natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren henvendte sig til to forskellige tjenestegrene i Europa-Kommissionen med anmodning om oplysninger, som han ikkemodtog, selv om han sendte to rykkerbreve.
The complainant addressed two different departments of the European Commission and asked for information which he did notreceive even though he sent two reminders.
I forbindelse med Den Europæiske Ombudsmands indsats erkendte Kommissionen, at en række administrative problemer var skyld i demanglende svar, undskyldte det og tog skridt til at løse sagen.Klageren informerede Ombudsmanden om, at han havde modtagetforsinkede, men fuldt ud tilfredsstillende svar på hans anmodningerog mange bud, som var af interesse for hans organisation.
Further to the intervention of the European Ombudsman, the Commission acknowledged that some administrative problems had
På baggrund af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denneklage fremgik det, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen ogderved havde tilfredsstillet klageren. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derforbehandlingen af sagen.
129 led to this failure to reply, apologised for it and took action to settle thematter.The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he hadreceived late but fully satisfying answers to his requests and severalcalls for tender which were of interest to his organisation.
PÅSTAND OM KOMMISSIONENS MANGLENDE BETALINGAfgørelse om klage 478/99/IPover Europa-Kommissionen
ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY BY THE COMMISSIONDecision on complaint 478/99/IP against the European Commission
I april 1999 klagede A. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over, at Europa-Kommissionens GD X ikke havde betalt 100 EUR for hans deltagelse iudbud nr. PR – AMI/96-08 i 1997.
In April 1999, Mr A.lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsmanagainst the European Commission, concerning the failure of DG X of the European Commission to provide the payment of 100 Euros for his participation in the Call for tender N°PR – AMI/96-08, in 1997.
Klageren forelagde et projekt i forbindelse med Europa-Kommissionenskampagne til fremme af euroen via udbud nr. PR – AMI/96-08. Som fastsati artikel 2.5 i udbuddet skulle alle ansøgere modtage et beløb på 100 EURfor deres deltagelse, uanset resultatet af udvælgelsesproceduren.
The complainant presented a project for the promotional campaign for the Euro launched by the European Commission through the call for tender N°PR – AMI/96-08.As established in article 2.5 of the call for tender, all applicants were to receive the sum of 100 Euros for their participation, regardless of the result of the selection procedure.
Klagen blev videresendt til Kommissionen. I sin udtalelse bekræftede institutionen, at betalingen blev endelig foretaget i juni 1999.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission.In its opinion the institution confirmed that the payment was finally made in June 1999.
Kommissionen forklarede, at den store forsinkelse dels var forårsaget af,at klageren havde overført ukorrekte bankoplysninger, dels, at klagerensbank i begyndelsen nægtede at modtage betalingen i euro.
The Commission explained that the long delay was due to both the incorrect transmission of the bank details by the complainant and the initialrefusal by the complainant’s bank to receive the payment in Euros.
Ombudsmanden anmodede klageren om at kommentere Kommissionensudtalelse.
The Ombudsman asked the complainant to comment on the opinion of the Commission.
På baggrund af klagerens oplysninger og Europa-Kommissionens udtalelse fremgik det, at sagen var blevet løst af Kommissionen til klagerensfulde tilfredshed. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen afsagen.
On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and theopinion submitted by the European Commission, it appeared that the casehad been settled by the Commission to the complainant’s full satisfaction.The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
FORSINKELSE MED HENSYN TILREFUSION AF REJSEUDGIFTERAfgørelse om klage 500/99/ADB over Europa-Kommissionen
DELAYS IN THE REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSESDecision on complaint 500/99/ADB against the European Commission
Hvad angår det forhold, at klageren gentagne gange fik at vide, at forsinkelserne var uløseligt forbundet med “systemet”, var han af den opfattelse,at dette burde ændres, og anmodede Den Europæiske Ombudsmand omat undersøge sagen.
With regard to the fact that the complainant was repeatedly told that thedelays were inherent in the “system”, he held that this should be reformedand asked the European Ombudsman to investigate the matter.
UNDERSØGELSENKommissionens udtalelse I sin udtalelse anførte Europa-Kommissionen i det væsentligste følgende:
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
Kommissionens tjenestegrene tilstræber, at rejseudgifter til eksperter, somdeltager i møder arrangeret af Kommissionen, refunderes inden for 60dage.
