natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen afviste forslaget til henstilling med den begrundelse, at den ikke havde krævet, at kontrahenterne skulle bruge en særlig model til underkontrahentkontrakten, og at klageren derfor kunne have forhandlet sig frem til særlige betingelser om udbetaling af morarenter med kontrahenten.
The Commission rejected the draW recommendation on the basis that it had not required the contractors to use a particular model of sub-contracting contract and that, therefore, the complainant could have negotiated specific conditions for the payment of interest with the intermediary.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at det ikke syntes at være sandsynligt, at en lille eller mellemstor virksomhed såsom klageren ville kræve ændringer i betingelserne i en standardkontrakt. EWersom denne mulighed ikke kunne udelukkes, kunne Ombudsmandens tidligere konklusion om udbetaling af morarenter imidlertid ikke opretholdes.
The Ombudsman took the view that it did not appear very likely that a small or medium-sized company, such as the complainant, could demand changes to the conditions of a model contract.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke desto mindre ikke, at små og mellemstore virksomheder har en realistisk mulighed for at deltage i sådanne projekter under sådanne omstændigheder.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considered that small and medium-sized companies hardly had a realistic possibility of taking part in such projects in circumstances like these.
Han fremsame derfor en yderligere bemærkning, hvori han foreslog, at Kommissionen kunne overveje at ændre sin almindelige kontraktpraksis, således at der automatisk ville blive udbetalt morarenter til kontrahenter i forbindelse med beløb, der skal udbetales til underkontrahenter, som har opfyldt deres forpligtelser.
He therefore made a further remark suggesting that the Commission could consider altering its standard contractual practice so that payment of interest to contractors in respect of amounts due to sub-contractors that have properly fulfilled their obligations would become automatic.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at en sådan ændring ville være et bevis på, at Kommissionen arbejder for at sikre små og mellemstore virksomheders interesser.
In the Ombudsman’s view, such a change would constitute a useful confirmation of the Commission’s commitment to the interests of small and medium-sized companies.
Kommissionen oplyste Ombudsmanden, at den havde taget den kritiske bemærkning og den yderligere bemærkning til e W erretning, og at den ville forsøge at tage højde for SMV’ers interesser i fremtidige standardkontrakter i det omfang, dem e er foreneligt med Fællesskabets økonomiske interesser og gældende lovgivning.
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had taken note of the critical remark and the further remark and that it will try to take into account the interests of SMEs in future standard contracts to the extent that this is compatible with the Community’s financial interests and the legislative provisions in force.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at klageren havde skrevet til Kommissionen for at forsøge at tilbagevise dens begrundelser for afvisning af tilbuddet, og at Kommissionen som svar havde givet yderligere begrundelser for sin afvisning af tilbuddet uden at forklare, at disse begrundelser lå ud over dem, der var anført i Kommissionens første brev.
The Ombudsman found that the complainant had wrimen to the Commission trying to rebut the lamer’s reasons for rejecting its bid and that, in reply, the Commission had provided further reasons for rejecting the bid, without explaining that these reasons were additional to the ones given in its first lemer.
Endvidere syntes Kommissionen ikke at have anerkendt eller besvaret klagerens forsøg på at tilbagevise de første begrundelser for afvisning af tilbuddet.
Furthermore, the Commission did not appear to have acknowledged or answered the complainant’s amempt to rebut the first reasons given for rejecting the bid.
Kommissionen havde derfor e W er Ombudsmandens mening undladt at give et så fyldestgørende og præcist svar som muligt på klagerens brev, som det kræves i kodeksen for god forvaltningsskik.
In the Ombudsman’s view, therefore, the Commission had failed to reply as completely and accurately as possible to the complainant’s lemer, as required by the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Ombudsmanden fremsame også to yderligere bemærkninger.
The Ombudsman also made two further remarks.
I den første foreslog han, at Kommissionen skulle overveje at formalisere og præcisere sine procedurer med hensyn til afsendelse af breve om evaluering af tilbud pr. fax.
The first suggested that the Commission consider formalising and clarifying its procedures with regard to the sending by fax of lemers concerning the evaluation of bids.
