natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Eftersom det ikke var muligt at opnå en mindelig løsning, fremsatte Ombudsmanden følgende forslag til henstilling over for Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 3,stk. 6,i Ombudsmandens statut:
Since afriendly solution was not possible,the Ombudsman made the following draft recommendation to the Commission,in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Europa-Kommissionen bør gøre sit yderste for at sikre,at der så hurtigt som muligt ogmed tilbagevirkende kraft oprettes supplerende forsikringsordninger for de lokale medarbejdere i Østrig i overensstemmelse med de særlige ansættelsesvilkår for lokale medar-bejdere,der arbejder i Østrig,som blev vedtaget af Kommissionen den 26. april 1994.
The European Commission should do its utmost to ensure that supplementary insuranceschemes for its local staff in Austria are set up as soon as possible in accordance with the“Rules laying down the specific conditions of employment of local staff serving in Austria”adopted by the Commission on 26 April 1994 and with retroactive effect.
Kommissionen henviste i sin detaljerede udtalelse til en beslutning,den havde vedtaget i2000.
In its detailed opinion,the Commission referred to a decision which it had adopted in2000.
I henhold til denne beslutning skulle der indgås en forsikringsaftale med selskabet Merkur i overensstemmelse med artikel 25 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.
According to this decision,an insurance contract in accordance with Article 25 ofthe Specific Conditions was to be concluded with the Merkur company.
To tredjedele afbidraget skulle betales af Kommissionen,mens én tredjedel skulle betales af de lokaltansatte.
Two thirds of thecontributions were to be paid by the Commission and one third by the local agents.
Kommissionen anførte i sin detaljerede udtalelse,at denne aftale allerede varindgået,og at det i betragtning af den forsikrede risiko ikke var nødvendigt,at forsikringenhavde tilbagevirkende kraft.
In itsdetailed opinion,the Commission stated that this contract had already been concluded andthat given the nature of the risk insured there was no need to provide for retroactivity.
For så vidt angår de supplerende forsikringspolicer for invaliditet,død og pension,forkla-rede Kommissionen,at den havde indhentet tilbud fra lokale forsikringsselskaber.
In so far as the supplementary insurance policies regarding invalidity,death and retirementwere concerned,the Commission explained that offers from local insurance companieshad been obtained.
Dissetilbud skulle nu gennemgås af en uafhængig ekspert for Kommissionens regning.
These offers would now be examined by an independent expert at the Commission’s expense.
Påbaggrund af denne gennemgang ville det mest hensigtsmæssige tilbud blive valgt,og delokale medarbejdere ville modtage et aftaleudkast for hver af de relevante forsikringspolicer med henblik på godkendelse.
On the basis of this examination,the most appropriate offer wouldbe chosen and a draft contract for each of the relevant insurance policies would besubmitted to the local staff for their approval.
Disse tilbud ville have tilbagevirkende kraft i overensstemmelse med Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s draftrecommendation,the insurance policies would have retroactive effect.
Udgifterne i forbindelse med atsikre,at forsikringspolicerne havde tilbagevirkende kraft fra 1. januar 1995,skulle delesmellem Kommissionen (60%) og de lokale medarbejdere (40%) i overensstemmelse medartikel 30,stk. 3,i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.
The costs arisingfrom making the insurance policies retroactive until 1 January 1995 would be shared bythe Commission (60%) and the local staff (40%),in accordance with Article 30 (3) of the Specific Conditions.
De praktiske foranstaltninger i forbindelsemed betalingen af disse udgifter skulle aftales med de lokale medarbejdere og det valgteforsikringsselskab,når aftalerne skulle gennemføres.
The practical modalities of paying these costs would be establishedin cooperation with the local staff and the insurance company chosen at the moment whenthe contracts were to be finalised.
Klagerne påpegede i deres bemærkninger,at så vidt de vidste,og i modsætning til hvad Kommissionen havde angivet,var der endnu ikke oprettet en supplerende forsikringspolice for midlertidig uarbejdsdygtighed. De udtrykte imidlertid håb om,at en sådan forsikring ville træde i kraft så hurtigt som muligt.
In their observations,the complainants pointed out that to their knowledge,and contraryto what the Commission had claimed,no supplementary insurance policy for temporaryincapacity to work had been set up yet.
For så vidt angår de supplerende forsikringspolicer for invaliditet,død og pension,var delokale medarbejdere i februar 2001 nået til enighed om,hvilket forsikringsselskab derskulle vælges.
In so far as the supplementary insurance policies regarding invalidity,death and retirementwere concerned,the local staff had agreed on the insurance company to be chosen in February 2001.
