natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klagerne gjorde gældende, at de efter den 15. januar 1997 (ansøgningsfristen) ikke havde modtaget oplysninger om resultaterne af
The complainants alleged that since 15 January 1997 (deadline forthe applications) they had not received any information about the outcome of their applications.The Parliament observed that the delay innotifying the candidates of the results of the competition was due tothe length of time taken by the Selection Board to reach its decision,which in its turn was the result of the parliamentary workload of itsmembers.
Ombudsmanden bemærker, at ifølge artikel 3.7 i bestemmelserne forkonkurrencen holder udvælgelseskomitéen møde i begyndelsen af1997 og bedømmer ansøgningerne efter en forudgående analyseforetaget af Det Rådgivende Udvalg. Ifølge artikel 3.9 i de sammebestemmelser offentliggøres resultaterne af konkurrencen i dageneefter udvælgelseskomitéens afgørelse.
The Ombudsman notes that Article 3.7 of the competition rules provides that the Selection Board will meet in the first term of 1997 to proceed to the examination of the applications, after a preliminary analysis by the Advising Committee.Article 3.9 of the same rules providesthat the results of the competition will be rendered public in the dayswhich follow the decision of the Selection Board.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at ansøgere rettidigt underrettes ommyndighedernes afgørelser, som påvirker deres interesser. I den foreliggende sag fremgik det, at klagerne først havde fået meddelelse omudvælgelseskomitéens afgørelse 17 eller 19 måneder efter ansøgningsfristen.
According to principles of good administration, applicants should benotified in due time about the decisions of the administration whichaffect their interests.In the present case, it appeared that the complainants had been notified of the decision of the Selection Board only17 or 19 months after the deadline for the applications.The Ombudsman considered that this was an unreasonably long period,especially when considering that already on 17 April 1997, i.e.onlythree months after the deadline for the applications, the Selection
Ombudsmanden fandt, at dette var en urimelig langperiode, navnlig i betragtning af, at udvælgelseskomitéen allerededen 17. april 1997, dvs. kun tre måneder efter ansøgningsfristen, varnået frem til den konklusion, at ingen af de 15 projekter kunne kommei betragtning.
Board had already come to the conclusion that none of the 15 projectscould be retained.
Påstand om manglende svar på klagernes breve
The alleged failure to reply to the complainants’letters
Klageren i sag 507/98/OV skrev f.eks. til Parlamentet den 16. marts,8. september og 18. november 1997, men modtog intet svar.Parlamentet bemærkede blot, at det svar, som administrationen gav,når ansøgerne ringede, var, at resultaterne af konkurrencen endnuikke kunne oplyses.
The complainants in cases 507/98/OV, 576/98/OV and 818/98/OV alleged that the Parliament had failed to reply to their letters in whichthey asked for information on the outcome of their applications.Thecom-plainant in case 507/98/OV for instance wrote to the Parliamenton 16 March, 8 September and 18 November 1997, but received noreply.The Parliament merely observed that the administration’s replyto telephone calls from candidates was that the results of the competition could not yet be disclosed.
God forvaltningsskik kræver, at ansøgere rettidigt underrettes om myndighedernes afgørelser, som påvirker deres interesser. I den foreliggende sagfremgik det, at klagerne først havde fået meddelelse om udvælgelseskomitéens afgørelse 17 eller 19 måneder efter ansøgningsfristen.Ombudsmanden fandt, at dette var en urimelig lang periode, navnlig ibetragtning af, at udvælgelseskomitéen allerede den 17. april 1997, dvs.kun tre måneder efter ansøgningsfristen, var nået frem til den konklusion,at ingen af de 15 projekter kunne komme i betragtning.
According to principles of good administration, applicants should be notified in due time about the decisions of the administration which affect theirinterests.In the present case, it appeared that the complainants had beennotified of the decision of the Selection Board only 17 or 19 months afterthe deadline for the applications.The Ombudsman considered that this wasan unreasonably long period, especially when considering that already on17 April 1997, i.e.only three months after the deadline for the applications,the Selection Board had already come to the conclusion that none of the15 projects could be retained.
Parlamentet gav ikke Ombudsmanden en rimelig forklaring på denne forsinkelse, men henviste blot til komitémedlemmernes arbejdsbyrde.Parlamentet forklarede navnlig ikke Ombudsmanden, hvorfor udvælgelseskomitéen efter sit møde den 17. april 1997, hvor den konkluderede, atingen af de 15 projekter kunne komme i betragtning, behøvede endnu 13måneder til at bekræfte denne konklusion.
