natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne ansøgning blev afvist, og Kommissionens håndtering af sagen gav anledning til en klage indgivet af klageren i 2001 (sag 1702/2001/GG).
This application was rejected and the Commission’s handling of the case gave rise to a first complaint submimed by the complainant in 2001 (case 1702/2001/GG).
Ombudsmanden fremsatte i sin afgørelse om klagen flere kritiske bemærkninger.
In his decision on this complaint, the Ombudsman made several critical remarks.
I sin udtalelse om klage 1702/2001/GG havde Kommissionen henvist til sin korrespondance med det tyske udenrigsministerium.
In its opinion in case 1702/2001/GG, the Commission had referred to its correspondence with the German Foreign OU ce.
Den havde anført, at udenrigsministeriet, da det blev bedt om at fremsende oplysninger om klagerens egnethed, havde svaret, at der var en e W erforskning af klageren i gang, og at den derfor ikke kunne give nogen anbefaling.
It had stated that the Foreign OUce, when requested to provide information on the complainant’s suitability, had forwarded a reply stating that an investigation was under way against the complainant and that it was therefore unable to give recommendations.
En ECHO-medarbejder havde senere i et internt notat anført, at de tyske myndigheder ikke havde kunnet give nogen anbefaling, da de ikke arbejdede med klageren og derfor ikke kendte den.
In a later internal note, a member of the ECHO staT had put on record that the German authorities had been unable to give any reference because they did not work with the complainant and therefore did not know it.
Kommissionen havde tilføjet, at de tyske myndigheder ikke havde givet flere oplysninger om klageren på trods af adskillige kontakter mellem ECHO og det tyske udenrigsministerium med henblik på at få verificeret tyske ngo’er.
The Commission had added that, despite continuous contacts between ECHO and the German Foreign OU ce in the context of verification of German NGOs, no further information concerning the complainant had been provided by the German authorities.
I den nye klage, som klageren indgav i september 2004, henviste den til de oplysninger, den havde modtaget fra det tyske udenrigsministerium.
In its new complaint, lodged in September 2004, the complainant referred to information it had received from the German Foreign OU ce.
Ifølge disse oplysninger havde udenrigsministeriet ikke følt sig forpligtet til at give ECHO flere oplysninger, og ECHO havde aldrig spurgt det om status for den sag, det havde henvist til.
According to this information, the Foreign OU ce had not felt obliged to provide ECHO with further information and ECHO had never asked it about the
Ombudsmanden konkluderede derfor, at Kommissionens udtalelse om, at de tyske myndigheder ikke var fremkommet med yderligere oplysninger på trods af adskillige kontakter, var vildledende.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE at udtalelsen var en bevidst løgn.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY state of the proceedings to which it had referred.
Der blev ikke konstateret noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til klagerens andre anbringender.
Concerning the complainant’s further allegations no maladministration was found.
HÅNDTERING AF EN KLAGE OVER EN PRIVAT VIRKSOMHED
HANDLING OF COMPLAINT AGAINST PRIVATE FIRM
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3622/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3622/2004/GG against the European Commission
En tysk statsborger, der var bosiddende i Frankrig, brugte den franske telekommunikationsvirksomhed Tele 2. Han ønskede at betale sine regninger via betalingsservice fra sin tyske bankkonto.
A German national living in France used the French telecommunications company Tele 2.
Tele 2 nægtede imidlertid at give ham de oplysninger, der var nødvendige til sådanne transaktioner, dvs. IBAN-nummer (International Bank Account Number) og BIC-kode (Bank Identifier Code).
However, Tele 2 refused to provide him with the information necessary to carry out such transactions, i.e., its IBAN (International Bank Account Number) and its BIC (Bank Identifier Code).
Klageren indgav en klage over Tele 2 til Kommissionen, idet han fandt, at Tele 2 havde overtrådt EU-lovgivningen om det indre marked.
Considering that the behaviour of Tele 2 constituted an infringement of EU rules on the internal market, the complainant submimed a complaint against Tele 2 to the Commission.
Klageren gjorde i sin klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at behandle hans klage korrekt.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to handle his complaint properly.