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary the following:
I løbet af denne periode indsamler det Generaldirektorat (GD), derarrangerer mødet, ekspertens bankoplysninger. GD IX fastsætter dernæst,hvilke beløb der skal refunderes, og anmoder om betaling, som skalanvises af GD XX og foretages af GD XIX.
The objective of the Commission’s services is to reimburse travel expensesto experts participating in meetings organised by the Commission within 60days.During this period of time, the Directorate General (DG) organisingthe meeting shall gather the expert’s bank identity.DG IX shall then fix theamounts to be reimbursed, and ask for the payment, which has to beauthorised by DG XX and carried out by DG XIX.
Kommissionen påtog sig at erstatte sit edb-baserede regnskabssystemmed et nyt system (Sincom 2) inden udgangen af 1998.
The Commission undertook to replace its computerised accounting systemwith a new one (Sincom 2) by the end of 1998.This major change, whichwas meant to accelerate the reimbursement procedure, led to some problems and delays which were finally solved in March 1999 but which may
Denne betydeligeændring, som havde til formål at fremskynde refusionsproceduren, medførte en række problemer og forsinkelser, som blev endeligt løst i marts1999, men som kan have indvirket på behandlingen af klagerens sag.Kommissionen understregede endvidere, at de forsinkelser, som klagerenvar udsat for, blev forøget som følge af, at han ikke havde forelagt de nødvendige oplysninger rettidigt.
131 have affected the dealing with the complainant’s file.Moreover, the Commission stressed that the delays suffered by the complainant wereincreased by the fact that he failed to provide essential information in duetime.
Kommissionen beklagede imidlertid ulejligheden og gav udtryk for, at denvar fast besluttet på at undgå lignende situationer.
However, the Commission regretted the inconvenience and expressed itsdetermination to avoid similar situations.
AFGØRELSENForsinkelse med hensyn til refusion af rejseudgifter
THE DECISIONThe delays in the reimbursement of travel expenses
Klageren, en ekspert, som af Kommissionen lejlighedsvis blev inviteret til at deltage i møder i Bruxelles, klagede over Kommissionen pågrund af forsinkelserne i forbindelse med refusionen af rejseudgifter.Han ønskede, at refusionssystemet blev forbedret. Kommissionenerklærede, at den arbejdede på at forbedre systemet, og at de forsinkelser, som var opstået i klagerens tilfælde, netop skyldtes de problemer, der opstod, mens et nyt system var ved at blive installeret.
The complainant, an expert who was occasionally invited by the Commission to attend meetings organised in Brussels, complainedagainst the Commission because of the delays in the reimbursementof travel expenses.He wished to see an improvement of the reimbursement system.The Commission declared that it was committedto improving the system and that the delays that had occurred in thecomplainant’s case were precisely attributable to difficulties occurredwhile a new system was being set up.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at Kommissionen forpligtede sig til atrefundere rejseudgifter inden for en periode på 60 dage, og at denundskyldte for den ulejlighed, som installeringen af et nyt og mereeffektivt regnskabssystem havde forvoldt.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission committed itself to carrying out reimbursements of travel expenses within a period of 60days and that it apologised for the inconvenience caused by the setting up of a new, more efficient, accounting system.
Klageren havde givet udtryk for sin tilfredshed med Kommissionensbestræbelser på at forbedre refusionsproceduren og oplyste Ombudsmanden om, at det specifikke tilfælde af forsinket betaling,der var nævnt i hans klage, kun var ment som et eksempel på systemets mangelfulde funktion. Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at der ikkevar behov for at undersøge sagen yderligere.
The complainant had expressed his satisfaction with the Commission’s efforts to improve its reimbursement procedure, andinformed the Ombudsman that the specific case of late payment mentioned in his complaint was only meant to be an example of the malfunctioning of the system.Therefore the Ombudsman considered thatthere was no need to investigate the matter any further.
FULD BETALING OG RENTER TILREGIONALKOORDINATONAfgørelse om klage 955/97/IJH over Europa-Kommissionen
FULL PAYMENT AND INTEREST FOR REGIONAL CO-ORDINATORDecision on complaint 955/97/IJH against the European Commission
I september 1997 indgav McGowan, medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, enklage på vegne af M. Ifølge klagen var de relevante faktiske omstændigheder følgende.
