natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens manglende betaling
The Commission’s failure to make payments
Klageren gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen ikke havde foretaget udbetalinger i forbindelse med datterens død,hvorfor han krævede betaling.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to make payments in relation tohis daughter’s death and he claimed payments.
Kommissionen forklarede årsagerne til forsinkelsen og meddelte,at man siden havde betalt alle pengene.
The Commission explained the causes ofthe delay and stated that all payments had in the meantime been made.
Klageren varenig i,at sagen kunne betragtes om afsluttet,og takkede Ombudsmanden for hans indblanding.
The complainantagreed that the case could be considered as closed and thanked the Ombudsman for hisintervention.
Det fremgik af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger,at Kommissionenhavde taget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
It appears from the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
FORSINKET BETALING TIL PROJEKTLEDER
LATE PAYMENTS TOPROJECT MANAGER
Afgørelse om klage562/2000/PB over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint562/2000/PB againstthe European Commission
Klageren fremlagde i april 2000 nogle påstande mod Kommissionen på vegne af IWB(Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Bildung Radolfzell e.V).
In April 2000,the complainant submitted some allegations against the Commission onbehalf of IWB (Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Bildung Radolfzell e.V).
Klageren var projektkoordinator på to EU-finansierede projekter,nemlig et pilotprojekt under LEONARDODA VINCI,SERVITEC (http://www.eduvinet.de/servitec),og et pilotprojekt under SOCRATES (25202-CP-2-97-1-DE-ODL-ODL).
Thecomplainant was a project co-ordinator for two EU-funded projects,namely LEONARDODA VINCI pilot project SERVITEC (http.//www.eduvinet.de/servitec),and SOCRATESpilot project (25202-CP-2-97-1-DE-ODL-ODL).
Begge projekter omhandlede EU’suddannelsespolitik.
Both projects were related to EU education policies.
Klageren anmodede derfor om en forlængelse af tidsfristen for indsendelseaf den foreløbige rapport.
The complainant therefore asked for a prolongation of the deadline for submission of the interim report.
Kommissionen bevilgede en forlængelse til den 31. december1999.
The Commission granted a prolongation until 31 December 1999.
Klageren indsendte den 19. november 1999 den foreløbige rapport til Kommissionen.
On 19 November 1999,the complainant submitted the interim report to the Commission.
Den 22. december 1999 modtog klageren en bekræftelse af modtagelsen fra Kommissionen.
On 22 December 1999,the complainant received an acknowledgement of receipt from the Commission.
Bekræftelsen meddelte,at de foreløbige rapporter var modtaget den 26.november 1999.
The receipt stated that the interim report had been received on 26 November1999.
Ifølge kontrakten skulle Kommissionen betale det andet tilskud tilprojektet inden 60 dage efter modtagelse af den foreløbige rapport (her 60.000 EUR).
According to the contract,the Commission should pay the second support payment within 60 days after receiving the interim report (in this case 60000).
Efter flere henvendelser oplyste van Neuss fra GD XXII den 9. marts 2000 (dvs. 104 dageefter,at Kommissionen havde modtaget den foreløbige rapport) klageren om,at evalueringen af den foreløbige rapport var afsluttet,og at han havde anmodet om en ny udbetaling af tilskud.
After several requests,Mr. van Neuss of Directorate General XXII informed thecomplainant on 9 March 2000 (i.e. 104 days after the Commission’s receipt of the interimreport) that the evaluation of the interim report had not been finished,and that he hadrequested for a second support payment.
På grund af disse forsinkelser var klageren nødt til at ændre planlagte møder med projekt-partnerne,og i ét tilfælde var det nødvendigt at afbestille hotelreservationer,da den bank-kredit,der var bevilget til projektet (30.000 EUR),var brugt op.
As a consequence of these delays,the complainant had to change planned meetings withthe project partners,and in one case it was necessary to cancel booked hotel reservations because the bank credit line foreseen for the project (30000) had been used up.
Yderligere korrespondance med Kommissionen i marts og april 2000 gav ikke nogetresultat.
Further correspondence with the Commission in March and April 2000 led to no results.
Klageren meddelte,at de i forbindelse med SOCRATES-projektet havde ventet på densidste udbetaling af tilskud (20.000 EUR) i mere end 1 1/2 år.
1 more than 1
Klageren påpegede,at kontrakten med Kommissionen ikke giver mulighed for, at Kommissionen eller projektbudgettet kan dække renteudgifterne til den bankkredit,dervar nødvendig på grund af EU’s forsinkede betaling.
