natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som det allerede har været nævnt i dette afsnit, undlod Kommissionen at registrere klagen og at besvare væsentlige punkter heri.
As has already been mentioned in this section, the Commission failed to register the complaint and to reply to essential points in it.
Det gjorde den efter Ombudsmandens indgriben.
It did so after the Ombudsman intervened.
Den fastholdt imidlertid sit synspunkt med hensyn til sagens genstand.
However, it maintained its view on the substance of the case.
Ombudsmanden anførte i forbindelse med afslutningen af sagen, at han stolede på, at Kommissionen under sin undersøgelse af sagen ville tage behørigt hensyn til de seneste af klageren fremførte argumenter og understregede, at denne kunne indgive en ny klage, hvis han ikke var tilfreds med Kommissionens endelige beslutning i sagen.I sag 3249/2006/(PB)WP klagede en tysk statsborger til Ombudsmanden, efter at Kommissionen afviste at træffe foranstaltninger over for Tyskland for at have overtrådt hans ret til fri bevægelighed.
In closing the case, the Ombudsman stated that he trusted that, in examining the case, the Commission would duly take into consideration the latest arguments put forward by the complainant and pointed out that the latter could lodge a new complaint if he were not satisfied with the Commission's final decision on the case.In case 3249/2006/(PB)WP, a German citizen complained to the Ombudsman after the Commission refused to take action against Germany for having violated his freedom of movement.
Dette var resultatet af en tvist om en skatteregning.
This followed a dispute over a tax bill.
Ombudsmanden mindede om, at hovedformålet med overtrædelsesprocedurer er at sikre medlemsstaternes fremtidige overholdelse af fællesskabsretten, og at procedurerne ikke er udformet med henblik på at give klagere genoprejsning for tildragelser i fortiden.
The Ombudsman recalled that the main purpose of infringement procedures is to ensure future compliance of Member States with Community law and that these procedures are not designed to provide redress for complainants regarding events in the past.
Han mente derfor ikke, at det ville være berettiget, at han undersøgte sagen nærmere.
He considered that further inquiries were not justified.
Sag 1962/2005/IP vedrørte et ringvejsprojekt, der bestod af tre individuelle afsnit.
Case 1962/2005/IP concerned a road by-pass project consisting of three individual sections.
Klageren argumenterede, at de i fællesskabsretten indeholdte miljøregler ikke var blevet overholdt, før byggeprocessen blev sat i gang.
The complainant argued that the environmental rules contained in Community law had not been followed before the construction process was launched.
Kommissionen afsluttede overtrædelsesproceduren, idet den anførte, at der ikke havde fundet nogen overtrædelse sted af fællesskabsretten.
The Commission closed the infringement procedure stating that there had been no violation of Community law.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke Kommissionens forklaring på, hvorfor den havde besluttet at afslutte sagen, tilstrækkeligt fyldestgørende og sammenhængende.
The Ombudsman did not find the Commission's explanation as to why it had decided to close the case to be sufficient and coherent.
Han fremsatte en kritisk bemærkning.
He made a critical remark.
Tildeling af kontrakter og tilskud
However, he considers that the institutions and, in particular, the evaluation committees and the
Ombudsmanden behandler klager om tildeling, manglende tildeling af kontrakter og tilskud.
The Ombudsman deals with complaints about the award, or non-award, of tenders and grants.
Han Ombudsmanden behandler klager om tildeling,finder imidlertid, at institutionerne, og i særdeleshed, bedømmeleller manglende tildeling, af kontrakter og tilskud.sesudvalgene og de ordregivende myndigheder i udbud har vide skønsbeføjelser med hensyn til de faktorer, som de tager hensyn til, når de træffer beslutning om tildeling af en kontrakt efter et udbud.
awarding authorities in tenders, have a broad discretion with regard to the factors they take into account when deciding whether to award a contract following an invitation to tender.
Efter hans opfattelse bør hans gennemgang af sådanne sager være begrænset til at undersøge, om procedurebestemmelserne er blevet overholdt, om kendsgerningerne er korrekt fremført, og at der ikke er tale om en åbenbar fejl i forbindelse med vurderingen eller magtfordrejning.
He considers that his review of such cases should be limited to checking whether the rules governing the procedure are complied with, the facts are correct, and that there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.
Desuden kan han undersøge, om institutionerne har levet op til deres forpligtelser til at anføre grunde, og om disse er sammenhængende og rimelige.
