natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OLAF fastholdt sin stilling under Ombudsmandens undersøgelse.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, if citizens are to be able to make use of their rights under Regulation 1049/2001, they need to know what documents are in the possession of the administration concerned.
Som bevis på sin gode vilje gav OLAF dog klageren en liste, der omfattede den relevante korrespondance fra de sidste tre måneder af 2004.
Summary of decisions on complaint 1475/2005/(IP)GG and 1476/2005/(BB)GG against the European Commission
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at OLAF ikke benægtede klagerens ret til at få oplysninger af den ønskede karakter, men kun hævdede, at indsamlingen af alle oplysningerne ville kræve en uforholdsmæssigt stor arbejdsindsats.
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/9128 entered into force on 17 February 2005.
Han erindrede om, at en anmodning om aktindsigt ifølge Domstolens retspraksis kun i ekstraordinære tilfælde kan afvises.
In order to inform passengers of their new rights under Regulation 261/2004, the Commission prepared and published a leaflet, a poster, and a fact sheet.
Eft er Ombudsmandens opfattelse var denne retspraksis også relevant i den foreliggende sag.
The Commission also produced a short video presentation and issued a press release to mark the coming into force of the Regulation.
Kun ca. en femtedel af dokumenterne på den af OLAF udleverede liste var relevante.
All these materials were also made available on the Commission’s website.
Det fremgik således, at det samlede antal dokumenter, det drejede sig om, var langt mindre, end OLAF havde oplyst. Ombudsmanden kunne godtage, at den resterende liste fortsat var meget omfattende, og at det derfor ville kræve en betydelig arbejdsindsats at sikre sig, at den ikke indeholdt fortrolige data.
Two associations of airlines — the European Regions Airlines Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) — considered that the material published by the Commission contained incorrect and misleading information.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at hvis borgerne skal kunne udøve deres rettigheder i medfør af forordning 1049/2001, er de nødt til at vide, hvilke dokumenter der beror hos en given forvaltning.
A er the Commission had rejected the bulk of their objections, the two associations turned to the Ombudsman.
OLAF afviste Ombudsmandens forslag til en mindelig løsning og efterfølgende også hans forslag til henstilling, hvorfor Ombudsmanden lukkede sagen med kritiske bemærkninger vedrørende både dens proceduremæssige og indholdsmæssige aspekter.
Both associations alleged that the information concerning passengers’ rights under Regulation 261/2004, which the Commission had published in its poster, leaflet, fact sheet, and included in its video presentation, contained inaccurate and misleading statements.
Offentliggørelse af unøjagtige og vildledende oplysninger om luftfartspassagerers rettigheder igheder
The Ombudsman therefore addressed, in both cases, a dra recommendation to the Commission, urging the la4 er to correct these statements.
Sammendrag af afgørelser om klage 1475/2005/(IP)GG og 1476/2005/(BB)GG over Europa-Kommissionen
In the drarecommendation concerning the complaint submi4 ed by ERA, the Commission was also requested to present an apology to the complainant.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 261/2004 af 11. februar 2004 om fælles bestemmelser om kompensation og bistand til luftfartspassagerer ved boardingafvisning og ved aflysning eller lange forsinkelser og om ophævelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 295/9128 trådte i kraft den 17. februar 2005.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had taken note of his drarecommendation and that the leaflet, poster, fact-sheet, and video presentation in question had been withdrawn from its website.
IACA påpegede i sine bemærkninger, at man var tilfreds med, at Kommissionen på basis af Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling havde trukket de vildledende oplysninger om luftfartspassagerers rettigheder tilbage fra webstedet.
In its observations, IACA pointed out that it was pleased to note that, due to the Ombudsman’s drarecommendation, the Commission had withdrawn its misleading documentation on passenger rights from its website.
IACA understregede, at man bifaldt den procedure, der gik forud for offentliggørelsen den 4. april af den nye udgave af Kommissionens plakat.
IACA stressed that it was satisfied with the procedure leading to the publication of the new version of the Commission’s poster on 4 April 2007.
I lyset af ovenstående fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen på tilfredsstillende vis havde gennemført det forslag til henstilling, som blev fremsat i denne sag.
In view of the above, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had satisfactorily implemented the dra recommendation that was made in this case.
