natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I september 1996 deltog E. i de skriftlige prøver ved den åbne udvælgelsesprøve EUR/LA/97. I november 1996 meddelte udvælgelseskomitéenhende, at resultatet af hendes første skriftlige prøve (3,51 ud af 20) låunder det krævede pointtal, og at hun derfor ikke havde bestået prøven.
In September 1996, Mrs E.had taken part in the written tests of open competition EUR/LA/97.In November 1996, she was informed by the Selection Board that her score in the first written test (3,51 out of 20), was below therequired mark and that therefore she had failed the test.
Klagen videresendtes til Kommissionen. Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.Its opinion was in summary the following:
AFGØRELSER prøver (10 ud af 20 ved prøve a; 6 ud af 10 ved prøve b), og de skulle derudover være blandt de 144 bedste ansøgere.
In the notice of the competition concerning the written tests (points VII.Aand VII.B), it was indicated that the first written test (a) should consist of atranslation into Spanish of a text of approximately 25 lines without a dictio-nary.The second written test (b), was to be made of a series of multiplechoice questions related to European integration and EC policies.Thesetwo tests would be marked first.Successful candidates should haveobtained a minimum score in both tests (10 out of 20 for test a;5 out of 10in test b), and furthermore, be among the best 144 candidates.
E., der kun havde opnået 3,51 point ved den første skriftlige prøve (a), blevderfor udelukket fra udvælgelsesprøven. Som svar på hendes anmodningom en kopi af hendes prøve forklarede den pågældende tjenestegren i Kommissionen, at resultaterne var i overensstemmelse med de piontudvælgelseskomiteen havde tildelt.
Mrs E., having obtained only a 3,51 mark in the first written test (a), wastherefore eliminated from the competition.In reply to her request of a copyof her test, the relevant Commission services explained that the resultswere in accordance with the marks attributed by the Selection Board.
Med hensyn til klagerens påstand om manglende gennemsigtighedudtrykte Kommissionen den holdning, at udvælgelseskomitéen havdehandlet med størst mulig gennemsigtighed og med behørig respekt forretsstats- og fortrolighedsprincipperne. Personalevedtægtens bilag III,artikel 6, pålægger udvælgelseskomitéer fortrolighed i deres arbejde for atforhindre, at der eventuelt lægges pres på deres individuelle medlemmer.
As regards the complainant’s claim of lack of transparency, the Commission expressed its view that the Selection Board had operated withthe largest possible degree of transparency, and with due respect of therule of law and confidentiality principles.Article 6 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations imposes a duty of confidentiality upon the work of Selection Boards, in order to avert any potential pressure being put on their individualmembers.
I juli 1998 skrev Ombudsmanden igen til Kommissionen med anmodningom en kopi af E.’s skriftlige prøve i den åbne udvælgelsesprøve EUR/LA/97 med de foretagne rettelser og de point, udvælgelseskomitéenhavde givet.
On July 1998, the Ombudsman wrote again to the Commission, requestinga copy of the written test of Mrs E.in open competition EUR/LA/97, with thecorrections made and the marks given by the Selection Board.
Kommissionen forklarede endvidere, at udvælgelseskomitéens arbejde ved denne type udvælgelsesprøver ogsåomfatter en sammenligning af ansøgernes resultater. Denne sammenlig-
In its reply, the Commission repeated the refusal to give copies of markedtests, recalling its arguments in a previous complaint (Ombudsman’s own
Kommissionen tilføjede, at ansøgernes normale muligheder for at anfægteudvælgelseskomitéens afgørelse er klageadgangen i personalevedtægtens artikel 90 og appelmuligheden ved Fællesskabets Domstol.
The Commission added that the normal means available to candidates tocontest the decisions of the Selection Board are the appeal provided for inarticle 90 of the Staff Regulations, and recourse to the Community courts.
På baggrund af Kommissionens afslag på at give adgang til de efterspurgte dokumenter skrev Ombudsmanden til Kommissionens formand,Jacques Santer, i oktober 1998 og mindede institutionen om dens pligt ihenhold til Den Europæiske Ombudsmands statuts artikel 3, stk. 217.Ombudsmanden bemærkede også i sin skrivelse, at han agtede at lade etmedlem af sit sekretariat gennemse dokumentet i Kommissionens lokaler,så enhver mulig misforståelse angående eventuel anvendelse af den kopi,der skulle sendes til ham, kunne undgås.
