that it grant them public access.
EIB kunne på den måde bidrage positivt til at mindske de sproglige problemer, som nogle borgere kan komme ud for, når de retter sådanne anmodninger om aktindsigt til myndighederne i den pågældende medlemsstat.
The EIB could, in this way, usefully contribute to mitigating language problems that some citizens may encounter in addressing the corresponding requests for public access to the authorities of the Member State concerned.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1367/2006 af 6. september 2006 om anvendelse af Århus-konventionens bestemmelser om adgang til oplysninger, offentlig deltagelse i beslutningsprocesser samt adgang til klage og domstolsprøvelse på miljøområdet på Det Europæiske Fællesskabs institutioner og organer, EUT 2006 L 264, s. 13.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Ma4 ers to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.
Påstand om manglende overholdelse af national miljølovgivning i forbindelse med et transportprojekt finansieret af Den Europæiske Investeringsbank
Alleged lack of compliance with national environmental law of a transport project financed by the European Investment Bank
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1779/2006/MHZ over Den Europæiske Investeringsbank (EIB)
Summary of decision on complaint 1779/2006/MHZ against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
En polsk miljø-ngo klagede over, at EIB havde medfinansieret et projekt om modernisering af veje i Polen, selvom der ikke var blevet udført en strategisk vurdering af projektets indvirkning på miljøet, hvilket den polske miljølovgivning tilsiger.
A Polish environmental NGO complained that the EIB had co-financed the Project “Poland Road Modernisation” although no strategic environmental impact assessment of the Project had been carried out, as required by Polish environmental law.
Ifølge klageren havde EIB således handlet i strid med sin egen »miljøerklæring«, ifølge hvilken EIB skal sikre, at de projekter, banken finansierer, overholder principperne og normerne i både EU’s og medlemsstaternes miljølovgivning.
According to the complainant, the EIB thus acted contrary to its own “Environmental Statement”, according to which the EIB ensures that projects it finances comply with the principles and standards set by both EU and national environmental legislation.
Klageren påstod også, at EIB ikke havde informeret ham om svaret fra de polske myndigheder, som EIB havde kontaktet i forbindelse med klagerens klage.
The complainant also alleged that the EIB failed to inform it about the answer of the Polish authorities which were contacted by the EIB in connection with the complainant’s complaint.
Klageren krævede, at EIB skulle stille sin finansiering i bero, indtil projektets retlige status var fastlagt.
The complainant claimed that the EIB should suspend its financing until the legal status of the Project had been clarified. ed.
EIB anførte i sin udtalelse, at de polske myndigheder (i) havde det fulde ansvar for at sikre overholdelse af den relevante nationale lovgivning, og at de eft er at være blevet kontaktet af banken havde (ii) meddelt EIB, at der ikke i henhold til den relevante polske lovgivning skulle foretages en strategisk vurdering af projektets indvirkning på miljøet.
In its opinion, the EIB stated that the Polish authorities (i) had full responsibility for ensuring compliance with the relevant national legislation and that, a er having been contacted by the Bank, (ii) informed it that the relevant Polish law did not require a strategic environmental impact assessment for the Project.
I mellemtiden havde banken desuden informeret klageren om de polske myndigheders konklusioner.
Furthermore, in the meantime, it had informed the complainant about the conclusions of the Polish authorities.
Eft er Ombudsmandens mening kunne EIB (i) legitimt mene, at de polske myndigheder overholdt gældende lovgivning, og (ii) legitimt forvente, at samme polske myndigheder ville tilstille EIB pålidelige oplysninger om deres anvendelse af disse lovbestemmelser.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the EIB could (i) legitimately consider that the Polish authorities complied with the applicable legal provisions, and (ii) legitimately expect that the same Polish authorities would provide it with reliable information concerning the application of those provisions on their part.
Ombudsmanden godkendte derfor EIB’s begrundelser for at have stolet på oplysningerne fra disse myndigheder, da den havde bevilget lånet.
Therefore, the Ombudsman accepted the EIB’s reasons for relying on the information made available by those authorities, when it signed the loan.
Han mente derfor ikke, at der var tale om forsømmelighed i denne sammenhæng.
He thus found no maladministration as regards this issue.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede også, at EIB i mellemtiden havde informeret klageren om de polske myndigheders konklusioner.
The Ombudsman also noted that, in the meantime, the EIB had informed the complainant about the conclusions of the Polish authorities.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at der var grund til at foretage yderligere undersøgelser i den henseende.
The Ombudsman therefore found that no further inquiries were justified in this respect.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede det samme med hensyn til klagerens krav, da EIB åbenbart allerede havde foretaget den relevante betaling.
The Ombudsman made the same finding as regards the complainant’s claim, given that it appeared that the EIB had already made the relevant payment.
Ombudsmanden henviste også til konklusionerne fra den polske ombudsmand, som klageren samtidig havde fremsendt en klage til over de polske myndigheder.
The Ombudsman also referred to the findings of the Polish Ombudsman to whom the complainant had submi4 ed a parallel complaint against the Polish authorities.
I denne sammenhæng bemærkede han desuden, at EIB fremover kunne overveje at oprette kommunikationskanaler med og søge information fra relevante nationale og regionale kontrolinstanser såsom ombudsmænd og dermed få adgang til supplerende oplysninger om, hvorvidt projekter finansieret af banken overholder national og europæisk lovgivning.