Hvad angår sagens realitet, anførte Kommissionen, at Tele 2 ikke havde overtrådt den relevante forordning, da der ikke var nogen bestemmelser i forordningen, som forpligtede en virksomhed til at acceptere et særligt betalingsinstrument.
As regards the substance of the case, the Commission submimed that there had been no breach of the relevant regulation by Tele 2, because nothing in the regulation obliged a company to accept a specific payment instrument.
Den indeholdt kun bestemmelser om princippet om ikke-forskelsbehandling mellem nationale og grænseoverskridende betalingsinstrumenter.
It only laid down a principle of nondiscrimination between national and cross-border payment instruments.
EWersom Tele 2 ikke fakturerede på tværs af grænser, var den beremiget til at nægte at udlevere sine internationale bankoplysninger til klageren.
Since Tele 2 was not invoicing on a cross-border basis, it was entitled to refuse to give its international banking coordinates to the complainant.
Kommissionen anførte, at det i øjeblikket ikke var muligt at anvende betalingsservice på tværs af EU’s grænser.
The Commission stated that, at present, direct debit did not exist in the EU on a cross-border basis.
Den tilføjede, at den arbejdede på opremelse af et fælles betalingsområde, herunder en tværeuropæisk betalingsserviceordning, i hvilken forbindelse den agtede at foreslå et direktiv i 2005.
It added that it was currently working on the creation of a single payment area, including a pan-European direct debit scheme, to which eT ect it intended to propose a directive in 2005.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens konklusion om, at Tele 2 ikke havde overtrådt fællesskabslovgivningen, var rimelig.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s conclusion that there was no infringement of Community law by Tele 2 was reasonable.
Han fandt det beklageligt, at det ikke syntes at være muligt at anvende betalingsservice i EU på tværs af grænser, men bemærkede, at Kommissionen havde meddelt, at den ville tage skridt til at a[jælpe denne situation i den nærmeste fremtid.
He found it regremable that direct debit did not appear to exist in the EU on a cross-border basis but noted that the Commission had announced steps to amend this situation in the near future.
Hvad angår de proceduremæssige aspekter, fandt Ombudsmanden imidlertid, at der ikke var noget, der tydede på, at de proceduremæssige sikkerhedsforanstaltninger med hensyn til behandlingen af overtrædelsesklager var blevet respekteret i denne sag.
However, as regards procedural aspects, the Ombudsman found that there was nothing to suggest that the procedural safeguards as regards the handling of infringement complaints had been respected in the present case.
Ifølge Kommissionens meddelelse fra 2002 til Europa-Parlamentet og Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsremen23 behøver henvendelser, som kritiserer private virksomheders adfærd, ikke at blive registreret som en klage, men hvis Kommissionen beslumer ikke at registrere en henvendelse som en klage, skal den meddele afsenderen deme.
The Commission’s 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE mangeårig administrativ praksis at udelukke overskudsgivende enheder fra sådanne programmer.
The complainant was informed by the Commission that his group would not fulfil the eligibility criteria of an EU programme aimed at disseminating information to the general public about EU enlargement, because it was a long-standing administrative practice to exclude profit-making entities from such programmes.
Klageren gjorde i sin klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at Kommissionens praksis var forkert.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission’s practice was wrong.
Kommissionen forklarede, at udelukkelsen af overskudsgivende enheder ikke havde været et spørgsmål om »administrativ praksis«, men var baseret på en række specifikke faktorer.
The Commission explained that the exclusion of profit-making entities had not been a question of “administrative practice” but was based on a number of specific considerations.
For det første må EU’s økonomiske støme ikke give modtagerne et overskud.
Firstly, EU fi financial aid may not result in profit by its recipients.
Kommissionen fandt, at risikoen for et overskud var større for private overskudsgivende enheder end for civilsamfundsaktører, som ifølge Kommissionen ikke omfamede overskudsgivende enheder.
The Commission considered that the risk of profit was greater in the case of private profit-making entities than in the case of civil society actors, which the Commission considered not to include profit-making entities.
For det andet giver civilsamfundet en m u lt i pl i k at o reT ekt, som blev vurderet at være nymig for det pågældende program.
Secondly, civil society oT ers a multiplier eTect, which was considered useful for the programme here concerned.
