natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at klagerens påstand umiddelbart var begrundet.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the complainant’s allegation appeared to be founded.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001 af 30. maj 2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter, EFT 2001 L 145, s. 43.
The complainant requested the French Data Protection Commission (CNIL) to ascertain whether data relating to her were stored by Europol.
NB: Retten i Første Instans afsagde dom i sag T-194/04 den 8. november 2007.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden hævdede klageren, at Europol fejlagtigt havde nægtet at give hende oplysninger om data på hende og give hende aktindsigt i disse data.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Europol had wrongly refused to give information about data relating to her and to grant her access to these data.
Dette udgjorde eft er hendes opfattelse magtmisbrug.
In her view, this constituted an abuse of power.
Klageren gjorde ligeledes gældende, at Europol havde undladt at behandle hendes klage til klageudvalget med den fornødne omhu, idet den franske oversættelse af dettes svar var adresseret til en anden klager.
The complainant further alleged that Europol had failed carefully to deal with her appeal to the Appeals Commi4 ee because the French translation of its reply was addressed to another appellant.
Europols direktør oplyste Ombudsmanden om, at Ombudsmandens brev med anmodning til Europol om en udtalelse om klagen var blevet fremsendt til Europols fælles kontrolinstans.
The Director of Europol informed the Ombudsman that the Ombudsman’s le4 er asking Europol for an opinion on the complaint had been forwarded to Europol’s Joint Supervisory Body (JSB).
Den fælles kontrolinstans anførte i sit brev til Ombudsmanden, at klageudvalgets afgørelse var bindende for alle involverede parter.
In its le4 er to the Ombudsman, the JSB stated that the decision of the Appeals Commi4 ee was binding for all parties concerned.
I henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 195, stk. 1, skal Ombudsmanden foretage undersøgelser om tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, medmindre de påståede forhold er under eller har været under retslig behandling.
Article 195(1) of the EC Treaty provides that the Ombudsman conducts inquiries into possible instances of maladministration, unless the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings.
Eftersom klageudvalget måtte betragtes som et uafhængigt udvalg, der giver enkeltpersoner mulighed for at påklage Europols afgørelser, antog den fælles kontrolinstans, at denne undtagelse fandt anvendelse i den foreliggende sag.
Since the Appeals Commi4 ee was to be regarded as an independent commi4 ee providing individuals with a legal remedy against Europol’s decisions, the JSB assumed that this exception applied in the present case.
Med hensyn til den påståede undladelse af at have behandlet klagerens klage med den fornødne omhu fremførte den fælles kontrolinstans, at klageudvalget havde truffet to afgørelser i to forskellige sager, og at den første side af den franske oversættelse af afgørelsen om klagerens klage ved en fejltagelse var blevet erstattet med den første side af den franske oversættelse af den anden afgørelse.
As regards the alleged failure to have carefully dealt with the complainant’s appeal, the JSB stated that two decisions in two di� erent cases had been adopted by the Appeals Commi4 ee and that the first page of the French translation of the decision on the complainant’s appeal had inadvertently been replaced by the first page of the French translation of the other decision.
Den fælles kontrolinstans gjorde det klart, at sådanne fejltagelser ikke burde forekomme og tilføjede, at den ville fremsende sine undskyldninger over for klageren for denne fejl.
The JSB emphasised that such mistakes should not occur and added that it would send its apologies to the complainant for this error.
Ombudsmanden understregede i sin afgørelse, at den relevante undtagelse i artikel 195, stk. 1, kun fandt anvendelse, hvor en sag var blevet anlagt eller var verserende ved en domstol, og at denne fortolkning var bekræftet ved artikel 1, stk. 3, i Ombudsmandens statut.
In his decision, the Ombudsman pointed out that the relevant exception set out in Article 195(1) was only applicable where a case had been dealt with by or was pending before a court and that this interpretation was confirmed by Article 1(3) of his Statute.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at han ikke var overbevist om, at klageudvalget skulle betragtes som en dømmende myndighed i den i EF-traktatens artikel 195 nævnte forstand, og at det forhold, at det havde undersøgt et givet tilfælde, derfor skulle forhindre ham i at foretage en undersøgelse.
The Ombudsman noted that he was not convinced that the Appeals Commi4 ee should be regarded as a judicial body for the purposes of Article 195 of the EC Treaty and that the fact that it had examined a given case should therefore prevent him from carrying out an inquiry.