The complainant pointed out that their contract with the Commission does not allow tocharge to the Commission or to the project budget interest payments for necessary bankcredits due to late payment by the EU.
Små og mellemstore virksomhederkan ikke længere lede nogen pilotprojekter under disse betingelser,da de så vil få beta-lings- og finansieringsproblemer.
Under such conditions,small and medium sizedenterprises cannot lead any pilot projects anymore without facing payment and financingproblems.
Desuden hindrer eller blokerer betalingsproblemerne Europa-Parlamentets positive ideer til en europæisk uddannelsespolitik.
In addition,the payment problems severely hinder or make impossible the realisation of the positive ideas of the European Parliament in regard to a European educationpolicy.
Kommissionen fremsendte følgende udtalelse.
The Commission submitted thefollowing opinion.
Kontraktenblev indgået i april 1998.
The contract was signed in April 1998.
Det første forskud på Fællesskabets tilskud blev udbetalt i juni1998:80.000 EUR,svarende til 40% af det samlede tilskud til projektet.
The first advance of the Community
CLEO’s kontrakttjeneste anmodede den 20. marts 2000 pr. fax kontrahenten om atbekræfte projektets kontonummer. Berigtigelsen blev modtaget af CLEO den 21. marts,
80000,representing 40% of the total Community grant grant was paid in June 1998:for the project.
I mellemtiden havde kontrahenten sendt en ny skrivelse til CLEO den 6. juni 2000,hvori han anmodede om,at tilskuddet blev udbetalt.
The rectification was received by CLEO on 21 March2000. Meanwhile,the contractor had sent a new letter to CLEO on 6 June 2000 requestingpayment of this advance.
CLEO oplyste ham den 7. juni 2000mundtligt om,at man ville betale den 8. juni 2000.
CLEO informed him orally on 7 June 2000 that the advancewould be paid on 8 June 2000.
Der gik tre måneder mellem godkendelsen af den foreløbige rapport og betalingen af detandet tilskud.
A 3-month period of time elapsed between the approval of the interim report and paymentof the second advance.
I henhold til bestemmelserne i kontraktens artikel 5 er fristen for betaling afdet andet tilskud 60 dage efter,at Kommissionen har godkendt den foreløbige rapport,ogikke 60 dage efter modtagelse af rapporten.
Under the terms of Article 5 of the contract,the deadline forpayment of the second advance is 60 days after acceptance of the interim report by the Commission, and not 60 days after receipt.
Kommissionen erkendte,at der var sket enforsinkelse på 30 dage i denne sag.
The Commission accepted that a 30-day delayhad occurred in this case.
Hvad angår SOCRATES-projektet,var forsinkelsen med behandlingen af kontraktenuacceptabel (Kommissionen fremlagde en detaljeret tidsplan for projektet).Kommissionens tjenestegrene beklagede over for klageren og iværksatte foranstaltningertil at fremskynde betalingen,som derefter blev foretaget den 7. juli 2000.
In regard to the SOCRATES project,the delay in processing this contract was unacceptable (the Commission provided a detailed time-schedule of the project). The Commission’s services apologised to the complainant,and applied urgency measures.Accordingly,payment was settled on 7 July 2000.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene traf foranstaltninger til at indføre det nødvendige input i detnye projektforvaltningssystem,som forhåbentligt ikke vil tillade,at sådanne forsinkelsergår ubemærket hen i fremtiden.
The Commission’s services were taking measures to feed the necessary input into the newproject management system,which,hopefully,will not allow that such delays go unnoticed anymore.
Klageren valgte ikke at fremsende bemærkninger.
The complainant chose not to submit observations.
Ombudsmanden kontaktede i januar2001 klageren for at spørge,om han anså sagen for at være afsluttet.
In January 2001,the Ombudsmancontacted the complainant to ask if he considered the matter settled.
Klageren bekræftede,at han anså sagen for at være afsluttet,og takkede Ombudsmanden for hans indblanding isagen.
The complainantconfirmed that he did consider the matter settled,and thanked the Ombudsman for hisintervention.
Påstand om forsinket betaling til klageren
The allegations of undue delay in paying the complainant
1.1Klageren gjorde gældende,at: a)betalingen af den andel del af tilskuddet til Leonardo da Vinci-projektet ”Servitec”var forsinket.
1.1The complainant alleged that there was: a)undue delay in payment of the second stage of support for a Leonardo da Vinci project“Servitec”.
