natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Resultatet af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser har vist,at dette ikke vargrunden til Kommissionens beslutning om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen i forbindelse med Thessaloniki Metro.
The Ombudsman’s finding is thatthis was not the reason for the Commission’s decision to close the Thessaloniki Metrocase.
Det fremgår,at Kommissionen traf en skønsmæssig beslutning om atafslutte sagsbehandlingen,trods beviserne for en mulig overtrædelse.
It appears that the Commission made a discretionary decision to close the case,despite the evidence of a possible infringement.
Kommissionen gavderfor ikke klageren en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for sin beslutning om at afslutte behandlingen af klagen.
The Commission therefore failed toprovide the complainant with adequate reasons for its decision to close the file on thecomplaint.
Dette udgør et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
2.Ombudsmanden bemærker,at for at en klager kan få mulighed for at fremsættebemærkninger,skal bl.a. følgende elementer nødvendigvis være til stede:
2The Ombudsman notes that an opportunity for a complainant to submit observationsnecessarily includes,amongst others,the following elements:
(i) en tilstrækkelig frist til at udarbejde og fremsætte eventuelle bemærkninger
(i) sufficient time in which to prepare and submit any observations;
(ii)tilstrækkelige oplysninger om grundlaget for den påtænkte beslutning om at afsluttesagsbehandlingen,således at klageren kan tage de relevante spørgsmål op i sine bemærkninger.
(ii) sufficient information as to the basis of the proposed closure decision,so that thecomplainant may address the relevant issues in his observations.
I den foreliggende sendte Kommissionen en skrivelse umiddelbart inden den almindeligesommerferieperiode,hvori den informerede klageren om den påtænkte afslutning af sagsbehandlingen og opfordrede ham til at fremsende supplerende oplysninger.Ombudsmanden bemærker,at der i Kommissionens skrivelse ikke var fastsat nogen fristfor fremsendelsen af sådanne oplysninger,hvorfor der skulle have været mulighed for enrimelig tidsfrist.
In the present case,the Commission sent a letter just before the normal summer holidayseason,informing the complainant of the proposed closure of the file and inviting him tosubmit additional elements. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission’s letter did notestablish any deadline for such submission:a reasonable time should therefore have beenallowed.
Hvis Kommissionen ønskede at handle hurtigt,havde det endvidere værethensigtsmæssigt både at fastsætte en frist og at informere klageren via et modernekommunikationsmiddel i stedet for blot at benytte postvæsenet.
Furthermore,if the Commission wished to act quickly it would have been appropriate both to establish a deadline and to inform the complainant by a modern method ofcommunication,rather than relying on the post.
Under disse omstændig-heder,hvor sagsbehandlingen blev afsluttet blot otte dage efter klagerens modtagelse af Kommissionens skrivelse,fik klageren ikke en tilstrækkelig frist til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
In these circumstances,the closure of thefile a mere eight days after the complainant received the Commission’s letter did not givethe complainant sufficient time to submit observations.
Ombudsmanden minder endvidere om,at Kommissionen ikke gav klageren en tilstrækkeligbegrundelse for sin påtænkte beslutning om at afslutte sagsbehandlingen.
The Ombudsman also recalls that the Commission failed to provide the complainant withadequate reasons for its proposed decision to close the file.
Kommissionengav derfor ikke klageren en reel mulighed for at tage alle de relevante spørgsmål op i hansbemærkninger.
The Commission did not,therefore,give the complainant a genuine opportunity to address all the relevant issues inhis observations.
På baggrund af ovenstående gav Kommissionen ikke klageren en rimelig mulighed for atblive hørt,inden den afsluttede behandlingen af hans klage.
In view of the above,the Commission denied the complainant a fair opportunity to beheard before it closed the file on his complaint.
Dette udgør et tilfælde af fejleller forsømmelser.
This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
Da disse aspekter af sagen vedrørte et overstået hændelsesforløb,var det ikke relevant atfinde en mindelig løsning,og Ombudsmanden afsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
Given that these aspects of the case concerned procedures relating to specific events in thepast,it was not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
1989,s. 291,sag 87/89,Sonito mod Kommissionen,Sml.
The Ombudsmantherefore decided to close the case.
