natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Klageren anmodede endvidere om en fuldstændig liste over de følsomme dokumenter, som Rådet måme beslume at give afslag på aktindsigt i.
The complainant also asked for a complete list of the sensitive documents to which the Council might decide to refuse access.
Klageren gjorde i sin genfremsame begæring gældende, at det i lyset af a W alens anvendelsesområde, den kendsgerning, at udarbejdelsesforløbet havde taget over to år, og nummereringen af de fi re forberedende dokumenter, som Rådet havde givet delvis aktindsigt i, kunne udledes, at Rådet havde flere end blot fi re dokumenter.
In his confirmatory application, the complainant submimed that, in view of the Agreement’s scope, the fact that the draWing process had taken over two years and the numbering of the four preparatory documents to which the Council had granted partial access, it was to be presumed that the Council held more than just those four documents.
Rådet svarede, at det ikke havde identificeret flere relevante dokumenter.
The Council replied that no further relevant documents had been identified.
De manglende numre skyldtes, at de foreløbige dokumenter var blevet erklæret ugyldige og blevet annulleret under udarbejdelsen.
The gap in the numbering was due to the fact that the interim documents had been declared void and annulled during production.
Klageren gjorde gældende, at Rådets holdning om, at der kun var fi re relevante dokumenter, var åbenlyst urimelig.
The complainant argued that the Council’s position that there were only four relevant documents was manifestly unreasonable.
Han påpegede, at han havde fået aktindsigt i et dokument, som Rådet ikke have nævnt, e W er en separat begæring om aktindsigt indgivet i henhold til den nationale lovgivning om aktindsigt.
He pointed out that, following a separate request submimed under national freedom of information legislation, he had been granted access to a document that the Council had not mentioned.
Rådet gjorde gældende, at den e W er grundige undersøgelser nu kunne b e k r æ W e, at der var blevet udarbejdet ti revisioner af det pågældende dokument.
The Council stated that, following intensive research, it could now confirm that indeed ten revisions of the document in question had been produced.
Rådet forklarede, at de manglende versioner ikke var blevet overført til dets elektroniske register, men var blevet opbevaret i den afdeling, der havde ansvar for sagen.
The Council explained that the missing versions had not been loaded onto its electronic register but had been kept in the department in charge of the mamer.
EWersom der ikke var noget bevis på, at dokumenterne var blevet registreret og valideret elektronisk, var de blevet erklæret ugyldige.
In the absence of evidence that the documents had been electronically recorded and validated, they had been considered void.
Rådet undskyldte for denne kontorfejl. Det fremhævede imidlertid, at dets interne bestemmelser om registrering af dokumenter i mellemtiden var blevet ændret, således at dokumenter som disse nu ville blive registreret automatisk. Rådet gav aktindsigt eller delvis aktindsigt i de foreløbige dokumenter.
The Council apologised for this clerical error.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Rådets erklæring om, at de reviderede versioner var blevet erklæret ugyldige og blevet annulleret under udarbejdelsen, var vildledende, idet det gav det fejlagtige indtryk, at dokumenterne aldrig var blevet udsendt. Dokumenternes følgesider viste imidlertid, at det var meningen, at disse dokumenter skulle udsendes.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council’s statement that the revised versions had been declared void and annulled during production was misleading, since it created the incorrect impression that the documents had never
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY been distributed.
VARIGHED AF OVERTRÆDELSESPROCEDURE OG AKTINDSIGT I DOKUMENTER
LENGTH OF INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE AND ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2229/2003/MHZ over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 2229/2003/MHZ against the European Commission
Klageren gjorde bl.a. gældende, at Kommissionen unødvendigt havde forsinket sin beslutning om en overtrædelsesklage over de spanske myndigheder vedrørende bygningen af et center til behandling af aTaldsprodukter i San Roman de la Vega.
The complainant alleged, among other things, that the Commission had unnecessarily delayed its decision on an infringement complaint against the Spanish authorities concerning the construction of a centre for processing waste products in San Roman de la Vega.
Klageren gjorde endvidere gældende, at Kommissionen havde undladt at besvare hans genfremsame begæring om aktindsigt i Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Spanien og åbningsskrivelsen til de spanske myndigheder.