In September 1997, Mr McGowan MEP made a complaint on behalf of Mr M. According to the complaint, the relevant facts are as follows.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen skulle betale ham forskellenmellem honoraret til en koordinator og dagpengene til en langtidsansatobservatør, som han havde beregnet til 4073 GBP.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should pay him the difference between the rate of pay for a Coordinator and the daily allowances foran LTO, which he calculated as £4073.
I sin udtalelse anførte Kommissionen, at overvågningen af det palæstinensiske valg ikke vedrører en EU-aktivitet, som gennemføres under Kommissionens ansvar, men en fælles aktion vedtaget af Rådet pågrundlag af artikel J.3 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Union som led i denfælles udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the observation of the Palestinianelections does not concern an activity of the European Community conducted under the responsibility of the Commission, but a joint actionadopted by the Council on the basis of Article J 3 of the Treaty on European Union within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
AFGØRELSER til at udpege regionale koordinatorer, da en sådan udpegelse skulle haveværet foretaget af Rådet.
133 the Commission’s power to nominate regional coordinators or to fix unilaterally the financial terms of their work, nor has it done so.
Kommissionen er derfor ikke på eget initiativ istand til at imødekomme klagerens anmodning om yderligere betaling,men er rede til at henvise sagen til Rådet til afgørelse.
The Commission stated that it had no knowledge of the complainant’sarrangements with the Deputy Head of the European Electoral Unit (EEU),who is not a Commission official nor in any other way its representative.Inany case, the EEU had no power to nominate regional coordinatorsbecause such a nomination would have had to be made by the Council.The Commission is not therefore in a position to accede to the complainant’s request for additional payment at its own initiative, but would beready to refer the matter to the Council for decision.
I det væsentligste gjorde klageren i sin bemærkninger gældende, at han pådaværende tidspunkt ikke havde kendskab til de rammer for EEU’sbeføjelser, som fremgik af Kommissionens udtalelse. Stedfortræderen forlederen af EEU havde i god tro forsikret ham om, at han ville modtage etvederlag for at fungere som koordinator, og var blevet bragt i forlegenhed,da han ikke kunne efterkomme tilsagnet på tidspunktet for opgavens fuldførelse.
In summary, the complainant’s observations claimed that the limits to theauthority of the EEU explained in the Commission’s opinion were notknown to him at the time.The Deputy Head of the EEU had assured him ingood faith that he would be recompensed for acting as a Coordinator andhad been embarrassed that he was unable to fulfil the commitment by thetime the mission ended.
Den 9. september 1998 skrev Ombudsmanden til Kommissionen ogaccepterede dens forslag om at henvise klagen til Rådet samt anmodedeom oplysninger om Rådets svar inden den 31. oktober 1998. Den 15.oktober 1998 sendte Kommissionen Ombudsmanden en kopi af en skrivelse, som dens tjenestegrene havde sendt til Rådet den 14. oktober 1998,og hvori den anmodede Rådet om at behandle sagen, som det fandt detformålstjenligt, og underrette Kommissionen herom.
On 9 September 1998, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commissionaccepting its proposal to refer the complaint to the Council and requestinginformation on the Council’s response by 31 October 1998.On 15 October1998, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of a letterwhich its services had sent to the Council on 14 October 1998 requestingthe Council to deal with the matter as it deems fit and to advise the Commission accordingly.
Da Ombudsmanden ikke hørte yderligere fra Kommissionen eller Rådet,skrev han igen til Kommissionen den 1. marts 1999 og anmodede om atblive informeret om resultaterne af dens henvendelse til Rådet.Kommissionen svarede den 30. marts 1999 og vedlagde et udkast til svarfra rådgiverne i forbindelse med den fælles udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik,som indeholdt følgende konklusioner:
Since the Ombudsman had received no further communication from the Commission or the Council he wrote again to the Commission on 1 March1999, asking to be informed of the results of its approach to the Council.On 30 March 1999, the Commission answered, enclosing a draft reply fromthe Common Foreign and Security Policy counsellors which contained thefollowing conclusions:
Kommissionen bemærkede også, at den ikke havde fået overdraget nogenbeføjelser, instruktioner eller midler til at betale klageren.
The Commission also remarked that it had not received any authority,instructions or funds to pay the complainant.