For det tredje er information om EU’s udvidelse fra civilsamfundsaktører, som arbejder for den oTentlige interesse, mere troværdig for borgerne end information fra overskudsgivende enheder.
Thirdly, information on EU enlargement distributed by civil society actors that work in the public interest is more credible for citizens than information distributed by profit-making entities.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at EU’s institutioner har vide skønsbeføjelser i fastlæggelsen af udvælgelseskriterier og andre betingelser for indkaldelser af forslag.
The Ombudsman noted that EU institutions enjoy a wide discretion in laying down selection criteria and other conditions in calls for proposals.
Ombudsmanden kunne imidlertid undersøge, hvorvidt institutionerne har handlet inden for rammerne af disse skønsbeføjelser.
The Ombudsman could, however, examine whether the institutions have acted within the limits of that discretion.
Hvad angår Kommissionens første betragtning om, at der ville være risiko for, at overskudsgivende enheder tjente på EU-stømen, påpegede Ombudsmanden først, at det var beremiget af Kommissionen at beslume, at programmet ikke skulle give modtagerne af EU-midler overskud.
With regard to the Commission’s first consideration that there would be a greater risk of profit being made in the case of profit-making entities, the Ombudsman first pointed out that it was legitimate for the Commission to decide that the programme should not result in profit by the recipients of the EU funds.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede imidlertid, at dem e mål antageligt også kunne opfyldes ved at indføje en udtrykkelig betingelse i de pågældende tilskud s a W aler.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that this aim could presumably also have been amained by way of an express condition in the grant agreements concerned.
Kommissionens bekymring syntes derfor at være baseret på den antagelse, at overskudsgivende enheder ville være mindre tilbøjelige til at overholde betingelserne i tilskud s a W alen end civilsamfundsaktørerne.
The Commission’s concern therefore seemed to be based on the presumption that profit-making entities would be less likely to respect the conditions of the grant agreement than civil society actors.
Ombudsmanden tvivlede på, om en sådan antagelse faktisk var beremiget.
The Ombudsman expressed doubts as to whether such a presumption would in fact be justified.
I lyset af Ombudsmandens konklusioner vedrørende den anden og den tredje betragtning fandt han det ikke nødvendigt at undersøge dem e aspekt nærmere.
However, in the light of the finding relating to the second and third considerations, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to inquire further into that issue.
Hvad angår Kommissionens anden og tredje betragtning, drejede disse sig i det væsentlige om de fordele, der kunne være ved at fokusere programmet på civilsamfundsaktører, som arbejder i den oTentlige interesse. Det fremgik, at det ikke var urimeligt for Kommissionen at mene, at disse fordele bedst kunne opnås ved at fokusere på civilsamfundsaktører.
With regard to the second and third considerations set out by the Commission, these essentially concerned the advantages likely to be derived from focussing the programme on civil society actors working in the public interest.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at klageren derfor ikke havde påvist, at Kommissionen havde handlet uden for rammerne af sine skønsbeføjelser, da den beslumede at udelukke overskudsgivende enheder fra den pågældende indkaldelse af forslag.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the complainant had therefore not established that the Commission had acted beyond the boundaries of its discretionary powers when it decided to exclude profit-making entities from the relevant call for proposals.
Ombudsmanden fremsame endvidere en kritisk bemærkning om Kommissionens undladelse af at b e k r æ W e modtagelsen af klagerens og de andre ansøgeres forslag i forbindelse med indkaldelsen af forslag.
The Ombudsman also made a critical remark concerning the Commission’s failure to acknowledge receipt of the proposals sent by the complainant and the other applicants in response to the call for proposals.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE som nødvendig til gennemførelse af undersøgelser«, ligesom det blev fastlagt, at »[t]jenestemanden underremes herom på behørig vis«.
It furthermore defined “reasonable period” as “the period which the OU ce or the Commission, as the case may be, has indicated as being necessary to carry out the investigations” and provided that “[t]he oU cial or servant shall be duly informed”.
OLAF gjorde i det væsentlige gældende, at det ikke var denne bestemmelse, det drejede sig om, da klageren ikke havde hævdet, at han var blevet s t r aT et for at have fremlagt oplysningerne uden for Kommissionen og OLAF.
OLAF essentially argued that this provision was not at issue, because the complainant had not alleged that he had s u T ered any adverse consequences from having disclosed the information outside the Commission or OLAF.
