natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Idenne sammenhæng fremførte han tre argumenter:(1) Den relevante ekspert i det firma,der fik tildelt kontrakten,havde et godt personligt forhold til mindst én af de af Kommissionens tjenestemænd,der var ansvarlig for kontrakten,(2) klagerens firma havdeden fornødne erfaring til at opfylde Kommissionen krav om,at ansøgerne skulle have”praktisk erfaring inden for konstruktion af rensningsanlæg”,og (3) hverken EDC eller Eunice opfyldte dette krav.
In thiscontext,he puts forward three arguments:(1) The relevant expert at the firm to which thecontract was awarded had a good personal relationship with at least one of the Commission officials responsible for the contract; (2) the complainant’s firm did have thenecessary experience to fulfil the Commission’s requirement that applicants needed tohave “hands-on experience of the design of water treatment facilities”and (3) neither EDCnor Eunice fulfilled the said requirement.
Den mener ikke,at der er beviser til støtte forklagerens første argument.
It takes the view that there is no evidenceto support the complainant’s first argument.
Kommissionen afviser endvidere,at klagerens påstand om,athans firma opfyldte det relevante kriterium,er korrekt.
The Commission further denies that thecomplainant’s claim that his firm fulfilled the relevant criterion is correct.
Endelig mener Kommissionen,atbåde EDC og Eunice opfyldte det pågældende kriterium.
Finally, the Commission takes the view that both EDC and Eunice complied with that criterion.
Den understreger desuden,atkontrakten ikke blev tildelt nogen af de to firmaer.
It alsostresses that the contract was awarded to neither of these two firms.
3.3Det er god forvaltningsskik fra forvaltningens side at behandle tilbudsgivere lige.Ombudsmanden bemærker,at klageren ikke har fremlagt nogen beviser til støtte for sinpåstand om,at den relevante ekspert i det firma,der fik tildelt kontrakten,havde et godtpersonligt forhold til mindst én af de af Kommissionens tjenestemænd,der var ansvarligfor kontrakten. Denne påstand kan derfor ikke betragtes som værende godtgjort.
3.3It is good administrative practice for the administration to treat tenderers equally. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not put forward any evidence to support hisclaim that the relevant expert at the firm to which the contract was awarded had a goodpersonal relationship with at least one of the Commission officials responsible for thecontract.
3.4Klagerens påstand om,at hans firma opfyldte det relevante kriterium,er baseret på enpassus i det af firmaet afgivne bud om,at han,ifølge ham selv,havde erfaring inden forbedømmelse og godkendelse af rensningssystemer.
3.4The complainant’s claim that his firm fulfilled the relevant criterion is based on apassage in the tender submitted by that firm in which it was said,according to him,thathe had experience in judging and approving treatment systems.
Kommissionen afviser,at den pågældende passus viser,at klagerens firma opfyldte kravet om,at firmaerne skulle have ”praktisk erfaring inden for konstruktion af rensningsanlæg”.
The Commission deniesthat the relevant passage shows that the complainant’s firm fulfilled the requirement thatfirms had to have “hands-on experience of the design of water treatment facilities”.
Ombudsmanden mener ikke, at Kommissionens fortolkning af det af klagerens firma afgivne bud synes urimelig.
The Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s interpretation of the tender submitted by thecomplainant’s firm does not appear to be unreasonable.
3.5Med hensyn til EDC og Eunice er det sandt,at ingen af disse firmaer fik tildeltkontrakten.
3.5In so far as EDC and Eunice are concerned,it is true that the contract was not awardedto either of them.
Kommissionen vurderede imidlertid,at begge firmaers bud havde opfyldt detrelevante kriterium.
However,the offers of both firms were considered by the Commissionas having fulfilled the relevant criterion.
Hvis dette ikke havde været tilfældet,ville Kommissionen havebehandlet tilbudsgiverne forskelligt,som klageren gør gældende.
If this should not have been the case, the Commission would thus have treated tenderers unequally as the complainant claims.
3.6Det er naturligvis først og fremmest op til det forvaltningsorgan,der arrangerer etudbud,at vurdere,om ansøgerne opfylder betingelserne i udbudsmaterialet.Ombudsmanden må ikke tilsidesætte denne vurdering til fordel for sin egen,men udelukkende kontrollere,om forvaltningens vurdering er åbenlyst urimelig. Ombudsmandenfinder imidlertid,at dette rent faktisk er tilfældet her.
