natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at Kommissionen havde begået en klar fejl i evalueringen, da den på baggrund af oplysningerne i forslaget konkluderede, at konsortiet ikke havde en specialiseret udvikler af fundamentet.
The Ombudsman did not, therefore, consider that the Commission had commimed a manifest error of evaluation in concluding, on the basis of the information contained in the proposal, that the consortium lacked a specialised foundation designer.
Hvad angår klagerens påstand om, at den faktuelle fejl burde remes, påpegede Ombudsmanden, at han forstod det sådan, at Kommissionen havde anført, at projektforslaget manglede oplysninger om den danske partner, og ikke at Kommissionen anfægtede klagerens påstand om, at partneren var specialist eller verdens førende på det relevante område.
As regards the complainant’s claim that the factual error should be corrected, the Ombudsman pointed out that he understood the Commission to argue that the project proposal lacked information about the Danish partner and not that the Commission contested the complainant’s statement that the partner was a specialist or a world leader in the relevant field.
I lyset deraf samt i lyset af konklusionen om, at Kommissionen ikke havde begået en klar fejl i evalueringen, fandt Ombudsmanden det ikke beremiget at undersøge den pågældende påstand nærmere.
In view thereof and of the finding that the Commission had not commimed a manifest error of evaluation, the Ombudsman found no grounds to pursue the claim in question.
ANVENDELSE AF MENNESKERETTIGHEDSKLAUSULEN I SAMARBEJDSAFTALEN MED VIETNAM
APPLICATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CLAUSE IN THE CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH VIETNAM
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 933/2004/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 933/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Ifølge artikel 1 (»menneskeremighedsklausulen«) i s a ma r b e j d s a W alen fra 1996 mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Vietnam skal respekten for menneskeremighederne og de demokratiske principper være grundlaget for samarbejdet mellem parterne og udgøre et afgørende element i a W alen.
Article 1 (the “human rights clause”) of the 1996 cooperation agreement between the European Community and Vietnam provides that cooperation between the parties has to be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which should become an essential aspect of the agreement.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at gøre brug af sin beføjelse til at ophæve s a ma r b e j d s a W alen på trods af de vietnamesiske myndigheders alvorlige krænkelser af menneskeremighederne. ighederne.
The complainant alleged that, in the face of serious violations of human rights by the authorities of Vietnam, the Commission failed to use its powers to suspend the cooperation agreement.
Kommissionen mente, at menneskeremighedssituationen i Vietnam kunne forbedres gennem en kombination af dialog og samarbejde.
The Commission took the view that the improvement of the human rights situation in Vietnam could be achieved through a combination of dialogue and co-operation.
Den anførte, at der ikke var sket nogen væsentlig misligholdelse af a W alen, der kunne medføre ophævelse deraf.
It argued that there had been no material breach of the agreement that should lead to its suspension.
Ifølge Kommissionen kunne dem e kun anvendes som sidste udvej og i tæt samråd med medlemsstaterne og Europa-Parlamentet.
According to the Commission, such a response should only be used as a last resort, and in full consultation with Member States and the European Parliament.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at respekten for de grundlæggende menneskeremigheder i medfør af »menneskeremighedsklausulen« er et afgørende element i a W alen, hvorfor krænkelse af denne klausul kunne føre til ophævelse af a W alen.
The Ombudsman noted that, on the basis of the “human-rights clause”, respect for fundamental human rights constitutes an essential element of the agreement and thus a breach of that clause could lead to the agreement’s suspension.
