natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår klagerens påstand om,at Kommissionen ikke skulle have ventet i 18måneder,før den oplyste klageren om begrundelserne for ikke at frigive de tilskud,somden havde indvilliget i at betale,bemærkede Ombudsmanden,at klageren først syntes atvære blevet underrettet skriftligt om disse begrundelser i december 1998.Ombudsmandens foreløbige konklusion var derfor,at den omstændighed, at Kommissionen først redegjorde for sine begrundelser for,at den ikke havde opfyldt denforpligtelse,som den havde påtaget sig næsten et år (eller endnu længere) efter,at den relevante aftale blev indgået,kunne udgøre endnu et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
With regard to the complainant’s claim that the Commission should not have waited for18 months before informing it of the reasons for not releasing the funds which it hadagreed to pay,the Ombudsman noted that it appeared that the complainant was onlyinformed in writing of these reasons in December 1998. The Ombudsman’s provisionalconclusion,therefore,was that the fact that the Commission only explained the reasonswhy it did not fulfil an obligation it had taken upon itself nearly a year (or even more) afterthe relevant contract had been concluded could constitute a further instance of maladministration.
Sternenkinder e.V. sendte den 8. juni 2000 en skrivelse til Ombudsmanden,hvori denforsøgte at beskrive og vurdere omfanget af de skader,den havde lidt som følge af Kommissionens adfærd.
On 8 June 2000,Sternenkinder e.V. sent a letter to the Ombudsman in which it tried todescribe and quantify the damage that it had suffered due to the Commission’s behaviour.
Ombudsmanden opfordrede i denne skrivelse Kommissionen til at overveje at godtgøre de skader,som organisationen havde lidt som følge af Kommissionensafvisning af at frigive det beløb,som den havde indvilliget i at betale til et udviklingsprojekt i Chile i en aftale,som blev indgået med klageren i juni 1997.
In his letter,the Ombudsman invited the Commission to consider indemnifying the association for the damages that the latter has suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to release the sum of money it had agreed to provide for a development project in Chile in a contract which it had entered into with the complainant in June1997.
FORSLAGET TIL HENSTILLING
THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
Ombudsmandens skrivelse af 26. oktober 2000
The Ombudsman’s letter of 26 October 2000
Under disse omstændigheder fremsatte Ombudsmanden et forslag til henstilling over for Kommissionen den 26. oktober 2000 med følgende indhold:
In these circumstances,the Ombudsman addressed a draft recommendation to the Commission on 26 October 2000 which was worded as follows:
Europa-Kommissionen bør overveje at godtgøre de skader,som organisationen Sternenkinder e.V. har lidt som følge af Kommissionens afvisning af at frigive det beløb,som den havde indvilliget i at betale til et udviklingsprojekt i Chile i en aftale,som blevindgået med klageren i juni 1997.
The European Commission should consider indemnifying the association Sternenkindere.V. for the damages that the latter has suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal torelease the sum of money it had agreed to provide for a development project in Chile in acontract which it had entered into with the complainant in June 1997.
Kommissionen nægtede i sin detaljerede udtalelse af 19. januar 2001 at acceptere Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling.
In its detailed opinion of 19 January 2001,the Commission refused to accept the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation.
Den fremlagde følgende yderligere bemærk-ninger,som for nogles vedkommende er så vigtige,at de bør gengives her:
It made the following additional comments,someof which are important enough to be quoted literally:
Klageren anfører,at det er et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser,at Kommissionen tilbageholder udbetalingen af de midler,der er bevilget til et af hans projekter i Chile,så længeklageren ikke har redegjort for brugen af andre EF-midler,som er forsvundet fra et af hansandre projekter i Brasilien. Klageren nægter at betale sin underleverandør, Verein Sternenkinder, for sit arbejde på Chile-projektet.
“The complainant criticises as maladministration that the Commission withholds paymentof funds allocated to one of his projects in Chile,as long as he has not accounted for theuse of other EC funds,which have disappeared from one of his other projects in Brazil.For its part,the [complainant] refuses to pay its sub-contractor,the Verein Sternenkinder,for its work on the Chile project.
Den Europæiske Ombudsmand anerkender i princippet,at Kommissionen har et gyldigt krav mod klageren,men overladerhåndhævelsen af dette til de relevante domstole.
The European Ombudsman recognises in principle thatthe Commission has a valid claim against the [complainant],but refers its enforcement tothe proper courts of law.”