Det anførte endvidere, at selv om bestemmelsen havde fundet anvendelse, var den blevet overholdt fuldt ud i denne sag, e W ersom klageren aldrig havde angivet, at han mente, at der var givet en rimelig tidsfrist.
It also stated that even if the provision were applicable, it had been fully respected in this case, since the complainant had never indicated that he believed that a reasonable period had passed.
Ombudsmanden fandt: (i) at den pågældende bestemmelse havde til formål at gøre det muligt for den pågældende tjenestemand at vide, hvornår han eller hun kunne fremlægge oplysningerne uden for Kommissionen eller OLAF uden at blive s t r aT et, (ii) at bestemmelsen ikke krævede, at den pågældende tjenestemand allerede skulle være blevet s t r aT et eller have anmodet om oplysninger om den rimelige tidsfrist, og (iii) at bestemmelsen klart forpligtede OLAF til i alle tilfælde at give tjenestemanden oplysninger om den tid, som den forventede at tage om at gennemføre sin undersøgelse af en klage om anmeldelse.
The Ombudsman considered: (i) that the provision in question was intended to make it possible for the oU cial concerned to know when he or she could disclose the information outside the Commission or OLAF, without s u T ering any adverse consequences; (ii) that the provision did not require that the oU cial concerned should already have s u T ered adverse consequences or have requested the information about the reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the provision clearly imposed an obligation on OLAF to provide the oUcial, in all cases, with information as to the period of time within which it expected to conclude its investigation into a “whistle-blowing” complaint.
Idet Ombudsmanden mindede om, at den højeste myndighed i sager om betydningen og fortolkningen af fællesskabslovgivningen er Domstolen, fremsame han en kritisk bemærkning vedrørende OLAF’s behandling af sagen.
While recalling that the highest authority on the meaning and interpretation of Community law is the Court of Justice, the Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark concerning OLAF’s handling of the case.
Den ændrede tjenestemandsvedtægt (2004) indeholder specifikke bestemmelser om dem e spørgsmål (afsnit II om tjenestemænds remigheder og forpligtelser).
The amended StaT Regulations (2004) contain specific rules governing this mamer (Title II, “Rights and obligations of oUcials”). cials”).
E-MAIL-KORRESPONDANCE MED EN ANSØGER TIL ET JOB
E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A JOB
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1700/2004/MF over Den Europæiske Investeringsbank
Summary of decision on complaint 1700/2004/MF against the European Investment Bank
Klageren blev ikke udvalgt af Den Europæiske Investeringsbank (EIB) i en udvælgelsesprocedure.
The complainant was short-listed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in a selection procedure.
Den 30. maj 2002 sendte klageren en e-mail, hvori han anmodede om oplysninger om sine muligheder for at arbejde for EIB.
On 30 May 2002, the complainant sent an e-mail requesting information on the possibilities he had to begin working at the EIB.
Samme dag sendte kontorchefen for EIB’s personaleafdeling to e-mails til klageren.
On the same day, the Head of the Resources Unit of the EIB sent two e-mails to the complainant.
I den første skrev han: »Han er blevet fuldstændig sindssyg«, og bemærkede, at klageren havde sendt sin ansøgning til flere end 18 kontorchefer.
In the first, he wrote “He has gone completely mad” and noted that the complainant had sent his application to more than 18 Heads of Unit.
I den anden e-mail rådede han klageren til ikke at skrive f l flere e-mails. Han skrev der e W er følgende: »Jeg ville være taknemmelig, hvis De ville undlade sådanne handlinger, som heller ikke vil være befordrende for Deres ansøgning.«
In the second e-mail, he advised the complainant to stop writing any further e-mails.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE fortolkes som en trussel af den almindelige læser, i sit svar på klagerens anmodning om oplysninger om sin ansøgning havde overtrådt artikel 11 og 12, stk. 1, i Den Europæiske Unions kodeks for god forvaltningsskik.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, by using terms which could be understood as conveying a threat by the average reader when answering the complainant’s request for information on his application, the EIB had failed to respect Articles 11 and 12(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
EIB’S BEHANDLING AF EN BEGÆRING OM AKTINDSIGT I OPLYSNINGER
HANDLING OF A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY THE EIB
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3442/2004/PB over Den Europæiske Investeringsbank
Summary of decision on complaint 3442/2004/PB against the European Investment Bank
Klageren havde anmodet om oplysninger om lån, som Den Europæiske Investeringsbank (EIB) gennem formidlende banker havde ydet til små og mellemstore projekter om vedvarende energi.