Han fandt imidlertid ikke, at det var nødvendigt for ham at tage et definitivt standpunkt til forholdet i den aktuelle sag.
He considered, however, that it was not necessary for him to take a definitive position on this issue in the present case.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede i den forbindelse, at klageren ikke havde fremlagt
The Ombudsman noted in this context that the complainant had not provided any concrete information that would support her allegation that Europol’s decision had been wrong and abusive.
Heller ikke en omhyggelig undersøgelse af klageudvalgets afgørelse havde afsløret forhold, der kunne rejse tvivl om Europols afgørelse.
Nor had a careful examination of the decision of the Appeals Commi4 ee yielded any information that would call into doubt Europol’s decision.
Under disse omstændigheder var det Ombudsmandens opfattelse, at der ikke syntes at være belæg for at fortsætte sin undersøgelse af klagerens første påstand.
In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that there appeared to be no grounds to pursue his inquiry into the complainant’s first allegation.
Med hensyn til den påståede undladelse af at behandle klagerens klage med den fornødne omhu bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at den fælles kontrolinstans havde undskyldt over for klageren for den fejl, der var begået.
As regards the alleged failure to have carefully dealt with the complainant’s appeal, the Ombudsman noted that the JSB had apologised to the complainant for the mistake that had occurred.
Ombudsmandens holdning var derfor den, at der heller ikke var noget belæg for at gå videre med sin undersøgelse af dette aspekt af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore took the view that there were no grounds to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the case either.
Det Europæiske Luftfartssikkerhedsagentur fartssikkerhedsagentur
The European Aviation Safety Agency
Påstået manglende retsgrundlag for afgørelse om luft dygtighedscertifi cering af luftfartøj fartøj
Alleged lack of a legal basis for decision on airworthiness certification of aircra
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1103/2006/BU (fortrolig) over Det Europæiske Luftfartssikkerhedsagentur (EASA)
Summary of decision on complaint 1103/2006/BU (Confidential) against the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Klageren klagede til Ombudsmanden over EASA’s gennemførelse af artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, punkt i, i forordning 1702/200333 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for bl.a. luftdygtigheds- og miljøcertificering af luftfartøjer.
The complainant complained to the Ombudsman about the implementation by EASA of Article
EASA fastslår, at typecertificeringsgrundlaget ikke sikrer et tilstrækkeligt sikkerhedsniveau.
33 laying down implementing rules for inter alia the airworthiness
I denne forbindelse gjorde klageren indsigelse mod EASA’s afgørelse nr. 2004/01/CF34til gennemførelse af ovennævnte artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, punkt i, i forordning 1702/2003.
2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003 and environmental certification of aircra.
EASA fastslog i sin afgørelse, at typecertificeringsgrundlaget for de produkter, der er opstillet i bilaget til samme afgørelse, ikke sikrer et tilstrækkeligt sikkerhedsniveau, da:
The above provision stipulates, in essence, that:
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1702/2003 af 24. september 2003 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for luftdygtigheds- og miljøcertificering af luftfartøjer og hermed forbundet materiel, dele og apparatur og for certificering af konstruktions- og produktionsorganisationer, EUT 2003 L 43, s. 6.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircra and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations, OJ 2003 L 243, p. 6.
SAMMENDRAG AF AFGØRELSER typecertificeringsgrundlaget sikrer et tilstrækkeligt sikkerhedsniveau, og således er i modstrid med princippet om automatisk anerkendelse i artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, punkt i, i forordning 1702/2003.
!a product not certificated under Joint Aviation Authorities procedures, which has a type-certifi cate (TC) issued before 28 September 2003 by a Member State, shall be deemed to have a TC issued in accordance with Regulation 1702/2003 (EASA-TC), unless
Klageren påstod derfor, at det var uberettiget, at EASA havde baseret sin afgørelse 2004/01/CF på artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, punkt i, i forordning 1702/2003.
!EASA determines that the type-certification basis of such a product does not provide for a su cient level of safety.
Han påstod ligeledes, at EASA i modstrid med samme forordnings artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, punkt i, ikke havde fastlagt EASA-TC for visse luftfartøjstyper. fartøjstyper.