3.6It is of course in the first place for the administration organising a call for tenders toassess whether the applicants fulfil the conditions laid down in this call. The Ombudsmanmust not substitute this assessment by his own but only check whether the administration’sassessment is manifestly unreasonable.
Ombudsmanden mener ikke,atnogen af uddragene fra de af EDC og Eunice afgivne bud viser,at disse firmaer havde”praktisk erfaring inden for konstruktion af rensningsanlæg”.
In the Ombudsman’s view,none of the excerpts from the tenderssubmitted by EDC and Eunice shows that these firms had “hands-on experience of thedesign of water treatment facilities”.
Ombudsmanden bemærker,at der ikke en gang er henvist til konstruktion af rensningsanlæg i disse uddrag.
The Ombudsman notes that the design of water treatment facilities is not even referred to in these excerpts.
Underdisse omstændigheder finder Ombudsmanden,at de beviser,Kommissionen henholdt sigtil,ikke berettiger den konklusion,at disse to firmaer opfyldte det pågældende krav.Ombudsmanden konkluderer derfor,at Kommissionen synes at have forskelsbehandlettilbudsgiverne.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the evidence on which the Commission relied manifestly doesnot warrant the conclusion that these two firms fulfilled the relevant condition. The Ombudsman thus concludes that the Commission appears to have treated tenderersunequally.
Dette må betragtes som et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, og Ombudsmanden finder det nødvendigt at fremsætte en kritisk bemærkning i denne henseende.
This constitutes an instance of maladministration,and the Ombudsmanconsiders it necessary to make a critical remark in this regard.
På baggrund af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denne klage er detnødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it is necessaryto make the following critical remarks:
Udbudsprocedurer skal være gennemsigtige.
Tender procedures need to be transparent.
I sådanne procedurer er det derfor godforvaltningsskik fra forvaltningens side så klart som muligt at angive de betingelser,somansøgerne skal opfylde.
It is therefore good administrative practice insuch procedures for the administration to set out the conditions that applicants have tofulfil as clearly as possible.
I nærværende sag var det afgørende kriterium,at ansøgerneskulle have ”praktisk erfaring inden for konstruktion af rensningsanlæg”.
In the present case,the decisive criterion was that applicantshad to have “hands-on experience of the design of water treatment facilities”.
Dette kravnævnes ikke udtrykkeligt i licitationsmaterialet.
Thisrequirement is nowhere expressly mentioned in the invitation for tenders.
Det fremgik heller ikke klart,at dette vardet afgørende kriterium for ansøgerne.
Nor was itobvious that this was to be the decisive criterion for applicants.
Ved ikke at understrege dette kriterium har Kommissionen undladt at gøre udvælgelsesproceduren så gennemsigtig,som den kunne ogskulle have været.
By omitting clearly tospell out this criterion,the Commission has thus failed to render the selection procedureas transparent as it could and ought to have been.
Da disse aspekter af sagen vedrører et overstået hændelsesforløb,er det ikke relevant atsøge en mindelig løsning.
Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in thepast,it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.
PROCEDURER,KOMMISSIONENSKAL FØLGE VEDBEHANDLING AFKLAGER
PROCEDURES TOBE FOLLOWED BYTHE COMMISSIONFOR THEHANDLING OFCOMPLAINTS
Klagerne,to advokater i advokatfirmaet SJ Berwin & Co,der repræsenterer en gruppefranske skibsejere med en overvægt af spansk kapital,havde indgivet en formel klage til Kommissionen i december 1999. I deres klage,som henviste til Kommissionens rolle ihenhold til artikel 226 i EF-traktaten,hævdede de,at den franske lovgivning,der fastlagde,at potentielle ansøgere til en stilling som skibsfører eller overstyrmand på et fransk fiskerfartøj skulle være franske statsborgere,var i strid med fællesskabsretten. Afgørelse om klage 1194/2000/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
The complainants,both attorneys in the law firm SJ Berwin & Co,acting on behalf of agroup of French ship owners with a majority of Spanish capital,had submitted a formalcomplaint to the Commission in December 1999. Their complaint which referred to therole of the Commission under Art. 226 of the EC Treaty,argued that French legislationrequiring the French nationality as a condition for potential applicants to the posts ofcaptain or first official in a French fishing vessel was contrary to Community law. Decision on complaint1194/2000/JMAagainstthe European Commission
De forventede,at deres skrivelseblev registreret som en klage af Kommissionens tjenestegrene og dermed ville følge proceduren for klager indgivet af borgerne.