Moreover, he can examine whether the institutions have complied with their duties to state reasons and if these are coherent and reasonable.
I flere sager, hvor klagerne havde gjort en overtrædelse af udbudsreglerne gældende og havde anfægtet de beslutninger, der er truffet af de ordregivende myndigheder, afsluttede Ombudsmanden sine undersøgelser, idet han konkluderede, at der ikke forelå fejl eller forsømmelser24.
In several cases where complainants alleged a breach of tender rules and challenged the decisions taken by the awarding authorities, the Ombudsman concluded his inquiries with findings of no maladministration24.
Han fremsatte imidlertid en yderligere bemærkning i én sag med henblik på at forbedre kvaliteten af fremtidige procedurer25, og en kritisk bemærkning i en anden sag, idet den berørte institution undlod at anføre de klageordninger, der findes mod de trufne afgørelser26.Sag 546/2007/JMA vedrørte en virksomheds udelukkelse fra at deltage i flere udbud i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af et bestemt projekt.
He, however, made a further remark in one case with a view to enhancing the quality of future procedures25, and a critical remark in another because the institution concerned failed to indicate the appeal mechanisms against the decisions taken26.Case 546/2007/JMA concerned the exclusion of a company from several calls for tender issued to implement a certain project.
Klageren havde tidligere gennemført en feasibi-lity-undersøgelse af dette bestemte projekt, og det var institutionens opfattelse, at der forelå en mulig interessekonflikt.
The complainant had previously conducted a feasibility study for this particular project and the institution considered that there was a possible conflict of interest.
Efter Ombudsmandens opfattelse var de af institutionen fremførte grunde rimelige, og han fandt ikke noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.I sag 3113/2007/ELB blev en bydende udelukket, fordi det var opfattelsen, at denne ikke havde den tilstrækkelige økonomiske og finansielle kapacitet til at udføre kontrakten.
The Ombudsman considered that the reasons put forward by the institution were reasonable and found no maladministration.In case 3113/2007/ELB, a tenderer was excluded because it was considered not to have the appropriate economic and financial capacity to execute the contract.
Ombudsmanden mindede om, at det var op til den forvaltning, der tilrettelagde udbuddet, at vurdere, om ansøgere opfylder de relevante betingelser, og at han ikke må skifte forvaltningens vurdering ud med hans egen.
The Ombudsman recalled that it was for the administration organising the call for tenders to assess whether applicants fulfil the relevant conditions and that he must not substitute his own assessment for that of the administration.
Han fandt, at institutionen var kommet med en rimelig redegørelse for dens holdning i denne sag.I sag 3346/2005/MHZ om et udbud om levering af et it-system påstod klageren, at Kommissionen havde undladt at anføre fyldestgørende grunde til at afvise hans bud, havde anvendt tildelingskriterierne fejlagtigt, og havde annulleret udbuddet af ugyldige årsager.
He considered that the institution had provided a reasonable explanation of its position in this case.In case 3346/2005/MHZ, concerning a tender for supplying an IT system, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting its offer, wrongly applied the award criteria, and cancelled the tender for invalid reasons.
Ombudsmanden bekræftede, at der forelå uretmæssig håndtering af udbudsproceduren.
The Ombudsman confirmed an improper handling of the tender procedure.
Han kritiserede Kommissionen for at have afvist hans forslag til en mindelig løsning og understregede, at hans mulighed for at finde frem til et resultat, der var acceptabelt for begge parter, afhænger af institutionens vilje til at træffe borgervenlige foranstaltninger.
He criticised the Commission for refusing his friendly solution proposal, underlining that the possibility for him to achieve an outcome acceptable to both parties depends on the institution's willingness to adopt a citizen-friendly approach.
Sag 2283/2004/GG vedrørte en tysk Ngo, der ydede støtte til flygtninge og krigsofre.
Case 2283/2004/GG concerned a German NGO, supporting refugees and victims of war.
Den havde ansøgt Kommissionen om samfinansiering af adskillige projekter.
It had applied to the Commission to co-finance several projects.
Ombudsmanden fandt bl.a., at Kommissionen havde undladt at behandle klagerens anmodninger fair og objektivt, og at den havde rettet grundløse beskyldninger om svindel mod klageren.
The Ombudsman found, among other things, that the Commission failed to handle the complainant's applications fairly and objectively and that it made unfounded accusations of fraud against the complainant.
