natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Domstolens faste retspraksis er forskellig behandling diskriminerende, hvis det ikke er begrundet i objektive faktorer.
According to the established case-law of the European Court of Justice, a d iT erence in treatment is discriminatory if it is not justified by objective factors.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at aldersgrænsen på 30 år var begrundet i objektive faktorer, idet Kommissionens praktikprogram var remet mod unge mennesker i starten af deres karriere, samt at aldersgrænsen derfor ikke udgjorde forskelsbehandling eller var i strid med artikel 21 i charter om grundlæggende remigheder. igheder.
The Commission argued that the age limit of 30 years was objectively justified because the Commission’s inservice training programme was aimed at young people at the beginning of their careers and that the age limit was therefore non-discriminatory and in conformity with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
EWer en grundig undersøgelse af Kommissionens argumenter fandt Ombudsmanden, at aldersgrænsen i dens praktikprogram udgjorde uberemiget forskelsbehandling.
AWer carefully examining the Commission’s arguments, the Ombudsman took the view that the age limit in its traineeship programme constituted unjustified discrimination.
Han fremsame derfor et forslag til henstilling til Kommissionen den 15. juni 2004, hvori han anførte, at Kommissionen burde af sk aT e aldersgrænsen.
He therefore addressed a draW recommendation to the Commission on 15 June 2004 according to which it should abolish the age limit.
Den 29. marts 2005 underremede Kommissionen Ombudsmanden om, at den havde vedtaget nye regler for sit praktikprogram, som ikke indeholdt nogen aldersgrænse.
On 29 March 2005, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had adopted new rules governing its traineeship programme that contained no age limit.
Reglerne trådte i kraW den 1. marts 2005.
The rules were applicable as from 1 March 2005.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede på grundlag af sine undersøgelser, at Kommissionen havde accepteret Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling, og at de skridt, Kommissionen havde taget, var tilfredsstillende.
On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had accepted the Ombudsman’s draW recommendation and that the measure taken by the Commission was satisfactory.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede endvidere, at flere andre fællesskabsinstitutioner og -organer bruger en aldersgrænse i deres praktikprogrammer.
The Ombudsman also noted that several other Community institutions and bodies apply an age limit in their traineeship programmes.
Ombudsmanden meddelte derfor, at han ville iværksæme en undersøgelse på eget initiativ om disse programmer.
The Ombudsman therefore announced that he would launch an own-initiative inquiry into these programmes.
ANNULLERING AF EN FINANSIEL FORPLIGTELSE
CANCELLATION OF A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2111/2002/MF (fortrolig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2111/2002/MF Commission
Klageren indsendte et projekt til Kommissionens repræsentation i Frankrig om kommunikationsstrategier i forbindelse med EU’s udvidelse.
The complainant submimed a project to the Commission Representation in France on communication strategies in relation to EU enlargement.
Projektet omfamede tre pressebesøg.
The project comprised three press visits.
I november 2001 indgik Kommissionen en finansiel forpligtelse til at samfinansiere klagerens projekt med et beløb på 94 854 euro for de tre besøg.
In November 2001, the Commission made a financial commitment to co-finance the complainant’s project for a sum amounting to EUR 94 854 for the three visits.
Fire uger før den sidste del af projektet omfamende det tredje pressebesøg beslumede Kommissionens repræsentation i Frankrig at annullere forpligtelsen.
However, four weeks before the final part of the project concerning the third press visit, the Commission Representation in France decided to cancel the commitment.
Klageren nedlagde i sin klage til Ombudsmanden påstand om, at han skulle have dækket sine omkostninger og kompenseres for den skade, han havde lidt.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that he should receive reimbursement of the costs and compensation for the damage caused.
Kommissionen til straks at kontakte klageren med henblik på at finde en passende løsning omfamende et tilbud om en rimelig kompensation.
The Ombudsman therefore made a draW recommendation urging the Commission to contact the complainant without delay in order to seek a fair semlement that would include an oTer of a reasonable compensation.
Kommissionen indvilligede til sidst i at betale klageren 56 000 euro i kompensation, hvilket stillede klageren tilfreds.
The Commission finally agreed to pay the complainant compensation of EUR 56 000, which satisfied the complainant.
