natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1.2Da Retten i Første Instans behandlede en sag,som rejste dette juridiske spørgsmål,besluttede Ombudsmanden den 22. maj 200 at udsætte undersøgelsen af klagen,indtil dervar afgivet dom i sagen.
1.2Since the Court of First Instance was dealing with a case which raised this legal issue,the Ombudsman decided on 22 May 2000 to suspend the inquiries into the complaint untiljudgement had been passed on the matter.
1.3Den 6. marts 2001 afsagde Retten i Første Instans sin dom i sag T-192/9924. Retten i Første Instans fandt,at klagen kunne antages til behandling,hvad angik påstanden omannullering af sagsøgerens lønsedler for januar 1999.
1.3On 6 March 2001,the Court of First Instance passed its judgement in case T-192/9924.The Court of First Instance found the appeal admissible as far as the claim for annulment of the applicants’salary statements for January 1999 was concerned.
Den konkluderede,at Banken havdeovertrådt et generelt princip inden for arbejdsretten,da den ikke havde konsulteret medar-bejderrepræsentanterne,før den vedtog beslutningen den 1. juni 1998.
It concluded that the Bank had breached a general principle of employment law in that it did not hold bona fideconsultations with staff representatives before adopting the decision on 11 June 1998.
Retten erklæredederfor,at beslutningen af 11. juni 1998 om at afskaffe ordningen med særlige omregningskurser var ulovlig.
The Court therefore declared the decision of 11 June 1998 to abolish the system of specialconversion rates unlawful.
1.4Efter Rettens dom erklærede Banken,at dommen annullerede de relevante lønsedlerfor de tre sagsøgere,og at de ville blive behandlet som om,beslutningen af juni 1998 omat afskaffe de særlige omregningskurser aldrig var blevet truffet.
1.4Following the judgement of the Court,the Bank stated that the judgement annulledthe relevant payslips of the three applicants and they would be treated as if the decision of June 1998 to abolish the special conversion rates had never been taken.
Banken havde for at sikreligebehandling besluttet,at alle medarbejdere og pensionister,der var berettiget til desærlige omregningskurser,skulle behandles på samme måde,og de praktiske ordninger,der fulgte af Rettens dom,var nu ved at blive udarbejdet.
In order to ensureequal treatment,the Bank had decided that all staff members and pensioners entitled to thespecial conversion rates should be treated on the same basis and the practical arrangementsarising from the Court’s decision were being put in place.
Sag T-192/99,Dunnett m.fl. mod Den Europæiske Investeringsbank,Sml. 2001 II,s. 313.
Case T-192/99,Dunnett and others v. European Investment Bank,[2001] ECR-SC IA-65,II-313.
1.8Hvad angår klagerens anmodning om en afklaring om,om Banken erkendte sit løfteslovgyldighed i sit såkaldte ”Vademecum for EIB Pensionholders”,og om,at Bankenskulle fremsende Rettens dom til alle medarbejdere og pensionister, finder Ombudsmanden under disse omstændigheder det ikke berettiget at foretage undersøgelseraf disse forhold,som blev fremlagt af klageren i sine bemærkninger til Bankens andenudtalelse.
1.8As regards the complainant’s request for a clarification as to whether the Bankadmitted the validity of its undertaking in its so called “Vademecum for EIBPensionholders”and further that the Bank circulate the Court’s judgement to all staff andpensioners,the Ombudsman does not find it justified under these circumstances to pursueinquiries into these points that were raised by the complainant in his observations to the Bank’s second opinion.
Det fremgik af Bankens anden udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger,at Banken havdetaget skridt til at løse sagen og derved havde tilfredsstillet klageren.
It appears from the Bank’s second opinion and the complainant’s observations that the Bank has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The
Ombudsmandenafslutter derfor behandlingen af sagen.
Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
3.3 MINDELIGELØSNINGEROPNÅET AFOMBUDS-MANDEN
3.3 FRIENDLYSOLUTIONSACHIEVED BYTHEOMBUDSMAN
Ifølge klageren (et firma) deltog det i programmet ”European Community Investment Partners” (ECIP) i november 1995 og fik tildelt finansiel bistand fra Fællesskabets midler.Den første del af bistanden blev udbetalt af Kommissionen til tiden.
According to the complainant (a firm),it took part in the programme European Community Investment Partners (ECIP) in November 1995 and was awarded a grant from Community funds.
Klageren gjorde imidlertid gældende,at den sidst udbetaling først skete to år senere den 15. juni 1998,og at Kommissionen ikke havde givet nogen forklaring på forsinkelsen.