Ingen af klagernes skriftlige forespørgsler om dette spørgsmål til ledelsenfor repræsentationen i Wien var imidlertid blevet besvaret.
However,none of the complainants’written inquiries to the managementof the representation in Vienna in respect of this issue had been answered to date.
Klagerne var derfor ikke i standtil at fremsætte yderligere bemærkninger om sagens nuværende status.
Thecomplainants were therefore unable to make further comments regarding the present stateof the matter.
De forventedeimidlertid,at det ville tage adskillige uger eller endda måneder,før forsikringsordningerneville træde i kraft.
They anticipated,however,that the insurance schemes would not enter intoforce for several weeks or even months.
Klagerne anmodede derfor Ombudsmanden om kraftigt at opfordre Kommissionen til at oprette disse ordninger så hurtigt som muligt.
The complainants therefore asked the Ombudsman to urge the Commission to set up these schemes as soon as possible.
Manglende oprettelse af supplerende forsikringsordninger
Failure to set up supplementary insurance schemes
1.1Klagerne,to lokale medarbejdere ved Kommissionens repræsentation i Wien,gjordegældende,at Kommissionen ikke havde oprettet supplerende forsikringsordninger for sinelokale medarbejdere i delegationen (fra 1. januar 1995:repræsentationen) i Østrig.
1.1The complainants,two members of the local staff of the Commission’s representation in Vienna,claimed that the Commission had failed to set up supplementary insuranceschemes for its local staff working in its delegation (from 1 January 1995:representation)in Austria.
Dehenviste til reglerne om de særlige ansættelsesvilkår for lokale medarbejdere,der arbejderi Østrig (”Rules laying down the specific conditions of employment of local staff servingin Austria”,i det følgende benævnt ”de særlige ansættelsesvilkår”),som Kommissionenhavde vedtaget den 26. april 1994.
_BAR_ 2001 of local staff serving in Austria”(hereinafter the “Specific Conditions”) adopted by the Commission on 26 April 1994.
I henhold til disse særlige ansættelsesregler skullesupplerende forsikringsordninger oprettes i forbindelse med midlertidig uarbejdsdygtighed (artikel 25),invaliditet og død (artikel 27) samt pension (artikel 28).
According to these Specific Rules,supplementary insurance schemes were to be set up in respect of temporary incapacity to work (Article 25),invalidity and death (Article 27) as well as retirement (Article 28).
Ifølge klagernevar ingen af disse supplerende forsikringsordninger endnu blevet oprettet.
According to thecomplainants,none of these supplementary insurance schemes had been set up yet.
1.2Kommissionen gjorde gældende,at Østrigs tiltrædelse til EU medførte forskelligeændringer med hensyn til de regler,der skulle anvendes. Ifølge Kommissionen var denstadig i færd med at revidere de særlige ansættelsesvilkår for de lokale medarbejdere i Østrig.
1.2The Commission claimed that Austria’s accession to the EU implied various changesregarding the rules to be applied.
Kommissionen henviste også til rammereglerne om ansættelsesvilkår for lokalemedarbejdere i Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber,der arbejder i ikkemedlemslande (”Framework rules laying down the conditions of employment of local staffof the Commission of the European Communities serving in non-member countries”,i detfølgende benævnt ”rammereglerne”),som dannede grundlag for vedtagelsen af de særligeansættelsesvilkår.
According to the Commission,it was still engaged in theprocess of revising the specific conditions of employment of local staff serving in Austria.The Commission also referred to the “Framework rules laying down the conditions ofemployment of local staff of the Commission of the European Communities serving innon-member countries”(hereinafter the “Framework Rules”) on the basis of which the Specific Conditions were adopted.
I artikel 14 i rammereglerne fastlægges det,at Kommissionen skaloprette supplerende eller uafhængige forsikrings- eller pensionsordninger gældende forsygdom,ulykke eller invaliditet i de tilfælde,hvor der ikke findes lokale ordninger,ellerhvor de lokale ordninger vurderes at være utilstrækkelige.
Article 14 of the Framework Rules provides that the Commission shall set up supplementary or independent sickness,accident or invalidityinsurance or pension schemes where there is no local scheme or where the local schemeis judged to be inadequate.
Kommissionen anførte,at denderfor ikke kunne gøres ansvarlig for den manglende gennemførelse af artikel 25,27 og28 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.
The Commission argued that it could thus not be held responsible for the non-implementation of Articles 25,27 and 28 of the Specific Conditions.
