natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Seega leiab ombudsman, et kaebuse selle aspektiga seoses haldusliku omavoli juhtumit ei esinenud.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Council.
Ombudsman ei tuvastanud kaebuse alusel läbiviidud uurimise käigus nõukogu tegevuses halduslikku omavoli.
LIFE PROGRAMME: COMMISSION’S REFUSAL TO COMPLETE PAYMENT OF A PROJECT
LIFE-PROGRAMM: KOMISJONI KEELDUMINE PROJEKTI RAHASTAMISE LÕPULEVIIMISEST
Decision on complaint 1826/2001/JMA against the European Commission
Otsus Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 1826/2001/JMA asjas
THE COMPLAINT
TEHTUDOTSUSED
In June 1996, the complainant’s organisation (CTFC) submi ed a proposal to the Commission, under the LIFE programme, to carry out a project for the development of edible mushrooms in the framework of afforestation initiatives (ref.: LIFE/ ENV/E/512).
1996. aasta juunis esitas organisatsioon, mida kaebuse esitaja esindab (CTFC), komisjonile LIFE programmi raames e epaneku viia ellu projekt söögiseente kasvatuse edendamiseks metsastamisalgatuste raames (viide: LIFE/ ENV/E/512).
CTFC was to develop the project in cooperation with a number of individual forestry owners.
CTFC kavatses projekti välja töötada koostöös mitme erametsaomanikuga.
In December 1996, the Commission approved the proposal.
1996. aasta detsembris kiitis komisjon projekti heaks.
CTFC subsequently received Community assistance of 208.749,58 €.
Järgnevalt sai CTFC 208 749,58 eurot ühenduse abi.
In October and November 1997, the complainant held several discussions with the Commission services concerning how the project’s budget should reflect the expenses incurred by individual forestry owners.
1997. aasta oktoobris ja novembris pidas kaebuse esitaja komisjoni talitustega mitu nõupidamist seoses küsimusega, kuidas projekti eelarve peaks kajastama erametsaomanike poolt kantud kulusid.
As a result of these discussions, it was decided to define the relationship between CTFC and third party forestry owners through individual agreements, drawn up on the basis of a standard agreement.
Nende nõupidamiste tulemusena otsustati CTFC ja kolmandaks osapooleks olevate metsaomanike suhe paika panna individuaalsete lepingutega, mis koostatakse standardlepingu põhjal.
These agreements were to spell out both the areas of cooperation between the different parties and the budget implications of their work.
Need lepingud pidid sätestama nii koostöö erinevate osapoolte vahel kui nende töö kajastamise eelarves.
On 30 October 1997, the complainant faxed the standard agreement to the Commission official in charge of the financial aspects of the project.
30. oktoobril 1997 faksis kaebuse esitaja standardlepingu projekti rahastamise eest vastutavale komisjoni ametnikule.
On 4 November 1997, the contract was also faxed to Mr dB, the Commission official generally responsible to monitor and evaluate the project.
4. novembril 1997 faksiti leping ka hr dB-le, üldiselt projekti jälgimise ja hindamise eest vastutavale ametnikule.
Following this communication, Mr dB phoned the complainant and approved the content of the standard agreement.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused esitaja vastuse saamisel saatis komisjon talle faksi kuupäevaga 30. jaanuar 2001, milles seati kahtluse alla metsaomanike kantud kulude kajastamine ja nõuti nende tagasimaksmist.
In the course of the conversation, Mr dB insisted that for the sake of efficiency, future contacts be made directly with him, and always by telephone.
Kaebuse esitaja sõnul ei peetud komisjoni nõudes kinni tema kaitseõigusest, sest talle ei võimaldatud ärakuulamisõiguse teostamist, mis on LIFE-programmiga seoses e e nähtud määruse 1973/92 artikli 11 lõikes 2.
In June 1999, Mr dB phoned the complainant and requested that the expenses linked to the forestry owners’ work be consolidated and treated as external assistance.
Järgneva vaidluse käigus keeldus hr dB igasugusest vastutusest ja komisjoni finantstalitus ei nõustunud kaebuse esitajale vastu tulema.