In view of the Commission’s refusal to grant access to the documents beingrequested, the Ombudsman wrote to Commission President Santer on October 1998, and reminded the institution of its duty under the provisionsof Article 3 (2) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman17.
I sit svar gik Kommissionen indpå at holde et møde “for at diskutere problemernes karakter, da Kommissionen ikke på nuværende tidspunkt ser sig i stand til fuldt ud atimødekomme Deres anmodning”.
The Ombudsman also indicated in his letter that he intended to have the document inspected by a member of his Secretariat at the Commission’spremises, so that any possible misunderstanding regarding the potentialuse of the copy to be transmitted to him could be avoided.In its reply, the Commission agreed to hold a meeting “to discuss the nature of our concerns, since the Commission, at this stage, is not in a position to fully meetyour request”.
Mødet fandt sted den 25. november 1998 i Kommissionens lokaler i Bruxelles. Under mødet redegjorde Kommissionens tjenestegrene for denprocedure, man fulgte ved afholdelse af udvælgelsesprøver og især,hvordan rettelser blev foretaget og kontrolleret af udvælgelseskomitéen.På baggrund af de garantier, denne procedure indeholdt, og de begrænsninger, man var underlagt i henhold til Domstolens retspraksis, antogesdet, at der var tilstrækkelige elementer til at udelukke enhver mulig fejl ellerforsømmelse i udvælgelseskomitéens arbejde.
The meeting took place on 25 November 1998 at the Commission’spremises in Brussels.In the course of the meeting, the Commission services responsible explained the procedure followed in the running of competitions, and in particular, the way corrections were made and supervisedby the Selection Board.Taking into account the guarantees provided for bythis procedure, and the limitations imposed by the caselaw of the Community courts, it was suggested that there were sufficient elements toexclude any potential maladministration in the work of the Selection Board.
Hvad angik det ønskede gennemsyn af sagen, erklærede Kommissionensrepræsentanter, at de ikke kunne tage endelig stilling til spørgsmålet, førdet var blevet behandlet på et interinstitutionelt møde mellem administrationscheferne.
As for the requested inspection of the file, the representatives from the Commission stated that they could not take a final position on the matterbefore discussing it in the context of an inter-institutional meeting of the“Heads of Administration”.
Da der ikke forelå officielt svar fra Kommissionen ved udgangen afnovember 1998, skrev Ombudsmanden igen til institutionen og bad om tilladelse til at gennemse de relevante akter, idet han tilføjede:
Since there was no formal reply from the Commission by the end of November 1998, the Ombudsman wrote again to the institution, and askedto inspect the relevant files, adding that
“Nægter Kommissionen at give Ombudsmanden adgang tilde pågældende akter, vil jeg bede Dem [kommissionsformand Santer] om at angive de behørigt begrundede henvisninger til tavshedspligten, der danner grundlag forafgørelsen.
“If the Commission refuses to give the Ombudsman accessto the files concerned, I request you [President Santer] tostate the duly substantiated grounds of secrecy on whichthe decision is based.
For at sikre, at en eventuel særberetning til Europa-Parlamentet kan udarbejdes omgående, skal jeg anmodeom at modtage Deres svar senest den 11. januar 1999”.
In order to ensure that any special report to the European Parliament can be made promptly, I would be grateful toreceive your reply by no later than 11 January 1999.”
“Fællesskabets institutioner og organer er forpligtet til at give ombudsmanden de oplysninger, hananmoder om, og give ham adgang til de pågældende dokumenter.
“The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information he has requested of them and give him access to the files concerned.They may refuse onlyon duly substantiated grounds of secrecy”.
AFGØRELSER så Ombudsmanden kunne gennemse klagerens skriftlige prøver i dennesag.
In a letter signed by Mr Trojan, Secretary General of the Commission,dated 23 December 1998, the Commission finally agreed to organise ameeting for the Ombudsman to inspect the written tests of the complainantin this case.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmands rolle
THE DECISION1Role of the European Ombudsman
I løbet af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne sag erklærede Kommissionen, at ansøgeres normale mulighed for at anfægte ugunstige afgørelser, truffet af udvælgelseskomitéen i forbindelse medåbne udvælgelsesprøver, er klageadgangen i personalevedtægtensartikel 90 og appelmuligheden ved Fællesskabets Domstol. Den lodligeledes forstå, at arbejdet i en hvilken som helst udvælgelseskomitéer forbundet med tilstrækkelige interne kontroller og garantier til, atman kan udelukke ethvert muligt tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry into this case, the Commission stated that the normal means for candidates to contestadverse decisions taken by Selection Boards in open competitionsare the appeal provided for in article 90 of the Staff Regulations, andrecourse to the Community courts.It had also implied that the work ofany Selection Board has sufficient internal controls and guarantees toexclude any potential instance of maladministration.
