natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge klageren svarede de to nævnte dage til den 14., 17. og 18. juli 1996,hvor han var indlagt på hospitalet.
According to the complainant the above mentioned two days correspondedto 14, 17 and 18 July 1996 during which period he was hospitalised.Hesent the medical certificates after the summer holidays, believing that the Parliament was closed in August.These certificates were refused ongrounds that they were submitted after the one month’s time limit.The complainant indicated that he had acted in bona fideand that he wished to keepthe other half of the general allowances.
Han fremsendte lægeattesterne eftersommerferien, idet han gik ud fra, at Parlamentet var lukket i august. Disse
THE INQUIRYThe Parliament’s opinion In its opinion the Parliament made in summary the following points:
I artikel 28, stk. 2, hedder det:
Article 28 (2) provides:
“Formanden kan se bort fra en i stykke 1 omhandlet fraværsperiode, hvis det pågældende medlem er fraværendep.g.a. sygdom eller tungtvejende familiemæssige omstændigheder eller er på rejse andet sted for Parlamentet.Dokumentation skal indgives til Kvæstorkollegiet senest enmåned efter datoen for fraværets begyndelse.”
“Any period of absence referred to in paragraph 1 may beexcused by the President on the grounds of ill-health orserious family circumstances, or the presence of the Member concerned elsewhere on mission on behalf of the Parliament. Supporting documents shall be submitted tothe College of Quaestors within a maximum of one monthfrom the date on which the absence began.”
Kravet om, at dokumentation skal indgives senest en måned efter datoenfra fraværets begyndelse, blev indføjet i regulativet ved Præsidietsafgørelse af 15. januar 1996. Efter godkendelse omdeles protokollerne fra Præsidiets møder til alle Parlamentets medlemmer i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 28, stk.1.
The requirement that supporting documents must be submitted within amaximum of one month from the date on which the absence began wasincorporated into the body of Rules by the Bureau’s decision of 15 January1996.The Bureau’s minutes are circulated to all Members after adoption inaccordance with Rule 28 (1) of the Rules of Procedure.
I klagerens tilfælde manglede han to dage for at overholde det fastsatteminimum på 50%. Han blev underrettet herom ved skrivelse af 16. september 1997 og anmodet om at tilbagebetale godtgørelsen for generelleudgifter i den pågældende periode.
In the case of the complainant, he was two days short of the 50% minimum.He was notified of this fact by letter dated 16 September 1997 and askedto refund 50% of the general expenditure allowance for the period in ques-tion.On 26 September 1997, the complainant wrote to the Quaestorresponsible for financial matters enclosing a medical certificate dated 23September 1997 relating to medical tests on 14, 17 and 18 July 1997.Inorder to be accepted as valid, the medical certificate should have beensubmitted within one month of the date on which the absence began, i.e.by 14 August 1997.
Den 26. september 1997 skrev klageren til kvæstoren med ansvar for finansielle anliggender og vedlagde enlægeattest dateret den 23. september 1997, som henviste til lægeundersøgelser den 14., 17. og 18. juli 1997.
The matter was discussed at the Quaestors’meeting of 22 October 1997.The College informed the complainant that the one month’s time limit wasclearly laid down in the Rules on Members’expenses and allowances andconfirmed the request for repayment of 50% of the general expenditureallowance.This decision was notified by letter of 5 December 1997.
For at kunne blive godkendt somgyldig skulle lægeattesten have været indgivet senest en måned efterdatoen for fraværets begyndelse, dvs. senest den 14. august 1997.
By letter of 17 December 1997 the complainant asked the President of the European Parliament to consider his request to be allowed to retain thewhole of the general expenditure allowance, pointing out that this failure torespect the one month’s time limit had been due to his belief that Parliament’s administrative offices were considered closed during August.
Sagen blev behandlet på kvæstorernes møde den 22. oktober 1997.Kollegiet underrettede klageren om, at fristen på en måned klart fremgik afregulativet om omkostningsgodtgørelse og andre godtgørelser til Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer, og fastholdt anmodningen om tilbagebetaling af50% af godtgørelsen for generelle udgifter.
The request was referred by the President to the College of Quaestors andconsidered at its meeting of 14 January 1998.The College replied by letterof 11 February 1998 that Parliament’s administrative services continued tooperate during August, where necessary on a “permanence”basis and thatin any event it would have been open to him to submit his medical certificates in good time by fax or by registered letter.The College thus confirmedits earlier decision.
Denne afgørelse blev meddeltved skrivelse af 5. december 1997.
On 24 March 1998, the complainant wrote again to the Quaestor responsible for financial matters.This letter was considered at the College’smeeting of 1 April 1998, but the earlier decision was confirmed.
Ved skrivelse af 17. december 1997 anmodede klageren Europa-Parlamentets formand om at behandle sin anmodning om at beholde helegodtgørelsen for generelle udgifter og gjorde opmærksom på, at grunden
According to the Parliament it has been consistent practice of the present College and previous Colleges of Quaestors to apply strictly the terms of Article 28 of the Rules on Members’expenses and allowances and, in par-
Den 24. marts 1998 skrev klageren igen til kvæstoren med ansvar forfinansielle anliggender. Denne skrivelse blev behandlet på Kvæstorkollegiets møde den 1. april 1998, men den tidligere afgørelse blevfastholdt.
37 ticular, the requirement that medical certificates must be submitted withinone month of the beginning of the period of absence in the case of illness.
Kollegiets holdning er endvidere fuldt ud i overensstemmelse med tidligeresager, hvor andre medlemmer har indgivet lægeattester for sent.
The position adopted by the College is moreover strictly in accordance withprevious cases involving the late submission of medical certificates byother Members.
Klagerens bemærkninger I sine bemærkninger fastholdt klageren sin klage.
The complainant’s observations In his observations the complainant maintained his complaint.
Den 19. juli 1999 skrev klageren til Ombudsmanden, at han ønskede atfastholde sin klage.
On 19 July 1999, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman indicating hiswish to maintain his complaint.
Påstand om tilbagebetaling af 50% af godtgørelsen for generelle udgifter i 1996/1997
Claimed reimbursement of 50% of the general expenditure allowancefor 1996/1997
Klageren gjorde gældende, at han ikke overholdt fristen på en månedtil at indgive lægeattester på grund af, at han i god tro havde været afden opfattelse, at Parlamentets administration var lukket i august.
The complainant claimed that he failed to observe the one month’stime limit for the submission of medical certificates on grounds that hein bona fide believed that the Parliament’s administrative serviceswere closed during the month of August.
På baggrund af Ombudsmandens undersøgelser bemærkede Ombudsmanden, at Parlamentet havde fulgt det nuværende Kvæstorkollegiums og tidligere Kvæstorkollegiers faste praksis medhensyn til at anvende bestemmelserne i artikel 28 i regulativet omomkostningsgodtgørelser og andre godtgørelser til Europa-Parlamentets medlemmer nøje og navnlig kravet om, at lægeattesterskal indgives senest en måned efter datoen for fraværets begyndelsei tilfælde af sygdom.
Based on the Ombudsman’s inquiries, the Ombudsman noted that the Parliament had followed the consistent practice of the present Collegeand previous Colleges of Quaestors to apply strictly the terms of Article 28 of the Rules on Members’expenses and allowances and, inparticular, the requirement that medical certificates must be submittedwithin one month of the beginning of the period of absence in the caseof illness.Moreover, the position adopted by the Parliament and the
Endvidere var Parlamentets og Kvæstorkollegiets holdning fuldt ud i overensstemmelse med tidligeresager, hvor andre medlemmer har indgivet lægeattester for sent.
College of Quaestors was strictly in accordance with previous casesinvolving the late submission of medical certificates by other Members.
ADGANG TILREGISTRE OVER INTERESSERAfgørelse om klage 59/98/OV over Europa-Kommissionen og Europa-Parlamentet
ACCESS TO REGISTERS OF INTERESTSDecision on complaint 59/98/OV against the European Commission and the European Parliament
I januar 1998 klagede S. til Ombudsmanden over, at Kommissionen havdenægtet at sende ham en kopi af registret over kommissionsmedlemmernesinteresser.
In January 1998, Mr S.complained to the Ombudsman that the Commission refused to send him a copy of the Register of Interests of the Members of the Commission.
Klageren skrev den 5. december 1997 til Kommissionens generalsekretærfor at få en kopi af registret over kommissionsmedlemmernes kommercielleog finansielle interesser.
The complainant wrote on 5 December 1997 to the Secretary General ofthe Commission in order to get a copy of the Register of business andfinancial interests of the Commission Members.According to the complainant, the Commission did not provide him with a copy of the Register,but invited him to consult it on the spot in the Commission’s premises in Brussels.
Kommissionen udleverede ifølge klageren ikke enkopi af registret, men opfordrede ham til at konsultere registret på stedet i Kommissionens lokaler i Bruxelles. Klageren havde dog ikke råd til at rejsetil Bruxelles blot med dette formål.
However, he could not afford a trip to Brussels for that purpose.He therefore complained to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commissionrefused him access to the Register , which was not publicly available in thedifferent Commission Representations of the Member States either.
Han klagede derfor til Ombudsmanden,idet han gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen nægtede ham adgang til registret, som heller ikke var offentligt tilgængeligt i Kommissionens forskelligerepræsentationer i medlemsstaterne.
On 3 and 10 March and 1 June 1998, the complainant wrote further lettersin which he complained also about lack of access to the Register of Interests of MEPs.In order to clarify his complaint he was requested to fillin the standard complaint form.It appeared however from this complaintform that the complainant had made no prior administrative approaches tothe European Parliament.Therefore the office of the Ombudsman advisedhim to write to the College of Quaestors.On 17 December 1998, the Ombudsman received from the office of MEP and Quaestor Richard Balfea file on the dealing of this complaint by the College of Quaestors.
UNDERSØGELSENKommissionens udtalelse
THE INQUIRYThe Commission’s opinion
Adgang til Kommissionens interesseregistre
The access to the Registers of Interests of the Commission
Klagen drejede sig om adgang til registret over kommissionsmedlemmernes interesser og skulle følgelig behandles i henhold til Kommissionens afgørelse af 8. februar 1994 om aktindsigt i
The subject of the complaint concerned access to the Register of Interests of the Members of the Commission and had therefore to beconsidered under the Commission Decision of 8 February 1994 onpublic access to Commission documents12.On 5 December 1997 thecomplainant wrote a short letter to the Secretary General of the Commission asking for a copy of this Register, but received no reply.According to Article 2.4 of the Decision, failure to reply to an application for access to a document within one month of application beingmade constitutes an intention to refuse access.However, further tothe intervention of the Ombudsman, the Commission decided on 24March 1998 to send the requested document to the complainant.Therefore, the Commission complied with the application for access
Følgelig efterkom Kommissionen begæringen om aktindsigt, og der syntes ikke at værebehov for yderligere kommentarer fra Ombudsmanden.
DECISIONS to documents and no further remark by the Ombudsman seemed tobe necessary.
Klagen mod Europa-Parlamentet
The complaint against the European Parliament
Med hensyn til klagen om registret over EP-medlemmernes interesserfremgik det af klageformularen, at klageren ikke tidligere havde foretaget administrative henvendelser i sagen. Derfor rådede Ombudsmanden klageren til at skrive til Parlamentets Kvæstorkollegium, som er det organ, der har kompetence til at tagesig af en sådan sag, idet kvæstorerne er ansvarlige for de administrative og finansielle opgaver, som direkte vedrører medlemmerne(forretningsordenens artikel 25).
As regards the complaint about the Register of Interests of MEPs, itappeared from the complaint form that the complainant had made noprior administrative approaches on the subject.Therefore the Ombudsman’s office advised the complainant to write to the Collegeof Quaestors of the Parliament which is the competent body to dealwith this matter, given that the Quaestors are responsible for administrative and financial matters directly concerning Members (Article 25of the Rules of Procedure).
Den 17. december 1998 modtog Ombudsmanden fra EP-medlem ogkvæstor Richard Balfe en omfangsrig sagsmappe om Kvæstorkollegiets behandling af klagen.
On 17 December 1998, the Ombudsman received from MEP and Quaestor Richard Balfe a voluminous file on the handling of the complaint by the College of Quaestors.From this file it appeared that the College of Quaestors had replied in detail to the letters of the complainant, on 5 and 19 November and on 14 December 1998.
Kollegiet sendte derudover en kopi af to betænkninger om korruption13.
Annex I (Provisions governing the application of Rule 9(1) - Transparency and Members’financialinterests).
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Kommissionens side. Ombudsmanden afsluttede derforbehandlingen af sagen.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the European Commissionor by the European Parliament.The Ombudsman therefore closed thecase.
Rådet for Den Europæiske Union og Europa-Kommissionen
The Council of the European Union and the European Commission
CENTRET FOR INDUSTRIELUDVIKLING: KOMMISSIONENS ANSVAR
CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY:RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSION
Afgørelse om klage 41/97/(VK)OV over Det Europæiske Råd og Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint 41/97/(VK)OV against the Council of the European Union and the European Commission
I december 1996 klagede N. til Ombudsmanden over, at den paritetiske AVS-EF-institution (AVS: stater i Afrika, Vestindien og Stillehavet), Centretfor Industriel Udvikling (CIU), oprettet under Lomé-konventionen og finansieret af Den Europæiske Udviklingsfond, ensidigt havde opsagt hans kontrakt.
In December 1996, Mr N.made a complaint to the Ombudsman concerningthe unilateral abrogation of his contract by the Centre for the Developmentof Industry (CDI), a joint ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific countries)EC institution set up in the framework of the Lomé Convention and fundedby the European Development Fund.
AFGØRELSER for retsforfølgelse. Retten i Første Instans afslog ved dom af 13. marts1992 denne appel, idet man henviste til, at CIU ved at acceptere voldgiftsproceduren havde givet afkald på sin immunitet for retsforfølgelse.
DECISIONS to the fact that the CDI, by accepting the arbitration procedure, hadrenounced its immunity from jurisdiction.
Da CIU nægtede at efterkomme kendelsen fra Retten i Første Instans i Bruxelles, som bekræftede voldgiftsafgørelsen, skrev klageren i december1996 til Ombudsmanden, idet han anførte, at CIU stadig ikke havde betalthverken skadeserstatning eller omkostningerne til voldgiftssagen.Klageren gjorde opmærksom på, at CIU var oprettet under Lomé-konven-tionen, hvis kontraherende parter er De Europæiske Fællesskaber på denene side og AVS-staterne på den anden, at CIU er en fælles AVS-EF-insti-tution finansieret af Den Europæiske Udviklingsfond, og at Kommissionens GD VIII er det generaldirektorat, der har ansvaret for sager vedrørende Lomé-konventionen.
Given that the CDI refused to execute the judgment of the Brussels Courtof First Instance which confirmed the arbitration decision, the complainantwrote in December 1996 to the Ombudsman alleging that the CDI had stillnot paid the indemnities, nor the arbitration costs.The complainant drewthe attention to the fact that the CDI was set up in the framework of the Lomé Convention, of which the contracting parties are, on the one hand,the European Communities and, on the other, the ACP states, that the CDIis a joint ACP-EC institution funded by the European Development Fund,and that DG VIII of the Commission is the Directorate General responsiblefor matters related to the Lomé Convention.
UNDERSØGELSENRådets og Kommissionens udtalelser
THE INQUIRYThe Council’s and the Commission’s opinions
Klagen blev sendt til Rådet og Kommissionen i marts 1997. I deresbemærkninger fastslog Rådet og Kommissionen, at selv om CIU varoprettet under Lomé-konventionen, er det hverken en fællesskabsinstitution eller -organ, der henhører under deres ansvar.
The complaint was forwarded to the Council and the Commission in March1997.In their observations, the Council and the Commission stated that,although set up by the Lomé Convention, the CDI is neither a Communityinstitution nor a Community body falling under their responsibility.
Kommissionentilføjede, at den ikke havde noget dossier om klagen, og at den ikke mente,at den nogensinde havde fået sagen forelagt. Begge institutioner bemærkede, at de gældende bestemmelser for CIU var artikel 87-97 i den fjerde Lomé-konvention, der var suppleret med adskillige afgørelser, truffet af AVS-EF-Ministerrådet og AVS-EF-Ambassadørudvalget.
The Commission added that it had no file of the complaint and that it was notaware that it has ever been seized of the matter.Both institutions observedthat the provisions currently applicable to the CDI are Articles 87-97 of the Fourth Lomé Convention, which are supplemented by several decisions ofthe ACP-EC Council of Ministers and the ACP-EC Committee of Ambassadors.
Af disse årsager konkluderede såvel Rådet som Kommissionen, at de ikkehavde noget direkte ledelsesmæssigt ansvar for CIU, og at klagen derforfaldt uden for deres kompetenceområde. Selv om Kommissionens observatør i CIU’s bestyrelse hverken har stemmeret eller ret til at sætte punkterpå dagsordenen for bestyrelsens møder, anførte Kommissionen dog i sinebemærkninger til Ombudsmanden, at den ville underrette CIU’s direktørom Ombudsmandens henvendelse og anbefale, at den blev drøftet påbestyrelsens næste møde.
For these reasons both the Council and the Commission concluded thatthey had no direct managerial responsibility for the CDI and that thereforethe complaint fell outside their competences.However, even though the Commission’s observer on the Executive Board of the CDI has no votingrights nor a right to put subjects on the agenda of the meetings of the Board, the Commission stated in its observations to the Ombudsman thatit would inform the Director of the CDI of the request of the Ombudsmanand recommend that it be discussed at the next meeting of the Board.
