natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
51 hvorvidt alt det pågældende arbejde rent faktisk var udført i forbindelse med det strategiske forvaltningsprogram under Phare.
51 the implementation of the PHARE programme,concluded in a letter to the complainantdated 27 January 2000 that the Commission was not in a position to judge whether all thework in dispute was actually related to the PHARE strategic management programme.
I sit svar til Kommissionen i februar 2000 gjorde klageren gældende,at nogle af de doku-menter,der var udarbejdet på baggrund af projektet,beviste,at hans timeseddel fra marts1998 var i overensstemmelse med Phares mission og mål.
In February 2000,the complainant replied to the Commission,alleging that some of thedocuments produced as a result of the project proved that his March 1998 timesheet wasfully in line with PHARE’s mission and objectives.
Kommissionen fremsendte ikkeyderligere svar.
There was no further reply from the Commission.
Klageren mente,at Kommissionens holdning underminerede hans forsøgpå at rejse krav over for konsortiet.
The complainant considered that the Commission’s position undermined hisattempts to seek redress from the consortium.
Klageren gav i sin klage til Ombudsmanden udtryk for,at Kommissionen skulle havegrebet ind med henblik på at sikre,at de timesedler,som konsortiet indsendte,ikke indeholdt falske oplysninger.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman,the complainant considered that the Commissionshould have intervened in the situation,in order to ensure that the timesheets submitted bythe consortium contained no false statements.
Han påpegede,at hans henvendelser til konsortiet ikke blevimødekommet.
He pointed out that his approaches to theconsortium had failed.
Klageren anmodede også Kommissionen om formelt at anerkende,at detarbejde,der var anført i hans timeseddel for marts 1998,stemte overens med Phareprogrammets mål. De aktiviteter,han endnu ikke var blevet betalt for,omfattede planlægning og organisering af en mission i 1998 på anmodning fra projektledelsen samtudarbejdelse af et programdokument.
The complainant also asked the Commission to formally acknowledge that the work mentioned in his March 1998 timesheet was related to the aims of the PHARE programme.The activities,for which he had not been paid yet,consisted in theplanning and organisation of a mission in 1998,as requested by the project management;as well as the production of a programme document.
Eftersom hans påstande om korruption i Phares øverste ledelse åbenbart ikke var blevettaget i betragtning,ønskede han også at få oplyst,hvorfor Kommissionen ikke havdereageret på hans forslag om at indføre antikorruptionsbestemmelser i fremtidigekontrakter,samt hvorfor den genudnævnte PMU-direktøren på trods af anklager omulovlig bestikkelse.
Since his claims of corruption of PHARE senior management had apparently been disre-garded,he also wished to know why the Commission,first,did not act upon his proposalto introduce anti-corruption clauses into future contracts; and secondly,reconfirmed the PMU Director despite allegations of illegal bribing.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden fremlagde klageren i det væsentlige følgende klagepunkter:(i) han var ikke blevet betalt for en del af sit arbejde,og (ii) hans påstande om svindel iforbindelse med forvaltningen af projektet var ikke blevet tilstrækkeligt undersøgt af Kommissionen.
In summary,the complainant made the following allegations in his complaint to the Ombudsman: (i) part of his work for this project has not been paid,and (ii) his claims offraud to the Commission concerning the management of the project had not been properlyinvestigated by the institution.
Kommissionen gav først en generel beskrivelse af situationen og henviste derefter tilklagerens specifikke anbringender.
The Commission first offered a general overview of the situation,and then referred to thespecific allegations made by the complainant.
Institutionen forklarede,at klageren arbejdede som konsulent i et konsortium,som ydedeteknisk bistand til et Phare-projekt.
The institution explained that the complainant worked as a consultant in a consortium,which provided technical assistance for a PHARE project.
Kontrakten var indgået mellem regeringen i det pågældende land og et konsortium bestående af flere organisationer.
The contract had been established between:the Government of the assisted country and a consortium of several organisations.
Efter beskyldninger om svindel og dårlig forvaltning mod programmets PMU,som blevfremsat af både klageren og af J.,en tidligere gruppeleder,besluttede Kommissionen idecember 1998 at indstille programmet og bestille en uafhængig revision for at tage stilling til beskyldningerne.
Following allegations of fraud and mismanagement against the programme’s PMU madeby both the complainant,and also by Mr. J.,a former Team Leader,the Commissiondecided in December 1998 to suspend the programme,and to order an independent auditto assess the allegations.