Den gjorde gældende,at set i lyset af,at oprettelsen afsupplerende forsikringsordninger afhang af den lokale ordnings utilstrækkelighed,skulleden handle forsigtigt,især i forbindelse med et land,der senere var blevet medlem af EU.Kommissionen påpegede imidlertid,at den agtede at oprette supplerende forsikringsordninger i så vid udstrækning som muligt,under forudsætning af at systemets ensartethedblev bevaret.
Itclaimed that in view of the fact that the establishment of supplementary insurance schemeswas linked to a negative appraisal of the national scheme,it had to act prudently,particu-larly in the case of a country that had subsequently joined the EU.
Det havde imidlertid endnu ikke været muligt at nå til enighed om detekniske og finansielle betingelser for sådanne supplerende forsikringsordninger. Endelighenviste Kommissionen til sin fortolkningsmargen i denne sag og gjorde gældende,atoprettelsen af supplerende forsikringsordninger,der kun var gældende for et vist antalmedarbejdere,kunne skabe strid mellem modtagerne og de andre medarbejdere.
The Commissionpointed out,however,that it intended to set up supplementary insurance schemes to anextent as wide as possible,provided that the homogeneity of the system was maintained.It had however not yet been possible to find an agreement regarding the technical andfinancial conditions in which such supplementary insurance schemes could function.Finally,the Commission pointed at its margin of interpretation in the matter and claimedthat the establishment of supplementary insurance schemes that were limited to certainmembers of staff was a cause of potential conflict between the beneficiaries and otherstaff.
1.3Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at Kommissionen var enig i,at de særlige ansættelsesvilkår fortsat skulle gælde for de lokale medarbejdere i Wien,indtil de blev erstattet af nyeregler. Det var derfor disse regler,der skulle undersøges her.
1.3The Ombudsman noted that the Commission agreed that the Specific Conditionscontinued to be applicable to the local staff in Vienna until they were replaced by newrules.
Ombudsmanden mentederfor,at Kommissionens erklæring i sin udtalelse om,at den ville sikre,at de lokalemedarbejdere i Wien kunne drage fordel af de supplerende forsikringsordninger,så snartde nye regler var vedtaget,ikke havde nogen relevans for undersøgelsen af nærværendeklage.
The Ombudsman thereforeconsidered that the Commission’s statement in its opinion according to which it wouldensure that the local staff in Vienna benefit from supplementary insurance schemes as soonas newrules had been adopted was of no relevance for the examination of the presentcomplaint.
1.4Kommissionen påpegede korrekt,at i henhold til artikel 14 i rammereglerne skullesupplerende forsikringsordninger oprettes i de tilfælde,hvor der ikke fandtes en lokalordning,eller hvor den lokale ordning vurderedes at være utilstrækkelig.
1.4The Commission correctly pointed out that according to Article 14 of the Framework Rules, supplementary insurance schemes were to be set up where there was no localscheme or where the local scheme was judged to be inadequate.
Ombudsmandentilsluttede sig også Kommissionens holdning om,at den havde visse skønsbeføjelser idenne sag,og at den skulle handle forsigtigt,især i forbindelse med et land,der senere varblevet medlem af EU. Ombudsmanden var imidlertid af den holdning,at disse argumenterikke syntes at være relevante i denne forbindelse.
The Ombudsman alsoagreed with the Commission’s view that it disposed of a margin of appreciation in thismatter and that it needed to proceed prudently,particularly in the case of a country thathad subsequently joined the EU.
Kommissionen accepterede i de særligeansættelsesvilkår,som blev vedtaget i 1994,at de lokale medarbejdere i Østrig skulledrage fordel af de supplerende forsikringsordninger i overensstemmelse med artikel 25,27og 28 i disse bestemmelser.
In the Specific Conditionsadopted in 1994,the Commission accepted that its local staff in Austria should benefitfrom the supplementary insurance schemes set out at Articles 25,27 and 28 of these rules.The discretion which the Commission enjoyed in this field under Article 14 of the Framework Rules thus appeared to have been exercised in the sense that the Commissionhad decided that it was necessary to set up supplementary insurance schemes.
De skønsbeføjelser,som Kommissionen havde på dette
An examination of Article25 of the Specific Conditions reinforced this conclusion.
For øvrigt syntes Kommissionens svar på Ombudsmandensanmodning om yderligere oplysninger at vise,at Kommissionen ikke længere benægtede,at den havde pligt til at oprette disse supplerende forsikringsordninger.
Ombudsman’s request for further information it seemed to emerge that the Commissionno longer denied that it was under an obligation to set up these supplementary insuranceschemes.
1.5Selv om Kommissionen ikke direkte støttede sig til artikel 38 i de særlige ansættel-sesvilkår,hvorefter bestemmelserne i artikel 25,27 og 28 ”skal træde i kraft og gælde fraden dato,hvor de forsikringspolicer,der henvises til i disse artikler,træder i kraft”, mente Ombudsmanden, at det var hensigtsmæssigt at påpege,at denne artikel ikke kunnefortolkes sådan,at Kommissionen havde frie hænder med hensyn til,hvorvidt og hvornården skulle oprette de pågældende forsikringsordninger.
1.5Although the Commission did not directly rely on Article 38 of the Specific Conditions according to which the provisions of Articles 25,27 and 28 “shall enter intoforce and take effect on the date on which the insurance policies referred to in these articles take effect”,the Ombudsman considered it useful to point out that this article couldnot be interpreted in the sense that the Commission was free as to whether and when it setup the relevant insurance schemes.
En sådan fortolkning ville i realiteten betyde,at artikel 25,27 og 28 ikke tjente noget formål.
Such an interpretation would effectively deny any effetutileto Articles 25,27 and 28.
Det måtte derfor antages,atdenne bestemmelse skulle sikre,at Kommissionen skulle have tilstrækkelig tid til atoprette disse supplerende forsikringsordninger.
It had therefore to be assumed that this provision was meantto ensure that the Commission should have sufficient time within which to set up thesesupplementary insurance schemes.
1.6Ombudsmanden mente ikke,at Kommissionen havde vist,hvorfor oprettelsen afsupplerende forsikringsordninger for sine lokale medarbejdere skulle skabe strid med deandre ansatte.
1.6The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had not shown why the establishment of supplementary insurance schemes for its local staff should be a cause of conflictwith other agents.
Klagernes argument om,at disse andre ansatte var embedsmænd,som varlangt bedre sikret end de lokale medarbejdere,var plausibelt og var ikke blevet afvist af Kommissionen.
The complainants’argument that these other agents were civil servantswho enjoyed a degree of social protection that was far higher than that of local staff wasplausible and had not been refuted by the Commission.
1.7Ombudsmanden bemærkede desuden,at det,at Kommissionens manglende oprettelse af yderligere supplerende forsikringsordninger for medarbejderne i Østrig ikkeskyldtes,at dette land tiltrådte EU og de ændringer,som dette ville medføre,syntes at blivebekræftet af Kommissionens fremgangsmåde i forbindelse med sine lokale medarbejderei Sverige.
1.7The Ombudsman furthermore noted that the fact that the Commission’s failure to setup the supplementary insurance schemes for its staff in Austria was not due to the accession of this country to the EU and the changes this necessitated appeared to be confirmedby the approach of the Commission towards its local staff in Sweden.
Klagerne forklarede,at de supplerende sociale ydelser for de lokale medarbejdere ved delegationen i Stockholm var blevet indført kort tid før Sveriges tiltrædelse til EUog var blevet udbetalt siden 1. januar 1997,hvilket ikke blev afvist af Kommissionen.
The complainantsexplained,without being contradicted by the Commission,that supplementary socialbenefits for its local staff in the delegation in Stockholm had been agreed shortly before Sweden’s accession to the EU and had been granted since 1 January 1997.
1.8Under disse omstændigheder konkluderede Ombudsmanden,at de særlige ansættel-sesvilkår,som trådte i kraft den 1. maj 1994,forpligtede Kommissionen til inden forrimelig tid at oprette supplerende forsikringsordninger for sine lokale medarbejdere i Østrig.
1.8In these circumstances,the Ombudsman concluded that the Specific Conditions thatentered into force on 1 May 1994 obliged the Commission to set up,within a reasonabletime,supplementary insurance schemes for its local staff in Austria.
Ombudsmanden var af den holdning,at en periode på mere end seks år var langtmere,end hvad der kunne betragtes som rimelig tid,medmindre der var særlige forhold,der talte for en sådan forsinkelse.
The Ombudsman tookthe view that a period of more than six years by far exceeded what could be considered tobe reasonable,unless there were special circumstances that would justify such a delay.
1.9Kommissionen syntes i sin udtalelse,at henvise til tekniske og finansielle vanskeligheder.
1.9In its opinion,the Commission appeared to refer to technical and financial difficulties.
Ombudsmanden mente imidlertid ikke,at Kommissionen havde godtgjort,at denvoldsomme forsinkelse skyldtes sådanne vanskeligheder.
The Ombudsman considered,however,that the Commission had not established thatthe excessive delay that had occurred was due to such difficulties.