The Parliament did not provide the Ombudsman with a reasonable explanation for this delay, but merely referred to the workload of the Members ofthe Selection Board.More particularly the Parliament failed to explain to the Ombudsman why, after its meeting of 17 April 1997 where it concluded thatnone of the 15 projects could be retained, the Selection Board needed
Parlamentet forårsagede derforen unødvendig og urimelig lang forsinkelse med hensyn til at underretteansøgerne om resultaterne af deres ansøgninger. Denne forsinkelseudgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
DECISIONS another 13 months to confirm this conclusion.The Parliament thereforeintroduced an unnecessary and unjustified long delay in informing the candidates about the outcome of their applications.This delay constituted aninstance of maladministration.
På baggrund af disse konklusioner og i betragtning af, at det ikke var muligtat opnå en mindelig løsning mellem parterne i forbindelse med dissepunkter, fremsatte Ombudsmanden følgende forslag til henstilling over for Europa-Parlamentet:
In view of these conclusions, and given that it was not possible to find afriendly solution between the parties on these points, the Ombudsmanmade the following draft recommendation to the European Parliament:
Af hensyn til god forvaltningsskik bør Parlamentet over for klagerneundskylde den unødige forsinkelse med hensyn til at informere demom resultaterne af konkurrencen og for ikke at have besvaret kla-
The Parliament should, as a matter of good administrative behaviour,present its apologies to the complainants for the undue delay ininforming them about the outcome of the competition, and for nothaving answered the various letters by the complainants in which theyexplicitly asked for information on the results of the competition.
MANGLENDE GENANSÆTTELSE AF TJENESTEMAND EFTER TJENSTEFRIHED AF PERSONLIGE ÅRSAGER UDEN LØN
FAILURE TO REINSTATE OFFICIAL AFTER UNPAID LEAVE ON PERSONAL GROUNDS
Afgørelse om klage 489/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 489/98/OV against the European Commission
I april 1998 klagede P. til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand over, at Europa-Kommissionen ikke havde genansat ham efter udløbet af hans tjenestefrihed af personlige årsager uden løn og afslået at betale ham erstatningfor løntabet og den nedsatte pension. Ifølge klageren var der tale om følgende faktiske omstændigheder:
In April 1998 Mr P.made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the failure of the European Commission to reinstate him at the endof his unpaid leave on personal grounds and the refusal to pay him a compensation for the loss of salary and the reduced pension.According to thecomplainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
Klageren, en kommissionstjenestemand i lønklasse A4, tog tjenestefrihedaf personlige årsager uden løn i et år fra den 1. oktober 1995 til den 30.september 1996.
The complainant, an A4 grade official of the European Commission, wenton unpaid leave on personal grounds for one year from 1 October 1995 to30 September 1996.He complained that two months after the expiry of hisunpaid leave, the Commission had still not made an offer of reinstatement,nor was there any prospect for a reinstatement in the future.
Han klagede over, at Kommissionen to måneder efterudløbet af hans tjenestefrihed uden løn stadig ikke havde tilbudt ham genansættelse, og der var heller ingen udsigt til en genansættelse i fremtiden.
The complainant consequently wrote to the Director General of DG IX on25 November 1996 informing him that, in order to secure a source of reg-
Klageren skrev derfor den 25. november 1996 til generaldirektøren for GDIX og informerede denne om, at han for at sikre en fast indtægtskilde og ibetragtning af, at han ikke havde andet valg end at gå på førtidspension,udtrådte af tjenesten med virkning fra den 1. oktober 1996.
225 ular income, and given that he had no other option than taking early retirement, he resigned from the service with effect from 1 October 1996.
Den 10. juni 1997 forelagde klageren i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 1, i tjenestemandsvedtægten en ansøgning om en økonomisk erstatning for løntabet fra udløbet af hans tjenestefrihed og indtil hans afskedsbegæring ogfor den nedsatte pension.
On 10 June 1997, the complainant made a request, under Article 90(1) ofthe Staff Regulations, for a financial compensation for the loss of salaryfrom the expiry of his leave up to the date of his letter of resignation, andfor the reduced pension.On 5 August 1997, DG IX replied to the complainant saying that had made an unequivocal request for resignation asforeseen in Article 48 of the Staff Regulations, and that therefore, it couldnot take into consideration his request for compensation.