Despite the complainant’s initial reluctance to alter the agreed financial criteria, he was obliged to accept the changes as a condition for the release of the intermediate payment.
Eeltoodu põhjal väidab kaebuse esitaja, et i) komisjoni talitused eksitasid teda ega osutanud vajalikku abi ning ii) kord, mida komisjon antud projektiga tegelemisel järgis, oli ebaselge ega vastanud kehtivatele nõuetele.
In October 1999, the complainant delivered the new version of the report to the Commission by hand.
Seetõ u nõuab kaebuse esitaja, et iii) komisjon loobuks raha tagastamise nõudest ja kannaks üle projekti viimase makse koos intressidega.
In February 2000, the complainant submi ed the final report, in which the budget implications of forestry owners’ work were dealt with in the same way as in the intermediate report. The Commission requested additional information in October 2000.
Ei komisjoni otsus projektile rahalise abi andmiseks (K896)/3058/lõplik/0037) [edaspidi otsus] ega komisjoni eelarvekavand ei näinud kolmandaks osapooleks olevatele metsaomanikele e e mingit rolli.
Upon the receipt of the complainant’s reply, the institution sent him a fax dated 30 January 2001 questioning the way in which costs incurred by forestry owners had been reflected, and claiming their reimbursement.
Seetõ u nõudis nende kaasamine projekti otsuse eelnevat muutmist ja komisjoni heakskiitu uuele lepingulisele suhtele.
In the ensuing controversy, Mr dB declined any responsibility, and the Commission’s financial services were unwilling to meet the complainant.
Kuigi kaebuse esitaja faksis 30. oktoobril 1997 lepingu projekti, mis pidi reguleerima CTFC töösuhet metsaomanikega, ei esitatud seda dokumenti kunagi ametlikult komisjonile heakskiitmiseks, nagu on nõutud otsuses.
On the basis of the above, the complainant alleges that (i) the Commission services misled him and did not provide the necessary assistance, and (ii) the procedure followed by the Commission for the handling of his project was unclear and did not comply with the applicable rules.
1999. aasta veebruaris ja oma vahearuande esitamisel väljendas kaebuse esitaja soovi kajastada kolmandaks osapooleks olevate metsaomanike kantud kulusid projekti eelarves.
The complainant therefore claims (iii) that the Commission should halt its request for reimbursement and hand over the last payment for the project as well as the corresponding interests.
Komisjoni sõnul tegid tolle talitused kaebuse esitajale selgeks, et selleks on vajalik otsuse eelnev muutmine ja komisjoni heakskiit uuele lepingulisele suhtele.
Neither the Commission’s decision granting financial assistance to the project (C896)/3058/fi nal/0037) [henceforth the Decision] nor its proposed budget foresaw any role for third party forestry owners.
2000. aasta mais sooritas komisjon vahemakse.
Their involvement in the project required therefore a prior amendment of the Decision and the Commission’s approval of the new relationship.
Komisjon rõhutas, et see finantsoperatsioon sõltus ainult kulude tasemest ja sellega ei antud hinnangut kulude lõplikule sobivusele.
Although the complainant faxed on 30 October 1997 a dra agreement aimed at governing CTFC’s working relationship with forestry owners, the document was never formally submi ed for approval to the Commission, as required by the Decision.
Lõpparuanne saadi 19. mail 2000. aastal. Kuigi projekti eesmärgid olid saavutatud, ei vastanud selle eelarve struktuur ja sisu, eelkõige metsaomanike kantud kulude osas, otsuses sätestatud tingimustele.
In February 1999, and upon the submission of his intermediate report, the complainant expressed his wish to include the costs incurred by third party forestry owners within the project’s budget.
Komisjoni sõnul ei olnud kaebuse esitaja suutnud näidata, et kolmandaks osapooleks olevate metsaomanike poolt kantud kulutused (147 867 eurot) olid ka tegelikult välja makstud, nagu nõuavad otsuse artikli 3 lõige 4 ja artikli 4 lõige 1.