The first part of the grant was paid by the Commission in due time.However,the complainant alleged that the final payment was only made two years later on15 June 1998 and that the Commission had provided no explanation for the delay.
Klageren var nødt til atoptage et banklån for at dække omkostningerne på grund af den forsinkede udbetaling.
Due tothe delayed payment,the complainant was forced to take a bank loan in order to cover thecosts.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden af 25. juni 1999 krævede klageren erstatning for den forsinkede udbetaling af det sidste beløb fra Kommissionen.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 June 1999,the complainant claimed compensation for the delay in receiving the final payment from the Commission.
Klageren krævede 13.132 EUR,hvilket svarede til renten på banklånet.
The amountclaimed was ECU13132,corresponding to the interest on the bank loan.
ERSTATNING FORFORSINKET BETA-LING AF FINANSIELBISTAND
COMPENSATIONFOR THE LATE PAY-MENT OF AGRANT
Afgørelse om klage860/99/(IJH)MM over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint860/99/(IJH)MMagainst the European Commission
I sin udtalelse fremsatte Kommissionen følgende bemærkninger:
In its opinion,the Commission made the following comments:
Der blev inden for rammerne af ECIP-programmet tildelt finansiel bistand til klageren iforbindelse med,at denne skulle arrangere et møde mellem de chilenske og argentinskerepræsentationer med henblik på at fremme investeringer. På baggrund af klagerens
In the framework of the ECIP-Programme,a grant was awarded to the complainant fororganising an investment promotion meeting between Chilean and Argentinean businessrepresentations.
_BAR_ 2001 budgetoverslag indvilligede Kommissionen i at betale ”det laveste af 50% af de faktiskeomkostninger eller 92.080 EUR”.
Based on the complainant’s budgetary estimates,the Commission agreedto pay “50% of the actual costs or ECU92080,of both amounts whichever is inferior”.
Da klagerens endelige regnskaber afveg væsentlig fra de angivne overslag, begrænsede Kommissionen udbetalingen til i alt 78.541 EUR og anvendte dermed den sædvanligebetalingsformel til alle udgiftsposter.
As the complainant’s final accounts differed substantially from the specified estimates, the Commission restricted payment to a total of ECU78541,thus applying the customarypayment formula to each item of expenditure.
Klageren krævede ikke desto mindre det samledebeløb på 92.080 EUR,da den pågældende formel efter dennes mening kun kunneanvendes til de samlede projektomkostninger,som overskred det oprindelige budget.
Nonetheless,the complainant claimed thetotal amount of ECU92080,as the formula in question was – in its view - only applicableto the total project costs,which exceeded the initial budget.
Kommissionen mente ikke,at den skyldte yderligere beløb.
The Commission considered that it did not owe any further payment.
Efter en lang strid om fortolkningen af kontrakten,især da Kommissionen før havde gjort undtagelser til denne regel,betalte Kommissionen endvidere 13.438 EUR med henblik på at afslutte sagen,idet denfremhævede,at denne udbetaling var et undtagelsestilfælde.
After a lengthydispute about the interpretation of the contract,especially as the Commission made exceptions to the rule in the past,the Commission a further ECU13438 in order to settle thedispute,whilst underlining the exceptional character of the payment.
Derfor nægtede Kommissionen at betale klageren de 13.132 EUR i erstatning for denpåståede forsinkede udbetaling af det omstridte beløb på 13.438 EUR.
As a result,the Commission refused to pay the complainant the amount of ECU13132 asa compensation for the alleged late payment of the contested ECU13438.
Kommissionenanså kravet om yderligere erstatning for at være grundløs.
The Commission considered the claim for further compensation to be unfounded.
Klageren uddybede i sine bemærkninger påstanden om forsinket betaling og fremsendteyderligere oplysninger,som i det væsentligste omhandlede følgende:
In its observations,the complainant elaborated further the allegation of undue delay andsubmitted additional information which may be summarised as follows:
(i)Klageren fremhævede,at Kommissionen i forbindelse med en tidligere aktion,der fikstøtte fra ECIP-programmet,havde indvilliget i at anvende formlen ”det laveste af 35% afde faktiske omkostninger eller 59.366 EUR”og betalte 59.366 EUR inden for en periodepå seks måneder.
(i)The complainant stressed that in a prior action subsidised by the ECIP programme,the Commission agreed to the formula “35% of actual costs or ECU59366 of bothamounts whichever is inferior”and paid ECU59366 within a period of six months.
Den anden aktion var baseret på samme kontrakt med Kommissionenmed undtagelse af bestemmelsen ”det laveste af 50% af de faktiske omkostninger eller92.080 EUR”.