The complainants believed that the Commission had not givenproper attention to their claims,and that the institution had not respected the procedureestablished for the handling of formal complaints.
Kommissionens udtalelse
They contacted the responsible
Kommissionen understregede,at argumenterne fra GD Beskæftigelse og Sociale Anliggender i denne sag afspejlede den holdning,institutionen længe har indtaget i dettespørgsmål.
The Commission underlined that the arguments put forward by the DG Employment and Social Affairs in this case reflected the longstanding position of the institution on thismatter.
I en række overtrædelsessager mod flere medlemsstater i begyndelsen af1990’erne havde Kommissionen anført,at begrænsninger baseret på nationalitet vedansættelse af sømænd var uforenelig med princippet om fri bevægelighed for arbejdskraft.Institutionen tilføjede imidlertid,at den i løbet af de overtrædelsesprocedurer,som denhavde påbegyndt mod forskellige medlemsstater,altid havde understreget,at disse argumenter ikke gjaldt stillingerne som skibsfører og overstyrmand.
In a number of infringement cases against several Member States in the early 90s,the Commission had argued that any restriction based on nationality for the employmentof sailors were incompatible with the principle of free movement of workers. The institution added,however,that in the course of the infringement proceedings it had institutedagainst different Member States,it always underlined that these arguments should notapply to the posts of captain and first official.
De fleste relateredesøgsmål var blevet løst i mindelighed af de ansvarlige medlemsstater med undtagelse afsagen mod Frankrig,som det var nødvendigt at bringe for Domstolen.
Most of the related proceedings had beensettled by the responsible Member States,except in the case of France,which had to bebrought to the Court of Justice.
Domstolen muliggjorde med sin afgørelse af 7. marts 1996 i denne sag,at Kommissionens argumenter blevoffentliggjort.
The Court’s ruling on this matter of 7 March 1996 allowedthe Commission’s arguments to be openly known.
Den tilføjede imidlertid,at den havderådført sig med andre tjenestegrene,især tjenestegrenene med ansvar for energi og trans-port,i forbindelse med institutionens generelle holdning samt i den relevante sag indgivetaf klagerne.
However,it added that other services,in particular those responsible for energy and transport,had been consulted on the institution’sgeneral position,as well as in the individual case submitted by the complainants.
Endelig forklarede Kommissionen,at dens tjenestegrene havde besluttet ikke at registrereklagernes skrivelse som en formel klage,eftersom institutionen havde indtaget en utvetydig og konsekvent holdning i den i klagernes skrivelse anførte sag.
Finally,the Commission explained that its services decided not to register thecomplainants’letter as a formal complaint in the view of the fact that the institution hadtaken an unequivocal and constant position on the subject matter denounced in thecomplainants’letter.
I deres bemærkninger til Kommissionens udtalelse påpegede klagerne,at Kommissionenikke havde kommenteret deres påstand,nemlig den manglende registrering af deresformelle klage.
In their observations to the Commission’s opinion,the complainants pointed out that thatthe Commission had not addressed their allegation,namely its failure to register theirformal complaint.
De forklarede,at en sådan registrering giver borgerne flere proceduremæssige garantier,som i dette tilfælde ikke var blevet overholdt.
They explained that such registration gives several procedural guarantees for the citizen,which in this case,had not been respected.
Klagerne anfægtede også Kommissionens materielle argumenter for ikke at have indledten undersøgelse omkring deres klage.
The complainants also contested the substantive arguments put forward by the Commission for not launching an inquiry into their complaint.
De forklarede,at institutionen havde anvendtforskellige kriterier for tilladelige begrænsninger i den frie bevægelighed for arbejdskraft,afhængigt af det berørte erhverv og af,hvilke af Kommissionens ansvarlige tjenestegreneder var involveret.
They explained,that theinstitution has applied dissimilar criteria on admissible limitations to the free movementof workers,depending on the profession affected and the responsible Commission serviceinvolved.
Ifølge klagerne har institutionen ikke grundigt vurderet anvendelsen afde i artikel 39,stk. 3 og 4,i EF-traktaten fastlagte undtagelser for arbejdskraftens friebevægelighed i forhold til skibsførere.