Revisionen blev udført af et uafhængigt revisionsfirma,og resultatet forelå i slutningen afoktober 1999.
An independent accountancy firm carried out the audit,the results of which became available at the end of October 1999.
Den konkluderede,at de fleste af beskyldningerne,herunder alle debeskyldninger,der drejede sig om svindel,var ubegrundede.
It concluded that most of the allegations,and all of thoserelated to fraud,had no grounds.
Revisorerne fremlagde nogleforvaltningsmæssige og finansielle anbefalinger,som PMU og kontrahenten indvilligede iat gennemføre.
Some management and financial recommendations weremade,which the PMU and the contractor agreed to implement.
Efter denne proces og i lyset af resultaterne blev programaktiviteternegenoptaget.
At the end of this processand in the light of its results,the programme activities were resumed.
Et uafhængigt konsortium,som vurderer Den Europæiske Unions Phare-programmer,udarbejdede i marts 2000 en bedømmelsesrapport om programmet.
In March 2000,an independent consortium,which assesses European Union PHAREprogrammes,prepared an annual assessment report on the programme.
For så vidt angårbedømmelsen af,hvorvidt programmets mål er blevet nået,vurderedes dette i rapportensom værende “yderst tilfredsstillende”.
As regards theoverall achievement rating of the programme objectives,the assessment considered it“highly satisfactory”.
Klagerens individuelle beskyldninger var blevet vurderet særskilt i revisionen.
The individual allegations made by the complainant had been specifically considered inthe audit.
For så vidtangår de aktiviteter,som klageren havde angivet i sin timeseddel for marts 1998,konklu-derede revisionen,at disse faldt uden for Phares direkte virkeområde.Kommissionenforklarede imidlertid,at disse aktiviteter var forskellige fra klagerens forberedende arbejdevedrørende den strategiske forvaltningsmission,som tværtimod var en aktivitet under Phare-programmet.
As for the activities the complainant had reflected in his March 1998 timesheet,the audit concluded that they fell outside the direct scope of PHARE. The Commissionexplained,however,that these activities were different from the complainant’s preparatorywork related to the strategic management mission which,on the contrary,was an activitypart of the PHARE programme.
For så vidt angår klagerens beskyldninger om bestikkelse og svindel,var de ifølge rapporten ubegrundede.
As regards the complainant’s allegations of bribes andfraud,the report considered that they were unfounded.
Kommissionen henviste også til nogle af revisionens konklusioner,der omhandledeopgaver,som klageren havde udført uden for kontrakt.
The Commission also referred to some of the findings included in the audit and whichrelated to tasks undertaken by the complainant without a contract.
På baggrund af disse konklusionerskulle forholdet med konsortiet revurderes.
On the basis of thesefindings,his relationship with the consortium had to be redefined.
Selv om konsortiet havde indvilliget i at indgåen midlertidig kontrakt med klageren,besluttede PMU ikke at opretholde sine relationermed klageren.
Although the consortium had agreed to have him on a temporary contract,PMU decided not to continue itslinks with the complainant.
Klagerens specifikke anbringender
Specific allegations made by the complainant
For så vidt angår klagerens første anbringende vedrørende den anfægtede timeseddel,fremhævede Kommissionen,at striden var opstået mellem en konsulent og en kontrahentinden for rammerne af et Phare-program,og Kommissionen kunne ikke gribe ind isådanne kontraktmæssige tvister.
As regards the first allegation made by the complainant concerning the disputed timesheet,the Commission underlined that the controversy had arisen between a consultant and acontractor in the framework of a PHARE programme,and the Commission could notinterfere in such contractual disputes.
Institutionen forklarede,at den timeseddel,som klagerenhavde udarbejdet for perioden marts-april 1998,indeholdt to grundlæggende aktiviteter:(i) forberedende arbejde,som var udført for en strategisk forvaltningsmission,og (ii) andreopgaver i forbindelse med workshops og et seminar.
The institution explained that the timesheet preparedby the complainant for the period March-April 1998 described two basic activities:(i)preparatory work carried out for a strategic management mission,and (ii) other tasksrelated to workshops and a seminar.
Kommissionen havde på klagerensanmodning i en skrivelse af 27. januar 2000 bekræftet,at den strategiske forvaltningsmission rent faktisk var en aktivitet,som blev finansieret af Phare.
As requested by the complainant,the Commission hadconfirmed by letter of 27 January 2000 that the strategic management mission,was in factan activity funded by PHARE.