Ombudsmanden understregede,at ovennævnte retspraksis ikke forhindrer Kommissioneni at tage skridt til at undgå fremtidige tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i forbindelse medbehandlingen af klager på grundlag af artikel 226.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the above-mentioned case law does not prevent the Commission from taking steps to avoid possible future cases of maladministration in itshandling of complaints under Article 226.
Ombudsmanden foreslog specifikt, at Kommissionen overvejede at fastlægge klare procedureregler for behandlingen af sådanneklager,analogt med de gældende regler i forbindelse med konkurrencesager.
Specifically,the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission consider establishing a clear procedural code for the treatment of suchcomplaints,analogous to existing codes in relation to competition matters.
I forbindelse med Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelse på eget initiativ af Kommissionens administrative procedurer ved behandlingen af klager over medlemsstaternes overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten (303/97/PD34) erkendte Kommissionen allerede,at klagerne i tidsrummet forud for et eventuelt sagsanlæg nyder godt af proceduremæssigegarantier,som Kommissionen vedvarende har udviklet og forbedret.
In the European Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry into the Commission’s administrative procedures for dealing with complaints concerning Member States’infringement of Community law (303/97/PD34),the Commission already acknowledged that,in the periodbefore judicial proceedings may begin,complainants enjoy procedural safeguards whichthe Commission has constantly developed and improved.
Kommissionenindvilgede endvidere i at videreføre dette arbejde.
The Commission also declareditself ready to continue along these lines.
I denne henseende bør Kommissionen navnlig præcisere de proceduremæssige aspekter afden administrative fase forud for en endelig beslutning om at fremsætte den begrundedeudtalelse,som afslutter den administrative procedure.
In this respect,the Commission should particularly clarify the procedural aspects of theadministrative stage preceding the eventual decision to issue the reasoned opinion,whichconcludes the pre-litigation procedure.
Fastlæggelsen af sådanne regler vil udgøre et vigtigt skridt,således at borgernes ret til godforvaltning,som fastlagt i Den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettig-heder,der blev proklameret i Nice den 7. december 2000,kan blive en levende realitet.
The establishment of such a code would mark an important step towards making a livingreality of the citizen’s right to good administration,as recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000.
KOMMISSIONENS OPFØLGNING AF SAGEN
FOLLOW-UP OF THE CASE BY THE COMMISSION
Den 15 maj 2001 orienterede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om,hvordan den havdefulgt op på de kritiske og yderligere bemærkninger.
On 15 May 2001,the Commission informed the Ombudsman of its follow-up to the critical remarks and further remark in this case.
Kommissionen bemærkede,at den fremgangsmåde,som havde givet anledning til kritik,allerede stort set var blevet ændret ved at orientere offentligheden om de nye bestem-melser,som er indeholdt i den forklarende note,som er vedhæftet dens meddelelse af 30.april 1999 “En medlemsstats manglende overholdelse af fællesskabsretten:standardfor-mular til brug ved indgivelse af klage til Europa-Kommissionen”(EFT C 119/1999,s. 5).
The Commission observed that the practice which had given rise to criticism had alreadybeen largely amended by informing the public of new rules which are set out for theirbenefit in the explanatory note which accompanies its communication of 30 April 1999,entitled “Failure by a Member State to comply with Community law:standard form forcomplaints to be submitted to the European Commission”(OJ 1999 C 119/5).
Kommissionen meddelte endvidere Ombudsmanden,at dens tjenestegrene for øjeblikketarbejder på en konsolideret udgave af dens interne regler om forvaltning af overtrædelses-proceduren,og så snart denne procedurekodeks er udarbejdet,vil den blive meddelt Ombudsmanden og Europa-Parlamentet og udsendt til offentligheden via Europanetsiden.
The Commission also informed the Ombudsman that its services are currently working ona consolidated version of its internal rules on the management of infringement procedures,and that,as soon as it is completed,this procedural code will be communicated to the Ombudsman and the European Parliament and made available to the public through the
Han foreslog imidlertid,at organisationen muligvis kunne få tilskud gennem enanden ngo,som opfyldte de relevante kriterier. Klageren indvilligede derefter i at træde tilog indsende ansøgningen i sit eget navn.
Case 247/87 Star Fruit v Commission[1989] ECR 291; Case 87/89 Sonito v Commission,[1990] ECR-I-1981;Order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/97,Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud v Commission1998ECR II-0271.