The Commission stated that its services made it clear to the complainant that this possibility demanded both a prior amendment of the Decision and the Commission’s approval of the new relationship.
Polnud esitatud mingeid tõendeid CTFC ja mis tahes kolmanda osapoole vahelise rahavoo kohta.
At this occasion, the complainant was also reminded that any such change could not alter the financial conditions of LIFE assistance as defined in Arts.
Komisjon rõhutas, et otsuse artikli 3 lõike 3 sä ed on selged ja tingimusteta.
2 and 3 of the Decision’s Annex 2.
Komisjon lisas, et tema talitused ei saanud olla kallutanud kaebuse esitajat uskuma, et neid õiguslikke sä ed võib ignoreerida.
In May 2000, the Commission made the intermediate payment.
25. oktoobril 2000. aastal nõudis komisjon lisateavet, mille kaebuse esitaja edastas 13. novembril 2000.
It underlined that this financial operation only depended upon the level of expenditure, and that it did not prejudge the final eligibility of expenses.
Komisjon leidis, et lisateave ei sisaldanud midagi uut, ja teatas seetõ u kaebuse esitajale 30. jaanuari 2001. aasta faksiga, et neile kulutustele vastavat osa abist ei maksta ja vastav osa juba saadud toetusest (37 040 eurot) tuleb tagastada.
The final report was received on 19 May 2000.
Komisjon andis kaebuse esitajale lühikese aja jooksul võimaluse oma seisukohti esitada.
Even though the aims of the project had been a ained, its budget structure and contents, in particular as involved the costs incurred by forestry owners, did not respect the conditions set out in the Decision.
Kaebuse esitaja poolt 8. veebruaril 2001 edastatud teabe põhjal vähendas komisjon tagastamisele kuuluva summa suurust 30 429 euroni ja väljastas 6. märtsil 2001 sissenõudekorralduse. Komisjon leidis, et tema talitused järgisid selle protsessi puhul otsuse lisa 2 artiklis 7 sätestatud kriteeriumidele vastavat korda.
The Commission stated that the complainant had been unable to show that expenses incurred by third party forestry owners (147.867 €) had been in fact disbursed, as required by Arts 3 (4) and 4 (1) of the Decision.
4. aprillil 2001 oli kaebuse esitajal komisjoni talitustega kohtumine.
No proof of a cash flow between CTFC and any third party had been furnished. The
Kuna ta uusi tõendeid ei esitanud, kinnitas komisjon 26. aprillil 2001 oma eelnevat seisukohta.
Commission stressed that the provisions of Art. 3 (3) of the Decision are clear and unconditional.
Oma 30. juuli 2002. aasta seisukohtades kordas kaebuse esitaja oma kaebuses esitatud väiteid.
It added that its services could not have induced the complainant to believe that those legal provisions could be disregarded.
Ta rõhutas, et nii suhted metsaomanikega kui vastavate kulude kohta arvestuse pidamine olid komisjoni talitustega põhjalikult läbi arutatud.
On 25 October 2000, the Commission requested additional information, which was forwarded by the complainant on 13 November 2000.
Kaebuse esitaja selgitas, et vajadust kaasata projekti töösse metsaomanikud kajastati CTFC esmase e epaneku kolmes erinevas peatükis, nimelt jaos A13/4 (metsa uuendamist käsitlev jagu projekti kokkuvõ es); jaos A14/7 (taimede kasvatamine) ja mitmes majanduslikke küsimusi käsitlevas jaos (A5, A6, A9 ja A11).
The Commission considered that the new information did not add any new element, and thus gave notice to the complainant by fax dated 30 January 2001 that the amount of assistance corresponding to these expenses would not be paid, and accordingly that part of the grant already paid (37.040 €) would have to be reimbursed.
Ta kirjeldas läbirääkimisi, mida oli alates 1997. aasta juulist komisjoni asjaomase talitusega peetud, et kajastada projekti eelarves kolmandaks osapooleks olevate metsaomanike kantud kulusid.
On the basis of the information forwarded by the complainant on 8 February 2001, the Commission reduced the request for reimbursement to an amount of 30.429 €, and issued the recovery order on 6 March 2001.
Kaaluti kaht erinevat mudelit: esimese kohaselt oleks metsaomanikele tasutud konkreetsete täidetud ülesannete eest; teine põhines individuaalsete lepingute sõlmimisel.
The Commission considered that the procedure followed by its services in this process was consistent with the criteria laid down in Art 7 of Annex 2 of the Decision.
Kokkuleppel komisjoni asjaomase talitusega otsustati valida teine võimalus, mille puhul rahavooge ei kajastata.
The complainant had a meeting with the Commission services on 4 April 2001.
Seda näitavad 1977. aasta 30. oktoobril ja 4. novembril saadetud faksid.
Since he was unable to provide any further evidence, the Commission confirmed its previous stand on 26 April 2001.
Kaebuse esitaja rõhutas, et vahearuande finantsstruktuuri, eelkõige aga kolmandate osapoolte kulude kohta arvestuse pidamise metoodikat, oli muudetud komisjoni e epanekute põhjal.
The Commission’s final request for reimbursement was issued on 30 August 2001, and referred to the means of appeal available to the complainant.
16., 22., 29., 30. ja 31. oktoobril 2002 edastas kaebuse esitaja komisjoni ametnikega peetud kohtumiste kohta lisateavet, mis tema meelest toetas tema väiteid.
The complainant’s observations
EDASINE UURIMINE
In his observations of 30 July 2002, the complainant repeated the allegations made in his complaint.
Kaebuse esitaja esitatud seisukohti silmas pidades kirjutas ombudsman 31. oktoobril 2002 komisjonile.
He stressed that the relationship with forestry owners as well as the accounting of the related expenses had been thoroughly discussed with the Commission services.
Oma kirjas viitas ombudsman kaebuse esitaja seisukohtades toodud faktilistele andmetele, mis viimase väiteid tõendasid, ja palus, et komisjon kommenteeriks neid asjaolusid.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Komisjoni teine arvamus
The complainant explained that the need for forestry owners to get involved in the work of the project had been reflected in three different chapters of CTFC’s initial proposal, namely in section A13/4 (section on reforestation of the project’s summary); section A14/7 (plant growing) and in several economic sections (A5, A6, A9 and A11).
Komisjon väitis, et kaebuse esitaja seisukohad ei lisanud juhtumisse midagi uut, ning rõhutas, et komisjoni talitused ei olnud andnud mingeid juhtnööre lepingu kohta käivate finantseeskirjade muutmiseks.
He described the negotiations which, since July 1997, had taken place with the responsible Commission services to reflect the costs incurred by third party forestry owners into the project’s budget.
Komisjon selgitas, et kaebuse esitaja ei olnud kordagi esitanud mingeid tõendeid, mis näitaksid, et komisjoni ametnik andis projektiga seoses väidetavaid juhtnööre.
Two different models were considered: the first one whereby forestry owners were to be directly paid for the specific tasks performed; the other based on the conclusions of individual contracts.
Veelgi enam, selliseid juhtnööre ei leidu ka komisjoni toimikus (ei elektrooniliselt ega paberkandjal).
In agreement with the responsible Commission services it was decided to opt for the second option in which no cash flows were to be reflected.
Komisjon viitas kaebuse esitaja poolt 1997. aasta 30. oktoobril ja 4. novembril komisjoni talitustele saadetud faksidele, milles pakuti välja finantskokkuleppe muudatused.
The faxes sent on 30 October 1997 and on 4 November 1997 illustrated this fact.
Komisjon juhtis tähelepanu sellele, et need faksid ei omanud lepingulist tähendust ja olid saadetud teadmiseks.
The complainant underlined that the financial structure of the intermediate report, in particular the methodology for the accounting of third party expenses, had been changed in response to the suggestions made by the Commission.
Kuigi kaebuse esitajale oli mitmel korral selgelt väljendatud vajadust ametliku taotluse järele, ei ole sellist taotlust kunagi komisjonile esitatud.
On 16, 22, 29, 30 and 31 October 2002, the complainant forwarded additional information concerning meetings held with Commission officials which, in his view, supported his allegations.