Kommissionen forklarede,at konsortiet havde informeret den om,at der eksisterede enintern underleverandørkontrakt,der gjaldt for medlemmerne af konsortiet,og som indeholdt en bestemmelse om,at det kun var udgifter til selve afholdelsen af kurser,der villeblive dækket,dvs. forberedende arbejde var ikke inkluderet.
The Commission explained that it had been informed by the consortium that there was aninternal sub-contracting agreement governing the consortium members whereby only thedelivery of the courses would be paid,thus excluding preparatory work.
På baggrund af disse forklaringer havde Kommissionen konkluderet,at konsortiets afvisning af at betale for forberedende arbejde udgjorde en kontraktmæssig tvist internt mellem medlemmerne afkonsortiet,som institutionen ikke kunne gribe ind i.
On the basis ofthese explanations,the Commission had concluded that the refusal by the consortium topay preparatory tasks constituted a contractual dispute internal to the members of theconsortium,in which the institution had no role to play.
Kommissionen påpegede,at ansvaret for udbetalinger i forbindelse med dette Phareprogram hvilede på de nationale myndigheder,og ikke på Europa-Kommissionen.Kommissionens tjenestegrene udbad sig imidlertid supplerende oplysninger omtimesedlen med henblik på at sikre,at den kun indeholdt aktiviteter,der var relateret til Phare, og at der var overensstemmelse mellem de timesedler,der var indsendt af deforskellige konsulenter.
The Commission pointed out that responsibility for payments under this PHAREprogramme rested with the national authorities,not with the European Commission. Itsservices,however,requested further information on the timesheet issue,to ensure that onlyactivities pertaining to PHARE had been submitted,and that some coherence was maintained among the timesheets submitted by the different consultants.
For så vidt angår beskyldningerne om svindel,forklarede Kommissionen først,at klagerens skrivelse af marts 1999,i hvilken han anbefalede,at man indførte antikorruptionsbestemmelser i nye Phare-kontrakter,var blevet fremsendt til de tjenestegrene,der eransvarlige for den økonomiske forvaltning af Phare (SCR).
As for the allegations of fraud,the Commission explained first,that following thecomplainant’s letter of March 1999 recommending the inclusion of anti-corruption clausesin new PHARE contracts,the suggestion had been brought to the attention of the servicesresponsible for PHARE financial management (SCR).
Institutionen forklarededesuden,at den havde til hensigt at vedtage nye regler om kontraktprocedurer i forbindelsemed en ny manual til det decentraliserede system til forvaltning af Phare (“Decentralised Implementation System”) og indføre en etisk klausul i fremtidige kontrakter.
Moreover,the institution explainedthat it intended to enact new rules on contract procedures as part of a new manual for a“Decentralised Implementation System”,and to introduce an ethics clause in the futurecontracts.
I lyset af resultaterne fra revisionen,som konkluderede,at beskyldningerne mod PMU varubegrundede,blev programaktiviteterne genoptaget under den samme PMU-forvaltning.Kommissionen påpegede,at PMU’er er en integreret del af de nationale myndigheder,ogat Kommissionen ikke har bemyndigelse til at udpege eller genudnævne nationale tjenestemænd.
In the light of the findings of the audit,which concluded that the allegations against the PMU were unfounded,the programme activities were resumed under the same PMUmanagement. The Commission pointed out that PMUs are an integral part of the nationaladministration and the Commission has no role in appointing or reconfirming nationalofficials.
Klageren fremhævede,at spørgsmålet om manglende betaling for forberedende arbejde,som Kommissionen havde påpeget,skulle løses af kontrahenten og konsulenten.
The complainant stressed that,as pointed out by the Commission,the question of nonpayment for preparatory work was an issue to be settled between contractor andconsultant.
Han insisterede imidlertid på,at institutionen skulle have vidst,hvilke opgaver der skulle udføresinden for rammerne af Phare-programmet,og dermed,hvorvidt de fremsendte timesedlervar en korrekt angivelse af det faktiske Phare-arbejde,eller om de var blevet uretmæssigtændret.
However,he insisted on the fact that the institution should have known of thetasks to be performed in the context of the PHARE programme,and thus whethertimesheets submitted reflected actual PHARE work,or had been unduly altered.
Han forklarede,at arbejdsprocedurerne altid havde lignet hinanden,og at detforberedende arbejde var en integreret del af disse procedurer.
Heexplained that the work pattern had always been similar and that preparatory work was anintegral part of it.