ERA bifaldt i sine bemærkninger de foranstaltninger, som Kommissionen havde truffet, og tilføjede, at Kommissionen havde accepteret alle ERA’s kommentarer til det nye informationsmateriale.
In its observations, ERA welcomed the action taken by the Commission and added that the Commission had accepted all the comments it had made on the new information material.
ERA mente dog, at tre spørgsmål stadig var uafklarede: (i) Eftersom den ældre udgave af plakaten stadig hang i mange lufthavne i EU, blev Ombudsmanden anmodet om at henstille til Kommissionen, at denne skulle pålægge lufthavnene at fjerne disse plakater. (ii) Ombudsmanden skulle desuden anmode Kommissionen om at rådføre sig med luftfartsselskaberne og handle i overensstemmelse med deres bidrag, før den nye plakat skulle ændres, eller der skulle udarbejdes nyt materiale. (iii) Kommissionen havde ikke givet klageren en undskyldning og havde ikke i den begrundede udtalelse henvist til dette spørgsmål i forslaget til henstilling. Ombudsmanden blev anmodet om at forfølge dette spørgsmål.
However, ERA considered that three issues still needed to be addressed: (i) Since the old version of the poster was still on display at many EU airports, the Ombudsman was requested to make a specific recommendation that the Commission should instruct airports to withdraw these posters. (ii) The Ombudsman should, furthermore, seek a commitment from the Commission that it will consult airline associations and act on their input prior to changing the new poster or producing any new material. (iii) The Commission had not apologised to the complainant and had made no reference to this part of the dra recommendation in its detailed opinion.
Hvad angår det første spørgsmål (som IACA også havde nævnt), bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at han havde tillid til, at Kommissionen ville træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger i denne forbindelse,
As regards the first issue (which had also been mentioned by IACA), the Ombudsman noted that he trusted that the Commission would take the necessary steps in this direction once the issue had been drawn to its a4 ention through this decision.
Hvad angår det andet spørgsmål, mente Ombudsmanden ikke, at det ville være formålstjenligt at udvide undersøgelsen med dette yderligere krav på et så fremskredent stadium af undersøgelsen.
As regards the second issue, the Ombudsman took the view that it would not be appropriate to extend his examination to this further claim at this advanced stage of his inquiry.
Det stod klageren frit for at indgive en ny klage om dette spørgsmål, når den havde taget de nødvendige skridt over for Kommissionen.
The complainant remained free to submit a new complaint concerning this issue, a er having made the appropriate prior approaches to the Commission.
Hvad angår det tredje spørgsmål, beklagede Ombudsmanden Kommissionens holdning til dette punkt.
As regards the third issue, the Ombudsman regre4 ed the position that the Commission had adopted in this respect.
Ombudsmanden gentog, at Kommissionen burde have givet en undskyldning i den foreliggende sag. Han fandt dog ikke, at det ville være formålstjenligt at udarbejde en særlig beretning til Europa-Parlamentet i denne sag.
The Ombudsman reiterated his view that the Commission ought to have presented its apologies in the present case.
Geninddrivelse af beløb, der er uberettiget udbetalt til arvingen eft er en tidligere tjenestemand
Recovery of sums unduly paid to heir of a former o cial
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1617/2005/(BB)JF over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1617/2005/(BB)JF against the European Commission
Klageren var enearving eft er en tidligere ansat i Kommissionen, som døde i november 1998.
The complainant was the only heir of a former employee of the Commission who died in November 1998.
I maj 2003 anmodede Kommissionen klageren om at tilbagebetale hans faders pension for december 1998, der var blevet uberettiget udbetalt.
In May 2003, the Commission asked the complainant to repay his father’s pension for the month of December 1998, which it had unduly paid.
Selv om klageren i første omgang accepterede at tilbagebetale beløbet i afdrag over 12 måneder, påstod han, at det var uretfærdigt, at Kommissionen opretholder indtægtsordren.
The complainant, although initially accepting to reimburse the sum in instalments, through a payment plan covering 12 months, alleged that it would be unfair for the Commission to enforce the recovery order.
Han fremførte, at han havde handlet i god tro, og at han ikke var opmærksom på beløbene på den pågældende bankkonto på grund af tragiske omstændigheder, nemlig flere dødsfald inden for en kort periode.