According to the complainant, it follows from the above provision that products (aircra ) with a national TC issued by a Member State shall be automatically deemed to have an EASA-TC, and that any exemptions from this principle of automatic recognition should be duly specified and reasoned, including a statement of specific technical reasons for the aircra concerned.
Ombudsmanden var eft er en indgående analyse af de relevante lovbestemmelser og klagerens og EASA’s argumenter ikke overbevist om, at EASA’s afgørelse 2004/01/CF (i) havde et tilstrækkeligt retsgrundlag i forordning 1702/2003 og (ii) indeholdt en nøjagtig og tilstrækkelig tilkendegivelse af det grundlag, den var baseret på.
In this context, the complainant challenged EASA’s Decision No 2004/01/CF34, by which it implemented the above Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Ombudsmanden foreslog derfor EASA en mindelig løsning, hvori han foreslog, at EASA kunne overveje at ændre sin afgørelse 2004/01/CF, så den blev i overensstemmelse med forordning 1702/2003 og principperne for god forvaltningsskik.
In its Decision, EASA determined that the type-certification basis of the products listed in the annex to the same Decision may not provide for a su cient level of safety, since:
EASA fastslog i sit svar på forslaget om en mindelig løsning, at det havde været i stand til at fastlægge den godkendte konstruktion for alle luftfartøjer omfattet af afgørelse 2004/01/CF, der henhører under dets ansvarsområde, herunder også de luftfartøjstyper, som klageren havde henvist til, og for hvilke der ville blive udstedt et EASA-TC.
!products designed in a Member State can only be deemed to have an EASA-TC if the type-certification basis provides for a su cient level of safety,
EASA konkluderede, at afgørelse 2004/01/CF som følge heraf var blevet ophævet med vedtagelsen af en ny afgørelse35.
!airworthiness codes used in some Member States are not su ciently known to EASA to ensure that they provide for a su cient level of safety, and
Ombudsmanden glædede sig over EASA’s hurtige og positive svar på hans forslag om en mindelig løsning på klagen.
!su cient details of the type-certification basis used in the certification of products by some Member States are not currently available to EASA.
Ombudsmanden og klageren glædede sig navnlig over, at EASA havde ophævet den omtvistede beslutning 2004/01/CF fuldstændigt.
The complainant pointed out that EASA’s approach taken in Decision 2004/01/CF implies that a product will not be deemed to have an EASA-TC unless EASA determines that its type-certification basis does provide for a su cient level of safety, and thus contradicts the principle of automatic recognition provided for in Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Ombudsmanden noterede sig ligeledes, at EASA havde udstedt et typegodkendelsescertifikat i overensstemmelse med forordningen for de luftfartøjstyper, som klageren havde henvist til.
He also argued that the fact that EASA was not able to acquaint itself with certain airworthiness codes was not a valid reason for concluding that the national type-certification basis of the products listed in the annex to Decision 2004/01/CF may not provide for a su cient level of safety.
Klageren oplyste imidlertid Ombudsmanden om, at han kun var delvist tilfreds med dette typegodkendelsescertifikat i overensstemmelse med forordningen og overvejede at tage nye administrative skridt over for EASA vedrørende dette.
Therefore, the complainant alleged that EASA was not entitled to base its Decision 2004/01/CF on Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Ombudsmanden mente ikke på grundlag af resultaterne af hans undersøgelser, at der var behov for yderligere undersøgelser, og lukkede derfor sagen.
He also alleged that EASA, in breach of Article 2(3)(a)(i) of the same Regulation, failed to determine the EASA-TCs for certain aircra types.
Undladelse af at træffe foranstaltninger i en klage om arbejdstidsdirektivet
In particular, the Ombudsman, as well as the complainant, welcomed the fact that EASA repealed, in its entirety, the contested Decision 2004/01/CF. The Ombudsman
De relevante regler var nedfældet i direktiv 93/104/EF, som var i kraft, indtil det blev afløst af direktiv 2003/88.
Decision No 2004/01/CF of the Executive Director of EASA of 28 April 2004 on the implementation of Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Afgørelse 2007/002/C af den administrerende direktør for EASA af 23. marts 2007 om ophævelse af afgørelse 2004/01/CF af den administrerende direktør for EASA af 28. april 2004 om gennemførelse af artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a, i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1702/2003.
Decision No 2007/002/C of the Executive Director of EASA of 23 March 2007 repealing Decision 2004/01/CF of the Executive Director of EASA of 28 April 2004 on the implementation of Article 2(3)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003.