For så vidt angår spørgsmålet om svindel,angav klageren,at det ville glæde ham, hvis Kommissionen ville indføre antikorruptionsbestemmelser i fremtidige kontrakter,hvilketville have en afskrækkende virkning på ulovlige metoder.
As regards the question of fraud,he indicated that the Commission’s readiness to includeanti-fraud clauses in future contracts was to be welcomed,as an effective deterrent toillegal practices.
Han fastholdt imidlertid sinepåstande om svindel i PMU-forvaltningen og mente,at den revision,som blev anvendt tilat afvise hans beskyldninger,var en ren hvidvaskning.
However,he insisted on his claims of fraud against PMU management,considering that the audit,which had been used to set aside his allegations,amounted to awhitewash.
Efter hans mening havde revisorenvalgt at godtage PMU’s udlægning uden at undersøge de relevante projektdokumenter oguden at anmode ham om supplerende oplysninger.
In his view,the auditor had chosen to accept the story put forward by the PMUwithout examining the relevant project documents,and without seeking additional information from him.
Han konkluderede,at den kendsger-ning,at to separate eksperter,dvs. ham selv og J. (tidligere gruppeleder),havde indgivetuafhængige klager,burde have understøttet deres beskyldninger om upassende adfærd.
He concluded that the fact that two separate experts,himself and Mr J,former Team Leader,had submitted independent complaints should have added weight totheir allegations of improper behaviour.
Anerkendelse af og betaling for dele af klagerens arbejde
Acknowledgement and payment of part of the complainant’s work
1.1Klageren havde gjort gældende,at en Phare-kontrahent (konsortiet) ikke havde betaltfor dele af det Phare-arbejde,der var anført i hans timeseddel for marts 1998.
1.1The complainant had alleged that a PHARE contractor (the consortium),did not payfor part of the PHARE-related work included in his March 1998 timesheet.
Eftersomhans henvendelser til kontrahenten ikke blev imødekommet,mente han,at Kommissionenburde have grebet ind med henblik på at sikre,at de timesedler,som kontrahentenindsendte,ikke indeholdt falske oplysninger.
Since hisapproaches to the contractor had failed,he argued that the Commission should have intervened in order to ensure that the timesheets submitted by the contractor contained no falsestatements.
Klageren anmodede også Kommissionen omformelt at anerkende,at det arbejde,der var anført i hans timeseddel,stemte overens med Phareprogrammets mål.
He also asked the Commission to formally acknowledge that the workmentioned in the timesheet was related to the aims of the PHARE programme.
1.2.Kommissionen havde fremhævet,at problemet udgjorde en kontraktmæssig tvistmellem en Phare-kontrahent og en af dennes konsulenter,og at Kommissionen ikke kunnegribe ind i en sådan situation.
1.2The Commission had underlined that the problem constituted a contractual disputebetween a PHAREcontractor and one of its consultants,and that the institution did nothave any role to play in this type of situation.
Betalingen for det pågældende arbejde var efter Kommissionens mening et internt problem,som skulle løses af medlemmerne af detkonsortium,der fungerede som kontrahent for Phare-programmet. Den påpegede,atansvaret for betalinger under denne decentraliserede kontrakt påhvilede de nationalemyndigheder.
Payment for the disputed work was,in theview of the Commission,an internal issue to be solved among the members of the consortium which acted as a contractor for the PHARE programme.
Institutionen forklarede endvidere,at i et svar af januar 2000 på en forespørgsel fraklageren havde dens tjenestegrene bekræftet,at nogle af de anfægtede aktiviteter,nemligden strategiske forvaltningsmission,rent faktisk var en aktivitet,som blev finansieretunder Phare.
Furthermore,the institution explained that in reply of January 2000 to a query from thecomplainant,its services had confirmed that some of the activities in dispute,namely thestrategic management mission,were in fact an activity funded by PHARE.
1.3Med henblik på at vurdere,om Kommissionen var forpligtet til at gribe ind for atsikre,at programmets timesedler ikke indeholdt falske oplysninger,er det nødvendigt attage stilling til institutionens beføjelser og forpligtelser inden for rammerne af en kontrakt,som finansieres gennem Phare-programmet.
1.3In order to determine first whether the Commission was under a duty to intervene toensure that the programme’s timesheets contained no false statements,it is necessary toconsider the scope of the institution’s powers and obligations in the context of a contractfunded through the PHARE programme.
Denne økonomiske bistand finansieres af Fællesskabets almindelige budget i overensstemmelse med Fællesskabetsfinansieringsforordning som ændret især ved forordning nr. 610/9011.