UDVÆLGELSE AF ELEVER TIL EUROPASKOLERNE
SELECTION OF PUPILS FOR THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1435/2003/MF over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1435/2003/MF against the European Commission
Klagerne ansøgte om at få deres søn optaget i engelskafdelingen i grundskolen på Europaskolen Ixelles i Bruxelles i skoleåret 2003/2004, men ansøgningen blev afvist.
The complainants applied for the enrolment of their son in the English-language section of the primary school of the European School of Ixelles, in Brussels, for the school year 2003/2004 but the application was rejected.
Klageren gjorde i deres klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at de ikke havde modtaget nogen begrundelser for afslaget, og nedlagde påstand om, at det skulle annulleres.
In their complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainants alleged that they had not been given the reasons justifying the rejection decision and claimed that it should be annulled.
Kommissionen anførte, at reglerne om optagelse af elever på Europaskolerne var blevet godkendt af Det Øverste Råd, som havde beslumet, at »beslutninger om optagelse i en af sprogafdelingerne på Europaskolerne (børnehave, grundskole og overbygning) skal som hovedregel t r æ T es på grundlag af elevens primære sprog«.
The Commission stated that the rules for admission of pupils to the European Schools had been approved by the Board of Governors, which had decided that “enrolment in one of the language sections of the European Schools (nursery school, primary school and secondary school) shall be decided, as a rule, on the basis of the tongue mainly spoken by the pupil”.
I klagernes tilfælde blev der talt italiensk og spansk i familien.
In the complainants’ case, the languages spoken within the family were Italian and Spanish.
Klagernes søn var beremiget til at blive optaget på en Europaskole, men ikke nødvendigvis i den sprogafdeling, som hans forældre ønskede.
The complainants’ son was entitled to be enrolled in a European School but not necessarily in the language section chosen by his parents.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at brevet til klagerne af den 25. september 2003 fra direktøren for Europaskolen Ixelles både henviste til de sprog, som ifølge ham primært blev talt af klagernes søn, dvs. spansk og italiensk, og manglen på ledige pladser i den engelske afdeling.
The Ombudsman noted that the lemer sent to the complainants on 25 September 2003 by the Director of the European School of Ixelles referred both to the languages that, according to him, were mainly spoken by the complainants’ son, i.e., Spanish and Italian, and to the lack of available places in the English-language section.
Derfor syntes beslutningen at være baseret på begge disse betragtninger.
Thus, the decision appeared to be based on both of these considerations.
Hvis optagelsen i en specifik sprogafdeling a[ang af det sprog, som eleven primært talte, var det svært at forstå, hvorfor direktøren også havde henvist til manglen på ledige pladser i den engelske afdeling, idet dem e sprog ifølge direktøren ikke var et af de sprog, som klagernes søn primært talte.
However, if the admission to a specific language section depended on the languages mainly spoken by the pupil, it was di U cult to understand why the Director had also referred to the lack of available places in the English-language section, given that this language did not, according to the Director, belong to the languages mainly spoken by the complainants’ son.
Hvis optagelse i en specifik sprogafdeling på den anden side a[ang af, hvorvidt der var ledige pladser i den afdeling, var det svært at forstå, hvorfor direktøren også henviste til det sprog, som klagernes søn primært talte.
If, on the other hand, admission to a specific language section depended on the availability of places in that section, it was di U cult to understand why the Director also referred to the languages mainly spoken by the complainants’ son.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at brevet fra direktøren for Europaskolen Ixelles ikke var tilstrækkelig klart til, at klagerne kunne forstå begrundelserne for beslutningen om ikke at optage deres søn i den engelske afdeling.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the lemer of the Director of the European School of Ixelles was not clear enough to enable the complainants to understand the reasons for the decision
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY not to enrol their son in the English-language section.
AKTINDSIGT I ET DOKUMENT FRA EN MEDLEMSSTAT I PROCEDUREN I FORBINDELSE MED UFORHOLDSMÆSSIGT STORE UNDERSKUD
ACCESS TO A DOCUMENT ORIGINATING FROM A MEMBER STATE IN THE EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 116/2005/MHZ over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 116/2005/MHZ against the European Commission
Klageren, et medlem af Europa-Parlamentet, anmodede Kommissionen om aktindsigt i et brev sendt til Kommissionen i marts 2004 fra Portugals daværende finansminister vedrørende proceduren i forbindelse med uforholdsmæssigt store underskud.