In this regard, he also made a further remark to the e� ect that, in the future, the EIB could consider establishing channels of communication with and seeking information from, relevant national and regional control instances, such as ombudsmen, which could serve as additional sources of information concerning compliance of projects financed by the Bank with national and European law.
Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur
The European Medicines Agency
Påstået mangel på information i forbindelse med et antidepressivt middel
Alleged lack of information with regard to an antidepressant
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2370/2005/OV over Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur (EMEA)
Summary of decision on complaint 2370/2005/OV against the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
Klagerens mand begik selvmord, mens han tog det antidepressive middel Seroxat/Paroxetine.
The complainant’s husband commi4 ed suicide while taking the antidepressant Seroxat/Paroxetine.
Eft er mandens død kontaktede klageren Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur angående spørgsmålet om sikkerhed og selvmordsrisiko i forbindelse med det pågældende lægemiddel.
A er her husband’s death, the complainant contacted the European Medicines Agency with regard to the drug’s safety and suicide risk.
Klageren anmodede bl.a. om oplysninger om agenturets videnskabelige udtalelse om lægemidlet.
Among other things, the complainant requested information on the Agency’s scientific opinion on the drug.
Visse af hendes e-mails forblev imidlertid ubesvarede.
However, certain of her e-mails remained unanswered.
Klageren fandt også, at de svar, hun fi k fra agenturet, var utilfredsstillende.
The complainant also considered that the replies that were sent by the Agency were unsatisfactory.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden anførte klageren følgende klagepunkter: Mangel på gennemsigtighed og information fra agenturets side i forbindelse med hendes anmodninger; unødig forsinkelse; at hun ikke var blevet hørt i spørgsmålet om sikkerhed og selvmordsrisiko i forbindelse med lægemidlet; og agenturets mangel på handling i forhold til hendes anbringender.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged: lack of transparency and information by the Agency with regard to her requests; undue delay; that she had not been heard with regard to the safety and suicide risk of the drug; and lack of action by the Agency with regard to her concerns.
I sin udtalelse fremførte agenturet det argument, at det havde undladt at besvare visse af klagerens e-mails, fordi de havde været repetitive og irrelevante.
In its opinion, the Agency argued that it had not answered certain of the complainant’s e-mails because they had been repetitive and pointless.
Det anførte, at det i øvrigt havde givet klageren alle nødvendige oplysninger.
It stated that, for the rest, it had given all the necessary information to the complainant.
Eft er omhyggelig analyse af den relevante korrespondance konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at agenturet havde undladt at besvare tre af de spørgsmål, som blev stillet i klagen.
A er careful analysis of the relevant correspondence, the Ombudsman concluded that the Agency had failed to reply to three questions raised by the complaint.
Han foreslog derfor en mindelig løsning, idet han opfordrede agenturet til (i) at undskylde, at det havde betragtet nogle af klagerens e-mails som værende repetitive og irrelevante, og (ii) at besvare de nævnte spørgsmål.
He therefore made a proposal for a friendly solution and invited the Agency (i) to apologise for having considered some of the complainant’s e-mails as repetitive and pointless and (ii) to reply to the said questions.
Agenturet accepterede Ombudsmandens forslag, undskyldte over for klageren og besvarede de tre spørgsmål.
The Agency accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal, apologised to the complainant and replied to the three questions.
I sin afgørelse udtrykte Ombudsmanden tilfredshed med, at agenturet havde accepteret hans forslag.
In his decision, the Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Agency had accepted his proposal.
Eftersom klageren fortsat var utilfreds med den skriftlige undskyldning og svarene på hendes spørgsmål, konkluderede han imidlertid, at der ikke kunne findes en mindelig løsning.
Given, however, that the complainant remained dissatisfied with the le4 er of apology and with the replies to her questions, he concluded that no friendly solution could be achieved.
Men Ombudsmanden var af den opfattelse, at eftersom agenturets tiltag havde fjernet de punkter, som han havde fundet betænkelige, var der ikke længere tale om et tilfælde af fejl og forsømmelser fra agenturets side.
The Ombudsman nevertheless took the view that since the action taken by the Agency removed the concerns he had identified, there was no longer any maladministration by the Agency.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at klageren ikke var blevet hørt, og at der havde manglet handling fra agenturets side, konkluderede Ombudsmanden, på grundlag af en analyse af den procedure, der gælder for vedtagelse af markedsføringstilladelser for lægemidler, at der ikke var tale om fejl og forsømmelser fra agenturets side.
As regards the allegation that the complainant had not been heard and that there had been lack of action by the Agency, the Ombudsman concluded, on the basis of an analysis of the procedure applicable to the adoption of medicine marketing authorisations, that there had been no maladministration by the Agency.
Han afsluttede derfor sagen.
He therefore closed the case.
Påstået utilfredsstillende håndtering af henvendelser vedrørende hesteavl i Østrig
Alleged unsatisfactory handling of requests concerning horse breeding in Austria
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3386/2005/WP over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3386/2005/WP against the European Commission
Volksanwalt (ombudsmanden) for den østrigske region Vorarlberg fremsendte en klage til Ombudsmanden, som han havde modtaget fra en hesteavler fra regionen Vorarlberg.
The Volksanwalt (Ombudsman) for the Austrian region of Vorarlberg forwarded a complaint to the Ombudsman, which he had received from a horse breeder residing in the Vorarlberg region.
Klageren var af den opfattelse, at der var visse regionale regler om stambogsføring, der ikke var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
The complainant considered that certain regional rules on stud-books were not in conformity with Community law.