I løbet af årene havde klageren modtaget EF-støtte til flere udviklingsprojekter,herunderet projekt i Brasilien,som aldrig blev gennemført.
Over the years,the complainant had received EC funding for several development proj-ects,amongst them a project in Brazil which was never implemented.
Eftersom Kommissionenikke havde et direkte kontraktforhold med disse underleverandører,behøvede den ikke atbetale dem direkte,hvis deres ordregiver og debitor ikke overholdt deres forpligtelser.
The complainanthad refused to provide any information in this respect,declaring itself incapable of doingso because the grant contract,negotiated by its own representatives,had been signed bythe “Friends”.
I nærværende sag havde organisationen været klagerens underleverandør,og klagerenskulle derfor holdes fast på sit løfte om at tage det fulde ansvar for projektet,som var dethans eget,og dermed forpligte sig til at betale underleverandørerne.
When the Commission had insisted nevertheless,the complainant haddenied any responsibility and advised the Commission to sue the “Friends”,now bankrupt,after the complainant had emptied its accounts of DM 120 000 and DM 170 000 in 1990and 1991.
Så vidt Kommissionen vidste,havde organisationen ikke på nogen måde forsøgt at få sinekrav mod klageren indfriet ad rettens vej.
Neither the Commission nor the complainant had made the grant regarding the project in Chile dependent upon a settlement of the dispute regarding the Brazil project,“but the link
I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage og fremsatte blandt andet følgende yderligere bemærkninger:
In its observations,the complainant maintained its complaint and made inter alia thefollowing further comments:
Kommissionen havde fordrejet kendsgerningerne i sin detaljerede udtalelse.Organisationen havde ikke være klagerens underleverandør.
The Commission had misrepresented the facts in its detailed opinion. The association hadnot been the complainant’s subcontractor.
For så vidt angik projektet i Brasilien, havde en anklager i Tyskland indledt en undersøgelse af den ansvarlige leder.Denne undersøgelse var imidlertid blevet indstillet.
In so far as the Brazil project was concerned,aprosecutor in Germany had started an inquiry against the manager responsible. Thisinquiry had however been closed.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havdei øvrigt indbragt et søgsmål mod lederen. Dette søgsmål var imidlertid blevet afvist af detyske domstole.
The Federal Republic of Germany had further broughtan action against the manager.
Klageren havde ikke taget penge fra foreningens konti.
The complainant had not taken money out of the accounts of the “Friends”.
De pågældendebeløb stammede fra velgørenhedsarrangementer og var blevet samlet ind til klageren afforeningen.
Therelevant sums stemmed from charity events and had been collected by the “Friends”forthe complainant.
Afslag på at frigive midlerne
Refusal to release the funds
1.1Klageren,en tysk fond,gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen burde frigive et beløb på70.443 EUR,som den havde indvilliget i at betale i en aftale fra juni 1997 om et udviklingsprojekt i Chile.
1.1The complainant,a German foundation,claimed that the Commission ought to release the sum of 70443 it had agreed to provide,in a contract concluded in June 1997,for a development project in Chile.
1.2Kommissionen svarede,at den var berettiget til at tilbageholde betalingen,da denhavde et krav på 210.000 EUR mod klagerens forening Verein der Freunde und Förderer(”foreningen”),som stammede fra et projekt i Brasilien,som klageren var ansvarlig for,og som det beløb,som klageren krævede,kunne modregnes i.
1.2The Commission replied that it was entitled to withhold this payment since it hadclaims amounting to 210000 against the Verein der Freunde und Förderer of the complainant (the “Friends”) arising from a project in Brazil for which the complainant wasliable and against which the amount claimed by the complainant could be set off.
1.3Med henblik på at underbygge udtalelsen om,at klageren kunne holdes ansvarlig forforeningens gæld,henviste Kommissionen til flere forhold,der pegede på,at der eksisterede en tæt forbindelse mellem klageren og foreningen,f.eks. at personalet i og medlemmerne af begge organisationer var indbyrdes forbundet,samt at foreningen anvendtesamme adresse som klageren,herunder også telefonnummer og logo.
1.3In order to support its view that the complainant may be held liable for the debts ofthe Friends,the Commission referred to several factors indicating a close relationshipbetween the complainant and the Friends,for example the fact that staff and members ofboth were interlinked and that the Friends used the same business address as thecomplainant,including telephone number and logo.