Regulation,as amended,in particular,by Regulation 610/9011. As set out in its Arts.
Ifølge artikel 107,108,stk. 2,og 109,stk. 2,som fortolket af Fællesskabets domstole,må kontrakter,somfinansieres af Phare-programmet,anses for nationale kontrakter,der udelukkende bindermodtagerstaten og den pågældende erhvervsdrivende.
107,108 §2 and 109 § 2,as interpreted by the Community courts,contracts financed by the PHARE programme must be regarded as national contracts,which are binding only on thebeneficiary country and the economic operator.
På den anden side er Kommissionenansvarlig for finansiering af projekterne og skal derfor sikre en økonomisk styring af demidler,der er bestemt til Phare-projekter12.
The Commission,on the other hand,isresponsible for the funding of the projects,and has therefore to ensure that the resourcesdevoted to PHARE projects are economically managed12.
1.5Den situation,som klageren klager over,har sit udspring i en strid inden forrammerne af en arbejdsrelation mellem en Phare-kontrahent og dennes konsulent ellerunderleverandør.
1.5The situation denounced by the complainant arose from a dispute in the frameworkof a work relation between a PHARE contractor and his consultant or subcontractor.
Det er ikke sandsynligt,at denne type situationer ifølge deres naturpåvirker den overordnede finansiering af Phare-programmet eller den økonomiske forvaltning af Phare-relaterede foranstaltninger,og derfor kan de sjældent give anledning til, at Kommissionen griber ind.
Thistype of situations,by their own nature,are not likely to affect the general funding of the PHARE programme or the economic management of PHARE related measures,and therefore can seldom trigger the Commission’s intervention.
Eftersom forbindelserne mellem Phare-kontrahenten,konsortiet og klageren blev etableretpå baggrund af en gensidig kontrakt,skal alle tvister om parternes rettigheder og forpligtelser vurderes på grundlag af de aftaleretlige regler.
As the relationship between the PHARE contractor,the consortium,and the complainantwas set up on the basis of a mutually agreed contract,any dispute on the rights and obligations of the parties should be determined on the basis of contractual rules.
1.6Klageren mente,at Kommissionen på trods af tvistens aftaleretlige beskaffenhedskulle have grebet ind.
1.6The complainant believed that,despite the contractual nature of the dispute, the Commission should have intervened.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet tilat mægle i en kontraktmæssig tvist mellem partnerne i en Phare-relateret kontrakt.
The Ombudsman noted that there is no obligation forthe Commission to mediate in a contractual dispute among partners in a PHARE-relatedcontract.
Ikkedesto mindre havde Kommissionen grebet ind ved at anmode kontrahenten om supplerende oplysninger.
Nevertheless,the Commission had intervened by requesting additional information from the contractor.
Grunden til dette blev forklaret med behovet for at sikre,at timesedlenkun indeholdt aktiviteter,der var relateret til Phare,og at der var overensstemmelsemellem de timesedler,der var indsendt af de forskellige konsulenter.
The basis for this action was explained on the need to ensure thatonly activities pertaining to PHARE had been included and that some coherence wasmaintained among the timesheets submitted by the different consultants.
Efter at havegennemset dette materiale syntes Kommissionen ikke at have fundet noget,der kunne giveanledning til tvivl om indholdet.
Having reviewedthese materials,the Commission did not seem to identify any element,which could havequestioned their contents.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at med henblik på at fastlægge sin holdning vurderede Kommissionen konklusionerne fra en revision,som varblevet gennemført af et uafhængigt revisionsfirma,som var nået til et lignende resultat.
The Ombudsman noted that,in order to establish its position,the Commission took stock of the findings made in the audit carried out by an independentaccountancy firm,which reached a similar conclusion.
1.7Klageren anmodede også Kommissionen om formelt at anerkende,at det arbejde,dervar anført i hans timeseddel for marts 1998,stemte overens med Phareprogrammets mål.
1.7The complainant also requested that the Commission formally acknowledge that thetasks included in his March 1998 timesheet were related to the aims of the PHAREprogramme.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at Kommissionen på anmodning fra klageren med en skrivelse fra sine tjenestegrene af januar 2000 bekræftede,at nogle af de aktiviteter,som varangivet i klagerens timeseddel,rent faktisk var aktiviteter,der var finansieret af Phare.
The Ombudsman noted that following the request from the complainant,the Commissionconfirmed by letter of its services of January 2000 that some of the activities referred toin the complainant’s timesheet were in fact activities funded by PHARE.