He argued that he had acted in good faith and that he was unaware of the amounts in the relevant bank account because of tragic circumstances, namely, multiple bereavements over a short time.
Klageren mente, at Kommissionen burde annullere den pågældende indtægtsordre.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should cancel the said recovery order.
Kommissionen fremførte i sin udtalelse om klagen, at den fejlagtige udbetaling havde været åbenlys, så klageren ikke kunne være ubekendt med den, hvis han havde udvist almindelig omhu.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission took the view that the overpayment had been patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it, had he exercised ordinary care.
Den mente heller ikke, at han kunne påberåbe sig god tro, fordi han ikke havde overholdt den tilbagebetalingsplan, som var blevet udarbejdet på hans egen anmodning.
It also considered that he could not invoke his good faith because he failed to respect the reimbursement plan established at his own request.
Selv om den erkendte, at den fejlagtige udbetaling skyldtes en fejl, som den havde begået, forklarede Kommissionen denne fejl med, at december er den måned, hvor den årlige
In his observations, the complainant explained that he had changed his view regarding the recovery a er he learned about the Appointing Authority’s power to waive a debt, in accordance with Article
Den skulle således stadig betale boet eft er klagerens fader den årlige »tilpasning« af hans pension svarende til perioden fra juli til november 1998.
Thus, it still had to pay to the estate of the complainant’s father the annual “adaptation” of his pension corresponding to the period from July to November 1998.
Ombudsmanden noterede sig, at nogle af de mange udbetalinger til boet eft er klagerens fader i december 1998 var blevet udbetalt korrekt, mens andre var blevet uberettiget udbetalt.
The Ombudsman took note of the fact that some of the multiple payments made to the estate of the complainant’s father in December 1998 had been duly paid, whereas others had not been duly paid.
På denne baggrund kunne Ombudsmanden ikke tilslutte sig argumentet om, at udbetalingens uberettigede karakter var »åbenlys«, således at klageren ikke kunne være ubekendt med den. Ombudsmanden understregede, at Kommissionen i denne sag havde at gøre med en person, som ikke var hverken »tjenestemand« eller »embedsmand«, og som ikke kunne formodes at have det særlige ansvar, som tjenestemænd og embedsmænd har med hensyn til de udbetalinger, der foretages til dem.
In light of this, the Ombudsman could not support the argument that the undue nature of the payment was “patently” such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it.
I lyset af ovenstående udarbejdede Ombudsmanden et udkast til henstilling til Kommissionen om at overveje, om det ud over at være retfærdigt og rimeligt ville være i overensstemmelse med gældende regler at annullere indtægtsordren.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman made a dra recommendation to the Commission to consider whether, in addition to being fair and reasonable, it would be in accordance with the applicable rules, to cancel the recovery order.
Kommissionen fastslog i sit svar, at den i lyset af den betydning, som Ombudsmanden havde tillagt denne sag, havde besluttet at acceptere Ombudsmandens henstilling og rent undtagelsesvist annullere indtægtsordren.
In its reply, the Commission stated that, considering the importance that the Ombudsman had given to the present case, it had decided to accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation and, exceptionally, cancel the recovery order.
Ombudsmanden hilste i sin afgørelse Kommissionens svar velkommen og understregede, at Kommissionens positive holdning i denne sag havde stor betydning for borgernes forventninger til et mere humant EU.
In his decision, the Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s reply and emphasised the importance of the Commission’s positive approach in the present case for strengthening citizens’ expectations of a more humane EU.
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3278/2004/ELB over Europa-Parlamentet
Summary of decision on complaint 3278/2004/ELB against the European Parliament
Klageren ansøgte om at deltage i en intern udvælgelsesprøve tilrettelagt af Europa-Parlamentet og oplyste, at hun var gravid og forventede at nedkomme den 17. juni 2004.
The complainant applied for an internal competition organised by Parliament, mentioning that she was pregnant and noting the likely date of the delivery, that is, 17 June 2004.
Hun blev indbudt til at deltage i prøverne, der fandt sted den 2. juli 2004, og fødte dagen før.
She was invited to the tests, which took place on 2 July 2004, and gave birth one day before.