303/97/PD,beskrevet i Den Europæiske Ombudsmands årsberetning for 1997,s. 273-277.
303/97/PD,reported in the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997,pages 270-274.
Kommissionen indvilligede i at bidrage med 70.443 EUR til dækning af projektetsomkostninger.
In June1997,a contract was concluded between the Commission and the complainant in which the Commission agreed to contribute 70443 towards the costs of the project.
På baggrund af denne aftale begyndte organisationen at implementereprojektet.
On thebasis of this contract,the association began to implement its project.
I sit svar til medlemmet af 17. juni 1998 udtrykte Kommissionen denholdning,at det pågældende beløb ikke kunne frigives,før klageren havde tilbagebetaltforskellige beløb,som Kommissionen havde tildelt [klagerens] Verein der Freunde und Förderer (”foreningen”).
In its reply to the MEP of 17 June 1998,the Commission tookthe view that the relevant sum could not be released before the complainant had paid backvarious sums that the Commission had granted to the Verein der Freunde und Förderer [ofthe complainant] (the “Friends”).
Efter at have hørt Kommissionens holdning kontaktede klagerenved flere lejligheder Kommissionen for at få finansieringen frigivet. Kommissionenmeddelte imidlertid klageren i en skrivelse af 15. december 1998,at den ikke ville foretage den ønskede udbetaling.
After having learnt of the Commission’s attitude,thecomplainant contacted the Commission on several occasions in order to obtain the releaseof the funds.
Kommissionen bekræftede,at den ikke havde nogen indvendinger mod projektet som sådan.
The Commission confirmedthat it did not have any objections against the project as such.
Den mente imidlertid,at den selv havde krav modklageren,som kunne modregnes i det pågældende beløb.
It took the view,however,that it had itself claims against the complainant which could be set off against the relevantsum.
Ifølge Kommissionen stammededisse krav fra aftaler om andre udviklingsprojekter,som den havde indgået med foreningen.
According to the Commission,these claims resulted from contracts for other development projects which it had entered into with the Friends.
Kommissionen mente,at klageren var forpligtet til at betale foreningens gæld,daden syntes at være under likvidation eller allerede at være opløst.
The Commission consideredthat the complainant was liable for these debts of the Friends which appeared to be inliquidation or had already been wound up.
På den baggrund henvendte klageren sig til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand for at få hjælp.
In these circumstances,the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman for help.
Klageren krævede,at Kommissionen skulle frigive de pågældende midler.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should release the funds concerned.
Efter klagerensmening havde Kommissionen i juni 1997 afgivet et bindende løfte om at frigive det pågældende beløb.
In itsview,the Commission had,in June 1997,given a binding promise to release the relevantamount of money.
Klageren gjorde ligeledes gældende,at Kommissionen vidste,at klagerenkun fungerede som forvalter for organisationen.
It also claimed that the Commission had known that it was only actingas a trustee for the association.
Klageren mente derfor,at krav mod tredjemand ikke kunne modregnes i det pågældende beløb.
The complainant took the view that claims against a thirdparty could not therefore be set off against the sum at stake.
I denne forbindelse gjordeklageren gældende,at klageren ikke skulle indtræde i foreningens rettigheder,da dette varen separat juridisk enhed.
In this context,thecomplainant claimed that it was not the legal successor of the Friends which in its viewwere a separate legal entity.
Klageren gjorde desuden gældende,at Kommissionens afvisning af at betale det aftalte beløb havde bragt organisationen på randen af konkurs,hvilketdermed havde truet videreførelsen af projektet i Chile.
The complainant further claimed that the refusal of the Commission to pay out the amount agreed on had brought the association to the brink ofbankruptcy and,as a consequence,threatened the continuation of the project in Chile.
Kommissionen havde krav om tilbagebetaling af et samlet beløb på 210.000 EUR mod Verein der Freunde und Förderer,eftersom de to projekter ikke var tilstrækkeligt dokumenteret af foreningen.
The Commission had claims for repayment amounting to a total of 210000 against the Friends due to the fact that two projects had not been properly accounted for by the latter.
Begge projekter blev oprindeligt sendt til Kommissionen afklageren selv,men med den klausul,at foreningen,som endnu ikke var etableret,skullevære ansvarlig for gennemførelsen af disse projekter.