Han påpegede, at denne klausul er bindende for Kommissionen, samt at handlinger og undladelser fra Kommissionens side i den forbindelse kunne udgøre tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
He pointed out that this clause is binding on the Commission and that acts or omissions of the Commission in relation thereto could constitute instances of maladministration.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen havde anført, at en ophævelse af a W alen ville betyde, at EU mistede muligheden for at bruge EU-finansierede samarbejdsprogrammer til at støme reformprocessen i Vietnam, og at den derfor havde beslumet at gennemføre en dialog med de vietnamesiske myndigheder gennem forskellige organer, der var blevet opremet i medfør af s a ma r b e j d s a W alen. Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens begrundelser for sin beslutning om ikke
The Ombudsman considered, however, that the agreement did not specify the Commission’s obligations as regards the circumstances in which that provision should be invoked in order to
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE at ophæve s a ma r b e j d s a W alen, men i stedet gøre brug af foranstaltninger, som e W er dens vurdering var mere rimelige i henhold til kriterierne i meddelelsen fra 1995, syntes at være rimelige.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s reasoning for its decision not to trigger the suspension of the cooperation agreement, but instead to make use of measures that it considered to be more proportionate, in accordance with the criteria set out in its 1995 Communication, appeared to be reasonable.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede derfor intet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission.
HØRING OM FREMTIDEN FOR STRUKTURFONDENE
CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 948/2004/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 948/2004/OV against the European Commission
En ngo klagede over, at Kommissionen havde undladt at høre ngo’er om fremtiden for strukturfondene.
An NGO complained that the Commission had failed to consult NGOs on the future of the Structural Funds.
Klageren henviste til støme for sit anbringende til Kommissionens meddelelse »Mod en stærkere hørings- og dialogkultur – Generelle principper og minimumsstandarder ved Kommissionens høring af interesserede parter« (KOM(2002)0704 af 11. december 2002), som indeholder fem minimumsstandarder for høringsprocessen.
In support of the allegation, the complainant referred to the Commission’s Communication entitled “Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue — General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission” (COM(2002) 704 final of the 11 December 2002), which sets out fi ve minimum standards for the consultation process.
Klageren same spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorvidt minimumsstandarderne er tilstrækkeligt klare, og foreslog endvidere, at Kommissionen burde vedtage en mere holistisk høringsstrategi på tværs af sektorer, navnlig når dens forslag har en indvirkning på en lang række forskellige interesser.
The complainant questioned whether the minimum standards are s u U ciently clear and also suggested that the Commission should adopt a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation, particularly when its proposals have an impact on a wide range of interests.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at den havde iværksat en bred høringsproces med alle interesserede parter, og gav en detaljeret beskrivelse af de foranstaltninger, den havde iværksat.
The Commission argued that it had launched a broad consultation process with all interested parties and described in detail the actions that it had taken.
Den bemærkede imidlertid, at den ville hilse mere input fra ngo’er velkommen, men at dem e ville kræve, at de mobiliserer sig mere eTektivt i fremtiden.
It observed, however, that it would welcome more input from NGOs, which would require them to mobilise more eT ectively in the future.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at minimumsstandarderne er tilstrækkeligt klare til, at han kunne vurdere, hvorvidt Kommissionen har opfyldt dem.
The Ombudsman considered that the minimum standards are s u U ciently clear to make it possible for him to evaluate whether or not the Commission has complied with them.
I denne sag gennemførte Ombudsmanden en detaljeret undersøgelse og konkluderede, at Kommissionen havde overholdt de fem fastlagte minimumsstandarder.
In the present case, the Ombudsman carried out a detailed review and considered that the Commission had complied with the fi ve announced minimum standards.
Der blev derfor ikke konstateret nogen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
No maladministration was therefore found.
Ombudsmanden udelukkede dog ikke den mulighed, at minimumsstandarderne kunne udtrykkes mere præcist, eller at en mere holistisk strategi på tværs af sektorer kunne være hensigtsmæssig i nogle tilfælde.
The Ombudsman did not, however, exclude the possibility either that the minimum standards could be expressed more clearly or that a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation could be appropriate in some cases.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at klageren har mulighed for at stille forslag herom til Kommissionen, samt at det ville være god forvaltningsskik for Kommissionen seriøst at overveje sådanne forslag.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the complainant has the possibility to make suggestions in this regard to the Commission and that it would be good administration for the Commission to give serious consideration to any such suggestions.