Ifølge klageren skulle betalingen have været foretaget inden 60 dage efter,at Kommissionen havde modtaget den foreløbige rapport (26. november 1999).
According to the complainant,the payment should have been made within 60days of the date on which the interim report was received by the Commission (26November 1999).
På datoenfor klagen havde man imidlertid hverken modtaget betalingen eller en forklaring på forsinkelsen.
However,by the date of the complaint,neither the payment nor anexplanation for the delay had been received.
b)betaling af det sidste tilskud til et pilotprojekt under Socrates,(25202-CP-2-97-1-DE-ODL-ODL),var forsinket.
81 b)undue delay in payment of the final support payment due for a Socrates pilot project(25202-CP-2-97-1-DE-ODL-ODL).
Ifølge klageren er betalingen 1? år forsinket.
According to the complainant,the payment is 1?years overdue.
1.2Kommissionen bekræftede,at betalingerne var forsinket,og tog skridt til at betaleklageren.
1.2The Commission confirmed that there were undue delays,and took steps to pay thecomplainant.
Klageren oplyste Ombudsmanden om,at han anså sagen for at være afsluttet af Kommissionen.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he considered the mattersettled by the Commission.
Det fremgik af klagerens og Kommissionens oplysninger,at Kommissionen havde tagetskridt til at løse sagen.
On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the Commission, the Ombudsman concludes that the case has been settled by the Commission.
AFGØRELSE OMIKKE AT TILDELE ETVIDENSKABELIGTLEGAT
DECISION NOTTO AWARD ASCIENTIFIC GRANT
Afgørelse om klage833/2000/BB over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint833/2000/BB againstthe European Commission
I juni 2000 blev der indgivet en klage over Europa-Kommissionens Fælles Forskningscenter (i det følgende benævnt ”FFC”) i Ispra.
In June 2000 a complaint was lodged against the Joint Research Centre (hereinafterreferred to as “JRC”) of the European Commission in Ispra.
FFC accepterede på visse betingelser at tildele klageren et videnskabeligt og teknisk legat.
The JRC conditionallyaccepted the complainant for a scientific and technical grant.
FFC udbad sig nogle dokumenter og helbredsundersøgelser fra klageren.
The JRC requested somedocuments and medical tests from the complainant.
Desuden spurgte FFC klageren,om denangivne ankomstdato passede ham,og hvilke planer han havde med hensyn til indkvartering.
Furthermore,the JRC asked thecomplainant if the arrival date set suited him and what his plans were in respect of accommodation.
I fire måneder forberedte klageren sig på at flytte til Ispra.
During four months,the complainant made preparations in order to move to Ispra.
Klageren blev derefteruden officiel forklaring underrettet om,at FFC ikke kunne tildele ham noget legat.
The complainant was then informed without any official explanation,that the JRCwas not able to award him a grant.
I sin klage gjorde klageren gældende,at:
In his complaint,the complainant claimed that:
(i) FFC ikke informerede ham om grunden til ikke at tildele ham noget videnskabeligtlegat,
(i) the JRC did not notify him of the reasons for not awarding him a scientific grant;
(ii) klageren på FFC’s anmodning fremsendte resultatet af en helbredsundersøgelse,somhan selv havde betalt for,uden at få udgifterne hertil refunderet af FFC,
(ii) at the JRC’s request,the complainant submitted the results of a medical examination,which he had paid for himself without obtaining any refund from the JRC;
(iii) han havde afholdt unødvendige flytteomkostninger.
(iii) he incurred unnecessary removal expenses.
Den 3. februar 2000 ansøgte klageren om et uddannelseslegat til forskning fra FFC. I enskrivelse af 7. marts 2000 blev klageren underrettet om,at hans ansøgning var godkendtpå visse betingelser.
On 3 February 2000,the complainant applied for a research training grant from the JRC.By letter dated 7 March 2000,the complainant was informed that his application had beenconditionally accepted.
Den 14. juni 2000 blev klageren underrettet om,at FFC ikke kunnetildele ham noget legat.
On 14 June 2000,the complainant was informed that the JRC wasnot able to award him a grant.
Kommissionen anførte,at klageren blev underrettet om afgørelsen i en skrivelse af 14. juni2000.
The Commission stated that the complainant was notified of the decision by letter of 14June 2000.
Med hensyn til den manglende godtgørelse af de afholdte omkostninger i forbindelse med de krævede helbredsundersøgelser refunderes gebyret for helbredsundersøgelserne kun mod fremvisning af kvitteringerne.
