natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den anførte endvidere, at man havde vedtaget den generelle politik, at der skulle gives mere systematisk feedback til borgerne i alle tilfælde, hvor svaret enten pga. kompleksitet eller som følge af en pludselig indstrømning af spørgsmål risikerer ikke at blive sendt inden for svarfristen.
It also stated that, as a general policy, it had been decided to give more systematic feedback to citizens in all cases where the reply, be it on grounds of complexity or because of a sudden inflow of questions, may be at risk of not being sent within the deadlines for information replies.
Klageren meddelte, at han accepterede Kommissionens undskyldning og betragtede sagen som løst.
The complainant stated that he accepted the Commission’s apologies and considered his case to be semled.
Ombudsmanden afslumede derfor sagen og fremsame en yderligere bemærkning, hvori han anførte, at han havde tillid til, at Kommissionen ville t r æ T e de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at overholde sine forpligtelser i fremtiden.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case and made a further remark in which he stated that he was confident the Commission would make the necessary eTorts to respect its obligations in the future.
AFSLAG PÅ BEGÆRING OM AKTINDSIGT I DOKUMENTER
REFUSAL OF A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3381/2004/TN over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3381/2004/TN against the European Commission
Klageren, en beboerforening i Det Forenede Kongerige, havde indgivet en artikel 226-klage til Kommissionen over Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder påståede brud på fællesskabslovgivningen med hensyn til et stort deponeringsanlæg tæt ved beboernes hjem.
The complainant, a United Kingdom residents’ association, had made an Article 226 complaint to the Commission concerning the United Kingdom authorities’ alleged failure to follow Community legislation as regards a large landfill site near the residents’ homes.
Kommissionen gav afslag på klagerens begæring om aktindsigt i Kommissionens korrespondance med Det Forenede Kongerige vedrørende sagen med den begrundelse, at udbredelse af dokumenterne ville underminere beskymelsen af formålet med inspektioner, undersøgelser og revision (artikel 4, stk. 2, i forordning 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i Europa-Parlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter13).
The Commission refused the complainant’s request for access to the Commission’s correspondence with the United Kingdom authorities regarding the mamer, on the grounds that disclosure of the documents would undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents13).
Ombudsmanden oversendte klagen til Kommissionen og skrev samtidig til Det Forenede Kongeriges faste repræsentation i EU for at spørge, om Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder ville have noget at indvende imod udbredelse af dokumenterne.
The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission and at the same time wrote to the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU to ask whether the United Kingdom authorities would object to the release of the documents.
Kommissionen gjorde i sin udtalelse gældende, at beslutningen om ikke at give aktindsigt i dokumenterne på det tidspunkt i sagen var i overensstemmelse med den relevante retspraksis.
In its opinion, the Commission argued that its decision not to disclose the documents at that stage of the proceedings was consistent with the relevant case-law.
EWer den formelle lukning af sagen havde Kommissionen imidlertid beslumet at give aktindsigt i sine to
However, following the formal closure
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE skrivelser til Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder om sagen.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY of the file, the Commission had decided to release its two lemers addressed to the United Kingdom authorities regarding the mamer.
EWersom Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder havde b e k r æ W et, at de ikke havde nogen indvendinger imod oTentliggørelse af deres svar, blev der også givet aktindsigt i de to pågældende skrivelser.
Since the United Kingdom authorities had confirmed that they did not object to disclosure of their replies, the two lemers in question were also disclosed.
Kommissionen undskyldte for den unødige forsinkelse i forbindelse med behandlingen af klagerens genfremsame begæring.
The Commission apologised for the undue delay in handling the complainant’s confirmatory application.
EWer flere undersøgelser indvilligede Kommissionen også i at give klageren aktindsigt i tre cd-rommer med de oplysninger, som Det Forenede Kongeriges myndigheder havde sendt til Kommissionen til støme for deres argumenter i artikel 226-proceduren.
Following further inquiries, the Commission also agreed to give the complainant access to three CD-ROMs containing the information sent to the Commission by the United Kingdom authorities to support their arguments in the Article 226 procedure.
EWersom Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen til klagerens tilfredshed, afslumede Ombudsmanden sagen.
Since the Commission had taken steps to semle the mamer to the complainant’s satisfaction, the Ombudsman closed the case.