Den 5. august 1997 modtog klageren et svar fra GD IX, hvori det hed, at han havde indgivet en utvetydig afskedsbegæringsom fastsat i artikel 48 i tjenestemandsvedtægten, og at det derfor ikkekunne tage hans ansøgning om erstatning i betragtning.
On 17 September 1997, the complainant submitted to the appointingauthority an appeal against this refusal under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, reiterating his demand for financial compensation.Theappointing authority rejected the complainant’s request in its letter of 16February 1998.It considered that the Commission had not committedadministrative irregularities and was not responsible for his resignation, andthat therefore it had not to pay a compensation.The complainant thereforelodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging that the Commission had failed to reinstate him at the end of his unpaid leave onpersonal grounds and refused to pay a compensation for a) the loss ofsalary because of the failure to reinstate him and b) the financial loss dueto his resignation.
Den 17. september 1997 indbragte klageren i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 2,i tjenestemandsvedtægten en klage for ansættelsesmyndigheden, hvorihan gentog sit krav om en økonomisk erstatning.Ansættelsesmyndigheden afviste klagerens anmodning i sin skrivelse af16. februar 1998.
The complaint was forwarded to the Commission in May 1998.In itsopinion, the Commission referred to the reply of the appointing authoritydated 16 February 1998.The appointing authority had reminded the complainant of the provision in Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations whichrequires the institution to reinstate an official at the expiry of the unpaidleave for personal grounds in the first post corresponding to his gradewhich falls vacant in his category or service, provided that he satisfies therequirements for that post.The procedure for establishing whether an official satisfies these requirements must actually take place and must be conducted in such a way that the institution concerned can prove that the stipulation was complied with.Failure to carry out such checks would constitutea wrongful act or omission which would entail liability from the Commissiontowards the applicant.
Den fandt, at Kommissionen ikke havde gjort sig skyldigi administrative uregelmæssigheder og ikke var ansvarlig for hans udtræden af tjenesten, og at den derfor ikke skulle betale erstatning. Klagerenindgav derfor nærværende klage til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen ikke havde genansat ham ved udløbet af hans tjeneste-
The Commission then observed that an examination of the steps taken bythe complainant on the one hand and the Commission on the other did notshow any irregularity in the reinstatement procedure.The appointingauthority considered that the fact that the complainant had not been reinstated at the end of November 1996 was reasonable given that his leaveon personal grounds expired two months before, on 30 September 1996.On these grounds, the complainant’s request for compensation wasrefused as regards the period from the end of his leave on personalgrounds to the date of his letter of resignation.
Ansættelsesmyndigheden pegede på, at Domstolen i sin dom af 1. juli197689fandt, at såfremt der anlægges et erstatningssøgsmål på grundlagaf Kommissionens undladelse af at genansætte sagsøgeren efter udløbetaf en tjenestefrihed af personlig årsager, kan denne ikke kræve lønefterbetaling, idet han ikke har gjort tjeneste. Han er imidlertid berettiget tilerstatning af det tab, han faktisk har lidt ved at være unddraget denne lønsom følge af administrationens ikke-forskriftsmæssige adfærd.
In the present case, the appointing authority checked that the Commissionhad actually taken steps and had done so in a proper manner, and that theperiod of two months between the expiry of the leave and his letter of resignation was a reasonable period, even if the complainant had not beenreinstated.Also the complainant’s resignation was the result of his havingstated unequivocally in writing his intention to leave the service of the institution definitively, as laid down in Article 48 of the Staff Regulations.Giventhus that the resignation was a voluntary act of the complainant, the Commission concluded that it bore no direct responsibility in this matterand that no blame could be attached to the Commission.Therefore theapplication for financial compensation was rejected.
Med hensyn til ansøgningen om økonomisk erstatning fra den dato, hvorhan udtrådte af tjenesten, anførte klageren, at han var tvunget til at udtræde af tjenesten i betragtning af, at han ikke haft fået nogen indkomst fraadministrationen i de to måneder, der fulgte efter udløbet af hans tjenestefrihed. Kommissionen mindede om fast retspraksis, hvorefter fællesskabsinstitutionen er ansvarlig, hvis den anfægtede adfærd ikke er forskriftsmæssig, der rent faktisk er lidt skade, og der er en årsagssammenhængmellem den omtalte adfærd og skaden.