As regards the failure to reimburse expenses incurred for the required medicalexaminations,the fees charged for the medical examinations are refunded only on presentation of the receipts.
Klageren fremsendte først kvitteringerneden 5. juni 2000.
The complainant submitted his receipts only on 5 June 2000.
FFC’s bogholderi udbetalte beløbet efter at have kontrolleret de fremsendte dokumenter. Betalingsordren er dateret den 19. juni 2000.
The JRC’s accounts department made the payment after verifying the documents submitted.The payment order is dated 19 June 2000.
Med hensyn til flytteomkostningerne anførte Kommissionen,at den ikke kan gøresansvarlig for en ansøgers beslutning om at flytte,inden han har underskrevet den relevantekontrakt.
As to the unnecessary removal costs,the Commission stated that it could not be heldresponsible for decisions of applicants for grants to move before they have signed the relevant contract.
Kommissionen beklagede klagerens ulejlighed og glædede sig over,at der endelig varfundet en løsning.
The Commission regretted the trouble to which the complainant had been put,and waspleased that a solution had finally been found.
Klageren underrettede Ombudsmanden om,at han var meget tilfreds med resultatet afundersøgelsen. Han anførte,at kontrakten blev underskrevet den 2. maj 2001.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he was completely satisfied with theresults of the inquiry.
Klageren udtrykte dyb taknemmelighed over for Ombudsmanden.
The complainant expressed his sincere thanks to the Ombudsman.
Afgørelse om ikke at tildele noget videnskabeligt legat
Decision not to award a scientific grant
1.1Klageren hævdede,at FFC ikke informerede ham om grunden til ikke at tildele hamnoget videnskabeligt legat.
1.1The complainant claimed that the JRC did not notify him of the reasons for notawarding him a scientific grant.
Desuden hævdede klageren,at han ikke havde fået godtgjortsine udgifter til helbredsundersøgelser,og at han havde afholdt unødvendige flytteomkostninger.
Furthermore,the complainant claimed that he had notbeen reimbursed for his medical expenses and that he had incurred unnecessary removalexpenses.
1.2Kommissionen anførte i sin første udtalelse,at klageren modtog et notat dateret 14.juni 2000,og at hans udgifter til helbredsundersøgelser blev refunderet den 19. juni 2000,efter at han havde fremsendt sine kvitteringer til FFC.
1.2The Commission stated in its first opinion that the complainant received a notification dated 14 June 2000 and that his medical expenses were refunded on 19 June 2000after he had submitted his receipts to the JRC.
Desuden fremhævede Kommissionen, at den ikke kan gøres ansvarlig for en ansøgers beslutning om at flytte,inden han har underskrevet den relevante kontrakt.
Furthermore,the Commission underlinedthat it cannot be held responsible for decisions of applicants for grants to move before theyhave signed the relevant contract.
1.3I sin supplerende udtalelse beklagede Kommissionen klagerens ulejlighed.Kommissionen underrettede Ombudsmanden om,at klageren var blevet tilbudt et videnskabeligt legat,og at kontrakten skulle underskrives den 1. maj 2001.
1.3In its complementary opinion,the Commission regretted the trouble to which thecomplainant had been put. The Commission informed the Ombudsman that thecomplainant had been offered a scientific grant and that the contract was due to be signedon 1 May 2001.
1.4I sine supplerende bemærkninger underrettede klageren Ombudsmanden om,at hanvar meget tilfreds med resultatet af undersøgelsen. Han anførte,at kontrakten blev underskrevet den 2. maj 2001.
1.4In his complementary observations,the complainant informed the Ombudsman thathe is completely satisfied with the results of the inquiry.
På baggrund af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen,fremgår det af Kommissionensudtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger,at Kommissionen har taget skridt til at afklare sagenog derved har tilfredsstillet klageren.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant’s observations that the European Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complaint.The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen afsagen.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
Klageren,som er født i Afrika,flyttede i 1986 til Luxembourg for at arbejde for X,som ertjenestemand i Kommissionen fra Luxembourg.
The complainant,originally born in Africa,moved to Luxembourg in 1986 in order towork for X,a Commission official from Luxembourg.
De blev gift i Afrika i februar 1994,ogsnart derefter formaliserede de ægteskabet ved myndighederne i Luxembourg. På anmodning fra X til de ansvarlige tjenestegrene i Kommissionen blev hans hustrus socialsikringovertaget af den fælles sygesikringsordning fra juni 1994.
They married in Africa in February1994,and soon after they formalised the marriage before the Luxembourg authorities.Following a request from X to the responsible Commission services,his wife’s socialsecurity coverage was taken over by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme from June 1994.