Ingen handling i forbindelse med tilrettelæggelsen af en udvælgelsesprøve eller de dermed forbundne procedurer – og slet ikkeafgørelser truffet af udvælgelseskomitéen - er udelukket fra Ombudsmandens mandat.
No activity related to the organisation of a competition, or its procedure, let alone the decisions taken by Selection Boards, have beenexcluded from the Ombudsman’s remit.Accordingly, the Ombudsmanhas the powers to launch any inquiry related to a potential case ofmaladministration in this type of cases.
Følgelig har Ombudsmanden beføjelse tilat iværksætte en hvilken som helst undersøgelse i forbindelse medmulige tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i denne slags sager.
As regards the means to contest a decision of a Selection Boards, inaddition to the use of article 90, par.2 of the Staff Regulations or
Artikel 138 E i traktat om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab; Den Europæiske Ombudsmands statut, artikel 2, stk. 1.
Article 138e Treaty establishing the European Community;Article 2, par.1, Statute of the European Ombudsman.
F.eks. sager, der er anlagt ved en domstol eller som vedrører en retsafgørelse (artikel 1, stk. 3), ellerhandlinger foretaget af Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans under udøvelsen af deres domstolsfunktioner (artikel 2, stk. 2).
For instance, cases before courts or related to a court’s ruling (article 1, par.3), or those activitiesof the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role (article 2, par.2).
Foruden klageadgangen i artikel 90, stk. 2, og appelmuligheden ved Retten i Første Instans kan ansøgere indbringe en klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand, hvis de ønsker at anfægte en udvælgelseskomités afgørelse.
57 recourse to the Court of First Instance, candidates may send a complaint to the European Ombudsman.Nothing precludes complainantsin those cases from exercising their rights to apply to the Ombudsmanas European citizens.
Klagerens krav om at få adgang til sine rettede prøver
Claim by the complainant to have access to her marked tests
Klageren havde gentagne gange forsvaret sin ret til at få adgang tilsine prøver rettet af udvælgelseskomitéen som et middel til at kontrollere, at processen var sket i åbenhed og med behørig respekt forretsstatsprincipperne.
The complainant had repeatedly asserted her right to have access toher tests once marked by the Selection Board, as a means to ensurethat the process had been carried out with transparency and in duerespect for the rule of law.
Kommissionen havde afslået hendes anmodninger med den begrundelse, at udvælgelseskomitéens arbejde er fortroligt, jf. personalevedtægtens bilag III, artikel 6.
The Commission had rejected her requests on the grounds that thework of the Selection Board is confidential as set out in article 6 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations.
For endvidere at bortvejre enhver mistanke om rettelserne i E.’s skriftlige prøve foretog Ombudsmanden et gennemsyn af dokumenterneden 11. januar 1999.
Furthermore, in order to dispel any potential suspicion concerning thecorrections made in Mrs E.written test, the Ombudsman carried outan inspection of the documents on 11 January 1999.
Bedømmelse af E.’s skriftlige prøve
Assessment of Mrs E.’s written test
For at sikre, at udvælgelseskomitéen under udøvelse af sine skønsbeføjelser havde handlet inden for rammerne af sit mandat, anmodede Ombudsmanden om gennemsyn af de relevante dokumenter idenne sag, nemlig klagerens skriftlige prøve i den åbne udvælgelsesprøve EUR/LA/97 samt udvælgelseskomitéens bedømmelse.
In order to ensure that in using its discretionary powers, the Selection Board had acted within the limits of its legal authority, the Ombudsman requested an inspection of the relevant documentationconcerning this case, namely the complainant’s written test in opencompetition EUR/LA/97 and the evaluation made by the Selection Board.
Sag T-46/93, Fotini Michäel Chiou mod Kommissionen,Sml. 1994IA, s. 297, præmis 48; sag 40/86,Georges Kolivas mod Kommissionen, Sml. 1987, s. 2643, præmis 11.