The complainant, a Member of the European Parliament, asked the Commission for access to a lemer sent to the Commission in March 2004 by Portugal’s then Minister of Finance in the framework of the excessive deficit procedure.
Kommissionen påberåbte sig artikel 4, stk. 1, litra a), fjerde led, i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter24 og gav afslag på begæringen på grund af, at udbredelse af brevet ville underminere beskymelsen af den oTentlige interesse med hensyn til den pågældende medlemsstats f i finanspolitik, valutapolitik eller økonomiske politik.
The Commission, invoking Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents24, refused the application on the grounds that disclosure of the lemer would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Member State concerned.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen havde fortolket ovennævnte undtagelse for bredt, og nedlagde påstand om, at han skulle gives aktindsigt i dokumentet.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had interpreted the above exception too broadly and claimed that he should be granted access to the document.
Den anførte endvidere, at den, e W ersom den mente, at denne undtagelse a[oldt den fra at udlevere det relevante brev, ikke havde hørt de portugisiske myndigheder, før den gav afslag på klagerens begæring.
It further stated that, since it considered that this exception precluded it from disclosing the relevant lemer, it had not consulted the Portuguese authorities before refusing the complainant’s application.
Ombudsmanden skrev der e W er til EU’s faste repræsentation i Portugal for at anmode om de portugisiske myndigheders holdning til, hvorvidt udlevering af det pågældende brev ville være til skade for den portugisiske regerings økonomiske politik og finanspolitik.
The Ombudsman then wrote to the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union, asking for the view of the Portuguese authorities as to whether disclosure of the lemer in question would adversely aT ect the Portuguese government’s economic and financial policy.
De portugisiske myndigheder angav i deres svar, at det pågældende brev ikke indeholdt noget, som kunne få indvirkning på Portugals økonomiske politik og finanspolitik, og at det derfor kunne udleveres til klageren.
In their reply, the Portuguese authorities took the view that the lemer in question did not contain elements that could aT ect Portugal’s economic and financial policy and that it could therefore be disclosed to the complainant.
Ombudsmanden fremsendte de portugisiske myndigheders svar til Kommissionen og bad Kommissionen oplyse ham om, hvorvidt den nu ville give aktindsigt i brevet.
The Ombudsman forwarded the Portuguese authorities’ reply to the Commission and asked the Commission to inform him whether it would now be ready to grant access to the lemer in question.
EWersom Kommissionen ikke havde svaret inden for den anførte tidsfrist, fremsame Ombudsmanden et forslag til henstilling om, at Kommissionen skulle genoverveje sit afslag på aktindsigt i det pågældende dokument.
Since the Commission failed to reply within the prescribed deadline, the Ombudsman made a draW recommendation that the Commission should reconsider its refusal to give access to the document in question.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
MISLEADING INFORMATION IN PRESS REVIEW
Sag 2485/2004/GG (se nedenfor i afsnit 3.7.3) omhandlede ukorrekte og vildledende erklæringer i OLAF’s udtalelser til Ombudsmanden i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af sag 1840/2002/GG.
Case 2485/2004/GG (see below, section 3.7.3) concerned incorrect and misleading statements in OLAF’s submissions to the Ombudsman during the inquiry into case 1840/2002/GG.
Den foreliggende sag drejede sig om en presseanalyse for juni 2004, som OLAF lagde ud på sit websted, og som indeholdt henvisninger til artikler i Süddeutsche Zeitung og EUobserver om klagerens strid med OLAF.
The present case concerned a press review for June 2004, which OLAF published on its website and which contained references to articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the EUobserver about the complainant’s conflict with OLAF.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at OLAF ved at henvise til disse artikler på en måde, som fordrejede deres mening og var tendentiøs, havde undladt at handle objektivt og uvildigt.
The complainant alleged that, by citing these articles in a manner that distorted their meaning and that was tendentious, OLAF had failed to behave objectively and impartially.
OLAF havde på hans anmodning allerede ændret det relevante afsnit.
Following his request, OLAF had already changed the relevant passage.
