natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dem e er endnu vigtigere, hvis klagen omhandler spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen og anvendelsen af national lovgivning, e W ersom de nationale domstole kan behandle sådanne spørgsmål bedre end Ombudsmanden.
This is all the more important where the complaint involves issues pertaining to the interpretation and application of
Rådets direktiv 89/48/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indførelse af en generel ordning for gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser for erhvervskompetencegivende videregående uddannelser af mindst tre års varighed, EFT L 19 af 24.1.1989, s. 16.
Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY national legislation, since national courts are in a bemer position than the Ombudsman to deal with such questions.
FRIT UDLÅN AF BØGER FRA OFFENTLIGE BIBLIOTEKER
FREE LENDING OF BOOKS FROM PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Sammendrag af afgørelse om fælles klager 3452/2004/JMA og andre over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on joint complaints 3452/2004/JMA and others against the European Commission
Ombudsmanden modtog et stort antal klager over Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Spanien i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af direktiv 92/100 om
The Ombudsman received a large number of complaints concerning the Commission’s decision to start infringement proceedings against Spain in relation to the implementation of Directive 92/100
26 ophavsretsbeslægtede remigheder i forbindelse med intellektuel ejendomsret
on rights related to copyright in the fi eld of intellectual property
Ifølge klagerne havde Kommissionen konkluderet, at de spanske oTentlige bibliotekers praksis med at udlåne bøger gratis var i strid med direktivet.
According to the complainants, the Commission had taken the view that the practice of Spanish public libraries to lend books to the public free of charge was contrary to the Directive.
De gjorde gældende, at Kommissionens fortolkning af direktivet og dens e W erfølgende beslutning om at indlede en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Spanien underminerede de oTentlige bibliotekers eksistens som en grundlæggende oTentlig ydelse og var i strid med borgernes grundlæggende ret til at have adgang til kultur.
They alleged that the Commission’s interpretation of the Directive and its subsequent decision to pursue infringement proceedings against Spain undermined the existence of public libraries as a basic public service and went against the fundamental rights of citizens to have access to culture.
Ombudsmanden anmodede som en del af sin undersøgelse af klagen om oplysninger fra sine nationale og regionale kolleger i det europæiske netværk af ombudsmænd.
As part of his inquiry into the case, the Ombudsman requested information from his national and regional counterparts in the European Network of Ombudsmen.
Ud fra svarene fra netværket viste det sig, at mange medlemsstater havde kunnet gennemføre direktiv 92/100 korrekt uden at skulle opkræve betaling fra borgerne for udlåning af bøger fra oTentlige biblioteker.
On the basis of the responses from the Network, it appeared that many Member States had been able to correctly implement Directive 92/100 by means that do not involve charging individuals for borrowing books from public libraries.
Kommissionen forklarede, at den ikke havde indledt en overtrædelsesprocedure, fordi de oTentlige biblioteker i Spanien udlånte bøger gratis, men fordi de spanske myndigheder ikke havde sikret, at forfamere fi k betaling for udlån af deres værker gennem oTentlige biblioteker.
The Commission explained that it had initiated infringement proceedings not because public libraries in Spain lend books free of charge but because the Spanish authorities had failed to ensure that authors were remunerated for the lending of their works through public libraries.
Overholdelse af ophavsretten og dermed beslægtede rettigheder og vederlag derfor i henhold til direktiv 92/100 betyder ikke, at lånerne ikke længere kan låne bøger gratis, eller at bibliotekerne skal betale yderligere gebyrer.
Respect for the right of copyright and related rights and the remuneration of these rights, as provided for in Directive 92/100, does not mean that borrowers may no longer borrow books free of charge, nor does it mean that libraries are required to pay additional fees.
I de fleste medlemsstater finansieres dem e vederlag af de relevante oTentlige myndigheder.
In most Member States this remuneration is financed by the relevant public authorities.
Kommissionen meddelte endvidere Ombudsmanden, at den havde henvist sagen til Domstolen (sag C-36/05).
The Commission also informed the Ombudsman that it had referred the mamer to the Court of Justice (Case C-36/05).
I lyset af sagen ved Domstolen afslumede Ombudsmanden sine undersøgelser af sagen.
In view of the legal proceedings in the Court of Justice, the Ombudsman closed his consideration of the case.