In their view,the institution has not fully assessed the application of the exceptions to the free movement of workers set out in Art. 39,par 3 and 4 of the EC Treaty tocaptains of vessels.
De anførte imidlertid,at deres betragtningerangående Kommissionens argumentation var sekundære og kom i anden række i forholdtil deres eneste klage til Ombudsmanden,nemlig over Kommissionens upassende behandling af deres formelle klageskrivelse.
They indicated,however,that their considerations on the reasoning ofthe Commission were only secondary and subsidiary to their sole claim to the Ombudsman, namely the improper handling of their letter of formal complaint by the Commission.
Procedurer,der skal følges ved behandling af klager
Procedures to be followed for the handling of complaints
1.1Klagerne gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt de fastlagte procedurer i behandlingen af deres klage.
1.1The complainants claimed that the Commission did not respect established procedures for the handling of their complaint.
Institutionen havde ikke registreret deres skrivelsesom en klage,hvilket var en overtrædelse af dens offentlige forpligtelser efter Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ,303/97/PD,og der havde ikke væretnogen passende rådføring med alle de involverede tjenestegrene i Kommissionen.
The institution did not register it as a complaint,in breach of its public commitments following the Ombudsman’s own initiative303/97/PD,and there was no proper consultation among all concerned Commission services.
1.2Kommissionen forklarede,at dens tjenestegrene havde besluttet ikke at registrereklagernes skrivelse som en formel klage,da de ikke mente,at skrivelsens genstand var enovertrædelse af fællesskabsretten.
1.2The Commission explained that its services decided not to register the complainant’sletter as a formal complaint because they considered that its object did not constitute abreach of Community law.
Med hensyn til den manglende interne rådføring mente Kommissionen, at den havde enekompetence til at behandle sagen.
As for the lack of internal consultation,the Commissionbelieved this matter falls within its exclusive powers.
Den tilføjede imid-lertid,at der rent faktisk havde fundet en sådan rådføring sted.
It added,however,that such consultation had in fact taken place.
1.3En af Kommissionens grundlæggende opgaver i rollen som ”traktatens vogter”imedfør af artikel 211 i EF-traktaten er at drage omsorg for,at fællesskabsretten anvendeskorrekt i alle medlemsstater.
1.3One of the fundamental tasks of the Commission in its role of “Guardian of the Treaty” under Article 211 of the EC Treaty,is to ensure that Community law is correctlyapplied in all the Member States.
I udførelsen af sine opgaver undersøger Kommissionenmulige overtrædelser af fællesskabsretten,som den primært bliver opmærksom på gennemklager fra borgerne.
In carrying out its duty,the Commission investigatespossible infringements of Community law which come to its attention largely as a resultof citizens’complaints.
Hvis Kommissionen som følge af sine undersøgelser mener,at en medlemsstat ikke haropfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til traktaten,giver artikel 226 den beføjelser til atindlede overtrædelsesprocedurer mod den pågældende medlemsstat og om nødvendigtindbringe sagen for Domstolen.
If as a result of its inquiry,the Commission considers that a Member State has failed tofulfil its obligations under the Treaty,Article 226 gives it the power to start infringementproceedings against the responsible Member State,and if necessary,to bring the matterbefore the European Court of Justice.
De alvorlige konsekvenser af denne fremgangsmåde gør det nødvendigt,at anvendelsenheraf fuldt ud respekterer de relevante materielle og proceduremæssige regler for at sikrealle de involverede parters rettigheder.
The serious implications of this course of action makes it necessary that its implementation is fully respectful with the applicable substantive and procedural rules in order topreserve the rights of all concerned parties.
1.4Med hensyn til de proceduremæssige regler,som Kommissionen skal følge i behandlingen af formelle klager fra borgerne,bemærker Ombudsmanden,at det relevante kriterium var anført i institutionens svar på Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ omadministrative procedurer ved behandling af klager over medlemsstaters overtrædelse af
1.4As regards the procedural rules to be followed by the Commission in its handling ofcitizens’formal complaints,the Ombudsman noted that the relevant criteria had been setout by the institution in its reply to the Ombudsman’s own initiative on administrativeprocedures for dealing with complaints concerning member States’infringement of
Afgørelse om undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PD,Den Europæiske Ombudsmands årsberetning for 1997,s. 271-272.
Decision in the own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD,European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997,pp. 271272.