REFUSION AF BEFORDRINGS- OG OPHOLDSUDGIFTER
REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION EXPENSES
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 3485/2004/OV over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 3485/2004/OV against the European Commission
Klageren deltog i almindelig udvælgelsesprøve KOM/A/12/01 og var til samtale i Italien den 15. og 16. januar 2004.
The complainant participated in open competition COM/A/12/01 and am ended interviews in Italy on 15 and 16 January 2004.
EWer disse samtaler søgte klageren om refusion af sine befordrings- og ophold s ud g i W er gennem den oU cielle formular.
At the end of the interviews, the complainant used the oU cial form to request reimbursement of his travel and accommodation expenses.
På trods af tre rykkere fra klageren i 2004 refunderede Kommissionen ikke ud g i W erne.
Despite three reminders from the complainant in 2004, the Commission failed to reimburse the expenses.
Kommissionen underremede klageren om, at hans ansøgning om refusion var blevet registreret og sat til behandling.
The Commission informed the complainant that his request for reimbursement had been registered and had been assigned for action.
Da klageren stadig ikke havde modtaget beløbet i november 2004, klagede han til Ombudsmanden.
As the complainant had still not been reimbursed in November 2004, he complained to the Ombudsman.
Ombudsmanden sendte klagen til Kommissionen den 15. december 2004.
The Ombudsman sent the complaint to the Commission on 15 December 2004.
Den 30. december underremede klageren i en e-mail Ombudsmanden om, at han havde modtaget beløbet, og at sagen dermed kunne afslumes.
On 30 December, the complainant informed the Ombudsman by e-mail that the payment had been made and that the case could be closed.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede derfor, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen til klagerens tilfredshed.
The Ombudsman thus concluded that the Commission had taken steps to semle the mamer to the satisfaction of the complainant.
REFUSION AF BEFORDRINGSUDGIFTER
REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 501/2005/IP over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 501/2005/IP against the European Commission
Klageren, en italiensk kulturforening, nedlagde påstand om, at Kommissionen skulle opfylde sit l ø W e om at refundere foreningens b e for d r in g s ud g i W er fra et besøg i Kommissionen.
The complainant, an Italian cultural Association, claimed that the Commission should honour a promise to reimburse it for travel expenses related to a visit to the Commission.
Kommissionen anførte, at dens repræsentation i Italien ikke havde foretaget de nødvendige dispositioner og opremet en bevilling for det pågældende beløb (5 500 euro) inden for fristen.
The Commission stated that its Representation in Italy had not made the necessary arrangements by preparing a commitment for the sum in question (EUR 5 500) in due time.
Derfor havde Kommissionen ikke kunnet holde sit mundtlige l ø W e om at betale ud g i W erne.
As a result, the Commission had been unable to honour the oral promise to pay the expenses.
Med henblik på at bevare sit gode ry, og e W ersom repræsentationen i Italien havde anført, at institutionen ville betale ud g i W erne, var der blevet afsat et beløb på 5 500 euro dertil.
However, with a view to maintaining its good reputation and since its Representation in Italy had indicated that the institution would pay the expenses, an amount of EUR 5 500 had been allocated for that purpose.
Klageren meddelte Ombudsmanden, at han betragtede sagen som løst, og Ombudsmanden afslumede derfor sagen.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he considered his case to have been semled and the Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1266/2005/MF over Europa-Kommissionen
Summary of decision on complaint 1266/2005/MF against the European Commission
Klageren, en tysk videnskabsjournalist, arbejdede som ua[ængig ekspert med evaluering af forslag fremsat under det sjeme rammeprogram.
The complainant, a German science journalist, worked as an independent expert evaluating calls for proposals published under the Sixth Framework Programme.
Han gjorde gældende, at Kommissionen (i) havde undladt at betale ham remidigt for hans evalueringsopgaver i 2004, (ii) havde undladt at give ham en nærmere forklaring på beregningen af betalingerne og (iii) havde undladt at udbetale morarenter.
He alleged that the Commission had (i) failed to pay him in due time for his evaluation assignments carried out in 2004, (ii) failed to give him clarification on the calculation of payments and (iii) failed to pay interest on account of late payment.
Klageren nedlagde påstand om, at han senest den 31. marts 2005 skulle modtage betaling for sin evalueringsopgave fra starten af oktober 2004.
