natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rådet lod sin holdning vedrørende problemet med dedokumenter,som det var medforfatter til,stå åben,men konkluderede efter grundig over-vejelse,at aktindsigt i de pågældende dokumenter stadig skulle afvises,dog af andre
While it left openits position as to the problem of documents of which the Council was one of the co-authors,it concluded,after careful consideration,that the documents in question were stillto be refused,albeit for different reasons than those stated in its first decision.
Den nye afgørelse kunne blivegenstand for en ny klage til Ombudsmanden.
This newdecision could be the subject of a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
Generalsekretariatet var ikke “en del af Rådet”.
The General Secretariat was not “part of the Council”
Retten i Første Instans var i færd med at undersøge dette spørgsmål (i sag T-205/00, Spa Renco mod Rådet).
This question was currently under examination by the Court of First Instance (in case T-205/00,Spa Renco v. Council).
Indtil resultatet af denne undersøgelse forelå,ville Rådet derforafholde sig fra at kommentere spørgsmålet yderligere i forbindelse med denne klage.
Pending these proceedings,the Council would thereforeabstain from commenting further on it in the present context.
Pligten til at registrere dokumenter og føre optegnelser.
The obligation to register documents and the duty to keep records
Rådet gav tilstrækkelige begrundelser for sin afgørelse.
The Council gave sufficient reasons for its decision
Tilstrækkeligheden af begrundelserne for en afgørelse var et spørgsmål,der påvirkedeafgørelsens lovlighed,hvilket ikke henhørte under Ombudsmandens kompetence.
The adequacy of the reasons given for a decision was a question that affected the legalityof that decision,the review of which did not fall within the remit of the Ombudsman’scompetencies.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage og fremsatte følgende supplerendebemærkninger:
In its observations,the complainant maintained its complaint and made the followingfurther comments:
Rådets mening om,at det frit kunne nægte aktindsigt i de pågældende dokumenter mednye begrundelser,og at der derefter kunne klages over denne nye afgørelse,medførte enrisiko for,at processen kørte i ring i al evighed,og dette kunne muligvis underminere Ombudsmandens rolle.
The Council’s view that it was free to refuse access to the relevant documents on newgrounds and that a complaint could then be brought against this new decision entailed therisk of a circular process that could go on for ever and that could potentially underminethe role of the Ombudsman.
Klageren havde intet kendskab til sag T-205/00.
The complainant did not have any knowledge about case T205/00.
Det var muligt, at Rådet blot fremførte samme argument i denne sag,som den gjorde i nærværende sag.Under alle omstændigheder var det utænkeligt,at Domstolen ville beslutte, at Generalsekretariatet ikke var en del af Rådet. Dette argument kunne derfor kun anses somværende et forsøg fra Rådets side på at forhale afgørelsen.
It was possible that the Council was simply making the same argument there thatit had made in the present case. In any event,it was inconceivable that the Court woulddecide that the General Secretariat was not part of the Council.
For så vidt angår begrundelsespligten,var spørgsmålet her,om der var tale om et tilfældeaf fejl eller forsømmelser,og i dette spørgsmål var Ombudsmanden den lovbestemtemyndighed.
Regarding the duty to give reasons,the issue at stake here was one of maladministrationfor which the Ombudsman was the statutory authority.
Under alle omstændigheder var det nødvendigt,at en institution fremlagdetilstrækkelige begrundelser for at give mulighed for retlig behandling.
In any event,it was necessary foran institution to provide sufficient reasoning to allow for judicial review.
Rådet havdegentagne gange undladt at gøre dette i nærværende sag.
The Council hadconsistently failed to do so in the present case.
Ved afgørelse af 1. marts 2001 fremsatte Ombudsmanden et forslag til henstilling over for Rådet i overensstemmelse med artikel 3,stk. 6,i Ombudsmandens statut69.
By decision dated 1 March 2001,the Ombudsman addressed a draft recommendation tothe Council in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman69.
Grundlaget for forslaget til henstilling var følgende:
The basis of the draft recommendation was the following:
Manglende overholdelse af Ombudsmandens afgørelse af 30. juni 1998
Failure to respect the decision of the Ombudsman of 30 June 1998
1.1Klageren anmodede Rådet for Den Europæiske Union om aktindsigt i visse dokumenter (herunder bl.a. dagsordener fra Gruppen på Højt Plan og EU-US Task Force) ioverensstemmelse med Rådets afgørelse 93/731/EF af 20. december 1993 om aktindsigt i Rådets dokumenter70.
1.1The complainant asked the Council of the European Union for access to certain documents (notably agendas of the “Senior level Group”and the “EU-US Task Force”) under Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to documents70.