Sellistel asjaoludel uskus komisjon, et kaebuse esitajal ei olnud muud võimalust, kui lepingust selle kõigis punktides kinni pidada.
In view of the observations submi ed by the complainant, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission on 31 October 2002.
Komisjon märkis, et kaebuse esitaja oli minevikus juba LIFE-programmi raames abi saanud ja oli hästi kursis selle finantseeskirjadega.
In his le er, the Ombudsman referred to the factual details described in the complainant’s observations, which appeared to support his allegations, and requested the Commission to comment on these ma ers.
Komisjoni arvates oleks kaebuse esitaja pidanud teadma, et igasugune rahakasutamise tõendamine toimub projekti lõppstaadiumis.
The Commission argued that the observations made by the complainant did not add any new element to the case.
Komisjon rõhutas oma valmisolekut kaaluda kaebuse esitaja poolt nõutavate kulude tasumist ja seega oma sissenõudekorralduse peatamist, kui kaebaja esitab tõendeid selle kohta, et neid kulutusi tõepoolest tehti.
The institution stressed that no instructions had been given by its services involving the amendment of the financial rules governing the contract.
Komisjon juhtis tähelepanu sellele, et oli mitu korda palunud tõendeid abi saaja poolt tööd läbi viinud organisatsioonidele tehtud maksete kohta.
It explained that the complainant had never submi ed any evidence to demonstrate that a Commission official made
Komisjon lisas, et kui kaebuse esitaja ikkagi vajalikke tõendeid ei esita, jätkab komisjon sissenõudekorralduse täitmisele pööramist.
Decisions following an inquiry the alleged instructions in relation to the project.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused
Moreover no such instructions appear in the Commission’s fi le (neither in electronic nor in paper form).
Kaebuse esitaja seisukohad seoses komisjoni teise arvamusega
The Commission referred to the faxes sent by the complainant to its services on 30 October and 4 November1997, suggesting modifications to the financial convention. It pointed out that these communications had no contractual value, and had been submi ed for information.
Oma 20. detsembri 2002. aasta ja 10. jaanuari 2003. aasta seisukohtades seoses komisjoni teise arvamusega väitis kaebuse esitaja, et tema aruannete finantsosa vorm põhines e epanekutel, mille tegid komisjoni talitused ja mis ei avaldanud hiljem mingil moel ametlikku mist enõustumist.
Although the need for an official request had been made clear various times to the complainant, this request has never been introduced to the Commission.
Kuigi kaebuse esitaja ei suutnud esitada ühtegi kirjalikku tõendit, viitas ta projektis osalejate mitmele ametlikule ütlusele, mis kinnitavad tema seisukohta.
Under these circumstances, the Commission believed the complainant had no other choice than respecting the contract in all its parts.
Kaebuse esitaja avaldas oma valmisolekut vajadusel ombudsmani ees tunnistusi anda.
The institution noted that the complainant had already benefited from the LIFE programme in the past, and was well aware of its financial rules.
Kaebuse esitaja lisas oma seisukohtadele mitmesuguseid dokumente, mis näitasid, et komisjon nõustus, vähemalt seoses LIFE-projektiga 97/ENV/E/260, kahepoolsete lepingute kasutamisega abi saaja ja mitme alltöövõtja vahel, mille puhul rahavooge ei toimunud.
In its view, the complainant should have known that all financial verifications are carried out at the final stage of the project.
Lõpetuseks teatas kaebuse esitaja, et CTFC on valmis vajadusel projekti finantsosa vastavalt komisjoni nõuetele ümber sõnastama.
Accordingly, he could not have assumed that the Commission’s intermediate payment implied the acceptance of his financial amendments.
Ta palus ombudsmanil seda protsessi jälgida, et oleks tagatud õiglase lahenduse leidmine ja et CTFC-d ebaõiglaselt ei karistataks.
Despite these requests, the information has not been supplied.
Komisjoni vastutava talituse suhtumine kaebuse esitajasse
For this reason, the Commission had decided to proceed with a recovery order for € 30.429, in application of Art. 3.3c of the Grant Decision.