Ombudsmandens tjenestegrene kontaktede derpå Kommissionen Generalsekretariat telefonisk og anmodede Kommissionens tjenestegreneom at tage skridt til at løse sagen inden udgangen af juli 1999.
The Ombudsman’s services then contacted the General Secretariat of the Commission by telephone to request that the Commission services act toresolve the matter before the end of July 1999.
Den 16. juli 1999 fremsendte klageren Ombudsmanden en kopi af sin korrespondance med Kommissionens tjenestegrene, hvoraf det fremgår, at Kommissionen har behandlet sagen på grundlag af sin procedure for kontraktmæssig bilæggelse af tvister og indvilliget i at betale klageren hele detbeløb, han gjorde krav på, samt renter. Klageren finder, at der er nået entilfredsstillende løsning.
On 16 July 1999 the complainant forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy ofhis correspondence with the Commission services, from which it appearsthat the Commission has dealt with the matter through its procedure forcontractual dispute settlement and agreed to pay the complainant the fullsum which he claimed, together with interest.The complainant considersthat a satisfactory conclusion has been reached.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen skulle betale ham forskellen mellem de dagpenge, som han havde modtaget som EU-observatør i forbindelse med det palæstinensiske valg i 1995-1996,og det vederlag, der er passende for funktionen som regional koordinator, som han rent faktisk udøvede efter anmodning fra den europæiske valggruppe.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should pay him the difference between the daily allowance which he had received as a European Union observer of the Palestinian election process in 19956 and the fee level appropriate for the role of Regional Coordinatorwhich, at the request of the European Electoral Unit, he had actuallyperformed.
Den europæiske valggruppe udførte sit arbejde i henhold til bestemmelser i en fælles aktion vedtaget af Rådet som led i den fælles uden-rigs- og sikkerhedspolitik. Kommissionen fungerede som finansielleder af den fælles aktion.
The work of the European Electoral Unit was carried out under theterms of a joint action of the Council in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.The Commission acted as financial manager of the joint action.
Rådet accepterede det princip, at klageren skulle betales for detarbejde, han rent faktisk havde udført efter anmodning fra den europæiske valggruppe.
The Council accepted the principle that the complainant should bepaid for the work which, at the request of the European Electoral Unit,he had actually performed.
Kommissionen indvilligede efterfølgende i at betale hele det beløb,som klageren gjorde krav på, samt renter. Klageren finder, at der ernået en tilfredsstillende løsning.
The Commission subsequently agreed to pay the full sum claimed bythe complainant, together with interest.The complainant considersthat a satisfactory conclusion has been reached.
Efter Ombudsmandens undersøgelse fremgik det, at der var opnået enmindelig løsning mellem Kommissionen og klageren. Ombudsmandenafsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
Following the Ombudsman’s inquiry, it appeared that a friendly solution tothe complaint had been agreed between the Commission and the com-plainant.The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
SAGER AFSLUTTET MED EN KRITISK BEMÆRKNING FRAOMBUDSMANDEN
CASES CLOSED WITH A CRITICAL REMARK BY THE OMBUDSMAN
Afgørelse om klage 466/97/PD over Europa-Parlamentet
REASONS FOR FAILURE IN A COMPETITIONDecision on complaint 466/97/PD against the European Parliament
Parlamentet, at det havde gjort alt, hvad det kunne for at formidle de relevante oplysninger til sikring af ligebehandling af ansøgerne.
DECISIONS information could not be communicated without violating the confidentialityof the deliberations of the Selection Board.As concerns the discriminationissue, The Parliament stated that it had done everything in its power withregard to the dissemination of relevant information to ensure the equaltreatment of applicants.
På denne baggrund indsendte klageren sin klage til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand. I klagen gjorde han gældende, at Europa-Parlamentethavde begået fejl eller forsømmelser ved at nægte ham aktindsigt i sine eksamenspapirer,
Against this background, the complainant lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman.In the complaint he alleged that the European Parliament had committed maladministration by:
- - ikke at begrunde, hvorfor han ikke havde bestået udvælgelsesprøvenog
refusing him access to his examination papers,failing to give reasons why he failed the competition anddiscriminating against him.
Til støtte for den første påstand fremhævede klageren, at en ansøgerunder national lovgivning normalt har udstrakt ret til modtage oplysningerom sig selv. Til støtte for den anden påstand lagde klageren vægt på, atgod forvaltningsskik kræver, at forvaltningen begrunder en beslutning somden pågældende.