Klageren mente imidlertid stadig, at det var vildledende. Han nedlagde påstand om, at OLAF straks skulle trække teksten tilbage eller reme den.
However, the complainant considered that it was still misleading.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at OLAF’s tekst helt klart antydede, at en tidligere talsmand for Kommissionen havde b e k r æ W et sine beskyldninger mod klageren.
The Ombudsman considered that OLAF’s text clearly implied that a former spokesman of the Commission had confirmed his accusations against the complainant.
Ifølge artiklen i Süddeutsche Zeitung havde talsmanden nærmere modificeret og nedtonet sine udtalelser.
However, according to the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the spokesman had rather qualified and toned down his statements.
Derfor fandt Ombudsmanden, at OLAF’s tekst var vildledende.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that OLAF’s text was misleading.
Endvidere blev det i OLAF’s presseanalyse nævnt, at dens stedfortrædende talsmand havde fortalt EUobserver, at han ikke så nogen grund til et dementi vedrørende artiklen i Süddeutsche Zeitung.
Furthermore, OLAF’s press review mentioned that its deputy spokesman had told the EUobserver that he saw no reason for a disclaimer as regards the article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung.
EWersom OLAF ikke havde citeret indholdet i den artikel korrekt, fandt Ombudsmanden, at meningen i talsmandens udtalelse var blevet fordrejet.
However, since OLAF had not presented the contents of that article correctly, the Ombudsman considered that the meaning of the spokesman’s statement had been distorted.
Han anmodede derfor i et forslag til henstilling OLAF om at gennemgå og reme oplysningerne i sin presseanalyse.
In a draW recommendation, he therefore asked OLAF to review and correct the information in its press review.
OLAF foreslog i sit svar tre muligheder for, hvordan Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling kunne imødekommes: (i) _ernelse af to afsnit i presseanalysen, (ii) ændring af ét afsnit eller (iii) _ernelse af alle presseanalyser fra webstedet og indstilling af denne service. Ombudsmanden oplyste OLAF, at de første to muligheder syntes at ville kunne løse problemet, og at klageren mente, at den anden mulighed var den bedste.
In response, OLAF suggested three possibilities as to how the Ombudsman’s draW recommendation could be implemented: (i) to eliminate two paragraphs of the press review; (ii) to modify one paragraph or (iii) to remove all press analyses from its website and to discontinue this service.
OLAF ændrede der e W er ordlyden i det pågældende afsnit, og klageren anerkendte, at OLAF havde foretaget de nødvendige remelser. elser.
OLAF then changed the wording of the paragraph concerned and the complainant acknowledged that OLAF had made the necessary corrections.
Selv om Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at klageren havde fremført yderligere kritik af OLAF, fandt han, at OLAF havde accepteret hans forslag til henstilling, og at de trufne foranstaltninger til at imødekomme det var tilfredsstillende.
Although noting that the complainant had also made further criticism of OLAF, the Ombudsman took the view that OLAF had accepted his draW recommendation and that the measures taken to implement it were satisfactory.
SAGER AFSLUTTET AF ANDRE GRUNDE
CASES CLOSEDFOR OTHER REASONS
ARTIKEL 226-KLAGE VEDRØRENDE OVERFØRSEL AF PENSION
ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT CONCERNING PENSION TRANSFER
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1423/2004/ELB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1423/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Klageren, en midlertidig ansat i Europa-Parlamentet, havde tidligere erhvervet pensionsremigheder gennem sit arbejde i landbrugssektoren i Frankrig.
The complainant, a temporary agent of the European Parliament, had previously acquired pension rights through working in the agricultural sector in France.
Han ansøgte forgæves om at få overført pensionsremighederne til Fællesskabets pensionsordning i henhold til tjenestemandsvedtægten.
He unsuccessfully sought to transfer these pension rights to the Community pension scheme, in accordance with the StaT Regulations.
Han indgav der e W er en artikel 226-klage over Frankrig til Kommissionen.
He then made an Article 226 complaint against France to the Commission.
Klageren gjorde i sin klage til Ombudsmanden gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at behandle hans artikel 226-klage korrekt.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal properly with his Article 226 complaint.