I sine kommentarer bemærkede klageren for det første, at Lomé-konventi-onen, som CIU er oprettet under, er direkte under Kommissionens ansvar,at CIU’s ledelse altid var blevet udvalgt med Kommissionens udtrykkeligesamtykke, at CIU’s budget er en bevilling fra Den Europæiske Udviklingsfond, og at Den Europæiske Ombudsmands kompetence i forbindelse med denne klage derfor ikke kunne drages i tvivl. Klagerenanførte endvidere, at hans klage burde forelægges direkte for formandenfor CIU’s bestyrelse med en fast frist til at træffe afgørelse.
In his comments the complainant first observed that the Lomé Convention,under which the CDI is established, is the direct responsibility of the Commission, that the management of the CDI has always been appointedwith the explicit consent of the Commission and that the budget of the CDIis a grant from the European Development Fund, and that therefore thecompetence of the European Ombudsman with regard to this complaintcould not be questioned.The complainant further stated that his complaintshould be directly submitted to the Chairman of the Governing Board of the CDI with a fixed deadline for a decision.
AFGØRELSEN1Klagen mod CIU
THE DECISION1The complaint against the CDI
Klagen mod Rådet og Kommissionen
The complaint against the Council and the Commission
Da klagen var rettet direkte imod Rådet og Kommissionen, bemærker Ombudsmanden, at Lomé-konventionen ikke gør dem direkte ansvarligefor afgørelser truffet af CIU’s bestyrelse.
Insofar as the complaint was directed against the Council and the Commission, the Ombudsman notes that the Lomé Convention does notmake them directly responsible for the decisions of the CDI Governing Board.
Hverken Rådet eller Kommissionen har stemmeret i CIU’s bestyrelse. I den fjerde Lomé-kon-ventions artikel 92, stk. 1, hedder det, at Kommissionen og Rådet skalhave observatørstatus ved bestyrelsens forhandlinger.
Neither the Council nor the Commission have voting rights on the CDI Governing Board.Article 92.1 of the Fourth Lomé Convention providesthat the Commission and the Council shall have an observer status at theproceedings of the Governing Board.Therefore, the fact that the CDI
Ombudsmandens undersøgelser af klagen viste ingen tilfælde af fejl ellerforsømmelser fra Rådets eller Kommissionens side.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, thereappeared to have been no maladministration by the Council or the Commission.
Ombudsmandenafsluttede derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
YDERLIGERE BEMÆRKNINGER
FURTHER REMARKS
I et fællesskab som Den Europæiske Union, der ledes af retsstatsprincipper, bør domme og domstolskendelser behørigt efterkommes.Når der oprettes organer som CIU under rammerne af konventioner,bør Kommissionen bestræbe sig for at garantere, at organerne overholder retsstatsprincipperne og principperne for god forvaltningsskik.
In a society like the European Union which is governed by the rule oflaw, judgements and orders of courts should be duly executed.Whensetting up bodies like the CDI in the framework of Conventions, the Commission should seek to guarantee that the bodies so establishedabide by the rule of law and by the principles of good administrativebehaviour.
I den nuværende situation fremgik det, at der i Kommissionens GD VIIIfindes en enhed, der har ansvaret for forbindelserne til CIU. I sine bemærkninger til Ombudsmanden lovede Kommissionen at anbefale, at klagenblev drøftet på CIU’s næste bestyrelsesmøde.
In the present situation it appeared that in DG VIII of the Commission thereexists a unit responsible for relations with the CDI.The Commissionpromised in its observations to the Ombudsman that it would recommendthat the complaint be discussed at the next meeting of the CDI Governing Board.
Det fremgik dog af klagerens oplysninger, at dette ikke havde været tilfældet.
It appeared however from the information provided by the complainant that this had not been the case.
Derfor fandt Ombudsmanden det hensigtsmæssigt, at Kommissionen togde nødvendige skridt til at gøre Udvalget for Industrielt Samarbejde, somovervåger CIU’s bestyrelses aktiviteter, opmærksom på, at CIU ikke havdeefterkommet voldgiftsafgørelsen, som blev kendt retsgyldig i Retten i Første Instans i Bruxelles den 17. april 1990. Kommissionen burde ligeledes overveje at gøre CIU’s direktør opmærksom på denne sag.
Therefore the Ombudsman considered it appropriate for the Commission totake the necessary steps in order to draw the attention of the Committeeon Industrial Cooperation, which supervises the operation of the CDIGoverning Board, to the alleged non-compliance by the CDI with the arbitration decision as enforced by the order of the Brussels Court of First Instance of 17 April 1990.The Commission should also consider drawingthe attention of the Director of the CDI to this matter.
KLAGEN
DECISIONS
AFGØRELSER
The European Commission