I den anden bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at pkt. 10.5 i vademecum om oTentlige indkøbsprocedurer ikke synes at være i overensstemmelse med ordlyden i det pågældende udbud, hvor det fremgår, at tilbud, der fremsendes i én underskrevet original og to kopier, ikke vil blive betragtet som gyldige.
The second noted that point 10.5 of the Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures does not seem to correspond to the wording of the call for tender in question, which suggests that bids not submimed in one signed original and two copies will not be considered valid.
For at forhindre at bydende føler sig urimeligt behandlet i fremtiden, foreslog Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen skulle tage forholdet mellem sit vademecum og udbud op til fornyet overvejelse, hvad angår antallet af eksemplarer, der skal indsendes.
In order to avoid the possible appearance of unfairness in the future, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission re-examine the relationship between the Vade Mecum and calls for tenders as regards the number of copies of bids that are required to be submimed. ed.
Som svar på den kritiske bemærkning underremede Kommissionen e W erfølgende Ombudsmanden om, at den, selv om den mente at have anvendt de korrekte procedurer, i princippet var enig i, at svar på korrespondance bør være så fyldestgørende som muligt, og at der skal gøres bestræbelser på at sikre deme.
In reply to the critical remark, the Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, although it considered itself to have correctly applied the relevant procedural rules, it agreed that, in principle, replies to correspondence should be as complete as possible and that eTorts have to be made to this eTect.
Hvad angår den første bemærkning, bemærkede Kommissionen, at reglen om, at bydende, som ikke vælges, underremes pr. post, fax eller e-mail, kun gælder for den første meddelelse, hvorimod det i forbindelse med andre meddelelser skal vurderes af den ordregivende myndighed fra sag til sag, hvor meget de haster.
As regards the first further remark, the Commission noted that the rule that unsuccessful tenderers are informed by postal mail, fax, or e-mail only applies to the initial notification, whereas the urgency of further communication has to be assessed by the contracting authority on a case by case basis.
Hvad angår den anden yderligere bemærkning, anførte Kommissionen, at dens vademecum indeholder generelle bestemmelser, men at den ordregivende myndighed er beremiget til at fastlægge specifikke regler for tilbud vedrørende antal og form, og at de bydendes overholdelse af disse regler skal vurderes under hensyntagen til principperne om proportionalitet, ligebehandling og ikke-forskelsbehandling samt om, at bud skal indkaldes fra så bred en kreds som muligt, i finansforordningens artikel 89.
As regards the second further remark, the Commission stated that the Vade Mecum provides general rules but that the contracting authority is entitled to lay down specific rules on the number and form of the bids and that the tenderers’ compliance with these rules has to be assessed with regard to the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, nondiscrimination and broadest competition, as laid down in Article 89 of the Financial Regulation.
RET TIL FORSVAR I FORBINDELSE MED EN ADMINISTRATIV UNDERSØGELSE
RIGHT OF DEFENCE DURING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 620/2004/PB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 620/2004/PB against the European Commission
En tjenestemand i Kommissionen havde indgivet en klage om chikane mod klageren, som også var tjenestemand i Kommissionen. Kommissionen nedsame en undersøgelsesgruppe, som skulle foretage en administrativ undersøgelse af anklagen.
A Commission oU cial had lodged a complaint alleging harassment against the complainant, also a Commission oUcial.
Undersøgelsen fandt sted på et tidspunkt, hvor det fremgik, at der ikke fandtes nogen nedskrevne regler om gennemførelsen af en sådan undersøgelse.
The inquiry took place at a time when it appears that there were no wrimen rules regarding the conducting of such an inquiry.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
The team of investigators concluded in the inquiry report that there was evidence indicating harassment by the complainant.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at remen til høring skulle finde anvendelse i nærværende sag.
The Ombudsman considered that the right to a hearing applied in the present case.
Det var imidlertid ikke nødvendigt, at alt det materiale, som undersøgerne havde anvendt, skulle udleveres til klageren, hvis klageren før færdiggørelsen af undersøgelsesrapporten blev underremet om og fi k rimelig mulighed for at kommentere undersøgelsesgruppens foreløbige resultater og indholdet i de relevante beviser.