Thesecond action was based on the same contract with the Commission except for the clause“50% of the actual cost or ECU92080 of both amounts whichever is inferior”.
Eftersom 50% af de faktiske omkostninger beløb sig til 95.392 EUR, var Kommissionen derfor forpligtet til at betale 92.080 EUR.
As 50%of the real costs amounted to ECU95392 the Commission would therefore be liable topay ECU92080 .
I nærværende sag indvilligede Kommissionen imidlertid kun i at betale 78.541.
In the present case however,the Commission agreed to pay only ECU 78 541.
Klageren udledte derfor af dette, at Kommissionen havde ændret sin procedure uden at underrette ham,og anså det, at Kommissionen havde betalt mindre end 92.080 EUR,som værende i strid med kontrakten.Klageren kritiserede Kommissionens begrundelse,hvori den hævdede,at den før havdegjort undtagelser i sine procedurer.
The complainant deduced that the Commission had changed the procedureswithout informing him and considered the fact that the Commission paid less than ECU 92 080 as a breach of contract. The complainant criticised the justification given bythe Commission to have made exceptions in applying its procedures in the past.
(ii)Klageren uddybede påstanden om Kommissionens unødige forsinkelse og manglenpå en begrundelse for forsinkelsen.
(ii)The complainant developed further the claim of undue delay by the Commission andthe lack of explanations for the delay.
Klageren angav,at man den 22. februar 1996 sendterapporten til Kommissionen som kurerpost.
The complainant specified that it sent the report tothe Commission by courier service on 22 February 1996.
Kommissionen svarede ikke før i december1996,hvor den udbad sig dokumenterne igen,da de angiveligt var gået tabt.Kommissionen meddelte den 22. oktober 1997 klageren,at den ikke var enig i de fremsendte fakturaer.
The Commission did not replyuntil December 1996 when it asked again for the documents,that apparently had been lost.On 22 October 1997,the Commission informed the complainant about its disagreementconcerning the invoices submitted.
Det var først der,striden begyndte,og den endte den 3. marts 1998 med,at Kommissionen fremsendte den første ufuldstændige betaling.
It was only then that the dispute started,which endedon 3 March 1998 with a first incomplete payment by the Commission.
Klageren modtog den 18.juni 1998 det resterende beløb.
On 18 June 1998,the complainant received the remaining payment.
Ifølge klageren reagerede Kommissionen ikke i de tyvemåneder op til,at den egentlige strid begyndte,og det tog yderligere otte måneder, før Kommissionen betalte det fulde beløb.
According to the complainant, the Commission did not react during 20 months before the actual dispute started and it took afurther eight months until the Commission paid the whole amount due.
OMBUDSMANDENS FORSØG PÅ AT OPNÅ EN MINDELIG LØSNING
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
Ombudsmandens analyse af de omstridte spørgsmål
The Ombudsman’s analysis of the issues in dispute
Efter en grundig gennemgang af udtalelsen og bemærkningerne fandt Ombudsmandenikke,at Kommissionen i tilstrækkelig grad havde imødekommet klagerens krav.
After careful consideration of the opinion and observations,the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission had responded adequately to the complainant’s claims.
I forbindelse med den første påstand om Kommissionens udeblevne reaktion og utilstrækkelige forklaringer mente Ombudsmanden,at forsinkelsen snarere skyldtes institutionensmanglende reaktion end striden mellem de to parter.
The Ombudsman considered regarding the first claim regarding the Commission’s failureto react and to give explanations,that the delay was rather based on the Institution’s lackof reaction than on the dispute between the two parties.
Ombudsmanden foreløbige konklusion var derfor,at Kommissionens manglende reaktionog forklaringer i løbet af de tyve måneder,omstændighederne taget i betragtning,kunneudgøre et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion,therefore,was that in view of the circum-stances,the Commission’s failure to react and to give explanations during 20 monthsmight establish an instance of maladministration.
Den anden påstand om erstatning for den forsinkede udbetaling af bistanden rejste såledesdet vanskelige spørgsmål om,hvorvidt nogle af parterne havde brudt kontrakten.
Thus,the second allegation with regard to a compensation for the late payment of thegrant,raised the difficult issue to determine whether there has been a breach of contractby either party.
Eftersomdette spørgsmål i sidste instans skulle afgøres af en domstol,som havde domsmyndighedi denne sag,nøjedes Ombudsmanden med at undersøge,om fællesskabsinstitutionen eller-organet havde givet ham en sammenhængende og rimelig redegørelse for retsgrundlagetfor sine handlinger.
Since this issue ultimately had to be determined by a court that had jurisdiction in the matter,the Ombudsman limited his inquiry to examine whether the Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable accountof the legal basis for its actions.
Selv om Kommissionens accepterede klagerens påstand og betaltedifferencen på 13.438 EUR,var betalingen af dette beløb forsinket i 28 måneder,uden at Kommissionen gav nogen forklaring på dette.
Although the Commission accepted the complainant’sclaim and paid the difference of ECU13438,there was a delay of 28 months in thepayment of this amount without any explanations provided by the Commission.
Ombudsmanden foreløbige konklusion var derfor,at Kommissionens beslutning om atnægte at betale renter ved forsinket betaling,omstændighederne taget i betragtning. kunneudgøre et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion,therefore,was that in view of the circum-stances,the decision of the Commission to refuse to pay interests in a case of late paymentmight establish an instance of maladministration.
Muligheden for en mindelig løsning
The possibility of a friendly solution
Ombudsmanden opfordrede i sin skrivelse Kommissionen til at overvejeat betale klageren et rentebeløb for den forsinkede betaling.
In his letter,the Ombudsman invited the Commission to consider to pay dueinterest for late payment to the complainant.
Kommissionen havde mistet regnskabet,sandsynligvis i forbindelse med flytningen;
(i) the Commission lost the financial report,probably as a result of the removal;
(ii)kontoret for teknisk bistand havde været forsinket med sin behandling af betalingsanmodningen.
(ii)the technical assistance office was late in processing the payment request.
Selv om kontrakten ikke indeholdt nogen bestemmelser vedrørende forsinket betaling,påpegede Kommissionen i sin meddelelse af 10. juni 1997 (SEK (1997) 1205),som blevudvidet til også at omfatte standardfinansieringsaftalerne om ekstern bistand25,som inde- holder standardbestemmelser for aftaler under ECIP.
Even if in the contract no provision in the event of late payment was foreseen, the Commission took notice of its Communication of 10 June 1997 (SEC(97)1205),whichwas extended to standard grant contracts for external assistance25which feature standard provisions applicable to contract coming under the ECIP rule.
Ifølge Kommissionens beregningerudgjorde de skyldige renter 3.541,45.
According to the Commission’s calculations the interests to be paid amounted to 3541,45.
Den 3. april 2001 godkendte klageren
On 3 April
1.1Klageren gjorde i sine bemærkninger gældende,at Kommissionen i tyve månederikke reagerede på den rapport om ECIP-aktionen,som klageren havde fremsendt,og atden ikke gav nogen forklaringer på forsinkelsen.
1.1The complainant claimed in its observations that during 20 months the Commissiondid not react to the report of the ECIP action forwarded by the complainant and did notprovide any explanation for the delay.
Klageren krævede erstatning for forsinkelsen i Kommissionens sidste udbetaling af den finansielle bistand.
The complainant required compensation for thedelay in receiving the final payment of the grant from the Commission.
Klageren var nødt tilat optage et banklån for at dække omkostningerne på grund af den forsinkede udbetaling.Klageren krævede derfor 13.132 EUR,hvilket svarede til renten på banklånet.
Due to the delayedpayment,the complainant was forced to take a bank loan in order to cover the costs.Therefore,it claimed the amount of ECU13132 corresponding to the interests accumulated on the bank loan.
1.2Kommissionen hentydede i sin udtalelse kun til denne påstand med begrebet ”langstrid”.
1.2In its opinion,the Commission did only allude to this allegation with the term“lengthy dispute”.
Kommissionen mente ikke,at den skyldte yderligere beløb. Kommissionenhævdede,at eftersom der var en stor difference mellem overslagene og de endelige regn-skaber,som klageren fremsendte,havde Kommissionen anvendt den sædvanlige formel tilhver enkel udgiftspost. Derfor ville Kommissionen kun tilbagebetale et beløb på 78.541EUR.
The Commission considered that it did not owe any further payment.The Commission put forward that,as a substantial difference existed between the estimates and the final accounts indicated by the complainant,the Commission applied thecustomary formula to each item of expenditure.
Derefter fulgte en lang strid med klageren om fortolkningen af kontrakten,især ibetragtning af at Kommissionen før havde gjort undtagelser til denne regel.
It followed a lengthy dispute with thecomplainant about the interpretation of the contract,especially as the Commission hadmade exceptions to the rule in the past.
Bilag II til de generelle betingelser for finansieringsaftaler,der tildeles af Det Europæiske Fællesskab i forbindelse med bistand til tredjelande,s. 8-9.
Annex II to the General conditions applicable to grant contracts awarded by the European Community in thecase of external aid,pp. 8-9.
Efter Ombudsmandens undersøgelse af klagen er der opnået en mindelig løsning mellem Kommissionen og klageren.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into the complaint,a friendly solution has beenagreed between the Commission and the complainant.
Ombudsmanden afslutter derfor behandlingen af sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closesthe case.
KOMMISSIONENBETALER SKYLDIGTBELØB FRA1995
The contract further provided that 80% of the
Afgørelse om klage780/2000/GG over Europa-Kommissionen
Decision on complaint780/2000/GG againstthe European Commission
Afkontrakten fremgik det ligeledes,at 80% af tilskuddet fra Fællesskabet skulle betalessenest 30 dage efter modtagelsen af den behørigt underskrevne kontrakt.
Community contribution were to be paid within 30 days of the reception of the duly signedcontract.
De resterende20% skulle betales,når Kommissionen havde modtaget og godkendt rapporten og denfinansieringsoversigt,som kontrahenten skulle fremsende senest den 14. november 1994.
The remaining 20% were to be paid after the Commission had received andaccepted the report and the financial statement that were to be submitted by the contractorby 14 November 1994 at the latest.
Klageren hævdede,at Kommissionen ikke havde betalt det sidste afdrag til hendes firma.Hun hævdede desuden,at Kommissionen ikke havde reageret på hendes forespørgsler pr.telefon,fax og anbefalet skrivelse.
The complainant claimed the Commission had failed to pay the last instalment due to herfirm. She further claimed that the Commission had failed to react to various inquiries shehad made by telephone,fax and registered letter.
Klageren anførte,at P. Louis fra Kommissionens tjenestegrene ved et besøg i Kommissionen den 5. november 1999 havde forsikret hende,atbeløbet tilsyneladende var betalt,at dette skulle bekræftes elektronisk i Force-filerne,ogat hun ville blive underrettet.
According to the complainant,she hadbeen assured by Mr. P. Louis from the Commission’s services,on the occasion of a visitto the Commission on 5 November 1999,that payment appeared to have been made,thatthis had to be ascertained by electronic means in the ‘Force’files and that she would beinformed.
Klageren hævder imidlertid,at hun efterfølgende kun blevunderrettet om,at der ikke var elektronisk adgang til Force-filerne.
The complainant alleges,however,that she was subsequently only informed thatthe ‘Force’files were not accessible by electronic means.
Hun udbad sig derefteren kopi af indbetalingsblanketten.
She then asked for a copy of thetransfer form.
Hun modtog intet svar.
No reply was received by her.
I sin klage til Ombudsmanden i juni 2000 fremsatte klageren følgende påstande:
In her complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in June 2000,the complainant made thefollowing allegations:
Kommissionen burde sende hende en kopi af indbetalingsblanketten.
– the Commission should send her a copy of the transfer form;
Forceprogrammet blev officielt afsluttet i 1995.
The ‘Force’programme had officially terminated in 1995.
Sagsakterne vedrørende dette programvar blevet overdraget til S.A. Agenor,Kommissionens kontor for teknisk bistand til
The files relating to thisprogramme had then been entrusted to S.A. Agenor,the technical assistance office of the Commission for the implementation of the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’programme (1995-1999)with a view to closing the remaining projects.
Da kontoret for teknisk bistand blev lukket i februar 1999,var enrække sager,herunder klagerens,imidlertid endnu ikke blevet afsluttet.
However,by the time this technical assistance office was closed in February 1999,a certain number of files including thecomplainant’s had still not been closed.
Uheldigvis var Kommissionen ikke i besiddelse af de relevante sagsakter,som var blevetforseglet af det belgiske retsvæsen i februar 1999 og endnu ikke var blevet returneret.Kommissionen havde således ikke i øjeblikket adgang til disse sagsakter og kunne derforikke efterkomme klagerens forespørgsler.
Unfortunately the Commission was not in possession of the relevant files which had beensealed by the Belgian judiciary in February 1999 and had still not been returned. The Commission did thus not have access to these files at the moment and was therefore unableimmediately to comply with the complainant’s requests.
Den 6. september 2000 havde Kommissionen skrevet til den belgiske undersøgelsesdommer for at få adgang til sagsakterne med klagerens sag.
On 6 September 2000,the Commission had written to the Belgian juge d’instructioninorder to ask for access to the files relating to the complainant’s case. The Commission was
Kommissionen kunne ikkegive en egentlig forklaring på,hvad der var sket i den foreliggende sag,før den havde haftadgang til de pågældende sagsakter.
_BAR_ 2001 unable to give a real explanation as to what had happened in the present case before havinghad access to these files.