Rådet anførte oprindeligt,at de pågældende dokumenter ikke kunvar udarbejdet af Rådet,og at artikel 2,stk. 2,i Rådets afgørelse 93/731 om aktindsigt i
The Council originally argued that the documents concerned had not been prepared under thesole responsibility of the Council and that Article 2 (2) of Council Decision 93/731 onaccess to documents was thus applicable.
Europa-Parlamentets afgørelse af 9.3.1994 vedrørende Ombudsmandens statut og de almindelige betingelserfor udøvelsen af hans hverv,EFT 1994 L 113,s. 15.
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties,OJ 1994 L 113,page 15.
Rådet konkluderede på den baggrund,at disse dokumenter ikke var “i Rådetsbesiddelse”som beskrevet i artikel 1,stk. 2,i afgørelse 93/731,men kun i Generalsekretariatets tjenestemænds besiddelse,hvorfor de faldt uden for anvendelsesområdet for afgørelse 93/731. Klageren gjorde gældende,at Rådet overholdt Ombudsmandens afgørelse af 30. juni 1998,da den fremsatte helt nye begrundelser for atafvise begæringen om aktindsigt i de pågældende dokumenter.
The Council further claimed that it had indeedreconsidered its position in the light of the Ombudsman’s decision of 30 June 1998 andarrived at the conclusion that the documents in question were still to be refused,albeit fordifferent reasons than those stated in its first decision.
1.3I sin afgørelse af 30. juni 1998 om klage 1056/25.11.96/Statewatch/UK/IJH fremsatte Ombudsmanden en kritisk bemærkning,hvori han opfordrede Rådet til at genovervejeklagerens begæring og give aktindsigt i de ønskede dokumenter,medmindre én eller flereaf undtagelserne i artikel 4 i Rådets afgørelse 93/731 fandt anvendelse.
1.3In his decision of 30 June 1998 on complaint 1056/25.11.96/Statewatch/UK/IJH, the Ombudsman made a critical remark in which he invited the Council to reconsider thecomplainant’s application and to grant access to the relevant documents,unless one ormore of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Decision 93/731 applied.
Ombudsmandenmente,at Rådet rent faktisk havde genovervejet sin holdning i sin afgørelse af 28.september 1998.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council had indeed,in its decision of 28 September 1998,reconsidered its position.
Selv om Rådet ikke havde påberåbt artikel 1,stk. 2,i afgørelse 93/731som svar på klagerens første begæring om aktindsigt i de pågældende dokumenter, mente Ombudsmanden ikke,at hans afgørelse af 30. juni 1998 forhindrede Rådet i senere at gøredenne bestemmelse gældende,hvis det efter at have genovervejet sin holdning påbaggrund af Ombudsmandens bemærkninger konkluderede,at den kunne finde anvendelse.
Although Article 1 (2) of Decision 93/731 had not been invokedby the Council in reply to the complainant’s first request for access to the documentsconcerned,the Ombudsman took the view that his decision of 30 June 1998 did notprevent the Council from subsequently relying on this provision if it arrived at the conclu-sion,upon having reconsidered its position in the light of the Ombudsman’s comments,that it was applicable.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede klagerens bekymring for,at det kunne betyde,atprocessen kørte i ring i al evighed.
The Ombudsman noted the complainant’s concern that this mightlead to a circular process that could go on forever.
Efter hans mening forhindrede principperne for godforvaltningsskik myndighederne i vilkårligt at udskifte begrundelserne for deres afgørelsemed nye. Ombudsmanden mente imidlertid ikke,at der var bevis for,at dette var sket iforbindelse med nærværende sag.
In his view,principles of good administration prevented an administration from arbitrarily substituting the reasons for its decision by new ones.
1.4På baggrund af ovenstående syntes der ikke at have foreligget et tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Rådets side,for så vidt angår klagerens første påstand.
1.4On the basis of the above,there appeared to have been no maladministration on thepart of the Council in so far as the first allegation was concerned.
2.1Rådet anførte,at de pågældende dokumenter aldrig var blevet behandlet af Rådet somsådant,men kun af de tjenestemænd i Generalsekretariatet,der arbejdede med sagen,ogsom havde kopier til brug i deres arbejder.
2.1The Council claimed that the relevant documents had never been considered by the Council as such but only by the officials in its General Secretariat following the matterwho kept copies for the purpose of their work.
På den baggrund mente Rådet ikke,at dissedokumenter var “i Rådets besiddelse”,som beskrevet i artikel 1,stk. 2,i afgørelse 93/731.Klageren hævdede,at dette var ukorrekt.