Han understregede, at hans undersøgelse, og navnlig samarbejdet med de nationale ombudsmænd, havde bidraget til at a]lare begrundelserne for Kommissionens handlinger og mulighederne for korrekt gennemførelse af direktivet.
He underlined that his inquiry, and especially the cooperation with national ombudsmen, had helped clarify for complainants the reasons for the Commission’s actions and the possibilities for correct implementation of the Directive.
Rådets direktiv 92/100/EØF af 19. november 1992 om udlejnings- og udlånsremigheder samt om visse andre ophavsretsbeslægtede remigheder i forbindelse med intellektuel ejendomsret, EFT L 346 af 27.11.1992, s. 61.
Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the fi eld of intellectual property, OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.
Rådet gjorde gældende, at i hvilken grad møderne skal være åbne er et politisk valg, som Rådet selv t r æ T er.
The Council argued that the degree of openness of its meetings is a political choice to be made by the Council.
Ombudsmanden var ikke enig i deme, idet EU-traktatens artikel 1, stk. 2, finder anvendelse på Rådet, og fordi selv om det i EF-traktatens artikel 207 fastlægges, at Rådet skal vedtage sin egen forretningsorden, fastlægges det ikke, at i hvilken grad dets møder, hvor det optræder som lovgivende myndighed, skal være åbne for oTentligheden, skal betragtes som et politisk valg, som Rådet selv kan t r æ T e.
The Ombudsman disagreed on the grounds that Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union applies to the Council and that, although Article 207 of the EC Treaty provides for it to adopt its own Rules of Procedure, it does not provide that the degree to which its meetings in its legislative capacity are to be open to the public should be regarded as a political choice and leW to the discretion of the Council.
Rådet gjorde endvidere gældende, at det i EU-traktatens artikel 1, stk. 2, kun blev fastlagt, at den fremtidige Union skal være så åben som mulig.
The Council also argued that Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union merely indicated that the future Union should be as open as possible.
Ombudsmanden fandt, at der også skullet tages højde for udviklingen siden vedtagelsen af den pågældende artikel i sin nuværende form i 1997.
The Ombudsman took the view that developments since that Article was adopted in its present form in 1997 should also be taken into account.
Han påpegede, at Rådet allerede i 2000 havde vedtaget en ny forretningsorden, som medførte øget åbenhed for de møder, hvor det optræder som lovgivende myndighed.
He pointed out that the Council had already adopted new Rules of Procedure in 2000 that provided for increased openness of its meetings as a legislator.
EWer Ombudsmandens mening havde Rådet derfor gjort det klart, at der skulle og kunne tages skridt til at øge gennemsigtigheden i dets lovgivningsmæssige virksomhed.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council thus made it clear that steps to increase the transparency of its legislative activity had to and could be taken.
Vedtagelsen af denne nye forretningsorden b e k r æ W ede endvidere, at dem e var og er muligt i henhold til den gældende fællesskabslovgivning.
The adoption of these new Rules of Procedure also confirmed that doing so was and is possible under Community law as it presently stands.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede derfor, at Rådet havde undladt at give en gyldig grund til, hvorfor den ikke kunne ændre sin forretningsorden med henblik på at sikre oTentlige møder, hvor det optræder som lovgivende myndighed.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Council had failed to submit any valid reasons as to why it should be unable to amend its Rules of Procedure with a view to meeting in public whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity.
Ombudsmanden forelagde denne konklusion om fejl eller forsømmelser for Europa-Parlamentet i en særlig beretning med en henstilling om, at Rådet skulle tage sit afslag på at beslume at a[olde oTentlige møder, hvor det optræder som lovgivende myndighed, op til fornyet overvejelse.
The Ombudsman forwarded this finding of maladministration to the European Parliament in a special report, with a recommendation that the Council “should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity”.
UNDERVISNINGSUDGIFTER FOR BØRN MED SÆRLIGE PÆDAGOGISKE BEHOV
EDUCATIONAL COSTS FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
Sammendrag af særlig beretning i klage 1391/2002/JMA over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of special report following complaint 1391/2002/JMA against the European Commission
La plaignante était un agent de la Commission dont la fille avait des besoins éducatifs spécifiques Klageren var en tjenestemand i Kommissionen, hvis damer havde særlige pædagogiske behov, som ikke kunne opfyldes af Europaskolerne, som tilbyder gratis undervisning til medarbejderne i Fællesskabets institutioner og organer.