DET EUROPÆISKE ALARMNUMMER 112
THE EUROPEAN EMERGENCY CALL NUMBER 112
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1096/2004/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1096/2004/TN against the European Commission
Klagen blev indgivet af en sammenslutning, som nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen havde begået fejl i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af det europæiske alarmnummer 112.
The complaint was made by an association which alleged failures by the Commission in relation to the implementation of the European emergency call number 112.
Sammenslutningen gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at t r æ T e yderligere foranstaltninger med hensyn til civilbeskymelsesdelen af 112, som den konsekvent havde lovet i sine arbejdsprogrammer.
The association alleged that the Commission had failed to take further action regarding the civil protection component of 112, as consistently promised in its work programmes.
Den gjorde endvidere gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at lægge opdaterede og relevante oplysninger om 112 på sit websted.
It also alleged that the Commission had failed to supply updated and relevant information concerning 112 on its website.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at den ansvarlige tjenestegren havde samfinansieret en række projekter, som var relevante for 112, inden for rammerne af Fællesskabets handlingsprogram om civilbeskymelse, samt at den koordinerer og samarbejder med andre af Kommissionens tjenestegrene i forbindelse med 112.
The Commission argued that the responsible service had co-financed a number of projects relevant to 112 within the framework of the Community Action Programme in the fi eld of civil protection and that it coordinates and co-operates with other Commission services in the context of 112.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE borgerne har en vigtig interesse i 112, men at ifølge direktivet er medlemsstaterne ansvarlige for at oplyse om 112.
The Ombudsman took into account that the Universal Service Directive recognises that citizens have an important interest as regards 112 but that the Directive makes Member States responsible for the provision of adequate information about 112.
Ombudsmanden fandt ingen beviser for, at Kommissionen i gennemførelsen af de pågældende arbejdsprogrammer havde handlet uden for rammerne af sine skønsbeføjelser eller krænket nogen bindende regel eller noget bindende princip.
The Ombudsman found no evidence that, in implementing the work programmes concerned, the Commission had acted outside the scope of its discretionary powers or breached any rule or principle that is binding upon it.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere, at det på 112-webstedet fremgik, at det var blevet opdateret den 21. september 2004, hvilket syntes i det væsentlige at være korrekt.
The Ombudsman also noted that the 112 website stated that it had been updated on 21 September 2004, which appeared to be substantially correct.
Links til udgået lovgivning henviste klar til, hvordan 112 var blevet opremet, ligesom webstedet indeholdt et opdateret link til den gældende lovgivning.
The links to obsolete legislation clearly referred to how 112 had been established and the website also contained an updated link to current legislation.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere, at GD Miljø havde oTentliggjort en liste over tilskud ydet i 2003 på sit websted, samt at fristen for oTentliggørelse af sådanne lister for 2004, som fastlagt i forordning 2342/2002 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til finansforordningen, endnu ikke var udløbet.
The Ombudsman further noted that DG Environment had published lists of grants awarded in 2003 on its website and that the deadline for publishing such lists for 2004, as set out in Regulation 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation, had not yet expired.
På baggrund af ovenstående konstaterede Ombudsmanden ingen tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman found no maladministration by the Commission.
UDFASNING AF SPROGAFDELINGER PÅ EN EUROPASKOLE
PHASING OUT OF LANGUAGE SECTIONS IN A EUROPEAN SCHOOL
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1155/2004/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1155/2004/TN against the European Commission
Klagen omhandlede Kommissionens handlinger i forbindelse med udfasningen af to sprogafdelinger på Europaskolen i Culham i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The complaint concerned the Commission’s actions in relation to the phasing out of two language sections in the European School at Culham in the United Kingdom.
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at Det Øverste Råds beslutning i denne forbindelse ikke var t r u T et i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenen, og at proceduren for beslutninger om at lukke en skole eller en sprogafdeling ikke var blevet fulgt.
The complainants argued that the Board of Governors’ decision in this regard had not been taken in conformity with its rules of procedure and that the procedure for making a decision on the closure of a school or a language section had not been followed.