Kommissionen undskyldte, at den først anførte grundene til sine afslag tre år efter, at beslutningerne var blevet vedtaget og udtrykte sin beklagelse over sin overreaktion med hensyn til beskyldningerne om svindel.
The Commission apologised for the fact that it only specified the reasons for its decisions nearly three years after the decisions had been adopted and expressed its regrets for its overreaction as regards the accusation of fraud.
Den anførte ligeledes, at den havde forbedret sit system for kontrol af støtteberettigelse, lige som den undskyldte nogle af sine handlinger.
It also stated that it had considerably improved its system of eligibility checks and also apologised for some of its actions.
Den undlod imidlertid at forholde sig til de mest alvorlige tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, som Ombudsmanden havde afdækket.
It failed, however, properly to address the most serious instances of maladministration identified by the Ombudsman.
Han gik videre og kritiserede Kommissionen, idet han understregede, at dens reaktion sandsynligvis ikke ville vække tillid hverken hos borgere eller interessenter.
He went on to criticise the Commission, by emphasising that its reaction was not likely to inspire confidence among citizens and concerned stakeholders alike.
Udførelse af kontrakter
Execution of contracts
Det er Ombudsmandens opfattelse, at der foreligger fejl eller forsømmelser, når en offentlig myndighed ikke handler i overensstemmelse med en regel eller et princip, der er bindende for den.
The Ombudsman considers that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it. Maladministration may thus also be
Det er Ombudsmandens opfattelse, at derforeligger fejl eller forsømmelser, når en offentligmyndighed ikke handler i overensstemmelse meden regel eller et princip, der er bindende for den.Der kan således også findes at foreligge tilfældeaf fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse medopfyldelsen af forpligtelser på basis af kontrakterindgået med fællesskabsinstitutioner og -organer.
The Ombudsman considers that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it. Maladministration may thus also be found when the fulfilment of obligations arising from contracts concluded by Community institutions or bodies is concerned.
Der kan således også findes at foreligge tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse med opfyldelsen af forpligtelser på basis af kontrakter indgået med fællesskabsinstitutioner og -organer.Dog er omfanget af den analyse, som Ombudsmanden kan foretage, nødvendigvis begrænset.
found when the fulfilment of obligations arising from contracts concluded by Community institutions or bodies is concerned.However, the scope of the review that the Ombudsman can carry out in such cases is necessarily limited.
Det er Ombudsmandens holdning, at han ikke bør forsøge at afgøre, om der har fundet et kontraktbrud sted fra parternes side, såfremt sagen er verserende.
The Ombudsman is of the view that he should not seek to determine whether there has been a breach of contract by either party, if the matter is in dispute.
Dette spørgsmål kan kun effektivt afgøres af en kompetent domstolsmyndighed, som vil have mulighed for at høre parternes argu-
This question can only be dealt with effectively by a court of competent jurisdiction, which would have the possibility to hear the arguments of the parties concerning the relevant national law and to evaluate conflicting evidence on any disputed issues of fact.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand — Årsberetning 2008 menter vedrørende den relevante nationale lovgivning og at afveje modstridende beviser i alle indsigelser vedrørende faktiske forhold.I sager vedrørende kontraktlige tvister finder Ombudsmanden det berettiget at begrænse sin undersøgelse til, hvorvidt fællesskabsinstitutionen eller -organet har givet ham en sammenhængende og rimelig redegørelse for retsgrundlaget for sine handlinger, og hvorfor kontrakten efter institutionens eller organets mening er blevet opfyldt.
In cases concerning contractual disputes, the Ombudsman considers it justified to limit his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified.
Er det tilfældet, vil Ombudsmanden konkludere, at hans undersøgelse ikke har afsløret tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
If that is the case, the Ombudsman will conclude that his inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration.
Denne konklusion vil ikke berøre parternes ret til at få deres kontraktmæssige tvist prøvet og autoritativt afgjort ved en kompetent domstolsmyndighed.
This conclusion will not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Gør parterne det, vil Ombudsmanden straks afslutte sin undersøgelse uden nogen yderligere vurdering, jf. bestemmelsen i artikel 2, stk. 7, i Ombudsmandens statut27.Ombudsmanden har på grundlag af føromtalte vurdering afsluttet adskillige undersøgelser og konkluderet, at der ikke forelå tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, eller han har fundet, at yderligere undersøgelser ikke var berettiget.
If the parties do so, the Ombudsman will close his inquiry immediately with no further assessment, in light of the provision in Article 2(7) of his Statute27.On the basis of the aforementioned examination, the Ombudsman has closed several inquiries with findings of no maladministration or has considered that no further inquiries were justified.
De pågældende sager omfattede tvister om anerkendte og accepterede arbejdsdage som grundlag for betaling28, tvister om støtteberettigede omkostninger og/eller beløb, der skal inddrives eller tilbagebetales efter revisioner29, afslag på betaling af morarenter30 eller unødig stor forsinkelse i forfinansieringen af et bestemt tilskud31.Med hensyn til forsinket betaling blev flere undersøgelser afsluttet som afgjort, fordi den pågældende institution (Kommissionen) kunne betale klagerne og opfylde deres krav, efter at Ombudsmanden iværksatte sine undersøgelser32.
Cases concerned included disputes about work days recognised and accepted as a basis for payment28, disputes over eligible costs and/or amounts to be recovered or paid after audit actions29, refusal to pay interest for late payment30 or excessive delay in pre-financing payments of a certain grant31.In relation to delays in payment, various inquiries were closed as settled because the institution concerned (the Commission) was able to pay the complainants and satisfy their claims, after the Ombudsman launched his inquiries32.
Det skal bemærkes at Ombudsmanden i 2008 afsluttede en undersøgelse på eget initiativ (OI/5/2007/GG) om Kommissionens forsinkede betaling, hvori det blev konkluderet, at der fortsat skal gøres fremskridt på dette område.En anden type problem, som Ombudsmanden beskæftiger sig med, vedrører specifikke kontrakter, som Kommissionen opretter til udførelse af EU-finansierede aktioner og programmer. Kommissionen
It should be noted that, in 2008, the Ombudsman closed an own-initiative inquiry (OI/5/2007/GG) into late payment by the Commission, which concluded that progress in this area still has to be made.A further type of problem dealt with by the Ombudsman in contractual cases relates to the particular contracts the Commission establishes for executing EU-funded actions or programmes.
Institutionerne, og især Kommissionen, i 2008gjorde en reel indsats for at acceptere mindeligeløsninger foreslået af Ombudsmanden i sagervedrørende kontraktmæssige tvister.
In 2008, the institutions, and particularly the Commission, made a real effort to accept friendly solutions proposed by the Ombudsman in contractual disputes.
etablerer et kontraktforhold med et givet firma eller konsortium, som dernæst gennemfører det pågældende projekt ved hjælp af underleverandører, eksperter eller egne ansatte.
Commission establishes a contractual relation with a certain firm or consortium which then implements the project in question by using sub-contractors, experts or its own employees.
Nogle af kontrakterne og de respektive rammeprogrammer giver Kommissionen visse rettigheder i forhold til leverandørens eksperter eller ansatte.
Some of these contracts and the respective framework programmes give the Commission some rights in relation to the contractor's experts or employees.
Disse særlige kontraktforhold kan give anledning til tvister mellem Kommissionens leverandører og deres personale eller eksperter, hvor Ombudsmanden finder, at Kommissionen har et vist ansvar33.
This particular contractual environment can give rise to disputes between the Commission's contractors and their staff or experts, with respect to which the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has a certain degree of responsibility33.
Sag 193/2007/JMA vedrørte afskedigelsen af en projektleder, efter at Kommissionen havde givet udtryk for sin utilfredshed med det arbejde, han havde udført.
Case 193/2007/JMA concerned the dismissal of a project leader after the Commission expressed its dissatisfaction with the work he had provided.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede ikke noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, men påpegede ikke desto mindre, at institutionens holdning skulle komme til udtryk skriftligt for at give den pågældende mulighed for at fremlægge sine synspunkter over for sin arbejdsgiver, som var Kommissionens leverandør.
Although the Ombudsman found no maladministration, he drew attention to the fact that the position expressed by the institution should be made in writing so as to allow the person in question to present his views to his employer who was the Commission's contractor.
Ombudsmanden fremsatte samme bemærkning i sag 1084/2006/MHZ vedrørende forholdet mellem leverandøren og dennes underleverandør.Ombudsmanden ønskede at understrege, at institutionerne, og især Kommissionen, i 2008 gjorde en reel indsats for at acceptere mindelige løsninger foreslået af Ombudsmanden i sager vedrørende kontraktmæssige tvister. →→→ I sag 3490/2005/(ID)PB, som optræder som en af dette års nøglesager, fandt Ombudsmanden Kommissionens svar forbilledligt.