MANGLENDEDÆKNING FRAEF’SFÆLLES SYGEFOR-SIKRING EFTERPÅSTAND OMSKILSMISSE
EXCLUSION FROMCOVERAGE BYECJOINT SICKNESSINSURANCE FOL-LOWING ALLEGEDDIVORCE
På anmodning fra X erklærede en domstol i første instans i Afrika i marts 1999 hans ægteskab med klageren for ugyldigt.
In March 1999,at the request of X,a Court of First Instance in Africa declared hismarriage with the complainant void.
Ved appelsagen et år senere omstødte domstolen imidlertid den første dom og erklærede,at ægteskabet var gyldigt.
On appeal,however,the court reversed the firstjudgement a year later,and declared that the marriage was valid.
Tvisten blev på det tidspunktstadig behandlet af domstolene,eftersom denne sidste dom også var blevet anket.
The dispute was still atthe time before the courts,since this last ruling had also been appealed.
Afgørelse om klage1139/2000/JMA(fortro-lig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint1139/2000/JMA(Confidential) againstthe European Commission
På baggrund af den første dom skrev X i slutningen af april 1999 til de ansvarlige tjenestegrene i Kommissionen og oplyste dem om sin status samtidig med,at han anmodedeom,at hans tidligere hustru skulle udelukkes fra Fællesskabets fælles sygeforsikringsordning.
On the basis of the first court ruling,X wrote to the responsible Commission services atthe end of April,1999 informing them of his change of status,and requesting that hisformer spouse be excluded from the Community Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
I juni 1999 meddelte Kommissionens tjenestegrene ham,at de havde noteret sig hans
In June1999,the Commission services informed him that they had taken note of his change ofstatus,and that the social security benefits of his former wife would expire as of 1 April1999.
83 ændrede status,og at hans tidligere hustrus sociale sikringsydelser ville udløbe pr. 1. april1999.
They requested,however,some further information concerning the inscription of thedivorce in the relevant Registry Office,and evidence of his change of status in Luxembourg.
De anmodede imidlertid om yderligere oplysninger om indskrivningen af skilsmissen i det relevante register samt beviser for hans ændrede status i Luxembourg.Klageren påpegede,at hun var blevet udelukket fra Fællesskabets fælles sygeforsikrings-ordning,selv om X ikke havde fremlagt flere beviser.
The complainant pointed out that she had been excluded from the Community Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme,even though X had not provided additionalevidence.
Klageren skrev flere gange til Kommissionen og oplyste tjenestegrenene om ægteskabetsstatus som gyldigt i henhold til de ansvarlige afrikanske domstole.
The complainant wrote to the Commission on several occasions,and informed its servicesof the valid status of her marriage as recognised by the responsible African courts.
Klageren var på grundaf denne situation tvunget til at tegne en personlig forsikring hos den sociale sikringsordning i Luxembourg.
As aresult of this situation the complainant was forced to take a personal insurance policy withthe Luxembourg social security.
I klagen til Ombudsmanden anmodede den advokat,der repræsenterede klageren, om, at Kommissionen skulle
In her complaint to the Ombudsman,the attorney acting on behalf of the complainantrequested that the Commission,
1)genoverveje sin beslutning om at udelukke klageren fra den fælles sygeforsikringsordning fra juli 1999; og
1)reconsider its position to exclude the complainant from coverage by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme with effect from July 1999;
2)erstatte de udgifter,som klageren har pådraget sig i forbindelse med udelukkelsen,ogigen give hende alle de lovpligtige rettigheder,som ægteskabet med en tjenestemand i Fællesskabet medfører.
2)compensate the complainant for the expenses incurred as a result of that exclusion,and reinstate her to all her statutory rights as spouse of a Community official
Kommissionen forklarede,at brevet fra X fejlagtigt havde givet tjenestegrenene grund tilat tro,at hans ægteskabsstatus var ændret.
The Commission explained that the letter from X had led its services erroneously tobelieve that his married status had changed.
Derfor begyndte de at ændre i deres arkiver,dogkun foreløbigt,da der stadig manglede nogle dokumenter. X har endnu ikke fremsendt deønskede dokumenter,hvorfor Kommissionen konkluderede,at klageren stadig skullebetragtes som X’s hustru.
They therefore proceeded to change theirrecords,although only provisionally since some additional documents were still needed.Until now,X has not submitted the requested documents,and thus the Commissionconcluded that the complainant should still be considered as X’s spouse.