EWersom Kommissionen havde foreslået og stemt for udfasningen af de to sprogafdelinger, gjorde klagerne gældende, at den havde undladt at fremme god forvaltningsskik på Europaskolerne, navnlig hvad angår gennemsigtigheden af og begrundelserne for beslutninger, som det kræves i chartret om grundlæggende remigheder. igheder.
Since the Commission had proposed and voted in favour of the phasing out of the two language sections, the complainants alleged that it had failed to promote good administration in the European Schools, especially as regards the transparency and reasoning of decisions, as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at de gældende regler og procedurer var blevet fulgt.
The Commission argued that the applicable rules and procedures had been followed.
Kommissionen syntes endvidere at gøre gældende, at chartret om grundlæggende remigheder ikke gælder for Europaskolerne, men at de grundlæggende rettigheder i forbindelse med Det Øverste Råds beslutninger er beskymet gennem national lovgivning og internationale a W aler.
The Commission also appeared to argue that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply to the European Schools but that fundamental rights in relation to decisions of the Board of Governors are protected by national laws and international agreements.
Ombudsmanden mindede om, at Europaskolerne ikke er en fællesskabsinstitution eller et fællesskabsorgan og derfor ikke ligger inden for hans mandat.
The Ombudsman recalled that the European Schools are not a Community institution or body and are therefore not within his mandate.
Ombudsmanden har imidlertid altid haW den holdning, at Kommissionen har et vist ansvar for Europaskolernes driW, herunder et overordnet ansvar for at fremme god forvaltningsskik på disse skoler.
The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view, however, that the Commission has a certain responsibility for the European Schools’ operation, including a general responsibility to promote good administration in these schools.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke desto mindre, at hans undersøgelse af Kommissionens handlinger i forbindelse med Det Øverste Råds beslutning om at udfase de to sprogafdelinger ikke havde afsløret nogen fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman did not consider that his inquiry into the Commission’s actions in relation to the Board of Governors’ decision to phase out the two language sections in question had revealed any instance of maladministration by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden mindede imidlertid om, at Kommissionen i forbindelse med tidligere undersøgelser havde anerkendt anvendelsen af chartret om grundlæggende remigheder på Europaskolerne.
The Ombudsman recalled, however, that during the course of earlier inquiries, the Commission had acknowledged the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the European Schools.
Ombudsmanden fremsame derfor en yderligere bemærkning, hvori han anførte, at Kommissionens anerkendelse af chartrets bindende virkning for Europaskolerne udgør en vigtig del af Kommissionens ansvar for at fremme god forvaltningsskik på skolerne.
The Ombudsman therefore made a further remark in which he stated that the Commission’s acknowledgement of the Charter’s binding force on the European Schools constitutes an important part of the Commission’s responsibility for promoting good administration in the schools.
Han anmodede Kommissionen om at redegøre for sin holdning til dem e og underreme ham om status for de reformtiltag, der blev henvist til i forbindelse med hans undersøgelse på eget initiativ OI/5/2003/LH (se Ombudsmandens årsberetning for 2004).
He asked the Commission to clarify its stance on this mamer by informing him of the status of the reform measures referred to during his own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2003/LH (see the Ombudsman’s Annual
PÅSTAND OM UREGLEMENTERET KONTAKT UNDER EN UDBUDSPROCEDURE
ALLEGED IMPROPER CONTACTS DURING A TENDER PROCEDURE
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1808/2004/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1808/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde handlet forkert i forbindelse med et udbud til anden fase af et F & U-program.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had acted improperly in the handling of a call for tenders for the second stage of an R & D programme.
Det pågældende initiativ, som primært var blevet finansieret af Kommissionen, var opdelt i tre faser.
The initiative in question, which had been largely funded by the Commission, was divided into three stages.
Den første fase var blevet tildelt en af klagerens konkurrenter, konsortium Z. Klageren indsendte i december 2003 et tilbud til fase to.
Stage one had been awarded to one of the complainant’s competitors, consortium Z. In December 2003, the complainant submimed a bid for stage two.