The Ombudsman made the same remark in case 1084/2006/MHZ, concerning relations between the contractor and its sub-con-tractor.The Ombudsman would like to underline that, in 2008, the institutions, and particularly the Commission, made a real effort to accept friendly solutions proposed by the Ombudsman in contractual disputes. →→→ In case 3490/2005/(ID)PB, which features among this year's star cases, the Ombudsman found the Commission's response to be exemplary.
Den havde været grundig og konstruktiv gennem hele forløbet, helt frem til at acceptere yderligere relevante betalinger, som dens egne tjenestegrene og klageren havde påpeget.
It had been thorough and constructive throughout the procedure, even to the point of accepting additional relevant payments identified by its own services and the complainant.
Løsningen betød, at den udestående saldo på projektkontoen blev opgjort med betaling af 48 486,79 eUr og 101 938,40 UsD til klageren.
The settlement implied that the balance of the project account was closed with payments of eUR 48 486.79 and USD 101 938.40 to the complainant.
Sag 3784/2006/FOR er en anden nøglesag for 2008 og vedrørte et østrigsk institut, som hævdede, at Kommissionen ikke havde betalt
Case 3784/2006/FOR, another star case for the year 2008, concerned an Austrian institute which claimed that the Commission had not paid an outstanding sum of eUR 97 000 for a research and development contract in the
27.Sag 2392/2005/OV.28.Sag 1331/2007/JMA.29.Sag 3394/2005/(TN)DK, 3736/2006/JF, 1367/2007/ELB, 2689/2005/BB, og 1785/2005/OV.30.Sag 1644/2007/FOR.31.Sag 3794/2006/FOR og 1564/2006/VIK.32.Sag 338/2008/BEH, 1945/2007/WP, 2272/2008/JMA, og 2273/2007/MF.33.Eksempler herpå, ud over de her specificerede, findes i sag 579/2007/(TN)TS, 2306/2007/(OV)BEH, 3375/2006/JF, og 3090/2005/(GK)MHZ.
27.Case 2392/2005/OV.28.Case 1331/2007/JMA.29.Cases 3394/2005/(TN)DK, 3736/2006/JF, 1367/2007/ELB, 2689/2005/BB, and 1785/2005/OV.30.Case 1644/2007/FOR.31.Cases 3794/2006/FOR and 1564/2006/VIK.32.Cases 338/2008/BEH, 1945/2007/WP, 2272/2008/JMA, and 2273/2007/MF.33.Examples of this issue, in addition to those detailed here, can be found in cases 579/2007/(TN)TS, 2306/2007/(OV)BEH, 3375/2006/JF, and 3090/2005/(GK)MHZ.
Klager og undersøgelser et udestående beløb på 97 000 eUr for en forsknings- og udviklingskontrakt inden for kemiteknologi.
Complaints and inquiries field of chemical engineering.
Som begrundelse for sit afslag på betaling forklarede Kommissionen, at den ikke havde modtaget omkostningsopgørelserne rettidigt.
To justify its refusal to pay, the Commission explained that it had not received the final cost statements on time.
Ombudsmanden vurderede, at dens reaktion var uforholdsmæssig og bad den genoverveje sin holdning. Kommissionen accepterede at betale 54 000 eUr.
The Ombudsman judged its reaction to be disproportionate and asked it to reconsider its position.
Instituttet accepterede forslaget og takkede Ombudsmanden for hans indgriben. ←←←På samme måde afgjorde Kommissionen sag2273/2007/MF ved at acceptere at betale en kompensation til klageren, hvis kontrakt den havde opsagt, efter at den havde opdaget en uregelmæssighed i udbudsproceduren.
The institute accepted the proposal and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention. ←←←The Commission also settled case 2273/2007/MF by agreeing to pay compensation to the complainant whose contract it had terminated after it identified an irregularity in the tender award procedure.
Eftersom at årsagen til opsigelsen af kontrakten ikke kunne henføres til klageren, erkendte Kommissionen, at firmaet havde ret til kompensation.
Since the reason to terminate the contract was not attributable to the complainant, the Commission acknowledged that the firm was entitled to compensation.
Klageren informerede efterfølgende Ombudsmanden om, at der var lanceret et nyt udbud, og at firmaet var med blandt de bydende på shortlisten.
The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsman that a new call for tender had been launched and that the firm was among the list of short-listed tenderers.
Forvaltning og personalevedtægt
Administration and staff regulations