Kommissionen forklarede, at den franske pensionsmyndighed med det franske socialministeriums samtykke overvejede muligheden for at overføre pensionsremigheder, uanset om Frankrig har ratificeret en s æ r a W ale om overførsel af pensionsremigheder. Den rådede klageren til at kontakte
The Commission explained that, with the agreement of the French Ministry of Social ATairs, a French pension authority was considering the possibility of transferring pension rights irrespective of whether France had ratified a special agreement on transfer of pension rights.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE den myndighed, han arbejdede for (dvs. Parlamentet), og anmode det om at sende en begrundet rykkerskrivelse til den relevante franske pensionsmyndighed.
It advised the complainant to contact the administration for which he was working (i.e., Parliament), inviting it to address a reasoned reminder to the relevant French pension authority.
Kommissionen fandt ikke, at det for nuværende var hensigtsmæssigt at henvise sagen til Domstolen.
The Commission considered that it was not appropriate for the moment to bring the mamer before the Court of Justice.
Hvis der imidlertid ikke inden for kort tid blev fundet en løsning, ville Kommissionen tage sin holdning op til genovervejelse og henvise sagen til Domstolen.
However, if no result was achieved in the short term, the Commission would review its position and bring the mamer before the Court.
Kommissionen underremede senere Ombudsmanden om et svar fra den franske pensionsmyndighed, hvori den anførte, at der kunne vedtages bestemmelser som dem, der er vedtaget for den overordnede ordning, for landbrugsansame, og at de anmodninger, der var blevet sendt til den, ville blive vurderet igen.
The Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman of the reply sent by the French pension authority, in which it stated that provisions similar to the ones adopted for the general regime could be adopted for agricultural employees and that the requests submimed to it would be re-examined.
På grundlag af de forhåndenværende beviser for Kommissionens igangværende aktiviteter for at sikre overholdelse af fællesskabslovgivningen i denne sag fandt Ombudsmanden ikke, at Kommissionen syntes at have handlet uden for rammerne af sine retlige beføjelser som traktatens vogter.
On the basis of the available evidence concerning the ongoing activity of the Commission to ensure compliance with Community law in this mamer, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission did not appear to have gone outside the limits of its legal authority as guardian of the Treaty.
Ombudsmanden fandt det nymigt at fremsæme en yderligere bemærkning om, at han havde fået meddelt, at Kommissionen var indstillet på at finde en løsning, som ville give klageren mulighed for at udnyme sine remigheder som tjenestemand i De Europæiske Fællesskaber.
The Ombudsman considered it useful to make a further remark pointing out that he understood the Commission to be commimed to finding a solution that would enable the complainant to enjoy his rights as a servant of the European Communities.
ARTIKEL 226-KLAGE I EN SAG VED EN NATIONAL HØJESTERET
ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE A NATIONAL SUPREME COURT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3254/2004/(OV)ID over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3254/2004/(OV)ID against the European Commission
I klagen til Ombudsmanden gjorde klageren gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde behandlet hans artikel 226-klage vedrørende de græske myndigheders manglende anerkendelse af ham som kemiingeniør på grundlag af hans erhvervsmæssige kvalifikationer som materialeingeniør, som han havde erhvervet i Det Forenede Kongerige, korrekt.
The complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the Commission had not dealt properly with the complainant’s Article 226 complaint, concerning the Greek authorities’ failure to recognise him as a Chemical Engineer on the basis of his professional qualification, obtained in the United Kingdom, as a Materials Engineer.
Klageren gjorde navnlig gældende, at Kommissionen havde fortolket og anvendt direktiv 89/48/EØF25 og artikel 43 og 47 i EF-traktaten forkert i denne sag.
The complainant alleged, in particular, that the Commission had wrongly interpreted and applied Directive 89/48/EEC25 and Articles 43 and 47 of the EC Treaty in his case.
I forbindelse med sin beslutning om, hvorvidt det er beremiget at foretage en undersøgelse af en klage, undersøger Ombudsmanden, om en vurdering af omstændighederne vedrørende klagen ville omfame en undersøgelse af retlige eller faktuelle spørgsmål, som indgår i en retssag ved en fællesskabsdomstol eller en national domstol.
In deciding whether it is justified to pursue an inquiry into a complaint, the Ombudsman examined whether an assessment of the merits of the complaint would involve an examination of legal or factual issues raised in an action fi led before a Community or national court.