Both projects had originally been submitted to the Commission by the complainant itselfacting on its own behalf,on the understanding however,that the yet to be established Friends would then be responsible for the implementation of these projects. Accordingly,
Derfor blev støtteaftalen senereindgået med foreningen,og det var den samme person,der handlede på vegne af bådeklageren og foreningen.
121 the grant agreements had later been concluded with the Friends,the same person actingfor both the complainant and the Friends.
Der var udstedt indtægtsordrer mod foreningen i 1995 for debeløb,der skulle indhentes,men man reagerede ikke på dem.
Recovery orders for the sums to be retrievedwhich had been issued against the Friends in 1995 had been unsuccessful.
Det viste sig,at foreningenikke havde nogen aktiver.
It appeared thatthe Friends did not have any assets.
Klageren nægtede selv at acceptere sit ansvar for foreningensøkonomiske forpligtelser,på trods af at overskuddet fra dens aktiviteter i overensstemmelse med statutterne regelmæssigt var blevet overført til klageren.
The complainant itself refused to accept responsibilityfor the financial commitments of the Friends despite the fact that in accordance with itsstatutes,the proceeds of the activities of the Friends had been regularly transferred to thecomplainant.
Klageren havdeoprettet Verein der Freunde und Förderer for at få hjælp til sine aktiviteter.
The complainant had established the Friends in order to assist it in its activities.
Personalet i ogmedlemmerne af disse to organisationer var indbyrdes forbundet,og foreningen anvendtesamme adresse som klageren,herunder også telefonnummer og logo.
Staff and members of both were interlinked,the Friends using the same businessaddress as the complainant,including telephone number and logo.
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage.
In its observations,the complainant maintained its complaint.
Klageren gjorde også følgende to nyepunkter gældende:
It also submitted two newclaims which may be summarised as follows:
(1)Kommissionen skulle ikke have ydet støtte til klageren (som kun handlede på organisationens vegne) i 1997,hvis den mente,at den havde et krav mod klageren om tilbagebetaling af visse beløb.
(1)The Commission should not have made a grant to the complainant (which was onlyacting for the association) in 1997 if it believed that it had a claim for the repayment ofcertain sums against the complainant.
(2)Kommissionen burde ikke have ventet i 18 måneder,før den oplyste klageren om årsagerne til,at den ikke havde frigivet de midler,som den havde indvilliget i at betale tilklageren.
(2)The Commission should not have waited for 18 months before informing thecomplainant of the reasons for not releasing the funds which it had agreed to pay to thecomplainant.
Klageren gjordegældende,at Kommissionen bevidst havde ladt organisationen styre mod afgrunden.
It claimed that the Commission had knowingly let the association go towardsits doom.
Efter at have modtaget klagerens bemærkninger til Kommissionens udtalelse, fandt Ombudsmanden, at det ville være hensigtsmæssigt at undersøge de nye klagepunkter,somklageren havde fremlagt,inden for rammerne af den foreliggende undersøgelse.Ombudsmanden skrev derfor den 3. december 1999 til Kommissionen med henblik på atanmode denne om at indsende en udtalelse om klagerens nye klagepunkter.
Having received the complainant’s observations on the opinion of the Commission, the Ombudsman considered that it was appropriate to examine the new allegations put forwardby the complainant in the context of the present investigation. The Ombudsman thereforewrote to the Commission on 3 December 1999 in order to ask the latter to submit anopinion on the complainant’s new allegations.
I sin udtalelse af 3. februar 2000 fremsatte Kommissionen følgende bemærkninger:
In its opinion of 3 February 2000,the Commission made the following comments:
Kommissionen havde kun ført forhandlinger medklageren.
All negotiations had been conducted with the complainant.
Kommissionen havde i sit forhold til klageren arbejdet efter det princip,at detfaktum,at parterne havde en tvist om ét projekt,ikke i sig selv udelukkede en videreførelseaf det eksisterende samarbejde i andre sager,så længe Kommissionen kunne gå ud fra,atden handlede med en ærlig forretningspartner,som den kunne indgå en acceptabel aftalemed.