Den samme dag, hun fødte, informerede hun Parlamentet om, at hun ikke ville kunne deltage i prøverne, og hun anmodede om at få lov til at aflægge prøverne på et senere tidspunkt.
On the same day that she gave birth, she informed Parliament that she would not be able to a4 end the tests and requested that she be allowed to take them at a later date.
Parlamentet afslog.
Parliament refused.
Klageren påstår i sin klage, at dette afslag var diskriminerende.
In her complaint, the complainant alleged that this refusal was discriminatory.
Eft er at Ombudsmanden havde fremsat forslag til en mindelig løsning og udarbejdet et udkast til en henstilling, konkluderede han, at det afslag, der var indgivet klage over, ikke så ud til at afspejle en retfærdig balance mellem de modstridende interesser.
Following a relevant friendly solution proposal and drarecommendation by the Ombudsman, he concluded that the challenged refusal did not appear to reflect a fair balancing of the competing interests involved.
Ombudsmanden gjorde kort rede for de grundlæggende principper for ikke-diskrimination på grundlag af køn og respekten for privatlivets fred og familien og bemærkede, at det i forbindelse med klassifikation eft er køn eller klassifikationer, der bebyrder en grundlæggende rettighed, er forsvareren for en omtvistet klassifikation, som skal vise, at klassifikationen tjener et legitimt mål af almen interesse, og at de anvendte midler står i forhold til realiseringen af dette mål.
A er recalling the fundamental principles of non-discrimination on the basis of gender and of respect for private and family life, the Ombudsman noted that, in the context of gender classifications, or classifications involving burdens upon a fundamental right, the defender of the challenged classification has to show that the classification serves a legitimate objective of general interest and that the means employed are proportional to the achievement of this objective.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at den omtvistede afgørelse de facto indebar kønsdiskrimination, og at et sådant afslag kan gøre udøvelsen af den grundlæggende frihed til at forplante sig langt mindre attraktiv for kvindelige kandidater og derfor kan udgøre en reel og væsentlig begrænsning af deres ret til respekt for privatlivets fred.
The Ombudsman found that the contested decision involved de facto gender discrimination and that such a refusal may make the exercise of the fundamental freedom of procreation much less a 4 ractive to female candidates and, hence, may involve a real and appreciable burden upon their right to respect for private life.
Parlamentet skulle derfor forsvare sin omtvistede afgørelse.
Therefore, Parliament had to defend its contested decision.
SAMMENDRAG AF AFGØRELSER
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
Dækning af tidligere ægtefæller i henhold til den fælles sygeforsikringsordning
Medical coverage of former spouses under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
Sammendrag af afgørelser om fortrolige klager 368/2005/(MF)(BU)BM og 2776/2005/ID over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decisions on confidential complaints 368/2005/(MF)(BU)BM and 2776/2005/ID against the European Commission
En fraskilt, tidligere ægtefælle til en tjenestemand i Europa-Kommissionen fi k konstateret en alvorlig sygdom.
The divorced former spouse of an o cial of the Commission was diagnosed with a serious illness.
Som svar på en anmodning om godtgørelse af udgifterne til lægebehandling fra den fælles sygeforsikringsordning for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber blev det meddelt klageren, at sygeforsikringen kun dækkede et år eft er skilsmissen.
In response to an application for the reimbursement of medical costs under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for O cials of the European Communities (JSIS), the complainant was informed that medical insurance only lasted for a period of one year following divorce.
Klageren hævdede, at Kommissionen burde forlænge denne periode.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should extend this period.
Ombudsmandens undersøgelse afslørede, at Kommissionen var villig til at indrømme klageren forlænget dækning for så vidt angik hans udgifter som følge af den alvorlige sygdom.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that the Commission had agreed to grant the complainant an additional period of insurance cover as regards expenses resulting from the serious illness.
Ombudsmanden noterede sig desuden, at Kommissionen havde opfordret klageren til at kontakte den relevante tjenestegren, såfremt behandlingen af den alvorlige sygdom skulle fortsætte eft er den periode, hvor han var dækket af den fælles sygeforsikringsordning.