The complainant had asked for information on loans that the European Investment Bank (EIB) had made available, through intermediary banks, for small and medium-sized renewable energy projects.
Han gjorde gældende, at EIB uretmæssigt havde givet afslag på hans anmodning.
He alleged that the EIB had wrongly rejected his request.
EIB forklarede sin politik om, at udbredelse af detaljerede oplysninger om ydelse af globallån henhører under den formidlende banks kompetence.
The EIB explained its policy that “[d]isclosure of detailed information on global loan allocations is the competence of the intermediary bank (…).
EIB udleverer på anmodning samlede oplysninger om finansiering gennem globallån, herunder opdelt e W er land og sektor.
The EIB provides, on request, aggregate data on global loan financing, including country and sector breakdowns.”
Ifølge EIB var denne praksis baseret på den betragtning, at de endelige modtageres kontraktforhold var med den formidlende bank og ikke med EIB, og at EIB ikke skulle oTentliggøre oplysninger, som var en del af det fortrolige forhold mellem den formidlende bank og den endelige modtager.
According to the EIB, this practice was based on the consideration that the fi final beneficiaries’ contractual relationship was with the intermediary bank, not with the EIB and that the EIB should not disclose information that was part of the confidential relationship between the intermediary bank and the final beneficiary.
Denne betragtning syntes at være rimelig i lyset af den relevante undtagelse i EIB’s bestemmelser om aktindsigt i dokumenter.
In light of the relevant exception in the EIB’s Rules on Public Access to Documents, this consideration appeared legitimate.
Ombudsmanden konstaterede derfor intet tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman therefore made a finding of no maladministration.
Klageren gjorde endvidere gældende, at der havde været forsinkelser i EIB’s svar på hans klage om afvisningen af at give aktindsigt i de ovenfor nævnte oplysninger.
The complainant also alleged that there had been delays in the EIB’s response to his complaint about the refusal to provide access to the information referred to above.
EIB anførte, at det i lyset af kompleksiteten af klagerens klage havde været nødvendigt at vente, indtil alle de relevante eksperter i personalet var blevet hørt.
The EIB stated that, in the light of the complexity of the complainant’s complaint, it had been necessary to wait until all the relevant expert staT could be fully consulted.
I sin vurdering af dem e anbringende påpegede Ombudsmanden, at det er god forvaltningsskik at besvare klager inden for en rimelig tid og under alle omstændigheder inden for den eventuelle tidsfrist, den pågældende institution har fastsat. I den foreliggende sag var den tidsfrist, som EIB havde fastsat i sin egen adfærdskodeks, to måneder.
In his assessment of this allegation, the Ombudsman pointed out that it is good administrative practice to respond to complaints within a reasonable period of time and in any case within the deadline, if any, laid down by the institution concerned.
Ombudsmanden var ikke blevet overbevist af EIB’s forklaring på det sene svar, fordi han ikke kunne se, hvorfor EIB mente, at de rejste spørgsmål var »komplekse« inden for rammerne af den relevante bestemmelse i dens adfærdskodeks.
The Ombudsman was unconvinced by the EIB’s explanation for its late reply, because he failed to see why the EIB considered the issues raised to have been “complex” within the meaning of the relevant provision of its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at EIB’s undladelse af at besvare klagerens klage af 9. juli 2004 inden for tidsfristen på to måneder i sin adfærdskodeks udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, og fremsame en kritisk bemærkning.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the EIB’s failure to reply to the complainant’s complaint of 9 July 2004 within the two-month deadline set out in its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour was an instance of maladministration and a critical remark was made.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
AGE LIMITS IN TRAINEESHIP PROGRAMME
I chartrets artikel 21 fastlægges det, at: »Enhver forskelsbehandling på grund af […] alder [...] er forbudt«.
Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: “Any discrimination based on any ground such as [...] age [...] shall be prohibited”.