The complainant claimed that he should, by 31 March 2005 at the latest, be paid for his evaluation assignment carried out in early October 2004.
Han nedlagde endvidere påstand om, at han var beremiget til morarenter
He further claimed that he should
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE for den betaling, han havde modtaget i 2004 for en anden opgave.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY be paid interest, on account of late payment, as regards the payment received in 2004 for another assignment.
Klageren nedlagde endelig påstand om, at han skulle have en forklaring på beregningen af betalingerne siden 2004.
The complainant finally claimed that he should be given clarification on the calculation of payments since 2004.
Kommissionen forklarede årsagerne til forsinkelserne med betalingerne og anførte, at klageren senere var blevet betalt for opgaven fra starten af oktober 2004.
The Commission explained the reasons for the delays in the payments and stated that payment had subsequently been made to the complainant for the assignment carried out in early October 2004.
Klageren havde modtaget specifikationer af betalingerne for arbejdsdage, arbejdsdage uden for Bruxelles, dagpenge og b e for d r in g s ud g i W er for alle de opgaver, han havde udført i 2003 og 2004.
The complainant had been given details of the amounts paid for the working days, the working days outside Brussels, the daily allowances and the travel costs for each of the evaluation works that he had carried out in 2003 and 2004.
Kommissionen foreslog ligeledes at betale klageren et beløb i morarenter vedrørende betalingen for opgaven fra starten af oktober 2004.
The Commission also proposed to pay the complainant an amount corresponding to the interest due on account of late payment in relation to his assignment of early October 2004.
I maj 2005 havde Kommissionen taget skridt til at fremskynde betalingerne til eksperter, hvilket var sammenfamet i en handlingsplan.
In May 2005, the Commission had taken measures, which were summarised in an action plan, to accelerate payments to experts.
Som et resultat af disse tiltag havde Kommissionen nedbragt den tid, det tager at betale eksperter, som deltager i evalueringsopgaver, væsentligt.
As a result of these measures, the Commission had significantly reduced the time taken to pay experts participating in evaluation assignments.
Klageren anførte i sine bemærkninger, at han mente, at Kommissionen havde forbedret sine refusionsprocedurer, og at han accepterede Kommissionens forslag vedrørende udbetaling af renter.
In his observations, the complainant stated that he considered that the Commission had improved its procedures for reimbursement and that he agreed with the Commission’s proposal as regards the payment of interest.
Han påpegede endvidere, at han var blevet betalt inden for 30 dage i forbindelse med sin seneste kontrakt.
He further pointed out that he had been paid within 30 days for his latest contract.
Ombudsmanden konkluderede på baggrund af Kommissionens udtalelse og klagerens bemærkninger, at Kommissionen havde taget skridt til at løse sagen til klagerens tilfredshed.
On the basis of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission has taken steps to semle the mamer to the complainant’s satisfaction.
MINDELIGELØSNINGER OPNÅET AF OMBUDSMANDEN
FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS ACHIEVED BY THE OMBUDSMAN
ADGANG TIL EUROPA-PARLAMENTETS LOKALER
ACCESS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S PREMISES
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 628/2004/OV over Europa-Parlamentet
Summary of decision on complaint 628/2004/OV against the European Parliament
En hjælpeansat i Kommissionen klagede over, at han og andre hjælpeansame i Kommissionen ikke har adgang til Parlamentets lokaler i Bruxelles, når der ikke er planlagt møder.
An auxiliary agent in the Commission complained that he and other auxiliary agents of the Commission are not allowed access to Parliament’s premises in Brussels when there are no meetings scheduled.
Klageren mente, at dem e var forskelsbehandling, idet der ikke var nogen restriktioner for midlertidigt ansame, udstationerede nationale eksperter eller akkrediterede lobbyister fra private virksomheder.
The complainant found this exclusion to be discriminatory, as no such restriction is imposed on temporary agents, seconded national experts or accredited lobbyists from private companies.
Parlamentet anførte, at den giver adgang til tjenestemænd fra andre EU-institutioner mod forevisning af deres identitetskort, men at dem e ikke gælder for alle de andre ansame i institutionerne, da dem e ville forøge antallet af potentielle besøgende i Parlamentet betydeligt.
Parliament stated that it grants access to oUcials of other EU institutions upon presentation of their badge but that this facility is not extended to all the other agents of the institutions, since to do so would substantially increase the number of potential visitors to Parliament.