On this basis,the Council took the viewthat these documents were not “held by the Council”in the sense of Article 1 (2) of Decision 93/731. The complainant claimed that this was incorrect.
2.2Rådet gjorde gældende,at spørgsmålet om,hvorvidt Generalsekretariatet var en insti-tution,der var adskilt fra Rådet,var i færd med at blive undersøgt af Retten i Første Instans(i sag T-205/00,Spa Renco mod Rådet).
2.2The Council claimed that the question as to whether the General Secretariat was aninstitution “different”from the Council was currently under examination by the Court of First Instance (in case T-205/00,Spa Renco v. Council).
Indtil resultatet af denne sag forelå,ville Rådetderfor afholde sig fra at kommentere spørgsmålet yderligere i forbindelse med denneklage.
Pending these proceedings, the Council would therefore abstain from commenting further on it in the present context.
2.3I artikel 1,stk. 3,i Ombudsmandens statut71 bestemmes det,at Ombudsmanden ikke kan gribe ind i en sag,der er anlagt ved en domstol.
2.3Article 1 (3) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman71provides that the Ombudsman may not intervene in cases before courts.
Dette betyder,at Ombudsmanden måafvise eller afslutte sin behandling af en klage,hvis de relevante kendsgerningerogså erblevet indgivet til en domstol72. Ombudsmanden bemærkede imidlertid,at den sag, som Rådet henviste til,drejede sig om andre kendsgerninger,hvilket fremgik af sammendragetaf sag T-205/00,som blev offentliggjort i EF-Tidende73.
This means that the Ombudsman isprevented from examining or continuing to examine a complaint where the relevant factshave also been submitted to a court72.
Det var muligt,at Rådet i denne sag havde fremført det samme argument som i den nærværende sag,dvs. at der skulleskelnes mellem Rådet og dets Generalsekretariat i forbindelse med anvendelse af afgørelse93/731.
It was possible that in that case, the Council had made the same argument as in the present case,i.e. that a distinctionshould be made between the Council and its General Secretariat for the purposes ofapplying Decision 93/731.
Ombudsmanden mente imidlertid ikke,at det var nødvendigt eller hensigtsmæssigt at udsætte undersøgelsen af dette spørgsmål,til resultatet af retssagen forelå.
The Ombudsman did however not consider it necessary orappropriate to suspend his examination of this issue pending the proceedings before the Court.
4.2Rådet mente,at tilstrækkeligheden af begrundelserne for en afgørelse var etspørgsmål,der påvirkede afgørelsens lovlighed,hvilket ikke henhørte under Ombudsmandens kompetence.
4.2The Council took the view that the adequacy of the reasons given for a decision is aquestion that affected the legality of that decision,the review of which did not fall withinthe remit of the Ombudsman’s competencies.
4.3I EF-traktatens artikel 195 overlades opgaven med at undersøge mulige tilfælde af fejleller forsømmelser til Ombudsmanden.
4.3Article 195 of the EC Treaty entrusts the Ombudsman with the task of examiningpossible instances of maladministration.
Begrebet “fejl eller forsømmelser”er ikke defineret i EF-traktaten eller i Ombudsmandens statut.
The term “maladministration”is not defined inthe EC Treaty or the Ombudsman’s Statute.
Det skal bemærkes,at Ombudsmandeni sin årsberetning for 199776angav,at han anså følgende fortolkning af begrebet “fejl ellerforsømmelser”for passende:“Der foreligger fejl eller forsømmelser,når en offentligmyndighed ikke handler i overensstemmelse med en bindende regel eller et bindendeprincip.”Ombudsmanden tilføjede77,at når han undersøger,om en af Fællesskabets institutioner eller et af Fællesskabets organer har handlet i overensstemmelse med bindenderegler og principper,“består hans vigtigste opgave således i at fastslå,om de gældenderetsregler er overholdt”.Europa-Parlamentet vedtog den 16. juli 1998 en beslutning,hvoridet glædede sig over denne definition af fejl eller forsømmelser.
It was useful to recall that in his Annual Report for 199776,the Ombudsman had stated that he considered the following interpretation of the term “maladministration”to be appropriate:“Maladministration occurs when apublic body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.”The Ombudsman added77that when investigating whether a Community institution orbody has acted in accordance with the rules and principles which are binding upon it, the Ombudsman’s “first and most essential task must be to establish whether it has actedunlawfully”. The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 16 July 1998 welcomingthe definition of maladministration.
Ombudsmanden mentederfor,at hans mandat gav ham mulighed for at undersøge klager,hvori det blev påstået,at en institution havde undladt at begrunde en afgørelse tilstrækkeligt.