The complainant maintained his complaint.He stated that there were in facta number of perfectly suitable posts vacant at the time, and that the Commission did not examine his qualifications for any of these posts.Hestated that four suitable posts were reserved for other particular candidatesor for individuals from the new Member States.Therefore the complainantconsidered that the Commission’s statement that there had been no irregularity in the reinstatement procedure was not correct.The steps taken bythe Commission had not been efficient given that they had not resulted ina single offer of reinstatement in the course of 3,5 months from the date heconfirmed his intention to return, neither in a prospect of reinstatement inthe future.The complainant concluded that the Commission’s conduct wasnegligent, that he suffered damage and that the causal link between bothwas clear.On 22 April 1999, the complainant sent further details as regards4 posts which were vacant at the time he asked for reinstatement.
I den foreliggende sag kontrollerede ansættelsesmyndigheden, at Kommissionen rent faktisk havde truffet foranstaltninger og havde gjort
In order to verify whether the Commission examined in detail the abilitiesof the complainant in relation to the vacant posts corresponding to hisgrade, the Ombudsman asked on 23 April 1999 for further comments fromthe Commission on three points.
For det første anmodede Ombudsmanden om at få udleveret en liste overalle stillinger (samt kvalifikationskravene), som svarede til klagerens lønklasse (A4), og som var ledige i perioden efter udløbet af hans tjenestefrihed af personlige årsager (30. september 1996).
Firstly, the Ombudsman asked to obtain the list of all posts (including therequirements) corresponding to the complainant’s grade (A4) which werevacant in the period following the expiry of his leave on personal grounds(30 September 1996).
For det andet blev Kommissionen anmodet om at svare på klagerenspåstand om, at den ikke undersøgte hans kvalifikationer i forhold til nogenaf de ledige stillinger, da de var reserveret til andre ansøgere.
Secondly, the Commission was requested to respond to the complainant’sallegation that it did not examine his qualifications for any of the vacantposts, because they were reserved for other applicants.
Endelig ønskede Ombudsmanden at få oplyst, med hvilken begrundelseansættelsesmyndigheden var nået frem til, at de stillinger, som var ledige,ikke svarende til klagerens kvalifikationer (kommissær Liikanens skrivelseaf 16. februar 1998, side 3, sidste afsnit).
Finally, the Ombudsman asked what was the justification for the consideration of the appointing authority that the posts which were vacant did notcorrespond to the complainant’s qualifications (letter of Commissioner Liikanen dated 16 February 1998, page 3, last paragraph).
Klagerens yderligere bemærkninger
The complainant’s additional observations
Kommissionens manglende genansættelse af klageren vedudløbet af hans tjenestefrihed af personlige årsager uden løn
The Commission’s failure to reinstate the complainant at the endof his unpaid leave on personal grounds
AFGØRELSER ikke er en sådan åbenbar forskel, er nødvendigt at foretage en fuldstændig undersøgelse af den pågældende kvalifikationer i forhold til enledig stilling. Undladelsen af systematisk at undersøge den pågældende tjenestemands kvalifikationer, hver gang der bliver en stillingledig, som han kunne være genindtrådt i, er en for administrationenansvarspådragende tjenstlig fejl, for så vidt som undladelsen har forhalet den pågældendes genindtrædelse90..
229 competent authorities cannot be compelled to prove that they haveexamined the abilities of the official where there is a manifest divergence between his abilities and those required for a particular postwhich is vacant, such proof must nevertheless be adduced in all caseswhere, in the absence of such a manifest divergence, a complete verification of the abilities of the person concerned in relation to a vacantpost is necessary.The failure to verify systematically the abilities ofthe official in question in relation to each vacant post to which he couldhave been reinstated constitutes a service-related fault which maygive rise to liability on the administration’s part insofar as such failuredelays the reinstatement of the person concerned90.
Ombudsmanden anmodede derfor om flere oplysninger om listenover stillinger, som var ledige i perioden efter udløbet af klagerens tjenestefrihed af personlige årsager. Han anmodede desuden Kommissionen om at oplyse, med hvilken begrundelse Ansættelsesmyndigheden havde konkluderet, at klageren ikke besadde kvalifikationer, der krævedes i forbindelse med de ledige stillinger.Det fremgik af de lister over ledige stillinger, der var offentliggjortmellem den 18. juli og den 28. november 1996, at der var mere end25 ledige stillinger i lønklasse A5/A4 i denne periode91.