Parlamentet påpegede endvidere, at begrænsningen i adgangen også er nødvendig, fordi Parlamentets lokaler er underlagt nationale love og forordninger om begrænsning af antallet af personer af sikkerhedshensyn, navnlig med hensyn til brandsikkerheden.
Parliament further pointed out that limitation of the right of access is also necessary because its premises are subject to national legislation and regulations limiting the number of persons to be admimed on safety grounds, especially with regard to fi re risks.
Den henviste i denne forbindelse til et notat sendt til Kvæstorkollegiet.
It referred in this context to a note that had been sent to the College of Quaestors.
Ombudsmanden mente ikke, at Parlamentet havde forklaret, hvorfor alle kategorier af ansame i Fællesskabet ikke har samme status med hensyn til adgang til Parlamentets lokaler, og at Parlamentet derimod blot uden skelnen mellem personalekategorier havde henvist til et generelt behov for at begrænse antallet af personer med adgang af sikkerhedshensyn.
The Ombudsman considered that Parliament had not explained why the position of all categories of Community staT should not be considered comparable for the purposes of access to its premises and that, on the contrary, Parliament had merely referred, without any distinction of staT categories, to a general need, for safety reasons, to restrict the overall numbers of those having access.
Han konkluderede, at Parlamentet ikke havde givet en objektiv begrundelse for sit afslag på at lade Kommissionens hjælpeansame få adgang til lokalerne, når der ikke er planlagt møder, og at dem e afslag udgjorde uberemiget forskelsbehandling.
He concluded that Parliament had failed to provide an objective justification for its refusal to allow Commission auxiliary agents access to its premises when there are no meetings scheduled and that
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY this refusal constituted unjustified discrimination.
Parlamentet meddelte i sit svar til Ombudsmanden, at det problem, som klagen omhandlede, e W er i kraW trædelsen af den nye tjenestemandsvedtægt ikke længere fandtes.
In reply, Parliament informed the Ombudsman that, following the entry into force of the new StaT Regulations, the problem raised in the complaint no longer existed.
Parlamentet påpegede, at der siden den 1. marts 2005 har været en ny ordning i Parlamentet for kontraktansat personale, som tidligere var ansat som hjælpeansame, og siden 1. januar 2005 for nyansat personale.
Parliament pointed out that a new regime for contractual agents is applicable in Parliament since 1 March 2005 for staT previously employed on auxiliary contracts and, since 1 January 2005, for newly-recruited staT.
Derfor skelner Parlamentet ikke længere mellem forskellige kategorier af personale med hensyn til adgang.
As a result, Parliament no longer distinguishes between d iT erent categories of staT for access purposes.
I henhold til artikel 6 i de nye regler om adgang til Parlamentets lokaler, som blev vedtaget den 28. januar 2005, har alle kategorier af medarbejdere fra andre institutioner adgang til Europa-Parlamentets lokaler.
Article 6 of the new rules governing access to Parliament’s premises, adopted on 28 January 2005, provides for access to Parliament’s premises for all categories of staT of other institutions.
Klageren accepterede, at problemet syntes at være blevet løst, og Ombudsmanden afslumede derfor sagen.
The complainant accepted that the problem appeared to have been satisfactorily resolved and the Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
BETALING AF SAGSOMKOSTNINGER
REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL COSTS
Sammendrag af afgørelse om klage 1733/2004/OV over Europa-Parlamentet
Summary of decision on complaint 1733/2004/OV against the European Parliament
En tjenestemand i Europa-Parlamentet klagede i 2001 til Ombudsmanden over, at han ikke var blevet genindsat e W er en periode med ubetalt orlov.
An oU cial of the European Parliament complained to the Ombudsman in 2001 about his lack of reinstatement a W er a period of unpaid leave.
Under henvisning til Ombudsmandens afgørelse i denne sag (sag 1462/2001/ME) anmodede klageren i november 2002 Parlamentet om erstatning for tab af indkomst og pensionsremigheder.
Further to the Ombudsman’s decision in this case (case 1462/2001/ME), the complainant asked Parliament in November 2002 for compensation for loss of income and pension rights.
Da klageren ikke havde fået noget svar inden for den periode på fi re måneder, som er fastsat i tjenestemandsvedtægten, antog han i marts 2003 en advokat med henblik på at anlægge sag ved Remen i Første Instans.