See, case T-46/93, Fotini Michaël Chiou v.Commission[1994] ECR II-929;par.48;case 40/86,Georges Kolivas v.Commission[1987] ECR 2643;par.11.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Kommissionens side, og Ombudsmanden afsluttedederfor behandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
TANDLÆGER MED ARGENTINSKE EKSAMENSBEVISERAfgørelse om de forenede klager 531/97/PD og 535/97/PD over Europa-Kommissionen
ARGENTINEAN DENTISTRY DIPLOMASDecision on joined complaints 531/97/PD and 535/97/PD against the European Commission
I april og juni 1997 klagede S. og P. til Ombudsmanden over en udtalelsefra Kommissionen om tandlæger med argentinske eksamensbeviser.Klagerne gjorde i det væsentligste gældende, at Kommissionen med urettehavde miskrediteret argentinske tandlæger.
In April and June 1997, Mrs S.and Mr P.made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning a statement made by the Commission about Argentinean dentistry diplomas.In substance, they put forward that the Commission wrongly discredited Argentinean dentists.
Baggrunden for klagen var følgende:
The background to the complaints was the following:
I årsberetningerne om kontrollen med gennemførelsen af fællesskabsretten gav Kommissionen bl.a. følgende oplysninger om de overtrædelsesprocedurer, der var indledt mod de spanske myndigheder (jf. f.eks. denfjortende beretning (1996), offentliggjort i EFT1997 C 332, s. 1):
In its annual reports on the monitoring on the application of Community law,the Commission gave amongst others the following information on the stateof the ongoing investigations against the Spanish authorities (see forinstance the 14th annual report (1996), published in OJ 1997 C 332/1):
“procedurer indledt (…) mod Spanien, der tillader tandlæger med eksamensbeviser fra spansktalende sydamerikanske lande, hvis tandlægeuddannelse klart ligger underdirektivets niveau.”
“a case against Spain for admitting dentists with qualifications obtained in Latin America at a level far below the Directive’s requirements.”
Det var denne udtalelse, der lå til grund for klagerne til Ombudsmanden.Klagerne mente, at udtalelsen med urette miskrediterede tandlæger medargentinske eksamensbeviser. Klagerene gjorde i det væsentligste gældende:
It was this statement which gave rise to the complaints to the Ombudsman.The complainants considered that the statement wrongly discredited theholders of Argentinean diplomas in dentistry.In the complaints, it was insubstance put forward
- at Kommissionens fortolkning af de gældende retsakter var forkert,og at man derfor havde indledt undersøgelser mod Spanien på etfejlagtigt grundlag, og
- that the Commission’s interpretation of the applicable law was wrongand therefore wrongly led it to initiate the investigations against Spain,and
- at den pågældende udtalelse byggede på en ringe viden om latinamerikanske eksamensbeviser for tandlæger og dermed varbelastet af en utilstrækkelig undersøgelse af de bedømte emner.
- that the statement in question was based on poor knowledge of Latin-American diplomas in dentistry and thus tainted by inadequate examination of the issues assessed.
Som støtte for den første påstand henviste klagerne til ovennævnte artikel1, stk. 4 i direktiv 78/687, ifølge hvilken medlemsstaterne frit kan anerkende eksamensbeviser fra tredjelande.
In support of the first allegation, the complainants referred to the abovementioned Article 1 (4) of Directive 78/687,according to which Member States remain free to recognise diplomas from third countries.
Som støtte for den anden påstand erklærede klagerne bl.a., at Kommissionen tilsyneladende ikke havde kontaktet de relevante kilder forrelevante oplysninger, f.eks. latinamerikanske uddannelsesinstitutioner.Klagerne indsendte endvidere materiale, der viste, at de argentinske tandlægeuddannelser havde inspireret den spanske tandlægeuddannelse.
In support of the second allegation, the complainants stated, amongstothers, that the Commission had apparently not contacted the relevantsources for adequate information, for instance Latin-American educationestablishments.Furthermore, they submitted material that showed that Argentinean educations in dentistry had served as inspiration for the Spanish education in dentistry.
Klagerne videresendtes til Kommissionen. I udtalelsen anførte Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
The complaints were forwarded to the Commission.The Commission’sopinion stated, in substance, the following:
Klagernes bemærkninger I deres bemærkninger fastholdt klagerne klagen.
The complainants’ observations In their observations the complainants maintained the complaint.
Efter en grundig gennemgang af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagernesbemærkninger besluttede Ombudsmanden at gennemse de dokumenter,der lå til grund for Kommissionens udtalelse. I skrivelse af 2. juli 1998 badhan Kommissionen foretage sig det nødvendige for at tilrettelægge gennemsynet.
After careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the observations lodged, the Ombudsman decided to inspect the file underlying the Commission’s statement.By letter of 2 July 1998, he requested the Commission to make the necessary arrangements for the inspection.Thepurpose of the inspection was to verify that the Commission had properlyexamined the file which constituted the basis for the statement.On 11 and12 January 1999, two senior legal officers from the Ombudsman’s Officecarried out the inspection.During and after the examination of the file, thesix Commission officials who represented respectively Directorate General
Generaldirektorat XV, Juridisk Tjeneste og Generalsekretariatet, også despørgsmål, Ombudsmandens medarbejdere stillede dem.
XV, the Legal Service and the General Secretariat also replied to questionsput to them by the Ombudsman’s officers.
AFGØRELSEN 1 Påstandene
THE DECISION1The allegations
Kommissionens fortolkning af de gældende retsakter
The Commission’s interpretation of the applicable law
Kommissionen vurderede, at de pågældende direktiver ikke tilladermedlemsstaterne at anerkende tredjelandes eksamensbeviser, derligger under minimumskravene for Fællesskabets tandlægeeksamensbeviser. Klagerne afviste denne fortolkning under henvisning tilartikel 1, stk. 4, i direktiv 78/687:
The Commission considered that the Directives in question do notallow Member States to recognise third country diplomas which fallbelow the minimum standards set out for Community dentistrydiplomas.The complainants contended this view, referring to Article1(4) of Directive 78/687, which states that:
“Dette direktiv berører ikke på nogen måde medlemsstaternes mulighed for på deres eget område og i henhold tilderes lovgivning at give indehavere af eksamensbeviser,…som ikke er erhvervet i en medlemsstat, adgang til atoptage og udøve virksomhed som tandlæge.”
“Nothing in this Directive shall prejudice any facility whichmay be granted in accordance with their own rules by Member States in respect of their own territory to authoriseholder of diplomas, ...which have not been obtained in a Member State to take up and pursue the activities of adental practitioner.”
På denne baggrund fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionens fortolkning var rimelig og velbegrundet. Det skal dog bemærkes, at Domstolen er den højeste myndighed med hensyn til fortolkning affællesskabsretten.
Against this background, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s interpretation appeared reasoned and well-founded.However, it has to be recalled that the Court of Justice is the highestauthority on the interpretation of Community law.
Kommissionens undersøgelse af sagen
The Commission’s case-examination
Klagernes hovedpåstand var, at Kommissionens udtalelse om latinamerikanske eksamensbeviser for tandlæger skyldtes en mangelfuldundersøgelse af fakta og de forhold, der lå til grund for udtalelsen. Tilstøtte for denne påstand erklærede de, at Kommissionen ikke havdetaget kontakt til tandlægehøjskolerne i Latinamerika.
The complainants alleged in substance that the Commission’s statement about Latin-American diplomas in dentistry was due to faultyexamination of the facts and issues underlying the statement.In support of this allegation, they stated that the Commission had failed tomake contact with education establishments in Latin-America whichteach dentistry.
Det skal for det andet bemærkes, at gennemgangen af Kommissionens dokumenter viste, at denne lå inde med et stortantal kopier af eksamensbeviser fra forskellige latinamerikanskelande, som ikke opfyldte kravene nævnt i direktiverne.
Secondly, it shall be observed that the inspection of the Commission’sfile showed that the Commission was in possession of a large numberof copies of diplomas, delivered in various Latin-American countries,which did not conform with the requirements of the Directives.
På denne baggrund fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionenhavde overholdt kravet om omhyggeligt og grundigt at undersøgesagen.
Against this background, the Ombudsman found that the Commissionhad not failed to comply with the requirement to carefully and diligently examine the case.
BEHANDLING AF EN KLAGE I HENHOLD TILEF-TRAKTATENS ARTIKEL86
HANDLING OF A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 86 OF THE EC TREATY
Afgørelse om klage 536/97/VK over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 536/97/VK against the European Commission
I november 1996 og april 1997 klagede C. til Ombudsmanden over Europa-Kommissionen, idet han gjorde gældende, at denne ikke havdebehandlet en klage, han havde fremsat imod den, på korrekt måde.Baggrunden for klagen var i det væsentligste følgende:
In November 1996 and April 1997, Mr C.made a complaint to the Ombudsman against the European Commission, alleging that the Commission had not dealt properly with the complaint he made to it.Thebackground to the complaint was in summary the following: