natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne gang syntes Kommissionen at henvise til,at den ikke havdegjort noget,der kunne regnes for fejl eller forsømmelser i forhold til organisationen.Ombudsmanden mente også,at en sådan fortolkning var forkert.
This time,the Commission appeared to argue that it had done nothing that couldbe interpreted as constituting maladministration towards the association. Again, the Ombudsman considered that such an interpretation would be erroneous.
Da Ombudsmandenhavde konkluderet,at denne sag udgjorde et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser,skulle hannu afgøre,hvordan dette tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser skulle bringes til ophør.
Having found thatthere was maladministration in the present case,the Ombudsman had to consider how thismaladministration could be remedied.
Ibetragtning af striden mellem Kommissionen og klageren og set i lyset af, at Kommissionen ikke havde nogen indvendinger mod gennemførelsen af projektet i Chile,syntes det at være mest hensigtsmæssigt at foreslå,at Kommissionen skulle overveje atgodtgøre den part,som ville lide det største tab i nærværende sag,dvs. organisationen,som på forhånd havde finansieret projektet.
In view of the dispute between the Commission andthe complainant and given that the Commission had not raised any objections to the wayin which the project in Chile had been carried out,it appeared most appropriate to suggestthat the Commission should consider indemnifying the party that stood to lose most in thepresent case,i.e. the association that had pre-financed the project.
4.3Ombudsmanden beklagede,at Kommissionen ikke havde accepteret dette forslag.Kommissionens beslutning var til skade for en lille velgørenhedsorganisation og i sidsteende for de,der ville drage fordel af det projekt,som Kommissionen selv anså for at væreberettiget til EU-støtte.
4.3The Ombudsman deplored that the Commission had not accepted this proposal. Thisdecision of the Commission harmed the interests of a small charity and ultimately thoseof the beneficiaries of the project which the Commission itself agreed was worthy of the EU’s assistance.
5.1I artikel 3,stk. 7,i Ombudsmandens statut35fastlægges det,at når Ombudsmandenhar fremlagt et forslag til henstilling og modtaget en detaljeret udtalelse fra den berørteinstitution eller det berørte organ,skal han sende en rapport til Europa-Parlamentet og tilden berørte institution eller det berørte organ.
5.1Article 3 (7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman35provides that after havingmade a draft recommendation and after having received the detailed opinion of the institution or body concerned,the Ombudsman shall send a report to the European Parliamentand to the institution or body concerned.
5.2Ombudsmanden påpegede i sin årsberetning for 1998,at muligheden for at fremlægge en sådan særrapport for Parlamentet er af uvurderlig værdi for hans arbejde.
5.2In his Annual Report for 1998,the Ombudsman pointed out that the possibility forhim to present a special report to the European Parliament was of inestimable value for hiswork.
Hantilføjede,at sådanne særrapporter derfor ikke burde fremlægges alt for ofte,men kun ivigtige sager,når Parlamentet kan gribe ind for at støtte Ombudsmanden i overensstemmelse med ombudsmandsstatutten36.
He added that special reports should therefore not be presented too frequently,butonly in relation to important matters where the Parliament was able to take action in order to assist the Ombudsman36.
Årsberetningen for 1998 blev fremsendt til oggodkendt af Europa-Parlamentet.
The Annual Report for 1998 was submitted to and approvedby the European Parliament.
Europa-Parlamentets afgørelse af 9. marts 1994 vedrørende Ombudsmandens statut og de almindelige betingelser for udøvelsen af hans hverv,EFT L 113 af 4.5.1994,s. 15.
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties,OJ 1994 L 113,page 15.
Klageren påbegyndte i september 1997 sit arbejde som ekspert for Kontoret for Humanitær Bistand (ECHO),som er en del af Kommissionen. Siden da har han væretansat som konsulent på fire på hinanden følgende kontrakter.
The complainant began work as an expert for the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO),which is part of the Commission,in September 1997.
Han blev anmodet om at fåforetaget en helbredsundersøgelse før den første kontrakt.
He was asked to undertakea medical examination before the first contract.
Ved den lejlighed havdeklageren oplyst Kommissionens tjenestegrene om sine helbredsproblemer,herunder isærom sit dårlige hjerte samt den behandling,som var blevet ordineret.
On that occasion,the complainant haddisclosed to the Commission services his medical problems,in particular his poor heartcondition,and the treatment which had been prescribed.
I slutningen af marts 1999 meddelte klageren ECHO,at han ønskede at forlade sindaværende post i Colombia,og at han var villig til at flytte til Afrika.
At the end of March 1999,the complainant informed ECHO that he wished to leave hiscurrent assignment in Colombia and that he was willing to move to Africa.
I april 1999 tilbød ECHO ham en stilling i Kinshasa (RDC),som han tog imod.
In April 1999,ECHO offered him a position in Kinshasa (RDC),which he accepted.
Afgørelse om klage1033/99/JMA(fortrolig)over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint1033/99/JMA(Confidential) againstthe European Commission
Klageren indgik i juli 1999 en ny kontrakt med ECHO,og fik han foretaget en helbredsundersøgelse.
In July 1999,the complainant signed a new contract with ECHO and underwent a medicalexamination.
Helbredsundersøgelsen omfattede et elektrokardiogram,som ikke vistenogen problemer.
The medical examination included an electrocardiogram analysis,which didnot reveal any problem.
Klageren oplyste den ansvarlige læge om sine tidligere hjerteproblemerog indvilligede i at fremsende sit seneste ultralydskardiogram,der blev taget i februar1999,og som viste,at han var fuldstændig helbredt for sin tidligere hjertelidelse.
The complainant informed the responsible doctor about hisprevious heart problems,and agreed to submit his latest echocardiogram which had beentaken in February 1999 and which showed a complete recovery from his previous coronary condition.
Klageren sendte ved en fejl et tidligere ultralydskardiogram til den ansvarlige læge. Dettevar blevet taget i januar 1999,lige efter at hans hjerteproblem opstod.
By mistake,the complainant sent to the responsible doctor an earlier echocardiogram,which had been carried out in January 1999,immediately after he had suffered a coronaryproblem.
Klageren rejste til Kinshasa den 15. juli 1999.
The complainant travelled to Kinshasa on 15 July 1999.
Den følgende dag blev han ringet op af Kommissionens tjenestegrene i Bruxelles,som bad ham om at vende tilbage med detsamme. Klageren rejste til Bruxelles,og ECHO meddelte ham,at hans kontrakt var blevetopsagt.
The following day he received atelephone call from the Commission services in Brussels,requesting his immediate return.The complainant returned to Brussels,and was informed by ECHO that his contract hadbeen annulled.
Denne afgørelse blev formelt meddelt ham i en skrivelse fra Kommissionen,somanførte,at afgørelsen var truffet på grund af klagerens helbredstilstand.
This decision was formally notified to him by a letter from the Commission, which justified its action on medical grounds.
Klageren tog tilbage til sit hjem og fandt der en skrivelse dateret den 9. juli 1999 fra denansvarlige læge.
The complainant returned home where he found a letter dated 9 July 1999 from theresponsible doctor.
I denne skrivelse meddelte lægen klageren,at han på baggrund af detultralydskardiogram fra januar 1999,som klageren havde indsendt,havde konkluderet,atklageren helbredstilstand ikke var tilstrækkelig god til,at han kunne udføre sine opgaver.
The letter informed the complainant that,on the basis of the echocardiogram of January 1999 which he had submitted,the doctor had concluded that thecomplainant’s health condition was not adequate for the performance of his assigned tasks.
I slutningen af juli skrev klageren til chefen for ECHO,Alberto Navarro,til den ansvarlige læge og til Kommissionens tjenestegrene med ansvar for bistand til ikke-medlems-stater.
At the end of July,the complainant wrote to the Head of ECHO,Mr Alberto Navarro,tothe responsible doctor,and to the Commission service responsible for aid to non-memberstates.
I sine skrivelser kritiserede han den behandling,han havde fået,og anmodede om,at hans helbredstilstand blev bedømt igen på baggrund af de nyeste helbredsundersøgelser.Denne anmodning blev ikke besvaret.
His letters criticised the treatment he had received and requested a reconsiderationof his medical condition in the light of his most recent medical tests.
(ii)Kommissionen havde undladt at svare på hans skrivelser om sagen.
No reply was givento his request.
Kommissionen forklarede,at helbredsundersøgelser som hovedregel skal foretages,før eneventuel kontrakt underskrives.
The Commission explained that,as a general rule,medical examinations must be carriedout prior to the signature of any contract.
Denne regel kan imidlertid ikke altid overholdes,når detgælder missioner,der kræver hurtig humanitær bistand.
However,this rule cannot always be respectedin case of missions involving urgent humanitarian aid.
Kontrakten indeholdt derimod enbestemmelse om,at Kommissionen kunne opsige den,hvis kontrahentens helbredstilstandbetyder,at han ikke er i stand til at udføre de tildelte opgaver.
The contract,on the other hand,included a clause whereby the Commission could annul it if the medical condition of thecontracting party renders him unsuitable for the assigned tasks.
I nærværende sag erkendte Kommissionen,at det ikke var muligt at få foretaget enhelbredsundersøgelse til tiden før kontrakten blev underskrevet,fordi den pågældendemission var presserende.
In the present case,because of the urgency of the mission to be accomplished, the Commission recognised that it was not possible to proceed in due time with the medicalexamination prior to the signature of the contract.
Da den læge,som havde ansvar for helbredsundersøgelsen,vurderede,at klageren ikke varegnet til at udføre de i kontrakten beskrevne opgaver,havde Kommissionens tjenestegreneingen grund til at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved denne konklusion,hvorfor de var tvunget tilat opsige kontrakten.
When the doctor in charge of the medical examination found that the complainant was notsuited to perform the tasks prescribed in the contract,the responsible Commission services had no reason to question his conclusion,and were therefore compelled to terminatethe contract.
Denne afgørelse burde under ingen omstændigheder afholdeklageren fra at søge at indgå kontrakter med institutionen i fremtiden,hvis hans helbredstilstand ville tillade dette.
This decision should by no means preclude the complainant from seekingfuture contracts with the institution if his medical condition so allowed.
For så vidt angår klagerens påstand om,at Kommissionen skulle have foretaget en yderligere helbredsundersøgelse,før den opsagde kontrakten,mente Kommissionen ikke,atdette var hensigtsmæssigt,fordi det drejede sig om en kortvarig kontrakt.
As for the complainant’s suggestion that the Commission should have carried out an additional medical examination before cancelling the contract,the institution did not considerit appropriate because of the short-term nature of the contract.
Kommissionentilføjede,at dens afgørelser inden for rammerne af kontrakten altid kan anfægtes af denanden part ved en kompetent domstol.
The Commission added thatits decisions in the context of a contract can always be contested by the other party beforethe competent jurisdiction.
Kommissionen erkendte,at det var uheldigt,at den ikke var i besiddelse af lægens udtalelse før klagerens afrejse,og anførte,at den fremover ville forsøge at undgå lignendetilfælde.
The Commission recognised that not having had the medical opinion before the departureof the complainant was an unfortunate situation,and stated that it will seek to avoid similarcases in the future.
Klageren anførte i sine bemærkninger,at Kommissionen allerede havde indvilliget i atsende ham til Afrika lang tid før,hans tidligere kontrakt i Colombia udløb,og at den derforhavde haft rigelig tid til at foretage en helbredsundersøgelse.
In his observations,the complainant stated that the Commission had already agreed to posthim to Africa well before the expiry of his former contract in Colombia,and therefore hadample time to perform a medical examination.
Han gentog,at Kommissionen ikke havde overholdt kontraktens bestemmelse om,at denikke kunne træde i kraft,før den anden parts helbredstilstand var blevet vurderet med positivt resultat.fre
The complainant pointed out that the letter from the doctor in charge was dated 9 July1999.
Endelig anførte klageren,at Kommissionen havde nægtet at betale erstatning for de negative konsekvenser af dens manglende omhu.
Since the complainant was due to travel on 15 July 1999,the Commission,in thecomplainant’s view,had not explained why it was not aware of the medical conclusions bythen.
Han gjorde gældende,at han var berettiget tilen sådan erstatning.
He argued that the Commission should have allowed a new medical examination to
1Efter Ombudsmandens mening kunne Kommissionen naturligvis ikke gøres ansvarligfor,at klageren havde fremsendt et forkert ultralydskardiogram.
1In the Ombudsman’s view,the Commission could obviously not be held responsiblefor the fact that the complainant submitted the wrong echocardiogram.
De negative følger afdenne fejl kunne imidlertid være blevet begrænset eller undgået,hvis helbredsundersøgelsen havde fundet sted på et tidligere tidspunkt.
However,the negative consequences of that error could have been minimised or avoided if the medical examination had taken place earlier.
Kommissionen underskrev den nyekontrakt den 30. juni 1999 og aftalte,at helbredsundersøgelsen skulle foretages denfølgende dag.
The Commission signed the new contract on 30 June 1999and arranged the medical examination for the following day.
Tjenestegrenene havde imidlertid allerede uformelt imødekommet klagerens ønske om at blive forflyttet til en ny post i Afrika i april 1999.
However,its services hadalready agreed informally to the complainant’s request to move to a new post in Africa in April 1999.
Helbredsundersøgelsenkunne derfor være blevet foretaget,før kontrakten blev underskrevet,hvis Kommissionenhavde handlet hurtigere.
The medical examination therefore could have taken place before signature ofthe contract,if the Commission had acted more promptly.
På denne måde ville klagerens fejl være blevet opdaget og rettet,før den dag han skulle rejse til Afrika.
In this case,the complainant’serror could have been discovered and corrected before the date scheduled for his departureto Africa.
2Klageren gjorde gældende,at han havde lidt et stort økonomisk tab,fordi han alleredevar flyttet til Afrika,da resultatet af hans helbredsundersøgelse forelå.
2The complainant claimed that he had suffered significant economic loss from the factthat he had already moved to Africa when the results of the medical examination becameknown.
Han anførte også,at Kommissionen havde nægtet at udbetale erstatning. Ombudsmanden foreslog derfor, at Kommissionen skulle genoverveje dette og betale erstatning til klageren for det tab,hanhavde lidt som følge af denne situation.
He also stated that the Commission had refused to compensate him.
3I sit svar af oktober 2000 meddelte Kommissionen,at den var villig til at overveje atudbetale erstatning,dog på visse betingelser,nemlig at et sådant ansvar skulle fastlæggesi overensstemmelse med kriterierne i EF-traktatens artikel 288,som fortolket af Fællesskabets domstole.
3In its reply of October 2000,the Commission expressed its willingness to consider apotential compensation although subject to certain conditions,namely that such liabilitybe established in accordance with the criteria set out in Art. 288 of the EC Treaty,as interpreted by the Community courts.
Kommissionen tilføjede imidlertid,at den ikke mente,at denhavde et ansvar i denne sag,fordi dens tjenestegrene havde overholdt kontraktens bestemmelser.
The Commission added,however,that it did not considerit should bear any liability in this case since its services had strictly complied with theterms of the contract.
Til støtte for sine argumenter mindede Kommissionen om de relevante kontraktbestemmelser samt om de hændelser,der havde ført til dens afgørelse om at opsigekontrakten.
It recalled in support of its arguments,the relevant contractualclauses and the events that led to its decision to annul the contract.
4Ombudsmanden videresendte Kommissionens svar til klageren,som derefter gav Ombudsmanden nærmere oplysninger om de tab,han hævdede at have lidt (uventet afske-digelse,pludselig hjemsendelse,tab af sygesikring,flytning til hjemlandet),som efterhans mening beløb sig til i alt 19.567,41 EUR.
4The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission’s reply to the complainant,who thenprovided the Ombudsman with details of the damage he claimed to have suffered (unexpected redundancy,sudden repatriation,loss of medical coverage,move back home), which,in his view,amounted to a total of 19.567,41 .
5Ombudsmanden videresendte klagerens vurdering af hans erstatningskrav til Kommissionen.
5The Ombudsman forwarded the complainant’s assessment of his entitlement tocompensation to the Commission.
Kommissionen gentog,at den var villig til at overveje at udbetale erstat-ning,men kun i de tilfælde,hvor dens ansvar var utvetydigt fastslået,og ikke i de tilfælde,hvor tjenestegrenene havde handlet korrekt i overensstemmelse med deres rettigheder ogforpligtelser. Kommissionen afviste til sidst klagerens erstatningskrav.
In reply,the Commission repeated its willingness toconsider paying compensation,but only where its liability had been clearly establishedand not where its services had acted correctly within its contractual rights and obligations.The Commission concluded by rejecting the complainant’s claims for compensation.
6I marts 2001 fremsendte klageren sine bemærkninger.
6In March 2001,the complainant sent his observations.
Han mente,at Kommissionensargumenter var skammelige,og kritiserede institutionens forslag om at lade striden løse afen domstolsinstans,fordi dette ville medføre store omkostninger.
He considered that the Commission’s reasoning was shameful,and criticised the suggestion made by the institution to have the dispute solved by a judicial instance because of the high costs of suchcourse of action.
På baggrund af de fremlagte beviser konkluderede han,at det nu var op til Ombudsmanden at tage stilling tilsagen.
In view of the available evidence,he concluded that it was now up to the Ombudsman to take a stand on the matter.
Opsigelse af klagerens kontrakt med ECHO
The termination of the complainant’s contract with ECHO
1.1Klageren havde gjort gældende,at Kommissionen brat havde opsagt hans kontraktvedrørende hans ansættelse som ekspert (Technical Assistant Correspondent) ved ECHOpå grund af forældede helbredsundersøgelser,uden varsel eller forudgående høring.Derved havde Kommissionen ikke overholdt kontraktens bestemmelse om,at den ikkekunne træde i kraft,før den anden parts helbredstilstand var blevet vurderet med positivtresultat.
1.1The complainant had alleged that the Commission abruptly ended his contract as anexpert (Technical Assistant Correspondent) with ECHO on the basis of outdated medicaltests,without notice or prior consultation. By so doing,the Commission had not respectedthe rules of the contract which stated that the contract could only take effect once themedical condition of the other party had been positively evaluated.
Endvidere gjorde klageren gældende,at institutionen skulle have kendt til hanstidligere helbredsproblemer,eftersom han allerede arbejdede for institutionen.
Moreover,thecomplainant claimed that the institution should have known of his previous medical problems since he was already working for the institution.
1.2Kommissionen forklarede,at den som en undtagelse i denne sag ikke havde været istand til at få foretaget helbredsundersøgelsen,før kontrakten blev underskrevet,fordi den
1.2The Commission explained that exceptionally in this case,it was not possible toproceed in due time with the medical examination prior to the signature of the contract,due to the urgency of the mission to be accomplished.
131 pågældende mission var presserende. Den begrundede sine handlinger med,at kontraktenindeholdt en bestemmelse om,at Kommissionen kunne opsige den,hvis kontrahentenshelbredstilstand betyder,at han ikke var i stand til at udføre de tildelte opgaver.Institutionen beklagede,at den ikke havde modtaget lægens udtalelse før klagerens afrejse,og meddelte,at den ville forsøge at undgå lignende situationer i fremtiden.
It justified its action on the groundsthat the contract included a clause whereby the Commission could annul the contract if themedical condition of the contracting party renders him unsuitable for the assigned tasks.The institution regretted that it could not receive the medical opinion before the departureof the complainant,although it undertook to seek to avoid similar situations in the future.
1.3Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at Kommissionen ikke havde svaret på klagerenspåstand om,at den burde have kendt til hans tidligere helbredsproblemer,eftersom hanallerede arbejdede for institutionen.
1.3The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had not responded to the complainant’sclaim that it should have known of his previous medical problems since he was alreadyworking for the institution.
1.4Med hensyn til sagens kendsgerninger synes det ikke at være blevet anfægtet,atklageren efter helbredsundersøgelsen havde fremsendt et forældet ultralydskardiogram tilden ansvarlige læge.
1.4As regards the facts,it appeared undisputed that,following the medical examination,the complainant submitted an outdated echocardiogram to the responsible doctor.
På baggrund af disse forkerte oplysninger havde lægen konkluderet,at klageren ikke var i stand til at udføre de tildelte opgaver.
On thebasis of the incorrect information,the doctor formed the view that the complainant wasnot fit to perform his assigned tasks.
1.5Selv om det var klagerens skyld,at det forældede ultralydskardiogram var blevetfremsendt,mente Ombudsmanden,at de negative følger af denne fejl kunne være blevetbegrænset eller undgået,hvis helbredsundersøgelsen havde fundet sted på et tidligere tids-punkt,eller hvis Kommissionen havde handlet hurtigere,efter at resultatet forelå.
1.5Although the complainant had been responsible for submitting the outdated echocar-diogram,the Ombudsman considered that the negative consequences of his error couldhave been minimised or avoided if the medical examination had taken place earlier,or ifthe Commission had acted more promptly once the results were known.
Underalle omstændigheder kunne klagerens fejl være blevet opdaget og rettet,før den dag hanskulle rejse til Afrika.
In either case,thecomplainant’s error could have been discovered and corrected before the date scheduledfor his departure to Africa.
1.6Ombudsmanden bemærkede,at Kommissionens tjenestegrene allerede i april 1999uformelt havde imødekommet klagerens ønske om at blive forflyttet til en ny post i Afrika.Ombudsmanden kunne derfor ikke acceptere Kommissionens påstand om,at det,at missionen var presserende,gjorde det umuligt at gennemføre en helbredsundersøgelse,førkontrakten blev underskrevet den 30. juni 1999.
1.6The Ombudsman noted that the Commission’s services had already agreed informallyto the complainant’s request to move to a new post in Africa in April 1999. The Ombudsman therefore could not accept the Commission’s claim that the urgency of themission made it impossible to carry out the medical examination before signature of thecontract on 30 June 1999.
Undladelse af at gennemføre helbredsun-dersøgelsen,før kontrakten blev underskrevet,i henhold til artikel 6 i bilag I til kontraktenudgjorde derfor et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The failure to carry out the medical examination before signature of the contract,as foreseen by Art. 6 of Annex I of the contract,was,therefore,aninstance of maladministration.
Klagerens erstatningskrav
The complainant’s claim for compensation