In support of the first allegation, the complainant put forward that undernational law, an applicant normally had an extensive right to receive information about himself.In support of the second allegation, the complainantput forward that principles of good administration require the administrationto give reasons for a decision such as the one in question.
Klagen videresendtes til Europa-Parlamentet. I sin udtalelse fastholdt Parlamentet den holdning, det havde indtaget i den korrespondance, dergik forud for klagen.
The complaint was forwarded to European Parliament.In its opinion the Parliament maintained the position it had taken in the correspondence preceding the complaint.
Klagerens bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage.
The complainant’s observations In his observations the complainant maintained the complaint.
Efter en omhyggelig undersøgelse af Parlamentets udtalelse og klagerensbemærkninger til denne kontaktede Ombudsmanden Europa-Parlamentetfor at indhente nærmere oplysninger om de procedurer, Parlamentet havdefulgt for at sikre formidling af informationsarket til samtlige ansøgere.Endvidere bad Ombudsmanden om lov til at se Parlamentets sagsakter.
After a careful examination of the Parliament’s opinion and the complainant’s observations thereupon, the Ombudsman addressed the European Parliament to obtain more detailed information on the procedures followed by the Parliament in order to ensure dissemination of theinformation sheet to all applicants.Furthermore the Ombudsman asked toinspect the Parliament’s file.
Parlamentets anden udtalelse
The Parliament’s second opinion
I sin anden udtalelse gjorde Parlamentet rede for den procedure, det havdefulgt for at sikre formidlingen af informationsarket.
In its second opinion, the Parliament explained the procedure it had followed ensuring the dissemination of the information sheet.In the adver-
AFGØRELSER kontorer lå inde med informationsarket. I tilfælde af, at ansøgere kontaktede andre af Fællesskabets repræsentationer eller informationskontorer itysktalende lande, havde Parlamentet endvidere henvendt sig til disse forat understrege, hvor vigtigt det var, at de udleverede det pågældende informationsark til ansøgere, der anmodede om meddelelsen om udvælgelsesprøven.
137 tisement made by the European Parliament concerning the competition, itwas indicated that applicants should address the Parliament’s central services or the information office in Bonn in order to obtain the notice of com-petition.These services were in possession of the information sheet.Furthermore, in case that applicants should address other representationsor information offices of the Communities in German speaking countries,the Parliament addressed these offices in order to underline the importance of handing out the information sheet in question to applicants whorequested the notice of competition.
Parlamentet meddelte også, at deltagelse i det forberedende seminar ikkevar nogen garanti for at bestå udvælgelsesprøven, og at det ville blivemeget vanskeligt at fastslå, at en ansøger ikke havde bestået udvælgelsesprøven på grund af manglende kendskab til informationsarket.
The Parliament also indicated that participation in the preparatory seminardid not guarantee success in the competition and that an applicant’s failurein the competition due to the absence of the information sheet would bevery difficult to establish.
Klagerens yderligere bemærkninger
The complainant’s further observations
I sine bemærkninger gjorde klageren gældende, at der åbenbart ikke varnoget formelt juridisk grundlag for, at Europa-Parlamentet accepterede atformidle sådanne oplysninger om forberedende seminarer. Han gentogendvidere, at han havde været i kontakt med informationskontorer i Tyskland, der ikke kendte noget til det pågældende informationsark.
In his observations, the complainant put forward that apparently there wasno formal legal basis for the European Parliament’s acceptance of disseminating such information about preparatory seminars.Furthermore herepeated that he had been in contact with information offices in Germanywhich had no knowledge of the information sheet in question.
Tilsyn
The inspection
AFGØRELSEN1Aktindsigt i eksamenspapirer
THE DECISION1Access to examination papers
Manglende begrundelse
Failure to give reasons
Det fremgik af ovenstående, at udvælgelseskomitéer ifølge gældendefællesskabsret ikke har nogen juridisk forpligtelse til at udlevere eksamenspapirer til den ansøger, der måtte anmode herom.
It appeared from the foregoing that in the present state of Communitylaw there is no legal obligation upon Selection Boards to disclose theexamination papers to the applicant concerned who requests so.Having regard to this and to the wide discretion of Selection Boards,
Forskelsbehandling
Discrimination