However, it did not require that all the materials relied on by the investigators be communicated to the complainant, provided that, before the inquiry report was finalised, the complainant was notified of, and given a reasonable opportunity to comment on, the preliminary factual findings made by the investigators and the substance of the relevant supporting evidence.
Det fremgik, at undersøgelsesgruppen faktisk havde færdiggjort rapporten og fremsendt den til den relevante generaldirektør uden at underreme klageren om, og give ham en rimelig mulighed for at kommentere, de foreløbige resultater og de beviser, der var lagt til grund.
It appeared that the investigating team had in fact finalised the report and forwarded it to the relevant Director-General without informing the complainant of, and without giving him a reasonable opportunity to comment on, its preliminary findings and the evidence relied upon.
Dem e udgjorde e W er Ombudsmandens mening en krænkelse af klagerens ret til forsvar og derfor et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
In the Ombudsman’s view, this amounted to a failure to respect the complainant’s right of defence and therefore to an instance of maladministration.
ADGANG TIL FISKERI I FARVANDENE OMKRING AZORERNE
ACCESS TO FISHERIES IN AZOREAN WATERS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1273/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1273/2004/GG against the European Commission
Klagen omhandlede det omfang, i hvilket det var tilladt før den 1. august 2004 at fi ske i farvandene omkring Azorerne, en øgruppe tilhørende Portugal.
The complaint concerned the extent to which fishing was permimed prior to 1 August 2004 in the “Azorean waters”, that is, waters surrounding the Azores, a group of islands belonging to Portugal.
Siden Portugals tiltrædelse til De Europæiske Fællesskaber i 1986 har visse overgangsbestemmelser fundet anvendelse på fiskeri i farvandene omkring Azorerne.
Since the accession of Portugal to the European Communities in 1986, certain transitional provisions had been applicable to fisheries in the Azorean waters.
Disse bestemmelser, hvoraf de vigtigste til sidst blev knæsat i Rådets forordning
These provisions, the most important of
, gav i realiteten Portugal eneret til at fi ske i disse farvande.
20, eT ectively which were ultimately laid down in Council Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 and 2027/95 reserved the right to fish in Azorean waters to Portugal.
Med Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1954/200321, som trådte i kraW den 14. november 2003, ophævedes det gamle system for adgangen til farvandene omkring Azorerne, som var fastlagt i forordning 685/95 og 2027/95.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/200321, which entered into force on 14 November 2003, eT ectively repealed the old system governing access to Azorean waters, as set out in Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95.
I henhold til artikel 11 skulle der senest den 31. juli 2004 vedtages en forordning om fastsæmelse af den maksimale årlige fiskeriindsats for hver medlemsstat og for hvert enkelt fiskeri.
Article 11 provided for the adoption of a Regulation, by 31 July 2004 at the latest, fixing the maximum annual fishing eTort for each Member State and for each fishery.
Denne forordning blev vedtaget den 19. juli 2004 og trådte i kraW den 5. august 2004.
This Regulation was adopted on 19 July 2004 and entered into force on 5 August 2004.
I henhold til forordningens artikel 15 skulle forordning 685/95 og 2027/95 ophæves med virkning fra i kraW trædelsesdatoen for den forordning, der er nævnt i artikel 11, eller den 1. august 2004, idet den tidligste dato skulle lægges til grund.
According to Article 15 of the Regulation, Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 were to be repealed with eT ect from the date of entry into force of the Article 11 Regulation or 1 August 2004, whichever was the earlier.
Dermed opstod spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det gamle system var blevet ophævet den 14. november 2003, da forordning 1954/2003 trådte i kraW, eller den 1. august 2004, som er nævnt i artikel 15 i forordning 1954/2003.
The question thus arose of whether the old system had been repealed on 14 November 2003, when Regulation 1954/2003 entered into force, or on 1 August 2004, the date mentioned in Article 15 of Regulation 1954/2003.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 685/95 af 27. marts 1995 om forvaltning af fiskeriindsatsen, for så vidt angår visse fiskerizoner og visse fiskeressourcer i Fællesskabet, EFT L 71 af 31.3.1995, s. 5.
Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing eTort relating to certain Community fi fishing areas and resources, OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2027/95 af 15. juni 1995 om indførelse af en forvaltningsordning for fiskeriindsatsen, for så vidt angår visse fiskerizoner og visse fiskeressourcer i Fællesskabet, EFT L 199 af 24.8.1995, s. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing eTort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, OJ 1995 L 199, p. 1.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1954/2003 af 4. november 2003 om forvaltning af fiskeriindsatsen for så vidt angår visse fiskerizoner og visse fiskeressourcer i EF, om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 og om ophævelse af forordning (EF) nr. 685/95 og (EF) nr. 2027/95, EUT L 289 af 7.11.2003, s. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing eTort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1.
Klageren gjorde i sin klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at Kommissionen havde begået en juridisk fejl, og at dens holdninger havde været uoverensstemmende.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had commimed a legal error and that its position had been inconsistent.
Ombudsmanden mindede om, at det er god forvaltningsskik, at forvaltningen undgår juridiske fejl og uoverensstemmelser i sine meddelelser til oTentligheden og anerkender og a[jælper eventuelle fejl.
The Ombudsman recalled that it is good administrative practice for the administration to avoid legal errors and inconsistencies in its public statements and to acknowledge and correct any errors that may occur.
Han bemærkede, at Kommissionens fortolkning af de relevante regler var baseret på princippet om, at i tilfælde af strid mellem to retsakter, finder den nyeste anvendelse (lex posterior derogat legi priori).
He noted that the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant rules was based on the principle that, in the event of a conflict between two legal acts, the more recent prevails (lex posterior derogat legi priori).
Ombudsmanden fandt, at det var beremiget at gøre denne retsgrundsætning gældende, hvis to betingelser var opfyldt, nemlig (i) at den nyeste lov er i strid med den ældre lov, og (ii) at spørgsmålet om forholdet mellem de to love ikke er blevet vurderet anderledes af lovgiveren.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the application of this legal maxim was justified if two conditions were fulfilled, namely (i) that the more recent act is incompatible with the older one and (ii) that the issue of the relationship between the two acts has not been semled by the legislator in a d iT erent way.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at den første betingelse var opfyldt i nærværende sag.
The Ombudsman noted that the first condition was fulfilled in the present case.
Forordning 1954/2003 indeholdt imidlertid en udtrykkelig bestemmelse om den dato, hvor ophævelsen af forordning 685/95 og 2027/95 skulle træde i kraW, og denne dato var ikke den 14. november 2003.
However, Regulation 1954/2003 contained an explicit provision concerning the date on which the repeal of Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 was to take eT ect and this date was not 14 November 2003.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at den mest logiske fortolkning af denne bestemmelse var, at lovgiveren havde haW til hensigt, at forordningerne fra 1995 ikke skulle ophæves med umiddelbar virkning, men først e W er vedtagelsen af forordningen i henhold til artikel 11 eller e W er udløbet af en tilstrækkelig lang periode til vedtagelsen af en sådan forordning, som lovgiveren fastsame til den 1. august 2004. Ombudsmanden fandt, at denne fortolkning blev b e k r æ W et i ordlyden og strukturen af forordningen, og at dem e også var i overensstemmelse med formålet med artikel 15 i forordning 1954/2003.
The Ombudsman considered that the most logical interpretation of this provision was that the legislator had intended that the 1995 Regulations should not be repealed with immediate eT ect but only a W er the “Article 11 Regulation” had been adopted or a W er a period s u U cient for its adoption had passed, a period the end of which the legislator fixed at 1 August 2004.
Endelig bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen selv i sin begrundelse til et forslag til retsakt, som blev fremsat den 3. februar 2004, havde b e k r æ W et, at forordning 685/95 og 2027/95 endnu ikke var ophævet.
Finally, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission itself, in its Explanatory Memorandum for a legislative proposal that it had submimed on 3 February 2004, had confirmed that Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 had not yet been abolished.
Under disse omstændigheder konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionens fortolkning af forordning 1954/2003 var forkert og i uoverensstemmelse med holdningen i sin begrundelse af 3. februar 2004.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s interpretation of Regulation 1954/2003 was erroneous and inconsistent with the position set out in its Explanatory Memorandum of 3 February 2004.