Inits relations with the complainant,the Commission had been guided by the principle that,by itself,the fact that the parties were in dispute over one project did not exclude continuing the ongoing business relationship in other cases,as long as the Commission couldassume to deal with an honest business partner,with whom an acceptable understandingcould be reached.
Kommissionen havde først skærpet sin holdning,da det stod klart,at klageren ikkehavde levet op til Kommissionens tillid.
The Commission had only hardened its stand once it had become clearthat this trust had been misplaced in the case of the complainant.
Kommissionen havde fra starten ved flere lejligheder nægtet af frigive Chile-tilskuddet,netop fordi der havde været en tydelig forbindelse til de andre projekter.
The Commission had refused from the start,in numerous contacts,to release the Chilegrant,exactly because there had been an obvious link with the other projects.
Faktisk havdeparterne drøftet de omtvistelige regnskaber siden efteråret 1997.
In fact,theparties had been discussing the litigious accounts since the fall of 1997.
Der blev afholdt et fællesmøde den 1. juli 1998.
A joint meetinghad been held on 1 July 1998.
En efterfølgende anmodning om yderligere oplysninger fraklageren var i november 1998 ikke blevet imødekommet til Kommissionens tilfredshed.Kommissionen beklagede,at organisationen var blevet bytte for klagerens forretningsmoral. Kommissionen havde imidlertid hverken formidlet eller støttet organisationenskontakt med klageren.
A subsequent request for information addressed to thecomplainant had been answered unsatisfactorily in November 1998.
Klageren gjorde i sine bemærkninger til denne udtalelse gældende,at Kommissionenhavde haft kendskab til det forhold,at ansøgningen var indgivet på vegne af organisationen.
In its observations on this opinion,the complainant claimed that the Commission had hadknowledge of the fact that the application had been lodged in the interest of the associa-
Ombudsmanden anerkendte,at klagerens første påstand,hvori den fastholdt, at Kommissionen skulle have frigivet de beløb,den havde bevilget,rejste det vanskeligespørgsmål om,hvorvidt klageren var forpligtet til at betale foreningens gæld.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that the complainant’s first claim according to which the Commission should have released the money it had agreed to provide raised the difficultissue as to whether the complainant was liable for the debts of the Friends.
Eftersomdette spørgsmål i sidste ende skulle afgøres af en domstol,der havde den fornødnedomsmyndighed i sagen,nåede Ombudsmanden til den foreløbige konklusion,at der ikkesyntes at have foreligget et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i denne forbindelse.
Since this issueultimately had to be determined by a court that had jurisdiction in the matter, the Ombudsman came to the provisional conclusion that no maladministration appeared toexist in that regard.
Ombudsmanden havde imidlertid en anden holdning til klagerens andet klagepunkt om, at Kommissionen ikke burde have indgået den pågældende aftale,hvis den mente,at denhavde et krav mod klageren om tilbagebetaling af visse beløb.
However,the Ombudsman took a different view with regard to the second allegation of thecomplainant according to which the Commission should not have entered into the relevantcontract if it believed that it had a claim for the repayment of certain sums against thecomplainant.
Ombudsmanden bemær-kede,at alle de forhold,som Kommissionen henholdt sig til for at begrunde sin udtalelseom,at klageren var forpligtet til at betale foreningens gæld til Kommissionen,syntes atvære kendt,da kontrakten blev underskrevet i juni 1997.
The Ombudsman noted that all the facts on which the Commission relied inorder to justify its position according to which the complainant was liable to pay the debtsthat the Friends had incurred against the Commission appeared to have been known at thetime when the contract was signed in June 1997.
Kommissionen vidste også på dettidspunkt,at klageren nægtede at erkende sit ansvar for denne gæld.
The Commission also knew at the timethat the complainant refused to accept liability for these debts.
Endelig vidste ellerburde Kommissionen have vidst,at den finansielle bistand,der blev lovet i aftalen,ikkeskulle gavne klageren,men organisationen og dens projekt i Chile.
Finally,the Commissionknew or must have known that the financial assistance promised in the contract was tobenefit not the complainant,but the association and its project in Chile.
Ombudsmandens foreløbige konklusion var derfor,at Kommissionens beslutning om atindgå aftalen under omstændighederne kunne udgøre et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion,therefore,was that in view of the circum-stances,the decision of the Commission to enter into the contract could constitute aninstance of maladministration.