1.4Ombudsmanden var ikke i stand til at vurdere,om klageren rent faktisk skulle holdesøkonomisk ansvarlig for Kommissionens krav mod foreningen.
1.4The Ombudsman was not in a position to determine whether the complainant shouldindeed be regarded as liable for the claims of the Commission against the Friends.
Dette spørgsmål kunne isidste ende kun afgøres af en domstol,som havde domsmyndighed i denne sag. Ved førstegennemsyn syntes Kommissionens argumenter imidlertid ikke at være ubegrundede.
Thisissue could ultimately only be decided by a court that had jurisdiction in this matter.However,the arguments put forward by the Commission did not appear to be without
Derblev således ikke påvist et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser med hensyn til dette aspektaf sagen.
125 merit at first sight. No instance of maladministration could thus be found with regard tothis aspect of the complaint.
Indgåelse af en aftale på trods af eksisterende krav mod klageren
Entering into contract despite the existence of claims against the complainant
Klageren indvilligede derefter i at træde til og indsende ansøgningen i siteget navn.
The complainant had subsequentlyaccepted to step in and to submit the application in its own name.
Klageren gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen efter omstændighederne ikkeskulle have indgået en aftale med klageren i 1997,hvis den mente,at den havde et kravom tilbagebetaling af visse beløb mod klageren.
The complainantclaimed that in view of these circumstances the Commission should not have entered intothe relevant contract with the complainant in 1997 if it believed that it had a claim for therepayment of certain sums against the complainant.
Kommissionen havde kunført forhandlinger med klageren.
All negotiations had been conducted withthe complainant.
Kommissionen havde i sit forhold til klageren arbejdetefter det princip,at det faktum,at parterne havde en tvist om ét projekt,ikke i sig selvudelukkede en videreførelse af det eksisterende samarbejde i andre sager,så længe Kommissionen kunne gå ud fra,at den handlede med en ærlig forretningspartner,som den
In its relations with the complainant,the Commission had been guidedby the principle that,by itself,the fact that the parties were in dispute over one project didnot exclude continuing the ongoing business relationship in other cases,as long as the Commission could assume to deal with an honest business partner,with whom an acceptable understanding could be reached.
125 kunne indgå en acceptabel aftale med. Kommissionen havde først skærpet sin holdning,da det stod klart,at klageren ikke havde levet op til Kommissionens tillid.
The Commission had only hardened its stand onceit had become clear that this trust had been misplaced in the case of the complainant.
2.4Efter Ombudsmanden mening kunne Kommissionen ikke på tidspunktet forindgåelsen af den pågældende aftale i juni 1997 have været i tvivl om,at klageren ikkeville acceptere Kommissionens mening om,at klageren var forpligtet til at betale foreningens gæld.
2.4In the view of the Ombudsman,the Commission could not,at the time when the relevant contract was concluded in June 1997,have been under any doubt that the complainantdid not accept the Commission’s view that it was liable for the debts of the Friends.
Kommissionen påpegede selv,at indtægtsordrerne mod foreningen alleredeblev udstedt i oktober 1995 (dvs. længe før at aftalen blev indgået),men at det ikke havdeværet muligt at inddrive de pågældende beløb.
The Commission itself pointed out that recovery orders against the Friends had been issuedalready in October 1995 (i.e. long before the contract was concluded) but that it had notbeen possible to retrieve the amounts concerned.
Desuden havde klageren i en skrivelse til Kommissionen den 28. februar 1997 forklaret,at ansøgningen om tilskud blev indsendt afklageren og ikke af foreningen.
In addition to that,the complainant hadclarified,in a letter to the Commission dated 28 February 1997,that the application for agrant had been submitted by itself and not by the Friends.
2.5I sin udtalelse til Ombudsmandens forslag til henstilling i denne sag erkendte Kommissionen, at hverken den selv eller klageren havde gjort tilskuddet til projektet i Chile betinget af,at tvisten om projektet i Brasilien blev løst,men hævdede,at der uafvendeligt blev etableret en forbindelse,da klageren senere opfordrede kraftigt til,at tilskuddetblev frigivet uden at give nogen indrømmelser med hensyn til projektet i Brasilien.Ombudsmanden kunne ikke imødekomme dette krav,da det først blev rejst meget sent iproceduren og ikke blev dokumenteret af nogen beviser.