I en klage til Ombudsmanden i december 2003 (klage 2333/2003/GG) hævdede klageren, at Kommissionen havde undladt at gå ind i hans overtrædelsesklage over Tyskland inden for en passende frist.
In a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman in December 2003 (complaint 2333/2003/GG), the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint against Germany within an appropriate period of time.
Eft er at have gennemgået sagen fandt Ombudsmanden, at klagerens påstand var velbegrundet.
Having examined the case, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant’s allegation was well-founded.
Han bemærkede imidlertid, at Tyskland for nylig havde indført ny lovgivning på området, som Kommissionen fortsat manglede at undersøge, og Kommissionen syntes at acceptere, at afgørelser truffet af Domstolen havde præciseret de relevante retlige anliggender.
He noted, however, that Germany had recently introduced new legislation in this field which the Commission still needed to examine and that the Commission appeared to accept that the decisions of the Court of Justice had clarified the relevant legal issues.
Ud fra den antagelse, at Kommissionen nu ikke ville trække behandlingen af klagerens overtrædelsesklage yderligere i langdrag, afsluttede Ombudsmanden således sin undersøgelse.
On the assumption that the Commission would not incur further delays in dealing with the complainant’s infringement complaint, the Ombudsman thus closed his inquiry.
I november 2005 henvendte klageren sig til Ombudsmanden igen.
In November 2005, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman again.
I sin nye klage (3453/2005/GG) gentog klageren i hovedsagen sin i den tidligere klage fremsatte påstand om, at Kommissionen havde undladt at gå ind i hans overtrædelsesklage inden for en passende frist.
In his new complaint (3453/2005/GG), the complainant in essence repeated the allegation that he had already submi4 ed in his earlier complaint, according to which the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint within an appropriate period of time.
Ombudsmanden besluttede at indlede en ny undersøgelse.
The Ombudsman decided to open a new inquiry.
I sin udtalelse bemærkede Kommissionen, at den i september 2004 havde fremsendt et forslag til fællesskabslovgiveren om en ændring af direktiv 2003/88.
In its opinion, the Commission noted that in September 2004 it had submi4 ed to the Community legislator a proposal for an amendment of Directive 2003/88.
Kommissionen fremhævede, at den ville undersøge klagerens overtrædelsesklage i lyset af dette forslag og af sine løbende drøftelser med de øvrige fællesskabsinstitutioner.
The Commission pointed out that it would examine the complainant’s infringement complaint in the light of this proposal and of its ongoing discussions with the other Community institutions.
Han fandt ydermere, at Kommissionens uomtvistelige skønsbeføjelse med hensyn til spørgsmål om medlemsstaternes angivelige overtrædelser af fællesskabslovgivningen ikke gav den ret til at trække en afgørelse om en klage ud i det uendelige med den begrundelse, at gældende lov måske ville blive ændret på et eller andet tidspunkt i fremtiden.
He further considered that the Commission’s undoubted discretion in ma4 ers relating to alleged infringements of Community law by Member States did not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that the applicable law may be amended at some time in the future.
Den 12. september 2006 anmodede Ombudsmanden i et udkast til henstilling derfor Kommissionen om at behandle klagerens overtrædelsesklage så hurtigt og omhyggeligt som muligt.
On 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman therefore addressed a dra recommendation urging the Commission to deal with the complainant’s infringement complaint as rapidly and as diligently as possible.
Kommissionen fastholdt sin holdning i sin detaljerede udtalelse.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission maintained its position.
UNDERSØGELSERPÅEGETINITIATIVFORETAGETAF OMBUDSMANDEN
OWN-INITIATIVEINQUIRIES BY THE OMBUDSMAN
Integrering af handicappede i Europa-Kommissionen
Integration of people with disabilities by the European Commission
Sammendrag af afgørelse eft er undersøgelse på eget initiativ OI/3/2003/JMA
Summary of decision following owninitiative inquiry OI/3/2003/JMA
Handicappede står over for en lang række problemer, der hindrer dem i at opnå lige muligheder, uafhængighed og fuld økonomisk og social integrering.
People with disabilities face a wide range of obstacles which prevent them from achieving equal opportunities, independence and full economic and social integration.