1.1 Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjoni talitused viisid teda eksitusse ega osutanud vajalikku abi.
It added that should the complainant fail to provide such evidence, however, the Commission would continue with the implementation of the recovery order.
Ta väidab, et nii lepinguline suhe metsaomanikega kui ka vastavate kulude kohta arvestuse pidamine olid komisjoni talitustega põhjalikult läbi arutatud.
Whilst the complainant could not put forward any wri en evidence, he referred to a number of formal statements made by participants in the project confirming his point of view.
1.2 Komisjon väidab, et selle talitused ei saanud panna kaebuse esitajat uskuma, et ta võib projekti reegleid eirata.
The complainant expressed his willingness to testify before the Ombudsman, if necessary.
Komisjoni sõnul ei ole kaebuse esitaja esitanud mingeid tõendeid, mis näitaksid, et komisjoni ametnikud andsid projektiga seoses kaebuse esitaja poolt väidetavaid juhtnööre, ja selliseid juhtnööre ei leidu ka komisjoni toimikus.
The complainant enclosed different documents, which showed that the Commission had accepted, at least as regards LIFE project 97/ENV/E/260, the use of bilateral agreements between the beneficiary and several subcontractors in which no cash flows took place.
1.3 Ombudsman märgib, et kaebuse esitaja on esitanud suure hulga dokumentaalset tõestust, mis kajastab tema pidevat teabevahetust komisjoni asjaomaste talitustega.
To conclude, the complainant stated the CTFC might be ready to reformulate the financial section of the project in line with the Commission’s requests, if necessary.
Nende dokumentide läbivaatamine näitas, et asjaomased ametnikud olid hästi kursis kaebuse esitaja tööga ja oleksid seetõ u pidanud tundma rahastamiskriteeriume, mida alltöövõtjate töö kajastamiseks kasutati.
He requested the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure, in order to ensure that a fair solution should be reached and that CTFC is not unjustly penalised.
Sellegipoolest on ombudsman seisukohal, et puuduvad otsesed tõendid, mille põhjal saaks järeldada, et komisjon eksitas kaebuse esitajat.
A itude of the responsible Commission’s services towards the complainant
Komisjoni kord rahalise abi osaliseks tagasimaksmiseks
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission services misled him and did not provide the necessary assistance.
2.1 Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjoni poolt projektiga tegelemisel järgitud kord oli ebaselge ega olnud kooskõlas kehtivate reeglitega.
He argues that the relationship with forestry owners as well as the accounting of the related expenses had been thoroughly discussed with the Commission services.
Ta väidab, et ei austatud tema kaitseõigust ja et komisjoni nõue rahalise abi osaliseks tagasimaksmiseks ei võimaldanud ärakuulamisõiguse teostamist, mis on seoses LIFE-programmiga e e nähtud määruse 1973/92 artikli 11 lõikes 2.
1.2 The Commission argues that its services could not possibly have induced the complainant to believe he could disregard the rules of the project.
2.2 Komisjon väidab, et kord, mida tema talitused selle protsessi puhul järgisid, oli kooskõlas kehtivate reeglitega (projektile rahalise abi andmise otsus [otsus] lisa 2, artikkel 7).
It states that no evidence had been put forward by the complainant to demonstrate that Commission officials made the alleged instructions in relation to the project, and that no such instructions appear in the Commission’s file. file.
Komisjon selgitas, et tema esimene järelepärimine 30. jaanuarist 2001 võimaldas kaebuse esitajal enne lõppotsuse vastuvõtmist oma seisukohti selgitada ja et komisjoni lõplik nõue 30. augustist 2001 sisaldas teavet kaebeõiguse kohta.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has submi ed a large amount of documentary evidence, which reflects his continuous exchanges with the responsible Commission services.
2.3 Ombudsman märgib, et LIFE-programmi kaudu rahastatavate projektide elluviimist reguleerivad reeglid on sätestatud nõukogu määrusega 1973/9210ja iga komisjoni otsusega üksikprojektidele abi andmise kohta.