2.5In its opinion on the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation in this case, the Commission acknowledged that neither itself nor the complainant had made the grant forthe project in Chile dependent upon a settlement of the dispute regarding the project in Brazil but claimed that “the link was inevitably made when the [complainant] later urgedthe release of the grant without offering any concession with respect to the Brazil project”.The Ombudsman was unable to accept this claim that was first raised at a very late stagein the procedure and that was not supported by any evidence.
2.6Hvad var endnu vigtigere,de dokumenter,som klageren havde fremsendt, viste, at Kommissionen vidste eller burde have vidst,at midlerne i sidste ende skulle gavne organisationen og dens arbejde og ikke klageren,hvilket var i strid med,hvad Kommissionenellers havde hævdet i nærværende sag.
2.6Even more importantly,the documents submitted by the complainant showed that the Commission, contrary to what it claimed in the present proceedings,knew or must haveknown that the funds should ultimately benefit not the complainant but the association andits work.
Organisationen havde den 15. september 1995skrevet til Kommissionen for at forespørge,om den kunne indsende en ansøgning om ettilskud til det pågældende projekt.
The latter had written to the Commission on 15 September 1995 in order toinquire whether it could submit an application for a grant for the project concerned.
Kommissionen havde svaret,at dette ikke var muligt,men at organisationen kunne henvende sig til en anden ngo,der kunne indsende ansøgningen.
The Commission had replied that this was not possible but that the association might turn toanother NGO that could submit the application.
Klageren indvilligede derefter i at træde til og indsende ansøgningen i sit egetnavn. De dokumenter,som klageren fremsendte,viste,at dette var blevet drøftet med Kommissionen.
The complainant had then agreed to stepin and submit the application in its own name.
Klageren havde ikke indsendt sit
The documents submitted by the
_BAR_ 2001 eget projekt til Kommissionen,men havde kun trådt til,fordi organisationen ikke selv varberettiget til støtte.
_BAR_ 2001 complainant showed that this had been discussed with the Commission. Indeed,the nameof the association is mentioned in both the application itself and the short cover letter sentby the complainant to the Commission on 17 July 1996.
2.9På baggrund af ovenstående konkluderede Ombudsmanden,at set i lyset af omstændighederne i denne sag var Kommissionens beslutning om at indgå en aftale ikke godforvaltningsskik,hvorfor det udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
2.9The Ombudsman concluded from these considerations that in view of the circumstances of the present case the decision of the Commission to enter into the contract wasnot compatible with good administrative practice and thus constituted an instance ofmaladministration.
Forsinkelse i underretningen af klageren
Delay in informing the complainant
3.1Klageren gjorde gældende,at Kommissionen ikke burde have ventet i 18 måneder,førden oplyste klageren om årsagerne til,at den ikke havde frigivet de midler,som den havdeindvilliget i at betale.
3.1The complainant claimed that the Commission should not have waited for 18 monthsbefore informing it of the reasons for not releasing the funds which it had agreed to pay.
3.2Kommissionen svarede,at den fra starten ved flere lejligheder havde nægtet at frigive Chile-tilskuddet, og at parterne havde drøftet de omtvistelige regnskaber siden efteråret1997.
3.2The Commission replied that it had refused from the start,in numerous contacts,torelease the Chile grant,and that the parties had been discussing the litigious accounts sincethe fall of 1997.
3.3Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at ifølge de fremsendte beviser var det først i skrivelsentil medlemmet af Europa-Parlamentet den 17. juni 1998,at Kommissionen havde forklaretskriftligt,at den ikke agtede at frigive tilskuddet,før foreningens gæld var betalt. Desudensyntes klageren selv først at være blevet underrettet om Kommissionens holdning i skrivelsen af 15. december 1998.
3.3The Ombudsman noted that according to the evidence submitted to him it was onlyin its letter of 17 June 1998 to the MEP that the Commission first explained in writing thatit did not intend to release the grant before the debts of the Friends had been paid.Moreover,the first document in which the complainant itself was informed of the Commission’s position appeared to be the letter of 15 December 1998.
Kommissionen fremlagde ingen beviser for,at klageren varblevet underrettet om dette før disse datoer.
The Commissiondid not produce any evidence that would have shown that the complainant had beeninformed of this position prior to those dates.
Efter Ombudsmandens mening var det ikkegod forvaltningsskik,at Kommissionen først forklarede årsagerne til,at den ikke havdeopfyldt en forpligtelse,den havde påtaget sig,næsten et år efter,at den pågældende aftaleblev indgået.