The Ombudsman thus considered that his mandateallowed him to examine complaints in which it was alleged that an institution has failed togive sufficient reasons for its decision.
4.4Ombudsmanden mente imidlertid,at den begrundelse,Rådet gav i sin afgørelse af 28.september 1998,var tilstrækkelig,eftersom Rådet havde gjort det klart,at det havdenægtet aktindsigt i de ønskede dokumenter på baggrund af artikel 1,stk. 2,i afgørelse93/731. Spørgsmålet om,hvorvidt Rådet havde handlet korrekt,da det ændrede begrundelsen for at nægte aktindsigt under proceduren,var allerede blevet undersøgt (se 1.3ovenfor).
4.4The Ombudsman took the view,however,that the reasons given by the Council in itsdecision of 28 September 1998 were sufficient since the Council had made it clear that therefusal of access to the relevant documents was based on Article 1 (2) of Decision 93/731.The question as to whether the Council had acted properly when changing the reasons onwhich it based its refusal during the procedure had already been considered (see point 1.3above).
4.5På baggrund af ovenstående syntes der ikke at have foreligget et tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Rådets side,for så vidt angår klagerens tredje påstand.
4.5On the basis of the above,there appeared to have been no maladministration on thepart of the Council in so far as the fourth allegation was concerned.
Ombudsmanden mente derfor,at Rådets fremgangsmåde i nærværende sag udgjorde ettilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser,for så vidt angår dets afvisning af klagerens begæringom aktindsigt på baggrund af artikel 1,stk. 2,i afgørelse 93/731.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the Council’s approach in the present case gaverise to an instance of maladministration in so far as it had based its refusal to grant thecomplainant access to the relevant documents on Article 1 (2) of Decision 93/731.
Rådet for Den Europæiske Union skal genoverveje klagerens begæring og give aktindsigti de ønskede dokumenter,medmindre én eller flere af undtagelserne i artikel 4 i Rådetsafgørelse 93/731 finder anvendelse.
As regards the Ombudsman’s decision and draft recommendation on the second ground ofcomplaint,which concerns the question of whether or not documents held by officials inthe General Secretariat which have not been distributed to the members of the Council ortheir delegates in one of its preparatory bodies are to be considered as Council documentsin the sense of Decision 93/731/EC,the Council decides to release the documents in ques-tion,as it appeared that their content is not covered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Decision 93/731/EC.”
RÅDETS DETALJEREDE UDTALELSE
The Council’s detailed opinion was forwarded to the complainant.
Klageren bekræftede i sinebemærkninger,at han havde modtaget de ønskede dokumenter.
In its observations,thecomplainant confirmed that he had received the documents in question.
Klageren mente imidlertid,at det var op til Ombudsmanden at afgøre,hvorvidt Rådet havde rettet sig efter hanshenstilling,da Rådet ikke havde svaret direkte på den tredje påstand.
In its view,however,it was for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Council had met his recom-mendation,given that the latter had not replied directly to the third allegation.
For så vidt angår denanden påstand,antog klageren,at eftersom Rådet havde påberåbt afgørelse 93/731,kunnedet udledes,at Rådet accepterede henstillingen,selv om det ikke direkte gav udtryk herfor.
Regardingthe second allegation,the complainant assumed that since the Council had applied Decision 93/731,it could be inferred that the Council accepted the recommendationalthough the Council did not expressly say so.
1Den 1. marts 2001 fremsatte Ombudsmanden følgende forslag til henstilling til Rådeti overensstemmelse med artikel 3,stk. 6,i Den Europæiske Ombudsmands statut:
1On 1 March 2001,the Ombudsman addressed the following draft recommendation tothe Council in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Rådet for Den Europæiske Union skal genoverveje klagerens begæring og give aktindsigti de ønskede dokumenter,medmindre én eller flere af undtagelserne i artikel 4 i Rådetsafgørelse 93/731 finder anvendelse.
The Council of the European Union should reconsider the complainant’s application andgive access to the documents requested,unless one or more of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Decision 93/731 applies.
2Den 28. maj 2001 meddelte Rådet Ombudsmanden,at det havde besluttet at frigivede ønskede dokumenter,fordi det havde konkluderet,at indholdet ikke var omfattet afnogen af undtagelserne i artikel 4 i afgørelse 93/731/EF.
2On 28 May 2001,the Council informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to releasethe documents in question since it had come to the conclusion that their content was notcovered by any of the exceptions laid down in Article 4 of Decision 93/731/EC.
Ombudsmanden mente derfor, at Rådet havde accepteret hans forslag til henstilling.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council had thus accepted his draft recommendation.