The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission had taken the initiative to invite the complainant to contact its services if the treatment of the serious illness had to be continued once the JSIS coverage had expired.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at Kommissionens fremgangsmåde forekom at være i overensstemmelse med klagerens grundlæggende ret til sundhedsydelser og lægehjælp og med retten til god forvaltning taget under ét30
The Ombudsman pointed out that the approach taken by the Commission appeared to be consistent with the complainant’s fundamental rights to health care and to good administration,
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor ikke, at der var behov for yderligere undersøgelse af klagerens klage.
The Ombudsman therefore found that no further inquiries into the complainant’s taken together claim were necessary.
Med hensyn til det generelle spørgsmål erkendte Kommissionen under behandlingen af klagen, at den havde konstateret en mangel ved sygeforsikringsordningens dækning for fraskilte ægtefæller til tjenestemænd.
As regards the general issue, the Commission acknowledged, in the course of the inquiry, that it had now become aware of a lacuna in the area of sickness insurance cover for ex-spouses of o cials.
Den meddelte Ombudsmanden, at den med virkning fra den 1. juli 2007 havde
It informed the Ombudsman that it had introduced a new general implementing provision, with e � ect from 1 July 2007, to allow the JSIS to continue, subject to certain conditions, to cover o cials’ ex-spouses su� ering from serious illnesses.
Artikel 35 og 41 i Den Europæiske Unions Charter om Grundlæggende Rettigheder. igheder.
Articles 35 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Ombudsmanden behandlede senere et lignende forhold i forbindelse med sag 2776/2005/ID.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS privacy and the integrity of the individual” as stipulated in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001,
Kommissionen fremførte, at afsløring af navnene på de pågældende personer kunne være et indgreb i deres ret til privatlivets fred, som er omfattet af fællesskabslovgivningen om beskyttelse af personoplysninger.
The Commission argued that disclosure of the names of the individuals concerned could interfere with their right to privacy, which is protected by Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data.
Kommissionen mente, at dens beslutning om at slette navnene, var i overensstemmelse med den opfattelse, som Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse havde givet udtryk for i sit baggrundsdokument om offentlig adgang til dokumenter og databeskyttelse. else.
The Commission considered its decision to blank out the names to be in accordance with the understanding of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), as explained in his background paper on public access to documents and data protection.
Ombudsmanden skrev til Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse og bad ham kommentere Kommissionens holdning, navnlig om anvendelse af forordning (EF) nr. 45/2001 på denne sag.
The Ombudsman wrote to the EDPS, asking him to comment on the position taken by the Commission, in particular on the applicability of Regulation 45/2001 to the present case.
Som svar på Ombudsmandens anmodning fastslog Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse, at han gerne ville vente med at behandle den foreliggende sag, indtil Retten i Første Instans havde afsagt dom i sag T-194/04, Bavarian Lager mod Kommissionen.
In reply to the Ombudsman’s request, the EDPS stated that he wanted to await the Court of First Instance’s judgment in Case T-194/04, Bavarian Lager v Commission, before examining the present case.
Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse forklarede, at han var intervenient i den pågældende sag til fordel for sagsøger, fordi Kommissionens holdning eft er hans mening ikke førte til et tilfredsstillende resultat.
The EDPS explained that he had intervened in the case in question in support of the applicant, because in his view, the position of the Commission did not lead to a satisfactory outcome.
Da det var uvist, hvornår dommen i sag T-194/04 ville blive afsagt, besluttede Ombudsmanden at behandle denne sag uden at afvente Rettens dom og udtalelsen fra Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse. else.
Since it was not clear when the judgment in Case T-194/04 would be delivered, the Ombudsman decided to examine the present case without waiting for the Court’s judgment and the EDPS’s opinion.
Ombudsmanden analyserede herefter sagen i lyset af retningslinjerne fra Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskyttelse, i henhold til hvilke tre betingelser skal være opfyldt, for at adgang kan nægtes i henhold til artikel 4, stk. 1, litra b, i forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001.
The Ombudsman then analysed the case in light of the EDPS’s guidelines, according to which three conditions have to be fulfilled in order for access to be refused under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke, at Kommissionen havde fastslået, hvorvidt nogle af tre betingelser var opfyldt.
The Ombudsman did not consider the Commission to have established that any of the three conditions was fulfilled.