Selv om EU har taget denne udfordring op ved at vedtage en række retlige og politiske initiativer til at fjerne disse problemer, mente Ombudsmanden, at alvoren i den situation, som handicappede befinder sig i, kræver, at de afgivne løfter omsættes til praksis gennem effektive foranstaltninger.
Even though the Union had responded to this challenge by adopting a number of legal and political initiatives to remove those obstacles, the Ombudsman considered that the seriousness of the situation encountered by people with disabilities demanded that the proclaimed commitments be put into practice by means of e � ective actions.
På grund af Kommissionens centrale rolle i EU’s institutionelle rammer og dens specifikke løfter til handicappede mente Ombudsmanden, at det ville være hensigtsmæssigt at se på de foranstaltninger, som denne institution havde gennemført på området, og at vurdere, om de var i overensstemmelse med dens retlige forpligtelser og afgivne løfter.
Because of the Commission’s central role within the institutional framework of the Union and its specific commitments towards disabled people, the Ombudsman considered it useful to review the actions undertaken by this institution in this area, and to assess whether or not they were consistent with its legal obligations and stated commitments.
Ombudsmanden besluttede derfor at indlede en undersøgelse på eget initiativ af Kommissionens integrering af handicappede for at sikre, at disse borgere ikke blev forskelsbehandlet i deres forbindelser med institutionen.
The Ombudsman therefore decided to open an owninitiative inquiry into the subject of the integration of persons with disabilities by the Commission, in order to ensure that these citizens were not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.
SAMMENDRAG AF AFGØRELSER foranstaltninger, Kommissionen har truffet eller agter at træffe for at sikre, at handicappede ikke forskelsbehandles i deres forbindelser med institutionerne, og om (ii) tidsplanen for vedtagelsen af disse foranstaltninger.
In this light, the Commission’s Code of Good Practice should be a very helpful tool to sensitise its sta�, although e� orts should be made to ensure that standards of conduct are fully upheld and periodically updated.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse blev gennemført via en åben og gennemskuelig dialog, hvor handicappede personer, repræsentative grupper, andre ombudsmænd på nationalt og regionalt plan samt almindelige borgere blev opfordret til at bidrage.
The Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that, as the public underlined during the consultation process, action is still needed in other areas, including the following:
Ombudsmanden konkluderede på grundlag af denne undersøgelse, at Kommissionen har gjort en reel indsats for at integrere handicappede, selv om nogle aspekter af dens politik ikke ser ud til at have levet op til offentlighedens forventninger.
!the financial support given by the Commission to o cials with a disability or with disabled family members is still perceived as insu cient; the public also considers that the budgetary allocation for cost linked to disability ought to be increased;
• sikring af, at handicappedes beskæftigelse i alle EU-institutionerne respekterer de grundlæggende principper, der er stadfæstet i den nye personalevedtægt, f.eks. ikkeforskelsbehandling på grund af handicap (artikel 1d, stk. 1) eller kravet om, at der skal foretages rimelige tilpasninger for handicappede tjenestemænd, så de kan udføre de arbejdsopgaver, de har fået overdraget (artikel 1d, stk. 4);
!the measures adopted to promote the recruitment of disabled persons appear to lack transparency, and a more reliable evaluation of the situation has been asked for;
• handicappede kandidater i EU-udvælgelsesprøver kan nu drage fordel af en række foranstaltninger med henblik på at lette deres deltagelse; endvidere har Kommissionen indledt en undersøgelse af, hvordan ansættelsen af handicappede kan fremmes inden for institutionen;
!there also appears to be dissatisfaction with the insu cient accessibility of certain disabled persons to Commission information;
• vedtagelse af nye krav vedrørende adgangsforholdene til Kommissionens bygninger, der er fuldt på linje med de standarder, der er fastsat i EU-lovgivningen og i den belgiske lovgivning, særlig med hensyn til handicappedes behov;
!the situation of pupils with disabilities in the European Schools appears to be inadequate and the Schools’ policy for the integration of this category of children does not appear to have e � ectively contributed to their integration;
• gøre information mere tilgængelig for handicappede, navnlig hvad angår de oplysninger, der findes på Kommissionens hjemmeside; institutionen har udfoldet prisværdige bestræbelser i denne henseende;
!the application of the Commission’s Code of Good Practice has revealed a number of inadequacies, in particular as regards the insu cient number of actions taken to sensitise the institution’s sta� by means of training courses or seminars.