The complainant also alleged that the Commission had failed to answer his confirmatory application for access to its decision to open infringement proceedings against Spain and its lemer of formal notice to the Spanish authorities.
Kommissionen undskyldte for, at den ikke havde svaret på klagerens genfremsame begæring, og forklarede, at dem e skyldtes en administrativ fejl.
The Commission apologised for the lack of answer to the complainant’s confirmatory application and explained that it was due to an administrative error.
Den påpegede, at den nylige indførelse af elektronisk kontrol med dens korrespondance gjorde det muligt at undgå sådanne fejl i fremtiden.
It pointed out that the recent introduction of electronic control of its correspondence made it possible to avoid such errors in the future.
Kommissionen gjorde imidlertid gældende, at den var beremiget til at give afslag på aktindsigt for at beskyme formålet med inspektioner, undersøgelser og revision (artikel 4, stk. 2, tredje led, i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter16).
The Commission argued, however, that it was entitled to refuse access to protect the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents16).
Ifølge Kommissionen ville udbredelse af åbningsskrivelsen være til endnu større skade for den oTentlige interesse, fordi klageren agtede at bruge skrivelsen i en retssag ved de nationale domstole. Ombudsmanden accepterede ikke dem e argument.
According to the Commission, the disclosure of the lemer of formal notice seemed even more detrimental to the public interest given that the complainant intended to use it in proceedings before national courts.
Han påpegede, at retssager ved de nationale domstole er et vigtigt middel for borgerne til at beskyme deres remigheder i henhold til Fællesskabslovgivningen.
He pointed out that proceedings in national courts are important means by which individuals can protect their rights under Community law.
I denne forbindelse bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at Fællesskabets lovgiver med hensyn til den frie bevægelighed for varer specifikt havde fastlagt, at alle kan få udleveret en kopi af Kommissionens meddelelse til en medlemsstat om en hindring for den frie bevægelighed for varer, og at et af formålene med denne bestemmelse var at leme enkeltpersoners adgang til at føre sager ved de nationale domstole.
In this context, the Ombudsman noted that, in relation to the free movement of goods, the Community legislator had specifically provided for any party to obtain a copy of the Commission’s notification to a Member State of an obstacle to the free movement of goods and that one of the eTects of this provision was to facilitate action by individuals in national courts.
Derfor var Ombudsmanden ikke overbevist om, at Kommissionen under andre omstændigheder var beremiget til at støme sig til argumenter, som indeholder en negativ vurdering af retssager ved de nationale domstole.
Therefore, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that, in other circumstances, the Commission was entitled to rely on arguments that imply a negative view of judicial proceedings in national courts.
Han fandt imidlertid, at Kommissionen på grundlag af retspraksis med rimelighed kunne konkludere, at en beslutning om at give afslag på aktindsigt i dokumenter var beremiget.
However, he considered that, on the basis of the case-law, the Commission could reasonably take the view that a decision to refuse access to the documents was justified.
Der blev derfor ikke konstateret noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til dem e aspekt af klagen.
No maladministration was therefore found concerning this aspect of the complaint.
Hvad angår procedurens varighed, bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionens undersøgelse havde taget lidt under tre år.
As regards the length of the procedure, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission’s investigation had taken just under three years.
EWersom Kommissionens udtalelse kun henviste til generelle faktorer, som kunne forårsage forsinkelser, såsom en stor arbejdsbyrde, fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen havde undladt at give en passende forklaring på undersøgelsens varighed.
Since the Commission’s opinion only referred to general factors that may cause delays, such as a heavy workload, the Ombudsman considered that it had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the length of the investigation.
Der blev derfor fremsat en kritisk bemærkning.
A critical remark was therefore made.
Klageren nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen skulle kompensere for de tab, den havde lidt i forbindelse med bestræbelserne for at opfylde de formelle kriterier.
It claimed that the Commission should compensate it for the losses it incurred in trying to meet the formal admissibility criteria.
Ifølge Kommissionen havde en stor del af ansøgningerne til Agis-programmet haW mangler i forhold til kravene i indkaldelsen.