De foranstaltninger,som Rådetbeskriver i sin skrivelse af 28. maj 2001,syntes at være tilfredsstillende og at have tilfredsstillet klageren78.
Themeasures described by the Council in its letter of 28 May 2001 appear to be satisfactoryand satisfy the complainant78.
Som nævnt ovenfor vil klagerens tredje påstand blive undersøgt i forbindelse med Ombudsmandens afgørelseom klage 917/2000/GG,som er indgivet af samme klager.
As mentioned above,the complainant’s third allegation will be considered in the Ombudsman’s decision oncomplaint 917/2000/GG lodged by the same complainant.
SUPPLERENDE FORSIKRINGS-DÆKNING FORLOKALE MEDARBEJDERE
The contributions payable by the Commission and the member of the local staff to meetthe cost of any supplementary or independent schemes shall be determined by theauthority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.”
I artikel 25,stk. 1,i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår fremgår det,at med forbehold af denlovpligtige forsikringsordning,der gælder i Østrig,har en lokal medarbejder,som bliveruarbejdsdygtig som følge af sygdom eller ulykke,ret til løn i de første seks,otte eller tolvuger,afhængig af hvor længe vedkommende har været i tjenesten.
Article 25 (1) of these Specific Conditions provides that,without prejudice to the statutoryinsurance scheme applicable in Austria,a member of the local staff who is unable to workas a result of sickness or accident shall remain entitled to remuneration during the first 6,8,10 or 12 weeks,depending on how long they have been in service.
Når medarbejderen harværet uarbejdsdygtig i enten seks,otte,ti eller tolv uger,får vedkommende udbetalt 50%af sin løn gennem en supplerende periode på fire uger.
From the 7th,9th,11th and 13th week of incapacity respectively,the member of the local staff is to receivean income of 50% of his or her remuneration during a supplementary period of fourweeks.
Fra den periode,hvor den lovpligtige forsikringsordning er gældende,og indtil den 180. dag får den lokale medarbejdersociale sikringsydelser,der berettiger vedkommende til at få udbetalt et beløb svarende til100% af den sidste månedsløn,som blev optjent,før medarbejderen blev uarbejdsdygtig.I henhold til artikel 25 skal betingelserne for den kompensation,der skal udbetales efterde perioder,hvor den lovpligtige forsikringsordning udbetaler sociale sikringsydelser,fastlægges sammen med det forsikringsselskab,som den lokale medarbejder anvender.
From the periods of intervention of the statutory insurance scheme and until the180th day,the member of the local staff shall receive social security benefits entitling himor her to an income equal to 100% of the last basic monthly salary received before the timeof incapacity. According to Article 25,the terms of compensation for loss of earnings fromthe periods of incapacity provided for by the statutory insurance scheme shall be established with an insurance company to which the member of the local staff is affiliated.
I artikel 27 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår fastlægges det,at i tilfælde af vedvarende og totalinvaliditet,der skyldes sygdom eller en arbejdsulykke,eller i tilfælde af dødsfald er delokale medarbejdere berettiget til sikringsydelser i medfør af den forsikringspolice, som Kommissionen har udarbejdet i denne forbindelse.
Article 27 of the Specific Conditions provides that in the event of permanent and totalinvalidity caused by sickness or accident at work,or in the event of death,members of thelocal staff shall be entitled to benefits in accordance with the insurance policy concludedfor this purpose by the Commission.
I henhold til artikel 28 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår modtager en lokal medarbejderpension i medfør af den forsikringspolice,som Kommissionen har udarbejdet i denneforbindelse.
According to Article 28 of the Specific Conditions,a member of the local staff shallreceive a retirement pension in accordance with the insurance policy concluded for thispurpose by the Commission.
Bidragene til disse forsikringsordninger er fastlagt i artikel 30 i de særlige ansættelsesvilkår.
The contributions to these insurance schemes are set out in Article 30 of the Specific Conditions.
I henhold til artikel 30,stk. 2,skal de lokale medarbejdere indbetale et bidragsvarende til en tredjedel af de udgifter til forsikringen,der henvises til i artikel 25.
According to Article 30 (2),members of the local staff shall make a contribution amounting to one third of the costs of the insurance referred to in Article 25.
199 ansættelsesvilkår,beløber bidragene til pension og invaliditet/død sig til 60% for Kommissionen og 40% for den lokale medarbejder.
Article30 (3) provides that with respect to the risks referred to in Articles 27 and 28 of the Specific Conditions,the contribution for pension and invalidity-death shall amount to 60%for the Commission and 40% for the member of the local staff.