Selv om klageren blev godkendt til udvælgelsesproceduren og tilsyneladende var den eneste bydende, e W ersom konsortium Z ikke indsendte sit forslag inden for fristen, blev klagerens tilbud udelukket e W er en negativ vurdering fra evaluatorerne.
Although admimed to the selection procedure and apparently the only bidder, since consortium Z did not submit its proposal on time, the complainant’s bid was excluded following a negative assessment by the evaluators.
Klageren mente at være blevet udsat for forskelsbehandling, og at Kommissionens tjenestegrene havde søgt at favorisere konsortium Z. Klageren henviste til støme for sit anbringende til en telefonsamtale mellem en repræsentant for konsortium Z og Kommissionens ansvarlige tjenestegren, som fandt sted lige e W er udløbet af fristen for indsendelse af tilbud, da det stod klart, at konsortium Z’s tilbud ikke var blevet indsendt remidigt. idigt.
The complainant took the view that it had been discriminated against and that the Commission’s services had sought to favour consortium Z. In support of his allegation, the complainant referred to a telephone conversation between a representative of consortium Z and the responsible Commission services, which took place soon a W er the deadline for the submission of bids had expired, once it was clear that consortium Z’s bid had not been submimed on time.
Kommissionen anførte som svar, at klagerens tilbud var blevet evalueret af ua[ængige evaluatorer i overensstemmelse med de oU cielle procedurer.
In response, the Commission argued that the complainant’s proposal was evaluated by independent evaluators, in accordance with oU cial procedures.
Hvad angår telefonopkaldet fra en repræsentant for klagerens konkurrent, mente Kommissionen kun, at det havde til formål at indhente oplysninger, og at der ikke var blevet d r ø W et nogen betydningsfulde spørgsmål.
As regards the telephone call made by a representative of the complainant’s competitor, the Commission took the view that it was only a request for information, during the course of which no substantive issues were discussed.
I lyset af de spørgsmål, der var blevet d r ø W et, mente Kommissionens tjenestegrene ikke, at det var nødvendigt at føre en telefonlog.
Given the nature of the issues discussed, the Commission’s services were of the view that no telephone log appeared to have been necessary.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen, som det er anerkendt af Fællesskabets domstole, har vide skønsbeføjelser med hensyn til, hvilke faktorer der skal tages i betragtning i forbindelse med beslutningen om tildeling af en kontrakt i et udbud.
The Ombudsman noted that, as recognised by the Community courts, the Commission enjoys a broad discretion with regard to the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at Kommissionen på klagerens anmodning havde givet en detaljeret forklaring på årsagerne til, at klagerens tilbud ikke var blevet accepteret.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, in reply to the complainant’s request, the Commission had oTered a detailed explanation of the reasons why the complainant’s bid was not accepted.
Den havde ydermere fremsendt en kopi af den sammenfamende evalueringsrapport, som indeholdt evaluatorernes begrundede vurdering af klagerens forslag.
It had also provided a copy of the evaluation summary report, which contained the evaluators’ reasoned assessment of the complainant’s proposal.
EWer at have gennemgået denne sammenfamende rapport konkluderede Ombudsmanden, at den gav en tilstrækkelig redegørelse for institutionens holdning, som var i overensstemmelse med kriterierne i arbejdsprogrammet.
Having reviewed the contents of this summary report, the Ombudsman considered that it provided an adequate statement for the position taken by the institution which was along the lines of the criteria laid down in the Work Programme.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at nogle af de faktuelle aspekter af sagen havde fået klageren til at same spørgsmålstegn ved, om Kommissionen havde handlet korrekt.
The Ombudsman noted that some of the factual aspects of the case had caused the complainant to question the propriety of the Commission’s actions.
EWer grundigt at have gennemgået alle oplysninger fandt Ombudsmanden ikke noget, der pegede på, at der var foregået noget ureglementeret.
Having carefully reviewed all the available information, the Ombudsman found no evidence of any impropriety.