According to the Commission, a high proportion of applications under the AGIS programme had had shortcomings as regards the requirements set out in the call.
Den anerkendte, at brugen af én ansøgningsformular til to forskellige typer tilskud kunne have bidraget til disse mangler.
It acknowledged that the use of a single application form for two d iT erent types of grants may have contributed to these shortcomings.
Derfor og fordi klagerens projekt tilsyneladende havde opfyldt den politiske prioritet om forbedring af bistanden på området for de grundlæggende remigheder, var forslaget blevet udvalgt.
Because of this and because the complainant’s project had appeared to meet the policy priority of improving assistance in the fi eld of fundamental rights, the proposal had been pre-selected.
EWersom klagerens ansøgning om driWstilskud ikke var færdig inden fristens udløb, havde Kommissionen foreslået klageren, at den skulle ændre sin ansøgning og i stedet søge om et projekmilskud.
When the complainant’s application for an operating grant was not ready in time to meet the deadline, the Commission had proposed to the complainant that it should modify its application and apply for a project grant instead.
Klageren havde imidlertid bl.a. undladt at vedføje en partnerskabserklæring, så Kommissionen havde ikke valgt forslaget.
However, since the complainant had, among other things, failed to amach a partnership declaration, the Commission had not selected his proposal.
Ombudsmanden fandt det beklageligt, at ansøgningsproceduren til Agis-programmet syntes at have medført vanskeligheder.
The Ombudsman considered it regremable that the application procedure under the AGIS programme appeared to have led to di U culties.
Han bemærkede imidlertid, at Kommissionen havde anerkendt disse vanskeligheder og t r u T et a[jælpende foranstaltninger.
However, he noted that the Commission had recognised these di U culties and had taken corrective action.
Han fandt endvidere, at Kommissionen havde givet en rimelig forklaring på, hvorfor den havde rådet klageren til at ansøge om et projekmilskud i stedet for et driWstilskud. stilskud.
Furthermore, he considered that the Commission had provided a reasonable explanation as to why it had advised the complainant to apply for a project grant instead of an operating grant.
Ombudsmanden mindede imidlertid om, at principperne for god forvaltningsskik kræver, at en tjenestemand om nødvendigt rådgiver oTentligheden om, hvordan en sag, der falder ind under hans eller hendes ansvarsområde, skal behandles, og hvad man skal gøre.
However, the Ombudsman recalled that principles of good administration require an oUcial, where necessary, to advise the public on how a mamer which comes within his or her remit is to be pursued and how to proceed in dealing with the mamer.
Han mente, at Kommissionen i forhold til de specifikke omstændigheder i denne sag skulle have sikret, at dens råd til klageren var passende i den givne situation.
He took the view that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission should have ensured that the advice it gave to the complainant was appropriate to its particular situation.
Kommissionens undladelse af at henlede klagerens opmærksomhed på en grundlæggende betingelse for at opnå støm eberem igelse, nemlig kravet om at have partnerorganisationer, udgjorde derfor et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Commission’s failure to draw the complainant’s amention to a fundamental condition of eligibility, namely the requirement to have partner organisations, was therefore an instance of maladministration.
Hvad angår klagerens erstatningskrav, bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at klageren hverken havde angivet et beløb eller fremsendt nogen dokumentation for sine tab.
As regards the complainant’s claim for compensation, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had neither quantified its claim nor submimed any evidence of its losses.
Han mente derfor, at klageren, hvis denne ønskede at gå videre med denne påstand, først skulle henvende sig direkte til Kommissionen med henvisning til, at Ombudsmanden havde konstateret et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser i sagen.
He therefore took the view that if the complainant wished to pursue this claim, it should first address the Commission directly in the light of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration.
UNDLADELSE AF AT UDLEVERE OPLYSNINGER VEDRØRENDE BESKYTTELSE AF PERSONOPLYSNINGER
FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION REGARDING DATA PROTECTION
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 224/2004/PB over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 224/2004/PB against the European Commission
Klagen omhandlede det svar, som Kommissionens repræsentation i København gav på klagerens anmodning om oplysninger vedrørende repræsentationens behandling af personoplysninger om ham.