Det eneste konkrete eksempel,som Kommissionen gav,drejede sig om et notat,som Kommissionen havde udarbejdet isommeren 1999,der angav,at seks ud af syv forsikringsselskaber havde været uegnede,eftersom de ikke kunne overholde bestemmelserne i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.
The only concreteexample furnished by the Commission related to a note prepared by it in mid-1999according to which the offers of six out of seven insurance companies had been unsuitablesince they did not conform to the provisions of the Specific Conditions.
Detskulle imidlertid påpeges,at dette eksempel kun omhandlede én af de berørte forsikrings-ordninger,nemlig den ordning,der var indeholdt i artikel 25 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.I betragtning af at de relevante tilbud først syntes at være indhentet i 1999, mente Ombudsmanden desuden,at det,at disse tilbud ikke var egnede,ikke forklarede denforsinkelse,som allerede havde fundet sted før 1999.
It had to bepointed out,however,that this example related to only one of the supplementary insuranceschemes concerned,i.e. the one provided for in Article 25 of the Specific Conditions.Given that the relevant offers appeared to have been obtained only in 1999, the Ombudsman further considered that the lack of suitability of these offers could not explainthe delay that had occurred already prior to 1999.
1.11Ombudsmandens konklusion var derfor,at Kommissionen ikke havde oprettetsupplerende forsikringsordninger for sine lokale medarbejdere ved delegationen (fra 1.januar 1995:repræsentationen) i Østrig i overensstemmelse med de særlige ansættelses-vilkår,og at dette udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
1January 1995:representation) in Austria,in conformity with the Specific Conditions,and that this constituted an instance of maladministration.
2.1På baggrund af sine undersøgelser fremsatte Ombudsmanden et forslag til henstilling,hvori han foreslog,at Kommissionen skulle gøre sit yderste for at oprette de relevanteforsikringsordninger med tilbagevirkende kraft.
2.1On the basis of his inquiries,the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation in whichhe suggested that the Commission should do its utmost to set up the relevant insuranceschemes and make them applicable with retroactive effect.
Kommissionen oplyste i sin detaljeredeudtalelse Ombudsmanden om,at den havde besluttet at indgå en aftale om en supplerendeforsikringspolice for midlertidig uarbejdsdygtighed med selskabet Merkur,og at denneaftale derefter var indgået.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to conclude a contractproviding for a supplementary insurance policy for temporary incapacity to work with the Merkur company,and that this contract had consequently been concluded.
Kommissionen meddelte desuden Ombudsmanden,at supplerende forsikringspolicer vedrørende invaliditet,død og pension ville blive oprettet,og atdisse forsikringspolicer ville få tilbagevirkende kraft fra 1. januar 1995.
The Commission further informed the Ombudsman that supplementary insurance policiesregarding invalidity,death and retirement were to be set up,and that these insurance policies were have retroactive effect as from 1 January 1995.
2.2Ombudsmanden mener,at Kommissionen således har accepteret hans forslag tilhenstilling,og at de foranstaltninger,som Kommissionen har truffet eller agter at træffe,synes at være tilfredsstillende.
2.2The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has thus accepted his draft recommendation and that the measures taken or to be taken by the Commission appear to besatisfactory.
Selv om forsikringspolicerne vedrørende invaliditet,død ogpension (samt muligvis også den supplerende forsikringspolice for midlertidig uarbejdsdygtighed) endnu ikke var på plads i slutningen af marts 2001,da klagerne indsendte deresbemærkninger til Kommissionens detaljerede udtalelse,har Ombudsmanden ingen grundtil at tro,at disse forsikringspolicer ikke bliver oprettet inden for meget kort tid.Ombudsmanden mener derfor,at det er berettiget at afslutte behandlingen af sagen.
Whilst it appeared that the insurance policies regarding invalidity,death andretirement (and possibly also the supplementary insurance policy for temporary incapacityto work) were not yet in place in late March 2001 when the complainants submitted observations on the Commission’s detailed opinion,the Ombudsman has no reason to assumethat these insurance policies would not be set up in the very near future. The Ombudsmanthus considers that it is justified to close the case.
Hanfremhæver imidlertid,at klagerne er velkomne til at forny deres klage, hvis Kommissionen, i modsætning til Ombudsmandens opfattelse,ikke opretter de relevanteforsikringspolicer inden for kort tid.
He stresses,however,that thecomplainants are free to renew their complaint if contrary to the Ombudsman’s belief the Commission should fail to set up the relevant insurance schemes in the very near future.
2.3Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen af sagen.
2.3The Ombudsman thus closes the case.