The Ombudsman therefore asked for more details on the list of postswhich were vacant in the period following the expiry of the complainant’s leave on personal grounds.He also requested the Commission to indicate what was the Appointing Authority’s justification for its conclusion that the complainant’s abilities did not correspond to those of the vacant posts.From the lists of vacant posts published between 18 July 1996 and 28 November 1996, it appeared thatduring this period there were more than twenty-five A5/A4 posts
Med undtagelse af de 4 stillinger, som klageren selv havde nævnt,henviste Kommissionen i sin udtalelse til Ombudsmanden imidlertidikke til nogen bestemt ledig stilling i lønklasse A5/A4 på disse lister oggav heller ikke engang en kort begrundelse for, hvorfor klageren ikkekunne genansættes i en af disse stillinger. Med hensyn til tre af de firestillinger, som klageren havde nævnt, bemærkede Kommissionenigen blot uden en omhyggelig undersøgelse, at der herskede rimeligtvivl med hensyn til, om klageren opfyldte kvalifikationskravene i forbindelse med disse stillinger, både med hensyn til ansvarsniveauet(en ansøger til en stilling som afdelingsleder skal have dokumente-
However, in its opinion to the Ombudsman, with the exception of the4 posts indicated by the complainant himself, the Commission madeno reference to any particular vacant A5/A4 post out of these lists, norgave a justification, even shortly, why the complainant could not bereinstated in one of those posts.With regard to three of the four postsmentioned by the complainant, the Commission again merelyobserved, without a detailed examination, that there was reasonabledoubt whether the complainant satisfied the requirements for these
237 rede lederkvalifikationer) og de øvrige kvalifikationskrav.Kommissionen tilføjede endda, at administrationen i betragtning afdenne reelle usikkerhed under sådanne omstændigheder skaludbede sig supplerende oplysninger fra den pågældende.
DECISIONS posts, both in relation to the level of responsibility (need of provenmanagement skills for Head of Unit posts) and the other require-ments.The Commission even added that, given this genuine uncertainty, the administration must, in such circumstances, request additional information from the person concerned.This requirement hasalso been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance92.
Dette kraver også blevet bekræftet af retspraksis i Retten i Første Instans92.Dette gjorde Kommissionen imidlertid ikke.
However, the Commission did not proceed to do so.
Dette blev også bekræftet af, at Kommissionen kunbaserede sin vurdering af klagerens kvalifikationer i forhold til deledige stillinger på klagerens curriculum vitae, som den fandt alt foruklart og udetaljeret, dog uden at anmode klageren om flere detaljerede oplysninger. Det fremgik desuden, at Kommissionen på intettidspunkt gjorde brug af klagerens personlige aktmappe, hvilket denkunne have gjort i betragtning af, at han havde arbejdet for Kommissionen i 22 år.
From the above, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commissionfailed to carry out the detailed examination, as required by the caselaw of the Court of First Instance, of the complainant’s abilities in relation to each vacant post corresponding to his grade.This was alsoconfirmed by the fact that the Commission based its judgement of theabilities of the complainant with regard to the vacant posts only on thecomplainant’s curriculum vitae, which it considered itself to be toovague and sketchy, and without asking the complainant for moredetailed information.It also appeared that at no time did the Commission consult the details of the complainant’s personal file,which it could have done given that he had worked for the Commission for 22 years.
Det fremgik således heraf, at Kommissionens undladelse af at foretage en omhyggelig undersøgelse af klagerens kvalifikationer i forhold til de pågældende stillinger udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, hvorved Kommissionen kunne pådrage sig et ansvarover for klageren. Da det som følge af Kommissionens og klagerensmodsatte holdninger ikke var muligt at opnå en mindelig løsningmellem parterne i forbindelse med dette punkt, fremsatte Ombudsmanden nedenstående forslag til henstilling.
It appeared thus from these considerations that the Commission’sfailure to undertake a detailed examination of the complainant’s qualifications for the posts in question constituted an instance of maladministration capable of rendering the Commission liable to the com-plainant.Given that, because of the Commission’s and thecomplainant’s opposite opinions, it was not possible to find a friendlysolution between the parties on this point, the Ombudsman made thedraft recommendation below.