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1368/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1368/2004/GG against the European Commission
Klageren, en tysk virksomhed, tilhørte et konsortium, som havde indgået en servicekontrakt med Kommissionen, ifølge hvilken det skulle stille to EU-eksperter, en direktør og en økonomi/administrationschef til rådighed til et miljøprojekt i Kina.
The complainant, a German company, belonged to a consortium with which the Commission had concluded a service contract for the provision of two EU experts, a co-director and a financial/administrative manager, for an environmental project in China.
En ekspert, som klageren havde ansat, blev udnævnt til økonomi/administrationschef og blev med et tillæg til sin kontrakt i realiteten vicedirektør.
An expert employed by the complainant was appointed financial/administrative manager and, following an addendum to his contract, eT ectively became deputy co-director.
To år senere underremede Kommissionens delegation i Be`ing konsortiet om, at den havde beslumet at opsige servicekontrakten, fordi eksperten ikke havde udført sine opgaver som angivet i tillægget.
Two years later, the Commission’s Delegation in Be`ing informed the consortium that it had decided to terminate the service contract because the expert had failed to fulfil his tasks as modified in the addendum.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionen havde overtrådt forordning
The complainant asked the Commission for access to the documents on which the termination of the contract was based.
1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter
The Commission rejected this request.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE men at Kommissionen havde undladt at give en rimelig forklaring på sit afslag på aktindsigt i de relevante dokumenter.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to comply with Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents22
Han fremsame derfor et forslag til henstilling til Kommissionen, hvori han anmodede den om at tage klagerens begæring op til fornyet behandling.
He therefore addressed a draW recommendation to the Commission asking it to reconsider the complainant’s request.
Kommissionen anførte, at den stadig var overbevist om, at den havde behandlet begæringen korrekt.
The Commission stated that it remained convinced that it had properly dealt with the request.
For at bevare den gode samarbejdsånd havde den imidlertid taget sagen op til genovervejelse og kunne give delvis aktindsigt i 13 af de 16 dokumenter, hvis den overstregede visse navne og kontraktmæssige oplysninger.
However, in a spirit of good co-operation, it had reconsidered the mamer and could grant partial access to 13 of the 16 documents concerned by blanking out certain names and contractual details.
Klageren glædede sig over Kommissionens indrømmelser, men understregede, at det ikke var nok.
The complainant welcomed the concessions made by the Commission but stressed that they did not go far enough.
Selv om Ombudsmanden anerkendte, at Kommissionen var gået langt for at imødekomme hans bekymringer, fandt han ikke, at de foranstaltninger, Kommissionen havde t r u T et for at gennemføre hans forslag til henstilling, var tilfredsstillende.
Although the Ombudsman acknowledged that the Commission had gone a long way towards accommodating his concerns, he considered that the measures it had taken to implement his draW recommendation were not satisfactory.
EWer Ombudsmandens mening havde Kommissionen undladt at give en rimelig forklaring på, hvorfor den havde overstreget navnet på EU-direktøren i visse dokumenter, samt hvorfor den ikke i det mindste havde givet delvis aktindsigt i de sidste tre dokumenter.
In his view, the Commission had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for having blanked out the name of the EU co-director from certain documents and for not granting at least partial access to the remaining three documents.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede, at det ikke var passende at afgive en særlig rapport til Europa-Parlamentet, og afslumede derfor sagen med en kritisk bemærkning.
Having concluded that it was not appropriate to submit a special report to the European Parliament, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.
VILDLEDENDE ERKLÆRING I UDTALELSE OM TIDLIGERE KLAGE
MISLEADING STATEMENT IN OPINION ON EARLIER COMPLAINT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2862/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2862/2004/GG against the European Commission
En tysk ngo fremsendte en ansøgning til Det Europæiske Fællesskabs Kontor for Humanitær Bistand (ECHO) med henblik på undertegnelse af r am m e partners k a b s a W alen.
A German NGO applied to the Humanitarian Aid OU ce of the European Communities (ECHO) with a view to signing the Framework Partnership Agreement.