Having received no reply within the period of four months prescribed by the StaT Regulations, the complainant engaged a lawyer in March 2003, in order to initiate proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
I maj 2003, seks uger e W er udløbet af svarfristen i henhold til tjenestemandsvedtægten, accepterede Parlamentet endelig klagerens anmodning.
In May 2003, six weeks a W er the expiry of the deadline for a reply under the StaT Regulations, Parliament finally accepted the complainant’s request.
Klageren underremede Parlamentet om, at han var tilfreds med dets svar. Han nedlagde imidlertid påstand om, at Parlamentet skulle dække hans sagsomkostninger.
The complainant informed Parliament that he was satisfied with its reply.
Dem e afslog Parlamentet med den begrundelse, at klageren havde antaget en advokat i procedurens administrative fase.
Parliament refused, on the grounds that the complainant had consulted his lawyer during the administrative stage of the procedure.
I juni 2004 klagede klageren til Ombudsmanden, idet han gjorde gældende, at Parlamentet (i) havde overskredet fristerne i tjenestemandsvedtægten, og (ii) havde afslået at betale hans sagsomkostninger.
In June 2004, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman alleging that Parliament (i) had failed to respect the deadlines foreseen in the StaT Regulations and (ii) had failed to compensate him for his legal fees.
Parlamentet gjorde gældende, at institutionerne hverken i henhold til tjenestemandsvedtægten eller den relevante retspraksis er forpligtede til at dække omkostninger i procedurens administrative fase.
Parliament argued that neither the StaT Regulations nor the relevant case-law oblige the institutions to reimburse costs in the administrative stage of the procedure.
Ombudsmanden påpegede, at Parlamentet selv havde betragtet klagerens brev af november 2002 som en klage som beskrevet i tjenestemandsvedtægtens artikel 90, stk. 2.
The Ombudsman pointed out that Parliament itself had considered the complainant’s lemer of November 2002 to be a complaint in the sense of Article 90(2) of the StaT Regulations.
Han betragtede Parlamentets undladelse af at besvare brevet inden for fi re måneder som et tilfælde af fejl eller forsømmelser, og mente, at klageren, da han indirekte fi k afslag, var beremiget til at rådføre sig med en advokat med henblik på at anlægge en sag ved Remen i Første Instans.
He considered Parliament’s failure to reply to that lemer within four months to be an instance of maladministration and that, being confronted with an implied rejection decision, it was reasonable for the complainant to consult a lawyer to prepare an appeal to the Court.
Klageren havde dermed haW sagsomkostninger, som kunne have været undgået, hvis Parlamentet havde svaret i tide.
The complainant had thus incurred legal costs which could have been avoided by a timely reply from Parliament.
På grundlag af dem e fandt Ombudsmanden, at det var urimeligt af Parlamentet at give afslag på at betale de omkostninger, klageren havde pådraget sig, og foreslog en mindelig løsning, hvori han bad Parlamentet om at tage dem e afslag op til fornyet overvejelse.
On the basis of this reasoning, the Ombudsman considered that it was unfair for Parliament to refuse to compensate the complainant for the costs he had incurred and proposed a friendly solution asking Parliament to reconsider its refusal.
Parlamentet accepterede forslaget til mindelig løsning og oplyste Ombudsmanden, at det ville betale klagerens sagsomkostninger.
Parliament agreed with the friendly solution proposed and informed the Ombudsman that it would proceed with the reimbursement of the complainant’s legal fees.
Ombudsmanden afslumede derfor sagen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
AFGØRELSER EFTER EN UNDERSØGELSE udtalelse om, at den svensktalende del af befolkningen kun udgør 5,6 %, ikke var på linje med Finlands forfatning, som foreskriver lighed mellem de to sprog.
It argued that Parliament’s stance on the mamer, including a statement that Swedish speakers only represent 5.6% of the Finnish population, was not in tune with Finland’s Constitution, which provides for equality between the two languages.
Klageren gjorde endvidere gældende, at denne lighed gælder ved nationale valg i Finland, og at der ikke var grund til at afvige fra denne praksis ved valg til Europa-Parlamentet.
The complainant also argued that such equality is upheld in national elections in Finland and that there was no reason to depart from this practice in European elections.