The complainant was a Commission oU cial whose daughter had special educational needs that could not be met by the European Schools, which provide education free of charge to the staT of the Community institutions and bodies.
EWersom Europaskolerne ikke kunne dække damerens behov, var klageren nødt til at sende barnet til en anden skole og betale en del af omkostningerne ved hendes undervisning.
Since the European Schools were unable to cater for her daughter, the complainant had to send the child to a d iT erent school and pay part of the cost of her education.
Kommissionen meddelte i sin udtalelse, at den i princippet var villig til at ændre den nuværende politik, dog med forbehold af de budgetmæssige begrænsninger, som kunne håndteres i budgetprocessen.
The Commission’s detailed opinion expressed willingness in principle to review the current policy, subject to budgetary constraints which could be tackled in the budget process.
Selv om dem e var opmuntrende, var det ikke en utvetydig accept af forslaget til henstilling.
Although encouraging, this did not amount to an unequivocal acceptance of the draW recommendation.
Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig (OLAF)
The European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
AFGIVELSE AF UKORREKTE OG VILDLEDENDE OPLYSNINGER TIL OMBUDSMANDEN UNDER EN TIDLIGERE UNDERSØGELSE
PROVISION OF INCORRECT AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE OMBUDSMAN DURING A PREVIOUS INQUIRY
Sammendrag af særlig beretning i klage 2485/2004/GG over Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig (OLAF)
Summary of special report following complaint 2485/2004/GG against the European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
Klageren, som var korrespondent i Bruxelles for det tyske magasin Stern, havde fået kopier af fortrolige OLAF-dokumenter og brugt disse dokumenter i to artikler.
The complainant, who was the Brussels correspondent of the German weekly newspaper Stern, had obtained copies of confidential OLAF documents and used these documents in two articles.
To uger senere havde OLAF udsendt en pressemeddelelse, hvori det meddelte, at »en journalist« havde fået adgang til en række fortrolige OLAF-dokumenter muligvis »ved at betale en tjenestemand«, og at det derfor havde beslumet at indlede en intern undersøgelse.
Two weeks later, OLAF had published a press release in which it stated that “a journalist” had obtained a number of confidential OLAF documents, possibly “by paying a civil servant” and that it had therefore decided to open an internal inquiry.
Klageren og hans avis fandt, at beskyldningen om bestikkelse kun kunne antages at være remet mod dem, selv om det ikke var nævnt i pressemeddelelsen.
The complainant and his newspaper considered that, even though no name had been mentioned in the press release, the accusation of bribery had to be understood as directed at them.
Denne anklage var ifølge klageren ubegrundet.
According to the complainant, this accusation was unfounded.
Da OLAF nægtede at trække pressemeddelelsen tilbage, indgav klageren en klage til Ombudsmanden (sag 1840/2002/GG).
When OLAF refused to withdraw the press release, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman (case 1840/2002/GG).
OLAF afviste under Ombudsmandens undersøgelse af klagen klagerens anklager og anførte en række argumenter for, at henvisningen til »en journalist« kunne have været en hvilken som helst af de mange journalister, som havde oTentliggjort artikler, hvori de antydede, at de var i besiddelse af de pågældende dokumenter.
During the Ombudsman’s inquiry into that complaint, OLAF rejected the complainant’s accusations and submimed a number of arguments in order to show that the reference to “a journalist” could have meant any of several journalists who had published articles indicating that they were in possession of the documents in question.
Endvidere anførte det, at »henvisningen kunne også være til enhver anden journalist, e W ersom OLAF ikke skrev, at undersøgelsen var knymet til noget specifikt materiale, som allerede var blevet oTentliggjort«. entliggjort«.
Furthermore, it suggested that “the reference could also be to any other journalist, since OLAF did not state that the investigation was linked to any specific material which had already been published”.
På grundlag af de beviser, han havde fået forelagt, konkluderede Ombudsmanden imidlertid, at den relevante pressemeddelelse kun kunne forstås som omhandlende klageren, og at OLAF ikke havde fremlagt nogen beviser til støme for anklagen deri.
However, on the basis of the evidence in his possession, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the relevant press release had to be understood as referring to the complainant and that OLAF had not put forward any evidence to support the accusation it had made therein.
Ombudsmanden fremsame derfor et forslag til henstilling til OLAF, hvori han opfordrede det til at trække anklagen om bestikkelse tilbage.
The Ombudsman therefore addressed a draW recommendation to OLAF inviting it to withdraw the allegation of bribery.
EWersom Ombudsmanden ikke fandt, at OLAF havde imødekommet hans forslag til henstilling tilfredsstillende, fremsame han en kritisk bemærkning.
Since the Ombudsman considered that OLAF had not properly implemented this draW recommendation, he made a critical remark.
EWer en undersøgelse af OLAF’s detaljerede udtalelse fandt Ombudsmanden, at OLAF havde nægtet at acceptere hans forslag til henstilling. Han forelagde derfor en særlig beretning for Europa-Parlamentet, hvori han gentog sit forslag til henstilling som en henstilling.
AWer examining OLAF’s detailed opinion, the Ombudsman considered that OLAF had in eT ect refused to accept his draW recommendation.
UNDERSØGELSEPÅEGETINITIATIVFORETAGET AF OMBUDSMANDEN
OWN-INITIATIVEINQUIRY BY THE OMBUDSMAN
Sammendrag af afgørelse om undersøgelse på eget initiativ OI/3/2005/OV (fortrolig) over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2005/OV (Confidential) concerning the European Commission
I april 2005 modtog Ombudsmanden en klage fra en blomsterhandler i et land uden for EU indeholdende en påstand om, at Kommissionens delegation i det pågældende land (»delegationen«) havde undladt at betale klageren for den blomsterdekoration, han havde leveret til delegationens nyåbnede pressecenter.
In April 2005, the Ombudsman received a complaint from a florist in a non-EU country concerning an alleged failure of the Commission Delegation in that country (“the Delegation”) to reimburse the complainant for the floral decoration that he had provided for the Delegation’s newly opened Press Centre.
Klageren nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen skulle opfylde en mundtlig a W ale om sagen og betale ham for den ydelse, han havde leveret.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should honour an oral agreement on the mamer and pay him for the service that he had provided.
Ombudsmanden kunne ikke indlede en undersøgelse af klagen som sådan, da klageren ikke var EU-borger og ikke var bosiddende i en EU-medlemsstat (EF-traktatens artikel 195).
The Ombudsman could not open an inquiry into the complaint as such, because the complainant was not an EU citizen and did not have his residence in an EU Member State (Article 195 of the EC Treaty).
I lyset af, at det rejste spørgsmål fortjente at blive undersøgt, beslumede Ombudsmanden imidlertid at indlede en undersøgelse på eget initiativ af denne sag.
However, given that the issue raised merited examination, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry against the Commission into the mamer. er.
Kommissionen forklarede, at den havde stillet lokalerne i delegationens presse- og informationscenter til rådighed for den italienske ambassade og en tilknymet sammenslutning til et arrangement, og at blomsterdekorationen skulle bruges ved den lejlighed.
The Commission explained that it had put the premises of the Delegation’s Press and Information centre at the disposal of the Italian embassy and an associated foundation for an event and that the f l oral decoration had been supplied in that context.
Klagerens kontrakt om levering af blomsterdekorationen var indgået med den italienske ambassade og sammenslutningen.
The complainant’s contract for the supply of the floral decoration was with the Italian embassy and the foundation.
Der var ikke indgået nogen kontrakt mellem delegationen og klageren.
No contract was established between the Delegation and the complainant.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede, at der ikke eksisterede nogen kontrakt mellem Kommissionen og klageren vedrørende blomsterdekorationen, og at denne konklusion ikke kunne ændres ved, at dekorationen skulle leveres til delegationens lokaler.
The Ombudsman concluded that there indeed existed no contract between the Commission and the complainant with regard to the floral decoration and that this conclusion was not altered by the fact that the decoration itself was provided on the Delegation’s premises.
Ombudsmanden fandt derfor, at klagerens krav om betaling mod Kommissionen ikke kunne stømes, og at der ikke forelå noget tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the complainant’s claim for payment against the Commission could not be upheld and that there was no instance of maladministration.
Ombudsmanden underremede imidlertid klageren om, at han kunne overveje at indgive en klage til det italienske udenrigsministerium.
The Ombudsman, however, informed the complainant that he could consider lodging a complaint with the Italian Ministry of Foreign ATairs.
I lyset af at en af årsagerne til klagerens problemer syntes at være, at den ansvarlige person på den italienske ambassade havde forladt ambassaden, fandt Ombudsmanden det ligeledes hensigtsmæssigt at sende en kopi af sin afgørelse til den italienske ambassade i det pågældende land.
Considering that one of the reasons for the problems encountered by the complainant appeared to be that the person in charge in the Italian embassy had leW the embassy, the Ombudsman also found it appropriate to send a copy of his decision to the Italian embassy in the country of the Delegation.
FORBINDELSER MEDDENEUROPÆISKEUNIONSINSTITUTIONEROGORGANER
RELATIONS WITHEUROPEANUNIONINSTITUTIONSANDBODIES
FORBINDELSERMEDDENEUROPÆISKE UNIONSINSTITUTIONEROGORGANER
RELATIONSWITHEUROPEANUNION INSTITUTIONSANDBODIES
Et konstruktivt samarbejde mellem Den Europæiske Ombudsmand og EU’s institutioner og organer er afgørende for at sikre, at borgernes klager behandles hurtigt og eTektivt.
Constructive working relations between the European Ombudsman and the EU institutions and bodies are vital in ensuring that citizens’ complaints are dealt with promptly and eTectively.
Ombudsmanden bruger møderne med medlemmer af institutionerne og organerne og deres tjenestemænd til at forklare den logik, der ligger til grund for hans arbejde, hvordan de bedst besvarer de klager, han videregiver til dem, og hvordan procedurerne kan forbedres. Dem e hjælper Ombudsmanden med at opfylde sin dobbelte rolle som både en ekstern kontrolinstans og en ressource, som kan bidrage til at forbedre kvaliteten i forvaltningen.
The Ombudsman uses the opportunities oTered by meetings with Members of the institutions and bodies and their oUcials to explain the thinking behind his work, how best to respond to complaints that he brings to their amention and how to improve procedures.
Ombudsmanden indbyder endvidere repræsentanter for andre institutioner og organer til at tale til hans medarbejdere, således at de kan følge med i den politiske og lovgivningsmæssige udvikling i Unionen.
The Ombudsman also invites representatives of other institutions and bodies to address his staT with a view to keeping them abreast of political and legislative developments in the Union.
Endelig udveksler han oplysninger med de primære partnere såsom Den Europæiske Tilsynsførende for Databeskymelse, hvis arbejde er af direkte relevans for Ombudsmandens virksomhed.
Finally, he regularly exchanges information with key interlocutors, such as the European Data Protection Supervisor, whose work is of direct relevance to the Ombudsman’s activity.
I anledning af institutionens 10-årsjubilæum søgte Ombudsmanden at udvikle det samarbejde, der var blevet opbygget i årenes løb, til at skabe en førsteklasses EU-forvaltning.
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the institution, the Ombudsman sought to build on the cooperation that has developed to date so as to ensure a top class EU administration.
Et af de primære midler til at opfylde dem e mål var den formelle middag for formændene og generalsekretærerne for EU’s institutioner og cheferne for EU’s organer og agenturer, som blev a[oldt den 17. november (se afsnit 6.1).
This objective was pursued most notably during the formal dinner for the Presidents and Secretaries-General of EU institutions and the Heads of EU bodies and agencies held on 17 November (see section 6.1).
Europa-Kommissionens formand, José Manuel BARROSO, holdt hovedtalen ved denne lejlighed, hvori han gentog det l ø W e, han havde afgivet på Ombudsmandens møde med kommissærkollegiet den 25. maj, om at arbejde tæt sammen med Ombudsmanden til fordel for borgerne.
European Commission President, Mr José Manuel BARROSO, gave the keynote speech on this occasion, reiterating the commitment he expressed during the Ombudsman’s 25 May meeting with the College of Commissioners to work closely with the Ombudsman for the benefit of citizens.
Dem e møde er beskrevet nærmere i afsnit 4.2 nedenfor.
This meeting is covered in detail in section 4.2 below.
Ombudsmandens særlige forhold til Europa-Parlamentet, som udnævner ham, og som Ombudsmanden fremlægger årsberetningen for, er af særlig stor betydning.
The Ombudsman’s special relationship with the European Parliament, which elects him and to which he reports annually, is of particular importance.
Der er et frugtbart samarbejde mellem Ombudsmanden og Parlamentets Udvalg for Andragender, som er ansvarlig for forbindelserne med Ombudsmanden, og som udarbejder betænkningen om hans årsberetning.
He enjoys a fruitful working relationship with Parliament’s Commimee on Petitions, which is responsible for relations with the Ombudsman and draW s the report on his Annual Report.