The complaint concerned the response of the Commission’s Representation in Copenhagen to the complainant’s request for information about the processing of data relating to him.
Den 10. juni 2003 havde repræsentationen ringet til klageren i forbindelse med en begæring om aktindsigt.
On 10 June 2003, the Representation had telephoned the complainant in relation to a request for public access to documents.
Samme dag anmodede klageren repræsentationen om at oplyse ham om, hvordan den var kommet i besiddelse af hans telefonnummer.
On that same day, the complainant asked the Representation to inform him about how it had obtained his telephone number.
Repræsentationen oplyste ham den 13. juni 2003 om, at telefonnummeret »har De anført på Deres klage sendt til Den Europæiske Ombudsmand«.
The Representation informed him, on 13 June 2003, that his telephone number had been “indicated by you in your [previous] complaint to the European
Ombudsmanden fandt i sin undersøgelse følgende forhold.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the following facts.
Kommissionens repræsentation havde ikke oplyst klageren om, hvorvidt det telefonnummer, som den benymede til at kontakte ham den 10. juni 2003, faktisk var blevet registreret eller ej. Det var først i sin udtalelse til Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen gjorde det klart, at det telefonnummer ikke var blevet registreret.
The Commission’s Representation had failed to inform the complainant as to whether the telephone number that it had used to contact him on 10 June 2003 had actually been registered or not.
Det fremgik endvidere, at repræsentationen, da den i sit brev af 27. august 2003 oplyste klageren om et forkert telefonnummer, der var registreret under hans navn og senere slemet, ikke havde oplyst, hvornår nummeret var registreret, og hvornår det var slemet.
It further emerged that when the Representation informed the complainant on 27 August 2003 about an incorrect telephone number that had been registered under his name and that had subsequently been deleted, it had failed to give any information about when that number had been registered or when it had been deleted.
Endvidere fremgik det tydeligt af repræsentationens brev til klageren af 27. august 2003, at dens tidligere brev af 1. juli 2003, hvor den erklærede, at »EuropaKommissionens repræsentation i Danmark har ikke registreret yderligere personoplysninger på Dem«, var ukorrekt, e W ersom det forkerte telefonnummer, der havde været registreret, ikke var nævnt i brevet.
Furthermore, it was clear from the Representation’s lemer to the complainant of 27 August 2003 that its earlier lemer of 1 July 2003, in which it had stated that the “Commission’s Representation in Denmark has not previously registered other personal data under your name”, was incorrect, since this lemer failed to mention the incorrect telephone number that had been registered.
På grundlag af disse undersøgelsesresultater fandt Ombudsmanden, at repræsentationen ikke havde givet korrekte og letforståelige oplysninger i overensstemmelse med artikel 13 i forordning 45/2001.
On the basis of these findings, the Ombudsman considered that the Representation had failed to give correct and easily understandable information in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001.
Dem e var et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelse, og Ombudsmanden fremsame en kritisk bemærkning.
This constituted an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman made a critical remark.
Ombudsmanden underremede Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskymelse om afgørelsen, som også omfamede nogle generelle bemærkninger om Ombudsmandens hensigter, hvad angår fremsendelse af oplysninger til og høring af Den Tilsynsførende for Databeskymelse i behandlingen af klager vedrørende beskymelse af personoplysninger.
The Ombudsman informed the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of the decision, which also included some general comments on the Ombudsman’s intentions as regards the provision of information to, and consultation with, the EDPS in handling complaints relating to data protection.
Kommissionen beklagede e W erfølgende, at artikel 13 i forordning 45/2001 var blevet overtrådt i denne sag.
The Commission subsequently expressed its regret that Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 had been breached in this case.
Den anførte, at Kommissionens repræsentation i Danmark ville blive mindet om, at reglerne om beskymelse af personoplysninger altid skal overholdes.
It stated that the Commission’s Representation in Denmark would be reminded that the data protection rules must always be respected.