En medlemsstats manglende overholdelse af fællesskabsretten:Standardformular til brug ved indgivelse afklage til Europa-Kommissionen,EFT C 119 af 30.4.1999,s. 5.
Failure by a member State to comply with community law:standard form for complaints to be submitted to the European Commission; OJ C 119,30.04.1999,p.5.
Uanset hvilke skridt Kommissionen skal tage,betyder de proceduremæssige garantiersikkerhed for,at klagerne behandles korrekt.
1.5These procedural guarantees,however,have no direct bearing on the nature of theactions to be taken by the institution in reply to the allegations made by the complaint.
1.6Klagerne indgav en formel klage til Kommissionen i medfør af artikel 226 i EF-trak-taten.
1.6The complainants lodged a formal complaint under Art. 226 of the EC Treaty with the Commission.
I sin udtalelse om Ombudsmandens undersøgelse på eget initiativ 303/97/PD omadministrative procedurer ved behandling af klager havde Kommissionen påtaget sig udenundtagelse at registrere alle klager,der nåede frem til institutionen.
In its reply to the Ombudsman’s own initiative 303/97/PD on administrativeprocedures for dealing with complaints,the Commission had undertaken to register allcomplaints sent to the institution,without exception.
Trods dette offentligeløfte fraveg den ansvarlige tjenestegren den pågældende regel i nærværende sag.
Despite this public undertaking,theresponsible services departed from that rule in the present case.
Ved ikke at registrere klagen havde Kommissionen tilsidesat de proceduremæssige garan-tier,som institutionen selv havde fastlagt for at sikre en korrekt procedure.
By not registering the complaint,the Commission ignored the procedural safeguards,which the institution itself set up to secure a proper procedure.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor,at dette måtte betragtes som et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser fra Kommissionens side.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that such failure of the Commission constituted aninstance of maladministration.
1.7Med hensyn til den manglende rådføring med Kommissionens forskellige tjenestegrene fandt Ombudsmanden,at sager vedrørende f.eks. koordineringen af de forskelligetjenestegrene og disses grad af involvering i en bestemt beslutning i sagens natur hørerunder institutionens beføjelser til at tilrettelægge den interne organisation.
1.7As regards the alleged lack of consultation among the different Commission services,the Ombudsman considered that matters such as the co-ordination of the different Commission departments and their degree of involvement in a particular decision,by theirown nature,fall within the institution’s powers of internal organisation.
I denne type sager var Ombudsmanden derfor af den mening,at en undersøgelse kun erberettiget,når disse sager er opstået som en umiddelbar og direkte følge af,at institutionenikke har handlet i overensstemmelse med en bindende regel eller et bindende princip.
Thus,in this type of cases,the Ombudsman was of the view that an inquiry could be justified only when these matters are the immediate and direct cause of the institution’s failureto act in accordance with a binding rule or principle.
I denne sag fremgik det imidlertid,at Kommissionen rent faktisk havde rådført sig interntmed sine tjenestegrene.
However,in this case it appeared that the Commission had in fact carried out an internalconsultation among its services.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede derfor,at der ikke syntes at foreligge noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til dette aspekt af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there appearedto be no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
Behandling af klagernes påstande
Consideration of the complainants’allegations
2.1Klagerne anførte,at Kommissionen ikke havde foretaget nogen grundig vurdering afpåstandene i deres formelle klage især ved ikke at have taget passende hensyn til eksisterende retspraksis.
2.1The complainants argued that the Commission had not thoroughly assessed the allegations made in their formal complaint,in particular by not taking proper account ofexisting case law.
I deres bemærkninger anførte klagerne imidlertid,at deres udtalelse om,hvorvidt Kommissionens argumenter var velbegrundede,ikke var genstand for deres klagetil Ombudsmanden,men var sekundær og kom i anden række i forhold til deres påstand.
However in their observations,the complainants indicated that theiropinion on the soundness of the Commission’s arguments was not the object of theircomplaint to the Ombudsman,but merely secondary and subsidiary to their claim.
2.2I betragtning af ovenstående mente Ombudsmanden ikke,at der var grundlag for atindlede nogen undersøgelse med hensyn til dette aspekt af sagen.
2.2In view of the previous considerations,the Ombudsman was of the view that therewere no grounds to pursue an inquiry as regards this aspect of the case.
På baggrund af Den Europæiske Ombudsmands undersøgelser af denne klage var detnødvendigt at fremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkning:
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it appearednecessary to make the following critical remark: