natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 446/2007/WP over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 446/2007/WP against the European Commission
En tysk advokat nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen ikke på korrekt måde havde behandlet et brev, hvori han havde anmodet den om at indlede en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Tyskland.
A German lawyer alleged that the Commission had failed properly to deal with a le4 er in which he had asked it to open infringement proceedings against Germany.
Ifølge ham overtrådte Tyskland fællesskabsretten, fordi det var praktisk talt umuligt at retsforfølge tidligere eller nuværende medlemmer af den tyske regering for kriminelle handlinger.
According to him, Germany was in breach of Community law because it was practically impossible to pursue former or current members of the German government for criminal wrongdoing.
Kommissionen havde svaret, at den ikke havde kompetence til at gribe ind i sagen.
The Commission had replied that it had no competence to intervene in the ma4 er.
I det brev til Kommissionen, hvormed undersøgelsen blev indledt, påpegede Ombudsmanden, at Kommissionens »Meddelelse om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten«23 en«23 kunne være gældende i dette tilfælde.
In his le4 er to the Commission opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman pointed out that the Commission’s “Communication on Relations with the Complainant in Respect of Infringements of Community Law”23 could be applicable in this case.
I meddelelsen fastlagde Kommissionen standarder for sine kontakter med klagere, som mener, at foranstaltninger eller praksis i en medlemsstat udgør en overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten. en.
In the Communication, the Commission laid down standards for its contacts with complainants who consider that measures or practices in a Member State infringe Community law.
I sin udtalelse fremførte Kommissionen det argument, at meddelelsen ikke fandt anvendelse, fordi den pågældende klage ikke vedrørte et område, hvor Kommissionen kunne gennemføre overtrædelsesprocedurer, men henhørte under området politisamarbejde og retligt samarbejde i kriminalsager (Afsnit VI i EU-traktaten).
In its opinion, the Commission argued that the Communication was not applicable because the complainant’s complaint did not relate to an area in which it could conduct infringement proceedings, but fell within the scope of police and judicial cooperation in criminal ma4 ers (Title VI of the EU Treaty).
Ombudsmanden bemærkede, at det tydeligvis havde været klagerens hensigt, at hans brev skulle udgøre en overtrædelsesklage.
The Ombudsman noted that the complainant had clearly intended his le4 er to constitute an infringement complaint.
Han påpegede, at andet afsnit af punkt 3 i meddelelsen indeholder en udtømmende liste over årsager til, at korrespondance ikke skal kunne behandles som en overtrædelsesklage, f.eks. hvis »den indeholder klagepunkter, der klart ikke henhører under fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde«.
He pointed out that the second paragraph of point 3 of the Communication contains an exhaustive list of reasons on the basis of which correspondence shall not be investigable as an infringement complaint, for example if “it sets out a grievance which clearly falls outside the scope of Community law”.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at Kommissionens manglende overholdelse af bestemmelserne i meddelelsen, i svaret til klageren, var en fejl, og fremsatte en kritisk bemærkning.
The Communication provides that, where the Commission decides not
Meddelelse til Europa-Parlamentet og Den Europæiske Ombudsmand om forbindelserne med klagere i sager om overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten, EFT 2002 C 244, s. 5.
Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.
Manglende offentliggørelse af årsrapporten for 2005 om aktindsigt
In particular, the complainant had not explained in what way he considered that the accountability of politicians in criminal ma4 ers related to an obligation of Germany under the EC Treaty.
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 668/2007/MHZ over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 668/2007/MHZ against the European Commission
Statewatch klagede til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen i strid med sin lovfæstede forpligtelse i medfør af artikel 17, stk. 1, i forordning 1049/200124i 2006 havde undladt at offentliggøre sin årsrapport for 2005 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter.
Statewatch complained to the Ombudsman that, contrary to its legal obligation resulting from Article 17(1) of Regulation 1049/200124, the Commission had failed to publish, in 2006, its annual report 2005 on access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Ifølge klageren er årsrapporten borgernes eneste kilde til oplysninger om Kommissionens behandling af anmodninger om aktindsigt.
According to the complainant, the annual report is the only way for citizens to be informed about the Commission’s response to access to documents requests.
Statewatch hævdede, at undladelse af at offentliggøre rapporten til tiden var et klart tilfælde af forsømmelighed i forvaltningen.
Statewatch claimed that the failure to publish the report on time was a clear case of maladministration.
Kommissionen anførte i sin udtalelse, at den udmærket var klar over sin forpligtelse til at offentliggøre en årlig rapport.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it was well aware of the obligation to publish an annual report.
Udarbejdelsen af rapporten var imidlertid blevet forsinket på grund af omfattende personaleudskiftninger i den tjenestegren, der var ansvarlig for spørgsmål vedrørende aktindsigt.
However, the draing of the report had been delayed because of a major turnover of sta�in the service dealing with access to documents issues.
Man havde desuden prioriteret det højere at iværksætte den offentlige høring om revisionen af forordningen om aktindsigt.
Furthermore, priority had been given to the launching of the public consultation on the review of the access to documents regulation.
Ombudsmanden fandt ikke Kommissionens begrundelse overbevisende.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the reasons given by the Commission to explain its failure were not convincing.
Han mente, at Kommissionens undladelse af at offentliggøre rapporten for 2005 inden udgangen af 2006 måtte betragtes som en forsømmelse, og fremsatte en kritisk bemærkning.
He found that the Commission’s failure to publish the 2005 report before the end of 2006 was an instance of maladministration and made a critical remark.
Ombudsmanden understregede, at borgerne næppe kan have tillid til institutionerne, hvis disse ikke er i stand til at overholde de frister, de selv sætter. er.
The Ombudsman emphasised that citizens can hardly trust the institutions if they are not able to respect the deadlines they themselves set.
Ombudsmanden fremsatte yderligere en bemærkning, hvori han påpegede, at offentliggørelsen af rapporter er et centralt element i institutionernes ansvar over for og kommunikation med EU’s borgere.
The Ombudsman also made a further remark, in which he pointed out that the publication of reports is a key mechanism of accountability to, and communication with, European citizens.
Ombudsmanden opfordrede desuden Kommissionen til at optræde som et godt eksempel for de mange nye EU-agenturer, der på det seneste var oprettet, ved fremover at prioritere det højt at offentliggøre rapporter i tide.
The Ombudsman further encouraged the Commission to set a good example to the many new Community agencies which have recently been established, by giving high priority in future to ensuring the timely publication of reports.
Kommissionen har efterfølgende – i september 2007 – omsider offentliggjort den pågældende rapport, hvorefter Ombudsmanden lukkede sagen.
Since, in September 2007, the Commission finally published the report in question, the Ombudsman closed the case.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001 af 30. maj 2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter; EFT 2001 L 145, s. 43.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
ÅRSBERETNING 2007 henvist til om brugen af eller adgangen til Internettet eller har fundet på Eurostats websted; (ii) at der ikke fandtes noget bevis for, at et væsentligt antal personer, der har været interesseret i at fremsende ansøgning til EPSO og deltage i EPSO’s udvælgelsesprøver, er blevet forhindret heri, fordi de kun i begrænset omfang har haft adgang til internettet; (iii) at det er almindeligt kendt og erfaringen, at antallet af personer, der har adgang til internettet, er konstant stigende; (iv) og ud fra EPSO’s begrundelser for systemet, nemlig større gennemsigtighed og forbedret adgang til information.
The Ombudsman found that the requirement at issue is not, in principle, discriminatory and unfair on the basis (i) of certain statistical data about Internet use or accessibility provided by the parties or found on the Eurostat website; (ii) that there was no evidence that a significant number of persons interested in applying to EPSO and participating in EPSO competitions have been prevented from doing so because of their restricted access to the Internet; (iii) that, as a ma4 er of common knowledge and experience, accessibility to the Internet is constantly increasing; (iv) of EPSO’s justifications for the system, namely, greater transparency and improving accessibility to information.
Ombudsmanden udelukkede imidlertid ikke den mulighed, at kandidater og potentielle kandidater i visse tilfælde kan have betydelige og objektivt begrundede vanskeligheder med at fremsende ansøgning til EPSO eller kommunikere med EPSO via internettet.
However, the Ombudsman did not exclude the possibility that, in certain cases, candidates and potential candidates may have considerable and objectively justifiable di culty in applying to EPSO, or communicating with EPSO, via the Internet.
I sådanne tilfælde kræver ovennævnte princip om ikkeforskelsbehandling, at EPSO tillader, at der gøres en undtagelse fra kravet om registrering og kommunikation online.
In such cases, the abovementioned principle of non-discrimination requires that EPSO provide for an exception to the requirement for online registration and communication.
Ombudsmanden fandt således, at EPSO’s undladelse heraf udgjorde tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, og udarbejdede et relevant forslag til henstilling til EPSO.
The Ombudsman, thus, found that EPSO’s failure to do so amounted to maladministration and addressed a relevant dra recommendation to EPSO.
Han foreslog tillige, at EPSO på basis af en relevant analyse kunne kræve, at ansøgninger om en undtagelse skulle ledsages af sådan dokumentation, som den pågældende person med rimelighed forventes at kunne fremlægge under omstændighederne.
He also suggested, on the basis of a pertinent analysis, that EPSO could require requests for an exception to be supported by evidence of a kind that the person concerned could reasonably be expected to provide in the circumstances.
Derved støttede EPSO sig til de argumenter, som Ombudsmanden ikke fandt overbevisende.
In doing so, it relied upon arguments that the Ombudsman found unconvincing.
Han bemærkede bl.a., at administrativ bekvemmelighed, således at forstå at man undgår problemer med at evaluere relevante anmodninger om en undtagelse fair og afbalanceret, som tager hensyn til hans relevante analyse i forslaget til henstilling, ikke er tilstrækkelig til at godkende det, der ellers er en overtrædelse af princippet om ligebehandling af kandidater eller potentielle kandidater.
He noted, inter alia, that administrative convenience, in the sense of avoidance of di culties in assessing fairly and even-handedly relevant requests for an exception, taking into account his relevant analysis in the dra recommendation, is insu cient to validate what otherwise is a violation of the principle of equal treatment of candidates or potential candidates.
Ombudsmanden fastholdt således sin ovennævnte konklusion og afsluttede sagen med en kritisk bemærkning.
The Ombudsman, thus, maintained his above finding of maladministration and closed the case with a critical remark.
Sproglige krav til ansøgere i forbindelse med almindelige udvælgelsesprøver
Linguistic requirements of candidates in open competitions
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3114/2005/MHZ over Det Europæiske Personaleudvælgelseskontor (EPSO)
Summary of decision on complaint 3114/2005/MHZ against the European Personnel Selection O ce (EPSO)
Klagen vedrørte sprogordningen for ansættelsesprøver, eft er at de ti nye medlemsstater tiltrådte EU den 1. maj 2004.
The complaint concerned the language regime for recruitment competitions, following the enlargement of 1 May 2004, when ten new Member States joined the Union.
Ifølge forordningen skal der indtil 2010 fortsat afholdes almindelige udvælgelsesprøver med henblik på ansættelse af tjenestemænd, der har et af de elleve gamle officielle sprog som hovedsprog.
The Regulation also provides for competitions to continue to be held, up to the year 2010, for the recruitment of o cials whose main language is one of the 11 languages of the old Member States.
EPSO afholdt derefter optagelsesprøver to gange.
EPSO then organised two sets of competitions.
Første gang var prøverne begrænset, således at kun statsborgere fra de nye medlemsstater kunne deltage.
The first set of competitions was restricted to nationals of the new Member States.
Ansøgerne skulle have et af de ti sprog i de nye medlemsstater som hovedsprog.
Candidates had to have one of the 10 languages of the new Member States as their main language.
De skulle også dokumentere, at de havde et tilfredsstillende kendskab til et af de elleve officielle sprog i de gamle medlemsstater. Endvidere skulle de deltage i prøver i engelsk, fransk eller tysk.
They also had to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of one of the 11 languages of the old Member States.
Anden gang var prøverne åbne for statsborgere fra alle de 25 medlemsstater.
The second set of competitions was open to nationals of all 25 Member States.
Ansøgerne skulle have et af de elleve sprog i de gamle medlemsstater som hovedsprog og dokumentere et tilfredsstillende kendskab til et andet af disse elleve sprog. De skulle dog ikke dokumentere kendskab til engelsk, fransk eller tysk.
Candidates had to have one of the 11 languages of the old Member States as their main language and demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of another of those 11 languages.
Rådets forordning (EF, Euratom) nr. 401/2004 af 23. februar 2004 om indførelse af særlige og midlertidige foranstaltninger for ansættelse af tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber i anledning af Cyperns, Estlands, Letlands, Litauens, Maltas, Polens, Slovakiets, Sloveniens, Den Tjekkiske Republiks og Ungarns tiltrædelse, EUT 2004 L 67, s. 1.
Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) 401/2004 of 23 February 2004 introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, special temporary measures for the recruitment of o cials of the European Communities, OJ 2004 L 67, p. 1.
SAMMENDRAG AF AFGØRELSER
The European Investment Bank
EPSO henviste også til, at forordning nr. 401/2004 (i det følgende benævnt »forordningen«) udgør retsgrundlaget for de pågældende udvælgelsesprøver.
Summary of decision on complaint 1807/2006/MHZ against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Ombudsmanden bad EPSO gøre rede for, hvorfor det kun var de elleve »gamle« hovedsprog, der kunne godkendes som andetsprog, og hvorfor kun ansøgere fra de nye medlemsstater skulle dokumentere kendskab til engelsk, fransk eller tysk.
Two Polish environmental NGOs complained to the Ombudsman that, contrary to its “Environmental Statement”, the EIB failed to ensure compliance of 2001 flood reconstruction and repair works with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
I sit svar anførte EPSO, at kendskab til et af de eksisterende 11 sprog var »bedre tilpasset virkeligheden i institutionernes administrative organisation i overgangsperioden«, og at »der findes ikke nogen forpligtelse til at tage hensyn til alle de mange forskellige individuelle valg, som kandidaterne kan træffe, når de vælger deres andet sprog.«
The complainants also alleged that the EIB failed to exercise due diligence in its October 2004 monitoring mission to Poland, and claimed that it should ensure that all projects that it agrees to finance in non-Member States comply with the Directive. Finally, the complainants complained that the EIB refused access to the Project’s Finance Contract and related documents.
Ombudsmanden indledte sin analyse af sagen ved at henvise til artikel 12 i EF-traktaten, som forbyder forskelsbehandling på grund af nationalitet, og i Fællesskabets domstoles retspraksis vedrørende princippet om ikke-forskelsbehandling.
In its opinion, the EIB took the view that, on the basis of (i) its assessment of the relevant Reports sent by the Polish authorities and (ii) its monitoring visits to Poland, including the 2004 visit, the relevant procedures applied by the Polish authorities were acceptable.
Han påpegede, at lovgivningen skal fortolkes i lyset af disse retsprincipper, og at sprogkrav i forbindelse med ansættelse kan udgøre en indirekte forskelsbehandling på grund af nationalitet, medmindre disse er begrundede.
The EIB refused access to the Finance Contract and implied that finance contracts were covered by professional secrecy as a ma4 er of principle. However, in the course of the inquiry, it disclosed the related documents.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at kravene vedrørende hovedsprog i ansættelsesprøverne var berettigede i henhold til forordningen. Forordningen indeholder imidlertid ingen krav om andetsprog og heller ikke om kendskab til engelsk, fransk eller tysk.
However, as regards the allegation concerning the 2004 monitoring mission to Poland, he considered that no further inquiries were justified, given that the EIB appeared to have given a reasonable followup to the complaints received from various NGOs during that mission.
Mens der i princippet kan være overbevisende grunde til, at kendskab til bestemte fællesskabssprog kan være nødvendige for kommende tjenestemænd i udførelsen af deres arbejde, havde EPSO ikke gjort tilstrækkeligt rede for, hvorfor kun de elleve gamle hovedsprog kunne godkendes som andetsprog.
As regards access to the Finance Contract, the Ombudsman, relying on an earlier decision, found that it was reasonable to accept that the EIB, in its role as a banking institution, was obliged to respect professional secrecy. He also noted that the EIB had disclosed the other documents during the inquiry.
Men EPSO havde ikke forklaret, hvorfor man mente, at det var væsentligt for ansøgere fra de nye medlemsstater at have kendskab til engelsk, fransk eller tysk, men at det ikke var nødvendigt for ansøgere i den anden ansøgningsrunde at dokumentere kendskab til et af disse sprog, selvom de to grupper af ansøgere ville komme til at udføre stort set identiske funktioner.
He went on to say that he trusted that, in the future, the Bank would continue to engage constructively with NGOs in the di� erent Member States and also outside the EU.
ÅRSBERETNING 2007 projekter, hvori den deltager i ikke-medlemsstater, overholder direktivets bestemmelser.
Request for access to a list creates a “disproportionate burden”
Endelig klagede klagerne over, at EIB nægtede dem adgang til projektets finansieringskontrakt og dertil knyttede dokumenter.
Summary of decision on complaint 2350/2005/GG against the European Anti-Fraud O ce
EIB anførte i sin udtalelse, at de relevante procedurer, som de polske myndigheder har fulgt, var acceptable, og baserede dette udsagn på (i) in bedømmelse af de relevante rapporter fra de polske myndigheder og (ii) sine kontrolbesøg til Polen, bl.a. i 2004.
A German journalist asked the European Anti-Fraud O ce (OLAF) for access to a complete list of its correspondence with the German federal government and the governments of the German Länder in the years 2000 to 2004.
EIB afslog at give adgang til finansieringskontrakten og anførte, at finansieringskontrakter principielt var omfattet af tavshedspligt.
He based his request on Article 11 of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents27.
Den gav dog adgang til de relevante dokumenter i løbet af undersøgelsesprocessen.
OLAF replied that such a list did not exist and that it would be a disproportionate burden on its sta� to produce one.
Denne tilgang så ud til at være i strid med Domstolens fortolkning af direktivet26.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, OLAF maintained its position.
Ombudsmanden fastslog, at der her var tale om forsømmelighed og fremsatte en kritisk bemærkning.
It argued that the complainant’s request would require it to review some 8 000 documents.
Ombudsmandens konklusion var den samme for klagernes krav, fordi det så ud til, at EIB havde taget visse initiativer til at forbedre proceduren og formidle god EU-praksis.
Most of its heads of unit would have to be involved in order to check the correspondence falling under their responsibility.
Med hensyn til finansieringskontrakten baserede Ombudsmanden sig på en tidligere afgørelse og fandt, at det var rimeligt at acceptere, at EIB i sin funktion som bankinstitution var bundet af tavshedspligt.
In addition, a German lawyer and the data protection o cer would have to ensure that data protection requirements were met.
Han bemærkede også, at EIB havde givet adgang til de øvrige dokumenter under undersøgelsen.
According to OLAF, this would distract its limited human resources from their core task of deterring and detecting fraud.
Der var derfor ikke grund til at foretage yderligere undersøgelser af adgangen til dokumenterne.
However, as proof of its good will, OLAF provided the complainant with a list covering the relevant correspondence that had been exchanged in the last three months of 2004.
Ombudsmanden bemærkede desuden, at klagerne havde spillet en værdifuld rolle, fordi de havde gjort EIB opmærksom på relevante oplysninger, som banken hidtil ikke havde haft kendskab til.
The Ombudsman noted that OLAF did not deny the complainant’s right to receive information of the type he requested, but only contended that compiling all the information would require a disproportionate e� ort.
Han sagde videre, at han var overbevist om, at banken fremover ville indgå i et konstruktivt samarbejde med ngo’er i de forskellige medlemsstater og også uden for EU.
He recalled that, according to case-law of the Community courts, a request for access to documents could only be rejected on this basis in exceptional cases.
Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig
In the Ombudsman’s view, this case-law was also relevant in the present case.
Anmodning om adgang til en liste medfører en »uforholdsmæssigt stor administrativ byrde«
The Ombudsman was not convinced that complying with the complainant’s request would require a disproportionate e� ort by OLAF.
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 2350/2005/GG over Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig
Only around one-fi h of the documents on the list provided by OLAF were relevant.
Han henviste i sin anmodning til artikel 11 i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter27.
It thus appeared that the overall number of documents concerned was far smaller than OLAF had indicated.
OLAF svarede, at der ikke fandtes en sådan liste, og at det ville medføre en uforholdsmæssigt stor administrativ byrde for personalet at udarbejde en.
The Ombudsman accepted that the remaining list was still very long and that, therefore, ascertaining that it did not include confidential data was likely to require a considerable amount of work.
OLAF erklærede sig villig til at hjælpe i videst muligt omfang, hvis klageren indsnævrede sin anmodning, hvilket han imidlertid afviste.
However, and with a view to the data that needed to be checked in doing so, he concluded that OLAF had not established that this work was disproportionate.