FORSINKET BETALING AF BIDRAG TIL GALILEI-PROJEKT
LATE PAYMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO GALILEI PROJECT
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 530/2004/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 530/2004/GG against the European Commission
Klageren, en lille tysk virksomhed var underkontrahent i »Galilei-projektet«, som havde til formål at gennemføre den forberedende analyse til »Galileo«, det europæiske initiativ om et globalt satellitnavigationssystem.
The complainant, a small German company, was a sub-contractor in the “Galilei Project”, set up to complete the preparatory analysis for “Galileo”, the European initiative for a global navigation satellite system.
Ifølge klageren var der gået meget lang tid mellem fremsendelsen af ud g i W sopgørelser og betalingen, hvilket hovedsageligt skyldtes Kommissionen og ikke de andre parter, der var involveret i projektet.
According to the complainant, significant delays between submission of its cost statements and payment were mostly due to the Commission and not to the intermediaries involved in the project.
Endvidere klagede den over, at Kommissionen ikke havde frigivet et garantibeløb, som var blevet tilbageholdt, indtil den endelige vurdering af projektet forelå.
Furthermore, it complained that the Commission had not released a guarantee sum retained pending the final assessment of the project.
For klagerens vedkommende drejede dem e sig om næsten 13 000 euro.
As regards the complainant, the amount involved was nearly EUR 13 000.
Dem e havde skabt store økonomiske problemer for klageren. Denne nedlagde påstand om, at garantibeløbet skulle frigives, og at der skulle udbetales morarenter.
This had caused it severe financial problems.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at det var normalt med en periode på 240 dage mellem indsendelse af ud g i W sopgørelser og betaling af en underkontrahent som følge af projektets struktur, og at klageren ved at underskrive kontrakten havde accepteret, at 15 % ville blive tilbageholdt som garanti, indtil alle ydelser i projektet var blevet overdraget til og godkendt af Kommissionen.
The Commission argued that a period of 240 days between the submission of a cost statement and the payment to a sub-contractor was normal given the structure of the project and that, by signing the contract, the complainant had accepted that 15% would be retained as a guarantee until all project deliverables had been submimed to, and approved by, the Commission.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at der ikke var noget, der tydede på, at Kommissionen ikke havde været bekendt med kontraktens kompleksitet, da den forpligtede sig til at betale inden for en given frist.
The Ombudsman noted that there was nothing to suggest that the Commission had not been aware of the complexity of the contract when it commimed itself to making payments within a certain period of time.
Selv om forsinkelserne var forholdsvist små, udgjorde dem e et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
Although comparatively small, the delays constituted maladministration.
Hvad angår garantibeløbet, fandt Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionen var fuldt ud beremiget – og faktisk forpligtet – til at t r æ T e foranstaltninger til at beskyme Fællesskabets økonomiske interesser i forbindelse med indgåelsen af kontrakter.
As regards the guarantee sum, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission was fully entitled — and even obliged — to take measures to protect the Community’s financial interests when entering into contracts.
Han var imidlertid ikke overbevist om, at Kommissionen ikke ville have kunnet frigive beløbet til klageren i lyset af, at Kommissionen ikke havde rejst tvivl om kvaliteten af klagerens arbejde eller de ud g i W er, klageren havde indberemet. EWersom Kommissionen i mellemtiden havde frigivet betalingen, var der imidlertid ingen anledning til yderligere undersøgelser af dem e aspekt af sagen.
However, he was not convinced that the Commission would have been unable to release the sum to the complainant, given that the Commission had not called into doubt the quality of the complainant’s work or the costs it had declared.
Hvad angår påstanden om udbetaling af rente, fandt Ombudsmanden, at kontraktens struktur i denne sag gjorde det meget usandsynligt, at Kommissionen nogensinde ville skulle udbetale morarenter i sager, hvor den ikke betalte skyldige beløb til underkontrahenter remidigt.
As regards the claim for interest, the Ombudsman considered that the structure of the contractual arrangement in the present case had made it very unlikely that the Commission would ever have to pay interest in cases where it failed to forward payments due to sub-contractors in time.
Ombudsmanden udarbejdede et forslag til henstilling til Kommissionen om, at den skulle udbetale erstatning til klageren.
The Ombudsman made a draW recommendation to the Commission that it should compensate the complainant.