In the Ombudsman’s view,it could not beconsidered to be good administrative practice for the Commission to explain the reasonswhy it did not fulfil an obligation it had taken upon itself nearly a year after the relevantcontract had been concluded.
Dette udgjorde derfor et yderligere tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
This fact therefore constituted a further instance of maladministration.
4.1På baggrund af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af denne klage var det nødvendigt atfremsætte følgende kritiske bemærkninger:
4.1On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint,it was necessary tomake the following critical remarks:
Ombudsmanden mente,at Kommissionen vidste eller burde have vidst,at beslutningen omikke at frigive de midler,som den havde indvilliget i at betale,ville påvirke organisationens interesser.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission knew or must have known that any decision on its part not to release the funds it had agreed to provide would affect the interestsof the association.
Desuden vidste eller burde Kommissionen have vidst,at klageren ikke villeindvillige i at betale foreningens gæld.
The Commission also knew or must have known that the complainantwas not ready to pay the debts of the Friends. It is a rule of good administrative practice
Det er en regel for god forvaltningsskik,at forvaltningen skal handle både konsekvent og retfærdigt.
127 that the administration should act both consistently and fairly.
Kommissionen burde derfor ikke haveindgået den pågældende aftale,hvis den ikke agtede at frigive de berørte midler.
The Commission shouldtherefore not have entered into the relevant contract if it did not have the intention ofreleasing the funds concerned.
Denburde under alle omstændigheder have forsøgt at undgå,at denne strid med klageren omforeningens gæld kunne forvolde skade på organisationen og projektet i Chile, som Kommissionen ikke syntes at have nogen indvendinger mod.
It should in any event have avoided that its dispute with thecomplainant over the debts of the Friends could cause damage to the association and theproject in Chile against which the Commission does not seem to have had any objections.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at ifølge de fremsendte beviser var det først i skrivelsen tilmedlemmet af Europa-Parlamentet den 17. juni 1998,at Kommissionen havde forklaretskriftligt,at den ikke agtede at opfylde sine forpligtelser i medfør af aftalen fra juni 1997,før foreningens gæld var betalt.
The Ombudsman noted that according to the evidence submitted to him it was only in itsletter of 17 June 1998 to the MEP that the Commission first explained in writing that it didnot intend to fulfil its obligations under the contract entered into in June 1997 before thedebts of the Friends had been paid.
Desuden syntes klageren selv først at være blevet underrettet om Kommissionens holdning i skrivelsen af 15. december 1998.
Moreover,the first document in which the complainantitself was informed of the Commission’s position appeared to be the letter of 15 December1998.
Efter Ombudsmandens mening er det ikke god forvaltningsskik,at Kommissionen først forklarede årsagerne til,at den ikke havde opfyldt en forpligtelse,den havde påtaget sig,næstenet år efter,at den pågældende aftale blev indgået.
In the Ombudsman’s view,it cannot be considered to be good administrative practice for the Commission to explain the reasons why it did not fulfil an obligation it hadtaken upon itself nearly a year after the relevant contract had been concluded.
Dette udgjorde derfor et yderligeretilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
This facttherefore constituted a further instance of maladministration.
4.2Ombudsmanden foreslog i sit forslag til en mindelig løsning,at Kommissionen skulleoverveje at godtgøre de skader,som organisationen havde lidt. Kommissionen afviste i sitsvar dette forslag bl.a. med henvisning til,at dette ville forpligte den til at betale heletilskuddet endnu engang.
4.2In his proposal for a friendly solution,the Ombudsman had suggested that the Commission should consider indemnifying the association for the damage it had suffered.In its reply,the Commission rejected this proposal,arguing inter alia that this would obligeit to pay the full subsidy a second time.
Ombudsmanden gentog derefter sit forslag i form af et forslagtil henstilling til Kommissionen.
The Ombudsman then repeated his suggestion inthe form of a draft recommendation to the Commission.
Han påpegede,at Kommissionens fortolkning af forslagetvar forkert,da han kun havde foreslået,at organisationen skulle have de skader,den faktisk
He pointed out that the Commission’s interpretation of his proposal had been erroneous,since he had onlysuggested that the association should be compensated for the damage it had actuallysuffered.
Kommissionen bekræftede i sin detaljerede udtalelse,at den fortsatafviste dette forslag.
In its detailed opinion,the Commission confirmed that it continued to reject thisproposal.